Book of Daniel

This article is about the Biblical book. For the novel by E. L. Doctorow, see The Book of Daniel (novel).

Books of Ketuvim

Psalms

Proverbs

Job

Song of Solomon

Ruth

Lamentations

Ecclesiastes

Esther

Daniel

Ezra

Nehemiah

Chronicles

edit (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Template:Books_of_Ketuvim&action=edit)

The Book of Daniel, written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and revolving around the Jewish prophet Daniel, is a book of the Tanakh, in the section known as the Ketuvim (Hagiographa, or the "Writings"), in the Christian Old Testament. Daniel was considered a prophet at Qumran (4Q174 [4QFlorilegium]) and later by Josephus (Antiquity of the Jews 10.11.7 §266) and Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (L.A.B. ["Lives of the prophets"] 4.6, 8), and was grouped among the prophets in the Septuagint, the Jewish Greek Old Testament, and by Christians, who place the book among the prophets. However, Daniel is not currently (see "Influence of Daniel," below) included by the Jews in the section of the prophets, the Nebiim. The book has two distinct parts, a series of narratives and four apocalyptic visions. The dating and composition of Daniel has been a matter of great debate due to the implications that can be drawn from its putatively prophetic visions.

Contents

1 Narratives in Daniel 2 Apocalyptic visions in Daniel 3 Historical accuracy 3.1 Darius the Mede 3.2 Belshazzar 3.3 Madness of Nebuchadnezzar 4 Dating 4.1 Content 4.1.1 Antiochus IV Epiphanes 4.1.2 Four Kingdoms 4.1.3 Details and Trivia 4.2 Language 4.2.1 Loan Words 4.2.2 Qumran 4.2.3 Spelling of Nebuchadnezzar 4.2.4 Use of the word 'Chaldeans' 4.3 Outside References and Harmony 5 Unity of Daniel 6 Christian uses of Daniel 7 Influence of Daniel 8 External Links 9 References

Narratives in Daniel

The first part, consisting of the first six chapters, comprises a series of lightly connected court tales, connected instructive narratives, or miracle tales. Only the first story is in Hebrew, the rest in Aramaic from ch. 2:4, beginning with the speech of the "Chaldeans". Three sections are preserved only in the Septuagint, and are considered apocryphal by Protestant Christians and Jews, and deuterocanonical by Catholic and Orthodox Christians.

1. Daniel refuses to eat meat at court
2. Nebuchadnezzar dreams of an idol of four metals with feet of clay, which Daniel interprets as the four great monarchies (compare Fifth Monarchy)
3. Ananias (Hananiah), Azariah, and Mishael refuse to bow to the golden idol and are thrown into the Fiery Furnace; God prevents their death
4. Nebuchadnezzar tells of his dreams of a tall tree, and his losing and regaining his mind
5. Belshazzar's Feast, where Daniel interprets the writing mene mene tekel upharsin
6. Daniel in the lions' den
7. Susanna and the elders (apocryphal to Protestants)
8. Bel and the Dragon (apocryphal to Protestants)

Protestant and Jewish editions omit the sections that do not exist in the Masoretic text: in addition to the two chapters containing accounts of Daniel and Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon, a lengthy passage inserted into the middle of Daniel 3; this addition contains the prayer of Azariah while the three youths were in the fiery furnace, a brief account of the angel who met them in the furnace, and the hymn of praise they sang when they realized they were delivered. The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children are retained in the Septuagint and in the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic canons; the "Song of the Three Holy Youths" is part of the Matins service in Orthodoxy, and of Lauds on Sundays and feast days in Catholicism.

