and exaltation. The prophecies of Daniel no longer relate merely to single and contempora-
neous world-kingdoms of greater or less importance; but rather the p_eriod of universal mon-
archies has Ijegun. which rise in succession to universal conquest, and in whose deportment
the worldly principle that opposes the reign of God is revealed in steadily-increasing power
and hostility. Intimately connected with this is the further peculiarity of Daniel, that his
prophecies contain a much greater wealth of historical and political detail than those of all
other prophets. AVhile prophecy generally, viewing the near and tlie distant in perspective, is
accustomed to regard the entire future from an eschatological point of view as the coming of
the kingdom of God, Daniel, on the conti-ary, sees spread before him substantially the future
history of the world which must transpire before the advent of the kingdom. Hence results
ihe special form of prophecy which is peculiar to him alone. If this were in any case a his-
tory of the future, it would be with so him." The idea, that the notice in detail of the several
* [The passages of Isaiah here cited depict in part the idolatry of the heathen, with which the chosen n-ition arc con-
trasted, and in part the degeneracy of the prophet's countrymen in his own day. for which the captivity was lo be a punish
meiit. Few, if any of them, necessarily imply anything more than tha^ discouragement, which a long delay of the promised
deliverance would naturally engender. 1
DANIEL AS A PROTOTYPE OF THE APOCALYPSE.
features of progress iu tlie future development of the world- power and its relations to Gud's
people, is a final chief jicculianty of Daniel's prophecies, is based principally on the contents
of chap, xi., which Auberleu regards as written throughout by Daniel and soon after the
captivity. We Ijelieve ourselves warranted in holding a different \-iew respecting this
chapter, which is the chief support for the assumption of a continued series of tlie must
special predictions, and therefore prefer to accept a revision in the time of Antiochus
Eiiiplianes, by a pious apocalyptic investigator. Hence we charge the thorough description
of the kingdoms of the Seleucidse clown to tliat tyrant, to the account of the modifying
agency of this interpolator. We are not led to this view, either by a preconceived opinion
that the Spirit of prophecy is incapable of jjroducing such special predictions, or by a one-
sided reference to the analogy of the remaining |>roplietical books of the Old Testament,
which contain no such detailed descriptions of the future ; but the decisive circumstance
which arouses our suspicion concerning the assumption that Dan. xi. is throughout and
in all its details a proper prediction, and which even directly forbids it, is the fact tliat the
Revelation of St. John, besides our book the only independent and more comiirehensive produc-
tion of tlie canonical apocalypse, eivru where presents only ideal pkUires •>/ the future. We
admit that the propliet, borne liy the Spirit of prophecy, would, at tlie point in question,
receive many surprisingly exact disclosures respecting the future history of tlie God-opposecl
world-power and its hostility towards the people of God, because we regard Daniel, the " vir
desiderioruni"' (chap. x. 11 ). as pre-eminent in zeal and successful effort, among the Old-Testa-
ment prophets who, according to 1 Pet. i. 11, searched "what, or what manner of time the
Spirit of Christ wliicli was in them did signify." But precisely because he was only a
searcher of the future and could lie no more than this, we are compelled to reject everything
that transforms his prophecy irom a Divinely insjiired picture of the future into a detailed
and painfully exact history of the future, and we therefore charge this portion to the account
of the reviser. Daniel is and remains for us a " prophetic light for tlie times devoid of
revelation, during which Israel was given into the hands of the heathen," a "light that was
designed to illumine the night of five liuudi"ed years from the Cajitivity to Christ and the
destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, for the understanding ones iu Israel" (Auberlen,
p. 80); liut we cannot assume that the clear prophetic light which emanated from him was
