Book of Daniel

A manuscript scroll of the Book of Daniel

A manuscript scroll of the Book of Daniel

Book of Daniel is a book of the prophetic books centered on fidelity under pagan rule, divine sovereignty over empires, resurrection, judgment, and the kingdom given to the Son of Man.

Authority level: Dogma

Overview

The Book of Daniel is a biblical apocalypse set in the 6th century BC and considered by mainstream Bible scholars to have been written in the 2nd century BC. It is ostensibly a narrative detailing the experiences and prophetic visions of Daniel, a Jewish exile in Babylon. The text features prophecy rooted in Jewish history as well as a portrayal of the end times that is cosmic in scope and political in its focus. The message of the text intended for the original audience was that just as the God of Israel saves Daniel from his enemies, so too he would save the Israelites in their present oppression.

The Hebrew Bible includes Daniel as one of the Ketuvim ("Writings"), while Christian biblical canons group the work with the major prophets. It divides into two parts: a set of six court tales in chapters 1–6, written mostly in Biblical Aramaic, and four apocalyptic visions in chapters 7–12, written mainly in Late Biblical Hebrew; the Septuagint contains three additional sections in Koine Greek: the Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. Daniel and other Jewish apocalyptic literature from the period of antiquity (outside of John's Revelation) are all pseudonymous.

The book's themes have resonated throughout the ages, including with the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the authors of the canonical gospels and the Book of Revelation. From the 2nd century to the modern era, religious movements, including the Reformation and later millennialist movements, have been deeply influenced by it. The book is considered vaticinium ex eventu.

Place in the Catholic canon

Book of Daniel is received by the Catholic Church as inspired and canonical Sacred Scripture. Its Catholic form includes deuterocanonical additions that most Protestant editions omit or print separately.

Within the canon, the book belongs to the prophetic books. Its proper meaning is read within the unity of the whole Bible, the Church's living Tradition, and the coherence of revealed truth.

Content and theology

The book principally treats fidelity under pagan rule, divine sovereignty over empires, resurrection, judgment, and the kingdom given to the Son of Man. Its historical setting, literary forms, and compositional history are proper subjects of disciplined scholarship; no disputed modern authorship theory is itself an article of Catholic faith.

Catholic reading

The Church receives the book as the word of God in human words. Its literal sense grounds authentic spiritual and typological readings, and its fullest Christian interpretation is governed by the revelation of the Father in Jesus Christ without erasing Israel, the human author's meaning, or salvation history.

Structure

Divisions

The Book of Daniel is divided between the court tales of chapters 1–6 and the apocalyptic visions of 7–12, and between the Hebrew of chapters 1 and 8–12 and the Aramaic of chapters 2–7. The division is reinforced by the chiastic arrangement of the Aramaic chapters (see below), and by a chronological progression in chapters 1–6 from Babylonian to Median rule, and from Babylonian to Persian rule in chapters 7–12. Various suggestions have been made by scholars to explain the fact that the genre division does not coincide with the other two, but it appears that the language division and concentric structure of chapters 2–6 are artificial literary devices designed to bind the two halves of the book together. The following outline is provided by Collins in his commentary on Daniel:

PART I: Tales (chapters 1:1–6:29)

• 1: Introduction (1:1–21 – set in the Babylonian era, written in Hebrew)
• 2: Nebuchadnezzar's dream of four kingdoms (2:1–49 – Babylonian era; Aramaic)
• 3: The fiery furnace (3:1–30/3:1-23, 91-97 – Babylonian era; Aramaic)
• 4: Nebuchadnezzar's madness (3:31/98–4:34/4:1-37 – Babylonian era; Aramaic)
• 5: Belshazzar's feast (5:1–6:1 – Babylonian era; Aramaic)
• 6: Daniel in the lions' den (6:2–29 – Median era with mention of Persia; Aramaic)

PART II: Visions (chapters 7:1–12:13)

• 7: The beasts from the sea (7:1–28 – Babylonian era: Aramaic)
• 8: The ram and the he-goat (8:1–27 – Babylonian era; Hebrew)
• 9: Interpretation of the seventy weeks' prophecy (9:1–27 – Median era; Hebrew)
• 10: The angel's revelation: kings of the north and south (10:1–12:13 – Persian era, mention of Greek era; Hebrew)

Chiastic structure in the Aramaic section

There is a recognised chiasm (a concentric literary structure in which the main point of a passage is placed in the centre and framed by parallel elements on either side in "ABBA" fashion) in the chapter arrangement of the Aramaic section. The following is taken from Paul Redditt's "Introduction to the Prophets":

• A1 (2:4b-49) – A dream of four kingdoms replaced by a fifth
  • B1 (3:1–30) – Daniel's three friends in the fiery furnace
    • C1 (4:1–37) – Daniel interprets a dream for Nebuchadnezzar
    • C2 (5:1–31) – Daniel interprets the handwriting on the wall for Belshazzar
  • B2 (6:1–28) – Daniel in the lions' den
• A2 (7:1–28) – A vision of four world kingdoms replaced by a fifth

Content

Introduction in Babylon (chapter 1)

In the third year of King Jehoiakim, God allows Jerusalem to fall into the power of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon. Young Israelites of noble and royal family, "without physical defect, and handsome," versed in wisdom and competent to serve in the palace of the king, are taken to Babylon to be taught the literature and language of that nation. Among them are Daniel and his three companions, who refuse to touch the royal food and wine. Their overseer fears for his life in case the health of his charges deteriorates, but Daniel suggests a trial and the four emerge healthier than their counterparts from ten days of consuming nothing but vegetables and water. They are allowed to continue to refrain from eating the king's food, and to Daniel, God gives insight into visions and dreams. When their training is done Nebuchadnezzar finds them 'ten times better' than all the wise men in his service and therefore keeps them at his court, where Daniel continues until the first year of King Cyrus.

Nebuchadnezzar's dream of four kingdoms (chapter 2)

In the second year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar has a dream. When he wakes up, he realizes that the dream has some important message, so he consults his wise men. Wary of their potential to fabricate an explanation, the king refuses to tell the wise men what he saw in his dream. Rather, he demands that his wise men tell him what the content of the dream was, and then interpret it. When the wise men protest that this is beyond the power of any man, he sentences all, including Daniel and his friends, to death. Daniel receives an explanatory vision from God: Nebuchadnezzar had seen an enormous statue with a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and feet of mixed iron and clay, then saw the statue destroyed by a rock that turned into a mountain filling the whole earth. Daniel explains the dream to the king: the statue symbolized four successive kingdoms, starting with Nebuchadnezzar, all of which would be crushed by God's kingdom, which would endure forever. Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges the supremacy of Daniel's god, raises Daniel over all his wise men, and places Daniel and his companions over the province of Babylon.

The fiery furnace (chapter 3)

Daniel's companions Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to bow to King Nebuchadnezzar's golden statue and are thrown into a fiery furnace. Nebuchadnezzar is astonished to see a fourth figure in the furnace with the three, one "with the appearance like a son of the gods." So the king calls the three to come out of the fire, blesses the God of Israel, and decrees that any who blaspheme against him shall be torn limb from limb.

Nebuchadnezzar's madness (chapter 4)

Nebuchadnezzar recounts a dream of a huge tree that is suddenly cut down at the command of a heavenly messenger. Daniel is summoned and interprets the dream. The tree is Nebuchadnezzar himself, who for seven years will lose his mind and live like a wild beast. All of this comes to pass until, at the end of the specified time, Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges that "heaven rules" and his kingdom and sanity are restored.

Belshazzar's feast (chapter 5)

Belshazzar and his nobles blasphemously drink from sacred Jewish temple vessels, offering praise to inanimate gods, until a mysterious hand suddenly appears and writes upon the wall. The horrified king summons Daniel, who upbraids him for his lack of humility before God and interprets the message: Belshazzar's kingdom will be given to the Medes and Persians. Belshazzar rewards Daniel and raises him to be third in the kingdom, and that very night Belshazzar is slain and Darius the Mede takes the kingdom.

