south push at him: and the king of the north shall
come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and
with horsemen, and with manv ships ; and he shall cn-
t*"r into the rountries. and sha!^ overflow and pass over.
41 He shall nnter also into the glorious land, and many
ftntnlrifn shall be overthrown . but these shall escape
out oi his hand, rvn Ednm, and Moab, and the chief
of the children of Ammnn.
42 He shall stntch forth his hand also upon the coun-
tries : and the I"nd of Etrvpt shall not escape.
A% But he shall have power over the treasures of gold
and "f «iU-er. and overall t^f pmclous things of Egypt :
and the I.i'^vans nnd the Fthiopinns ^haJl hr at his steps.
44 But ti'iinffB out of th- east and ont of the north
shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with
â– TTf.it fiirv to destroy, and utterly to make awiv manv.
45 And he shall p'-nt t^-e tihi^rmrles of hTs pnln're
hetH-e»n the se^S in the c'orioufi holv mctint.«'n ; yet b«
shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
Prince of princes ;
told i
wherefore shut
thon up the vinion ;
for it »hall be for
many days,
Cbap. XII.
CuAP. XIL
1 And I heard the
man clothed in lin-
en, which wadnpoii
the waters of tie
river, wln;n hehebl
up his right hanil
and his left ham'
unto heaven, and
swnre by him thrt
liveth forever, that
it thaUbe for a time,
times, and a half:
and when he shall
have accomplished
to scatter the pow-
er of the holy peo-
ple, all these things
eboll be finished,
10 Many shall be
purifiid, and made
whiti.-, and iritid ;
but Ihuwicked shall
iikedly : nnd
none of the Milked
shull uni'.erstand ;
but the wise shall
underEt'ind.
11 And from the
time that the daily
Mcrirfcc shall Le
taken away, and
the abomination
that moketh deso-
late set up. there
shall be a thousand
two hundred and
ninety days.
12 blessed ix he
that waiteth. and
Cometh to the thou-
sand three hundred
and five and thirty
days.
4-8 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF DANIEL.
the Lurd had given to their fathers, servants to it. Though now again the niincd walls of Jeru-
salem and the cities of Judah were restored, and the temjjle also was rebuilt, and the offering
up of sacritice renewed, yet the glory of the Lord did not again enter into the new temple,
â– which was also without the ark of the covenant and the mercy-scat, so as to hallow it as the
place of His gracious presence among His people. The temple worshi]) among the Jews after
the captivity was without its soul, the real presence of the Lord in the sanctuary ; the high
priest could no longer go before God's throne of grace in the holy of holies to sprinkle the
atoning blood of saciifice toward the ark of the covenant, and to accomjilish the reconcilia-
tion of the congregation with their God, and could no longer find out, Ity means of the Urim
and Thumim, the will of the Lord. When Nehcniiah had finished the restoration of the walls
of Jerusalem, jjrophecy ceased, the revelations of the Old Covenant came to a final end, and
the period of expectation (duiing which no propliecy was given) of the promised Deliverer, of
the seed of David, began If the prophets before the captivity, therefore, connect
the deliverance of Israel from Babylon, and their return to Canaan, immediately with the set-
ting up of the kingdom of God in its glorj', without giving any indication that between the
end of the Baljylonian exile and the appearance of the Messiah a long period would inter-
vene, this uniting together of the two events is not to be explained only from the perspective
and apotelesmatic character of the prophecy, but has its foundation in the very nature of the
thing itself. The jjrophetic jjerspective, by virtue of wliich the inward eye of the seer beholds
only the elevated summits of historical events as they unfold themselves, and not the valleys
of the common incidents of histoi-y which lie between these heights, is indeed peculiar to
projihecy in general, and accounts for the circumstance that the jnophecies as a rule give no
fixed dates, and apostelesmatically bind together the points of history which ojjcn the way to
the end with the end itself. But this formal jjeculiarity of prophetic contemplation we must
not extend to the prejudice of the actual truth of the prophecies. The fact of the uniting
together of the future glory of the kingdom of God under the Messiah with the deliverance
of Israel fi'om exile, has perfect historical veracity. The banishment of the covenant people
from the land of the Lord, and their subjection to the heathen, was not only the last of those
judgments which God threatened against His degenerate people, but it also continues till the
pei-verse rebels are exterminated, and the penitents are turned with sincere hearts to God the
Lord and are saved through Christ. Consequently the exile was for Israel the last sjjace for
repentance which God in His faithfulness to His covenant granted to them. Whoever is not
brought by this severe chastisement to rei)entance and reformation, but remains opposed to
the gracious will of God, on him falls the judgment of death : and only they who turn them-
selves to the Lord, their God and Saviour, will be saved, gathered from among the heathen,
brought in within the bonds of the covenant of grace through Christ, aud become partakers
of the promised riches of grace in His kingdom."]
