Introduction

The fourth place among the prophetic books of the Old Testament in the Greek-Slavonic Bible is held by the book of the Prophet Daniel, which received this name from its author. He was Daniel (“God judged me” or “God is my judge”), a noble Jew (Dan 1:3), taken captive in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim to Babylon (Dan 1:1), raised here at the royal court (Dan 1:4), elevated because of his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream to a high court rank (Dan 2:48-49), and maintaining it until the third year of the reign of Cyrus (Dan 10:1).

The book of Daniel is recognized as the work of this person both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament church. The representative of the view of the first is the Jewish historian Josephus.

“Having finished his life,” says he, “Daniel gained eternal memory, for the books which he left written are read among us even now. And we are assured by them that he conversed with God. He left this recorded, and it made clear to us the accuracy and immutability of his prophecies” (Jewish Antiquities 10:7). In the same work (Jewish Antiquities 10:11) Josephus considers the desecration of the Jerusalem temple by Antiochus Epiphanes to be the exact fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy (Dan 11:31), “spoken 408 years before.”

The evidence cited is not at all weakened by the remark of the Talmud that the book of Daniel was written by the men of the Great Synagogue. First of all, the Talmudists included the Prophet Daniel in the membership of this last body, and in that case his book could have been compiled by him himself. Second, the activity of the members of the Great Synagogue consisted, according to the Talmudic tradition, in the review, purification, and division of sacred books, or more precisely, in the compilation of the canon. Accordingly, the book of the Prophet Daniel was “written” by them only in the sense that after preliminary review it was included in the canon.

The Christian Church, having received from the Old Testament the canon of sacred books, testified to the authenticity of the book of the Prophet Daniel through the words of its Divine Founder. “Therefore, when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the Prophet Daniel standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains” (Matt 24:15-16). In these words Jesus Christ affirms not only the existence of the Prophet Daniel himself but also the attribution to him of the prophecy about the seventy weeks (Dan 9:25-27). It was “spoken” by Daniel in the sense that it was recorded and transmitted to the church by him himself. In later times the authenticity of the book of Daniel was recognized and defended against the attacks of the Neoplatonist Porphyry by Eusebius of Caesarea, Methodius of Tyre, Apollinaris of Laodicea, and the blessed Jerome. And such a view of it finds firm foundation in the writer’s own testimony. Very often he calls himself by his own name: “I, Daniel” (Dan 7:2; Dan 8:1; Dan 9:2; Dan 10:2; Dan 12:5), says that others called him the same way (Dan 9:22; Dan 10:11-12; Dan 12:4), repeatedly notes that he received from an Angel the command to record his visions, even to seal them (Dan 10:11), and indeed recorded them (Dan 7:1).

The Prophet Daniel presents himself as a contemporary of the Babylonian captivity. In accordance with this, his book bears traces of Babylonian origin: as a genuine work of a contemporary of the captivity, it bears the stamp of that era. The first indicator is the language of the book—Hebrew (Dan 1-2:3 and Dan 8-12 chapters) and Aramaic (Dan 2:4-7:28 chapters). As a Jew by descent, the author knows his native language, and as a Babylonian by residence—the common Aramaic spoken in Babylon. He also assumes the same familiarity with both languages in his readers, the Jews. The common people became acquainted with Aramaic only during the period of captivity; before that it was the possession of the educated alone (2 Sam 18:26; Isa 36:11). But while using the Aramaic language during the period of captivity, the people did not forget their native language (Ezra writes in Hebrew), as we see subsequently during the Maccabean period.

The Babylonian captivity was indeed a time when both languages were in use among the Hebrews in the book of the Prophet Daniel. Equally clear evidence of its Babylonian origin comes from the peculiarities of the language. According to biblical scholars, the Hebrew language of the book of Daniel is similar to the language of the book of the Prophet Ezekiel contemporary with the captivity, and the Aramaic is similar to the language of the postexilic books of Ezra and Nehemiah. This similarity is most clearly seen in the use of rare words, the so-called hapax legomena. For example, “bag” Dan 1:5 = Ezek 25:7; “huv” Dan 1:10 = Ezek 18:7; “tsebi” Dan 8:9 = Ezek 20:6; “kelal” Dan 10:6 = Ezek 1:7; “zegar” Dan 12:3 = Ezek 8:2; “ben-adam” Dan 8:17 = Ezek 2:1; Ezek 3:1 and so on. Examples of correspondence between the languages of Daniel and Ezra include such expressions as: “shemu” Dan 6:5 = Ezra 4:22; “nevali” Dan 2:5 = Ezra 6:11; “pitgama” Dan 4:14 = Ezra 6:17; “sim teem” Dan 5:2 = Ezra 5:4; Ezra 6:1; “di” Dan 5:30 = Ezra 5:17 and so on.