Daniel in the lions' den (chapter 6)

Darius elevates Daniel to high office, exciting the jealousy of other officials. Knowing of Daniel's devotion to his God, his enemies trick the king into issuing an edict forbidding worship of any other god or man for a 30-day period. Daniel continues to pray three times a day to God towards Jerusalem; he is accused and King Darius, forced by his own decree, throws Daniel into the lions' den. But God shuts up the mouths of the lions, and the next morning Darius rejoices to find him unharmed. The king casts Daniel's accusers into the lions' pit together with their wives and children to be instantly devoured, while he himself acknowledges Daniel's God as he whose kingdom shall never be destroyed.

Vision of the beasts from the sea (chapter 7)

In the first year of Belshazzar, Daniel has a dream of four monstrous beasts arising from the sea. The fourth, a beast with ten horns, devours the whole earth, treading it down and crushing it, and a further small horn appears and uproots three of the earlier horns. The Ancient of Days judges and destroys the beast, and "one like a son of man" is given everlasting kingship over the entire world. One of Daniel's attendants explains that the four beasts represent four kings, but that "the holy ones of the Most High" would receive the everlasting kingdom. The fourth beast would be a fourth kingdom with ten kings, and another king who would pull down three kings and make war on the "holy ones" for "a time, two times and a half," after which the heavenly judgment will be made against him and the "holy ones" will receive the everlasting kingdom.

Vision of the ram and goat (chapter 8)

In the third year of Belshazzar Daniel has a vision of a ram and goat. The ram has two mighty horns, one longer than the other, and it charges west, north and south, overpowering all other beasts. A goat with a single horn appears from the west and destroys the ram. The goat becomes very powerful until the horn breaks off and is replaced by four lesser horns. A small horn that grows very large, it stops the daily temple sacrifices and desecrates the sanctuary for two thousand three hundred "evenings and mornings" (which could be either 1,150 or 2,300 days) until the temple is cleansed. The angel Gabriel informs him that the ram represents the Medes and Persians, the goat is Greece, and the "little horn" is a wicked king.

Vision of the Seventy Weeks (chapter 9)

In the first year of Darius the Mede, Daniel meditates on the word of Jeremiah that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years; he confesses the sin of Israel and pleads for God to restore Israel and the "desolated sanctuary" of the Temple. The angel Gabriel explains that the seventy years stand for seventy "weeks" of years (490 years), during which the Temple will first be restored, then later defiled by a "prince who is to come," "until the decreed end is poured out."

Vision of the kings of north and south (chapters 10–12)

Daniel 10: In the third year of Cyrus Daniel sees in his vision an angel (called "a man", but clearly a supernatural being) who explains that he is in the midst of a war with the "prince of Persia", assisted only by Michael, "your prince." The "prince of Greece" will shortly come, but first he will reveal what will happen to Daniel's people.

Daniel 11: A future king of Persia will make war on the king of Greece, a "mighty king" will arise and wield power until his empire is broken up and given to others, and finally the king of the south (identified in verse 8 as Egypt) will go to war with the "king of the north." After many battles (described in great detail) a "contemptible person" will become king of the north; this king will invade the south two times, the first time with success, but on his second he will be stopped by "ships of Kittim." He will turn back to his own country, and on the way his soldiers will desecrate the Temple, abolish the daily sacrifice, and set up the abomination of desolation. He will defeat and subjugate Libya and Egypt, but "reports from the east and north will alarm him," and he will meet his end "between the sea and the holy mountain."

Daniel 12: At this time Michael will come. It will be a time of great distress, but all those whose names are written will be delivered. "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt; those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever." In the final verses the remaining time to the end is revealed: "a time, times and half a time" (three years and a half). Daniel fails to understand and asks again what will happen, and is told: "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days."

Additions to Daniel (Greek text tradition)

The Greek text of Daniel is considerably longer than the Hebrew, due to three additional stories: they remain in Catholic and Orthodox Christian Bibles but were rejected by the Christian Protestant movement in the 16th century on the basis that they were absent from the Hebrew Bible.

• The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, placed after Daniel 3:23;
• The story of Susanna and the Elders, placed before chapter 1 in some Greek versions and after chapter 12 in others;
• The story of Bel and the Dragon, placed at the end of the book.

The Book of Daniel is preserved in the 12-chapter Masoretic Text and in two longer Greek versions, the original Septuagint version, c. 100 BC, and the later Theodotion version from c. 2nd century CE. Both Greek texts contain the three additions to Daniel. Theodotion is much closer to the Masoretic Text and became so popular that it replaced the original Septuagint version in all but two manuscripts of the Septuagint itself. The Greek additions were apparently never part of the Hebrew text. Several Old Greek texts of the Book of Daniel have been discovered, and the original form of the book is being reconstructed.

Historical background

The visions of chapters 7–12 reflect the crisis which took place in Judea in 167–164 BC when Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Greek king of the Seleucid Empire, threatened to destroy traditional Jewish worship in Jerusalem. When Antiochus came to the throne in 175 BC the Jews were largely pro-Seleucid. The High Priestly family was split by rivalry, and one member, Jason, bribed Antiochus to be made High Priest and make Jerusalem a polis, or Greek city. This meant, among other things, that city government would be in the hands of the citizens, which meant in turn that citizenship would be a valuable commodity, to be purchased from Jason. None of this threatened the Jewish religion, and the reforms were widely welcomed, especially among the Jerusalem aristocracy and the leading priests. Three years later, Jason was deposed when another priest, Menelaus, bribed Antiochus an even larger sum for the post of High Priest.

Antiochus invaded Egypt twice, in 169 BC with success, but on the second incursion, in late 168 BC, he was forced to withdraw by the Romans. Jason, hearing a rumour that Antiochus was dead, attacked Menelaus to take back the High Priesthood. Antiochus drove Jason out of Jerusalem, plundered the Temple, and introduced measures to pacify his Egyptian border by imposing complete Hellenization: the Jewish Book of the Law was prohibited and on 15 December 167 BC an "abomination of desolation", probably a Greek altar, was introduced into the Temple. With the Jewish religion now clearly under threat a resistance movement sprang up, led by the Maccabee brothers, and over the next three years it won sufficient victories over Antiochus to take back and purify the Temple.

The crisis which the author of Daniel addresses is the defilement of the altar in Jerusalem in 167 BC (first introduced in chapter 8:11): the daily offering which used to take place twice a day, at morning and evening, stopped, and the phrase "evenings and mornings" recurs through the following chapters as a reminder of the missed sacrifices. But whereas the events leading up to the sacking of the Temple in 167 BC and the immediate aftermath are remarkably accurate, the predicted war between the Syrians and the Egyptians (11:40–43) never took place, and the prophecy that Antiochus would die in Palestine (11:44–45) was inaccurate (he died in Persia), as Daniel transitions from making "quasi-predictions" based on history to an imaginary scenario taken from the scriptures of Antiochus' downfall rather than a straightforward prediction. This point of the text has lead most scholars to the conclusion that the account must have been completed near the end of the reign of Antiochus but before his death in December 164 BC, or at least before news of it reached Jerusalem, and the consensus of modern scholarship is accordingly that the book dates to the period 167–163 BC.

Composition

Development

It is generally accepted that Daniel originated as a collection of Aramaic court tales, later expanded by Hebrew revelations. The court tales may have originally circulated independently, but the edited collection was probably composed in the third or early second-century BC. Chapter 1 was composed in Aramaic at this time as a brief introduction to provide historical context, introduce the characters of the tales, and explain how Daniel and his friends came to Babylon. The visions of chapters 7–12 were added, and chapter 1 was translated into Hebrew at the third stage when the final book was being drawn together. This final stage, marking the composition of the book of Daniel, took place between the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 and his death in 164 BC.

Authorship

Daniel is a product of "Wisdom" circles, but the type of wisdom is mantic (i.e., the discovery of heavenly secrets from earthly signs) rather than the wisdom of learning—the main source of wisdom in Daniel is allegedly God's revelation. It is one of a large number of Jewish apocalypses, all of them pseudonymous. The stories of the first half are legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BC). Chapters 1–6 are in the voice of an anonymous narrator, except for chapter 4 which is in the form of a letter from king Nebuchadnezzar; the second half (chapters 7–12) is presented by Daniel himself, introduced by the anonymous narrator in chapters 7 and 10.

