Online Encyclopedia
Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
DANIEL, BOOK
Online EncyclopediaEncyclopedia Home :: DAH-DEM
del.icio.us it!
|
See also:DANIEL, See also:BOOK or.—The Book of Daniel stands between See also:Ezra and See also:Esther in the third See also:great See also:division of the See also:Hebrew See also:Bible known as the Hagiographa, in which are classed all See also:works which were not regarded as being See also:part of the See also:Law or the Prophets. The book presents the unusual peculiarity of being written in two See also:languages, i.-ii. 4 and viii.-xii. being in Hebrew, while the See also:text of ii. 4-vii. is the Palestinian See also:dialect of Aramaic.' The subject See also:matter, however, falls naturally into two divisions which are not co-terminous with the linguistic sections; viz. i.-vi. and vii.-xii. The first of these sense-divisions deals only with narratives regarding the reign of See also:Nebuchadrezzar and his supposed son Belshazzar, while the second See also:section consists exclusively of apocalyptic prophecies. There can be no doubt that a definite See also:plan was followed in the arrangement of the See also:work. The author's See also:object was clearly to demonstrate to his readers the See also:necessity of faith in See also:Israel's See also:God, who shall not for ever allow his chosen ones to be ground under the See also:heel of a ruthless See also:heathen oppressor. To illustrate this, he makes use on the one See also:hand (i.-vi.) of carefully chosen narratives, somewhat loosely connected it is true, but all treating substantially the same subject,—the See also:physical See also:triumph of God's servant over his unbelieving enemies; and on the other hand (vii.-xii.), he introduces certain prophetic visions illustrative of God's favour towards the same servant, Daniel. So carefully is this See also:record of the visions arranged that the first two chapters of the second part of the book (vii.-viii.) were no doubt purposely made to appear in a symbolic See also:form, in See also:order that in the last two revelations (xi.-xii.), which were couched in such See also:direct See also:language as to be intelligible even to the See also:modern student of See also:history, the author might obtain the effect of a See also:climax. The book is probably not therefore a number of parts of different origin thrown loosely together by a careless editor, who does not deserve the See also:title of author? The more or less disconnected sections of the first part of the work were probably so arranged purposely, in order to facilitate its See also:diffusion at a See also:time when books were known to the See also:people at large chiefly by being read aloud in public. Various attempts have been made to explain the sudden See also:change from Hebrew to Aramaic in ii. 4. It was See also:long thought, for example, that Aramaic was the See also:vernacular of Babylonia and was consequently employed as the language of the parts See also:relating to that See also:country. But this was not the See also:case, because the Babylonian language survived until a later date than that of the events portrayed in Daniel' Nor is it possible to follow the theory of Merx, that Aramaic, which was the popular See also:tongue of the See also:day when the Book of Daniel was written, was therefore used for the simpler narrative See also:style, while the more learned Hebrew was made the See also:idiom of the philosophical portions.' The first See also:chapter, which is just as much in the narrative style as are the following Aramaic sections, is in Hebrew, while the distinctly apocalyptic chapter vii. is in Aramaic. A third view, that the bilingual See also:character of the work points to a time when both languages were used indifferently, is equally unsatisfactory,' because it is highly questionable whether two idioms can ever be used quite indifferently. In fact, a hybrid work in two languages would be a See also:literary monstrosity. In view of the apparent unity of the entire work, the only possible explanation seems to be that the book was written at first all in Hebrew, but for the convenience of the See also:general reader whose vernacular was Aramaic, a See also:translation, possibly from the same See also:pen as the See also:original, was made into
See also: ' The latest connected Babylonian inscription is that of See also:Antiochus See also:Soter (280–26o B.c.), but the language was probably spoken until Hellenic times; cf. Gutbrod, Zeitschr. See also:fur Assyriol. V1. 