Difference between revisions of "Book Of Daniel"

<li> The linguistic character of the book is, moreover, just such as might be expected. [[Certain]] portions (Daniel 2:4; 7 ) are written in the [[Chaldee]] language; and the portions written in [[Hebrew]] are in a style and form having a close affinity with the later books of the Old Testament, especially with that of Ezra. The writer is familiar both with the Hebrew and the Chaldee, passing from the one to the other just as his subject required. This is in strict accordance with the position of the author and of the people for whom his book was written. That Daniel is the writer of this book is also testified to in the book itself (7:1,28; 8:2; 9:2; 10:1,2; 12:4,5). (See [[Belshazzar]] .) <div> <p> [[Copyright]] StatementThese dictionary topics are from M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated [[Bible]] Dictionary, [[Third]] Edition, published by [[Thomas]] Nelson, 1897. Public Domain. </p> <p> Bibliography InformationEaston, Matthew George. Entry for 'Daniel, [[Book]] of'. Easton's Bible Dictionary. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ebd/d/daniel-book-of.html. 1897. </p> </div> </li>

<p> Literary Features Daniel combines characteristics of prophecy, wisdom, and apocalyptic writing into a unique type of literature. Matthew identified Daniel as a prophet (Matthew 24:15 ). The book addresses a current situation with a call for moral uprightness, as did the prophets. It also points to hope for the future rising out of God's words and promises. It focuses on the nations as well as Israel, as did the other prophets. It does not, however, use the literary forms of the prophets, particularly the standard formulas such as, “Thus says the Lord”; nor does it represent a collection of prophetic sermons. </p> <p> As did the wisdom writers, Daniel served in a royal court counseling a ruler. He was highly-educated. The book seeks to instill moral wisdom in young persons. [[Yet]] it does not string proverbs or wisdom poetry together nor delve into the problems Job or Ecclesiastes tackled. It is wisdom literature and more. </p> <p> [[Apocalyptic]] literature best describes Daniel for most [[Bible]] students. Apocalyptic writings originate from times of national, communal, or personal tribulations. See [[Apocalyptic]] . They make profuse use of symbols, numbers, figures of speech, and signs to interpret history and events during dreadful persecution and personal danger. They present visions of [[God]] and His future acts, describing in figurative language the future of peace and victory rising out of current troubles. [[Often]] a messianic figure stands in the center. [[Angels]] and demons are prominent. Generally, apocalyptic writings bear the name of ancient heroes such as Adam, Enoch, or Baruch, who demonstrated in their time the type of character needed in the current situation of the writer. See [[Apocalyptic]] . </p> <p> The visions and angelic figures of Daniel along with its strongly figurative, symbolic language tie it closely to the apocalyptic. Its opening stories serve as the tie to times of persecution and call for moral living. The letters to the churches serve a similar function in Revelation. </p> <p> Daniel uses two languages—Aramaic (Daniel 2:4-7:28 ) and [[Hebrew]] (Daniel 1:2-2:4; Daniel 8:1-12:13 )—plus loan words from [[Persian]] and [[Greek]] to write the complex work of prophecy, wisdom, and apocalyptic writing. This is apparently a combination of the language of worship (Hebrew) and the language of daily life (Aramaic). The two languages combine to form two distinctly separate sections of the book (1–6; 7–12), the first told in narrative form about Daniel and his friends with a historical conclusion (Daniel 6:28 ) and the second told in form of Daniel's visions. </p> <p> [[Canon]] and [[Authority]] The basic twelve chapters of Daniel appear in the Hebrew Bible between Esther and Ezra in the last section called the Writings rather than in the Law or the Prophets. The Greek translation called the [[Septuagint]] introduced Daniel into the prophets and also introduced additional materials: the prayer of Azariah, the song of the three children, story of Susanna, [[Bel]] and the Dragon. See [[Apocrypha]] . The [[Christian]] church has followed the Septuagint in placing Daniel among the prophets, but [[Protestant]] [[Christianity]] has not accepted the additions, whereas the [[Catholic]] tradition has. All agree the basic [[Book]] of Daniel is God's authoritative Word for His people. [[Questions]] rise in interpretation not in the book's authority. </p> <p> [[Unity]] [[Many]] things appear to separate Daniel into unrelated parts. The position of the person Daniel differs in various portions of the book. He is more central in Daniel 1-2 and Daniel 4-7 than in the rest of the book. In Daniel 1-6 Daniel is spoken of in the third person in the form of a biography. In Daniel 7-12 , however, Daniel speaks in the first person in the form of autobiography (except Daniel 10:1 ). </p> <p> In Daniel 1-6 the dreams or phenomena come to heathen kings, but in Daniel 7-12 Daniel has the visions. In Daniel 1-6 Daniel is the one who interprets the dreams, but in 7–12 “someone” else interprets the dreams and visions to Daniel. Daniel 1-6 have simplicity, whereas Daniel 7-12 are complex. </p> <p> The Book of Daniel acts as a unit despite these differences in languages used and types of literature employed. Each of the twelve chapters contributes to this unity. The unifying theme is that God expects His followers to maintain fidelity in face of threats, wars, legal pronouncements, or changing customs. God judges mankind constantly, and He also provides His presence and strength. God continuously judges. </p> <p> Outline </p> <p> I. The [[Faithful]] [[Young]] Men in a Foreign [[Court]] (Daniel 1:1-6:28 ) </p> <p> A. Loyalty to God leads Daniel and his friends to high political positions (Daniel 1:1-21 ). </p> <p> B. [[Interpretation]] of the king's dream leads to the king's confession of God and to important positions for the friends (Daniel 2:1-49 ). </p> <p> C. Loyalty to God brings deliverance from the fiery furnace, royal decree protecting the right to worship God, and further promotion for the friends (Daniel 3:1-30 ). </p> <p> D. Interpretation and fulfillment of the king's dream leads the king to praise God (Daniel 4:1-37 ). </p> <p> E. Loyalty to God and His rewards allows interpretation of the handwriting on the wall, brings promotion in the kingdom, and spells doom for [[Babylon]] (Daniel 5:1-31 ). </p> <p> F. [[Faithfulness]] in prayer despite secular laws overcomes conspiracy, brings deliverance from the lions' den, leads the king to command fear of the true God, and brings political prosperity (Daniel 6:1-28 ). </p> <p> II. Daniel's [[Visions]] [[Point]] the [[Way]] Through [[Persecution]] to [[Hope]] (Daniel 7:1-12:13 ). </p> <p> A. [[Vision]] of four beasts shows four kingdoms to be overcome by [[Son]] of man and saints of the Most High, who will reign forever (Daniel 7:1-28 ). </p> <p> B. Vision of ram, he goat, and four horns points to passing of Persians, Medes, and of proud Greeks, one of whom will interrupt daily sacrifices of [[Temple]] for a while (Daniel 8:1-27 ). </p> <p> C. Daniel confesses the nation's sins, seeks forgiveness, and learns meaning of Jeremiah's 70 weeks as pointing to [[Messiah]] and to desolation of [[Jerusalem]] (Daniel 9:1-27 ). </p> <p> D. A heaven-sent vision shows that [[Scripture]] points to battles between north and south until the northern king proudly triumphs and persecutes the people of God's covenant, taking away their sacrificial system and desecrating the Temple, but facing disaster in the end (Daniel 10:1-11:45 ). </p> <p> E. [[Heavenly]] intervention will bring the time of the end and the resurrection of God's faithful people (Daniel 12:1-13 ). </p> <p> Meaning Daniel encouraged the reader to remain faithful to God, God's law, and to the scriptural traditions of God's people. War, danger, threat, heathen kings, temptation, greedy desire for luxury, prosperity, and position lead away from God's way. Daniel encouraged the faithful to stand firm in faithfulness to the heritage of Israel. This resolve is painted in