The author/editor was probably an educated Jew, knowledgeable in Greek learning, and of high standing in his own community. It is possible that the name of Daniel was chosen as the hero of the book because of his reputation as a wise seer in Hebrew tradition. Ezekiel, who lived during the Babylonian exile, mentioned him in association with Noah and Job (Ezekiel 14:14) as a figure of legendary wisdom (28:3), and a hero named Daniel (more accurately Dan'el, but the spelling is close enough for the two to be regarded as identical) features in a late 2nd millennium myth from Ugarit. "The legendary Daniel, known from long ago but still remembered as an exemplary character... serves as the principal human 'hero' in the biblical book that now bears his name"; Daniel is the wise and righteous intermediary who can interpret dreams and thus convey the will of God to humans, the recipient of visions from on high that are interpreted to him by heavenly intermediaries.

Michael Segal argued that Daniel 2 had deliberate parallels with Joseph found in Genesis 41, and the text is a composite. Joshua M. Philpot would outline that Daniel 1-6 was potentially modelled after Genesis 37–50.

Dating

The prophecies of Daniel are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus' death in late 164 BC. Chapters 10–12 must have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again.

Some evidence of the book's date can be found in the fact that Daniel is not present in the Hebrew Bible's Nevi'im (wherein it might arguably be expected to fit), which was closed c. 200 BC. Rather, Daniel forms a part of the Ketuvim ('Writings') also formed c. 200 BC. Additionally, the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from c. 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Hebrew Bible except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it, Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known from the middle of that century.

Manuscripts

The Book of Daniel is preserved in the 12-chapter Masoretic Text and in two longer Greek versions, the original Septuagint version, c. 100 BC, and the later Theodotion version from c. 2nd century AD. Both Greek texts contain three additions to Daniel: The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children; the story of Susannah and the Elders; and the story of Bel and the Dragon. Theodotion is much closer to the Masoretic Text and became so popular that it replaced the original Septuagint version in all but two manuscripts of the Septuagint itself. The Greek additions were apparently never part of the Hebrew text.

Eight copies of the Book of Daniel, all incomplete, have been found at Qumran, two in Cave 1, five in Cave 4, and one in Cave 6. Among them, they preserve text from eleven of Daniel's twelve chapters, and the twelfth is quoted in the Florilegium (a compilation scroll) 4Q174, showing that the book at Qumran did not lack this conclusion. All eight manuscripts were copied between 125 BC (4QDan^c) and about 50 AD (4QDan^b), showing that Daniel was being read at Qumran only about 40 years after its composition. All appear to preserve the 12-chapter Masoretic version rather than the longer Greek text. None reveal any major disagreements against the Masoretic, and the four scrolls that preserve the relevant sections (1QDan^a, 4QDan^a, 4QDan^b, and 4QDan^d) all follow the bilingual nature of Daniel where the book opens in Hebrew, switches to Aramaic at 2:4b, then reverts to Hebrew at 8:1.

A 2025 study published a series of radiocarbon tests which dated 4Q114, a manuscript preserving Daniel 8–11, to about 230–160 BC. This estimated date range overlaps with the period in which the final part of Daniel was presumably composed.

Genre, meaning, symbolism and chronology

(This section deals with modern scholarly reconstructions of the meaning of Daniel to its original authors and audience)

Genre

The Book of Daniel is an apocalypse, a literary genre in which a heavenly reality is revealed to a human recipient; such works are characterized by visions, symbolism, an other-worldly mediator, an emphasis on cosmic events, angels and demons, and pseudonymity (false authorship). Daniel also corresponds to the narratives of the promises and warnings by the prophets of the Hebrew Bible in that it doesn't predict fixed future events, nor a literal account of events before they take place, but rather illustrates imaginary scenarios of divine justice inspired by the scriptures. The production of apocalypses occurred commonly from 300 BC to 100 AD, not only among Jews and Christians, but also among Greeks, Romans, Persians and Egyptians, and Daniel is a representative apocalyptic seer, the recipient of divine revelation: he has learned the wisdom of the Babylonian magicians and surpassed them because his God is the true source of knowledge; he is one of the maskilim (משכלים), the wise ones, who have the task of teaching righteousness and whose number may be considered to include the authors of the book itself. The book is part of the broader genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature, in which God would liberate the righteous and restore the nation, though the way this would happen took many forms. It gives no real details of the end-time, but it seems that God's kingdom will be on this earth, that it will be governed by justice and righteousness, and that the tables will be turned on the Seleucids and those Jews who have cooperated with them.

Meaning, symbolism, and chronology

The message of the Book of Daniel is that, just as the God of Israel saved Daniel and his friends from their enemies, he would save all of Israel from their present oppression. The book is filled with monsters, angels, and numerology, drawn from a wide range of sources, both biblical and non-biblical, that would have had meaning in the context of 2nd-century Jewish culture and while Christian interpreters have always viewed these as predicting events in the New Testament—"the Son of God", "the Son of Man", Christ and the Antichrist—the book's intended audience is the Jews of the 2nd century BC. The following explains a few of these predictions as modern biblical scholars understand them.

• The four kingdoms and the little horn (Daniel 2 and 7): The concept of four successive world empires stems from Greek theories of mythological history. Most modern interpreters agree that the four represent Babylon, the Medes, Persia and the Greeks, ending with Hellenistic Seleucid Syria and with Hellenistic Ptolemaic Egypt, but traditional interpretation of the dream more commonly identifies the four empires as the Babylonian (the head), Medo-Persian (arms and shoulders), Greek (thighs and legs), and Roman (the feet) empires. The symbolism of four metals in the statue in chapter 2 comes from Persian writings, while the four "beasts from the sea" in chapter 7 reflect Hosea 13:7–8, in which God threatens that he will be to Israel like a lion, a leopard, a bear or a wild beast. The consensus among scholars is that the four beasts of chapter 7 symbolise the same four world empires. The modern interpretation views Antiochus IV (reigned 175–164 BC) as the "small horn" that uproots three others (Antiochus usurped the rights of several other claimants to become king of the Seleucid Empire).
• The Ancient of Days and the one like a son of man (Daniel 7): The portrayal of God in Daniel 7:13 resembles the portrayal of the Canaanite god El as an ancient divine king presiding over the divine court. The "Ancient of Days" gives dominion over the earth to "one like a son of man", and then in Daniel 7:27 to "the people of the holy ones of the Most High", whom scholars consider the son of man to represent. These people can be understood as the maskilim (sages), or as the Jewish people broadly.
• The ram and he-goat (Daniel 8) as conventional astrological symbols represent Persia and Syria, as the text explains. The "mighty horn" stands for Alexander the Great (reigned 336–323 BC), and the "four lesser horns" represent the four principal generals (Diadochi) who fought over the Greek empire following Alexander's death. The "little horn" again represents Antiochus IV. The key to the symbols lies in the description of the little horn's actions: he ends the continual burnt offering and overthrows the Sanctuary, a clear reference to Antiochus' desecration of the Temple.
• The anointed ones and the seventy years (Chapter 9): Daniel reinterprets Jeremiah's "seventy years" prophecy regarding the period Israel would spend in bondage to Babylon. From the point of view of the Maccabean era, Jeremiah's promise was obviously not true—the Gentiles still oppressed the Jews, and the "desolation of Jerusalem" had not ended. Daniel, therefore, reinterprets the seventy years as seventy "weeks" of years, making up 490 years. The 70 weeks/490 years are subdivided, with seven "weeks" from the "going forth of the word to rebuild and restore Jerusalem" to the coming of an "anointed one", while the final "week" is marked by the violent death of another "anointed one", probably the High Priest Onias III (ousted to make way for Jason and murdered in 171 BC), and the profanation of the Temple. The point of this for Daniel is that the period of Gentile power is predetermined and is coming to an end.
• Kings of north and south: Chapters 10 to 12 concern the war between these kings, the events leading up to it, and its heavenly meaning. In chapter 10, the angel (Gabriel?) explains that there is currently a war in heaven between Michael, the angelic protector of Israel, and the "princes" (angels) of Persia and Greece; then, in chapter 11, he outlines the human wars which accompany this—the mythological concept sees standing behind every nation a god/angel who does battle on behalf of his people so that earthly events reflect what happens in heaven. The wars of the Ptolemies ("kings of the south") against the Seleucids ("kings of the north") are reviewed down to the career of Antiochus the Great (Antiochus III (reigned 222–187 BC), father of Antiochus IV), but the main focus is Antiochus IV, to whom more than half the chapter is devoted. The accuracy of these predictions lends credibility to the real prophecy with which the passage ends, the death of Antiochus—which, in the event, was not accurate.
• Predicting the end-time (Daniel 8:14 and 12:7–12): Biblical eschatology does not generally give precise information as to when the end will come, and Daniel's attempts to specify the number of days remaining is a rare exception. Daniel asks the angel how long the "little horn" will be triumphant, and the angel replies that the Temple will be reconsecrated after 2,300 "evenings and mornings" have passed (Daniel 8:14). The angel is counting the two daily sacrifices, so the period is 1,150 days from the desecration in December 167. In chapter 12, the angel gives three more dates: the desolation will last "for a time, times and half a time", or a year, two years, and a half a year (Daniel 12:8); then that the "desolation" will last for 1,290 days (12:11); and finally, 1,335 days (12:12). Verse 12:11 was presumably added after the lapse of the 1,150 days of chapter 8, and 12:12 after the lapse of the number in 12:11.

