(9.) The religious views, the ardent belief in the Messiah, the purity of that belief, the absence of all the notions and ceremonial practices of later Judaism, etc., the agreement of the book in these respects with the genuine prophetic books, and more especially with the prophets in and after the exile— all this testifies to the genumeness of Daniel. In doctrine the book is closely connected with the writings of the exile, and forms a last step in the development of the ideas of Messiah (vii, 13, etc.), of the resurrection (xii, 2, 3), of the ministry of angels (viii, 16 ; xii, 1, etc.), of per- sonal devotion (vi, 10, 11 ; i, 8), which formed the basis of later speculations, but received no essential addition in the interval before the coming of our Lord.
(10.) The linguistic character of the book is most decisive for its authenticity. In the first instance, the language in it, by turns Hebrew and Aramasan, is particularly remarkable. In that respect the book bears a close analogy to that of Ezra. The author must certainly have been equally conversant with both languages — an attainment exactly suited to a Hebrew living in the exile, but not in the least so to an author in the Maccabsan age,' when the Hebrew had lon^ since ceased to be a living language, and had been supplanted by the Aramiean vernacular dialect. The Hebrew in Daniel bears, moreover, a very great affin- ity to that in the other later boolcs of the Old Testa- ment, and has, in particular, idioms in common with Ezekiel. The Aramaic, also, in the book differs mate- rially from the prevailing dialect of the later Chald»- an paraphrastic versions of the Old Testament, and has much more relation to the idiom of the book of Ezra. Nor is the mention of Greek musical instru- ments (iii, 5, 7, 10, Din*^)?, Kidapa ; 6<5?5' fraftfivKti ; rr^Sbp^lD, ovfvpiavia ; 1'^*1FI5DB, rl/aXrf}piov\ for these words only can be shown to be derived from the Greek (De Wette, Evd. p. 255 b.), other than suitable to a time when the intercourse of the East and West was already considerable, and when a brother of Alcieus (B.C. 600-500) had gained distinction **at the fiirthest end of the world, aiding the Babylonians" (Ale. Froff. 83, Bergk. ; Brandis, in Delitzsch, p. 274). (For a full view of the criticism, history, and literature of the book of Daniel, see Stuart's Commentary, p. 373-496.)
5. There is no Chaldee translation of Daniel, and the deficiency is generally accounted for, as in the par- allel case of Ezra, by the danger which would have existed in such a case of confounding the original text with the paraphrase ; but, on the other hand, the whole book has been published in Hebrew. Kennicott pre- pared a special commentary on the Chaldee portions (ed. Schulze, Hal. 1782, Svo) ; comp. Bird {Lectures, Lend. 1845).
The Greek version has undergone nngular changes. At an early time the Sept. translation was supplanted in the Greek Bibles by that of Theodotion, which in the time of Jerome was generally " road by the church- es" (c. Rujin. ii, 83; Prof, in Comm.). This change, for which Jerome was unable to account {Prof, in Vers. Dan.\ may have been made in consequence of
DANIEL
670
DANIEL
the objecttons which were urged agaioBt the corrupt Sept text in coatrovertj witii Jews and heathen. The Sept. version was certainly very nnfaithful (Je- rome, /. c.) ; and the influence of Origen, who preferred the transl^on of Theodotion (Jerome m Dan, iv, 6), was probably effectoal in bringing about the snbstitn- tion (comp. Credner, Btitr. ii, 266 sq.). In the course of time, however, the version of Theodotion was inter- pokted from the Sept., so that it is now impossible to recover the original text. Comp. Wald, Cures in Mtt, Uxtus Dan. (Lips. 1788). See Dakisl, Apocryphal ADDITIONS TO. Meanwhile the original Sept. transla* tion passed entirely out of use, and it was supposed to have been lost till the last centnr}', when it was publish- ed at Bome from a Codex Chuianus {Ditmel tectmdum LXX. . . . Rome, 1772, ed. P. de Magistris), together with that of Theodotion, and several illustrative es- says. It has since been published several times (ed. Michaelis, Getting. 1774; ed. Segaar, Utrecht, 1776; ed. Hahn, Lpz. 1846), and lastly by Tischendorf in the second edition of his Septnagint (Lips. 1866). Anoth- er recension of the text is contained in the S3rro-Hex- aplaric version at llilan (ed. Bugatus, 1788) ; but a critical comparison of the several recensions is still re- quired. See SBPTUAonrr.
