Book of Daniel

For other uses, see Book of Daniel (disambiguation).

The Book of Daniel, written in Hebrew and Aramaic, is a book in both the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the Christian Old Testament. The book is set during the Babylonian Captivity, a period when Jews were deported and exiled to Babylon. The book revolves around the figure of Daniel, an Israelite who becomes an adviser to Nebuchadnezzar, the ruler of Babylon from 605 BC - 562 BC.

The book has two distinct parts: a series of narratives and four apocalyptic visions. Three of the narratives involve Daniel, who has a gift for interpreting the meaning of dreams and divine omens. Two other narratives feature Israelites who have been condemned for their piety being miraculously saved from execution. In the second part of the book, the author, in his later role as prophet reveals and partially interprets a set of visions which are described in the first person.

The dating and authorship of Daniel has been a matter of great debate. The traditional view holds that the work was written by a prophet named Daniel who lived during the sixth century BC. A more recent view maintains that the book was written or redacted in the mid-second century BC and that most of the predictions of the book refer to events that had already occurred.

Literary structure

William H. Shea observed that the book of Daniel was composed as a double chiasm, a literary structure of Hebrew poetry. Parts labeled A, A', A" and A"' are parallel, dealing with a similar theme — Kingdom Prophecies. Parts B, B', B" and B"' are parallel sections that come under the topic of trials of God's people. The parallel C, C', C" and C"' concern the dealings of kings. The focal point of the book is indicated by the lone topic (D) — the Messiah.

The literary structure indicates that the author put a lot of thought into writing the book. For instance, Chapter six (B'), which ought to follow chapter seven (A') chronologically, is put in parallel with chapter 3 (B) because they both deal with the issue for God's people of whom to worship. And Chapter 5 (C') should be after chapter 8 (A"), but it is put in parallel with Chapter 4 (C) where the kings are faced with choosing to accept God or not.

The first chiasm is mostly in Aramaic. The literary structure explains why the author chose to end the Aramaic section with chapter 7 rather than chapter 6 — the last of the narratives.

Narratives in Daniel

The first part, the first six chapters, comprises a series of lightly connected court tales, connected instructive narratives, or miracle tales. The first story is in Hebrew; then Aramaic is used from ch. 2:4, beginning with the speech of the "Chaldeans" through chapter seven. Hebrew is then used from chapter eight through chapter twelve. Three additional sections are preserved only in the Septuagint, and are considered apocryphal by Protestant Christians and Jews, and deuterocanonical by Catholic and Orthodox Christians.

1. After being taken captive to Babylon, Daniel and friends choose to obey God and not consume the non-kosher court diet. After a trial period they were judged 10 times better than all others. The use of the number 10 appears in prophecy as being a time of judgement.

2. Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a idol made of four metals and a mixture of iron and clay. The image is destroyed by a rock that then dominates the world. Daniel interprets the idols composition as a series of successive empires that end with the set up of God's kingdom. The emperors' creation of a statue of his image and the adoration of the same appears in revelations.

3. The story of the fiery furnace, in which Ananias (Hananiah/Shadrach), Azariah (Abednego), and Mishael (Meshach) are accused of refusing to bow to the emperors golden statue and are thrown into a furnace. The reason that they were accused is that Daniel had just been promoted and was the emperors favorite which made him untouchable. His companions were vulnerable, while Daniel could not be accused, the three of them could. God preserves them from the flames, setting a precedent for the last days.

4. Nebuchadnezzar tells of his dreams of a tall tree, and his pride led to losing his mind. Humble acceptance of God led to regaining his mind. The recurring image of a tree representing a kingdom appears at least three times in scripture.

5. Belshazzar's Feast, where Belshazzar insults God and Daniel interprets the writing on the wall mene mene tekel upharsin

6. Daniel in the lions' den

7. Susanna and the elders (apocryphal to Jewish and Protestant canons)

8. Bel and the Dragon (apocryphal to Jewish and Protestant canons)

Protestant and Jewish editions omit the sections that do not exist in the Masoretic text: in addition to the two chapters containing accounts of Daniel and Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon, a lengthy passage inserted into the middle of Daniel 3; this addition contains the prayer of Azariah while the three youths were in the fiery furnace, a brief account of the angel who met them in the furnace, and the hymn of praise they sang when they realized they were delivered. The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children are retained in the Septuagint and in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholic canons; the "Song of the Three Holy Youths" is part of the Matins service in Orthodoxy, and of Lauds on Sundays and feast days in Catholicism.