Canonicity

Elements in Second-Temple Judaism apparently doubted the canonicity of the Book of Daniel. The work did not classify as a prophetic book in this milieu.

Influence

The concepts of immortality and resurrection, with rewards for the righteous and punishment for the wicked, have roots much deeper than the Book of Daniel, but the earliest clear Biblical statement on these matters appears in the final chapter of that book: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt." According to Daniel R. Schwartz, without the claim of the resurrection of Jesus, Christianity would have disappeared like the movements following other charismatic Jewish figures of the 1st century.

Porphyry of Tyre in his work Against the Christians, is recognized as the earliest source around the 3rd century AD to claim that Daniel was a much later work from a Jewish individual writing during the times of Antiochus. Porphyry's views are considered to be inline with scholarly agreement that Chapters 7-12 of Daniel were written during the Maccabean conflict.

In the 1st century AD both Jews and Christians quoted and referenced the Book of Daniel as a prediction of the imminent end-time. Moments of national and cultural crisis continually reawakened the apocalyptic spirit, through the Montanists of the 2nd/3rd centuries, persecuted for their millennialism, to the more extreme elements of the 16th-century Reformation such as the Zwickau prophets and the Münster Rebellion. During the English Civil War, the Fifth Monarchy Men took their name and political program from Daniel 7, demanding that Oliver Cromwell allow them to form a "government of saints" in preparation for the coming of the Messiah; when Cromwell refused, they identified him instead as the Beast usurping the rightful place of King Jesus. For modern popularizers, the visions and revelations of Daniel remain a guide to the future, when the Antichrist will be destroyed by Jesus Christ at the Second Coming.

The Book of Daniel belongs not only to Judeo-Christian and Islamic religious tradition but also to the wider Western intellectual and artistic heritage. It was easily the most popular of the prophetic books for the Anglo-Saxons, who nevertheless treated it not as prophecy but as a historical book, "a repository of dramatic stories about confrontations between God and a series of emperor-figures who represent the highest reach of man". Isaac Newton paid special attention to it, Francis Bacon borrowed a motto from it for his 1620 work Novum Organum, Baruch Spinoza drew on it, its apocalyptic second half attracted the attention of Carl Jung, and it has inspired musicians – from medieval liturgical drama to Darius Milhaud – and artists – including Michelangelo, Rembrandt and Eugène Delacroix.

See also

• Biblical numerology
• Christian eschatology
• Danel
• Daniel (Old English poem)
• Greek Apocalypse of Daniel
• Historicist interpretations of the Book of Daniel

From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia

In the Hebrew Bible, and in most recent Protestant versions, the Book of Daniel is limited to its proto-canonical portions. In the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and many other ancient and modern translations of the Bible, it comprises both its proto- and its deutero-canonical parts, both of which have an equal right to be considered as inspired, and to be included in a treatment of the Book of Daniel. As in the Vulgate nearly all the deutero-canonical portions of that prophetical writing form a kind of appendix to its proto-canonical contents in the Hebrew text. This article will deal first with the Book of Daniel as it is found in the Hebrew Bible, and next, with its deutero-canonical portions.

Proto-Canonical Portions

(1) Contents

The Book of Daniel, as it now stands in the ordinary Hebrew Bibles, is generally divided into two main parts. The first includes a series of narratives which are told in the third person (chaps. i-vi), and the second, a series of visions which are described in the first person (chaps. vii-xii). The opening chapter of the first series may be considered as a preface to the whole work. It introduces to the reader the Hebrew heroes of the book, Daniel and his three fellow-captives, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias, and records the manner in which these noble youths obtained a high rank in Nebuchadnezzer's service, although they had refused to be defiled by eating of the royal food. The second chapter relates a disquieting dream of the king which Daniel alone was able accurately to set forth and interpret. Nebuchadnezzer's dream was that of a great statue made up of various materials and broken in pieces by a small stone which became a mountain and filled the whole earth. Daniel's interpretation was to the effect that the several parts of the statue with their various materials symbolized as many monarchies with their respective power, while the stone which destroyed them and grew into a great mountain prefigured a universal and everlasting kingdom which would break in pieces all the other kingdoms, and which, of course, is no other than that of the Messiah.

The next section (iii, 1-30, Vulgate, iii, 1-23, 91-97) narrates how Daniel's three companions, having refused to worship a colossal statue set up by Nebuchadnezzer, were cast into a highly-heated furnace in which they were preserved unharmed, whereupon the king issued a decree in favour of their God and promoted them to places of dignity. The following section (iii, 31-iv, Vulgate, iii, 98-iv) contains Nebuchadnezzer's letter to all peoples and nations, recounting his dream of a mighty tree cut down at God's bidding, and its interpretation by Daniel, together with its fulfilment in the form of a seven years' madness which befell the king, and the recovery from which was the occasion of his thankful letter. The fifth chapter (Heb. Bible, v-vi, 1) describes Balthasar's profane banquet, the mysterious handwriting on the wall, Daniel's interpretation of that writing, and the overthrow, on that same night, of Balthasar's kingdom. In the sixth chapter Daniel is represented as the object of the special favour of Darius the Mede, and also of the persistent jealousy of the other officers of the Crown, who finally succeed in having him thrown into the lions' den, because of his faithfulness in praying to God three times a day; upon Daniel's miraculous preservation, Darius decrees that all in his kingdom should "dread and fear the God of Daniel".

The second main part of the book in the Hebrew Bible (vii-xii) is taken up with four visions which Daniel describes in the first person. The first of these visions (ch. vii) is referred to the first year of Balthasar's reign, and offers a close parallel to the dream set forth and explained in the second chapter of the book. The nightly vision was of four several beasts coming out of the sea, and symbolical of the Gentile powers judged in due time by "the Ancient of days", and finally replaced by the universal and everlasting Messianic kingdom. Like the first, the second vision (ch. viii) is ascribed to the reign of Balthasar, and represents worldly powers under the figure of animals. Daniel sees a ram with two horns (the Medes and the Persians) pushing victoriously towards the west, north and south, until it is struck by a he-goat (the Greeks) with a great horn (Alexander) between its eyes. This great horn is soon broken in its turn, and gives place to four others (the Greek kingdoms of Egypt, Syria, Macedonia, and Thrace), from one of which grows out a "little horn", namely Antiochus Epiphanes. This prince is not, indeed, named by the Angel Gabriel, who explains the vision to Daniel, but is clearly designated by the description of the doings of the "little horn" against the host of heaven and its prince (God), desecrating "the sanctuary", interrupting the daily sacrifice for about three years and a half, and finally "broken without hand".