On other ancient versions, see MCknter, Spec, verno- ntcm Dan. CopUcarvm. etc. (Rom. 1786) ; Wald, Ueb. d. Arab. Uebert. d. Dan, (in Elchhom's Bepertor, xiv, 206 sq.). See Versions.
6. The commentaries on Daniel are very numerous. Those in Hebrew by R. Saadiah Haggaon (f 942), Bashe (f c. 1106), and Aben Ezra (f c. 1167^ are print- ed in the great Rabbinic Bibles of Bomberg and others. That of Abarbanel (f c. 1607) has been printed separ- ately several times (Amst. 1647, 4to), and others are enumerated below. Amon^ the patristic commenta- ries the most important is that of Jerome (vol. v, ed. Migne), who noticed especially the objections of Por- phyry ; also those of Chrysostom {Opera, vi, 228), The- odoret (ii, 1063 sq., ed. Schulze ; interp. Gabio, Rom. 1662, fbl.), and Ephraem Syrns (Op. Sffr. ii, Rome, 1740). There are also annotations by Rupert Tuitien- sis (Operoy i, 620), Thos. Aquinas [rather Thos. Wal- lensis] (Commentarii, etc., Paris, 1641, fbl.), Albertus Magnus (Opera, viii), and Peter the Archdeacon (Mar- tene and Dnrand*s Cottectio, ix, 276). Considerable fragments remain of tiie commentaries of Hippolytus (collected in Mlgne's edition, Paris, 1867) and Poly- chronius (Mai, Script. Vet. Nov. CoH. vol. i) ; and Mai has published (ib.) a catena on Daniel, containing fhigments of Apollinarius, Athanasius, Basil, Eusebius, and many others. The chief reformers, Luther (Aw- legung d. Proph. Dan. 1680-1646 ; Op, Germ, vi, ed. Walch),(Ecolampadius (In Dan, libri duo, Basil. 1680), Melancthon (Comm. in Dan, proph. Vitemb. 1643), and Calvin (Prmkct, m Dan. Geneva, 1668, etc ; in French, 1666; in£nglish,Lond.l862-8),wTote on Daniel; also Joachim the Abbot (Yen. 1619, 4to). A comparison of the prophecies of Daniel with the visions of the Apocalypse (Newton, On the Prophecies, London, 1788, 4to) opened the way to a true understanding of Dan- iel. Auberlen (Der Proph. Dan. u. d. Offenbarvng Joh. etc. 2d ed. Basel, 1867, translated into English firom the 1st ed. by Saphtr, 1866, 12mo) has thrown consid- erable light upon the general construction and rela- tions of the book. Comp. Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf id- lung, i, 276 sq. ; Burton, Numbers of Daniel and John (Norw. 1766-8); Anon., Seven prophetical Periods (Lond.1790); Birks, The four propheHo Empires (Lon- don, 1844), and 7^ ftoo later Visions of Daniel (ib. 1846) ; Elliott, Hora ApocalgpHcte (Lond. 1844) ; Tre- geWes, Remarks on the prophetic Visions of Daniel (Lond. 1852); Stuart, iJmtt on PropAecy (Andov. 1844) ; Des- prez, Daniel the Apocalypse of the 0, T. (Lond. 1866, 8vo). See Revelation. Among snbsidiary works additional to the above may be named Bleek, Weissag. in D. (in the Jahrb.f. Dettis<^ TheoL 1860, y); Wal-