[Note 3. — As a conspectus of Daniel's entire series of projjhecies respecting the world-king-
doms, showing their complete harmony and mutual illustration, as well as their exact accord-
ance with history, we insert (on pages 44-47) a table of all the passages, taken from M'Clin-
tock and Strong's Cyclopadia, s. v. Daniel.]
[Note 4. — Dr. Cowles, in his Commentary on Daniel (N. Y. 1871), devotes an Excursus
(pp. 4.59 sq.) to the consideration of that theory, generally called the " year-for-a-day " view,
which results in applying the prophecy of the fourth kingdom of Rome, and especially the
Papacy. His arguments are perfectly conclusive to candid minds. As the work is easily
acce.ssible we forl^ear to quote or abridge his remarks. See further the exegetical observations
on the passages where the dates are given.]
§ 11. The Alexandbiak Version of the Book of Daniel, and its Apocrtphal addi-
tions.
The Alexandrian translation of this book was, during a long time, supposed to be no more
in existence, because the church, as far back as the time of EusebiMs of Csesarea and Pamphy-
lius, had adopted the version of the Jewish proselyte Theodotian, which was considerably
more exact and free from errors.* The genuine Se])tuagint text of Daniel was not published
iintil 1773, when Simon de Magistris, a Romish priest of the oratory, published it from a
Codex Chiaianus. The editions by J. D. Michaelis (1773-4) and Segaar (1775) served to
farther introduce and midtiply this version. H. A. Hahn finally published a truly crirical
edition (1845), for which he had availed himself of a Syriac-Hexaplarian version published
in 1788 by Cajetan BugatI, from a Codex Ambrosianus. This hexapla offers a Septuagint
• Of. Jerome, Comm. in Dan. It., 16 ; " Septuagtnta hoc omnia nescio qna ratiotie pre^terierunt. Undejndicio mxigii-
Irorum Enle^iit eililio eorum in hoc volumine npudiata est el Thtodotiontt cutgo legttur, qua: ec Hebrxo et cnteri*
trantiutvribus aongruitj'^
ALESANDKIAN VERSION OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 40
text corrected after Theodotian, as Origen had prepared it for his Si'xnpla, while the text edited
after the Cod. Chisianus represents the genuine and unadulterated language of the Alexan-
drian version, as it had stood in Origen's Tetrapla beside the unchanged text of Tlieodotian
(cf. Delitzsch, p. 286).
The Alexandrian version of this book probably originated before, or at any rate about, tlie
middle of the second century before Christ, and therefore at the time in which the opposing
criticism finds the Hebrew original to have been written (cf. § 6, note 3). The numerous
departures fiom the original which this version presents, and which consist in the change of
â– words and phrases {e.g. I. 3, 11, 16; II. 8, 11, 28; VIL 6, 8, etc.), in part of abbreviations
and omissions {e.g. III. 31 et seq. ; IV. 2-6 ; V. 17-25 ; 26-38), and finally, also in extensions
of the text {e.g. FV. 34 ; VI. 20, 22-29), are by many critics traced to a Hebrew or Chaldee
text diverse from the original, upon which this version is based {e.g. Michaelis, Bertholdt,
Eichhorn). But they owe their existence, more probably, to the labors of the translator, since
they are merely interpretations or paraplu'ases, designed to clear uj) the text, to indicate the
connection, or to simplify or intensify the wonderful (cf. Haveniick, Kommentar, p. xlvii et
seq. ; De Wette, Einl, § 258 ; Keil, § 137).