intended to penetrate to the smallest comers aAl most gloomy recesses of the history of God's
people which was. for him, yet future.* But if we can assent to Auberlen's description of
the canonical apocalypses as prophetical disclosures, intended to "serve the congregation of
God's people as lights during the times of the Gentiles (Luke xxi. 24) in wliicli there is no
revelation," only on the condition that we conceive their light iu an ideal sense, and as corre-
sponding to the fundamental law in the Divine revelation of gradual and mediate disclosure,
we are none the less compelled on the other liand to reject decidedly a special feature,
admitted by Liicke, Hilgenfeld, and others, into their conception of the idea of apocalypse,
a conception which otherwise conforms approximately to that of Auberlen. We refer to the
idea of p««i«Zf)«ym/?^, concerning which hiXcke {Einleitung in die Offenharung Johannis und
die soyenannte apolcalyptische Literatur, 2d ed., p. 47 sq.) asserts that it is necessarily connected
with the other two distinguishing features of apocalyptic propliecy, its eschatological. and its
comprehensive character that covers all history, since only later WTiters wlio cunningly related
the prophecies to the past and invented additions to the older prophets, were capable of such
all-embracing vision. The oiie-sidedn&ss and rashness of this assertion likewise appear from
the mode of origin and the literary peculiarities of the Revelation by St. .lohn, this most
important and significant of apocalypses, against which no more unjust criticism can be
offered than that of a pseudonyraic origin; and not less from the notorious authenticity of
the former half of the book of Zechariah (chai). i.-viii.), the remaining apocalyptic composi-
tion that has been admitted to the Old-Testament canon, and which may be regarded as the
earliest imitation of Daniel. We can yield our assent to the charge of forgery as regards this
form of writing, in so far only as it applies to the apocryjilial apocalypses, and are therefore
in accord with Hilgenfeld (Die jadische Ap^dalyptik in ihrer (/eschichtlirhen Enticicklung, IS.^i?,
p. 5 sq.) — -whose view diverges somewhat from that of Liicke — -no further than as he excepts
the Joliannean apocalypse from the canon of Liicke, which stamps pseudonyuiity as the
invariable mark of a|)oc;dyptic literature ; but to this exception we add the two apocalypses
of the canimic'.tl Old Testament, f For tlie more special consideration of the relations of
• [To those far removed from all inlluence of the prevalent rationalism of German criticism, the insidious tincture oi
which, notwithsL-indrng the authors disclaimer, is evident in his conclusion on this point, the ascription of any portion
of the book of Deniel to a later nameless writer on such purely subjective grounds, must appear altogether gratuitc us.
The business of the interpreter is. not to prescribe what God was likely to cause a prophet to predict, but to accept and
expound accordingly what historical and substantial testimony has delivered to us as the actual words of prophecy.
There is no more evidence of a pseudo-Daniel than of a pseudo-Isaiah.]
t [The inconsistency of the author's position here is palpable, if we correctly apprehend his somewhat involvej state-
ment of it. The Revelation of St. John, if not the apostle's, if of course under a fictitious name, and the 11th chaptei
if Daniel, if not that prophet's, is equally pseudonymical, whoever may be conceived as the int. -polator. The distlnotloa
OB this reei-ect betw-een a whole work and a part only ifi too nice to esctipe the odium of a **piou£ fraud."]
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHET DANIEL.
Daniel to the apocryphal and pseudepiifraphical apocalj-pses. ^Yllicl) -svere mainly framed on
its model, see below, § 11.*
Note 3. — With respect to the Chaldaic idiom in Dan. ii.-vii., wliich we represented above
as a principal reason for leading the fiamers of tlie canon to assign to Daniel a place anions
the Hagiographa, and in the immediate neighloorliood of Ezra, we remark in general, (1.) that
this dialect, wiiich gradually l)ecame the current language of tlie Palestinian Jews, was the
eastern-Arama-an or Babylonian, a purely Shemitic idiom, which, as the ivrpiilar tongue of
the Babylonians, must be carefully distinguished from the C^~r3 "i"'.!';, mentioned in Dan. i.