The narratives are set in the period of the Babylonian captivity, first at the court of Nebuchadnezzar and later at the court of his successors Belshazzar and a 'King Darius' of unclear identity (see 'Historical Accuracy' and 'Date' below). Daniel is praised in Easton's Bible Dictionary, 1897, as "the historian of the Captivity, the writer who alone furnishes any series of events for that dark and dismal period during which the harp of Israel hung on the trees that grew by the Euphrates. His narrative may be said in general to intervene between Kings and Chronicles on the one hand and Ezra on the other, or (more strictly) to fill out the sketch which the author of the Chronicles gives in a single verse in his last chapter: 'And them that had escaped from the sword carried he [i.e., Nebuchadnezzar] away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia' (2 Chr. 36:20)."

Daniel appears as an interpreter of dreams and visions in these narratives, though not as a prophet.

Apocalyptic visions in Daniel

The second part, the remaining six chapters, are visionary, an early example of apocalyptic literature, in which the author, now speaking in the first person, reveals a vision entrusted to him alone. The historical setting of the first chapters does not appear. It too consists of text from two sources, part (to 7:28) written in Aramaic, the rest (chapters 8-12) in Hebrew. The apocalyptic part of Daniel consists of three visions and one lengthened prophetical communication, mainly having to do with the destiny of Israel:

1. The vision in the first year of Belshazzar the king of Babylon (7:1) concerning four great beasts (7:3) representing four future kings (7:17) or kingdoms (7:23), the fourth of which devours the whole earth, treading it down and crushing it (7:23); this fourth kingdom produces ten kings, and then a special, eleventh person arises out of the fourth kingdom that subdues three of the ten kings (7:24), speaks against the Most High and the saints of the Most High, and intends to change the times and the law (7:25); after a time and times and half a time (three and a half years), this person is judged and his dominion is taken away (7:26); then, the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven are given to the people of the saints of the Most High (7:27)
2. The vision in the third year of Belshazzar concerning a ram and a male goat (8:1-27); Daniel interprets the goat as the "kingdom of Yawan" that is, the Hellenistic kingdom (8:21)
3. The vision in first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus (9:1) concerning seventy weeks, or seventy "sevens", apportioned for the history of the Israelites and of Jerusalem (9:24)
4. A lengthy vision in the third year of Cyrus king of Persia (10:1 - 12:13)

The prophetic and eschatological visions of Daniel, with those of Ezekiel and Isaiah, are the scriptural inspiration for much of the apocalyptic ideology and symbolism of the Qumran community's Dead Sea scrolls and the early literature of Christianity. "Daniel's clear association with the Maccabean Uprising in Palestine was undoubtedly one of the reasons why the Rabbis, following the uprisings against Rome, downgraded it from its position among the 'Prophets'" (Eisenman 1997, p 19f).

In Daniel are the first references to a "kingdom of God" and the most overt reference to the resurrection of the dead in the Tanakh.

Historical accuracy

The general accuracy of much of Daniel has engendered acclaim from historians. Raymond Dougherty, an eminent secular professor of Oriental studies who was a harsh critic for over a decade, summarized how Daniel compares favorably with histories dated between 3rd and 5th century BC in his discussion of the fifth chapter of Daniel:

Of all the non Babylonian records dealing with the situation at the close of the Neo-Babylonian empire the fifth chapter of Daniel ranks next to cuneiform literature in accuracy so far as outstanding events are concerned. The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom. Babylonian cuneiform documents of the sixth century B.C. furnish clear-cut evidence of the correctness of these three basic historical nuclei contained in the Biblical narrative dealing with the fall of Babylon. Cuneiform texts written under Persian influence in the sixth century B.C. have not preserved the name Belshazzar, but his role as a crown prince entrusted with royal power during Nabonidus's stay in Arabia is depicted convincingly. Two famous Greek historians of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. do not mention Belshazzar by name and hint only vaguely at the actual political situation which existed in the time of Nabonidus. Annals in the Greek language ranging from about the beginning of the third century to the first century B.C. are absolutely silent concerning Belshazzar and the prominence he had during the last reign of the Neo-Babylonian empire. The total information found in all available chronologically-fixed documents later than the cuneiform texts of the sixth century B.C. and prior to the writings of Josephus of the first century A.D. could not have provided the necessary material for the historical framework of the fifth chapter of Daniel.