The narratives are set in the period of the Babylonian captivity, first at the court of Nebuchadnezzar and later at the court of his successors Belshazzar and a 'King Darius' of unclear identity (see 'Historical Accuracy' and 'Date' below). Daniel is praised in Easton's Bible Dictionary, 1897, as "the historian of the Captivity, the writer who alone furnishes any series of events for that dark and dismal period during which the harp of Israel hung on the trees that grew by the Euphrates. His narrative may be said in general to intervene between Kings and Chronicles on the one hand and Ezra on the other, or (more strictly) to fill out the sketch which the author of the Chronicles gives in a single verse in his last chapter: 'And them that had escaped from the sword carried he (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar) away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia' (2 Chr. 36:20)."

Daniel appears as an interpreter of dreams and visions in these early narratives. He appears later in life as a prophet with his early experiences serving as the basis for his future ministry.

Apocalyptic visions in Daniel

The second part, the remaining six chapters, are visionary, an early example of apocalyptic literature, in which the author, now speaking in the first person, reveals a vision entrusted to him alone. The historical setting of the first chapters does not appear, except in briefest form, consisting of regnal dates. This section also consists of text from two languages, part (to 7:28) written in Aramaic, the rest (chapters 8-12) in Hebrew. The apocalyptic part of Daniel consists of three visions and one lengthened prophetic communication, mainly having to do with the destiny of Israel:

1. The vision in the first year of Belshazzar the king of Babylon (7:1) concerning four great beasts (7:3) representing four future kings (7:17) or kingdoms (7:23), the fourth of which devours the whole earth, treading it down and crushing it (7:23); this fourth kingdom is represented by a beast with seven heads and 10 crowns/horns, that is, six heads with one crown and one with four crowns, an empire, the last persom described arises out of the fourth kingdom that subdues three of the ten kings (7:24), speaks against the Most High and the saints of the Most High, and intends to change the times and the law (7:25); after a time and times and half a time (three and a half years), this person is judged and his dominion is taken away (7:26); then, the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven are given to the people of the saints of the Most High (7:27)
2. The vision in the third year of Belshazzar concerning a ram and a male goat (8:1-27); Daniel interprets the goat as the "kingdom of Yawan" that is, the Hellenistic kingdom (8:21)
3. The vision in first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus (9:1) concerning seventy weeks, or seventy "sevens", apportioned for the history of the Israelites and of Jerusalem (9:24)
4. A lengthy vision in the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, regarding conflicts between the "King of the North" and the "King of the South" (10:1 - 12:13)

The prophetic and eschatological visions of Daniel, with those of Ezekiel and Isaiah, are the scriptural inspiration for much of the apocalyptic ideology and symbolism of the Qumran community's Dead Sea scrolls and the early literature of Christianity. The purpose behind the latter revelations are related to the establishment of Daniel's prominence in later revelations. That is, a prophetic ministry does not ocurr in a vacuum, the early events in his life serve to establish his later role as a prophet. The latter prophecies serve the purpose of confirming in the near future the basis for the acceptance of his final prophecies. "Daniel's clear association with the Maccabean Uprising and those against Rome are a possible factor in the eventual downgrading of it, to include a redefinition of the role of prophet, keeping in mind that at roughly this time the Hebrew canon was being evaluated and adopted.(Eisenman 1997, p 19f).

In Daniel are the first references to a "kingdom of God", and the most overt reference to the resurrection of the dead in the Tanakh.

Historical accuracy

Daniel is a singular example of the difficulties involved in the dating of ancient manuscripts. Indeed, Josephus himself describes the difficulties in cross-referencing multi-sourced documents. Some modern historians of Babylonia or Achaemenid Persia do not adduce the narratives of Daniel as source materials, as they consider some statements in Daniel to be in conflict with other historical accounts (though the dearth of actual records from this time prevent a clear proof either way). However, a major critic of Daniel, H. H. Rowley considered chapter 11 as "a first-class historical source for that period"Raymond Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, Yale: 1929, p. 199</ref>.

