Book Of Daniel

Morrish Bible Dictionary

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.

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.

 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.

 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 he 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 first characteristic of Gentile supremacy is idolatry .

 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 second characteristic which marked Gentile rule is that, refusing to own God, it descends to the level of a beast.

 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 third 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 the king knew all this 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 third characteristic of imperial power is, that it is infidel and profane.

 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 living 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 fourth characteristic is self-exaltation.

 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 .

 Daniel 8 : The second and the third of the four empires are again prophesied of. Out of the third 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.'*

* In reference to the 2300 days of  Daniel 8:14 , see under 'Antiochus '

B.C. 175 Antiochus Iv Epiphanes (third paragraph)

 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

 Daniel 10 : Daniel mourned three full weeks. This was in the third year of Cyrus: in the first 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 sought to understand 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 thy 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 one). 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.

 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 .

 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).

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

Holman Bible Dictionary

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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 ).

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.

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.

Outline

I. The Faithful Young Men in a Foreign Court ( Daniel 1:1-6:28 )

A. Loyalty to God leads Daniel and his friends to high political positions ( Daniel 1:1-21 ).

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 ).

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 ).

D. Interpretation and fulfillment of the king's dream leads the king to praise God ( Daniel 4:1-37 ).

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 ).

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 ).

II. Daniel's Visions Point the Way Through Persecution to Hope ( Daniel 7:1-12:13 ).

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 ).

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 ).

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 ).

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 ).

E. Heavenly intervention will bring the time of the end and the resurrection of God's faithful people ( Daniel 12:1-13 ).

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 ).

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

J. J. Owens and Trent C. Butler

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

Daniel, Book Of

1. Authorship and Date . The first six chapters of this book contain a series of narratives which tell of ( a ) the fidelity of Daniel and his friends to their religion, and ( b ) 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 primâ facie 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 ( c [Note: circa, about.] . 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 prediction 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.

2. Language, Unity, Theology . (1) From   Daniel 2:4 b to   Daniel 7:26 is in Aramaic . Four explanations have been offered: ( a ) This section was originally written in Aramaic, about b.c. 300, and incorporated, with additions, into the work of 166. ( b ) The corresponding portion of a Heb. original was lost and its place filled by an already current Aram. [Note: Aramaic.] translation. ( c ) 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. ( d ) 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.

(2) The unity of the book 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.

(3) The theological features 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 Apocalypse . The doctrine of the Resurrection is also distinctly asserted: individuals 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.

3. Text . 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 Prayer of Azarias . ( β ) details concerning the heating of the furnace , ( γ ) the Benedicite . These teach the proper frame of mind for all confessors, and dilate on the miraculous element in the Divine deliverance. (2) The History of Susanna , which demonstrates God’s protection of the unjustly accused and illustrates the sagacity in judgment of the youth who is rightly named Daniel , ‘El is my judge.’ (3) Bel and the Dragon , two tracts which expose the imbecility of idolatry, and bring out Daniel’s cleverness and God’s care for His servant in peril. Swete ( Introd. to OT in Greek , p. 260) rightly remarks that internal evidence appears to show that (1) and (2) originally had a separate circulation.

J. Taylor.

American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

This is a mixture of history and prophecy. The first six chapters are chiefly historical, and the remainder prophetical. It was completed about B. C. 534. The wonders related are of a peculiar and striking character, and were designed to show the people of God that, amid their degeneracy, the Lord's hand was not shortened that it could not save; and also to exhibit to their enemies that there was an essential difference between Jehovah and idols, between the people of God and the world. The prophecies contained in the latter part of the book extend from the days of Daniel to the general resurrection. The Assyrian, the Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman empires are described under appropriate imagery. The precise time of Christ's coming is told; the rise and the fall of antichrist, and the duration of his power, are accurately determined; the victory of Christ over his enemies, and the universal prevalence of his religion are clearly pointed out. The book is filled with the most exalted sentiments of piety and devout gratitude. Its style is simple, clear, and concise, and many of the prophecies are delivered in language so plain and circumstantial, that some infidels have asserted that they were written after the events they described had taken place. Sir Isaac Newton regards Daniel as the most distinct and plain of all the prophets, and most easy to be understood; and therefore considers that in things relating to the last times, he is to be regarded as the key to the other prophets.