Nabonidus and Belshazzar pp.199-200

These observations notwithstanding, certain statements in Daniel are considered to be in conflict with known or assumed history. This is given as one reason why Modern secular historians of Babylonia or Achaemenid Persia do not adduce the narratives of Daniel as source materials. Other reasons are given in Dating below.

Our current understanding of ancient history is so fragmentary that specific examples of inaccuracies in Daniel have been difficult to find and impossible to confirm. The three objections given below represent, in order of significance, the major instances of error secular historians generally find in Daniel.

Darius the Mede

According to H.H. Rowley in Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel, "The references to Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel have long been recognized as providing the most serious historical problems in the book."

Rowling refers to the personage whom Daniel describes as taking control of Babylon after Belshazzar is deposed. Daniel describes this personage as Darius the Mede, who rules over Babylon in chapters 6 and 9. Daniel reports that Darius was 'about 62 years old' when he was 'made king over Babylon'

Historians have criticized this account for two reasons. First, no secular history speaks of any 'Darius the Mede,' and secondly the Persians at that point in history had the upper hand in their ongoing war with the Medes. This second objection has been the bigger point of contention as the first is an argument from silence nearly identical to earlier objections concerning Belshazzar prior to the latter's historicity being verified.

Secular historians, such as Rowling and Burtchaell, tend to posit that Daniel is mistakenly referencing Darius the Great, who ruled Persia from 522-486 BC, though the Persian Darius was very young while Daniel specifically attributes an old age to Darius the Mede and ruled many years later.

Some sacred historians, such as Robert Dick Wilson, Friedrich Delitzsch, C.H.H. Wright, Joseph D. Wilson, W.F. Albright, and John C. Whitcomb, suggest that Darius was an assumed name of the governor Cyrus II appointed over Babylon. Conklin suggests the similar possibility that Darius was the actual name of a hitherto unverified figure given rulership over the city. D.J. Wiseman holds the view that Darius is the throne name of Cyrus II himself, noting that the Aramaic of a key passage can be translated 'Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even the reign of Cyrus the Persian.' Still other sacred historians suggest that 'Darius' was not a name at all, but merely a royal title. Boutiflour, on page 53 of In and Around the Book of Daniel. claims that Herodotus said that "the names of some of the Persian kings -- Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes -- were appellatives rather than proper names."

Belshazzar

For many years Belshazzar, the Babylonian who ruled the city the night the Persians successfully sieged the city, was a complete enigma for historians. Daniel writes that he ruled the city and uses the Aramaic word which can alternatively mean 'father,' 'grandfather,' or simply 'ancestor' to describe his relationship to Nebuchadnezzar. Prior to 1854, archeology and secular histories knew of no Belshazzar, let alone one that rules the great city of Babylon. This led Ferdinand Hitzig to claim in 1850 that Belshazzar was a "figment of the Jewish writer's imagination." Later evidence verified the existence of the person as well as the plausibility of his co-regency during the known absence of his father, Nabonidus. This evidence involved the use of Belshazzar in oath formulas, his ability to pass edicts, lease farmlands, evidence that Nabonidus was in Teima the night of the siege, and that Belshazzar received the "royal privilege" to eat the food offered to the gods. However, no known extrabiblical text indicates a blood relation between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Secular historians have objected to this aspect of the record in Daniel, indicating the literary structure argues against the author simply meaning to imply that Belshazzar was a progeny of Nebuchadnezzar.

There were several rulers over Babylon between the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the rulership of Nabonidus/Belshazzar. Many secular scholars have attributed the lack of mention of these rulers as indicating the author mistakenly thought that the two rulerships were consecutive. As the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906) put it, indicating the belief that Daniel was written much later (see 'Date'), "during the long period of oral tradition the unimportant kings of Babylon might easily have been forgotten, and the last king, who was vanquished by Cyrus, would have been taken as the successor of the well-known Nebuchadnezzar." Based on this reasoning, liberal historians have considered the reference to Belshazzar's relationship to Nebuchadnezzar simply an error based on the above misconception.