Nor do the longer interpolations inserted into the book of Daniel, in both tlie Alexandrian
and Theodotian's versions, and generally bearing the name of (ipocryphul additions to Daniel,
contain any feature that could compel the assumj^tion of a Hebrew or Chaldee original on
which they are based. Their lingual features testify rather to an original composition in the
Greek (particularly the paronomasias or plays on Greek words, which were remarked by Por-
phyry, — sucli as axlfoi, axintiiL-nfilvoi, njiinii, whicli can scarcely be traced back to Hebrew paro-
nomasias that were copied by the translator *), which is therefore accepted by Micliaelis, De
Wette, Bleek, Hiivernick, etc., while other critics contend that these fragments were wholly,
or in part, translated from a Hebrew or Aramaic original. (The latter include not merely
Roman Catholics, as Dereser, Welte, Haneberg, Reusch, but also Protestants, among whom are
Bertholdt, Eichhorn, DeKtzsch [De Jlahacuci prophetw vita atque a:tate, 1844, p. 52 et seq.],
Fritzschc [Exeget. Handhuch zu den Apol-ryphen, I. Ill et seq.], Zlindel, etc.) This hypothesis
of a Shemitic original may l)e justified, at most, with regard to two of these additions (the
prayer of Azariah, and the song of the three children), but not with reference to the two that
remain. These latter fragments (the history of " Susanna and Daniel," and that of " Bl'1 and
the dragon ") bear a decidedly legendary character, being designed to glorify Daniel, and
involving many improbabilities, and even impossibilities. They are therefore regarded, and
with justice, as being of still later origin than the other component parts of the Greek Daniel.
In the Alexandrian version they compose the closing sections of the book (chapters xiii. and
xiv., by the modem arrangement of chapters), but are introduced vrith formulas {e.g. chap,
xiv., or Bel and the dragon, with the puzzling superscription: «'« t^; Trpoc^jjTfioj 'AuGaKoifi vioi:
'Iijuoi ex tr)i tpvXrjs Afiit), the peculiarity of which is of itself sufficient to indicate their origin
subsequently to the time of Daniel, whether an otherwise unknown prophet jjseudo-Habakkuk
be regarded as their author, or their origin be ascribed to one or several Jewish or Hellenistic
writers. In Theodotian's translation these additions are organically incorporated with tlie
Book of Daniel, Susanna being placed before Chap. i. as belonging to the history of the
prophet's youth — the '• prayer of Azariah " and the " song of the three children " being
inserted between vs. 23 and 24 of chap. iii. (similar to theii' position in the Sept.), while only
" Bel and the dragon " is consigned to the end of the book after chap. xii.
The question relating to the time and place in which these apocryphal fragments were com-
posed cannot be solved, and we can only venture the supposition that the four emanated from
different authors. This appears in the case of tlie " prayer of Azariah " and the " song of
the three children" (chap. III. 24-45 and 51-90), from the circumstance, that in the former
(v. 38) the temple is represented as destroyed and its services as havmg ceased, while the othei
• Jerome, Comm. in Dan. Praph. : *' Sed el hoc uo/i^e (tebemu-i, inter ceetera Porpftyriuni de Danielis libra nobis oftfi-
cere, idt-ircn ilium (ippni'ere eonjlrtnm, nee haberi apitd Jfebr<ros. sed Grtfct sermnnis esse comnientum : quia in Sitwm
nie fabuUl contiueatiir, dicenie Itnniete adpresbi/teros, airh tou tT\ivov (T\i<TaL, KaX aTro toO ;7pti'ou jrpitrat. qnam et:inioU>
ffiam inagis Gvceco sermoni convenire quain Jfebi'tro, cni et Eusebius et Apollinaris pari sententia responderunt :
SusanntT BeUsqne, et Draconis fabulasjion contineri tn Sebraico, sed partem esse prophetice Habacuc Jllii i/e«M," etc
I
5(> INTRODUCTION TO THE PEOPHET DANIEL.
fragment presumes the existence of botlx these institutions (vs. 54, 84 et seq.). Of the two
remaining additions, that relating to Susanna (possiljly containing a grain of historical truth
belonging to the age of the canonical book of Daniel) seems to have been composed at an
early day, and without any reference to the canonical Daniel ; while " Bel and the dragon,''
or the 'â– Prophecy of Habakkuk, the son of Jesus, of the tribe of Le^^," appears to have been
written, with special reference to Dan. vii., by a Palestinian author of a much later time. All
of these apocryphal appendages to the questions relating to Daniel furnish a very important
testimony in attestation of the superior historical rank and genuine prophetical character of
the canonical Daniel, inasmuch as their artificial stamp and legendary tone present a contrast
to the far more sober and credible contents of that book, analogous to the familiar contrast
bet\veen the apocryi^hal and the canonical Gospels, which serves so strongly to endorse the
credibility of tlie latter. These remarks will also apply to the contrast between Daniel and
the pseudonymous apocalyj)ses of the last Jewish, or pre-Christian age, e.g. tlie " Sibylline
Oracles," Enoch, and the "Fourth Book of Esdras," whose partial dependence on our book
has already lieen considered (§ 6, especially note 3), and which are unquestionably the earlier
or later products of an apocalyptic and simulated authorship, like that of the unknown origi-
nators of the additions to our book.