With respect to the genuineness and authenticity of the book, there is the strongest evidence, both internal and external. We have the testimony of Christ himself,  Matthew 24:15; of St. John and St. Paul, who have copied his prophecies; of the Jewish church and nation, who have constantly received this book as canonical; of Josephus, who recommends him as the greatest of the prophets; and of the Jewish Targets and Talmuds, which frequently cite his authority. As to the internal evidence, the style, the language, the manner of writing, perfectly agree with the age; and especially, he is proved to have been a prophet by the exact fulfilment of his predictions. This book, like that of Ezra, is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee, the prevailing language of the Babylonians.

Easton's Bible Dictionary

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 .)

Copyright Statement These dictionary topics are from M.G. Easton M.A., DD Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by Thomas Nelson, 1897. Public Domain.

Bibliography Information Easton, Matthew George. Entry for 'Daniel, Book of'. Easton's Bible Dictionary. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ebd/d/daniel-book-of.html. 1897.

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.).

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.

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).

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.]).

(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.

(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.

(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).)

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.)

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).

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).

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).

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.

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); *Rosenm Ü 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).

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

dan´yel  :

I. Name

II. Place in the Canon

III. Divisions of the Book

IV. Languages

V. Purpose of the Book

VI. Unity

VII. Genuineness

1. The Predictions

2. The Miracles

3. The Text

4. The Language

5. The Historical Statements

VIII. Interpretation

IX. Doctrines

Commentaries and Introductions

X. Apocryphal Additions

Literature

I. Name

The Book of Daniel is rightly so called, whether we consider Daniel as the author of it, or as the principal person mentioned in it.

II. Place in the Canon

In the English Bible, Daniel is placed among the Major Prophets, immediately after Ezk, Thus following the order of the Septuagint and of the Latin Vulgate (Jerome's Bible, 390-405 ad) In the Hebrew Bible, however, it is placed in the third division of the Canon, called the Kethuvim or writings, by the Hebrews, and the hagiographa , or holy writings, by the Seventy. It has been claimed, that Daniel was placed by the Jews in the third part of the Canon, either because they thought the inspiration of its author to be of a lower kind than was that of the other prophets, or because the book was written after the second or prophetical part of the Canon had been closed. It is more probable, that the book was placed in this part of the Hebrew Canon, because Daniel is not called a nābhı̄' ("prophet"), but was rather a ḥōzeh ("seer") and a ḥākhām ("wise man"). None but the works of the nebhı̄'ı̄m were put in the second part of the Jewish Canon, the third being reserved for the heterogeneous works of seers, wise men, and priests, or for those that do not mention the name or work of a prophet, or that are poetical in form. A confusion has arisen, because the Greek word prophet is used to render the two Hebrew words nābhı̄' and ḥōzeh ̌ . In the Scriptures, God is said to speak to the former, whereas the latter see visions and dream dreams. Some have attempted to explain the position of Daniel by assuming that he had the prophetic gift without holding the prophetic office. It must be kept in mind that all reasons given to account for the order and place of many of the books in the Canon are purely conjectural, since we have no historical evidence bearing upon the subject earlier than the time of Jesus ben Sirach, who wrote probably about 180 bc.

III. Divisions of the Book

According to its subject-matter, the book falls naturally into two great divisions, each consisting of six chapters, the first portion containing the historical sections, and the second the apocalyptic, or predictive, portions; though the former is not devoid of predictions, nor the latter of historical statements. More specifically, the first chapter is introductory to the whole book; Dan 2 through 6 describe some marvelous events in the history of Daniel and his three companions in their relations with the rulers of Babylon; and chapters 7 through 12 narrate some visions of Daniel concerning the great world-empires, especially in relation to the kingdom of God.

According to the languages in which the book is written, it may be divided into the Aramaic portion, extending from  Daniel 2:4 to the end of chapter 7, and a Hebrew portion embracing the rest of the book.