Fully corresponding to the period of the writing of the book of the Prophet Daniel is the presence in it of Persianisms and Babylonianisms, that is, words explained by Persian and Babylonian terminology. Such are, according to the indication of exegetes: “azza” Dan 2:5 from ancient Persian “aranda”—science; “gaddam” Dan 2:5; Dan 3:29 from Persian “handam”—member; “patbag” Dan 1:5 from ancient Persian “patibaga”—table of the gods; “gedarim” Dan 3:2 from ancient Persian “gasbar”—treasurer; “peha” Dan 3:3 from ancient Persian “paik”—governor. “Arioch” Dan 2:14 = Assyr. Eri Achu, that is, servant of the Moon goddess; “Meshach” Dan 1:6 = Assyr. Misa Achu, that is, who is like Aku—the moon god; “Shadrach” Dan 1:6 = Sudar Achu, that is, command of the god Aku; “Abednego” Dan 1:6 = Abad Nabu, that is, servant of the god Nebo; “ashafim” Dan 2:2 = Assyr. “assipu”; “tabagaya” Dan 2:14 = Assyr. “tabihu”; “gashkhin” Dan 3:16 = Assyr. haspuhu and so on.

As the work of a contemporary and eyewitness of the events described, the book of the Prophet Daniel is further distinguished by complete historical accuracy in its accounts. Such are, for example, the accounts of the taking of Jewish captives to Babylon not by Nebuchadnezzar personally but by his command through Ashpenaz (Dan 1:3), of the education of the captive youths at the royal court and in court schools (Dan 1:5-6), of the division of the Chaldean priests and government officials into various classes (chapters 2 and 4; Dan 3:3), of the great golden statue set up by Nebuchadnezzar on the plain of Dura (Dan 3), of the procession accompanying its dedication, of the illness of Nebuchadnezzar, and so on. All of them are confirmed by cuneiform inscriptions and the testimony of ancient writers. (See more detailed discussion of this and much else in the commentaries on the text.) Even that which was previously considered an error on the part of the prophet—the names and persons of Belshazzar and Darius the Mede—turns out now, thanks to the latest discoveries in the field of Assyriology, to be unquestionable truth. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the eyes of impartial scholars this peculiarity of the book of the Prophet Daniel is one of the convincing proofs of its authenticity.

“The more often I read the book of the Prophet Daniel,” says Lenormant, “the more clearly the truth of the picture of ancient Babylon appears before me. Only a contemporary and eyewitness could have drawn such a picture.”

“The book of Daniel,” remarks another scholar, Menant, “reproduces with greatest accuracy the Chaldean civilization of the era of Nebuchadnezzar. An apocryphal writer could not have written this.”

The testimony given by the content of the book and confirmed by the account of the Prophet Daniel about himself as a contemporary of the Babylonian captivity is finally attested by the book of the Prophet Ezekiel. His address to the king of Tyre: “You are wiser than Daniel” (Ezek 28:3)—presupposes the contemporaries of the captivity were acquainted with the content of the first five chapters of the book of Daniel, which tell of his outstanding wisdom. Another passage of the book of the Prophet Ezekiel (Ezek 14:14-20) refers to the account in the second chapter of the book of Daniel about his saving the lives of the Chaldean wise men.

While the question of the authenticity of the book of the Prophet Daniel is decided affirmatively by orthodox biblical scholarship in light of the cited data, representatives of the negative school attach no importance to them. Thus, Kuenan tries to weaken the force of Jesus Christ’s testimony about Daniel by pointing out that the words about “the abomination of desolation spoken by the Prophet Daniel” belong not to Him but to the evangelist, and Bertholdt and de Wette put forward against Daniel’s own testimony the consideration that the book bearing his name contains so much excessive praise of Daniel that the prophet himself could not have written so about himself. But as regards Kuenan’s assertion, it cannot be proven that the evangelist changed the words of the Lord concerning the attribution to Daniel of the prophecy about the seventy weeks: by the context they belong to the Savior, not to the evangelist Matthew. Equally, the instances of praise of Daniel found in the book do not speak at all against the authorship of the prophet.