The next chapter contains the prophecy of the seventy weeks, which is referred to the first year of Darius, the son of Assuerus. As Daniel was supplicating God for the fulfilment of His promises of mercy in Jeremiah, xxix, 10 sq., or xxv, 11, he was favoured with the vision of the Angel Gabriel. The heavenly messenger explained to him how the seventy years of desolation foretold by Jeremiah should be understood. They are seventy weeks of years, falling into three periods of seven, sixty-two, and one weeks of years, respectively. The first period one of seven weeks, or forty-nine years, will extend from the going forth of "the word" for the rebuilding of Jerusalem to "an anointed one, a prince". During the second, of sixty-two weeks or four hundred and thirty-four years, the Holy City will be built, though "in straitness of times". At the end of this period "an anointed one" will be cut off, and the people of a prince who shall come will "destroy" the city and the sanctuary, he will make a firm covenant with many for one week (or seven years), and during a half of this week he will cause sacrifice and oblation to cease and the abomination of desolation to be set up, until he meets with his fate. The last vision, ascribed to the third year of Cyrus, is recorded in chapters x-xii. Its opening part (x-xi, 1) gives a description of the vision with a reference to Media, Persia, and Greece. The second part (xi) announces many events connected with four Persian kings, with Alexander and his successors and more particularly with the deeds of a king of the North, i.e. Antiochus Epiphanes, against Egypt, the Jews, the Temple, etc., until he should come to an end. The conclusion of the vision (xii) declares how Michael (the guardian angel of Israel) will deliver the people. Mention is made of a resurrection of the dead, followed by rewards and punishments. For 1290 days, or about three and one half years, the daily sacrifice will cease and the abomination of desolation will be set up. Blessed is he who continues steadfast till 1335 days.

(2) Object and Unity

From these contents it readily appears that the Book of Daniel has not for its object to give a summary historical account of the period of the Babylonian Exile, or of the life of Daniel himself, since both its parts profess to give only a few isolated facts connected with either the Exile or the Prophet's life. From the same contents it can also be readily seen that the object of that sacred writing is not to record in substance prophetical addresses similar to those which make up the works ascribed to distinct prophets in the Old Testament literature. In respect to both matter and form, the contents of the Prophecy of Daniel are of a peculiar kind which has no exact parallel in the Bible, except in the Apocalypse of St. John. In Daniel, as in this last book of the Bible, one is in presence of contents whose general purpose is undoubtedly to comfort God's people under the ordeal of a cruel persecution, chiefly by means of symbolical visions bearing on "the time of the end". This is the obvious purpose of the four visions recorded in the second part of the Book of Daniel (chaps. vii-xii), and also of Nebuchadnezzer's dream as given and explained in the second chapter of the first part of that inspired writing: the persecution therein in view is that of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the Jews are to be comforted by the assured prospect both of the fate that awaits their oppressor and of the setting up of God's universal and eternal kingdom. Nor have the narratives in chapters iii-vi a different general purpose: in each and in all of them the generous and constant servants of the true God -- Daniel and his fellow captives -- triumph in the end, while their oppressors, however mighty or numerous, are ultimately punished or made to acknowledge and promote the glory of the God of Israel. This apocalyptic object of the Book of Daniel is admitted by most scholars of the present day, and is in harmony with the place assigned to that sacred writing in the Hebrew Bible, where it appears not among "the Prophets", or second great division of the original text, but among "the Writings", or third main division of that text.

As apocalyptic writings usually bear the impress of compilation, one might naturally be tempted to regard the Book of Daniel -- whose apocalyptic character has just been described -- as a compilatory work. In fact, many scholars of the last century -- some of whom were Catholic -- have set forth positive grounds to prove that the author of the book has actually put together such documents as could make for his general purpose. At the present day, however, the opposite view, which maintains the literary unity of the Prophecy of Daniel, is practically universal. It is felt that the uniform plan of the book, the studied arrangement of its subject-matter, the strong similarity in language of its two main parts, etc. are arguments which tell very powerfully in favour of the latter position.

(3) Authorship and Date of Composition

Once it is admitted that the Book of Daniel is the work of one single author, there naturally arises the important question: Is this sole writer the Prophet Daniel who composed the work during the Exile (586-536 B.C.), or, on the contrary, some author, now unknown, who wrote this inspired book at a later date, which can still be made out? The traditional view, in vigour chiefly among Catholics, is to the effect that the whole work, as found in the Hebrew Bible, should be directly referred to Daniel, whose name it bears. It admits, indeed, that numerous alterations have been introduced into the primitive text of the book in the course of ages. It maintains, nevertheless, that both the narratives (chaps. i-vi) wherein Daniel seems to be described by some one else as acting as recorded, and the symbolic visions (chaps. vii-xiu) wherein he describes himself as favoured with heavenly revelations, were written, not simply by an author who was contemporary with that prophet and lived in Babylon in the sixth century B.C., but by Daniel himself. Such difference in the use of persons is regarded as arising naturally from the respective contents of the two parts of the book: Daniel employed the third person in recording events, for the event is its own witness; and the first person in relating prophetical visions, for such communications from above need the personal attestation of those to whom they are imparted. Over against this time-honoured position which ascribes to Daniel the authorship of the book which bears his name, and admits 570-536 B.C. as its date of composition, stands a comparatively recent theory which has been widely accepted by contemporary scholars. Chiefly on the basis of historical and linguistic grounds, this rival theory refers the origin of the Book of Daniel, in its present form, to a later writer and period. It regards that apocalyptic writing as the work of an unknown author who composed it during the period of the Machabees, and more precisely in the time of Antiochus IV, Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.).

The following are the extrinsic testimonies which conservative scholars usually and confidently set forth as proving that the Book of Daniel must be referred to the well-known Prophet of that name and consequently to a much earlier date than that advocated by their opponents. Christian tradition, both in the East and in the West, has been practically unanimous from Christ's time to the present day in admitting the genuineness of the Book of Daniel. Its testimony is chiefly based on Matthew, xxiv, 15: "When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand", in which passage Christ treats Daniel's visions as true oracles, and expressly names that Prophet as their writer. In so doing, it is argued, Christ endorsed and confirmed by His authority the view which was then received among the Jews, and which regarded Daniel as the author of the book which bears his name. Jewish tradition, both during and before Christ's time, bears also distinct witness to the genuineness of the Prophecy of Daniel. In his "Antiquities of the Jews" (Bk. XI, ch. viii, 5), the learned Jewish priest and Pharisee, Josephus (about A.D. 40-100), writes: "When the Book of Daniel was shown to Alexander the Great (d. 323 B.C.), wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended". Before the Christian Era the First Book of the Machabees (written very early in the first century B.C.) shows acquaintance with the Septuagint version of the Prophecy of Daniel (cf. I Mach., i, 54, with Dan., ix, 27, I Mach., ii, 59, 60 with Dan., iii, vi), whence it is inferred

• that at that date the Book of Daniel must have been for some considerable time rendered into Greek, and

• that its composition must have preceded this translation by some considerable time more, so that its origin under Antiochus Epiphanes is hardly probable.

Again, the Sibylline Oracles (Bk. III, verses 388 sqq.), supposed to have been written about 170 B.C., contain an allusion to Antiochus IV, and to the ten horns of Dan., vii, 7, 24, and therefore point to an earlier date than that which is proposed by the advocates of the recent theory. More particularly still, the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch, made about 285 B.C., exhibits in Deut., xxxii, 8, a doctrine of guardian angels which it has apparently borrowed from the Book of Daniel, and thus tends to prove the existence of that inspired writing long before the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Finally, according to Josephus (Contra Apion, VIII), the Old Testament Canon of the Jews of Palestine, which has always included Daniel among "the Writings", was closed by Esdras (middle of the fifth century B.C.), that is to say, at a date so near the composition of the book that its genuineness could then be easily ascertained, and would naturally be the reason for the insertion of the work into the Palestinian Canon. To strengthen the inference drawn from these external testimonies, conservative scholars appeal to the following direct and indirect intrinsic grounds. Throughout the second part of his book Daniel speaks in the first person and thereby gives himself implicitly as the writer of chapters vii-xii. Even more, in the words: "Then he [Daniel] wrote the dream and told the sum of the matters", we have a statement which ascribes expressly to him the writing of the first vision (chap. vii) and, implicitly, that of the subsequent visions, which are indissolubly bound up with the opening one. Now, if the visions described in the second part of the book were recorded by Daniel himself, the same thing must be admitted in regard to narratives which make up the first part of the book (chaps. i-vi), because of the acknowledged unity of the work. And in this way direct intrinsic evidence is considered as making for the Danielic authorship. The indirect intrinsic grounds point in the same direction, inasmuch as they tend to show that the author of the Book of Daniel was

• a resident in Babylon

• one who wrote in the period to which the Prophet Daniel belonged, and

• one who is best identified with that Prophet himself.

