48 et seq. ). He appears to have occupied this important position until the close of Nebuchad-
nezzar's reign, although the narrative of the persecution of Daniel's friends and fellow-
worshippers, contained in chap, iii., and that of his interjiretatiou of Nebuchadnezzar's
second dream and of the madness of that king, which is found in chap, iv., warrant the
opinion that his glory was not without an occasional Ijut transitory eclipse in tlie course of
that protracted jieriod.

Under Belshazzar. the son and (possibly not immediate, but rather third or fourth) successor
of Nebuchadnezzar, Paniel regained the royal favor and influential position of which he had
been temporarily deprived. After having been entirely forgotten, he succeeded in interpret-
ing an extraordmary appearance whieli had alarmed the king, but the prophetic meaning ol
which, relating to his approaching overthrow by the Persian world-power, none of th«
magians were able to reveal. The great honors with which Belshazzar rewarded him imme-
diately before his fall (enrobing in purple, placing a chain of gold about his neck, and
proclaiming him the third ruler in the kingdom) remained to liini under the first Medo-
Persian ruler, Darius the Mede (Cyaxeres). This monarch appointed him one of the three
princes who were placed over all the one hundred and twenty governors of his kingdom ;
and he even thought to place him over his whole realm (as minister of state or grand-vizier)
chap. vi. 1-4. For this reason, the other princes and governors, moved with envy, sought to
destroy Daniel by bringing his steadfast adherence to the faith of his fathei's into conflict
with the established religion of Pereia, or rather with an extraordinary decree of the king,
which provided that during the space of one month the honor of Divine worship should be
rendered only to him, the ruler of the kingdom. As Daniel pei-sisted in the regular discharge
of his religious duties, and, according to the custom of jjious Jews, offered prayer at an open
window, and witli his face turned toward Jerusalem, three times in each day, he became
subject to the fearful penalty imposed by the king, of being devoured by lions. The
wondrous care of God, however, preseiwed him unharmed through the night which he spent
in their den, and, in consequence, he rose still higher in the favor of the king, while his
accusers were thrown into the den, and perished by the deatli they had designed for him.
'U'hen Cyrus assumed the sole government over the Medo-Persian world-kingdom, after the
two years' reign of Darius the Mede, the dignities and honors of Daniel were continued to
him. He therefore survived tlie expiration of the Babylonian Captivity and the beginning
of Israel's return to the holy land (see chap. i. 21), which ensued on the accession of that
king, "the anointed of the Lord" (Tsa. xlv. 1); and although the book of his prophecies
recorde nothing of his agency in restoring his people to their Land, his indirect influence was
probably not unimportant. The closing series of his prophecies (chap, s.-xii.), which disclose
the future history of Israel down to the erection of Messiah's kingdom on the ruins of
tlie world-powers, testify that in spirit he cherished a warm symjiathy for the physical and
moral welfare of his people.

He died probably soon after receiving and recording these final revelations, which he
himself places in the third year of the reign of Cyrus; but when, and under what circum-
stances, his death occurred is unknown. The attempts to state his circumstances at the close
of life, together with the time and manner of his death, which are found in Jewish and
Arabic authors, and also in church fathers, are based on empty traditions whicli are wholly
without support. We class among these the statement of Josephus {Antiq. Jud: x. 11, 7) that
Daniel immortalized himself as early as the reign of Darius the Mede by building a splendid
royal castle of marble at Bcbatana, which was still standing and in the charge of a Jewish priest
in the rime of Josephus ; * also the Jewish-oriental legend, perhaps derived from Dan. i. 21,
and Ezra viii. 2, concerning his return to Palestine among the first exiles under Zerubbabel
(D'Herbelot. Bthl. Orient., p. 283) ; further, the statement of Pseudo-Epiphanius, that he died

• Cf. Jerome, Comment, in Dan. viii, 2, where the erection of this palace iB erroneously transferred to Stua.