a characteristic prophetic outline. The essence of the book appears in a condensed form (Daniel 1:1-8 ). Then the author enlarged upon the theme he had expressed (Daniel 1:8-6:28 ). Finally, in typical Hebrew parallelism, he explained the purpose of the book in full form (Daniel 7:1-12:13 ). </p> <p> Daniel 1:8-6:28 shows how in history [[Israelite]] heroes stood firm in their resolve to stay true to God and their heritage. In six different situations an Israelite hero faced extreme pressure to forsake God and tradition for personal safety and gain. In each case the hero resisted threats or danger of loss of life with no assurance of victory other than his faith. </p> <p> Daniel 7:1-12:13 brought these truths to bear upon an extremely tense situation. [[Throughout]] the book the author focused upon the “fourth kingdom,” that of a tyrannical despot. As the ancient heroes remained faithful, so people facing the despot could double their resolve and experience victorious faith. They faced the choice: believe a ruthless foreign conqueror, or stay true to the faith of the fathers and the God of their history. </p> <p> Interpretation The literary features, authority, outline, and meaning of the book are rather clear. The historical setting and details of interpretation bring varying opinions. The basic issue is the nature of inspired prophecy and Daniel's relationship to prophecy. All agree that prophecy is both exhortation of a present generation to faithfulness and painting of a future hope. The point at issue among interpreters is the fidelity to detail that prophecy must contain and whether Daniel with its wisdom and apocalyptic overtones must have the same type of historical setting and perspective as do the classic prophets of Israel. </p> <p> To simplify the picture, two major stances on Daniel can be summarized. The first sees Daniel standing in the precise line of previous prophets, so that every detail of his visions points to the future and not the past. This assumes that Daniel in the sixth century B.C. wrote the book and described the history of contemporary Babylonian, Median, and Persian history and future Greek, Ptolemaic, Seleuccid, Maccabean, and [[Roman]] history, as well as the events of end time. Those interpreters who use a dispensational system (see Dispensations) to interpret Daniel see [[Antichrist]] , [[Tribulation]] , and the final kingdom pictured in Daniel. </p> <p> A second stance emphasizes Daniel's relationship to other apocalyptic literature in which writers often use the names of ancient heroes to describe history long past to bring a message to a present generation facing extreme persecution. Writing in the name of the ancient hero gives authority to the writing and protection in the situation of extreme danger. This stance views Daniel as the hero but not the author of the book. The author is an unknown inspired writer who lived in the time of [[Antiochus]] Ephiphanes shortly before 164 B.C. The author used contemporary methods of interpreting the prophecies of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and others to give hope to his generation when many [[Jews]] were seeking favor with the [[Syrian]] government of Antiochus by adopting a [[Hellenistic]] life-style and ignoring [[Jewish]] traditions. He used biblical traditions and other knowledge of his day to review the history of Babylon, the Medes, Persia, Greece, the [[Ptolemies]] of Egypt, and the Seleuccids of Syria. He then pointed to an immediate future when God would judge Antiochus and his followers who enforced the present persecution of God's people. This interpretation may then take another step and say that the book lends itself to valid new interpretations in light of [[Jesus]] [[Christ]] and the Christian hope, but that these were not necessarily the main points of the original author. </p> <p> Whichever stance one takes in interpreting the details of Daniel, the inspired book continues to give hope, strength, and courage to God's people, especially in times of persecution, and to call for ultimate faithfulness no matter the temptations faced. </p> <p> J. J. Owens and [[Trent]] C. [[Butler]] </p>

<p> <strong> DANIEL, BOOK OF </strong> </p> <p> 1. Authorship and [[Date]] . The first six chapters of this book contain a series of narratives which tell of ( <em> a </em> ) the fidelity of Daniel and his friends to their religion, and ( <em> b </em> ) the incomparable superiority of their [[God]] to the deities of Babylon. The remaining six chapters relate four visions seen by Daniel and the interpretation of them. Chs. 1 6 speak of Daniel in the third person; in 7 12 he is the speaker (yet see Daniel 7:1 , Daniel 10:1 ). But both parts are from the same pen, and the <em> primâ facie </em> impression is that of an autobiography. [[Porphyry]] argued against this in the 3rd cent. a.d., and it is now generally abandoned, for such reasons as the following: (1) In the [[Jewish]] [[Canon]] Dn. stands in the third division, ‘the Writings.’ Had it been the production of a prophet of the 6th cent. it would have been put in the second division, ‘the Prophets.’ (2) [[Neither]] the man nor the book is mentioned in the list of [[Sir]] 44:1-23; Sir 45:1-26; Sir 46:1-20; Sir 47:1-25; Sir 48:1-25; Sir 49:1-16; Sir 50:1-29 ( <em> c </em> <em> [Note: circa, about.] </em> <em> . </em> b.c. 200): and Sir 49:15 seems to have been written by one who was not acquainted with the story. (3) There is no reason for believing that a collection of sacred writings, including Jer., had been formed in the reign of Darius, as is implied in Daniel 9:2 . (4) The Heb. of Dn. is of a later type than even that of Chronicles. The [[Aramaic]] is a West-Syrian dialect, not in use at the Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] court in the 6th century. More [[Persian]] words are employed than a Heb. author would be familiar with at the close of the Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] empire. In a document composed prior to the [[Macedonian]] conquest we should not have found the three [[Greek]] words which are here used. (5) There are inaccuracies which a contemporary would have avoided. It is doubtful whether [[Nebuchadnezzar]] besieged [[Jerusalem]] in b.c. 606 ( Daniel 1:1-2 ). The name ‘Chaldæans’ as designating the learned class is a later usage ( Daniel 2:2 ). [[Belshazzar]] was not ‘the king’ ( Daniel 5:1 ), nor was Neb. his ancestor ( Daniel 5:2; Daniel 5:11 ). [[Darius]] the [[Mede]] never ‘received the kingdom’ ( Daniel 5:31 ). Xerxes did not follow [[Artaxerxes]] ( Daniel 11:2 ) but preceded him. (6) The relations between [[Syria]] and Egypt, from the 4th to the 2nd cents. b.c., are described with a fulness of detail which differentiates Daniel 7:1-28; Daniel 11:1-45 from all OT prophecy: see the precision with which the reign of [[Antiochus]] [[Epiphanes]] is related in ch. 11; the events from 323 175 occupy 16 verses; those from 175 164 take up 25; at Daniel 11:34 the lines become less definite, because this is the point at which the book was written; at v. 40 <em> prediction </em> begins, and the language no longer corresponds with the facts of history. There can be little doubt that Dn. appeared about b.c. 166. Its object was to encourage the faithful [[Jews]] to adhere to their religion, in the assurance that God would intervene. The unknown writer was intensely sure of the truths in which he believed: to him and to his readers the historical setting was but a framework. Not that he invented the stories. We saw in the preceding article that the exiled Jews knew of a Daniel, famous for piety and wisdom. [[Round]] his name, in the course of the ages, stories illustrative of these qualities had gathered, and the author of our book worked up the material afresh with much skill. </p> <p> <strong> 2. Language, Unity, [[Theology]] </strong> . (1) From Daniel 2:4 b to Daniel 7:26 is in <em> Aramaic </em> . [[Four]] explanations have been offered: ( <em> a </em> ) This section was originally written in Aramaic, about b.c. 300, and incorporated, with additions, into the work of 166. ( <em> b </em> ) The corresponding portion of a Heb. original was lost and its place filled by an already current Aram. [Note: Aramaic.] translation. ( <em> c </em> ) The author introduced the ‘Chaldees’ as speaking what he supposed was their language, and then continued to write it because it was more familiar than Heb. to himself and his readers. ( <em> d </em> ) The likeliest suggestion is that the entire book was Aramaic, but would not have found admission into the Canon if it had not been enclosed, so to speak, in a frame of Heb., the sacred language. </p> <p> (2) The <em> unity of the book </em> has been impugned by many critics, but it is now generally agreed that the question is settled by the harmony of view and consistency of plan which bind the two halves together. The text has suffered more or less in Daniel 1:20-21 , Daniel 6:20 , Daniel 7:5 , Daniel 9:4-20 , Daniel 10:4; Daniel 10:8-9 , Daniel 10:20 to Daniel 11:2 , Daniel 12:11 f. </p> <p> (3) The <em> theological features </em> are what might be expected in the 2nd cent. b.c. [[Eschatology]] is prominent. The visions and their interpretations all culminate in the final establishment of the [[Kingdom]] of God. And in this connexion it should be mentioned that Dn. is the earliest example of a fully developed <em> [[Apocalypse]] </em> . The doctrine of the [[Resurrection]] is also distinctly asserted: <em> individuals </em> are to rise again; not all men, or even all Israelites, but the martyrs and the apostates. At no earlier period is there such an angelology. [[Watchers]] and holy ones determine the destinies of an arrogant king. Two angels have proper names, [[Gabriel]] and Michael. To each nation a heavenly patron has been assigned, and its fortunes here depend on the struggle waged by its representative above. </p> <p> <strong> 3. [[Text]] </strong> . The early [[Church]] set aside the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] in favour of the less paraphrastic version of Theodotion. In both translations are found the Additions to Daniel. (1) 67 verses are inserted after Daniel 3:22 , consisting of ( α ) the <em> [[Prayer]] of [[Azarias]] </em> . ( β ) details concerning <em> the heating of the furnace </em> , ( γ ) the <em> [[Benedicite]] </em> . These teach the proper frame of mind for all confessors, and dilate on the miraculous element in the [[Divine]] deliverance. (2) <em> The History of [[Susanna]] </em> , which demonstrates God’s protection of the unjustly accused and illustrates the sagacity in judgment of the youth who is rightly named <em> Daniel </em> , ‘El is my judge.’ (3) <em> [[Bel]] and the [[Dragon]] </em> , two tracts which expose the imbecility of idolatry, and bring out Daniel’s cleverness and God’s care for His servant in peril. Swete ( <em> Introd. to OT in Greek </em> , p. 260) rightly remarks that internal evidence appears to show that (1) and (2) originally had a separate circulation. </p> <p> J. Taylor. </p>

<p> This book holds a peculiar place among the prophecies: its subject is the "Times of the Gentiles." It is not an appeal to Israelites, but is mostly taken up with prophecies concerning the [[Gentile]] powers. The times of Gentile domination had begun by [[Nebuchadnezzar]] taking [[Jerusalem]] and being called king of kings, to whom [[God]] had given a kingdom, and made him ruler over all the children of men. God's personal dealings with this monarch are recorded and the kingdoms that would follow are revealed. </p> <p> The book divides itself into two portions: the first six chapters give Daniel's intercourse with the great monarchs; and the latter six chapters the visions and revelations made to Daniel himself. For the personal history of the prophet see DANIEL. The prophetical aspect of the first division begins with Nebuchadnezzar's dream. </p> <p> Daniel 2 : Under the figure of the [[Great]] [[Image]] are described the four Gentile empires that were to succeed each other, further particulars of which were afterwards revealed to Daniel. It is plainly manifested that these empires would depreciate. The first is compared to gold, the second to silver, the third to brass, and the fourth to iron and clay which would not mingle together. It is noteworthy that, notwithstanding this declaration, the great effort of many in modern days is to endeavour to unite the iron and clay, and others strive to make the clay (the mass of the people) the ruling power. The fourth empire will be resuscitated, for the Lord [[Jesus]] at His first coming did not set up His kingdom — He was rejected; but during the future renewal of the [[Roman]] empire God will set up a kingdom that shall subdue all others. The 'stone' is [[Christ]] who will break in pieces all that oppose, and will reign supreme. This prophecy presents the moral deterioration of Gentile power, until it is supplanted by the kingdom of God. </p> <p> Daniel 3 : It is here uniformity of religion, established by the king, not by God — the principle of [[Church]] and State. Nebuchadnezzar commanded all to worship the image <i> he </i> had set up; but three faithful ones refused to obey, and were thrown into the fiery furnace. The king had to learn that the God of the [[Jews]] was the Most High God, who was able to set him and all his powers at defiance. The king acknowledged God's power and sent a proclamation to that effect throughout his kingdom; though his subsequent history proves that he was not humbled. In the last days the faithful Jews will be in the furnace of tribulation for not complying with the Imperial religion. They will be delivered, and God will be glorified by the nations: cf. Revelation 13 . [[Thus]] is seen that the <i> first </i> characteristic of Gentile supremacy is <i> idolatry </i> . </p> <p> Daniel 4 : The dream and the interpretation shows that Nebuchadnezzar himself was thegreat tree to be cut down, and the prophet exhorted him to renounce his sins and reform his ways, and peradventure the judgement might be postponed. But his pride was not subdued, for at the end of the year he boasted of the great city which he had built by the might of his power and for the honour of his majesty; but not a word about God. He was driven among the cattle for seven years. It is a solemn thing to have to do with the living God; but God had mercy on the king, his reason returned, and the kingdom was restored to him. Now he could say, "I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgement: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase." He had learned God's lesson, and we hear of him no more. In the last days the Gentile rulers, after having used their power as 'beasts,' will acknowledge God as the source of all authority, and be brought into blessing in connection with Israel. The <i> second </i> characteristic which marked Gentile rule is that, refusing to own God, <i> it descends to the level of a beast. </i> </p> <p> Daniel 5 : About twenty-five years later [[Belshazzar]] was reigning at Babylon. The monuments have revealed that he was son of Nabonadius, or Labynetus, and was reigning with his father. Nabonadius was defending the kingdom outside in the open country, and though defeated was not slain; his son was besieged inside, and was slain that night while holding a festival to the gods. This accounts for Belshazzar promising that Daniel should be the <i> third </i> ruler in the kingdom. Thus the monuments have now cleared away that which with respect to this kinghad seemed to make scripture and the historians discordant, for previously the name of Belshazzar had not been discovered. Daniel faithfully reminded Belshazzar of how God had dealt with his father (or rather his grandfather) Nebuchadnezzar for his pride; adding that though <i> the king knew all this </i> he had lifted up himself against the God of heaven, and had desecrated the vessels of God's house by drinking wine in them to his gods, and foretells his destruction. [[Type]] of the judgement on the Gentile world at the coming of Christ: cf. Revelation 18 : The <i> third </i> characteristic of imperial power is, that it is <i> infidel and profane. </i> </p> <p> Daniel 6 : [[Darius]] the [[Mede]] had to learn the power of God, his own weakness, and the faithfulness of Daniel the servant of God. Daniel was saved from the lions, and the God of Daniel was proclaimed throughout the empire as the <i> living </i> God. Typically, Darius represents