IV. Languages

The language of the book is partly Hebrew and partly a dialect of Aramaic, which has been called Chaldee, or Biblical Aramaic This Aramaic is almost exactly the same as that which is found in portions of Ezra. On account of the large number of Babylonian and Persian words characteristic of this Aramaic and of that of the papyri recently found in Egypt, as well as on account of the general similarity of the nominal, verbal and other forms, and of the syntactical construction, the Aramaic of this period might properly be called the Babylonian-Persian Aramaic With the exception of the sign used to denote the sound "dh," and of the use of ḳōph in a few cases where Daniel has 'ayin, the spelling in the papyri is the same in general as that in the Biblical books. Whether the change of spelling was made at a later time in the manuscripts of Daniel, or whether it was a peculiarity of the Babylonian Aramaic as distinguished from the Egyptian or whether it was due to the unifying, scientific genius of Daniel himself, we have no means at present to determine. In view of the fact that the Elephantine Papyri frequently employ the " d " sign to express the " dh " sound, and that it is always employed in Ezra to express it; in view further of the fact that the " z " sign is found as late as the earliest Nabatean inscription, that of 70 bc (see Euting, 349: 1, 2, 4) to express the " dh " sound, it seems fatuous to insist on the ground of the writing of these two sounds in the Book of Daniel, that it cannot have been written in the Persian period. As to the use of ḳōph and ‛ayin for the Aramaic sound which corresponds to the Hebrew cadhē when equivalent to an Arabic dad , any hasty conclusion is debarred by the fact that the Aramaic papyri of the 5th century bc, the manuscripts of the Samaritan Targum and the Mandaic manuscripts written from 600 to 900 ad all employ the two letters to express the one sound. The writing of 'āleph and hē without any proper discrimination occurs in the papyri as well as in Daniel. The only serious objection to the early date of upon the ground of its spelling is that which is based upon the use of a final " n " in the pronominal suffix of the second and third persons masculine plural instead of the " m " of the Aramaic papyri and of the Zakir and Sendschirli inscriptions. It is possible that was influenced in this by the corresponding forms of the Babylonian language. The Syriac and Mandaic dialects of the Aramaic agree with the Babylonian in the formation of the pronominal suffixes of the second and third persons masculine plural, as against the Hebrew, Arabic, Minaean, Sabean and Ethiopic. It is possible that the occurrence of " m " in some west Aramaic documents may have arisen through the influence of the Hebrew and Phoenician, and that pure Aramaic always had " n " just as we find it in Assyrian and Babylonian, and in all east Aramaic documents Thus far discovered.

The supposition that the use of " y " in Daniel as a preformative of the third person masculine of the imperfect proves a Palestinian provenience has been shown to be untenable by the discovery that the earliest east Syriac also used " y ". (See M. Pognon, Inscriptions sémitiques , première partie, 17.)

This inscription is dated 73 ad. This proof that in the earlier stages of its history the east Aramaic was in this respect the same as that found in Daniel is confirmed by the fact that the forms of the 3rd person of the imperfect found in the proper names on the Aramaic dockets of the Assyrian inscriptions also have the preformative y. (See Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum , II, 47.)

V. Purpose of the Book

The book is not intended to give an account of the life of Daniel. It gives neither his lineage, nor his age, and recounts but a few of the events of his long career. Nor is it meant to give a record of the history of Israel during the exile, nor even of the captivity in Babylon. Its purpose is to show how by His providential guidance, His miraculous interventions, His foreknowledge and almighty power, the God of heaven controls and directs the forces of Nature and the history of nations, the lives of Hebrew captives and of the mightiest of the kings of the earth, for the accomplishment of His Divine and beneficent plans for His servants and people.