10 IKTRODTTCTION TO THE PROPHET DiNIEL.



at Babvlon and was buried in the royal tomb ; the statement, perhaps, of later origin, but
more widely circulated than the one last mentioned, which is held by Abdul-faraj and Benj.
of Tudela. that he died in Shushan — a tradition ujion which rests the still practised adoration
of the reputed tomb of the projihet in that city, in which Jews and Christians are said to par
ticipate, as well as Moslems (see Ausland, 1853, p. 960) ; and finally the Romish tradition,
w'hich is to the effect that Daniel died as a martyr, and which commemorates him on the 21st
of July (cf. Stadler and Heim, Vollst. IleiUgen-Lexikon, vol. i., p. 722 ss.).

The above historical notices concerning Daniel show, that by reason of his relation? to the
Babylonian, and later to the Medo-Persian dynasties, as well as on account of his growth to
maturity and continued dwelling and labors in a foreign land, he occupies an entirely excep-
tional position among the Old-Testament prophets — a position that makes it seem really
doubtful whether the prophetic office was his proper and chief vocation. In any case, he
appears as much a Chaldiean wise man as an Israelitish prophet, and thus intervenes between
the Old-Testament prophetism and the position of the Divinely enlightened seers among the
nations that bordered on Israel, who were supematurally chosen to l)e the beard's of Messianic
I)rophecies, as in the case of Balaam in the time of Sloses, and the Eastern magi on the
threshold of New-Testament times. For this reason chiefly, it would seem, he was regarded
by the framers of the canon as not belonging to the class of prophets in the narrower sense,
but as more directly included among the writers of the Hagiographa (compare note 3).

KoTE 1. — Bleek, in EinUitung ins A. Test, 2d ed., p. 610, remarks with reference to the
persons mentioned in Ezra viii. 2, and Neh. viii. 4 ; x. 3, 7, 24, under the names of Daniel,
Mishael, Hananiah, and Azariah : " This coincidence of names with those of the heroic
believers represented in our book may be accidental, but nevertheless is remarkable, since it
exists -n-ith reference to the entire four, and the names Daniel and Mishael occur but rarely
elsewhere. The time, indeed, in which the four contemporaries of Ezra and Nehemiah flour-
ished is later than that of Daniel and his friends, as about 160 years elapsed between the
third year of Jehoiakim and the reading of the book of the law by Ezra; but still, it is not
unreasonable to suppose that the composer of this book (who, according to Bleek, lived and
wrote in the time of the Maccabees, about B. C. 167) borrowed the names of his faithful
heroes from those four men. We cannot tell whether a more intimate acquaintance with their
history and experience in Babylon led him to select their names." (Similarly De Wette,
Einleitunij ins A. T., p. 360 et seq.) To us the supposition of Bleek seems about as vague a
combination as the familiar attempts of Strauss to find in the names of Gospel history, Jacob,
Joseph, Mary, and Elizabeth, mythical reproductions of the corresponding names in the
primitive Scripture history, or to find the origin of the historical Lazarus in the Gospel of St.
John, in the purely imaginary person of this name in the parabolical narrative found in Luke
xvi, 19 et .seq. [Lehen Jesu, etc., 1864, p. 477 et seq.). The impossibility of identifying the
four ctmtemporaries of Ezra with our prophet and his friends appears from (1) the fact that,
according to Dan. i. 31, which passage could not possibly have been known to the mythical
writer, Daniel lived only to the beginning of the reign of Cyrus; (2) that the names Azariah,
Daniel, and Hananiah, which are enumerated in Neh. x. 2-28, among the great numl)er of
names of leaders, priests, and Levitcs, who engaged to observe the law, became so unimpor-
tant and are so widely separated that only the most reckless arbitrariness or chance could
associate them precisely as intimate companions, who filled a distinguished position at the
royal court of Babylon as wise men and confessors ; (3) that the name Mishael (Neh. viii. 4),
in the list of those who stood on the left hand of Ezra while he read the law, occupies a nc
less isolated position ; (4) that the identity of Daniel, of the sons of Ithamar, who is men-
tioned in Ezra viii. 2, with the ])riest or Levite of the same name, who is noticed in Neh. x.
7, is, at any rate, extremely doulitful, since their surroundings are wholly dissimilar; (.5j that
what is recorded in chaps, i. and iii., particularly the report concerning the Baliylonian
names conferred on them (chap. i. 7) bears too thoroughly the stamp of historical reminis-
cence to admit of the hypothesis of a later invention, for the purpose of exalting those
obscure names, which were almost forgotten among the number of names in the book of
Nehemiah.