the last Gentile emperor, who will be worshipped; Daniel, the godly Jews who will be saved from the very jaws of destruction; his opposers, the future infidel accusers of God's people. The <i> fourth </i> characteristic is <i> self-exaltation. </i> </p> <p> Daniel 7 : This begins the second part of the book. It gives the character of the Gentile kings, already noted in chapter 4, as before God, and their conduct towards those who acknowledge God. The four empires prophesied of in Daniel 2 are here further described under the figure of 'great beasts.' The lion is Chaldean; the bear, Medo-Persian; the leopard, [[Grecian]] (or Macedonian); and the fourth, which was like no living animal, Roman, distinguished as having ten horns (ten kings), Daniel 7:24 . Out of the last arises a little horn, a power which persecutes the saints for 3-1/2 years; but which is judged by the [[Ancient]] of Days, and the saints of the Most High, or rather of the high places, eventually take the kingdom. This power is doubtless the future Roman prince in the West, who will combine with [[Satan]] and the Antichrist, as in Revelation 13 . </p> <p> Daniel 8 : The second and the third of the four empires are again prophesied of. Out of the <i> third </i> kingdom, the Grecian, after it was divided into four, arose a little horn, which magnified itself; and then follows the ceasing of the daily sacrifice at Jerusalem, 'the pleasant land;' but in Daniel 8:11 and part of verse 12 there is a change from 'it' to 'he;' and in Daniel 8:17 and Daniel 8:19 'the time of the end' is spoken of. Therefore, though the little horn refers to [[Antiochus]] [[Epiphanes]] (and though he caused the worship at Jerusalem to cease) a later and still future period is evidently referred to, and another king of Syria, who will stand against the Prince of princes, and shall be broken without hand. Daniel 8:25 . Daniel 8:23-25 are distinctly future: 'in the latter time.'* </p> <p> * In reference to the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 , see under 'Antiochus ' </p> <p> B.C. 175 ANTIOCHUS IV., Epiphanes (third paragraph) </p> <p> Daniel 9 : Daniel was a student of prophecy, and learned from Jeremiah that the desolations of Jerusalem were to last 70 years. These were almost accomplished, and Daniel confessed his sins and the sins of his people; he prayed for forgiveness, and for the sanctuary which was lying desolate; he begged God to hearken and do, to defer not for His own sake, because the city and the people were called by His name. While he was yet speaking [[Gabriel]] was sent with a communication, which embraced not only the rebuilding of Jerusalem in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, but the coming of the Messiah, and the action of a prince (head of the Roman power) in the last of the seventy weeks. See SEVENTY WEEKS. </p> <p> Daniel 10 : Daniel mourned three full weeks. This was in the <i> third </i> year of Cyrus: in the <i> first </i> year [[Cyrus]] had proclaimed that God had charged him to rebuild the temple. Ezra 1:1 . Some were elated at the small restoration in Ezra 1 - 3, but Daniel was still before God about His people, the previous chapter having revealed that 70 weeks (of years) would have to run on before blessing; [[Messiah]] would be rejected, etc. He did not go back to Jerusalem, but continued to mourn for God's people and <i> sought to understand </i> the prophecies. One was sent to comfort Daniel, and he revealed the fact that unseen evil powers had delayed his coming the entire three weeks. The messenger said, "I am come to make thee understand what shall befall <i> thy </i> people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days . . . . now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of [[Grecia]] shall come." Daniel 10:14,20 . This introduces Daniel 11 and 12 ( Daniel 10,11 , and 12: being <i> one). </i> God's answer is a revelation extending from the days of Daniel to the final blessing of God's people. The city and sanctuary are in view in Daniel 9 , here the people. </p> <p> Daniel 11 : Daniel 11:1-35 are a history of the contests between the king of the north (Syria) and the king of the south (Egypt) — branches of the Grecian empire — often in the land of [[Palestine]] which lay between them. The prophecies are so definite that some critics have said they must have been written after the events. The correspondence of history with the particulars given in this chapter will be found under ANTIOCHUS. Daniel 11:21 to 35 refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, type of the king of the north, or [[Assyrian]] of the last days: cf. also Daniel 8 . </p> <p> Daniel 11:36-45 . The [[Spirit]] here, as elsewhere, passes from the type to the fulfilment at the end of the days, leaping over the present interval. Daniel 11:36-39 are a parenthesis and refer to [[Antichrist]] as a king: he will be a [[Jew]] and not regard 'the God of his fathers,' nor the Messiah as 'the desire of women,' nor regard any known god; but will set himself up above all. [[Yet]] apparently he will honour the god of war (for which nations are getting ready). </p> <p> Daniel 11:40-45 . This is the final contest between a king of the North and a king of the South. The king of the North (elsewhere spoken of as 'the Assyrian,' antitype of Epiphanes) succeeds and passes into 'the glorious land,' and is generally victorious (but not against [[Edom]] and Moab, and the children of Ammon: these are judged later by the instrumentality of Israel. Isaiah 11:14 ). Like Sennacherib's host of old, he will be smitten by the hand of God. </p> <p> Daniel 12 : This is the deliverance and blessing of the [[Jewish]] remnant. Michael, their champion in the heavenlies, stands up for them. There is to be a time of great trouble such as never was: cf. Jeremiah 30:7; Matthew 24 . [[Many]] of [[Israel]] that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake: some to millennial blessing, and some to judgement. This is not the resurrection of the dead, but a national rising of all Israel from among the Gentiles, like the rising from the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37 : a remnant only will enter the kingdom. Daniel was told to seal up the book to the time of the end: cf. Revelation 22:10 . He heard one ask, "How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?" The reply is "a time, times, and a half " — 3-1/2 years, the last half-week of Daniel's 70 weeks. Two other periods are given: 1290 days from the time of the daily sacrifice being taken away: this is 30 days beyond the 3-1/2 years. Then blessed is he that waiteth and cometh to the 1335 days — full blessing. Daniel was told to go: he should stand in his lot at the end of the days. </p> <p> [[Much]] of this remarkable prophecy stands alone, though it has many links that fit exactly with other prophecies. A general knowledge of prophecy wonderfully helps the understanding of any part of it, in this or in any other book. It is important to remember that Daniel's prophecy embraces the 'times of the Gentiles' — running on from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar to the restoration of the Jews whenruled over by the [[Son]] of David. The present governments or states of Europemay be said to be the representatives of Gentile supremacy, but through the depreciation of the Roman empire by the mixture of the iron and clay. The Church and the [[Gospel]] have no place in Daniel. </p> <p> The book is not all written in Hebrew: from Daniel 2:4 to end of Daniel 7 . — namely, what concerns the [[Gentiles]] — is written in what is there called Syriac, or [[Aramaic]] — usually called Chaldee, the Gentiles' tongue. </p>