Note. — In relation to the apologetic importance of the ajjocryjAal supplements to chap,
iii. 13 and 14 in the Greek Daniel, compare Delitzsch. p. 186: "How favorable is the testi-
mony for the historical and prophetical character of the canonical book, which results from
its contrast with these apocryphal legends 1 " — and also Ziiudel, p. 187: " These apocryphal
additions to Daniel therefore, did not all originate at the same time, or in the same place :
Imt one appeared on Grecian. (?) soil, another on Palestinian, and a third perhaps on Babylo-
nian. Tlicy were translated before they were received hy the Septuagint (witht)ut exception ?
— see above) ; and prior to their reception, they had been partially gathered, and ascribed to
a s])uriuus Habakkuk. ... If Daniel, tlierefore, was not composed until B. C. 168, how
could the ti-anslation in question, together with these additions, have existed as early as B. C.
130 '. Even though an unusually rapid formation of legends l)e assumed, from the oldest,
relating to Susanna, to the latest ail's otj ruiv rijiiii/ 7tui.huv, how is it possible to conceive the con-
trast between the original work and the oldest forgery, as developed within the limits of a
single generation I And from tlie earliest forgery again, down to the latest, would not a con-
siderable contrast have arisen here, e.g. between tlie «po'ifv;^i} and the aiVfoij ? . . . And
beyond this, their being translated and collected ! All these considerations compel ua to
assume a jieriod, covering many gcneratkiu.'i, between the origin of the bool- of Daniel and its
Alexandrian version.''^ — See ibid., p. 134 et seq., and especially p. 137, on the relation of the
Jewish aporahjpses of the ])re-Christian period to Daniel : " A pre-Christian, or, upon the
whole, a jjrogressive development, cannot be asserted in connection with these apocalypses ;
for, with the exception of the Sibyllines, none of them was sufficiently important to give rise
to imitations. They did not spring from each other, but are co-ordinate, and the only con-
nection among themselves consists in their imitating the earlier prophets, and in their tendency
to describe the facts of history in an ajjocalyptie manner. But on the other hand, nearly all of
them contain imitations of Daniel. The " Book of Enoch " treats of the interjjretation of the
number seventy in his seventy regents ; Esdras's eagle with wings and feathers is evidently the
fourth [? first] beast of Daniel; and the person who incessantly inquires why the covenant
peojjle is afllicted, is merely a copy of Daniel while mourning liecause of tlie delay in the ful-
filment of projjhecy (chap. ix. and x.). The numbers of Daniel in chap. viii. are almost com-
pletely restoied in the Ascensio Jesajoe, which also paints the coming of the Lord with Daniel's
colors," etc.
The apocryphal additions to Daniel are found also in the ancient Coptic version, which is
not -n-ithout importance for textual criticism. They have been published by Henry Tattam,
in vol. II., p. 270 ss. of his Prvplieta majores in lingua yEgyptiucm dialecto Memphitica s.
Co2>tica (Oxon, 1852).
§ 12. Theological and Homiletical Literatitbe on Daniei.
I. Ancient Period. — 1. Christian expositors. (1.) Church fathers : Hippolyti Commenlar.
in Danielis et Kehiiehadnezaris visionum solutio7ies (capp. 7-12), editus e cod. Chisiano in Dan-
idem sec. LXX. interpretes, Roma;, 1772 (see also the fragment in Greek of a commentary on
Daniel in the 0pp. nippolyti. cd. J. A. Fabricius. Hamb., 1716). EjAnTmi Syri Cominenlar.