And indeed, in Daniel’s references to his own merits (Dan 1:17; Dan 6:4) there is not a shadow of boastfulness. He regards them as the work of divine mercy, not the fruit of personal effort. God’s mercy brought it about that the prophet was pleasing to the chief of the eunuchs (Dan 1:9); God, not his own wisdom, reveals to him the highest mysteries (Dan 2:18-23); He granted him understanding of “visions and dreams” (Dan 1:17); the spirit of God exalted Daniel under Darius the Mede (Dan 6:3). The modesty and humility of the prophet are not weakened by praise of himself, since alongside these he speaks of his sins, of which he repented (Dan 9:20), of his mental and moral weaknesses (Dan 10:8; Dan 12:8). Even less do those passages of his book testify to the boastfulness of Daniel in which he reports the opinions of others about himself (Dan 5:11-12; Dan 9:23; Dan 10:11).

Not content with attempts to weaken the force of external and internal proofs of the authenticity of the book of the Prophet Daniel, representatives of the negative school present in support of the idea of its spuriousness a whole series of positive data. According to some of them, the book of the Prophet Daniel is not the work of one writer but a collection of separate fragments composed at different times by different authors and then united by an unknown editor. Thus, Michaelis counts 8 such fragments and consequently eight original writers, Bertholdt counts 9, and Eichhorn even 10. Gansberg and most recently Delitzsch regard the book bearing his name as a collection of separate accounts about Daniel. Other scholars—Zack, Herbst, Keller—distinguish in the book of Daniel two parts: the historical and the prophetic (chapters 1–6 and 7–12) as two independent literary works.

The basis for denying the unity of the book of the Prophet Daniel, and consequently its authenticity, is the use in it of two languages—Hebrew (Dan 1:1-2:3—Dan 8-12 chapters) and Aramaic (Dan 2:5-7:28 chapters), the reference to the prophet now in the first person (chapters 7–12) and now in the third (chapters 1–6), and finally, some alleged contradictions (Dan 1:21 cf. Dan 10:1; Dan 2:47 cf. Dan 3:15; Dan 2:48-49 cf. Dan 5:11-14). The considerations that are convincing for rationalist critics and not even for all of them (an exception is made by Bleek—Wellhausen, Berman) are in reality so weak that they cannot by any means speak against the unity and authenticity of the book of the Prophet Daniel. In its dual language it is similar to the writings of Ezra and Nehemiah.

In Ezra, Aramaic is used chiefly to set forth foreign royal decrees and letters confirming their historical authenticity (Ezra 4:11-22; Ezra 5:6-17). For the same reasons, Daniel presented in Aramaic the speech of the Chaldean wise men and responses to it by Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:4-11), his two decrees (Dan 3:96-100 chapter), issued probably in the Aramaic language, and the decree of Darius the Mede (Dan 6:25-27). Equally, the rest of the content of the Aramaic section required expression only in this language. All the events described in it proclaim the infinite almightiness of the supreme King, the Lord, who holds all the kingdoms of the earth in His power; they are a manifest self-revelation, the self-testimony of the true God among the pagans of the Babylonian empire. And if the latter were to grasp this truth, then the only means to this was to set forth the events revealing it in their native, understandable language. The prophet sets forth what is necessary for the Babylonians in the Aramaic language. Accordingly, it can be said without error that the rest of his book was written in Hebrew because it was intended for the Hebrew people, and had significance exclusively for them. Such indeed is the account of the life of the Prophet Daniel, his upbringing and exaltation at the royal court (chapter 1). Such are the visions of pagan kingdoms in their relations to the Hebrew people (chapters 8, 10–11), the prophecy about the seventy weeks (chapter 9), and the future resurrection.