Note 2. — Tlie three- fold reference of Ezekiel to Daniel has been regarded by many modern
critics as irreconcilable with the historical existence of a magian and prophet of this name,
since in two instances (chap. xiv. 14, 20) Ezekiel places Daniel ))etween Noah and Job, and
since he clearly seems to treat him as a personage belonging to the earliest antiquity in
those ])assages as well as in cliap. xxviii. 3. On this account, they have either questioned the
genuineness of these passages in Ezekiel {e.g., Bernstein, in Tzschinier's Aiialelten, i. 3, p.
10), or given up the historical character of the exilian Daniel, and considered him a



PERSONAL RELATIONS OF THE PROPHET. 11

purely poetic invention like Job, or a wise man belonging to the patriarchal or primi-
tive period of Israelitisli history. The latter hypothesis especially has been received
with favor, and has Ijeen variously developed by Bleek, Hitzig, Ewakl, and Bunsen.
According tj Bleek (in Sclileierm. u. Liicke's Theolog tucker Zeitschri/t, III. 1822, p. 283 et
seq., and in Einl. ins A. T., p. 608 et seq.), we are not led by the manner in which
he is mentioned to think of a person who shared in the Babylonian captivity with
Ezekiel, but much rather, to conceive of a long-familiar personage of primitive times,
who was historically connected with events in the experience of Israel, or, which is more
probable, since we know no more concerning him, who was like Job, a mere product of
the poetic fancy. From the manner in which Ezekiel refers to him, it is barely con-
ceivable that he should have been, as the Daniel of our book is represented, a Jewish
exile and contemporary with Ezekiel." De Wette {Einl. ins A. T., p. 361) and Von
Lengerke (Das Buck Daniel ausgel., p. xciii. et seq.) likewise limit the choice to either a
" man belonging to the gray antiquity" or to a purely imaginary personage. Hitzig, on the
other hand, regards tlie Daniel of Ezek. xiv. as not, indeed, created by the writer, like Job,
but still as the '■ child of tradition " like Noah and !Melchizedck, and finds an intimate cor-
respondence, amounting almost to identity, of our Daniel with the mysterious royal and
priestly personage of the latter, who is assumed to be a junior contemporary of Noah — a
relation which exists especially in respect of his name { Jki:i, " divine judge," nearly synony-
m9us witli piili;;?:, '• king of righteousness." KurzgeJ'. exeget. Handbuch zu Daniel, p. viii.).
Ewald, again (Die Pnpheten des Alien Bundes. vol. il.. Appendix, p. 562 et seq), considers
the Daniel mentioned by Ezekiel as having Ijeen descended from one of the ten tribes, and
as liaviug lived and proijhesied at the heathen court of Nineveh, a hundred years before the
Babylonian Captivity. To this particijiator in the Assyrian captivity were attril;uted pro-
phetic oracles respecting the world-kingdoms, by an unknown Jewisli author of the times of
Alexander the Great or the earliest Seleucida;, which were modified by a later writer, in the
time of Antiochus Epipiianes, from whom tliey received their present form. liunsen {Gott in,
der Oeschir/it-', I. 514 et seq.) agrees in the main with the first part of this hypothesis. The
historical Daniel lived at the royal court in Nineveh soon after the deportation of the Israel-
ites by Slialmaneser ; the fantastic representations of animals on the palaces of Nimrud and
Khorsabad, whicli have become known to us through the researches of Botta and Layard,
-erved as models for his visional descriptions of the world-kingdoms under the form of
various imaginary animals, in cliapters vii. and viii. ; and the originator of the present book
transformed the prophet of Nineveh by mistake into a Babylonian. Compare below, § 4,
tiote 1. Two earlier opponents of the genuineness of this book, Bertholdt and Kirrass,
endorse the opinion of Ewald and Bunsen, that Daniel was a real person of historical times ;
but instead of assigning tliis wise man, wliom Ezekiel celebrates, to an earlier age, they make
him the contemporary of tliat propliet, living at the court of Babylon. The author of this
book, who belonged to a mucli later period, and derived his entire knowledge of Daniel
from Ezekiel. merely clotlied him in a mythical dress, etc. (Bertholdt, Daniel, etc., I. p. 7;
Einleit. ins A. T., y. 15(J6; Kirmss, Commentatio historico-critica exhihens descriptioneni et
ei'.nsurdin recent iortim de Daniel libra opinionum, Jen. 1828, p. 59 et seq.) ; in like manner
also Winer in tlie RealuxJrterb., Art. "Daniel " (I., p. 247;.

