The story of D. appears to have been written in imitation of that of Joseiih — history, however, often repeats itself ; yet, if the story is liistorical, it is strange that no reference is made to D. in the
* Cheyne miggeflt* a connexion between D. and Zoroaster, the name having been coined out of the Zend ddnu, ' wise ' oi 'wisdom' {Bamp. Lfct. on Psalter, 106 IT.).
552 DAXIEL, THE BOOK OF
DANIEL, THE BOOK OF
OT narrative of the restoration ; that no post-exilic writer liefore the Maccabiean age knows anything about him ; tliat no one else shared his expectations ; and that he, with all his patriotism, did not avail himself of the opportunity of returning to Pal. ; and that Ben-Sirach, writing about B.C. 170, should entirely omit him from tlie worthies of Israel, and also write (Sir 49"), ' Neither was there a man bom like unto Joseph, a governor of his brethren, a stay of the people.-^ E. L. CURTIS.
DANIEL, THE BOOK OF, in the Heb. Canon, is placed among the Hagiographa, between Est and Ezr, but in the LXX, Vulg., and En^. Bible ass one of the four great prophets, immediately after Ezekiel. It falls into two divisions : chs. 1-6, the history of Daniel ; chs. 7-12, visions and revela- tions given to Daniel. In the original, 2"'-i^ la wTitten in Aramaic instead of Hebrew. In literary character the Bk. of Dn is mainly an apocalypse, representing in visions under symbolical forrns various historical epochs. The beginning of this kind of writing appears in Ezk and Zee; but Dn is far more complete and elaborate, and exercised a great influence upon subsequent Jewish and Christian literature. . .
i. Authorship and Date.— The visions (chs. 7-12) are represented as ^ven in the words of Dn (7" 8' 9' 10^), hence the inference that he wrote the entire book. This was the ancient Jeivish opinion,* and the prevailing Christian one, until within recent years.t Now, however, it has gene- rally been abandoned, and in its place are quite a variety of views all agreeing in this, that the book in its present form, must be assigned to the age of AntiochuB Epiphanes (B.C. 175-163) ; and there is a "TO«ing consensus of opinion that the book as a whole belongs to that period, for the foUowang
reasons: — „ . , ou n
1. Acquaintance vnth Ant. Epiphanes.— i^h. 11 shows a clear acquaintance with minor events in his rei"!! and in those of his predecessors. In the veiTed form of a revelation of the future it gives
veuea lorm oi a, ic»cia,i.iuu vr. v..v- .„»„.-.- „- -- an outline of history from the tune of tyrus to near the death of Antiochus.J There are sketched the Persian period (v.'), the rise and conquest of Alexander the Great (v.'), the dismemberment of his empire (v.*), and then principally the varying relations of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties to each other and of the latter to the Jews (vv.»»»). Attention is called in succession to Ptolemy I. and Seleucus Nikator (v.»), Ptolemy Philadelplius and Antiochus II. (v.«), Ptolemy Euergetes (vv.'-"), Antiochus the Great (w.'"-"), Seleucus Philopator (v.*), and Antiochus Epiphanes (w."'"). While, from the obscurity of the history and the difficulty of determining the meaning of tiie Heb. text, some references are not perfectly plain, yet it is easy to point out definitely the accessions of these sovereigns, their alliances, intrigues, campaigns, victories, defeats, bestowment of gifts, treacheries, acts of violence, and frequently untimely deaths. The older commentators regarded these details as signal examples of divine prediction ; but since
•TheTalm. «tat«inent (Baba bathra 16), that the men of the Great Synagogue ' wrote ' Dn, does not necessarily impl^v the contrary or express the idea of a later editing : it may simply mean a ' recording ' of the hook. ...
t Porphvrv, the .ScoPlatonist (t SOS), wrote a treatise denvnng the genuine'ness of Daniel's prophecy. His views arc known from the Commentary of Jerome, who refuted them. Por]ihyry had no followers in Oie Christian Church. The Brst systematic modem rejection of Daniel's authorship was by Corrodi m 1783 and 1792. He was followed by Bertholdt, Eichhom, (lesenms, Bleek, De Wette, Ewald, et at. ; while the genumencss was stoutly defended by Hengstenberg, Havemick. .^uherlcn, keil, Pusey etal. Ct. for histor\- of the criticism. Hleek's /•.'in/cifunj; Zockler"* Comm. In the Lange Scries, and Hengslenberg on GenuinetvM of Danu'l. ... .^
I Vv.tou are perhaps an ideal deicription of eranta which the writer expected.
snch a revelation of the future is without analog? elsewhere in Scripture, and without any apparent moral or spiritual import, this chapter or insertions in it are now allowed, even by those who regard Daniel as the author of his visions or the rest of the book, to belong to the period of Antiochus Epi- phanes.* Similar references elsewhere, however, seem to require these to be taken with their natural force, indicating the true date of the entire book, and not as later additions. In ch. 8 is a clear descrip- tion of the conquests of Alexander (w.o-s-'M and the division of his empire (vv.s- '■'■'), and of Antiochus Epiphanes (w.'-'^- ^-a*). These appear again, ace. to the most probable interpretation (see below), m ch. 7, the fourth beast representing Alexanders kingdom and its succession m the Seleucid dynasty (with which alone the writer here is concerned), culminating in Antiochus Epiphanes (v^-.*-^* ). The descriptions are very exact. While the numbers of the kings, ten and three (v."), might be taken relatively or symbolically, yet the corre- spondence to the Seleucidas is so precise that these kings seem evidently meant.f The eleventh corresponds exactly to Antiochus Epiphanes. Another clear reference to this sovereign seems also to appear in 9^'-.t Thus throughout all these