Daniel 2:4–6. The dual language of the book of the Prophet Daniel thus does not speak against its unity. But that is not all. The unity is not disrupted by the dual language. The Aramaic and Hebrew sections are in the closest connection, and one without the other is incomprehensible. Thus, the Aramaic section of the historical part (Dan. 2:4–6 chapters) cannot be separated from the Hebrew (Dan 1:1-2:3), because the beginning of the account about Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is in the Hebrew section, and the direct continuation is in the Aramaic. Specifically, in Dan 2:4 it is said: “and the Chaldeans said to the king in Aramaic.” Who are the Chaldeans, on what occasion, when, and to what king did they say this?—the answer to these questions is given only by the Hebrew passage Dan 2:1-3. In the Aramaic part, both names of the prophet are used without explanation: Daniel and Belshazzar (Dan 2:26; Dan 4:5-6; Dan 5:12), as the explanation is given by the author in the Hebrew part (Dan 1:7). The Aramaic account of Belshazzar’s desecration of the vessels of the Jerusalem temple (Dan 5 and following) refers back to the Hebrew narrative Dan 1:2. Equally, the Hebrew section presupposes in its expressions the Aramaic section. Thus, the expression Dan 8:1: “there appeared to me, Daniel, a vision after the one that appeared to me before,” sends the reader back to the vision of the seventh Aramaic chapter. In the same way, the other words of that eighth chapter: “I... began to occupy myself with royal affairs” (Dan 8:27), find their explanation in the preceding Aramaic section (Dan 2:48-49; Dan 5:29; Dan 6:28). Differing in language, the Hebrew and Aramaic sections of the book of the Prophet Daniel are also similar in symbolic images (chapter 7 compared with chapters 8, 10, and 11), expressions (Dan 7:25 = Dan 8:25; Dan 7:25 = Dan 12:7; Dan 2:34 = Dan 8:25; Dan 4:27 = Dan 8:24; Dan 12:7), and the thoughts they express. They are pervaded by the idea of the dependence of pagan kingdoms and rulers on the almighty God of Israel, who holds all the kingdoms of the earth in His power, of the transience of these kingdoms and the eternity of God’s kingdom, triumphing over paganism. The unity of the book of the Prophet Daniel is also not undermined by the fact that in the historical part (chapters 1–6) the prophet is spoken of in the third person as an outside person, while in the prophetic part (chapters 7–12) he speaks in the first person about himself. Such a manner of expression is not unusual in biblical writings—it is observed with other prophets as well. In setting forth the visions that came to them, they, like Daniel, speak of themselves in the first person (Isa 6:1; Isa 8:1; Isa 21:2; Jer 1:4; Jer 2:1; Ezek 1:4), while in historical accounts they use the third person (Isa 1:1; Isa 2:1; Isa 7:3; Jer 1:1; Jer 7:1; Jer 14:1; Ezek 1 and so on). The reasons for this phenomenon lie, according to exegetes, in the fact that in visions requiring vivid representation the first person is far more fitting than the third. Like opponents of the unity of the book of the Prophet Daniel, those exegetes also reject its authenticity who claim that it is not the work of a contemporary of the Babylonian captivity but was written by an unknown person in Palestine during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees between 170 and 164 BC. The first defender of such a view was the Neoplatonist Porphyry, followed by Spinoza, Bertholdt, Lengerke, Knobel, Hitzig, Bunsen, Bachmann, Ewald, Noldeke, Graf, Riehm, Stade, Kuenan, Cornill, Koenig, Meinhold, and most recently Delitzsch. The sole direct basis for attributing the origin of the book of the Prophet Daniel to the era of Antiochus Epiphanes is Dan 8:23-25 and Dan 11:31, regarded by the scholars mentioned above, beginning with the Neoplatonist Porphyry, not as prophecy of a distant future but as a description of past events in prophetic form. But such an interpretation of these passages encounters an insuperable objection in the testimony of the writer of the First Book of Maccabees. If the book of Daniel was written during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, why did the supposed contemporary author of the Book of Maccabees regard it as a prophecy about this period (1 Macc 2:49-62; 1 Macc 1:39-54 = Dan 9:27; Dan 11:31-32)? Attributed by the aforesaid considerations to the era of Antiochus Epiphanes, the book of Daniel is considered by the scholars mentioned above to be an allegorical legendary reproduction of the history of this king and the Maccabean times. Under the names of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius the Mede, Antiochus is supposedly depicted in various manifestations of his hatred of Judaism, and under the names of Daniel and his friends—the Jews persecuted by