27. ' Prince, Dan. 12. Bertholdt, Dan. 15; See also:Franz See also:Delitzsch, in See also:Herzog, Realencyklo-Qlidie, and ed., iii. 470. Aramaic. It must be supposed then that, certain parts of the original Hebrew See also:manuscript being lost, the missing places were supplied from the current Aramaic translation.' It cannot be denied in the See also:light of modern See also:historical See also:research that if the Book of Daniel be regarded as pretending to full historical authority, the biblical record is open to all manner of attack. It is now the general See also:opinion of most modern scholars who study the Old Testament from a See also:critical point of view that this work cannot possibly have originated, according to the traditional theory, at any time during the Babylonian See also:monarchy, when the events recorded are supposed to have taken See also:place. The See also:chief reasons for such a conclusion are as follows.' r. The position of the book among the Hagiographa, instead of among the Prophetical works, seems to show that it was introduced after the closing of the Prophetical See also:Canon. Some commentators have believed that Daniel was not an actual See also:prophet in the proper sense, but only a seer, or else that he had no official See also:standing as a prophet and that therefore the book was not entitled to a place among official prophetical books. But if the work had really been in existence at the time of the completion of the second part of the canon, the collectors of the prophetical writings, who in their care did not neglect even the See also:parable of See also:Jonah, would hardly have ignored the record of so great a prophet as Daniel is represented to have been. 2. Jesus See also:ben Sirach (See also:Ecclesiasticus), who wrote about 200-18o B.C., in his otherwise See also:complete See also:list of Israel's leading See also:spirits (xlix.), makes no mention of Daniel. See also:Hengstenberg's plea that Ezra and Mordecai were also See also:left unmentioned has little force, because Ezra appears in the book bearing his name as nothing more than a prominent See also:priest and See also:scholar, while Daniel is represented as a great prophet. 3. Had the Book of Daniel been extant and generally known after the time of See also:Cyrus (537-529 B.C.), it would be natural to look for some traces of its See also:power among the writings of See also:Haggai, See also:Zechariah and See also:Malachi, whose works, however, show no See also:evidence that either the name or the history of Daniel was known to these authors. Furthermore, the manner in which the prophets are looked back upon in ix. 6-Io cannot fail to suggest an extremely See also:late origin for the book. Besides this, a careful study of ix. 2 seems to indicate that the Prophetical Canon was definitely completed at the time when the author of Daniel wrote. It is also highly probable that much of the material in the second part of the book was suggested by the works of the later prophets, especially by See also:Ezekiel and Zechariah. 4. Some of the beliefs set forth in the second part of the book also practically preclude the possibility of the author having lived at the courts of Nebuchadrezzar and his successors. Most noticeable among these doctrines is the complete See also:system of angelology consistently followed out in the Book of Daniel, according to which the management of human affairs is en-trusted to a See also:regular See also:hierarchy of commanding angels, two of whom, See also:Gabriel and See also:Michael, are even mentioned by name. Such an See also:idea was distinctly See also:foreign to the See also:primitive Israelitish conception of the indivisibility of Yahweh's power, and must consequently have been a borrowed one. It could certainly not have come from the Babylonians, however, whose system of attendant spirits was far from being so complete as that which is set forth in the Book of Daniel, but rather from See also:Persian See also:sources where a more complicated angelology had been See also:developed. As many commentators have brought out, there can be little doubt that the See also:doctrine of angels in Daniel is an indication of prolonged Persian See also:influence. Furthermore, it is now very generally admitted that the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, which is advanced for the first time in the Old Testament in Daniel, also originated among the Persians,' and could only have been engrafted on the Jewish mind after a long See also:period of intercourse with the Zoroastrian See also:religion, which came into contact with the Jewish thinkers considerably after the time of Nebuchadrezzar. ' Bevan, Dan. 27 ff. ; Prince, Dan. 13. ' For this whole discussion, see Prince, Dan. 15 if. The investigations of See also:Haug, Spiegel and Windischmann show that this was a real Zoroastrian doctrine. 5. All the above evidences are merely See also:internal, but we are now able to draw upon the Babylonian historical sources to prove that Daniel could not have originated at the time of Nebuchadrezzar. There can be no doubt that the author of Daniel thought that Belshazzar (q.v.), who has now been identified beyond all question with See also:Bel-far-uzur, the son of Nabonidus, the last Semitic king of 'See also:Babylon, was the son of Nebuchadrezzar, and that Belshazzar attained the See also:rank of king.' This prince did not even come from the See also:family of Nebuchadrezzar. Nabonidus, the See also:father of Belshazzar, was the son of a nobleman Nabu-baladsu-iqbi, who was in all See also:probability not related to any of the preceding See also:kings of Babylon. Had Nabonidus been descended from Nebuchadrezzar he