The four objections given below represent, in order of significance, the major instances of error historians generally find in Daniel.

Identity of "Darius the Mede"

The personage whom Daniel describes as taking control of Babylon after Belshazzar is deposed is named as Darius the Mede, who rules over Babylon in chapters 6 and 9. Daniel reports that Darius was 'about 62 years old' when he was 'made king over Babylon.'

'Darius the Mede, son of Ahasuerus' is a figure unknown by that name outside the Book of Daniel and Flavius Josephus, the only other source to offer any other detail.

As Darius the Mede is unknown to any other source, many historians view his presence in Daniel as simply a mistake of a much later author, who has perhaps inadvertently placed the Persian King Darius I at an earlier date than he actually reigned. They criticize the notion of a separate Mede rule by pointing out that the Persians at that point in history had control over the Medes, and that the contemporary cuneiform documents, such as the Cyrus Cylinder and the Babylonian Chronicle, leaves no room for any Mede occupation of Babylon before the Persians under Cyrus conquered it.

Among writers trying to maintain an early date for the Book of Daniel, there are several interpretations of the identity of Darius the Mede. On the difficulty of ascertaining the correct view, H.H. Rowley in Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel admits: "[T]he references to Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel have long been recognized as providing the most serious historical problems in the book." His view concludes that Darius is just another name for Cyrus the Great, who captured Babylon on October 15th, 539 BC. Another view, promoted by John Whitcomb (though first proposed by Babelon in 1883) in his 1959 book, Darius the Mede says that Darius is another name for the historical figure of Gubaru (sometimes spelled as Ugbaru). The third view (also that of Syncellus) sees Darius as another name for Astyages, the last Mede king who was ultimately deposed by Cyrus. Josephus makes Darius the son of Astyages, and uncle of Cyrus. Several scholars in the past (including Calvin, Ussher and John Gill) as well as in more recent times (eg. Keil and Delitzsch Vol.6, p.546-548) have thus attempted to identify 'Darius the Mede' with a certain Cyaxares II, who is mentioned as having the same relationships by Xenophon

"Darius the Mede" as Cyrus the Great: Unlike Gubaru or Astyages, Cyrus the Great of Persia was the king who took over the Babylonian Empire. Cyrus was also married to a Mede, and himself had Mede blood. An analysis of variant early texts, particularly the Septuagint, reveals that the names "Darius" (DRYWS in Hebrew) and "Cyrus" (KRWS) are reversed in 11:1, and may have been miscopied elsewhere. The appellation "Mede" (Heb. MADAI) may have been used as an ethnic term to apply to Persians as well, who were of the same race. In addition, Dan. 6:28, "So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian," could also be translated, "So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus the Persian."

"Darius the Mede" as Gubaru/Ugbaru: Gubaru is the historical general known to have actually led the army that captured Babylon (see Pierre Briant below), according to Nabonidus. It is possible that Cyrus would have rewarded Gubaru with a regional governorship for capturing the capital of the Babylonian Empire and virtually ending the war. Furthermore, under the first translation of Dan. 6:28, Darius ruled during the reign of Cyrus, and Dan. 5:31 states that Darius the Mede received the kingdom" of the Chaldeans.

Also, verse 1 of "Bel and the Dragon" (chapter 14 in Greek Daniel) references Astyages the Mede, who was indeed the last king before Cyrus; but nearly the same verse is added in the Greek LXX after the end of chapter 6, only reading "Darius" in place of "Astyages". ( LXX Dan. 14:1 and Dan 6:29)

Belshazzar

For many years Belshazzar (Akk. bêl-šar-usur), was an enigma for historians. The book of Daniel states that he was “king” (Ar. מֶלֶך) the night that Babylon fell (chap. 5) and says that his “father” (Ar. אַב) was Nebuchadnezzar (5:2, 11, 13, 18). Prior to 1854, archeologists and historians knew nothing of Belshazzar outside the book of Daniel. Indeed, while the deuterocanonical book of Baruch (Baruch 1:11, 12) and the writings of Josephus (Antiquities 10.11.2-4 §231-247) do mention Belshazzar, the references to Belshazzar in these works are ultimately dependent on the book of Daniel (Collins, p. 32). Both Xenophon (Cyropaedia, 7.5.28-30) and Herodotus (The Histories, 1.191) recount the fall of Babylon to Cyrus the Great, yet neither of these writers give the name of the king of Babylon. Additionally, both Berossus’ and Ptolemy’s king lists have Nabonidus (Akk. Nabû-nā'id) as the last king of Babylon with no mention of Belshazzar. All of this led Ferdinand Hitzig to claim in 1850 that Belshazzar was a "figment of the Jewish writer's imagination."