VI. Unity

The unity of the book was first denied by Spinoza, who suggested that the first part was taken from the chronological works of the Chaldeans, basing his supposition upon the difference of language between the former and latter parts. Newton followed Spinoza in suggesting two parts, but began his second division with Dan 7, where the narrative passes over from the 3rd to the 1st person. Köhler follows Newton, claiming, however, that the visions were written by the Daniel of the exile, but that the first 6 chapters were composed by a later writer who also redacted the whole work. Von Orelli holds that certain prophecies of Daniel were enlarged and interpolated by a Jew living in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, in order to show his contemporaries the bearing of the predictions of the book upon those times of oppression. Zöckler and Lange hold to the unity of the book in general; but the former thought that Dan 11:5-45 is an interpolation; and the latter, that 10:1 through 11:44 and  Daniel 12:5-13 have been inserted in the original work. Meinhold holds that the Aramaic portions existed as early as the times of Alexander the Great - a view to which Strack also inclines. Eichhorn held that the book consisted of ten different original sections, which are bound together merely by the circumstance that they are all concerned with Daniel and his three friends. Finally, De Lagarde, believing that the fourth kingdom was the Roman, held that Dan 7 was written about 69 ad. (For the best discussion of the controversies about the unity of Daniel, see Eichhorn, Einleitung , sections 612-19, and Buhl in See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche , IV, 449-51.)

VII. Genuineness

With the exception of the neo-Platonist Porphyry, a Greek non-Christian philosopher of the 3rd century ad, the genuineness of the Book of was denied by no one until the rise of the deistic movement in the 17th century. The attacks upon the genuineness of the book have been based upon: (1) The predictions, (2) The miracles, (3) The text, (4) The language, (5) The historical statements.

1. The Predictions

The assailants of the genuineness of Daniel on the ground of the predictions found therein, may be divided into two classes - those who deny prediction in general, and those who claim that the apocalyptic character of the predictions of Daniel is a sufficient proof of their lack of genuineness. The first of these two classes includes properly those only who deny not merely Christianity, but theism; and the answering of them may safely be left to those who defend the doctrines of theism, and particularly of revelation. The second class of assailants is, however, of a different character, since it consists of those who are sincere believers in Christianity and predictive prophecy. They claim, however, that certain characteristics of definiteness and detail, distinguishing the predictive portions of the Book of Daniel from other predictions of the Old Testament, bring the genuineness of Daniel into question.

The kind of prediction found here, ordinarily called apocalyptic, is said to have arisen first in the 2nd century bc, when parts of the Book of Enoch and of the Sibylline Oracles were written; and a main characteristic of an apocalypse is said to be that it records past events as if they were still future, throwing the speaker back into some distant past time, for the purpose of producing on the reader the impression that the book contains real predictions, Thus gaining credence for the statements of the writer and giving consolation to those who are Thus led to believe in the providential foresight of God for those who trust in Him.

Since those who believe that God has spoken unto man by His Son and through the prophets will not be able to set limits to the extent and definiteness of the revelations which He may have seen fit to make through them, nor to prescribe the method, style, time and character of the revelations, this attack on the genuineness of Daniel may safely be left to the defenders of the possibility and the fact of a revelation. One who believes in these may logically believe in the genuineness of Daniel, as far as this objection goes. That there are spurious apocalypses no more proves that all are spurious than that there are spurious gospels or epistles proves that there are no genuine ones. The spurious epistles of Philaris do not prove that Cicero's Letters are not genuine; nor do the false statements of 2 Macc, nor the many spurious Acts of the Apostles, prove that 1 Macc or Luke's Acts of the Apostles is not genuine. Nor does the fact that the oldest portions of the spurious apocalypses which have been preserved to our time are thought to have been written in the 2nd century bc, prove that no apocalypses, either genuine or spurious, were written before that time. There must have been a beginning, a first apocalypse, at some time, if ever. Besides, if we admit that the earliest parts of the Book of Enoch and of the Sibylline Oracles were written about the middle of the 2nd century bc, whereas the Book of Esdras was written about 300 ad, 450 years later, we can see no good literary reason wh Daniel may not have antedated Enoch by 350 years. The period between 500 bc and 150 bc is so almost entirely devoid of all known Hebrew literary productions as to render it exceedingly precarious for anyone to express an opinion as to what works may have characterized that long space of time.

2. The Miracles

Secondly, as to the objections made against the Book of Daniel on the ground of the number or character of the miracles recorded, we shall only say that they affect the whole Christian system, which is full of the miraculous from beginning to end. If we begin to reject the books of the Bible because miraculous events are recorded in them, where indeed shall we stop?