Two specific theories attempting to harmonize the text with known history have been advanced by sacred historians. There had only been 6 years between the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the rulership of Nabonidus/Belshazzar, so it is possible that Nabonidus married a widow of Nebuchadnezzar who already had a true son by the late king. This has been suggested by Kiel. Another possibility is that Nabonidus' wife was a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, and hence Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar's grandfather. There is no separate word in Aramaic for 'grandfather' apart from the word that also means 'father', nor is there any word for 'grandson'. Further, at Daniel 5:7, Belshazzar offers the third place in the kingdom to anyone who can decipher the words of the 'Handwriting on the wall'. Presumably the 'Third' place was offered by Belshazzar because the First was occupied by Nabonidus and the Second by Belshazzar himself.

Madness of Nebuchadnezzar

A third significant objection (though generally less emphasized than the previous two) by secular historians is the account of the insanity suffered by Nebuchadnezzar found in the fourth chapter of Daniel. In the Dead Sea Scrolls a fragment known as The Prayer of Nabonidus (4QPrNab) discusses a disease suffered by Nabonidus, and it is thought that the insanity of Nebuchadnezzar discussed by Daniel is actually evidence that an oral tradition of one strange disease was actually transmogrified through retelling into a tale mistakenly recorded by Daniel. Sacred historians have objected to this line of reasoning, saying that the two diseases are dissimilar, as are their causes, the locations of their rulers, and the agency of their termination.

Dating

Scholarship on the dating of the Book of Daniel largely falls into two camps, one dating the book to second century BC, the other dating the work to 6th century BC. However, other views exist as well. Josephus writes in The Antiquities of the Jews that Daniel was in its completed form by 350 BC. John Collins, a modern secular historian finds it impossible for the Aramaic portion of Daniel to have been written in 2nd Century due to textual analysis. In his 1992 Anchor Bible Dictionary entry for the Book of Daniel, he states "it is clear that the court-tales in chapters 1-6 were *not written in Maccabean times*. It is not even possible to isolate a single verse which betrays an editorial insertion from that period."

Many facets of Daniel have informed historians on both sides of the issue:

Content

Antiochus IV Epiphanes

Most secular interpreters find that references in the Book of Daniel reflect the persecutions of Israel by the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC), and consequently date its composition to that period. This conclusion was drawn by the philosopher Porphyry of Tyros, a third century pagan Neoplatonist whose fifteen-volume work Against the Christians is only known to us through Jerome. Porphyry was the lone known critic with this viewpoint up until the 17th century. Many secular historians hold that the book was written to influence Jews living under Antiochus' persecution. They claim that the events described in the visions match well the events during the Maccabean era while the book errs on major points of Babylonian history.

Sacred historians concur that some, though not all, of the visions depict Antiochus, but they consider this an example of prophecy fulfilled. They contend that Daniel could not have been written especially for Jews during the persecution by claiming many features of the visions do not match Antiochus. Towner, a severe critic of an early dating, concurs with conservative historians on this point, indicating that nothing found in the 11:39 of the text or onward has any linkage to the historical Antiochus. Historians in both camps have suggested that the writing is not the type one would expect in a work meant to compel 2nd century Jews to resist Antiochus. Rowley, Montgomery, Collins, and Davies, for example, are all secular historians who show concern that some or all of Daniel would be at odds with its putative purpose.

Sacred historians, such as John Walvoord, have suggested that secular historians have as a major obstacle in accepting an early dating: the a priori belief that genuine prophecy is impossible. Some secular historians have been quite forthright in their own bias on this matter. Towner, for example, states "human beings are unable to predict future events centuries in advance and to say that Daniel could do so, even on the basis of a symbolic revelation vouchsafed to him by God and interpreted by an angel, is to fly in the face of the certainties of human nature." Porphyry similarly accepted 'a priori' the idea that true prophecy was impossible. Other historians, most notably H.H. Rowling, have maintained that such beliefs have not influenced their conclusions.