From that time new evidence from Babylon has verified the existence of Belshazzar as well as his co-regency during the absence of his father, Nabonidus, in Temâ. For example, In the Nabonidus Cylinder, Nabonidus petitions the god Sin as follows: “And as for Belshazzar my firstborn son, my own child, let the fear of your great divinity be in his heart, and may he commit no sin; may he enjoy happiness in life". In addition, The Verse Account of Nabonidus (British Museum tablet 38299) states, “[Nabonidus] entrusted the army (?) to his oldest son, his first born, the troops in the country he ordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship (Akk. šarrûtu) to him, and, himself, he started out for a long journey. The military forces of Akkad marching with him, he turned to Temâ deep in the west” (Col. II, lines 18 - 29. 18). In line with the statement that Nabonidus "entrusted the kingship" to Belshazzar in his absence, there is evidence that Belshazzar's name was used with his father's in oath formulas, that he was able to pass edicts, lease farmlands, and receive the "royal privilege" to eat the food offered to the gods.

The available information concerning Belshazzar's co-regency goes silent after Nabonidus' fourteenth year. According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Nabonidus was back from Temâ by his seventeenth year and celebrated the New Year’s Festival (Akk. Akitu). Whether Belshazzar continued his co-regency with his father after his return or not cannot be demonstrated from the available documents. Some have claimed that the non-observance of the Akitu during Nabonidus' absence demonstrates that Belshazzar should not be called "king" since it shows that he could not officiate over the festival. However, The Verse Account of Nabonidus says, "Nabonidus said: 'I shall build a temple for him (the Moon god Sin)...till I have achieved this, till I have obtained what is my desire, I shall omit all festivals, I shall order even the New Year's festival to cease!'" Thus, the halting of the Akitu seems to have been done by the king's command rather an inability on the part of Belshazzar. Some have also stated that he should not be called "king" as he is never designated as such in the available documents. While it is true that none of the documents explicitly call Belshazzar "king," the preceding paragraph shows that the documents do show Belshazzar acting in the capacity of king. Further, the Aramaic term מלך (mlk, king) could be used to translate titles of lesser high ranking officials as can be seen in the case of a 9th century BC Akkadian/Aramaic bilinguagal inscription found at Tel Fekheriyeh in 1979 which reads "king" for the Akkadian "governor".

No known extrabiblical text indicates a blood relation between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Historians have objected to this aspect of the record in Daniel. There were several rulers over Babylon between the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the rulership of Nabonidus and Belshazzar. Many scholars have attributed the lack of mention of these rulers as indicating the author mistakenly thought that the two rulerships were consecutive. The Jewish Encyclopedia, holding to a later date of the book (see 'Date'), supposed that "during the long period of oral tradition the unimportant kings of Babylon might easily have been forgotten, and the last king, who was vanquished by Cyrus, would have been taken as the successor of the well-known Nebuchadnezzar." Based on this reasoning, historians have considered the reference to Belshazzar's relationship to Nebuchadnezzar simply an error based on the above misconception.

Madness of Nebuchadnezzar

A third significant objection by historians is the account of the insanity suffered by Nebuchadnezzar found in the fourth chapter of Daniel. In the Dead Sea Scrolls a fragment known as The Prayer of Nabonidus (4QPrNab, sometimes given as 4QOrNab) discusses a disease suffered by Nabonidus, and it is thought (1) that the insanity of Nebuchadnezzar discussed by Daniel is actually evidence that an oral tradition of one strange disease was actually transmogrified through retelling into a tale mistakenly recorded by Daniel. Note, however, that no evidence is produced that any "oral tale" was "transmogrified" in such a manner.