The first of these positions, it is said, is borne out by the close acquaintance which the author evinces in the historical portion of the work (chaps. i-vi) with the manners, customs, history, religion, etc. of the Babylonians the minute details he refers to, the local colouring of his descriptions, his exact references to facts, are such as only a resident in Babylon could be fairly supposed to possess. It is likewise borne out by a comparison of the form of Daniel's prophecies in chapters vii-xii with the general surroundings of one living in Babylon and with the Babylonian monuments in particular; the imagery of Daniel's vision in the seventh chapter, for instance, is nearly the same as that found on monuments in the ruins of Ninive; and in chapters viii, 2 (Heb. text), and x, 4, the river banks are most appropriately given as the scenes of Daniel's visions. While thus very familiar with Babylonia, the author of the Book of Daniel betrays no such special knowledge of Persia and Greece as would be natural to expect if, instead of living in the sixth century B.C., he had been a contemporary of Antiochus Epiphanes. This absence of distinct knowledge of the times subsequent to the Babylonian period has sometimes been urged to prove the second position: that the writer belonged to that period, and to no other. More often, however, and more strongly, the linguistic features of the Book of Daniel have been brought forth to establish that second position. It has been affirmed, on the one hand, that the Hebrew of Daniel with its numerous Aramaisms, bears a close affinity to that of Ezechiel, and is therefore that of the period of the Exile; and, on the other hand, that the Aramaic portions of Daniel (ii, 4-vii) are in wonderful agreement with those of Esdras, while they are distinguished by many Hebrew idioms from the language of the earliest Aramaic Paraphrases of the Old Testament. In particular, the easy transition from the Hebrew to the Aramaic (ii, 4), and the reverse (viii, 1 sqq.), is explicable, we are told, only on the supposition that the writer and the readers of the book were equally familiar with both; this free handling of both languages suits not the Machabean age but that of Daniel, or of the Exile, in which both tongues were naturally in equal use. The intrinsic grounds making for the last position (that the author of the Book of Daniel is best identified with the Prophet of that name), may be summed up in this simple statement: while no other seer during the Babylonian Exile has been, and indeed can be, named as the probable recorder of the visions described in that inspired writing, Daniel, owing to his position at the court of Babylon, to his initiation into the wisdom of the Chaldees, and to the problem of his calling as God had shown it to him, was eminently fitted at that time for writing the prophecies which had been imparted to him for the comfort of the Jews of his time and of subsequent ages.

Scholars who have examined this evidence, closely and without bias, have concluded that rationalistic critics are decidedly wrong in denying totally the historical character of the Book of Daniel. At the same time, many among them still question the absolute cogency of the extrinsic and intrinsic grounds set forth to prove the Danielic authorship. These latter scholars rightly reject as untrue the statement of Josephus, which refers the close of the Old Testament Canon to the time of Esdras; and in the well-known bias of the same Jewish historian for magnifying whatever concerns his nation they have a valid reason for doubting his assertion that the prophecies of Daniel were shown to Alexander the Great when this prince passed through Palestine. The alleged reference to Daniel's expressions in the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy they easily explain as a later gloss, and the actual acquaintance of the First Book of the Machabees with the Prophecy of Daniel they naturally regard as compatible with the non-Danielic authorship, and indeed with the composition of the Book of Daniel in the time of Antiochus IV. As regards the last external testimony in favour of the genuineness of that sacred writing, viz. Christ's words concerning Daniel and his prophecy, these same scholars think that, without going against the reverence due to Christ's Person, and the credence due His words, they have a right not to consider the passage appealed to in Matt., xxiv, 15, as absolutely conclusive: Jesus does not say explicitly that Daniel wrote the prophecies that bear his name to infer this from His words is to assume something which may well be questioned, viz. that in referring to the contents of a book of the Bible, He necessarily confirmed the traditional view of His day concerning authorship; in point of fact, many scholars whose belief in Christ's truthfulneess and Divinity is beyond question -- such Catholics, for instance, as Father Souciet, S.J., Bishop Hanneberg, Francois Lenormant, and others -- have thought that Christ's reference to Daniel in Matt., xxiv 15, does not bear out the Danielic authorship as it is claimed by conservative scholars chiefly on the basis of His words.

Having thus shown, to their own satisfaction, the inconclusive character of the external evidence, or mainstay in favour of the traditional view, the opponents of the Danielic authorship endeavour to prove that internal evidence points decisively to the late origin which they ascribe to the Book of Daniel. Briefly stated, the following are their principal arguments:

• As it is now found in the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Daniel contains historical references which tend to prove that its author is not an eyewitness of the events alluded to, as would be the case if he were the Prophet Daniel. Had this author lived during the Exile, it is argued, he would not have stated that "in the third year of the reign of Joakim, king of Juda, Nebuchadnezzer, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem and besieged it" (Dan., i, 1), since this conflicts with Jeremiah, xxxvi, 9, 29.

• He would not have repeatedly used the word "Chaldeans" as the name of a learned caste, this sense being foreign to the Assyro-Babylonian language, and of an origin later than the Exile; he would not have spoken of Balthasar as "king" (v, 1, 2 3, 5, etc., viii, 1), as the "son of Nebuchadnezzer" (v, 2, 18, etc.), since Balthasar was never king, and neither he nor his father had any blood-relationship to Nebuchadnezzer;

• he would have avoided the statement that "Darius the Mede succeeded to the kingdom" of Balthasar (v. 31), since there is no room for such a ruler between Nabonahid, Balthasar's father, and Cyrus, the conqueror of Babylon;

• he could not have spoken of "the Books" (Dan., ix, 2-Heb. text), an expression which implies that the prophecies of Jeremiah formed part of a well-known collection of sacred books, which assuredly was not the case in the time of Nebuchadnezzer and Cyrus, etc.

• The linguistic features of the book, as it exists in the Hebrew Bible, point also, it is said, to a date later than that of Daniel: its Hebrew is of the distinctly late type which followed Nehemias' time; in both its Hebrew and its Aramaic portions there are Persian words and at least three Greek words, which of course should be referred to a period later than the Babylonian Exile.

Not satisfied with the merely negative inference that the Book of Daniel was not composed during the Captivity, the opponents of the Danielic authorship strive to reach a positive conclusion as to the date of its origin. For this purpose, they examine the contents of that inspired writing, and they think that by viewing both its parts in the light of history, they are led to refer definitely its composition to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. It can be readily seen, we are told, that the interest of the visions which make up the second part of Daniel culminates in the relations subsisting between the Jews and Antiochus. It is this prince who manifestly is the subject of Dan. viii, 9-13, 23-25, and who is very probably "the little horn" spoken of in Dan., vii, 8, 20, 21, 25, while events of his reign are apparently described in Dan., ix, 25-27, and undoubtedly so in xi, 21-45; xii, 6, 7, 10-12. Whoever bears this in mind, it is argued, is led by the analogy of Scripture to admit that the book belongs to the period of Antiochus. The rule is that "even when the prophets of the Old Testament deliver a Divine message for far distant days, they have in view the needs of the people of their own day. They rebuke their sins, they comfort their sorrows, they strengthen their hopes, they banish their fears. But of all this there is no trace in Daniel, if the book was written in the time of Cyrus. Its message is avowedly for the time of the end, for the period of Antiochus and the Machabees". And this inference is confirmed by the fact that the narratives told in the first part, when studied in reference to the events of Antiochus's reign are found to impart lessons especially suited to the Jews of that period. The question of eating meat (Dan., i. 8 sqq.) was at that time a test of faith (cf. I Mach., i, 65 sq.; II Mach., vi, 18 sqq.; vii). The lessons of the fiery furnace and the lions' den (Dan., iii vi) were most appropriate in the time of the Machabees when the Jews were ordered on the pain of death to worship foreign deities (cf. I Mach. i, 43-54). The accounts of the humbling of Nebuchadnezzer (Dan., iv) and the fate of Balthasar (Dan., v) were also particularly calculated to comfort the Jews so cruelly oppressed by Antiochus and his officers. Such a view of the date of the Book of Daniel is in harmony with the apocalyptic character of the whole work, and can be confirmed, it is said, by certain facts in the external history of the book, such for instance as its place among "the Writings" in the Palestinian Canon, the absence of all traces of Daniel's influence upon the post-exilic literature before the Machabean period, etc. Despite the fact that some of these arguments against the Danielic authorship have not yet been fully disproved, Catholic scholars generally abide by the traditional view, although they are not bound to it by any decision of the Church.