in Dan., in his 0pp. Gr. et Syr, ed. Assemaui, Rom., 1740 ct seq., torn. II., p. 203 et sen. Hiero-
THEOLOGICAL AXD HOMILETICAL LITERATURE OF DANIEL. Oi
nymi ExpLiruitio in Danulem prophetam, in his Opp. ed Vallars., Vanet., 1768, torn, v., p. XL
rheodoreti Commentar. in visianes Danulia propheta [Tno/ivr^fia tij raj opuotij roii npop/jroL'
SavtTj-K), in his Opp. ed. Schulze, Hal., 1768 et seq., t. IL, p. II., p. 1063 ct seq.* Polycluouii (a
Drother of Theodore of Mopsuestia) Commentarius in Danielem, in A. Mai, Nova Collect, I. B,
p. 155. [Chrysostomi Interpretatio in Danielem, in liis Opp. vi. 228 et seq.] (2.) During the
middle ages: 3 oa.c\\\m Ej^oaitio in iJaHteZ., Venet., 1519. Thomas Aquinas, Comm. in Dan-
iel., separ. ed. Paris, 1640. [Rupertus Tuitiensis, In Danielem, liber i. (in his Opp. i., 520 et
seq.) Albertus Magnus, Comment, in Danielem (in his Opp., p. 8 et seq.)] 2. Jewish expositors
(Rabbins) : R. Saadia Hag-Gaon (t 924), in the RabUn. Bibles by Bomberg (Venet., 1526 et
seq.) and Buxtorf (Basil, 1618). Rashi {i.e. R. Shelomoh ben-Jizchak, f 1105), ihid., and also
in J. F. Breithaupt's Commentt. It. S. Jarchi in Propfih., Joh, et Psahnos in Lat. vert., Goth.
1713. Ibn-Ezra (f 1167), in the Rahhiii. Bibles. Abarbanel (t 1508), nj'v:;-; i?-;??; {i.e. " wells
of salvation," Isa. xii. 3), Neap., 1497; also Arasterd., 1617, 4. R. Joseph Teitzack (about
1500), B"'"?t;D 03^ (pauis absconditus, Prov. ix. 17 — a commentai^ on Daniel and the 5 Megil-
loth), Venet., 1608, 4. R. Mosheh Alshech (about 1560), lIT^'n r;-^2n (Cant. U., 1), Zaphat,
1508 ; Venet., 1592. R. Shamuel b.- Jeh. Valeri (16th cent.l, ns:bb liin (\isio temporis statuti),
Venet., 1586. R. Joseph ben-D. David ben-J. Jachim (usually Jacchiades, t 1559), Paraphra-
»is in Dan. proph., Heb. et Lat., ed Const. L'Erapereur, Amstel., 1633, 4to ; [new ed., by Philipp-
son, Dessau, 1808, 4to and 8vo. Jud. Low Jeitteles, a Heb. Commentary on Dan., Ezra and
Neb., Vienna, 1835, 8vo.]
n. Modern period. 1. Protestant expositors, (a) lu the 16th century: IjUiher, Der Prophet
Daniel deutsch, Wittenb., 1530, 4 (dedicated to duke John Fred.) ; Vorrede Sber den Proph.
Daniel, nebst Auslegung des XI. und XII. Kap., Wittenb., 1546, 4; Disputation icier den Ort
Dan. iv. 34 ; — the three works collected under the title Auslegung des Proph. Daniel, in vol.
vi. of Walch's ed. Melancthon, Comment, in Daniel, proph., Vitemb., 1543, 8 (in his Opip., torn.
[I., p. 410) ; [^Exposition of Daniel, gathered out of P. Melancthon, by G. Joy, Geneva, 1545,
lOmo, Lond., 1550, 8vo] ; in German, by Just. Jonas, 1546. Joh. Draconitis Cummeiit. in
Daniel, ex Ebrao versum, cum oratione in Danielem, Marburg, 1544, 8. Victorin. Sti'igel,
Danielis prop)hetm concio, ad Ebraicam et Chaldaicam tieritatem recognita et argumentis atque
icholiis illustrata. Lips., 1505, 1571. Joh. Wigand, Explicatio brevis in Danielem, Jen., 1571.
Nik. Selnekker, ErH. des Proph. Danielund der Offenbarung Johannis, Jen., 1567, 160S. Phil.
Heilbrunner, Danielis piroph. naticinia in locos communes theologicos digesta et qiutstionibus
methodice illustrata, Lauing., 1587. J. Qicolampadius, In Danielem II. II., omnigena et ubstru-
riore cum Ebrceorum turn Grcecorum seriptorum doctrinarej'crti, Basil., 1530, 1543, and often,
L Calvin, Pradectiones in Danielem, a Joa. BudjEo et Car. Jonvillaeo coUectoe, Genev., 1563,
1576, and often (also in his Opp., torn, v., Amstel., 1667 [Commentary on Daniel, tr. by T.