The more recent defendeis of the genuineness of Daniel's prophecies are in immediate cor-
respondence with the arguments raised l)y these latter critics in support of tlie possibility of
Oaniers contemporary existence with Ezekiel, despite the peculiar manner in which he is men-
tioned in Ezek. xiv. and xxviii. Hengstenberg especially iDie Authentic des Daniel, p. 70 et
*eq.) shows in a most discerning way that the chronological difficulty is of no importance,
tince Daniel must hace been thirty years uld when Ezekiel xiv. was composed, and since the
rewards and honors conferred on him by Nebuchadnezzar must have been receiced at least ten
years be/ore that period ; and furtlier, that the book of Daniel itself (in such passages as chap.
i. 17, 20; ii. 47; iv. 5; v. 11) testifies to the extraordinary and early-developed wisdom, by
which this pious youth was distinguished, and with reference to which Ezekiel was already
enabled to point the contemporary king of Tyre to him as a model of exalted wisdom and
Divine illumination (chap, xxviii. 8). Tlie position assigned to Daniel between Noah and
Job in chapter xiv. 14 and 20, proves nothing whatever concerning his patriarchal age;
rather. Joli is placed at the end of the series because he was a less suitable example for the
immediate purpose of Ezekiel, than Noah and Daniel, the preachers of righteousness in the
midst of a godless world. In general agreement with this view of Hengstenberg are,
Havernick (Komm. zu Ezechiel, p. 206 et seq. ; Neue Untersuchungcn iiber Daniel, p. 23 et seq. ;
Einl. ins A. T., ii. 2. 455), Kliefoth {Das Buck Ezethiels ubersetzt und erkldrt, p. 177 et seq. ;
and Das Buck Daniels, \i. 31 et seq), Delitzsch (in Herzog's Ucal-Encyli.. s. v. Daniel), and
Zilndel (Krit. Untersuchungcn, etc., p. 258 et seq.). These later apologists, however, justly
declare Hengstenberg's explanation of the circumstance that Daniel is placed between Noah
and Jol) to lie inade juate, and therefore endeavor to find a more apijrojjriate explanation of
this fact, whieli at tlie first Uush seems so strange. Havernick and Kliefoth assume a chmax:
" Noah saved himself and his family; Daniel was still able to provide for his friends, chap.



i2 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHET DANIEL.