(4) Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks

Several sections of the Book of Daniel contain Messianic predictions, the general import of which has been sufficiently pointed out in setting forth the contents and object of that inspired writing. One of these predictions, however, claims a further notice, owing to the special interest connected with its contents. It is known as the prophecy of the seventy weeks, and is found in an obscure passage (ix, 24-27), of which the following is a literal rendering:

24. Seventy weeks [literally heptads] have been decreed upon thy people and thy holy city, to close transgression and to make an end of sins, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet and to anoint a most holy [literally: holiness of holinesses]. 25. Know then and discern: from the going forth of the word to build again Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince, [there are] seven weeks, and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again [with] broad place and moat, and that in straitness of times. 26. And after the sixty-two weeks an anointed one will be cut off and he will have no... [Sept. kai ouk estai]; and the people of a prince who shall come will destroy the city and the sanctuary, and the end thereof [will be] in a flood, and until the end [shall be] war, a sentence of desolations. 27. He will make a firm covenant with many for a week, and for half a week he shall cause sacrifice and oblation to cease, and instead thereof the abomination that makes desolate, and that until the consummation and that which is determined be poured upon the desolator.

The difficulty of rendering this passage of the Hebrew text is only surpassed by that of interpreting its contents. Most commentators admit, indeed, that the seventy weeks are weeks of years, which fall into three periods of 7, 62, and 1 weeks of years, respectively, but they are still at variance with regard to both the exact starting point and the precise terminus of the seventy weeks. Most of them, too, regard the prophecy of the seventy weeks as having a Messianic reference, but even all Catholic interpreters do not agree as to the precise nature of this reference. Some among them, after Hardouin, S.J., Calmet, O.S.B., etc., seeing in the contents of the prophecy a typical reference to Christ, in preference to the literal one which has been, and is still, more prevalent in the Church. Briefly stated, the following are the three principal interpretations which have been given by Dan., ix, 24-27.

• The first is the ancient view, which may be called traditional, and which maintains that the prophecy of the seventy weeks refers directly to the appearance of Christ in the flesh, His death, His establishment of the New Covenant, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

• The second is that of most recent scholars, chiefly non-Catholic, who refer the whole passage directly to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, with (Christians generally) or without (Rationalists at large) a typical reference to Christ.

• The third is that of some Fathers of the Church and some recent theologians who understand the prophecy in an eschatological sense, as a prediction of the development of the Kingdom of God from the end of the Exile to the fulfilment of that kingdom at Christ's second Advent.

(5) Text and Principal Ancient Versions

One of the chief reasons of the obscurity which surrounds the interpretation of Dan., ix, 24-27, is found in the imperfect condition in which the original text of the Book of Daniel has come to us. Not only in the prophecy of the seventy weeks, but also throughout both its Hebrew (Dan., i-ii, 4; viii-xii) and its Aramaic (ii, 4-vii) sections, that text betrays various defects which it is easier to notice and to point out than to correct. Linguistics, the context, and the ancient translations of Daniel are most of the time insufficient guides towards the sure restoration of the primitive reading. The oldest of these translations is the Greek version known as the Septuagint, whose text has come down to us, not in its original form, but in that given to it by Origen (died about A.D. 254) for the composition of his Hexapla. Before this revision by Origen, the text of the Septuagint was regarded as so unreliable, because of its freedom in rendering, and of the alterations which had been introduced into it etc., that, during the second century of our era, it was discarded by the Church, which adopted in its stead the Greek version of Daniel made in that same century by the Jewish proselyte, Theodotion. This version of Theodotion was apparently a skilful revision of the Septuagint by means of the original text, and is the one embodied in the authentic edition of the Septuagint published by Sixtus V in 1587. In Dr. H.B. Swete's edition of the Septuagint, Origen's revision and Theodotion's version are conveniently printed side by side on opposite pages (vol. III, pp. 498 sqq.). The version of the proto-canonical portions of the Book of Daniel in the Latin Vulgate is St. Jerome's rendering from practically the same Hebrew and Aramaic text as is found in the current Hebrew Bibles.

Deutero-Canonical Portions

The Hebrew and Aramaic sections of the Book of Daniel thus far dealt with, are the only ones found in the Hebrew Bible and recognized by Protestants as sacred and canonical. But besides those sections, the Vulgate, the Greek translations of Daniel (Septuagint and Theodotion) together with other ancient and modern versions, contain three important portions, which are deuterocanonical. These are:

• the Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three Children, usual}y inserted in the third chapter between the twenty-third and the twenty-fourth verses;

• the history of Susanna, found as ch. xiii, at the end of the book;

• the history of the destruction of Bel and the dragon, terminating the book as ch. xiv.

The first of these fragments (Dan., iii, 24-90) consists of a prayer in which Azarias, standing in the midst of the furnace, asks that God may deliver him and his companions, Ananias and Misael, and put their enemies to shame (verses 24-45); a brief notice of the fact that the Angel of the Lord saved the Three Children from all harm, whereas the flame consumed the Chaldeans above the furnace (46-50); and a doxology (52-56) leading on to the hymn familiarly known as the "Benedicite" (57-90). The second fragment (ch. xiii) tells the history of Susanna. She was the faithful wife of a wealthy Jew named Joakim, and resident in Babylon. Accused falsely of adultery by two unworthy elders whose criminal advances she had repelled, she was sentenced to death by the tribunal before which she had been arraigned. As Susanna was led forth to execution, Daniel, moved by God, remonstrated with the people upon permitting without sufficient inquiry the condemnation of a daughter of Israel. He examined himself the two pretended witnesses separately, and proved their testimony to be self-contradictory. In fulfilment of the Law of Moses (Deut., xix, 18, 19), the two elders were put to death, "and Daniel became great in the sight of the people from that day, and thenceforward." The last deuterocanonical part of Daniel (ch. xiv) contains the narrative of the destruction of Bel and the dragon. It recounts first the clever manner in which Daniel undeceived the king, Cyrus, who regarded a Babylonian idol, called Bel, as "a living god" that actually ate ample offerings, whereas these were really consumed at night by the pagan priests and their families: in consequence, these impostors were put to death, and Bel and its temple destroyed. It records, in the second place, how Daniel caused to die a great dragon that the Babylonians worshipped, and that the king wished him to adore as "a living god". Enraged at this, the people forced the king to deliver Daniel to them, and cast the Prophet into a lions' den. Daniel remained there unharmed for six days, and fed by the prophet Habakkuk who was miraculously transported from Judea to Babylon. On the seventh day, the king having found Daniel alive in the midst of the lions, praised aloud the God of Daniel and delivered the Prophet's accusers to the fate which Daniel had miraculously escaped. The Greek is, indeed the oldest form under which these deutero-canonical parts of the Book of Daniel have come down to us; but this is no decisive proof that they were composed in that language. In fact, the greater probability is in favour of a Hebrew original no longer extant. It is plain that the view which regards these three fragments as not originally written in Greek makes it easier to suppose that they were from the beginning integrant parts of the book. Yet, it does not settle the question of their date and authorship. It is readily granted by conservative scholars (Vigouroux, Gilly, etc.) that the last two are probably from a different and later author than the rest of the book. On the other hand, it is maintained by nearly all Catholic writers, that the Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three Children cannot be dissociated from the preceding and the following context in Dan., iii, and that therefore they should be referred to the time of Daniel, if not to that Prophet himself. In reality, there are wellnigh insuperable difficulties to such an early date for Dan., iii, 24-90, so that this fragment also, like the other two, should most likely be ascribed to some unknown Jewish author who lived long after the Exile. Lastly, although the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel seem to contain anachronisms, they should not be treated -- as was done by St Jerome -- as mere fables. More sober scholarship will readily admit that they embody oral or written traditions not altogether devoid of historical value. But, whatever may be thought concerning these literary or historical questions, there cannot be the least doubt that in decreeing the sacred and canonical character of these fragments the Council of Trent proclaimed the ancient and morally unanimous belief of the Church of God.

