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 advisor 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 the gift of prophecy, 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 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. Alternative modern views maintain 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.

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 sections are preserved only in the Septuagint, and are considered apocryphal by Protestant Christians and Jews, and deuterocanonical by Catholic and Orthodox Christians.

1. Daniel refuses to eat meat at court
2. Nebuchadnezzar dreams of an idol of four metals with feet of mixed iron and clay, which Daniel interprets as four successive empires (compare Fifth Monarchy)
3. The story of the fiery furnace, in which Ananias (Hananiah/Shadrach), Azariah (Abednego), and Mishael (Meshach) refuse to bow to a golden idol and are thrown into a furnace; God preserves them from the flames
4. Nebuchadnezzar tells of his dreams of a tall tree, and his losing and regaining his mind
5. Belshazzar's Feast, where Daniel interprets the writing 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 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 narratives, though not as a prophet.

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 too 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 produces ten kings, and then a special, eleventh person 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 (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. "Daniel's clear association with the Maccabean Uprising in Palestine was undoubtedly one of the reasons why the Rabbis, following the uprisings against Rome, downgraded it from its position among the 'Prophets'" (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

Certain statements in Daniel are considered (though not proven due to the dearth of actual records from this timeframe) to be in conflict with other historical accounts. This is one reason why some modern historians of Babylonia or Achaemenid Persia do not adduce the narratives of Daniel as source materials -- however, a major critic of Daniel, H. H. Rowley considered chap xi as "a first-class historical source for that period" (The Growth of the Old Testament. (Harper, 1950): 158)). Other reasons for reservations are given in Dating below.

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"

Darius the Mede is a figure unknown by that name outside the Book of Daniel. Most secular historians view his presence in the book 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.

Among writers trying to maintain an early date for the Book of Daniel, there are three main interpretations of the identity of Darius the Mede. The first, proposed by H.H. Rowley in Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel, 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). This view is popular with more conservative segments of Christianity. The third view sees Darius as another name for Astyages, the last Mede king who was ultimately deposed by Cyrus.

"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," as in the NIV.

"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.

"Darius the Mede" as Astyages: The opening line of "Bel and the Dragon" references Astyages, who was indeed the last king of the Medes before Cyrus; but a nearly identical verse is added in the Greek after the end of Dan. 6, only reading "Darius" in place of "Astyages". Astyages is the only one of the three known to be both a Mede and a king.

On the difficulty of ascertaining the correct view, Rowley 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." Rowley refers to the personage whom Daniel describes as taking control of Babylon after Belshazzar is deposed. Daniel describes this personage 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.'

Secular historians have criticized this account for three reasons. First, no secular history speaks of any 'Darius the Mede,' and second, the Persians at that point in history had control over the Medes. Third, the contemporary history given from cuneiform documents of the period, 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. It has been suggested[1] that the author's apparent confusion on this issue could be due to his reliance on Jeremiah (see Daniel 9:2): and Jeremiah prophesied (in Jeremiah 51:11), at the height of the Median empire's power, that Babylon would fall to the Medes. An author writing centuries later, and under the impression that Jeremiah was a true prophet, might simply assume that a Mede must have taken Babylon.

Christian historians counter by claiming that the kingdom of 'Darius' is mentioned as only containing the 'Chaldeans' - the area around the city of Babylon. This would then make Darius a vassal king under the reign of Cyrus; something not uncommon for the Persians. Further, Astyages the Mede had been Cyrus' grandfather, and even though the Persians had absorbed the Mede empire, many Medes were still in positions of power, such as satraps, governors, and generals, in the Persian empire.

Belshazzar

Akk. bêl-šar-usur. For many years Belshazzar 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. Outside of Daniel, Belshazzar was only known from Baruch and Josephus. Indeed, while both Xenophon (Cyropaedia, 7.5.28-30) and Herodotus (The Histories, 1.191) recount the fall of Babylon to Cyrus the Great, neither gives the name of the king of Babylon. Further, both Berossus’ and Ptolemy’s king lists have Nabonidus (Akk. Nabû-nā'id) as the last king of Babylon with no mention of Belshazzar. 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 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/Belshazzar. Many scholars have attributed the lack of mention of these rulers as indicating the author mistakenly thought that the two rulerships were consecutive. As the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906) put it, indicating the belief that Daniel was written much later (see 'Date'), "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) 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.

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 and 2 Chronicles 36). The third year of Jehoiakim (606 BC), saw Nebuchadrezzar 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." Christian scholars therefore connect 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 it is not certain that these definitely refer to Daniel's countrymen.

Dating

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. In this point of view, the book is a work of divinely-inspired prophecy which correctly predicts book's content and world events for at least 400 years after its original composition.

