I. Name

Daniel, "God is my judge." The book receives its name from its chief character, who is also probably its author. Daniel, who belonged to a prominent family in the tribe of Judah, 1:1-7, was taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar about 605 B. C. He soon rose to eminence in the service of the king and his successors, Darius and Cyrus. Nothing is known as to his death, although according to Mohammedan tradition he returned to Judea and died in Susa, where his tomb is still shown.

II. Position

In our Hebrew Bible Daniel is placed between Esther and Ezra in the third division, Kethubim, which is made up of miscellaneous writings, and not as we might expect, and as it is in our English Bible, in the second division, among the Prophets. Later critics have used this fact as an important link in their argument for a late origin of the book. But it admits of an explanation which leaves the question of date untouched. No book was placed among the prophets unless the writer belonged to the prophetic order, a distinct class having carefully defined limits. Daniel did not belong to this order but was a statesman whose religious teaching was not his principal occupation. He does not tell us, as other prophets do, of his divine call, but in the midst of his duties as an officer of the state, utters the truth which God has enabled him to see, for the benefit of his distressed countrymen.

Again, Daniel lived in a foreign land and gave his time and talents to a foreign king. In this he stands alone. Ezekiel indeed prophesied in a foreign land but his time was wholly given to his fellow captives whom he taught and for whom he prophesied. To the Jew this would mean much.

Again, when we examine the book of Daniel carefully, we see that it is largely historical, while the rest is prophecy of a very peculiar character. It is a series of apocalyptic visions rather than an utterance of truth suited to popular edification and encouragement. The theme itself is outside the usual course of prophecy. It does not tell of the future of Israel so much as of the overturning of the nations until the kingdom of God should come. Such reasons justify the assignment of the book to the position given it in the Hebrew Canon.

III. Contents

Westcott (Smith's Bible Dictionary) divides it into three parts:

(1) Introduction. Ch. 1.

(2) 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 life of Daniel. Chs. 2 to 7.

(3) The fortunes of the people of God as typical of the fortunes of the church in all ages Chs. 8 to 12.

But a more natural division makes two sections.

1. History of Daniel. Chs. 1 to 6.

Daniel's training. Ch. 1.

Nebuchadnezzar's dream and its interpretation. Ch. 2.

Nebuchadnezzar's golden image and its worship. Ch. 3.

Nebuchadnezzar's dream and madness. Ch. 4.

Belshazzar's feast and the fall of Babylon. Ch. 5.

Daniel in the lion's den. Ch. 6.

2. Visions seen by Daniel. Chs. 7 to 12.

Vision of the four beasts. Ch. 7.

Vision of the ram and he goat. Ch. 8.

Vision of the seventy weeks. Ch. 9.

Vision of the great world powers. Chs. 10 to 12.

Several facts are worthy of mention in regard to this book.

1. The record is not continuous, but of separate events in the life of Daniel. They probably stand in chronological order, but each is complete in itself. In most cases there is no connecting word when passing from one theme to another.

2. Two languages are used. Chs. 1 to 2:4a and Chs. 8 to 12 are in Hebrew, while Chs. 2:4b to 7:28 are Aramaic. A parallel to this is found in Ezra. Kamphausen (Polychramc Bible, p. 16) thinks the entire book was originally written in Hebrew, and when some portions of it were afterward lost they were supplied from an Aramaic translation made by the author of the original Hebrew. This explanation creates more difficulties than it removes. In those transition times both languages would be readily understood by all classes.

3. In the first three chapters the record is made in the third person as might be expected from the fact that they are descriptive, in the remainder of the book the first person is employed because the writer is himself the actor. By some this has been thought to conflict with the unity of the book, and it has been divided among many authors, Michaelis making eight and Eichhorn ten. This is criticism run mad. All literature, ancient and modern, furnishes similar changes. The unity of the book is now generally conceded even by the most radical school of criticism. The interrelation of the two parts is so intimate that they must be referred to the same source.

IV. Origin

Two widely different opinions are held in regard to its origin. According to the traditional view it was written by Daniel himself and so belongs to the period of captivity. Many modern critics hold that it could not have been written before 300 B. C. and in all probability not until 168 B. C.

Driver (Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 497) presents the argument for the modern view under three heads, as follows:

1. Historical. As difficulties in the way of assigning the authorship to Daniel he mentions especially: The position of the book in the Jewish Canon; the Chaldeans are made synonymous with the wise men, a use of the term not found until after the close of the Babylonian Empire; Belshazzar is called king of Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar is represented as his father, while the history shows that Belshazzar was not king neither was Nebuchadnezzar his father; the difficulty of finding a place for Darius, since Cyrus was the immediate successor of the Persian kings; Daniel 9:2 implies that a collection of sacred books already existed, whereas the first collection was not made before 536 B. C.