4, the latter l)eing the cmiH language of Nebuchadnezzar and the Chalda?an dynasty, and
comi>rehending numerous Aryan or Turanian elements. This follows from Dan. ii. 4 : Isa.
xxxvi. 11 ; and Ezra iv. 7, where documents and speeches in this dialect are designated a3
such by the term tT'O'^S (Luther [and English version]: " Syriac," rather ^i/'o/naicj, while the
"tongue of the Chaldeans" (DiTC3 b) mentioned in Dan. i. 4 is not again referred to, and
is clearly distinguished from the ordinai-y Aramcean language as a peculiar dialect, cunent
among the warrior and priestly caste then dominant in Babylon (possibly identical with those
perpetuated in the Assyrio-Babylonish cuneiform inscriptions) by the manner in which it is
there introduced ; for Daniel and his conii)anions would hardly haveljeeu obliged to undergo
a regular course of instruction in the common Aramaean or Bal)ylonian language, as it should
be called, instead of Chaldee, which is less exact. Compare Ijelow, on chapter i. 4. (2.)
The Aramaean of chapters ii.-vii. includes numerous Heliraisms, as the Hel)rew of the remain-
ing chapters Clialdaizes many expressions ; a circumstance tliat can hardly lie explained,
except on the supposition of an intermingling of both dialects in the popular language, which
may have l:)egun at the time of the frequent Assyrian invasions, at iirst among the ten tribes,
and later gradually extended also to Judali, and to which the strongly Aramaizing Hebrew
of the prophet Ezekiel, most intimately related to the Hebrew of Daniel, bears testimonj'.
(3.) The co-existence of the Hebrew and Arama?an, as dialects spoken and understood by the
people, is substantiated further by the circumstance that our author could venture to express
most of his narratives and predictions in tlie latter tongue ; a feature that is i'e]jeated only in
the book of Ezra, which was written a centurv later, wliile Isaiah (nearly two hundred years
before Daniel) admits no Aramaic expressions into his text in a passage which would havR
afforded a suitable opportunity (chap. xxx\a. 11 ; cf. 2 Kings xviii. 26j, and even Jeremiah
contents himself with employing a brief Aramaic sentence (Jer. x. 11 ; compare the use of
single words iii Aram, in earlier books, e.g., Gen. xxxi. 47; 2 Kings v. 12). (4.) The
Aramaic idiom of Daniel corresponds closely to that of the book of Ezra and of Jer. x. 11,
both in its grammatical and its lexical features. Its wealth of older words {e.g., rr^C-itd
instead of the later nCE, ^nib:; for the later "iss'b?, "'nirinp, for the later K"i.^, CSEi t^b
for the later l^pB, â– 'â– n-bsp'iB, for the later "]? b? ''^S, ^bi: for ~v^~"?i<, etc.) and its general
grammatical peculiarities (where the forms, llib, 12b, instead of the ajipareutly more ancient
CnD, t:3, which are found in Ezra, form the only exceptions) create the impression of a
much higher antiquity than is represented by the otherwise closely related Chaldee of the
Targums. which were composed about the beginning of the Christian a!ra. (.5.) Of the
seven notorious Pareeeisms, or words derived from the Persian, which are found in tli«
Aramaic portion of our book, only '<7.'?' occurs in the Targums, while it has two others (C3r;!?