could hardly have failed in his records, which we possess, to have boasted of such a connexion with the greatest Babylonian monarch; yet in none of his See also:inscriptions does he trace his descent beyond his father. Certain expositors have tried to obviate the difficulty, first by supposing that the expression " son of Nebuchadrezzar " in Daniel means " descendant " or " son," a view which is rendered untenable by the facts just cited. This school has also endeavoured to prove that the author of Daniel did not mean to imply Belshazzar's kingship of Babylon at all by his use of the word " king," but they suggest that the writer of Daniel believed Belshazzar to have been co-See also:regent. If Belshazzar had ever held such a position, which is extremely unlikely in the See also:absence of any evidence from the See also:cuneiform documents, he would hardly have been given the unqualified title " king of Babylon " as occurs in Daniel.' For example, See also:Cambyses, son of Cyrus, was undoubtedly co-regent and See also:bore the title " king of Babylon " during his father's lifetime, but, in a See also:contract which See also:dates from the first See also:year of Cambyses, it is expressly stated that Cyrus was still " king of the lands." This should be contrasted with Dan. viii. 1, where reference is made to the " third year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon " without any allusion to another over-ruler. Such attempts are at best subterfuges to support an impossible theory regarding the origin of the Book of Daniel, whose author clearly believed in the kingship of Belshazzar and in that prince's descent from Nebuchadrezzar.
Furthermore, the writer of Daniel asserts (v. 1) that a monarch " See also:Darius the Mede " received the See also:kingdom of Babylon after the fall of the native Babylonian See also:house, although it is evident, from i. 21, X. 1, that the biblical author was perfectly aware of the existence of Cyrus' The fact that in no other scriptural passage is mention made of any Median ruler between the last Semitic king of Babylon and Cyrus, and the See also:absolute silence of the authoritative See also:ancient authors regarding such a king, make it apparent that the late author of Daniel is again in See also:error in this particular. It is known that Cyrus became See also:master of See also:Media by conquering See also:Astyages, and that the troops of the king of See also:Persia capturing Babylon took Nabonidus prisoner with but little difficulty. Unsuccessful attempts have been made to identify this mythical Darius with the See also:Cyaxares, son of Astyages, of See also:Xenophon's Cyropaedia, and also with the Darius of See also:Eusebius, who was in all probability Darius Hystaspis. There is not only no See also:room in history for this Median king of the Book of Daniel, but it is also highly likely that the See also:interpolation of " Darius the Mede " was caused by a confusion of history, due both to the destruction of the See also:Assyrian See also:capital See also:Nineveh by the See also:Medea, sixty-eight years before the See also:capture of Babylon by Cyrus, and also to the fame of the later king, Darius Hystaspis, a view which was advanced as See also:early in the history of biblical See also:criticism as the days of the Ber}edictine See also: Darius the Mede entered into See also:possession of Babylon after the See also:death of Belshazzar; Darius Hystaspis conquered Babylon ' Prince, Dan. 35-42. 2 Certain tablets published by Strassmaier, bearing date continuously from Nabonidus to Cyrus, show that neither Belshazzar nor " Darius the Mede " could have had the title " king of Babylon." See See also:Driver, Introduction,' xxii. ' Prince, Dan. 44-56.BOOK OF from the hands of certain rebels (Her. iii. 153-16a). In See also:fine, the interpolation of a Median Darius must be regarded as the most glaring historical inaccuracy of the author of Daniel. In fact, this error of the author alone is See also:proof See also:positive that he must have lived at a very late period, when the record of most of the earlier historical events had become hopelessly confused and perverted. With these chief reasons why the Book of Daniel cannot have originated in the Babylonian period, if the reader will turn more especially to the apocalyptic sections (vii.–xii.), it will be quite evident that the author is here giving a detailed See also:account of historical events which may easily be recognized through the thin See also:veil of prophetic mystery thrown lightly around them. It is indeed highly suggestive that just those occurrences which are the most remote from the assumed standpoint of the writer are the most correctly stated, while the nearer we approach the author's supposed time, the more inaccurate does he become. It is quite apparent that the predictions in the Book of Daniel centre on the period of Antiochus Epiphanes (1 75—164 B.c.), when that Syrian prince was endeavouring to suppress the See also:worship of Yahweh and substitute for it the See also:Greek religion.4 There can be no doubt, for example, that in the " Little See also:Horn " of vii. 8, viii. 9, and the " wicked prince " described in ix.