We would suggest — the position of the book in the Jewish Canon is easily explained if we remember the principles established by them for determining in which division of the canon a book ought to be placed. The words, "Chaldeans," "wise men," "magicians" have a history which reaches back to the earliest records; the position was substantially the same throughout, but different names were given them, a fact which need occasion little trouble. The difficulty in regard to the royal names and relations is being gradually solved and each advance confirms the accuracy of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar was associated with his father and according to a common form of speech in the Bible was called king when in reality he was only an associate king. (See the case of Jehoram, 2 Kings 8:16 with 1:17, and Jotham, 2 Kings 15:5.) From his official position he might easily be called the king's son. Price (The Monuments arid the Old Testament, p. 245) tells of an inscription of Shalmaneser II. which speaks of "Jehu son of Omri," when in fact Jehu was simply the successor of Omri, having reached the throne through the murder of his predecessor. As for Darius, great difficulty still surrounds the name; but if Darius is to be identified with Gobryas or Guvrau of the Inscriptions, and this is a growing conviction of the critics, then the mystery is broken, for the inscriptions tell us that Gobryas was governor of Babylon. Whether this is the solution or not, in our present state of ignorance it is very unsafe to argue that because we cannot clear up a statement it must therefore be false. Let us wait for more light. The allusion to the books, 9:2, furnishes occasion for a needless difficulty if we assume that Daniel here refers to an official collection, such as the Jews afterward had in their canon. The difficulty disappears, however, if we understand that Daniel here refers to the writings of Jeremiah in which the passage is found, although from Ezekiel we may readily infer that the Jews in Babylon did have copies of their sacred books which were carefully studied, even if not yet gathered into one volume.

In regard to all these historical difficulties, Driver himself says, "They do not show positively that the book is the work of the second century B. C.; they only show that it tends to reflect the traditions and historical impressions of an age considerably later than that of Daniel himself."

2. Language. He finds fifteen Persian words, largely in the Aramaic portion of the book. This he thinks is strange for Daniel who lived under the Babylonian supremacy. Some of them, he says, are official and some are found in Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther. This latter fact would seem to imply an earlier origin than the theory calls for, while the commercial relations existing between the two countries might easily account for all of them. He finds also three Greek words, all of which are names of musical instruments. Here again there is nothing so strange in the Babylonians importing musical instruments from Greece, where the art of music was highly developed. It was nothing uncommon to employ slaves brought from foreign countries to sing their native songs, accompanied with their native instruments. So they did with the Jews in Babylon, Ps. 137. He also thinks the Aramaic and Hebrew are of a late period, although he admits the Aramaic "is all but identical with that of Ezra." But on the other hand, Westcott, whose scholarship is unquestioned, says, "The character of the Hebrew (of Daniel) bears the closest affinity to that of Ezekiel and Habakkuk." "The Aramaic, like that of Ezra, is also of an earlier form." Other scholars hold the same opinion. Dr. Cheyne says that from the Hebrew of the book of Daniel no important inference can be drawn.

3. Theology. Driver tells us that in Daniel "the doctrines of the Messiah, of angels, of the resurrection and of a judgment on the world are taught with greater distinctness and in a more developed form than elsewhere in the Old Testament." In other words, the time of Daniel was too early for such clear teaching on these cardinal doctrines. This, and the kindred idea that the prophetical teachings of the book are too minute for a person to detail so long before the events happened, form the most serious objection to assigning the work to Daniel. Assuming that the minute predictions found in Ch. 11 refer to Antiochus Epiphanes they think it strange that they should have been made by one who lived nearly four hundred years before. This conflicts with their theory that God never inspires a man to prophesy in regard to events so far in the future and concerning which there are no intimations of His purpose in the conditions surrounding the prophet. But such a limitation of the prophetic office we can by no means admit. God reveals His purposes when and as He pleases and we must not limit Him by our ideas of fitness. When we set up a standard of criticism to which a book will not conform, it is well that we inquire whether there is not something wrong with our standard, before we condemn the book.

The arguments in favor of assigning the book directly to Daniel may be summed up as follows:

External Arguments

1. The book has had a place in the Jewish Canon as far back as the records go. Its canonicity was not called in question by the Great Synagogue. And no book having so late an origin as that claimed for Daniel by the later critics could possibly have found admission. Long before the date assumed the Jews understood that the prophetical office was vacant and would not put any other works on a level with their sacred Scriptures. On this point Josephus voices the universal judgment of the Jews. (Against Apion, I. 8.)

2. It has also a place in the earliest version of the Scriptures, the Septuagint, about 250 B. C, and must have been in existence long enough before that date to have secured its place as a part of the Jewish Scriptures.