ii. 17, 18 ; Job, despite his uprightness, could not even save his children." Delitzsch explains
'Ate arrangement of names by assuming thatEzekicl '' mentions first a righteous man belonging
to the ancient world, next, a righteous man belonging to the present world, and lastly, a
righteous man who belongs to tlie ideal world ; " for Job is "presented to the eyes of Israel
as a righteous man only in the book of Jolj, which, altliougb not without a historical basis, is
not historical, but rather poetical and didactic." Finally, Zundcl seeks to explain this
.irrangcment of names by the observation, that Daniel occupied a " thoroughly analogous
Central and universal position among his contemporaiies," so to speak, as a mediator between
Gc-d and His people, by virtue of which, as formerly did Noah and Job, he presented his
ujiriglitness and piety before God, in a reconciling and atoning way, when His anger was
aroused because of the sins of His people. None of these attempts at explanation are entirely
satisfactory to us ; but that of Delitzsch seems to be the most adequate and plausible, because
the most simple and unconstrained. But may not euphonic considerations have contributed
to the arrangement of the three names n:, bsf:! and 21^8, in like manner as such considera-
tions appear to have j^revailed in other enumerations of proper names ? e. g., of the three sons
of Noah (Gen. vi. 9 ; ix. 18, etc.). among which Ham, although the youngest of the three, is
always placed before Jajjlieth ; of the three daughters of Job (Job xlii. 14). etc. As examples
of the neglect of chronological order in the enumeration of names, compare, in addition,
Ecdes., chap, xlix., where Josiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zerubbabel, Joshua, and Nehemiah
(vs. 16-20) are placed before Enoch, Joseph, Selh, Sliem, and Adam; also Heli. xi. 82
((Tideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel) ; Jude v. 9 et seq. (Moses, Cain, Balaam,
Korah, Enoch); Matt. xvi. 14 (John the Baptist. Elijah, Jeremiah). The last of these
examples is especiall}' instructive, since it shows that living persons might be classed with
l>i rsons of similar character belonging to the earliest antiquity without any regard to chrono-
lo!.ical sequence. [The fact that Daniel is thus associated by Ezekiel, a nearly contemporary
wiiter, witli an undoubtedly historical personage, Noah, has alw.ays been held to be a strong
pi oof of his actual existence. The same holds true of Job, as mentioned in the same connec-
tion. Compare James v. 11. Indeed, the introduction of a purely mythical name in such a
matter-of-fact connection would be irrelevant and nugatory.]

Note 0. — On the peculiarity of the ])roplietic character of Daniel, as constituting a principal
reason for referring this Ijook among the Hagiographa, see Delitzsch, p. 272: "'The book of
Daniel was placed among the Hagiograjjlia, because he was not a prophet hy virtue oj' his offite
arid calling, although, like David and Solomon, he jjossessed the gift of prophecy." Origen
I'emiirks correctly : '" Non si quis projjhetat, ideo propheta est. Ac profecto si quis propheta
est, is quidem prophetat, sed vero qui prophetat, non continuo etiam est propheta." The
genuineness of the book is therefore not compromised by its position among the Hagiographa.*
t'ompare also Auberlcn, Daniel, jj. 30 et seq. : " We may also refer to his instruction in the
wisdom of tlie Chaldaean Magi ; for the Holy Scriptures show that the mysterious knowledge
and arts of the heathen were not an empty boast, e. ;;., in the case of the Egyjjtian sorcerers
v.lio opposed Moses. The wise men who were led by the star to seek after the new-born king
of the Je\vs, were such Chaldee Magians, which clearly shows that they were not deprived of
all truth, and ia connection with which we may even inquire whether a tradition may not have
hetn transmitted among them which had enumated from Daniel, their chief, who had received
such remarkaljle disclosures concerning this king of the Jews, reaching even tf) the time of
his appearing ? The circumstance, that in his youth he was instructed during three 3-ears in
this wi.sdom of the Chalda^ans, doubtless had the effect on the prophet himself, to develop
the pro|)hetic tendency which was natural to him, and to make him at home in these mysteri-
ous regions (chap. i. 4, 5, 17). It must have afforded him an education similar to that which
Moses derived from his training at the Egyptian court, or that drawn by the modern tlieolo-
gian from the study of philosophy. He learned, however, nothing of importance from the
Chaldeans, but rather soon excelled them all ten-fold in wisdom." Furtlier, compare the
same, page o4 et seq., where, conforming to the Uabljius, the isolated position of Daniel, the
apocalyiitist, among the other Old-Testament prophets, is explained and interpreted to mean
that while he did not possess the nK^CJ ni*i or pro|)er jjrophetic S])irit, he nevertheless
partook of the ""pil ni^ or " Holy Spirit," which was shared also by the remaining writers
of the Hagiographa, for which reason his proper place was among this class, and not among
t)ie prophets. Com|jare also the definitions which are quoted in that connection fiom Witsius
(Daniel was endowed with the gift of prophecy indeed, liut not with the prophetic office) ;
Irom Bengel (Daniel was "the politician, chronologer, and historian among the prophets");
and from M. Baumgarten (Daniel was " the official seer ot Jehovah in the world-kingdom ").
— See infra, § 6, note 1.