Four Kingdoms

Sacred historians have presented the prophecy of the four kingdoms, found in chapter 7, as representing proof that the book accurately predicts future events by identifying the four kingdoms as the Babylonian, the Medo-Persia, the Macedo-Grecian and the Roman, thus removing what they consider the major prejudice against an early dating. Secular historians have objected to this viewpoint by claiming that the four kingdoms represent Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. The historical inaccuracy this would cause in other parts of the books is attributed to the writer having an incorrect understanding of history. Secular historians find support in the expression Darius the Mede (see above). Much scholarship has been espoused in an effort to support one view or the other. Rowling spends nearly 90 pages in his effort to support for the critical viewpoint.

Details and Trivia

Those who hold an early dating of Daniel believe the degree of accurate details, later corroborated by linguistic and archaeological evidence supports the belief that Daniel was written in the Babylonian period. Examples of such details include:

• Nebuchadnezzar's building of Babylon was unknown to historians of later centuries. Modern scholars did not know that Nebuchadnezzar was responsible for the building of the great city until excavations in 1899. R.H. Pfeiffer, A secular critic of Daniel states "We shall never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar." (Cited by Waltke in 1976)
• The author has an extensive understanding of both Babylonian and Persian customs. In particular the difference in power that Babylonian rulers had compared to their later counterparts to change royal laws.
• The author correctly stated that the feasting hall had one wall covered with white plaster (confirmed by archeological excavations). Sacred historians consider this and other details about Babylon provocative because much of what was known about Babylon was lost a half century after Cyrus took control when Xerxes destroyed many of its important buildings in 480 BC.
• The details of Belshazzar's reign, including his absence the night Babylon was captured, as related in the above Dougherty quote are considered strong support for an early dating as much of this information cannot be found in later histories and was indeed not known until quite recently.

Language

The final major area of debate regarding the dating of Daniel regards the language used. Opinion is divide as to whether the language in bulk match an earlier or later authority. Secular historians can be found on both sides of the issue.

Loan Words

There are 3 Greek words used within the text which have long been considered evidence arguing for a late dating of Daniel. Those who hold an early dating propose that a great deal of lingual penetration had occurred even 100 years before their dating of Daniel due to the existence of traveling mercenaries and others in the region. All three Greek words are used for musical instruments. The existence of the Greek word 'symphonia' was cited by Rowlings as having its earliest use in second century BC, but modern scholarship now knows its use much earlier, both in the sense of a specific instrument and as a term referring to a group of instruments playing in unison. Pythagoras used the term to denote an instrument in 6th century BC, while its use to refer to a group performing together is found in the sixth century BC 'Hymni Homerica, ad Mercurium 51'

On the other hand, sacred historians, such as R.K.Harrison, find the existence of 19 Persian loan-words as suggesting an earlier date since none of them have been found in any work after 300 BC.

Qumran

Upon examination of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some scholars, such as Wegner, have indicated that they contain proof of an earlier dating of Daniel. Conklin reports Wegner's quoting of critic G.R. Driver : "'the presence and popularity of the Daniel manuscripts at Qumran' conflicted 'with the modern view which advocates the late dating of the composition of Daniel'". Sacred historians contend that it is unclear how an unknown Jewish writer could write (or compile) a bogus collection of fulfilled prophecy and have his work so soon thereafter be considered on par with well-established prophets of the Old Testaments by the Qumran community. These historians further contend that the degree and variance in circulation of the fragments of Daniel we have from Qumran are further proof that it cold not have been so recently written.

Spelling of Nebuchadnezzar

Some secular historians have found cause to consider the spelling of 'Nebuchadnezzar' as suggesting a later date, indicating that 'Nebuchadrezzar' is an earlier form. Both forms can be found in other Biblical books. In particular, Jeremiah uses both spellings.