3. The Text

Thirdly, a more serious objection, as far as Daniel itself is concerned, is the claim of Eichhorn that the original text of the Aramaic portion has been so thoroughly tampered with and changed, that we can no longer get at the genuine original composition. We ourselves can see no objection to the belief that these Aramaic portions were written first of all in Hebrew, or even, if you will, in Babylonian; nor to the supposition that some Greek translators modified the meaning in their version either intentionally, or through a misunderstanding of the original. We claim, however, that the composite Aramaic of Daniel agrees in almost every particular of orthography, etymology and syntax, with the Aramaic of the North Semitic inscriptions of the 9th, 8th and 7th centuries bc and of the Egyptian papyri of the 5th century bc, and that the vocabulary of Daniel has an admixture of Hebrew, Babylonian and Persian words similar to that of the papyri of the 5th century bc; whereas, it differs in composition from the Aramaic of the Nabateans, which is devoid of Persian, Hebrew, and Babylonian words, and is full of Arabisms, and also from that of the Palmyrenes, which is full of Greek words, while having but one or two Persian words, and no Hebrew or Babylonian.

As to different recensions, we meet with a similar difficulty in Jeremiah without anyone's impugning on that account the genuineness of the work as a whole. As to interpolations of verses or sections, they are found in the Samaritan recension of the Hebrew text and in the Samaritan and other Targums, as also in certain places in the text of the New Testament, Josephus and many other ancient literary works, without causing us to disbelieve in the genuineness of the rest of their works, or of the works as a whole.

4. The Language

Fourthly, the objections to the genuineness of Daniel based on the presence in it of three Greek names of musical instruments and of a number of Persian words do not seem nearly as weighty today as they did a hundred years ago. The Greek inscriptions at Abu Simbal in Upper Egypt dating from the time of Psamtek Ii in the early part of the 6th century bc, the discovery of the Minoan inscriptions and ruins in Crete, the revelations of the wide commercial relations of the Phoenicians in the early part of the 1st millennium bc, the lately published inscriptions of Sennacherib about his campaigns in Cilicia against the Greek seafarers to which Alexander Poly-histor and Abydenus had referred, telling about his having carried many Greeks captive to Nineveh about 700 bc, the confirmation of the wealth and expensive ceremonies of Nebuchadnezzar made by his own building and other inscriptions, all assure us of the possibility of the use of Greek musical instruments at Babylon in the 6th century bc. This, taken along with the well-known fact that names of articles of commerce and especially of musical instruments go with the thing, leave no room to doubt that a writer of the 6th century bc may have known and used borrowed Greek terms. The Arameans being the great commercial middlemen between Egypt and Greece on the one hand and Babylon and the Orient on the other, and being in addition a subject people, would naturally adopt many foreign words into their vocabulary.

As to the presence of the so-called Persian words in Daniel, it must be remembered that many words which were formerly considered to be such have been found to be Babylonian. As to the others, perhaps all of them may be Median rather than Persian; and if so, the children of Israel who were carried captive to the cities of the Medes in the middle of the 8th century bc, and the, Arameans, many of whom were subject to the Medes, at least from the time of the fall of Nineveh about 607 bc, may well have adopted many words into their vocabulary from the language of their rulers. Daniel was not writing merely for the Jews who had been carried captive by Nebuchadnezzar, but for all Israelites throughout the world. Hence, he would properly use a language which his scattered readers would understand rather than the purer idiom of Judea. Most of his foreign terms are names of officials, legal terms, and articles of clothing, for which there were no suitable terms existing in the earlier Hebrew or Aramaic There was nothing for a writer to do but to invent new terms, or to transfer the current foreign words into his native language. The latter was the preferable method and the one which he adopted.

5. The Historical Statements

Fifthly, objections to the genuineness of the Book of Daniel are made on the ground of the historical misstatements which are said to be found in it. These may be classed as: (1) chronological, (2) geographical, and (3) various.