–x., who is to work such evil among the See also:saints, we have clearly one and the same See also:person. It is now generally recognized that the king symbolized by the Little Horn, of whom it is said that he shall come of one of four kingdoms which shall be formed from the Greek See also:empire after the death of its first king (See also: In the angelic explanation in Daniel of Jeremiah's prophecy, these years were in reality year-weeks, which indicated a period of 490 years. This is the true apocalyptic system. The author takes a genuine prophecy, undoubtedly intended by Jeremiah to refer simply to the duration of the Babylonian captivity, and, by means of a purely arbitrary and mystical See also:interpretation, makes it denote the entire period of Israel's degradation down to his own time. This prophecy is really nothing more than an See also:extension of the See also:vision of the 2300 evening-mornings of viii. 14, and of the " time, times and a See also:half a time " of vii. 25. The real problem is as to the beginning and end of this See also:epoch, which is divided into three periods of uneven length; viz. one of seven weeks; one of sixty-two weeks; and the last of one See also:week. It seems probable that the author of Daniel , like the Chronicler, began his period with the fall of See also:Jerusalem in 586. His first seven weeks, therefore, ending with the See also:rule of " See also:Messiah the Prince," probably See also:Joshua ben Jozadak, the first high-priest after the See also:exile (Ezra iii. 2), seem to coincide exactly with the duration of the Babylon exile, i.e. See also:forty-nine years. 4 Prince, Dan. 19-20, 140, 155, 179 if. 4 That " Messiah " or " Anointed One " was i.sed of the High-Priest is seen from Lev. x, 3, v. 16.
The second period of the epoch, during which Jerusalem is to be peopled and built, and at the end of which the Messiah is to be cut off, is much more difficult to determine. The See also: See also:Josephus, who places the reign of Cyrus forty to fifty years too early, makes a similar error. The last week is divided into two sections (26-27), in the first of which the See also:city and See also:sanctuary shall be destroyed and in the second the daily offering is to be suspended. All critical scholars recognize the identity of this second half-week with the " time, times and a half a time " of vii. 25. This last week must, there-fore, end with the restoration of the See also:temple worship in 164 B.C. This whole prophecy, which is perhaps the most interesting in the Book of Daniel, presents problems which can never be thoroughly understood, first because the author must have been ignorant of both history and chronology, and secondly, because, in his effort to be as mystical as possible, he purposely made use of indefinite and vague expressions which render the criticism of the passage a most unsatisfactory task. The Book of Daniel loses none of its beauty and force because we are See also:bound, in the light of modern criticism, to consider it as a See also:production of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, nor should conservative Bible-readers lament because the historical accuracy of the work is thus destroyed. The influence of the work was very great on the subsequent development of See also:Christianity, but it was not the influence of the history contained in it which made itself See also:felt, but rather of that See also:sublime See also:hope for a future deliverance of which the author of Daniel never lost sight. The allusion to the book by Jesus (Matt. See also:xxiv. 15) shows merely that our See also:Lord was referring to the work by its commonly accepted title, and implies no authoritative utterance with regard to its date or authorship. Our Lord simply made use of an See also:apt See also:quotation from a well-known work in order to illustrate and give additional force to his own prediction. If the book be properly understood, it must not only be admitted that the author made no pretence at accuracy of detail, but also that his prophecies were clearly in-tended to be merely an historical resume, clothed for the See also:sake of greater literary vividness in a prophetic garb. The work, which is certainly not a See also:forgery, but only a consolatory political pamphlet, is just as powerful, viewed according to the author's evident intention, as a See also:consolation to God's people in their dire See also:distress at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, as if it were, what an ancient but mistaken tradition had made it, really an accurate account of events which took place at the See also:close of the Babylonian period). Persian Words and the Date of O.T. Documents," in Old Testament and Semitic Studies: in Memory of W. R. Harper (See also:Chicago, 1908). (J. D. PR.) 1 Prince, Dan. Additional information and CommentsThere are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML. Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide. |
|
|
[back] DANIEL HACK TUKE (1827-1895) |
[next] DANIEL, GABRIEL (1649-1728) |