| |
Easton's Bible Dictionary
is ranked by the Jews in that division of their Bible called the Hagiographa (Hebrew
Khethubim). (See BIBLE) It consists of two distinct parts. The first part, consisting
of the first six chapters, is chiefly historical; and the second part, consisting
of the remaining six chapters, is chiefly prophetical.
The historical part of the book treats of the period of the Captivity. Daniel
is "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 Chronicles 36:20
).
The prophetical part consists of three visions and one lengthened prophetical
communication. The genuineness of this book has been much disputed, but the arguments
in its favour fully establish its claims.
(1) We have the testimony of Christ ( Matthew 24:15 ; 25:31 ; 26:64 ) and his
apostles ( 1 Corinthians 6:2 ; 2 Thessalonians 2:3 ) for its authority; and (2)
the important testimony of ( Ezekiel 14:14 , 14:20 ; 28:3 ).
The character and records of the book are also entirely in harmony with the times
and circumstances in which the author lived.
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 ( Daniel 7:1 ,
7:28 ; 8:2 ; 9:2 ; 10:1 , 10:2 ; 12:4 , 12:5 ). (See BELSHAZZAR
.)
Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names
(no entry)
Smith's Bible Dictionary
stands at the head of a series of writings in which the deepest thoughts of the
Jewish people found expression after their close of the prophetic era. Daniel
is composed partly in the vernacular Aramaic (Chaldee) and partly in the sacred
Hebrew. The introduction, Daniel 1 - 2:4 a, is written in Hebrew. On the occasion
of the "Syriac" (i.e. Aramaic) answer of the Chaldeans, the language changes to
Aramaic, and this is retained till the close of the seventh chapter (2:4 b-7).
The personal introduction of Daniel as the writer of the text, 8:1, is marked
by the resumption of the Hebrew, which continues to the close of the book. ch.
8-12. The book may be divided into three parts. The first chapter forms an introduction.
The next six chapters, 2-7, give a general view of the progressive history of
the powers of the world, and of the principles of the divine government as seen
in the events of the life of Daniel. The remainder of the book, chs. 8-12, traces
in minuter detail the fortunes of the people of God, as typical of the fortunes
of the Church in all ages. In the first seven chapters Daniel is spoken of historically
; in the last five he appears personally as the writer. The cause of the difference
of person is commonly supposed to lie int he nature of the case. It is, however,
more probable that the peculiarity arose from the manner in which the book assumed
its final shape. The book exercised a great influence upon the Christian Church.
The New Testament incidentally acknowledges each of the characteristic elements
of the book, its miracles, ( Hebrews 11:33 , 11:34 ) its predictions, ( Matthew
24:15 ) and its doctrine of angels. ( Luke 1:19 , 1:26 ) The authenticity of the
book has been attacked in modern times. (But the evidence, both external and internal,
is conclusive as to its genuineness. Rawlinson, in his "Historical Evidences,"
shows how some historical difficulties that had been brought against the book
are solved by the inscription on a cylinder lately found among the ruins of Ur
in Chaldea. --ED.)
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
dan'-yel:
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
Ezekiel, thus following the order of the Septuagint and of the Latin Vulgate (Jerome's
Bible, 390-405 A. D.) 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 nabhi' ("prophet"),
but was rather a chozeh ("seer") and a chakham ("wise man"). None but the works
of the nebhi'im 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 nabhi' and chozeh. 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; Daniel 2-6 describe some
marvelous events in the history of Daniel and his three companions in their relations
with the rulers of Babylon; and chapters 7-12 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
qoph 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 qoph and 'ayin for the Aramaic sound which corresponds
to the Hebrew tsadhe 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 'aleph and
he 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 margin 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 semitiques, premiere 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 Daniel 7,
where the narrative passes over from the 3rd to the 1st person. Kohler 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. Zockler and Lange hold to the unity of the book
in general; but the former thought that Daniel 11:5 - 45 is an interpolation; and
the latter, that 10:1 - 11:44 and 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 Daniel 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
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 why 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 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 preeminent 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 26:14,21 and 66:24; Ezekiel 37:1-14, and in Job 14:12;
19:25; Hosea 6:2; 1 Kings 17:4; 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; Psalms 76:6; 13:3; 127:2; Deuteronomy 31:16;
2 Samuel 7:12; 1 Kings 1:21; Job 7:21, and Jeremiah 20:11; 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, Zockler, 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 Psalms 148.
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 Schurer, History of the Jewish People.
R. Dick Wilson
Tags:
babylon, belshazzar (feast of), bible commentary, bible history, bible reference, bible study, book of daniel, captivity, define, hagiographa, khethubim, nebuchadnezzar, prophet, visions
Comments:
|
 |
|