(1) Chronological Objections

The first chronological objection is derived from  Daniel 1:1 , where it is said that Nebuchadnezzar made an expedition against Jerusalem in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, whereas Jeremiah seems to imply that the expedition was made in the 4th year of that king. As Daniel was writing primarily for the Jews of Babylon, he would naturally use the system of dating that was employed there; and this system differed in its method of denoting the 1st year of a reign from that used by the Egyptians and by the Jews of Jerusalem for whom Jeremiah wrote.

The second objection is derived from the fact that Daniel is said ( Daniel 1:21 ) to have lived unto the 1st year of Cyrus the king, whereas in  Daniel 10:1 he is said to have seen a vision in the 3rd year of Cyrus, king of Persia. These statements are easily reconciled by supposing that in the former case it is the 1st year of Cyrus as king of Babylon, and in the second, the 3rd year of Cyrus as king of Persia.

The third chronological objection is based on  Daniel 6:28 , where it is said that Daniel prospered in the kingdom of Darius and in the kingdom of Cyrus the Persian. This statement is harmonized with the facts revealed by the monuments and with the statements of the book itself by supposing that Darius reigned synchronously with Cyrus, but as sub-king under him.

The fourth objection is based on  Daniel 8:1 , where Daniel is said to have seen a vision in the third year of Belshazzar the king. If we suppose that Belshazzar was king of the Chaldeans while his father was king of Babylon, just as Cambyses was king of Babylon while his father, Cyrus, was king of the lands, or as Nabonidus Ii seems to have been king of Harran while his father, Nabonidus I, was king of Babylon, this statement will harmonize with the other statements made with regard to Belshazzar.

(2) Geographical Objections

As to the geographical objections, three only need be considered as important. The first is, that Shushan seems to be spoken of in  Daniel 7:2 as subject to Babylon, whereas it is supposed by some to have been at that time subject to Media. Here we can safely rest upon the opinion of Winckler, that at the division of the Assyrian dominions among the allied Medes and Babylonians, Elam became subject to Babylon rather than to Media. If, however, this opinion could be shown not to be true, we must remember that Daniel is said to have been at Shushan in a vision.

The second geographical objection is based on the supposition that Nebuchadnezzar would not have gone against Jerusalem, leaving an Egyptian garrison at Carchemish in his rear, Thus endangering his line of communication and a possible retreat to Babylon. This objection has no weight, now that the position of Carchemish has been shown to be, not at Ciressium, as formerly conjectured, but at Jirabis, 150 miles farther up the Euphrates. Carchemish would have cut off a retreat to Nineveh, but was far removed from the direct line of communication with Babylon.

The third geographical objection is derived from the statement that Darius placed 120 satraps in, or over, all his kingdom. The objection rests upon a false conception of the meaning of satrap and of the extent of a satrapy, there being no reason why a sub-king under Darius may not have had as many satraps under him as Sargon of Assyria had governors and deputies under him; and the latter king mentions 117 peoples and countries over which he appointed his deputies to rule in his place.

(3) Other Objections

Various other objections to the genuineness of Daniel have been made, the principal being those derived from the supposed non-existence of Kings Darius the Mede and Belshazzar the Chaldean, from the use of the word Chaldean to denote the wise men of Babylon, and from the silence of other historical sources as to many of the events recorded in Daniel. The discussion of the existence of Belshazzar and Darius the Mede will be found under Belshazzar and Darius . As to the argument from silence in general, it may be said that it reduces itself in fact to the absence of all reference to Daniel on the monuments, in the Book of Ecclus, and in the post-exilic literature. As to the latter books it proves too much; for Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, as well as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, refer to so few of the older canonical books and earlier historical persons and events, that it is not fair to expect them to refer to Daniel - at least, to use their not referring to him or his book as an argument against the existence of either before the time when they were written. As to Ecclesiasticus, we might have expected him to mention Daniel or the Song of three Children; but who knows what reasons Ben Sira may have had for not placing them in his list of Hebrew heroes? Perhaps, since he held the views which later characterized the Sadducees, he may have passed Daniel by because of his views on the resurrection and on angels. Perhaps he failed to mention any of the four companions because none of their deeds had been wrought in Palestine; or because their deeds exalted too highly the heathen monarchies to which the Jews were subject. Or, more likely, the book may have been unknown to him, since very few copies at best of the whole Old Testament can have existed in his time, and the Book of Daniel may not have gained general currency in Palestine before it was made so preëminent by the fulfillment of its predictions in the Maccabean times.