and niTpri";!) in common with the Chaldaizing Hebrew of the book of Esther and the Chaldeei
of Ezra, and a fourth (^?^3) occurs at least in the Chald. Ezra. There is thus in this respect
also a more remarkable lingual relationshij) between Daniel and Ezra, than l)etwcen them and
the Clialdee Targums, and the jjosition assigned to our book between Esther and Ezra on tlm
forming of the canon, is fully justified by this consideration. We shall endeavor to show, iu
connection with the question of genuineness, that the weight of these lingual peculiarities,
which point so decisively to the composition of this hook cluring the period immediately ])re-
ceding and following the captivity, is in no wise diminished by the occurrence in its Chaldee
text of several phrases evidently derived from the Greek. We were only concerned in this
connection, to show tliat the lingual peculiarities of the book formed a principal motive for
its collocation witli tlie Hagiographa, instead of its lieing placed in the series of prophetical
books. Compare Hengsteiil)erg, Die Avthfiitie des Daniel, etc.. ]). 297 scj. ; Havernick, Ein-
leilung ins A. T., II. 2, 482 et seq. ; Ziindel, Kritisclte Unterauckuugen iilier ilie Ahfassungszeit
• [Anbcrlen (Daniel and Revelatton, Clarke's ed.. p. 77 eq.) notices several other "materialistic rtiffcrences between the
Apocalypse of the CM nnd of the New Testament,"' Rowing more or less directly out of the dilTereiit position occupied bj
the people of God at their respective times. Tho.se who have insisted that the Antichrist of llie one is necessarily the
Antichrist cf the other, have therefore interpreted the symbols as having precisely the same significauce, have undulj
9T«rlooked these differences in the standpoint and design of the two prophet&l
PERSONAL RELATION'S OF THE PROPHET.
des Buelies Danid, p. 239 et seq. Concerning its place after Esther and Ijoforc Ezra, compare
in addition, Delitzscli, Art. " Daniel," in Herzog's Uml-EncycJ., III. 273 : " The Ijook of Daniel
stands between Esther and Ezra. l)ecanse Esther, for a sufficient reason, is the last ot the five
Megilloth (festival volinnes), and because the yrincqinl contents iif Daniel helonf/ to tlie time
before Ezra and Xeliemiali." zVccordingly, this Ijook was regarded as belonging among the
historical Hagiograplui (in view of its really historical character throughout the first half),
and it was placed at the head of these books, because of its lingual relationship with Ezra,
and also because of its pre-eminently holy and inspired character. This arrangement is not
chronological, indeed, for in this respect the Chronicles should precede, and Daniel, Ezra,
Nehemiah, and Esther follow in their order. But considerations of a diffei'cnt natiu'e pre-
vailed, on the whole, in the collocation of these final constituents of the Old-Testament canon.
The following section will illustrate one of the leading considerations which enable us
definitely to understand the jjositiou of this book, in connection with its remarks on the call
of Daniel to the ijrophetic office.
§ 2. The PEnsoN.\L Rel.\tions op the Prophet.
The name Daniel (is':~, cha]). i. 6; also defective. ixJT in Ezek. xiv. 14. 20; xsviii. 31,
which signifies '• judge of God, judge who pronounces judgment in the name of God," *
belongs to two persons besides our prophet in Old-Testament history, of whom one was a son
of David (1 Chron. iii. 1), and the other a Levite of the house of Ithamar. The latter flour
ished but little later than our proi)het, according to Ezra viii. 2 ; Neh. x. 7, and has, on that,
account, been identified with him by the Septuagint in the ajjocryjihal additions to the book
of Daniel, as well as by several recent critics. The difference in time is, however, too con-
siderable to admit of this oi)iniou ; and the fact that among the contemporaries of the priest
Daniel were found a Mishael (Keh. viii. 4), Hauaniah. and Azariah (Neh. x. 3, 24), must be
regarded as a mere accident, from which, in view of the notorious frequency of these names,
the conclusion cannot be drawn, that the Daniel of our book, together with his three pious
associates, arc the creatui'es of a fictitious collocation and ijre-dating of those persons, who
lived almost a century later (compare the arguments against Bleek in note 1).