<p> This important and in many respects remarkable book takes its name not only from the principal person in it, but also and chiefly from him as its real author, there being no just cause of doubt that, as the book itself testifies, it was composed by Daniel (Daniel 7:1; Daniel 7:28; Daniel 8:2; Daniel 9:2). It occupies, however, but a third rank in the [[Hebrew]] canon; not among the Prophets, but in the Hagiographa, owing apparently to the correct view of the composers of the canon, that Daniel did not exercise his prophetic office in the more restricted and proper sense of the term "prophecy," but stood to the theocracy in a different relation from those real prophets whose calling and profession consisted exclusively in declaring the messages they received, and in the communion which they held with God. These latter are termed, in the ancient Hebrew idiom, נְבִיאִים, prophets, in contradistinction to </p> <p> חֹזִים, seers, who, though they were equally favored with divine revelations, were nevertheless not prophets by profession, a calling that claimed the entire service of a man's whole life. (See [[Canon]]). The [[Babylonian]] exile supplied the outward training and the inward necessity for this last form of divine teaching; and the prophetic visions of Ezekiel form the connecting link between the characteristic types of revelation and prophecy (comp. Lucke, Versuch, 1:17 sq.; Hitzig, Daniel, Vorbem. § 9; Hilgenfeld, [[Die]] Jud. Apok. 1 sq.). This book has given rise to many and various polemical discussions both mi ancient and modern times. </p> <p> 1. The book of Daniel divides itself into two parts, historical (ch. 1-6) and prophetic (ch. 7-12), arranged respectively in chronological order. In the first seven chapters, accordingly, Daniel is spoken of historically (Daniel 1:8-21; Daniel 2:14-49; Daniel 4:8-27; Daniel 5:13-29; Daniel 6:2-28; Daniel 7:1-2); in the last five he appears personally as the writer (Daniel 7:15-28; Daniel 8:1 to Daniel 9:22; Daniel 10:1-19; Daniel 12:5). Its object is by no means to give a summary historical account of the period of the exile, or of the life of Daniel himself, since it contains only a few isolated points both as to historical facts and prophetic revelations. But the plan or tendency which so consistently runs through the whole book is of a far different character; it is to show the extraordinary and wonderful means which the Lord made use of, in a period of the deepest miisery, when the theocracy seemed dissolved and fast approaching its extinction, to afford assistance to his people, proving to them that he had not entirely forsaken them, and making them sensible of the fact that his merciful presence still continued to dwell with them, even without the [[Temple]] and beyond the Land of Promise. </p> <p> The wonders related in Daniel (ch. 1-6) are thus mostly of a peculiar, prominent, and striking character, and resemble in many respects those performed of old time in Egypt. Their divine tendency was, on the one hand, to lead the heathen power, which proudly fancied itself to be the conqueror of the theocracy, to the acknowledgment that there was an essential difference between the world and the kingdom of God; and, on the other, to impress degenerate and callous [[Israel]] with the full conviction that the power of [[God]] was still the same as it was of old in Egypt. </p> <p> The following are the essential features of the prophetic tenor of the book of Daniel, while the visions in ch. 2 and 7, together with their different symbols, may be considered as embodying the leading notion of the whole. The development of the whole of the heathen power, until the completion and glorification of the kingdom of God, appeared to the prophet in the shape of four powers of the world, each successive power always surpassing the preceding in might and strength, namely, the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and [[Syrian]] (otherwise Roman). The kingdom of God proves itself conqueror of them all; a power which alone is everlasting, and showing itself in its utmost glorification in the appearance of the Messiah, as [[Judge]] and Lord of the world. Until the coming of the Messiah, the people of God have yet to go through a period of heavy trials. That period is particularly described, ch. 8 and 11, in the struggles of the Maccabaean time, illustrative of the last and heaviest combats which the kingdom of God would have to endure. The period until the appearance of the [[Messiah]] is a fixed and sacred number — seventy weeks of years (ch. 9). After the lapse of that period ensues the death of the Messiah; the expiation of the people is realized; true justice is revealed, but [[Jerusalem]] and the Temple are in punishment given up to destruction. The true rise from this fall and corruption ensues only at the end of time, in the general resurrection (ch. 12). </p> <p> The interpretation of Daniel has hitherto proved an inexhaustible field for the ingenuity of commentators, and the certain results are comparatively few. According to the traditional view, which appears as early as the fourth book of Ezra, (See [[Esdras]]) and the epistle of [[Barnabas]] (ch. 4), the four empires described in ch. 2 and 7 are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Greek, and the Roman. With nearly equal consent it has been supposed that there is a change of subject in the eleventh chapter (Daniel 11:31 sq.), by which the seer passes from the persecutions of [[Antiochus]] to the times of Antichrist. A careful comparison of the language of the prophecy with the history of the Syrian kings must, however, convince every candid student of the text that the latter hypothesis is wholly unfounded and arbitrary. The whole of the eleventh chapter forms a history of the struggles of the [[Jewish]] [[Church]] with the [[Greek]] powers up to the death of its great adversary (Daniel 11:45). This conflict, indeed, has a typical import, and foreshows in its characteristic outlines the abiding and final conflict of the people of God and the powers of evil, so that the true work of the interpreter must be to determine historically the nature of each event signalized in the prophetic picture, that he may draw from the past the lesson of the future. The traditional interpretation of "the four empires" seems to spring from the same error as the other, though it still finds numerous advocates (Hofmann, Auberlen, Keil, Halvernick, Hengstenberg, and most English commentators). It originated at a time when the triumphant advent of Messiah was the object, of immediate expectation, and the [[Roman]] empire appeared to be the last in the series of earthly kingdoms. The long interval of conflict which has followed the first [[Advent]] formed no place in the anticipations of the first Christians, and in succeeding ages the Roman period has been unnaturally prolonged to meet the requirements of a theory that took its rise in a state of thought which experience has proved false. (See [[Little Horn]]). </p> <p> The parallel character and striking fulfillment of Daniel's predictions, many of which are carried out with a detail elsewhere unknown, may be seen from the following synoptical table. Those relating to the seventy weeks (Daniel 9:24-27) will be treated separately under that head. </p> <p> 2. The language of the book is partly [[Chaldee]] (Daniel 2:4; Daniel 7:28) and partly Hebrew. The latter is not unlike that of Ezekiel, though less impure and corrupt, and not so replete with anomalous grammatical forms. The Chaldee is noways that of the Chaldaeans proper, but a corrupt vernacular dialect, a mixture of Hebrew and: Aramaic, formed during the period of the exile. It resembles mostly the Chaldee pieces in Ezra, but differs greatly from the dialect of the later [[Targums]] (see Hilgenfeld, Esra u. Daniel und ihre neuesten Bearbeitungen, Halle, 1863). (See [[Chaldee Language]]). </p> <p> The style is, even in the prophetic parts, more prosaic than poetical, as Lowth has already observed. The historical descriptions are usually very broad and prolix in details; but the prophecies have a more rhetorical character, and their delivery is frequently somewhat abrupt; their style is descriptive, painting with the most lively colors the still fresh impression which the vision has made on the mental eye. </p> <p> 3. The unity of the book has been disputed by several critics, and more especially by [[Eichhorn]] and Bertholdt, who conceived it to have been written by more than one author, on account of some contradictions which they thought they had discovered in it, such as in Daniel 1:21, compared with Daniel 10:1; and in Daniel 1:5-18, compared with Daniel 2:1. With regard to the first supposed contradiction, we consider the meaning of Daniel 1:21, to be that Daniel had lived to