There are a number of disceprancies between The Prayer of Nabonidus and the account of Nebuchanezzar's madness, which would discourage an identification of the two:

1. Nebuchadnezzar's "affliction" was of the mind whereas Nabonidus' was 'a burning' or inflammation of the skin.
2. Nebuchadnezzar's was a punishment from God for sin, there is no indication that such was the case for Nabonidus -- his was supposedly for idolatry.
3. In the case of Nabonidus the "exorcist pardoned my sin" whereas in the case of Nebuchadnezzar he "lifted up my eyes unto heaven and mine understanding returned unto me." (KJV)--i.e., when he recognized (accepted) the sovereignty of God.
4. Nabonidus' condition was cured by an unnamed Jewish exorcist whereas Nebuchadnezzar's recovery required no human agent.
5. Nebuchadnezzar's illness came while he was in Babylon; while that of Nabonidus was in Tema.
6. Finally, many of the words and phrases of the prayer have to be supplied "on a conjectural basis" because they are missing in the original fragment in order to make it sound more like the case of Nebuchadnezzar. [Archer, Gleason L. "Daniel," Expositor's. Vol. 7 (Zondervan, 1985): 15; he cites Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. (Tyndale, 1969): 1118-9]

Date of Nebuchadnezzar's first siege of Jerusalem

The Book of Daniel begins by stating:

In the third year of the reign of Jehoi'akim king of Judah came Nebuchadnez'zar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoi'akim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god. (King James Version)

This appears to be a description of the first siege of Jerusalem in 597 BC, which occurred in the twelfth year of Jehoiakim and into the reign of his son Jehoiachin. (see 2 Kings 24, Daniel 5:1-5, and 2 Chronicles 36). The third year of Jehoiakim (606 BC), saw Nebuchadnezzar not yet King of Babylon, and the Egyptians still dominant in the region. Advocates of an early date of Daniel generally explain this by positing an additional, otherwise unmentioned, siege of Jerusalem in 605 BC, shortly after the Battle of Carchemish.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego

Dan. 1:6-7 records that Daniel was accompanied in the courts by three other Jews: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. The chief officials gave them new Babylonian names: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, respectively. These were the same three youths who refused to worship an image of Nebuchadnezzar, which resulted in their subjection to the death penalty (they were, however, miraculously saved by God; see the entry on Fiery furnace).

According to Professor William Shea (1982), a clay prism was found in Babylon with five columns of text listing various officials of the government. Three of the officials are listed as "Hanunu - commander of the king's merchants," "Meshaku-Marduk - official to Nebuchadnezzar," and "Arbenebo - official of the royal prince." Dan. 2:49 states, "Moreover, at Daniel's request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court." Some conservative Christian writers have therefore connected Hanunu with Hananiah, Meshaku with Meshach, and Arbenebo with Abednego; however, it is unclear why Hananiah would be referenced by his Hebrew name and not his Babylonian one (Shadrach), and there is no other evidence to connect these figures with the ones mentioned in the Book of Daniel.

Dating and content

Traditionally, the Book of Daniel was believed to have been written by its namesake during and shortly after the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century BC. Although this view continues to be held by traditionalist Christians and Jews, for the following two reasons; The citing of Antiochus as having desecrated the altar around 164 BC, and the assumption that Daniel was written as an institutional reaction to the incident. Recent innovations in methodology have established the following; The citing of Antiochus as being the one whose abomination causes desolation is not accurate, there was no desolation. The precedent was set by Manassah when he set up idols on temple grounds which resulted in God's desolation of Jerusalem, which is later related in two prophecies before the fall of Jerusalem. The details that are presented in the narrative can only be those of someone in Daniel's position. Josephus states that upon Alexander the Great's approach, a small party met him outside of Jerusalem, telling him that his presence was ordained by scripture. Another item is that of assuming that the writing of Daniel took place several centuries after the events. While the rapid dissemination of the early gospels is not disputed, Jeremiah's rewriting of his prophecies related in scripture is. There is an apparent double standard which is yet another source of contention.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes

Most modern scholars find that the prophecies in the Book of Daniel reflect the persecutions of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC), and his desecration of the altar as foretold by Daniel, consequently date its composition to that period. In particular, the vision in Chapter 11, which focuses on a series of wars between the "King of the North" and the "King of the South," is generally interpreted as a record of Levantine history from the time of Alexander the Great down to the era of Antiochus IV, with the "Kings of the North" being the Seleucid kings of Syria and the "Kings of the South" being the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt. This conclusion was first drawn by the philosopher Porphyry of Tyros, a third century pagan and Neoplatonist, whose fifteen-volume work Against the Christians is only known to us through Jerome's reply.