According to chapter i. 3, Daniel seems to have been of royal descent, and thci-eforc born
at Jerusalem. The passage in chapter ix. 24, however, will hardly serve in proof of this
(Ilarenl)erg and other cxpositore), since .lerutalem nnght have been termed the " holy city "
by Daniel, even if he belonged to any other city or tribe of the holy land, f He was, at any
rate, af high birth, and, together with three other noble Jewish youths, was in early life
transported to Babylon in the first deportation under Jehoiakira, in order to become a page
at the Chalda^un court. J Here their Hebrew names were changed for others of Chaldsean origin,
and Hananiah received the name of Shadrach, Jlishacl that of Jleshach, and Azariali that of
Aljednego, while Daniel was known as Belteshazzar ("^KHKCZa). This name, if exi)lained
solely according to the Shemitic analogy, seems to be synonymous with " Beli princcps." or
'â– princeps, ciii Belus favet "("iHwia), and therefore likewise indicates the princely rank of
Daniel. Tliat he bore in addition the probably Persian name of Sheshhazzai; by which
Zcrubliabel was known at the court of Cyrus (Ezra i. 8), rests on an unsupported Rabbinical
tradition, which is found in Rashi and several later writers, and which seems to Inive grown
out of a false etymological interpretation of -^-^z'Si'Z as = "who was in six-fold tribu-
lati(ra."
Tlie instruction in the wisdom of the Chaldee magians and in the manners of the court,
which Daniel received in Babylon under the supervision of the chief eunuch, Ashpcnaz, did
* So Gesenius and Dietrich, in the Hamlwurterb 'icli ^ explain, in connection with many older expositors, while FflrsI
interprets the name by 'â– jutlge through God." and a majority render it " God is my jadge" (e.f?., Hiivemick, with refer-
ence to Gen. XXX. fi). or also, 'â– God is judge " (c.ff., ileinke, Die messianischen Weixmfftijigen, etc., iv. 1, 1(37).
t The Jewish tradition found in Tseudo-Epiphanius, De vtt. propliet.^ c. 10, which locates the birth-place of Daniel
cf BeflePoptu Tfl ai'ttiTipa iT^rjaiov lepouiraA^^, or. by another reading (preferred by Relnnd, Palaest.^ p. <J94j. it
Bedepwv Tfj avitiTepa, is of no historical vaUio, and perhaps originated in the desire to place the birth of the prophft, who.
on the authority of Ezra. viii. 2, was held to be a Levite, in a Lcvitical city (see Josh. xxi. 22).
X ["The history of that period, in Kings and Chronicles, seems to warrant the supposition that the Jewish lads in que*
lior. were liostagnf!, who were drawn from the upper classes of society at Jerusalem, in order to secure the quiet and sub
mission of th Jewish king and his nobles in their tributary condition." — StWM'C]
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHET DANIEL.
not prevent him from observing the injunctions of the Mosaic law in regard to food an^
drink, with conscientious care, and from astonishing the officials who had him in charge by the
almost miraculous eifects produced in his appearance through this ascetic course, in which hi)
three friends [participated (chap. i. 8-1 Oj. But marked as were these eifects of his piety, his
fame was increased still further by the extraordinary proofs of his piudence, wisdom, and
learning, which he manifested at an early period, especially in the interpretation of dreams,
visions, etc. This extended his reputation beyond the bounds of Babylon before he had
attained maturity, and must even have made his name proverbial among liis countrymen at
least, as designating a marvel of wisdom. * Only thus can we explain the fact that Ezekiel,
his contemporary, although consideral)ly older in years, refers to Daniel in several passages
of his prophecies (which were brought to a close in B. C. 572, that is, about the middle of the
captivity), as a model of pious wisdom, and in two instances classes him with Noah and Job,
the great wise men of antiquity (Ezek. xiv. 14, 38 ; xxviii. 3 ; compare note 2).