It is not satisfactory to say that Ben Sira did not mention Daniel and his companions, because the stories concerning them had not yet been imbedded in a canonical book, inasmuch as he does place Simon, the high priest, among the greatest of Israel's great men, although he is not mentioned in any canonical book. In conclusion, it may be said, that while it is impossible for us to determine why Ben Sira does not mention Daniel and his three companions among his worthies, if their deeds were known to him, it is even more impossible to understand how these stories concerning them cannot merely have arisen but have been accepted as true, between 180 bc, when Ecclesiasticus is thought to have been written, and 169 bc, when, according to 1 Maccabees, Matthias, the first of the Asmoneans, exhorted his brethren to follow the example of the fortitude of Ananias and his friends.

As to the absence of all mention of Daniel on the contemporary historical documents of Babylon and Persia, such mention is not to be expected, inasmuch as those documents give the names of none who occupied positions such as, or similar to, those which Daniel is said to have filled.

VIII. Interpretation

Questions of the interpretation of particular passages may be looked for in the commentaries and special works. As to the general question of the kind of prophecy found in the Book of Daniel, it has already been discussed above under the caption of "Genuineness." As to the interpretation of the world monarchies which precede the monarchy of the Messiah Prince, it may be said, however, that the latest discoveries, ruling out as they do a separate Median empire that included Babylon, support the view that the four monarchies are the Babylonian, the Persian, the Greek, and the Roman. According to this view, Darius the Mede was only a sub-king under Cyrus the Persian. Other interpretations have been made by selecting the four empires from those of Assyria, Babylonia, Media, Persia, Medo-Persia, Alexander, the Seleucids, the Romans, and the Mohammedans. The first and the last of these have generally been excluded from serious consideration. The main dispute is as to whether the 4th empire was that of the Seleucids, or that of the Romans, the former view being held commonly by those who hold to the composition of in the 2nd century bc, and the latter by those who hold to the traditional view that it was written in the 6th century bc.

IX. Doctrines

It is universally admitted that the teachings of Daniel with regard to angels and the resurrection are more explicit than those found elsewhere in the Old Testament. As to angels, Daniel attributes to them names, ranks, and functions not mentioned by others. It has become common in certain quarters to assert that these peculiarities of Daniel are due to Persian influences. The Babylonian monuments, however, have revealed the fact that the Babylonians believed in both good and evil spirits with names, ranks, and different functions. These spirits correspond in several respects to the Hebrew angels, and may well have afforded Daniel the background for his visions. Yet, in all such matters, it must be remembered that Daniel purports to give us a vision, or revelation; and a revelation cannot be bound by the ordinary laws of time and human influence.

As to the doctrine of the resurrection, it is generally admitted that Daniel adds some new and distinct features to that which is taught in the other canonical books of the Old Testament. But it will be noted that he does not dwell upon this doctrine, since he mentions it only in  Daniel 12:2 . The materials for his doctrine are to be found in  Isaiah 26:14 ,  Isaiah 26:21 and   Isaiah 66:24;  Ezekiel 37:1-14 , and in  Job 14:12;  Job 19:25;  Hosea 6:2; 1 Ki 17; 2 Ki 4, and  2 Kings 8:1-5 , as well as in the use of the words for sleep and awakening from sleep, or from the dust, for everlasting life or everlasting contempt in  Isaiah 26:19;  Psalm 76:6;  Psalm 13:3;  Psalm 127:2;  Deuteronomy 31:16;  2 Samuel 7:12;  1 Kings 1:21;  Job 7:21 , and  Jeremiah 20:11;  Jeremiah 23:40 . The essential ideas and phraseology of Daniel's teachings are found in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. The first two parts of the books of Enoch and 2 Maccabees make much of the resurrection; but on the other hand, Ecclesiastes seems to believe not even in the immortality of the soul, and Wisdom and 1 Maccabees do not mention a resurrection of the body.