External links

• Daniel (Judaica Press) * translation [with Rashi's commentary] at Chabad.org
• Bible, King James Version ("Bible, King James Version". quod.lib.umich.edu. Retrieved 2016-01-17.) Book of Daniel
• Daniel at The Great Books * (New Revised Standard Version)
• Bible: Daniel public domain audiobook at LibriVox Various versions

Bibliography

• Bandstra, Barry L. (2008). Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Wadsworth Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-495-39105-0.
• Bar, Shaul (2001). A Letter That Has Not Been Read: Dreams in the Hebrew Bible. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press. ISBN 978-0-87820-424-3.
• Boyer, Paul S. (1992). When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-95129-7.
• Brettler, Mark Zvi (2005). How To Read the Bible. Jewish Publication Society. ISBN 978-0-8276-1001-9.
• Carroll, John T. (2000). "Eschatology". In Freedman, David Noel; Myers, Allen C. (eds.). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-90-5356-503-2.
• Cohen, Shaye J.D. (2002). From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-22743-2.
• Collins, John J. (1984). Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-0020-6.
• Collins, John J. (1998). The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-4371-5.
• Collins, John J. (2001). Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. BRILL. ISBN 978-0-391-04110-3.
• Collins, John J. (2002). "Current Issues in the Study of Daniel". In Collins, John J; Flint, Peter W; VanEpps, Cameron (eds.). The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-11675-7.
• Collins, John J. (2003). "From Prophecy to Apocalypticism: The Expectation of the End". In McGinn, Bernard; Collins, John J; Stein, Stephen J. (eds.). The Continuum History of Apocalypticism. Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-1520-2.
• Collins, John J. (2013). "Daniel". In Lieb, Michael; Mason, Emma; Roberts, Jonathan (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible. Oxford UNiversity Press. ISBN 978-0-19-164918-9.
• Crawford, Sidnie White (2000). "Apocalyptic". In Freedman, David Noel; Myers, Allen C. (eds.). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-90-5356-503-2.
• Cross, Frank Leslie; Livingstone, Elizabeth A. (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3.
• Davies, Philip (2006). "Apocalyptic". In Rogerson, J. W; Lieu, Judith M. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies. Oxford Handbooks Online. ISBN 978-0-19-925425-5.
• DeChant, Dell (2009). "Apocalyptic Communities". In Neusner, Jacob (ed.). World Religions in America: An Introduction. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-1-61164-047-2.
• Dines, Jennifer M. (2004). Knibb, Michael A. (ed.). The Septuagint. Understanding the Bible and Its World (1st ed.). London: T&T Clark. ISBN 0-567-08464-7.
• Doukhan, Jacques (2000). Secrets of Daniel: wisdom and dreams of a Jewish prince in exile. Review and Herald Pub Assoc. ISBN 978-0-8280-1424-3.
• Dunn, James D.G. (2002). "The Danilic Son of Man in the New Testament". In Collins, John J; Flint, Peter W; VanEpps, Cameron (eds.). The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. BRILL. ISBN 978-0-391-04128-8.
• Dunn, James Douglas Grant (2003). Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, Volume 1. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 730. ISBN 978-0-8028-3931-2.
• Godden, Malcolm (2013). "Biblical Literature" The Old Testament". In Godden and, Malcolm; Lapidge, Michael (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-46921-1.
• Goldingay, John (2019). Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 30. Zondervan Academic. ISBN 978-0310526155.
• Grabbe, Lester L. (2001). "A Dan(iel) For All Seasons: For Whom Was Daniel Important?". In Collins, John J; Flint, Peter W. (eds.). The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum. Vol. 1. Leiden, Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill. ISBN 90-04-11675-3.
• Grabbe, Lester L. (2002). Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-203-46101-3.
• Grabbe, Lester L. (2010). An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism: History and Religion of the Jews in the Time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel, and Jesus. Continuum. ISBN 978-0-567-55248-8.
• Hammer, Raymond (1976). The Book of Daniel. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-09765-9.
• Harrington, Daniel J. (1999). Invitation to the Apocrypha. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-4633-4.
• Hill, Andrew E. (2009). "Daniel". In Garland, David E; Longman, Tremper (eds.). Daniel—Malachi. Zondervan. ISBN 978-0-310-59054-5.
• Hill, Charles E. (2000). "Antichrist". In Freedman, David Noel; Myers, Allen C. (eds.). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-90-5356-503-2.
• Horsley, Richard A. (2007). Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea. Presbyterian Publishing Corp. ISBN 978-0-664-22991-7.
• Kent, Charles Foster (1906). The Origin and Permanent Value of the Old Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. p. 214.
• Knibb, Michael (2002). "The Book of Daniel in its Context". In Collins, John J; Flint, Peter W; VanEpps, Cameron (eds.). The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-11675-7.
• Lerner, Robert E. (20 July 1998). "Description, End Times, Eschatology, Prophecy, & Examples". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 22 June 2025.
• Lester, G. Brooke (2015). Daniel Evokes Isaiah: Allusive Characterization of Foreign Rule in the Hebrew-Aramaic Book of Daniel. The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-567-65856-2.
• Levine, Amy-Jill (2010). "Daniel". In Coogan, Michael D; Brettler, Marc Z; Newsom, Carol A. (eds.). The new Oxford annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books: New Revised Standard Version. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-937050-4.
• Lucas, Ernest C. (2005). "Daniel, Book of". In Vanhoozer, Kevin J; Bartholomew, Craig G; Treier, Daniel J. (eds.). Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Baker Academic. ISBN 978-0-8010-2694-2.
• Matthews, Victor H; Moyer, James C. (2012). The Old Testament: Text and Context. Baker Books. ISBN 978-0-8010-4835-7.
• McDonald, Lee Martin (2012). Formation of the Bible: the Story of the Church's Canon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-59856-838-7.
• Miller, Steven R. (1994). Daniel. B&H Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8054-0118-9.
• Niskanen, Paul (2004). The Human and the Divine in History: Herodotus and the Book of Daniel. Continuum. ISBN 978-0-567-08213-8.
• Portier-Young, Anathea E. (2016). Sharp, Carolyn (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of the Prophets. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford University Press. p. 229. ISBN 978-0-19-985956-6.
• Provan, Iain (2003). "Daniel". In Dunn, James D.G; Rogerson, John William (eds.). Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-3711-0.
• Redditt, Paul L. (2008). Introduction to the Prophets. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-2896-5.
• Reid, Stephen Breck (2000). "Daniel, Book of". In Freedman, David Noel; Myers, Allen C. (eds.). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-90-5356-503-2.
• Rowland, Christopher (2007). "Apocalyptic Literature". In Hass, Andrew; Jasper, David; Jay, Elisabeth (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of English Literature and Theology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-927197-9.
• Ryken, Leland; Wilhoit, Jim; Longman, Tremper (1998). Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-6733-2.
• Ryken, Leland; Longman, Tremper (2010). The Complete Literary Guide to the Bible. Zondervan. ISBN 978-0-310-87742-4.
• Sacchi, Paolo (2004). The History of the Second Temple Period. Continuum. ISBN 978-0-567-04450-1.
• Schwartz, Daniel R. (1992). Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-145798-2.
• Seow, C.L. (2003). Daniel. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-25675-3.
• Schiffman, Lawrence H. (1991). From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. KTAV Publishing House. ISBN 978-0-88125-372-6.
• Spencer, Richard A. (2002). "Additions to Daniel". In Mills, Watson E; Wilson, Richard F. (eds.). The Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha. Mercer University Press. ISBN 978-0-86554-510-6.
• Theophilos, Michael P. (2012). The Abomination of Desolation in Matthew 24.15. T & T Clark library of biblical studies. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-567-55468-0.
• Towner, W. Sibley (1984). Daniel. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-23756-1.
• Tucker Jr., W. D. (2020) [2012]. "Daniel: History of Interpretation". In McConville, Gordon J; Boda, Mark J. (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets: A Compendium Of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Inter-Varsity Press. p. unpaginated. ISBN 978-1-78974-038-7.
• VanderKam, James C. (2010). The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-6435-2.
• VanderKam, James C; Flint, Peter (2013). The meaning of the Dead Sea scrolls: their significance for understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-224330-0.
• Waters, Matt (2014). Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550–330 BC. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-65272-9.
• Weber, Timothy P. (2007). "Millennialism". In Walls, Jerry L. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-974248-6.
• Wesselius, Jan-Wim (2002). "The Writing of Daniel". In Collins, John J; Flint, Peter W; VanEpps, Cameron (eds.). The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. BRILL. ISBN 978-0-391-04128-8.