• Kliefoth (Das Biich DanteU. p. 48) assents to this, and observes, thHt in addition to the fact that, "according to hii
t'fllee Daniel was not a prophet, but an officer of the state." " his book contained prophecies concerning the world-power,''
fcnd fuither, thai, " in view of its historical matter, his book is a historical document for the period during wiiich Israrf



CONTENTS AND FOlllI OF DAXIELS PROPHECIES. 13



§ 3 Contents and Form of Daniel's Pkophecies.

The Jirst or historical division (chap, i.-vi.) of the two which compose our book according ^
to § 1, p. 1, has already, so far as its principal features are concerned, been analyzed in the
preceding paragraph, which narrates the leading events of the prophet's life in exact chrono-
logical Older. The second or prophetical division (chajj. vii.-xii. ) contains the prophetic
elements of the book, but not so exclusively as not to interweave occasional historical and
biographical notices with its predictions (see especially the mention of Daniel's illness, chap,
viii. 27 ; of his fasting, mourning, and prayer, chap. ix. 1 et seq. ; x. 2 ct seq. ; of his \-isiou3
on the banks of the Tigris, chap. x. 4 et seq. ; xii. 5). Nor are prophecies entirely wanting
in the historical division; for besides the interpretation of the dream relating to the lycan-
thropy of Nebuchadnezzar (in chap. iv. 16-24), which is equivalent to an actual prophecy or
special prophetical prediction, and also besides the interpretation of the mysterio\is writing
on the wall of Belshazzar's banquet-hall, which likewise testifies to Daniel's prophetic endow-
ments (chap. V. 17-28), the leading features of the narrative in chapter ii., relating to the
interpretation of Nebucliadnezzar's first dream by Daniel, form a prophecy of the specifically
apocalyptic kind in their reference to the history of kingdoms and of the w'orld. The great
image composed of gold, silver, brass, iron, and clay, the so-called image of tfie monarchies,
together with the stone that destroys it, which were seen by Nebuchadnezzar in his dream,
and afterward by the prophet, in a night vision, were interpreted by Daniel by vdrtue of
Divine inspiration, to signify a succession of world-kingdoms that should precede the king-
dom of Messiah or of God, commencing with the reign of Nebuchadnezzar himself. The
golden head of the image represented the existing kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar with its
exalted power and greatness. Upon it should follow a second and inferior kingdom, and a
third, that should bear rule over all the earth with the power and hardness of Ijrass ; after-
wards a fourth, strong as iron, which should crush and destroy all things ; and finally a
divided kingdom, partly of iron and partly of clay, i. e.. partly strong and partly brittle,
which, tliough seeking to coml)ine its several parts, should yet fail to develoj) into a united
whole. In the time of this divided kingdom, God Himself would establish a kingdom on
the earth, which, like the destroying stone, should overturn and crush all the world-kingdoms