That the post-exilic prophets do not mention a resurrection does not prove that they knew nothing about Daniel any more than it proves that they knew nothing about Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.

There are resemblances, it is true, between the teachings of Daniel with regard to the resurrection and those of the Avesta. But so are there between his doctrines and the ideas of the Egyptians, which had existed for millenniums before his time. Besides there is no proof of any derivation of doctrines from the Persians by the writers of the canonical books of the Jews; and, as we have seen above, both the ideas and verbiage of Daniel are to be found in the generally accepted early Hebrew literature. And finally, this attempt to find a natural origin for all Biblical ideas leaves out of sight the fact that the Scriptures contain revelations from God, which transcend the ordinary course of human development. To a Christian, therefore, there can be no reason for believing that the doctrines of Daniel may not have been promulgated in the 6th century bc.

Commentaries and Introductions

The best commentaries on Daniel from a conservative point of view are those by Calvin, Moses Stuart, Keil, Zöckler, Strong in Lange's Bibelwerk , Fuller in the Speaker's Commentary , Thomson in the Pulpit Commentary , and Wright, Daniel and His Critics . The best defenses of Daniel's authenticity and genuineness are Hengstenberg, Authenticity of the Book of Daniel , Tregelles, Defense of the Authenticity , Auberlen, The Prophecies of Daniel , Fuller, Essay on the Authenticity of Daniel , Pusey, Daniel the Prophet (still the best of all), C. H. H. Wright, Daniel and His Critics , Kennedy, The Book of Daniel from the Christian Standpoint , Joseph Wilson, Daniel , and Sir Robert Anderson, Daniel in the Critics' Den . One should consult also Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia , Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel , and Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament . For English readers, the radical school is best represented by Driver in his Literature of the Old Testament and in his Daniel  ; by Bevan, The Book of Daniel  ; by Prince, Commentary on Daniel , and by Cornill in his Introduction to the Old Testament .

X. Apocryphal Additions

In the Greek translations of Daniel three or four pieces are added which are not found in the original Hebrew or Aramaic text as it has come down to us. These are The Prayer of Azarias, The Song of the three Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. These additions have all been rejected from the Canon by the Protestant churches because they are not contained in the Hebrew Canon. In the Church of England they are "read for example of life and instruction of manners." The Song of three Children was "ordered in the rubric of the first Prayer Book of Edward Vi (AD 1549) to be used in Lent as a responsory to the Old Testament Lesson at the Morning Prayer." It contains the Prayer of Azarias from the midst of the fiery furnace, and the song of praise by the three children for their deliverance; the latter being couched largely in phrases borrowed from  Psalm 148:1-14 . Susanna presents to us the story of a virtuous woman who resisted the seductive attempts of two judges of the elders of the people, whose machinations were exposed through the wisdom of Daniel who convicted them of false witness by the evidence of their own mouth, so that they were put to death according to the law of Moses; and from that day forth Daniel was held in great reputation in the sight of the people. Bel and the Dragon contains three stories. The first relates how Daniel destroyed the image of Bel which Nebuchadnezzar worshipped, by showing by means of ashes strewn on the floor of the temple that the offerings to Bel were devoured by the priests who came secretly into the temple by night. The second tells how Daniel killed the Dragon by throwing lumps of mingled pitch, fat and hair into his mouth, so causing the Dragon to burst asunder. The third gives a detailed account of the lions' den, stating that there were seven lions and that Daniel lived in the den six days, being sustained by broken bread and pottage which a prophet named Habakkuk brought to him through the air, an angel of the Lord having taken him by the arm and borne him by the hair of his head and through the vehemency of his spirit set him in Babylon over the den, into which he dropped the food for Daniel's use.

Literature

For commentaries on the additions to the Book of Daniel, see the works on Daniel cited above, and also The Apocrypha by Churton and others; the volume on the Apocrypha in Lange's Commentary by Bissell; "The Apocrypha" by Wace in the Speaker's Commentary , and Schürer, History of the Jewish People .