That Daniel was not merely trained under the oversight of the chief eunuch, or chief palace
official ("prince of the eunuchs") of Nebuchadnezzar, but also himself became a eunuch in
the proper sense, and was trained in tliat capacity, is an ancient Jewish tradition, which
appears to rest on a combination of Dan. i. 3 et seq. with the prophecy of Isaiah to Hezekiah
(Isa. xxxix. 7. where ;-o^nc â– "'"* held to designate actual eunuchs). It is, however, without
any historical sujiport, either in the book of Daniel itself, or in other Old-Testament records;
and Ezek. xiv. 20 seems even to directly contradict this tradition, since it ascribes sous and
daughters to him, as it does also to Noah and Jolj. But it could not be otlierwise than wel-
come to the asceticaUy disposed Jews of later times, as well as to many church fathers and
Roman Catholic expositors, to discover in Daniel a eunuch, even though an involuntary one,
and an example of pei'petual virginity. Hence the Targums report this tradition (on Esther
iv. 5, in connection with the mention of Hatach, the Persian eunuch wlio was appointed to
serve Esther), as do others of the more ancient rabbins (Pseudo-Epiphanius, Vitte PropJiet., c.
10, ijv dvrjf) (Tilj(ppwv Cj(TT€ dnKftv Tous *Iovfiaious flvtii aTrdbotrrti). Of later ral^bins, €.g., Rashi ad
Dan. i. 21 (liut not Ibn-Ezra, ad Dan. i. 3) ; of cliurcli fathers, Origen {Horn. iv. in Ezech. ),
Jerome {Ade. Jovin. i. 1 ; C'omin. in Jes. xxxix. 7 ; in Dan. i. 3), Jolm Damascenus (De fide
orthod. iv. 25) ; of later Roman Catholics, Cornelius ii Lapide, Huetius. and otliers, hold to
tliis tradition. [It is also strongly confirmed by the well-knoT\Ti usages of Oi-iental courts, in
which eunuchs are admitted to privileges allowed to none others, especially in jjersonal offices
near the king. Haman, indeed, A-as not of this class in the book of Ezra, but Nehemiah was
doubtless such in the Persian court. In the light of this circumstance, the dietetic regimen
imposed upon Daniel and his three companions had a sanitary reason, and their voluntary
temperance may actually have had a good effect during their period of convalescence after
the operation. The reference to Daniel in Ezekiel does not so explicitly allude to children as
to invalidate this conclusion, being merely an implication of kindred.]
After three years of training and instruction, in wliich early period tlie apocryplial narrative
in the interpolated Daniel of the Septuaginl places the celebrated decision in favor of
Susannah, who was unjustly condemned to death, as an instance of the extraordinary wisdom
of the youtlilul prophet, Daniel and his three companions entered on their duties at the court
of Nebuchadnezzar, t Through the miraculous aid of the enlightening grace of God, he was
* [''The reader will recall some points of close analogy between Daniel and Joseph, Both were captives ; each lose in
n foreign kingdom to the same rank of prime minister, by the same qualities of personal character — sterling integrity,
nnselfirth devotion to their work, great business capacity, and unfaltering faith in God. Each became, under God . a patrou
and protector to liis snfTenng people. To each was given of God extraordinary prophetic powers, which served to raise
him to general notice and confidence, and manifestly in the case of Daniel, served to exalt the God of the Hebrew race
highly ili the convictions of the monarchs under whom he sen'ed. Each was able to distance and confound all the pr&
tenders to snpeniatnral knowledge, of whom there were many both in Egypt and Babylon." — Cotctrs.]
t [" This custom of taking young men of the finest parts from a captive or subject race to fill responsible positions abont
the king has prevailed in many desjxjtic governments, and is essentially the usage of the Turkish empire to this day. It
finds its motives (1.) In the fact that such monarchs need men about them of the very first abilities : l2.) In the diiflcuity
they wonld eTperience in getting young men of such ability among their own people, who might not, by virtue of tteir
(ocial position or cjr.nections, become dangerous to the throne." — CowUJt,]
PERSONAL RELATIONS OF THE PROPHET.
enabled to interpret a remarkable dream of the king, in consequence of which he was pro-
moted to the royal favor, as was Joseph at the court of Pharaoh, until he became the most
influential official in the province of Babylonia, and chief of the caste of magians (chap. ii.