Epiphanes. The unnaturalness of such parallels is self-evident. Daniel with his friends is raised at the royal court, surrounded by honors, sometimes living apart from governmental affairs; the Maccabean Jews, on the contrary, were the object of the persecutions of Antiochus, ruthlessly pursued by him. Daniel was the friend of kings who honored him, treated them with respect and sympathy (Dan 2:38; Dan 4:16); the Maccabees call Antiochus “the inventor of all evils, impious and the most wicked of all men” (2 Macc 7:31-37) and foretell to him the terrible wrath of God. Through Daniel’s guidance, Babylonian and Median kings came to know the power of the Most High, glorified the power of His omniscience, almightiness, and justice (Dan 2:47; Dan 3:95; Dan 4:34; Dan 6:26-27), while Antiochus set himself the goal of destroying the Jewish religion, replacing it with paganism, and with this in view demanded from the Jews the renunciation of their observances, circumcision, and sacrifices to the Lord (1 Macc 1:41-42; 1 Macc 1:44-50). No less weak are the other arguments of scholars in defense of the Maccabean, or rather postexilic, origin of the book of the Prophet Daniel. First among them is their reference to the absence of the prophet’s name in the list of famous men of antiquity found in Jesus son of Sirach: from Ezekiel and the twelve prophets he proceeds directly to Zerubbabel (Sir 49:10-13), and to the unfamiliarity of the postexilic prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi with the book of Daniel. The unexplained omission by Sirach of the Prophet Daniel cannot serve as a basis for placing the time of his life in a later era on the sole ground that Josaphat and Ezra, also not mentioned by Sirach, must also be recognized as having lived in the 3rd century BC. Not mentioning Daniel’s name, Sirach, as it is thought, was nevertheless acquainted with his book, evidence of which is his teaching about the leaders of each people and his remark about the successive change of monarchies (Sir 17:14; cf. Dan 2:37-45). As for the unfamiliarity of the postexilic prophets with the book of Daniel, it is fabricated rather than actual. Thus, some obscure passages of the prophecies of Zechariah become clear only when compared with the corresponding prophecies of Daniel, which are presupposed by them as known. This includes the visions of the four horns “that have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem” (Zech 1:18-21) and of the four chariots with different horses in each (Zech 6:1-8). The visions of Daniel about the four kingdoms that successively ruled over the Jews constitute a complete parallel to each of these. The peculiarities of the language of the book of the Prophet Daniel also say nothing about its Maccabean origin—first of all, the Greek words found in it. Bertholdt counts ten of them: panterim (Dan 1:3)—distinguished, from προτιμοι; pitgam (Dan 3:16; Dan 4:14)—word, from φλεγμα; karoz (Dan 3:4)—herald, from κηρυξ; keraz (Dan 5:29)—to proclaim, from κηρυσσειν; patisch (Dan 3:21)—undergarment, from πετασος; nebisba (Dan 2:6; Dan 5:17)—gift, from νομισμα; sabka (Dan 3:5) from σαμβυκη; sumphonia (Dan 3:5), from συμφωνια; pesanterim (Dan 3:5) from ψαλτηριον, kriros from κιυαρις. Other scholars—Lucke and de Wette—considerably limit this number: they recognize as certainly Greek only the names of four musical instruments. Their use in the book of the Prophet Daniel cannot serve as proof of its composition in the era of Alexander the Great and the spread of the Greek language in the East, that is, not earlier than the 3rd century, as scholars claim, for two reasons. First, mutual contact between Babylonians and Greeks began long before Alexander the Great, even before Nebuchadnezzar. Thus, Sargan, the Assyrian king contemporary with the prophet Isaiah, was acquainted, as seen from an inscription, with the Ionians, and called the Mediterranean Sea that washes the island of Cyprus the Ionian Sea and even received envoys from seven princes of this island (Ragozina, History of Assyria, p. 306). Later Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal subjected to their power the Greek kings of the islands of Paphos, Cyprus, and others; finally, during the Babylonian captivity, Greeks were so well acquainted with the East that Anaximander, a contemporary of the captivity, compiled a map of the ancient world. With such familiarity there is nothing surprising if the Assyro-Babylonians were long acquainted with Greek musical instruments and adopted them into use under their Greek names. And indeed, the psaltery is depicted on the bas-relief of Ashurbanipal, and the kithara in an improved form—on the monuments of later kings. Second, the Greek origin of the instruments mentioned by Daniel and their names is far from as certain as is thought. Athenaeus, for