Use of the word 'Chaldeans'

Critics, such as Montgomery and Hammer, have suggested that Daniel's use of the term 'Chaldean' to refer to astrologers is an anachronism, as it should refer to an ethnicity. Defenders of an earlier dating purport that the word had a two-fold meaning and that he was cognizant of both meanings given his use of the term to refer to Belshazzar as the "King of the Chaldeans."

Outside References and Harmony

Sacred historians present several witnesses to the historicity of Daniel. A digest of the harmony they find is presented below:

1. the testimony of Jesus (Matthew 24:15; 25:31; 26:64) and his apostles (1 Cor. 6:2; 2 Thess. 2:3) and
2. the testimony of Ezekiel (14:14, 20; 28:3).
3. The character and records of the book are also entirely in harmony with the times and circumstances in which the author lived.
4. The linguistic character of the book is, moreover, quite similar to what might be expected.
5. Certain portions (Dan. 2:4; 7) are written in the Aramaic language; and the portions written in Hebrew are in a style and form having a close affinity with the later books of the Old Testament, especially with that of Ezra. The writer is familiar both with the Hebrew and the Aramaic, passing from the one to the other just as his subject required. This is in strict accordance with the position of the author and of the people for whom his book was written. That Daniel is the writer of this book is also testified to in the book itself (7:1, 28; 8:2; 9:2; 10:1, 2; 12:4, 5).

Unity of Daniel

The scholarship concerning the question of unity in Daniel differs greatly from the scholarship concerning the dating. Whereas almost all scholars conclude either a 6th or 2nd century dating of Daniel, scholarships varies greatly regarding the unity of Daniel. Many scholars, finding portions of the book written in language they cannot ascribe to a later setting, conclude separate authors for different portions of the book. These scholars form a minority among all interpreters. Included in this group are Barton, L. Berthold, Collins, and H. L. Ginsberg. Some secular historians who support that the book was a unified whole include J.A. Montgomery,S.R. Driver, the particularly critical R. H. Pfeiffer, and H.H. Rowling in the latter's aptly titled treatise The Unity of the Book of Daniel

Other interpreters supporting the unity of the book (as related by Conklin) include E. B. Pusey [Daniel the Prophet.], J. A. Bewer [The Literature of the OT, 418f], R. D. Wilson [Studies in the Book of Daniel. I (1917) II (1938)], W. Moller [Der Prophet Daniel. (1934)], G. G. Hackman [OT Commentary. Edited by H. C. Allman, E. E. Flack, E.J. Young, De Wette, Bleek,,Von Lengerke, Gesenius, Hitzig, Ewald, Stahelin, W. G. Lambert,Schrader, Budde, Cornill, Konig, Behrmann, Kamphausen, and von Gall James Taylor. This list contains both liberal and conservative historians and is a compilation of lists presented by Pusley, Harrison, Conklin, and Barton.

Those who hold to a unified Daniel claim that their opponents fail to find any consensus in their various theories of where divisions exist. Montgomery is particularly harsh to his colleagues, stating that the proliferation of theories without agreement showed a "bankruptcy of criticism."

Proponents of a composite view typically arrive at their conclusion by dating one section as belonging to an early dating based on language and textual evidence while adducing a later date to another section based on content. Composite theories fail to account for the consistent thematic portrayal of Daniel's life throughout the book of Daniel.

Christian uses of Daniel

As mentioned above, the prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children from the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel are widely used in Orthodox and Catholic prayer.

The various episodes in the first half of the book are used by Christians as moral stories, and are often seen to foreshadow events in the gospels.

The apocalyptic section is primarily important to Christians for the image of the "Son of Man" (Dan. 7:13). According to the gospels, Jesus used this title as his preferred name for himself. The connection with Daniel's vision (as opposed to the usage in the Book of Ezekiel) is made explicit in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (Matt 27:64; Mk 14:62). Christians see this as a direct claim by Jesus that he is the Messiah.