Four Kingdoms

Many biblical scholars assume that the four kingdoms beginning with Nebuchadnezzar, mentioned in the "statue vision" of chapter 2, are identical to the four "end-time" kingdoms of the vision in chapter 7, and usually consider them to represent (1) Babylonia, (2) Media, (3) Persia, and (4) Greece (Collins). Some conservative Christians (eg. Young) identify them as (1) the Neo-Babylonian empire, (2) the Medo-Persian empire (3) the Hellenistic empire of Alexander and his successors, and (4) the Roman empire. Others (eg. Stuart, Lagrange) have advocated the following schema: (1) the Neo-Babylonian, (2) the Medo-Persian, (3) the short-lived rule of Alexander, and (4) the rival Diadochi, viz. Egypt and Syria.

There are serious difficulties in assigning Media and Persia to different world empires. Daniel, in his first reference to the empire that succeeds Babyon, calls it the "Medes and the Persians" (Daniel 6:28: "Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians." Daniel also quotes the king and the subordinate rulers calling their own kingdom the "Medes and Persians: (: Daniel 6:8, 12, 15), while Cyrus was married to a Mede and himself had Mede blood, making the Medes and Persians merged kingdoms by marriage at the time of the conquest of Babylon. However, as noted previously, a late author's apparent reliance on Jeremiah may explain this.

Language

The curious bilingual divide of Daniel - Chapters 2 through 7 in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew - has invited speculation. One of the most frequent explanations is that the entire book (excepting 9:4-20) was originally written in Aramaic, with portions translated into Hebrew, possibly to increase acceptance (Hartman and Di Lella, 1990, p. 408) - many Aramaisms in the Hebrew text are clarified on the hypothesis of an inexact initial translation into Hebrew.

According to John Collins in his 1993 commentary, Daniel, Hermennia Commentary, the Aramaic in Daniel is of a later form than that used in the Samaria correspondence, but slightly earlier than the form used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, meaning that the Aramaic chapters 2-6 must have been written earlier in the Hellenistic period than the rest of the book, with the vision in chapter 7 being the only Aramaic portion dating to the time of Antiochus. The Hebrew portion is, for all intents and purposes, identical to that found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, suggesting a second century BC date for the Hebrew chapters 1 and 8-12.

Loan words

Three Greek words used within the text which have long been considered evidence for a late dating of Daniel. All three are used for musical instruments. The existence of the Greek word 'symphonia' was cited by Rowlings as having its earliest use in second century BC, but it has subsequently been shown that Pythagoras used the term to denote an instrument, while its use to refer to a group performing together is found in the 'Hymni Homerica, ad Mercurium 51'; both instances date from the sixth century BC, the supposed setting of Daniel. Despite this, there is no evidence for the use of these Greek terms in Mesopotamia in the Neo-Babylonian period.

There are also nineteen Persian loan-words in the book, most of them having to do with governmental positions.

Use of the word 'Chaldeans'

The book of Daniel uses the term "Chaldean" to refer both to an ethnic group, and to astrologers in general. According to Montgomery and Hammer, Daniel's use of the word 'Chaldean' to refer to astrologers in general is an anachronism, as during the Neo-Babylonian and early Persian periods (when Daniel is said to have lived), it referred only to an ethnicity. (Compare the later Chaldean Oracles).