see the first year of the reign of Cyrus, as a particularly memorable, and, for the exiled people, a very important year. This does by no means exclude the possibility of his having lived still longer than up to that period. </p> <p> Respecting the second presumed contradiction, the matter in Daniel 1:5-18, belongs properly to the co-regency of Nebuchadnezzar, which term is there added to his period of government, while in Daniel 2:1, his reign is counted only from the year of his actual accession to the throne. These attempts to disturb the harmony of the work are also discountenanced by the connecting thread which evidently runs through the whole of the book, setting the single parts continually in mutual relation to each other. Indeed, most critics have now given up that hypothesis, and look at the book as a closely connected and complete work in itself. </p> <p> 4. [[Much]] greater is the difference of opinion respecting the authenticity of the book. The oldest known opponent of it is the heathen philosopher Porphyry, in the third century of the [[Christian]] era. The greater the authority in which the book of Daniel was held at that time by both [[Jews]] and [[Christians]] in their various controversies, the more was he anxious to dispute that authority, and he did not disdain to devote one whole book (the twelfth) — out of the fifteen which he had composed against the Christians — to that subject alone. He there maintains that the author of the book of Daniel was a Palestinian [[Jew]] of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, that he wrote it in Greek, and fraudulently gave to past events the form of prophecies. [[Porphyry]] was answered by [[Eusebius]] of Caesarea, [[Methodius]] of Tyre, and Apollinaris of Laodicea. But their works, as well as that of Porphyry himself, are lost; and we know the latter only from the numerous quotations and refutations in the [[Commentary]] of Jerome. </p> <p> Porphyry found no successor in his views until the time of the English deists, when [[Collins]] attempted to attack the authenticity of Daniel, as was done by Semler in Germany. After this a few critics, such as J. D. Michaelis and Eichhorn, disputed the authenticity of the first six chapters. The learned Swiss, Corrodi (Freimuth. Versuch, etc., Berlin, 1783), went still further, and, reviving the views of Porphyry, questioned the genuineness of the whole book. The question of the authenticity of the book is discussed in most of the later commentaries, and specially by [[Hengstenberg]] (Die Authentie der Daniel erwiesen, 1831, translated by Ryland, Edinb. 1847, 8vo), Havernick (Neue krit. Untersuch. Hamb. 1838, 8vo), Delitzsch (in Herzog's Encyklopadie, s.v. 1854), Keil (Lehrb. der Ein. in der A. T. Frank. 1853, 8vo), [[Davidson]] (Introduction to the O.T. 2, Lond. 1846, 8vo, who maintain the affirmative; and by Bleek (Berl. theolog. Zeitschr. 3, 1822), Bertholdt (Einleit. Erlang. 1814), Lucke (Versuch einer vollstind. Einl. 2d ed. Bonn. 1852), and [[De]] Wette (Einlit. 7th ed. Berl. 1852), who deny its authenticity. See Ewald (Die Proph. d. Alt. Bund. 2:559 sq.). </p> <p> The real grounds on which most modern critics rely in rejecting the book are the "fabulousness of its narratives" and "the minuteness of its prophetic history." "The contents of the book," it is said, "are irrational and impossible" (Hitzig, § 5). It is obvious that it is impossible to answer such a statement without entering into general views of the providential government of the world. It is admitted that the contents of the book are exceptional and surprising; but revelation is itself a miracle, however it be given, and essentially as inconceivable as any miracle. There are times, perhaps, when it is required that extraordinary signs should arrest the attention of men, and fix their minds upon that [[Divine]] [[Presence]] which is ever working around them. [[Prodigies]] may become a guide to nature. [[Special]] circumstances may, and, according to the Bible, usually do determine, the peculiar form which the miraculous working of God will assume at a particular time; so that the question is, whether there is any discernible relation between the outward wonders and the moral condition of an epoch. </p> <p> Nor is it impossible to apply this remark to the case of Daniel. The position which he occupied was as exceptional as the book which bears his name. He survived the exile and the disappointment which attended the first hopes of the Jews. The glories which had been connected with the return in the foreshortened vision of earlier prophets were now felt to be far off, and a more special revelation may have been necessary as a preparation for a period of silence and conflict. The very character of the Babylonian exile seems to have called for some signal exhibition of divine power. As the first exodus was distinguished by great marvels, it might appear natural that the second should be also (comp. Micah 7:15; Delitzsch, p. 272, etc.). National miracles, so to speak, formed the beginning of the theocracy; personal miracles, the beginning of the Church. To speak of an "aimless and lavish display of wonders" is to disregard the representative silnilicance of the different acts, and the relation which they bore to the future fortunes of the people. A new era was inaugurated by fresh signs. The Jews, now that they were left among the nations of the world, looked for some sure token that God was able to deliver them and work out his own purposes. The persecution of Antiochus completed the teaching of Daniel; and the people no longer sought without what at length they had found within. They had withstood the assault of one typical enemy, and now they were prepared to meet all. The close of special predictions coincided with the consolidation of the national faith. (See Antiochus Epiphanes). </p> <p> The following are the more important of the arguments which evidence the genuineness of the book (see the works on the [[Authenticity]] of Daniel, by Boyle [Lond. 1863] and [[Waters]] [ib. eod.]). </p> <p> (1.) The existence and authority of the book are most decidedly testified by the New Testament. [[Christ]] himself refers to it (Matthew 24:15), and gives to himself (in virtue of the expression in Daniel 7:13) the name of [[Son]] of Man; while the apostles repeatedly appeal to it as an authority (1 Corinthians 6:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:3). [[Apart]] from the general type of apocalyptic composition which the apostolic writers derived from Daniel (Rev. passim; comp. Matthew 26:64; Matthew 21:44?), the New [[Testament]] incidentally acknowledges each of the characteristic elements of the book, its miracles (Hebrews 11:33-34), its predictions (Matthew 24:15), and its doctrine of angels (Luke 1:19; Luke 1:26). To the objection that Christ and the writers of the New Testament are here no real authority, inasmuch as they accommodate themselves to the Jewish notions and views, we reply that the genuineness of the book of Daniel is so closely connected with the truth of its contents — in other words, that the authenticity of the book is so immediately connected with its authority — that it is impossible to doubt its genuineness without suspecting at the same time a willful cheat in its contents; so that the accommodation in this case to national views would be tantamount to willfully confirming and sanctioning an unpardonable fraud. </p> <p> (2.) The period of the exile would be altogether incomprehensible without the existence of a man like Daniel, exercising great influence upon his own people, and effecting their return to [[Palestine]] by means of his high station in the state, as well as through the peculiar assistance of God with which he was favored. [[Without]] this assumption, it is impossible to explain the continued state of independence of the people of God during that period, or to account for the interest which [[Cyrus]] took in their affairs. The exile and its termination are indicative of uncommon acts of God towards highly-gifted and favored men; and the appearance of such a man as Daniel is described in that book as having been, is an indispensable requisite for the right understanding of this portion of the Jewish