While Orthodox Jewish and some Christian scholars still assert this as a realistic date, a considerably later writing or redaction is widely held on the basis of historical and textual analysis. In this view, except for possible minor glosses, the book reached its final form around 164 BC (Hartman and Di Lella, 1990, p. 408; Towner, 1993, p. 151). This gave the events that had already occurred during the fifth to second centuries BC the appearance of prophecies. The later date of composition explains why from 11:39 on, the prophecies fail to track accurately later events in the reign of Antiochus IV.

Christians who believe in the accuracy of the Gospels do not accept this interpretation, because Jesus is said in Matthew 24 to have quoted Daniel as a prophet who foretold events of the "end times" to immediately precede Judgement Day, and not in reference to Antiochus Epiphanes who had lived nearly 200 years before Jesus.

John Collins finds it impossible for the "court tales" portion of Daniel to have been written in second Century BC due to textual analysis. In his 1992 Anchor Bible Dictionary entry for the Book of Daniel, he states "it is clear that the court-tales in chapters 1-6 were not 'written in Maccabean times'. It is not even possible to isolate a single verse which betrays an editorial insertion from that period."

Content

Antiochus IV Epiphanes

Most interpreters find that references in the Book of Daniel reflect the persecutions of Israel by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC), and 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 discussion of Near Eastern history from the time of Alexander the Great down the era of Antiochus IV, with the "Kings of the North" being the Seleucid kings 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 Neoplatonist whose fifteen-volume work Against the Christians is only known to us through Jerome's reply. Jerome accepted much (but not all) of Porphyry's interpretation of the vision, but held to the traditional view of Daniel's date and held that the similarities to actual history were due to Daniel's being a true prophet, rather than to a late date for the book. Porphyry, then, was the only known critic to doubt Daniel's early date until the seventeenth century. Many historians hold that the book was written to influence Jews living under Antiochus' persecution. They believe that the events described in the visions match well the events during the Maccabean era while the book errs on major points of Babylonian history.

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 identify them as (1) the Neo-Babylonian empire, (2) the Persian empire (3) the Hellenistic empire of Alexander and his successors, and (4) the Roman empire (e.g. Young); others (e.g. 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. 1) Daniel, in his first reference to the empire that succeeds Babyon, calls it the "Medes and the Persians". Daniel 6:28 Peres [h] : Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians." (NIV) 2) Daniel quotes the king and the subordinate rulers calling their own kingdom the "Medes and Persians: Daniel 6:8, 12, 15 3) The Wikipedia itself says "Cyrus was also married to a Mede, and himself had Mede blood." So the Medes and Persians were merged kingdoms by marriage. They were not distinct kingdoms at the time of conquering Babylon. However, as noted previously, a late author's apparent reliance on Jeremiah may explain this.

Language

The final major area of debate regarding the dating of Daniel regards the language used. The two reference points used for dating the Aramaic are the Samaria correspondence (4th century BC) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd century BC-1st century AD).

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

According to John Collins in his 1993 commentary, Daniel, Hermennia Commentary, the Aramaic in Daniel is almost universally held by scholars to be of a later form than that used in the Samaria correspondence but is regarded by many as slightly earlier than the form used in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Consequently the Aramaic tales in chapters 2-6 are held by some to 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 in the book is, for all intents and purposes, identical to that found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, suggesting a second century BC date for the Hebrew portions of the book (chapters 1 and 8-12). 2

Loan words

There are three Greek words used within the text which have long been considered evidence for a late dating of Daniel. All three Greek words 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 modern scholarship now knows its use much earlier, both in the sense of a specific instrument and as a term referring to a group of instruments playing in unison. Pythagoras used the term to denote an instrument in sixth century BC, while its use to refer to a group performing together is found in the sixth century BC 'Hymni Homerica, ad Mercurium 51' Despite their early use in Greek however, there is no evidence for the use of these instruments in Mesopotamia in the Neo-Babylonian period where they are said to be used in Daniel, and their mention in the book is generally taken as an anachronism.

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 a Babylonian 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

The scholarship concerning the question of unity in Daniel differs greatly from the scholarship concerning the dating. 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 treatise The Unity of the Book of Daniel.

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 27:64; 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.

Influence of Daniel

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

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, Hannah, Ezra and Michael. Another tomb in Susa, Iran, also claims to be that of Daniel.

See also

• Book of Revelation
• Apocalypse
• Biblical archaeology (reference to Nabonidus cylinder)
• Christian eschatology

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
• 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.

References

• 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.
• 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."
• The Date of Daniel
  • A conservative 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.
  • A symposium of Daniel by conservative scholars.
• Easton's bible dictionary