Unity of Daniel

Whereas almost all scholars conclude a second century dating of the book in its final form, scholarship varies greatly regarding the unity of Daniel. Many scholars, finding portions of the book dealing with themes they do not believe fit with the time of Antiochus, conclude separate authors for different portions of the book. Included in this group are Barton, L. Berthold, Collins, and H. L. Ginsberg. Some historians who support that the book was a unified whole include J.A. Montgomery, S.R. Driver, R. H. Pfeiffer, and H.H. Rowley in the latter's aptly titled essay "The Unity of the Book of Daniel" (1952). The question of Daniel's apparent disunity can be solved by taking into account that the early narrative represents the perspective of a young member of the court, and that later portions of Daniel represent the perspective of an older man with the mindset of a prophet. Those who hold to a unified Daniel claim that their opponents fail to find any consensus in their various theories of where divisions exist. Montgomery is particularly harsh to his colleagues, stating that the proliferation of theories without agreement showed a "bankruptcy of criticism." They also charge that composite theories fail to account for the consistent thematic portrayal of Daniel's life throughout the book of Daniel.

Christian uses of Daniel

As mentioned above, the prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children from the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel are widely used in Orthodox and Catholic prayer.

The various episodes in the first half of the book are used by Christians as moral stories, and are often seen to foreshadow events in the gospels.

The apocalyptic section is important to Christians for the image of the "Son of Man" (Dan. 7:13). According to the gospels, Jesus used this title as his preferred name for himself. The connection with Daniel's vision (as opposed to the usage in the Book of Ezekiel) is made explicit in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (Matt 26:64; Mk 14:62). Christians see this as a direct claim by Jesus that he is the Messiah.

According to the Gospels, Jesus indicates that some of the prophecies of Daniel will be fulfilled in the Last days right before the Resurrection of the dead and Judgement day, as the text of Daniel itself indicates.

According to modern-day scholars, Daniel 12:2 is the earliest clear reference in the Old Testament to the resurrection of the dead (Hartman and Di Lella, 1990, p. 419), with many of "your countrymen" awakening from death, some to eternal life and some to eternal disgrace. The notion of resurrection was to be generalized in the New Testament and Christian doctrine.

The importance of Daniel's visions

Daniel's presence in the royal court exposes him to the running of an empire. His knowledge , as in the case of other prophets, serves as the basis for his revelations. Daniel's importance is that of introducing the age of the gentiles, the framework for events from then to the last days. Due to the specificity of its prophecy and its place in both the Jewish and Christian canons, the book of Daniel has had great influence in Jewish and Christian history.

The Book of Daniel is included in the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, in the section known as the Ketuvim (Hagiographa, or the "Writings") . Daniel was considered a prophet at Qumran (4Q174 [4QFlorilegium]) and later by Josephus (Antiquity of the Jews 10.11.7 §266) and the author (the "Pseudo-Philo") of Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (L.A.B. ["Book of Biblical antiquities"] 4.6, 8), and was grouped among the prophets in the Septuagint, the Jewish Greek Old Testament, and by Christians, who place the book among the prophets. However, Daniel is not currently included by the Jews in the section of the prophets, the Nebiim.

The Jewish exegete Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon, sometimes called simply RaMBaM and later called Maimonides, was so concerned that the "untutored populace would be led astray" if they attempted to calculate the timing of the Messiah that it was decreed that "Cursed be those who predict the end times." This verbiage can be both found in his letter Igeret Teiman and in his booklet The Statutes and Wars of the Messiah-King.

Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel lamented that the times for the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel "were over long ago" (Sanhedrin 98b, 97a).

Traditional Christians have embraced the prophecies of Daniel, as they believe they clearly illustrate that Jesus Christ of Nazareth must be the Messiah, and also because in Matthew 24 Jesus himself is quoted as describing Daniel's prophecies as applying to future events immediately preceding Judgement Day, and not to Epiphanes who had lived some 175 years earlier. They consider the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks to be particularly compelling due to what they interpret to be prophetic accuracy. Many Orthodox Jews believe that the prophecy refers to the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 AD. Secular scholars however, believe that the prophecy better fits the reign of Antiochus, and that it is an example of vaticinium ex eventu (prophecy after the fact).

Medieval study of angels was also affected by this book, as it is the only Old Testament source for the names of two of the archangels, Gabriel and Michael (Dan 9:21; 12:1). The only other angel given a name in the Old Testament is Raphael, mentioned in the deuterocanoncial Book of Tobit.