history. </p> <p> (3.) An important hint of the existence of the book in the time of [[Alexander]] is found in [[Josephus]] (Ant. 11:8, 4), according to which the prophecies of Daniel had been pointed out to that king on his entrance into Jerusalem. It is true that the fact may have been somewhat embellished in its details by Josephus, yet is it historically undeniable that Alexander did bestow great favors on the Jews, a circumstance which is not easily explained without granting the fact recorded by Josephus to be true in the main. (See Alexander (The Great).) </p> <p> (4.) The first book of the Maccabees, which is almost contemporary with the events related in it, not only presupposes the existence of the book of Daniel, but actually betrays acquaintance with the [[Alexandrian]] version of the same (1 [[Maccabees]] 1:54; comp. Daniel 9:27; Daniel 2:59; comp. Daniel 3), a proof that the book must have been written long before that period. </p> <p> (5.) If the book had been written in the Maccabsean period, there would probably have been produced in that period some similar prophetic and apocalyptic productions, composed by Palestinian Jews. Of such, however, not the slightest notice can anywhere be found; so that our book-if of the Maccabaean timeforms an isolated enigmatical phenomenon in the later Jewish literature. </p> <p> (6.) The reception of the book into the canon is also an evidence of its authenticity. In the Maccabaean age the canon had long been completed and closed; but, even doubting that point, it is not likely that, at a time when so much scrupulous adherence was shown towards all that was hallowed by time and old usage, and when scriptural literature was already flourishing — it is not probable, we say, that a production then recent should have been raised to the rank of a canonical book. </p> <p> (7.) We have an important testimony for the authenticity of the book in Ezekiel 14:14; Ezekiel 14:20; Ezekiel 28:3. Daniel is there represented as an unusual character, as a model of justice and wisdom, to whom had been allotted superior divine insight and revelation. This sketch perfectly agrees with that contained in our book. </p> <p> (8.) The book betrays such an intimate acquaintance with Chaldaean manners, customs, history, and religion as none but a contemporary writer can fairly be supposed to possess. Thus, e.g. the description of the Chaldaean magians and their regulations perfectly agrees with the accounts of the classics respecting them. The account of the illness and insanity of [[Nebuchadnezzar]] is confirmed by [[Berosus]] (in Joseph. c. Apion. 1:20). The edict of [[Darius]] the [[Mede]] (Daniel 5) may be satisfactorily explained from the notions peculiar to the Medo-Persian religion, and the importance attached in it to the king, who was considered a sort of incarnate deity. The scene and characters of the book are Oriental. The colossal image- (צְלֵם, 3, 1, not necessarily a human figure; the term is applied familiarly to the cross, Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb. s.v.), the fiery furnace, the martyr-like boldness of the three confessors (Daniel 3:16), the decree of Darius (Daniel 6:7), the lions' den (Daniel 6:7; Daniel 6:19, גֹּב ), the demand of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:5), his obeisance before Daniel (Daniel 2:46), his sudden fall (Daniel 4:33; comp. Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9:41; Joseph. c. Revelation 1:20), are not only consistent with the nature of [[Eastern]] life, but in many instances directly confirmed by other evidence. (See Darius The Mede) for the difficulties of Daniel 1:1; Daniel 2:1; Daniel 5:31. </p> <p> (9.) The religious views, the ardent belief in the Messiah, the purity of that belief, the absence of all the notions and ceremonial practices of later Judaism, etc., the agreement of the book in these respects with the genuine prophetic books, and more especially with the prophets in and after the exile-all this testifies to the genuineness of Daniel. In doctrine the book is closely connected with the writings of the exile, and forms a last step in the development of the ideas of Messiah (Daniel 7:13, etc.), of the resurrection (Daniel 12:2-3), of the ministry of angels (Daniel 8:16; Daniel 12:1, etc.), of personal devotion (Daniel 6:10-11; Daniel 1:8), which formed the basis of later speculations, but received no essential addition in the interval before the coming of our Lord. </p> <p> (10.) The linguistic character of the book is most decisive for its authenticity. In the first instance, the language in it, by turns Hebrew and Arammean, is particularly remarkable. In that respect the book bears a close analogy to that of Ezra. The author must certainly have been equally conversant with both languages — an attainment exactly suited to a Hebrew living in the exile, but not in the least so to an author in the Maccabaean age, when the Hebrew had long since ceased to be a living language, and had been supplanted by the Aramaean vernacular dialect. The Hebrew in Daniel bears, moreover, a very great affinity to that in the other later books of the Old Testament, and has, in particular, idioms in common with Ezekiel. The Aramaic, also, in the book differs materially from the prevailing dialect of the later Chaldaean paraphrastic versions of the Old Testament, and has much more relation to the idiom of the book of Ezra. Nor is the mention of Greek musical instruments (3, 5, 7, 10, קִיתָרֹס, κίθαρα; סִבְּכָא σαμβυκή; סוּמְפֹּנְיָה, συμφωνία; (פְּסִנְתְּרִין, ψαλτήριον ), for these words only can be shown to be derived from the Greek (De Wette, Einl. p. 255 b.), other than suitable to a time when the intercourse of the East and West was already considerable, and when a brother of Alcaeus (B.C. 600-500) had gained distinction "at the farthest end of the world, aiding the Babylonians" (Alc. Frag. 33, Bergk.; Brandis, in Delitzsch, p. 274). (For a full view of the criticism, history, and literature of the book of Daniel, see Stuart's Commentary, p. 373-496.) </p> <p> 5. There is no Chaldee translation of Daniel, and the deficiency is generally accounted for, as in the parallel case of Ezra, by the danger which would have existed in such a case of confounding the original text with the paraphrase; but, on the other hand, the whole book has been published in Hebrew. Kennicott prepared a special commentary on the Chaldee portions (ed. Schulze, Hal. 1782, 8vo); comp. [[Bird]] (Lectures, Lond. 1845). </p> <p> The Greek version has undergone singular changes. At an early time the Sept. translation was supplanted in the Greek Bibles by that of Theodotion, which in the time of [[Jerome]] was generally "read by the churches" (c. Ruffin. 2:33; Praef. in Comm.). This change, for which Jerome was unable tf account (Praef. in Vers, Dan.), may have been made in consequence of the objections which were urged against the corrupt Sept. text in controversy with Jews and heathen. The Sept. version was certainly very unfaithful (Jerome, 1. c.); and the influence of Origen, who preferred the translation of [[Theodotion]] (Jerome in Daniel 4:6), was probably effectual in bringing about the substitution (comp. Credner, Beitr. 2:256 sq.). In the course of time, however, the version of Theodotion was interpolated from the Sept., so that it is now impossible to recover the original text. Comp. Wald, [[Curae]] in hist. textus Dan. (Lips. 1783). (See [[Apocryphal Additions To Daniel]]). [[Meanwhile]] the original Sept. translation passed entirely out of use, and it was supposed to have been lost till the last century, when it was published at [[Rome]] from a [[Codex]] Chisianus (Daniel secundum LXX. . . . Romas, 1772, ed. P. de Magistris), together with that of Theodotion, and several illustrative essays. It has since been published several times (ed. Michaelis, Gotting. 1774; ed. Segaar, Utrecht, 1775; ed. Hahn, Lpz. 1845), and lastly by Tischendorf in the second edition of his [[Septuagint]] (Lips. 1856). [[Another]] recension of the text is contained in the Syro-Hexaplaric version at [[Milan]] (ed. Bugatus, 1788); but a critical comparison of the several recensions is still required. (See [[Septuagint]]). </p> <p> On other ancient versions, see Munter, Spec. versionumn Daniel Copticarum. etc. (Romans 1786); Wald, Ueb. d. Arab. Uebers. d. Dan. (in Eichhorn's Repertor. 