RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Daniel
it is impossible that vii. 24, 25 refer), his theory must be rejected; but the question remains whether the ten horns may not be brought into connection with ten Grecian rulers. This is so easy that the only difficulty is to decide among the many possible combinations at which Nestle, Von Gutschmid, Gunkel, and others arrive. There remain for examination only the celebrated conclusions to chap, ix. H'cre the evil prince is by general agreement no other than Antiochus, who is similarly described in vii. 25, viii. 23 sqq., xi 31. That he is to reign half a. week (3i years) agrees with vii. 25, xii. 7, and his reign precedes that of the Messiah (chap.
xi. ); thus his horizon is limited to the Greek period. The anointed one is not Cyrus (Isa. xlv.), but a ruling high priest; the sixty-two weeks embrace postexilic times under the guidance of a line of legitimate high priests, the end of which period is marked by the removal of this line, probably in the person of Onias III.; the last year-week is that during which Antiochus Epiphanes did away with the daily service. Comparison of these 7 x 62 years with the time between 536 B.C. and 170 gives sixty-eight years too many, but one has only to read Josephus to appreciate the labors and difficulties of a Jewish historian of his time and the futility of seeking a perfectly satisfactory reckoning.
IV. The Date: The result of an unbiased investigation of the book is therefore that the described period nowhere goes beyond that of Antiochus; thus the question as to the time of its composition is settled. Nearly all the Old Testament prophets join the time of the end closely to their own times. A similar expectation is expressed in Daniel, but only from the moment when the power of Antiochus had reached its zenith. According to Biblical analogy, the book was written V at a time when the description of the
*^°t he'^ future takes on the character of other Terminus Prophetical books; while the minute, ad Quern, unprophetical description of the period between the Exile and Antiochus must be taken as a description of past events. Such passages as viii. 13, 19, xii. 6 sqq., 11 imply that the question which concerns the author is how long the terrorism of Antiochus is to last. In complete accord with this are the directions (viii. 26,
xii. 4) to the exilic Daniel to seal the book, by which the author indicates that up to his time the book Was unknown.
This result is justified by a number of weighty considerations. That the book in the Hebrew canon is not among the " prophets," but among the '■ writings " is intelligible only if it were written at a time when the canon of the Prophets was already formed. Absolutely impossible is the hypothesis of the book's origin in exilic times when the total unhistoricity of the description of exilic times is compared with the correctness 2. Narra- of the later history (cf. Dan. i. 1 with tiveXJn- Jer. xxxvi. 9, 29). Every detail of historical, the earlier period is unhistorical;
Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadrezzar (Dan. V. 22), was not king (v. 1); Babylon was not conquered, but surrendered voluntarily to Cyrus (not to Darius, as the book has it). Ara-
maisms and Grecisms in the Aramaic sections are marks of a later age. That it was used by I Mace, matters httle, as the latter was composed in 106 B.C.; still less weight has Josephus' story that Alexander the Great had read the book, for this is denied by the book itself (Dan. viii. 26, xii. 4).
V. The Value: A result which demands recognition is that it could have been composed only in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Only by this knowledge is it possible to see the greatness of the book. The time must be still further limited. One totally misunderstands the character of the book if he thinks of it as written after the cleansing of the temple in 165 B.C. Everything which the book contains of comfort and promise is pure hope, for the whole book was composed at a time of extremest need. It is evident that the author did not know the eastern campaign of Antiochus; the third campaign against Egypt is a pure prophetic picture (Dan. xi. 40 sqq.); from the author's calling the Maccabean insurrection " a little help " Kuenen rightly concludes that Judah's victory over Lysias in 165 B.C. was unknown; and viii. 14 is, like ix. 24, a Messianic expectation. From this point of view the vacillation in the length of the reign of terror (3i years, vii. 25, ix. 27, xii. 7; 1,150 days, viii. 14; 1,290 days, xii. 11; 1,335 days, xii. 12) is most easily understood; they are pure surmises or computations which can not be verified because the key is lacking. The greatness of the book 1. The consists in the fact that its author
Author's drew all promises out of his own faith. Faith. And in this hope he was not deceived, for the following year, through the cleansing of the temple and the death of the tyrant, brought a relative fulfilment of his promises, just as in earlier days the return from exile was a relative fulfilment of the promises of Deutero- Isaiah. This relative salvation the author has seen alongside of an absolute Messianic one, and in this vision of the future lies the particular and lasting value of the book. Odd and uncouth though his reading of history is, his vision of the age to come is deep and full of meaning. He did not try to support himself and his contemporaries by detailed and glaring sensual pictures, but he gave comfort through the rebirth of pure prophetic thought. After the fourth world-kingdom had run its full demonic course the longed-for judgment was to come (vii. 10), and with it the end of the history of revelation and that of man (ix. 24); thereupon was to come the divine kingdom from Heaven (vii. 27), without limit in time or space (ii. 44), in the glory of which even the pious dead should participate, while the worldly recreants would receive their due (xii. 2).
It is more difficult to take a position respecting the narratives of the first part. One soon sees, however, that they can serve only as the materialization of the same faith as has created the vision of the future. This by no means ex-
^- eludes use of sources; on the other
°^ hand, even if one could point out
Sources. g, direct reference to Anti-
ochus, this by no means makes it pure fiction. There is much that points to the use of older ma-
Daniel