Traditional tomb sites of Daniel

Main article: Daniel's Tomb

A tomb said to be the last resting place of the prophet Daniel is located in the Kirkuk Citadel in the city of Kirkuk in Iraq. There is a mosque built on the tomb, the mosque has arches and pillars and two domes on a decorated base and beside it there are three minarets belonging to the end of the Mongolian reign. The mosque is about 400 square meters, it has four illusions tombs of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. Another tomb in Shush, Iran, is also claimed to be that of Daniel and is venerated by local Shi'as and Persian Jews alike. Yet a third site in Uzbekistan is claimed to be Daniel's resting place. Ironically, Daniel is not listed as one of the prophets in the Quran- Islam's holy book. There is no general recognition among Muslims that indeed Daniel was a prophet at all, although the possibility exists.

See also

• Theodotion
• Biblical archaeology (reference to Nabonidus cylinder)
• Nebuchadnezzar's statue vision in Daniel 2
• Daniel's Vision of Chapter 7
• Prophecy of Seventy Weeks
• Daniel's Vision of Chapter 8
• Christian eschatology
• Apocalypse
• Book of Revelation

External links

• Jewish translations:
  • Daniel (Judaica Press) translation with Rashi's commentary at Chabad.org

• Christian translations:
  • Online Bible at GospelHall.org
  • Daniel at The Great Books (New Revised Standard Version)
  • Daniel at Wikisource (Authorised King James Version)
  • The Book of Daniel (Full text from St-Takla.org, also available in Arabic)

Related Articles:

• Jewish Encyclopedia: Daniel

The Connections Between the Little Horn of Daniel 7 and the Individual Beast of Revelation: http://planetpreterist.com/news-2622.html

• Detailed Overview Exposition on Daniel
• Daniel in the Historians' Den - An analysis of the book's origins, from a skeptical perspective.
• Bad History in the Book of Daniel - An analysis on the book's historical flaws.
• Life-Study of Daniel - online study of the Book of Daniel, from a Christian perspective
• A discussion of Jewish beliefs about the Messiah
• Book of Daniel Defended A summary of conservative answers to objections to Daniel's historicity.
• The Date of the Book of Daniel A detailed analysis of the Book of Daniel's date of composition.
• "The Linguistic Argument for the Date of Daniel" by W.D. Jeffcoat, M.A. (PDF), from a conservative Christian perspective
• Historical Questions About Daniel - A Q&A format defense of Daniel's early dating.
• Revealing Daniel - Skeptical analysis of the book.
• Daniel: Wise Man and Visionary, by Elias Bickerman
• Daniel by Rob Bradshaw Detailed dictionary-style article.
• Book of Daniel Chapter by chapter comment article.

References

• John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 1993. ISBN 0-8006-6040-4.
• E. J. Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Bible, 1967. ISBN 0-8052-0774-0.
  • A standard analysis.
• Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, 1997. ISBN 0-14-025773-X.
  • "Eisenman here sets out a fascinating and controversial theory that puts St. James at the center of the story as the heir to Jesus' teachings."
• Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander. Librairie Artheme Fayard (Paris), 1996. (Translation by Peter Daniels, 2002) p. 42.
• Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella, "Daniel," in Raymond E. Brown et al., ed., The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1990, pp. 406-20.
• William H. Shea, "The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27", in Holbrook, Frank. ed., The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, 1986, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, Vol. 3, Review and Herald Publishing Association.
  • Source for double chiasm figure
• W. Sibley Towner, "Daniel," in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993, pp. 149-52.
• John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, 1989. ISBN 0-8024-1753-1.
  • "A detailed, systematic analysis of the Book of Daniel with emphasis on studying and refuting nonbiblical views."
• David J. Conklin Dating the Book of Daniel or The Date of Daniel
  • A conservative, factually-based, rebuttal to secular viewpoints on the dating of Daniel.
• Daniel in the Debunkers Den
  • An atheists viewpoint of errors in Daniel.
• Lion 1 Daniel 0
  • One of several articles on attacking a conservative viewpoint.
• D.J. Wiseman, T.C. Mitchell & R. Joyce, W.J. Martin & K.A. Kitchen, Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. London: The Tyndale Press, 1965.
• [http://www.prophecy101.freeservers.com
  • A symposium of Daniel by conservative scholars.
• Easton's bible dictionary