14:205 sq.). (See [[Versions]]). </p> <p> 6. The commentaries on Daniel are very numerous. Those in Hebrew by R. Saadiah Haggaon († 942), Rashe († c. 1105), and Aben Ezra († c. 1167), are printed in the great Rabbinic Bibles of Bomberg and others. That of [[Abarbanel]] († c. 1507) has been printed separately several times (Amst. 1647, 4to), and others are enumerated below. [[Among]] the patristic commentaries the most important is that of Jerome (vol. v, ed. Migne), who noticed especially the objections of Porphyry; also those of Chrysostomn (Opera, 6:228), [[Theodoret]] (2. 1053 sq., ed. Schulze; interp. Gabio, Rom. 1562, fol.), and Ephraem Syrus (Op. Syr. ii, Romae, 1740). ‘ There are also annotations by Rupert Tuitiensis (Opera, 1:520), Thos. Aquinas [rather Thos. Wallensis] (Commentarii, etc., Paris, 1641, fol.), Albertus [[Magnus]] (Opera, viii), and Peter the [[Archdeacon]] (Martene and Durand's Collectio, 9:275). Considerable fragments remain of the commentaries of Hippolytus (collected in Migne's edition, Paris, 1857) and [[Polychronius]] (Mai, Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vol. i); and Mai has published (ib.) a catena on Daniel, containing fragments of Apollinarius, Athanasius, Basil, Eusebius, and many others. The chief reformers, Luther (Auslegung d. Proph. Daniel 1530-1546; Op. Germ. vi, ed. Walch), Ecolampadius (In Daniel libri duo, Basil. 1530), Melancthon (Comm. in Daniel proph. Vitemb. 1543), and Calvin (Praelect. in Daniel Geneve, 1563, etc.; in French, 1565; in English, Lond. 1852-3), wrote on Daniel; also Joachim the [[Abbot]] (Ven. 1519, 4to). A comparison of the prophecies of Daniel with the visions of the [[Apocalypse]] (Newton, On the Prophecies, London, 1733, 4to) opened the way to a true understanding of Daniel. Auberlen (Der Proph. Daniel u. d. Ojfenbarung Joh. etc. 2d ed. Basel, 1857, translated into English from the 1st ed. by Saphir, 1856, 12mo) has thrown considerable light upon the general construction and relations of the book. Comp. Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erfullung, 1:276 sq.; Burton, Numbers of Daniel and John (Norw. 1766-8); Anon., [[Seven]] prophetical Periods (Lond. 1790); Birks, The four prophetic [[Empires]] (London, 1844), and The two later [[Visions]] of Daniel (ib. 1846); Elliott, Horce Apocalyptice (Lond. 1844); Tregelles, Remarks on the prophetic Visions of Daniel (Lond. 1852); Stuart, Hints on [[Prophecy]] (Andov. 1844); Desprez, Daniel the Apocalypse of the O.T. (Lond. 1865, 8vo). (See [[Revelation]]). Among subsidiary works additional to the above may be named Bleek, Weissag. in D. (in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1860, v); Walter, Genuineness of Daniel (Lond. 1862); Baxmann, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1863, 4; Fuller, Authenticity of Daniel (Cambr. 1864); Bosanquet, [[Inspiration]] of Daniel (Lond. 1866); Harman, in the Meth. Quart. Rev. Oct. 1854. </p> <p> Other special exegetical works on the entire book. or principal portions of it, are the following, of which the most important are designated by an asterisk (*) prefixed: Bafiolas, פֵּדוּשׁ (s. 1. ante 1480, 4to; and in the Rabb. Bibles); Alscheich, חֲבִצֶּלֶת הִשָּׁרוֹן (Safet, 1568, 4to, and since); Teitsak, לֶחֶם סְתָרִים (Ven. 1608, 4to); Joy, [[Exposition]] (Genev. 1545, 16mo; Lond. 1550, 8vo); Draconites, Commentarius (Marb. 1544, 8vo); *Suaningius, Commentarii (Havn. 1554-66, also 1688, 2 vols. fol.); Strigelius, Concio (Lips. 1565,1571, 1572, 8vo); Selnecker, Erklrung (Jen. 1567,1608, 4to); Wigand, Explicatio (Jen. 1571, Erf. 1581, 8vo); Bullinger, Homiliae (Tigur. 1576, fol.); Pintus, Commentarii (Conimb. 1582, 8vo; Ven. 1583, 4to; Colon. 1587, Antw. 1595, 8vo); Pererius, Commentarii (Rom. 1586, fol.; Lugd. 1588, 4to; 1591, 1602, 8vo; Antw. 1594, 4to); Heilbrunner, Loc communes (Lauing. 1587, 8vo); Marcellinus, Commentarius (Ven. 1588, 4to); Rollock, Commentariets (Edinburgh, 1591, 8vo; Basil. 1594, 4to; Genev. 1598, 8vo; 1670, 4to); Junius, Expositio (Heidelb. 1593, Genev. 1594, 4to); Broughton, Annotations (in Works, p. 164, 261; in Lat. ed. Boreel, Basil. 1599, 4to); Polanus, Commentarius (Basil. 1599, 4to; 1606, 8vo); Gesner, Disputationes (Viteb. 1601, 4to; 1607, 1611, 1638, 8vo); Elucidarius (ib. 1658, 8vo); Veldius, Commentarius (Antw. 1602, 8vo); Leyser, Commentarius (in 6 parts, Darmst. and Francof. 1609-10, 4to); Willet, Hexzspla (Cantuar. 1610, fol.); Veld, Commentarius (Antwerp, 1611, 4to); Sanctius, Commentarius (Lugd. 1612, fol.); Rhumelius, Paraphrasis (Norimb. 1616, 8vo); Angelocrator, Erklarung (Cassel, 1638, 4to); Alsted, Trifolium (Herb. 1640, 4to); Huit, [[Paraphrase]] (London, 1643, 4to); Brightman, Exposition (ib. 1644, 4to); Parker, Exposition (ib. 1646, 4to); *Geier, Praelectiones (Lips. 1667, 1684, 1697, 1702, 4to); Varenius, Animadversio (Rost. 1667, 4to); Wingendorp, Paraphrasis (Leyd. 1674,1680, 8vo); Jungmann, Commentarius (Cass. 1681, 4to); Moore, Exposition (Lond. 1681, 4to); [[Answers]] (ib. 1684, 4to); Supplement (ib. 1685, 4to); [[Notes]] (ib. 1685, 4to); Bekker, Vitlegginge (Amst. 1688,1698, 4to); Meissner, Amerkungen (Hamb. 1695, 12mo); Anon., Explanation (Lond. 1700, 12mo); Kerkhedere, Prodromus (Lovan. 1710, 8vo); Wells, Help, etc. (Lond. 1716, 8vo); Friderici, Daniel et ejus vaticinia (Lpz. 1716, 4to); Musaus, Schola (Quedlinb. 1719, 4to); — Michaelis, Annotationes (Hal. 1720, 4to); Petersen, Sinn, etc. (F. ad M. 1720, 4to); Koch, Auslejung (Lemg. 1740, 4to); Venema, Dissertationes (Leid. 1745, 1752, 1768, 4to); Petri, Zahlen Daniels (Offenb. 1768, 8vo); Roos, Auslegung (Lpz. 1771, 8vo; tr. into Engl. Edinb. 1811, 8vo); Harenberg, Asfilarung (Blankenb. and Quedlinb. 1773, 4to); Scharfenberg, Animadversiones (Lips. 1774, 8vo); Segaar, Animadversiones (Utr. 1775, 8vo); Ammer, Essay, etc. (Lond. 1776, 8vo); Zeis, Erklarung (Dresd. 1777, 8vo); Holber, D. Zeiten in d. Danielschen Weisag. (Frkf. and Lpz. 1777, 8vo); Wald, [[Curse]] (Lips. 1783, 4to); Muller, Animadversiones (Heidelb. 1786, 4to); Luderwald, Prifung (Helmst. 1787, 8vo); Volborth, Ammerkungen (Hanover, 1788, 8vo); Anon., Briefe (in Beytrage zum Denken in d. Rel. pt. 9); Kemmericb, Uebers. etc. (Helmst. 1791, 2 vols. 8vo); *Wintle, Notes, etc. (Oxf. 1792, 4to; Lond. 1807. 4to; 1836, 8vo); Thube, Erklarung (Schwerin and Wism. 1797, 8vo); *Bertholdt, Erklarung, etc. (Erlang. 1806, 8vo); Ben-Jachajah, דָּנַיּאֵל (ed. Philippsohn, etc.; Dessau, 1808, 4to and 8vo); Menken, Monarchienbild (Brem. 1809, 8vo); Frere, Combined View, etc. (Lond. 1815,8vo); Griesinger, Ansicht (Stuttg. and Tub. 1815, 8vo); Girdlestone, [[Observations]] (Oxford, 1820, 8vo); Bleek, Verfasser u. Zweck (in the Theolog. Zeitschr. Berl. 1822, in); Wilson, Dissertations (Oundle, 1824, 8vo); Irving, [[Discourse]] (Glasg. 18~6, 2 vols. 12mo); Kirmss, Commentatio (Jen. 1828, 4to); *Rosenmü ller, [[Scholia]] (Lips. 1832, 8vo); *Havernick, Commentatar (Hamburg, 1832, 8vo); Jeitteles, דָּנַיּאֵל, etc. (Vienna, 1835, 8vo); Cox, Lectures (Lond. 1834, N. Y. 1836, 12mo); *Lengerke, Auslegung (Konigsb. 1835, 8vo); Tyso, Elucidation (London, 1838, 8vo); Farquharson, [[Illustrations]] (London, 1838, 8vo); Gaussen, Lectures (London, 1840, 12mo); Miles, Lectures (ib. 1840-1, 2 vols. 12mo); Folsom, [[Interpretation]] (Boston, 1842, 12mo); Chase, Remarks (ib. 1844, 8vo); [[George]] (Duke of Manchester), Times of Daniel (Lond. 1846, 8vo); Wood, Lectures (ib. 1847, 12mo); Jacobi, vol. i of Kirchliche Lehre, etc. (Berl. 1847, 8vo); Harrison, Outlines (Warburt. Lect. London, 1849, 8vo); *Stuart, Commentary (Bost. 1850, 8vo); *Barnes, Notes (N. Y. 1850, 12mo); *Hitzig, Erklar. (Lpz. 1850, 8vo); Cumming, Lectures (Lond. 1850, 8vo); Ramsay, Exposition (ibid. 1853, 12mo); Oshon, Daniel [[Verified]] (N. Y. 1856, 12mo); Magnin. Notes (Par. 1861, 8vo); Zundel, Untersuch. (Basel, 1861, 8vo); Bellamy, [[Translation]] (Lond. 1863, 4to); Pusev, Lectures (new ed. ibid. 1865, 4to); Shrewsbury, Notes (Edinb. 1865, 8vo); Cowles, Commentary (N. Y. 1867,12mo); Kranichfeld, Erklar. (Berl. 1868, 8vo); Kliefoth, Erklar. (Schw. 1868, 8vo); Fuller, Erklar. (Basel, 1868, 8vo). (See [[Prophets]]). </p>