Influence of Daniel

Due to the specificity of its prophecy and its place in both the Jewish and Christian canons, the book of Daniel has had great influence in Jewish and Christian history.

Jews in particular have had to grapple with its predictions. The Jewish exegete Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon, sometimes called simply RaMBaM and later called Maimonides, was so concerned that the "untutored populace would be led astray" if they attempted to calculate the timing of the Messiah (and found that he should have already come) that it was decreed that "Cursed be those who predict the end times." This verbiage can be both found in his letter IGERET TEIMAN and in his booklet The Statutes and Wars of the Messiah-King.

Similarly, Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel lamented that the times for the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel "were over long ago" (Sanhedrin 98b, 97a).

Messianic Jews and Christians have embraced the prophecies of Daniel, as they believe they clearly illustrate that Jesus Christ of Nazareth must be the Messiah. They consider the seventy weeks prophecy to be particularly compelling due to its literal accuracy. They also content that this prophecy is compelling regardless of whether one takes a late or early dating of Daniel, as they consider the prophecy fulfilled well after even the latest datings of Daniel.

Medieval study of angels was also affected by this book, as it is the only Old Testament source for the names of two of the archangels, Gabriel and Michael (Dan 9:21; 12:1). The only other angel given a name in the Old Testament is Raphael, mentioned in the deuterocanoncial Book of Tobit.

External Links

• Jewish translations:
  • Daniel (Judaica Press) (http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive2.asp?AID=15773) translation with Rashi's commentary at Chabad.org

• Christian translations:
  • Daniel at The Great Books (http://www.anova.org/sev/htm/hb/27_daniel.htm) (New Revised Standard Version)
  • Template:Biblegateway
  • Daniel at Wikisource (http://wikisource.org/wiki/Bible%2C_English%2C_King_James%2C_Daniel) (Authorised King James Version)
  • The Book of Daniel (http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__7-Daniel.html) (Full text from St-Takla.org (http://www.st-takla.org), also available in Arabic (http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__7-Daniel_.html))

Related Articles:

• Jewish Encyclopedia: (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=34&letter=D) Daniel
• Daniel in the Historians' Den (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/4/4danie96.html) - An analysis of the book's origins, from a skeptical perspective.
• Life-Study of Daniel (http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.asp?id=375&chapterid=1&sectionid=1&pageid=1) - online study of the Book of Daniel, from a Christian perspective
• A discussion of Jewish beliefs about the Messiah (http://www.kolumbus.fi/hjussila/rsla/OT/OT12.html)
• Book of Daniel Defended (http://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.html) A summary of conservative answers to objections to Daniel's historicity.
• "The Linguistic Argument for the Date of Daniel" (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Linguistic-Argument-for-the-Dat.pdf) by W.D. Jeffcoat, M.A. (PDF)
• Historical Questions About Daniel (http://www.biblequery.org/dan.htm) - A Q&A format defense of Daniel's early dating.

References

• E. J. Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Bible, 1967. ISBN 0805207740.
  • A standard analysis.
• Daniel Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, 1997. ISBN 014025773X.
  • "Eisenman here sets out a fascinating and controversial theory that puts St. James at the center of the story as the heir to Jesus' teachings."
• John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, 1989. ISBN 0802417531.
  • "A detailed, systematic analysis of the Book of Daniel with emphasis on studying and refuting nonbiblical views."
• The Date of Daniel (http://www.tektonics.org/guest/danielblast.html)
  • A conservative rebuttal to secular viewpoints on the dating of Daniel.
• Daniel in the Debunkers Den (http://www.atheists.org/christianity/daniel.html)
  • An atheists viewpoint of errors in Daniel.
• Lion 1 Daniel 0 (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/6/986lions.html)
  • One of several articles on attacking a conservative viewpoint.

---

cs:Kniha Daniel

de:Daniel (Buch) nl:Het boek Daniël pl:Księga Daniela pt:Livro de Daniel fi:Daniel sv:Daniel