Myrcs, M.A., Edinb., 1852, 3 vols. 8vo.]). Fr. Junius, Erpositio proph. Danielis, a Jo. Gru-
tero excepta, Heidelb., 1593; Goncv., 1594. Rob. Kollock, Comin. in libr. Dan. prnphetci',
Edinb., 1591 ; Basil, 1594 ; Gen., 1598. Hugh Broughtim, Danielis visiones Chahhiiae et
EbrcEce, ex originali translatte et illustratce, London, 1596 (Engl. ed. [also in Worl's, p. 164
et seq.]), Basil., 1599 (Lat. ed. J. Boreel). A Polanus a Polansdorf, In Danielem prophetam,
visionum amplitudine difficillimum, vaticiuiorum majestate augustissimum, commentarius, in quo
logica analysi et theologica e/c^easi, tradita in publicis prcelectionibis in vetusta Basileensi acade-
mia, totius libri, ad hoc avum calamitosum saluberrimi, genuinus sensus et multiplex usus osteif
diiur, Basil., 1599, 1608.
(b). In the 17th century: S. Gesner, Daniel proplieta disputationihus XII., et prefationt
ehronologica hreviter explicatus, Vitemljerg., 1601, 1607, and often. Polyc. Leyser, Commenta-
rius in Dan. cap. I.-VL, Francof. et Darmst., 1609 et seq.f J. C. Rhumelius, Libei- Danielit
paraphrasi recensitus, Norimb., 1616. Mart. Geier, Prcelectlones academics in Danielem proph.,
• The fragments of several other patristical expositors of Daniel, e.ff. Ammonias, Polj-chronius, Apolllnaris, Eudoxius,
may be found in the commentary of H. Broughton, mentioned below (Dantelts vMona Cliald. et Bibr., Basil., 15a9), is
connection with the expositions of Hippolytus and others.
+ This worlv of Leyser's has been published in six ports under various titles : (1) Scholia Babyiuuica, h. e. eccltitiastian
rvmmentationes in cap. I. Danielis. Francof., 1609 ; (2) Colossus Bahylonicus qiialuor mundi monarchias reprasentant,
§. ecct. expo6itio cap. If. Danielis, Darmst., 1609 ; (3) Foi'itax Babylonica, sincere retigionis coft/essoris probans, «. Mel,
52 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHET DaNIEL.
Lips., 1667 and often. Abrah. Calov, Annotata Anti-Grotiana in Jeremiam et Daniele n proph.,
Vitemb., 1664. A. Varenius, Collegium canonicum quatuor novissimoriim V. Ti. prophetarum,
Danielis, Haggmi, Zacharm, Mahichice, Rostochii, 1667. G. Meissner, Der Prophet Daniel,
sowoJd gescheheiie Dinge ausredend, als hanftige weissagend, durch kurze Anmerhiingen erldutert ;
â– with a preface by J. Fr. Mayer, Hamburg, 1695, 13. J. H. Alsted, Trifolium propheticwn,
i.e. Cant. Canticor. Salom., prophetia Danielis, Apocalypsis Joannis, sic explicantur, ut series
textM et temporis prophetici, e regione posita, lucem menti et consolationem cordi ingcrant, Her-
born, 1640. Constantin L'Empereur (Professor controversiarum Judaicarum at Leyden,
t 1648), Paraphrasis Jos. Jachiadm in Danielem cum versione et annotationihus, Amstcl., 1633
(see supra I., 2). Tliom. Parker, Eipositio msionum et prophetiarum Danielis, Lond., 1646.
J. Cocceius, Comment, in Danielem, Lugd. Bat., 1666. H. Wingendorf, Prophetia Danielis
paraphrasi reddita et cum prof anm historim momimentis collata, Lugd. Bat., 1674. J. H. Jung-
mann, Propheta Daniel novo modo et hactenus inaudito reseratus, etc., etc., Casselis, 1681.
Baltli. Bekker, Uitlegginge van den Propli£t Daniel, Amsterd., 1688, 1698.
(c). In tlie 18tli century: J. Musaius, Sclwlm propheticas contintLatce, ex pralectionihus in
prophetas Danielem, Micham, et Joelem collects, ed. J. E. de Scliulenberg, Quedlinb., 1719.
Chr. Bened. Michaelis, Adnotationes j>TiHologico-exegetiaE in Danielem, Hal., 1720 (also in Vol.