3. The references in Ezekiel 14:14, 20 and 28:3 prove the historical character of Daniel and show that it was such as we might expect for the author of this book. In Zech, 1:18, 19 and 6:1 the form of the prophecy suggests knowledge of the form in which Daniel had clothed his prophecy, both passages receiving much light from the use of the figures in Daniel.

4. In the apochryphal books, especially 1 Maccabees, whose historical character is well attested, evident allusion is made to Daniel. If we compare 1 Mac. 1:54, 59 with Dan. 11:31, or 1 Mac. 2:59, 60 with Dan. Ch. 3, it is impossible to resist the impression that the statements of the apochryphal book depend on the writer's acquaintance with the book of Daniel.

5. Josephus also, whose general accuracy must be recognized, even when we reject many of his embellishments, has in his Antiq. X. 1 1, 7 and XI. 8, 5 made such allusions to Daniel and his book that its existence is plainly demanded, and if the facts are as there stated its early date is beyond question.

6. In the early Christian church it was received without question, except in a single instance. Porphyry objected to the authorship of Daniel because he thought such minute knowledge of events so far in the future could not be possible. But an objection growing out of a doctrinal position ought to have little weight when considering such a question.

7. The use made of the book by Christ ought to settle the question. One cannot read passages like Matt. 24: 15, 16, where Christ expressly quotes Daniel in regard to the coming destruction of Jerusalem, without feeling that Christ based His use of the reference on the fact of its historical character, and expected its fulfillment because it was a genuine prophecy. The attempt to evade the force of this use of this passage must be either to impugn the judgment of Christ or deprive the words of any real value.

Thus we see that the historical succession of testimony for the genuineness of Daniel is even more complete than that of many other books of the Bible. There is no way to reduce the force of such testimony but by disputing the accuracy of the witnesses, a thing hard to do.

The Internal Evidence

1. The book certainly professes to be historical. It has an abundance of historical references, as if inviting testing, and if our knowledge were more complete the difficulties which now trouble us would doubtless quickly vanish away. We note such direct statements as 1:1, 2:1, 7:1, 8:1, 2, 9:1.

2. The writer seems to be recording his own personal experience. (7:2, 10:3, 10:11.) If we say that all such expressions are intended merely for effect we destroy the value of the entire book.

3. The writer displays a very intimate acquaintance with Babylonian customs and history, while he has little to say concerning the Persian period and still less concerning the Greek period which followed. This is just what we would expect in a writer of the time of Daniel, while just the reverse would be likely to be found in a writer living as late as many critics now claim.

4. The language employed is a strong point in favor of Daniel. The intimate familiarity with both the Hebrew and Aramaic is precisely what we would expect from a man whose mother tongue was Hebrew, but who had a life-long familiarity with the Aramaic. Moreover, in regard to both Hebrew and Aramaic, the testimony of competent scholars is that both bear a strong likeness to the language used by Ezekiel and Ezra, contemporaries of Daniel, while neither of them has the verbal peculiarities of which those languages partook as late as 168 B. C. when the Aramaic had superseded the Hebrew in the daily use of the people.

V. Design

It is primarily neither prophetic nor historic. It is designed rather to show how God cares for His people even when everything seems against them, with their temple destroyed, their nation scattered and the severe burdens of slavery resting upon the nation.

Especially great is the value of the book in its treatment of the idea of the kingdom of God, and its relation to the kingdoms of this world. It tells, in plainer language than had been used before, of the subjection of the world to God, and indicates clearly the evidence of the divine rule, and assures us that the progress of God's kingdom is absolutely irresistible and that all things will be ultimately brought into submission to God.

Its apocalyptic form has added immensely to its power. It has given tone to much of the New Testament literature, it has engaged the attention of many who have been drawn to it by its peculiar methods of expression, it has been the inspiration of the persecuted and the burdened in all ages. Terry well says (Meth. Rev., Jan., 1902, p. 128), "Whether written during the exile or in the time of the Maccabees, they contain a picture of the kingdoms of the world and their ultimate subjection to the kingdom of God worthy of rank with any prophecies to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Nowhere else do we find before the advent of Christ such a magnificent conception of the kingdom of Heaven."

LITERATURE

Commentaries: Driver in Cambridge Bible for Schools; Lange; Barnes; Hengstenberg; Kamphausen in Sacred Books of the Old Testament; Pusey, Daniel the Prophet. Price, The Monuments and the Old Testament; Boscawen. The Bible and the Monuments; Margoliouth, Lines of Defense of the Biblical Revelation; Kennedy, The Book of Daniel. Introductions of Driver, Keil, Bleek. Article on "Daniel," in Bible Dictionaries of Smith and Hastings, and in Encyclopedia Britannica.