example, considers the place of origin of the sambuke to be Syria, and Strabo calls it a “barbarian instrument.” It passed from the East into Greece, not the other way around. Dependent on this, the Semitic “sabka” can be recognized not as a derivative form from the Greek “σαμβυκη” but as the original form in relation to this latter. As for the name “kithara,” it may come from the Persian “sitareh”—six-stringed. Finally, “pesanterim” is also recognized as a word of Semitic origin—derived either from “phas”—hand and “natar”—leap, or from the Arabic “santir”—zither. Such is the conclusion reached recently by the Danish scholar Dietlef-Nielsen, who asserts that kithros, pesanterim, synopeya represent words formed not from Greek but from the roots of the Chaldean or ancient Aramaic language (Christian Readings, 1903, 1, p. 674). Besides the names of musical instruments, other peculiarities appear in the language of the book of the Prophet Daniel, which, according to scholars, distinguish it from the language of captivity and bring it closer to the language of the postexilic era. Thus, Daniel, it is said, calls Nebuchadnezzar “Nebuchadnezzar,” while the Prophet Ezekiel (Ezek 26:7), as well as in cuneiform inscriptions, uses “Nebuchadrezzar.” Daniel’s pronunciation is a later sound shift of this name, having parallels in the Septuagint, Berossus, and Josephus. But to cite only these parallels is to pass over in silence that the name Nebuchadnezzar occurs in the Prophet Jeremiah Jer 26:7; Jer 29:18 and in 2 Sam 25:22, and therefore its use in the book of Daniel cannot serve as proof of its later origin. This is not the case either with instances of coincidence between the language of Daniel and that of the Talmud and Aramaic: in both “continual sacrifice” is designated by the word “tamid” (Dan 8:11-12; Dan 11:31), whereas in Nehemiah it is “olah tamid” (Nehem 10:34); “generation,” “age” is “gil” (Dan 1:3; Dan 3:10), “to circumcise” is “chattak” (Dan 9:24), “to write” is “rascham” (Dan 10:21). These and similar examples—the form of the second person plural “Khom” and “hom”—testify only to the closeness of the language of the book of the Prophet Daniel to Aramaic and to its being colored with Aramaic forms more than other writers, although even in these latter one can often encounter hapax legomena having parallels only in Aramaic (Yungerov, ibid, p. 95–6). As a sign of postexilic origin of the book of the Prophet Daniel, scholars also point to the use in it of the word “Chaldeans” in the sense of “wise men” (Dan 1:4; Dan 2:4; Dan 5:7); they claim this meaning could not have existed in the Babylonian era. But the use of the term “Chaldeans” in the sense of “wise men” is confirmed by the testimony of ancient writers, including Diodorus Siculus and Herodotus, the first of whom calls them people “devoted their entire lives to philosophical thought and astrology.” Equally unfounded is the claim that Babylonian wise men could not have spoken Aramaic (Dan 2:4), the language of Palestinian Syrians. Already the Prophet Isaiah notes that Aramaic was spoken by the Assyrian officials of Sennacherib and the Jewish officials of Hezekiah (Isa 36:11). The Prophet Jeremiah recognized Aramaic as the common language in Babylon (Jer 10:11). The final data for assigning the book of Daniel to the postexilic—Maccabean era are its supposedly later beliefs. Such are the teaching about God (Dan 7:9-10), about the Messiah—the Son of Man (Dan 7:13) and His everlasting kingdom (Dan 2:44; Dan 7:13-14; Dan 12:1-3), about higher and lower angels (Dan 8:16; Dan 9:21; Dan 12:1), about the resurrection of the dead (Dan 12:2), about the custom of praying three times a day, facing Jerusalem (Dan 6:10), about fasting, and so on. But all these beliefs have an earlier origin. Thus, the image of the Most High is defined in the Prophet Ezekiel by almost the same traits (Cf. Dan 7:9-10 and Ezek 1:26-27); the Messiah and His eternal, righteous, and peaceful kingdom are spoken of by Isaiah and other pre-exilic prophets (Isa 9:6-7; Ps 71:1). The teaching about angels constitutes one of the essential points of Old Testament dogmatics. Pre-exilic books speak of archangels and the heavenly host (Josh 5:14; Ps 102:20-21), of the angels of nations and peoples (Exod 14:19; Exod 23:20; Exod 32:34), of guardian angels of private individuals (Gen 16:7-9; Gen 19:1; Gen 21:17; Job 33:23 and others); they are also not ignorant of the teaching about the resurrection of the dead (Job 19:25-32; Isa 26:19; Hos 13:14; Ezek 37:3-14). The custom of praying three times daily to God existed long before the captivity (Ps 54:18). Toward Jerusalem and its temple, as the dwelling place of the Lord, those in captivity ought also to have directed their prayerful thoughts (1 Sam 8:47-48; 2 Chr 6:34). As for fasting, the Prophet Ezekiel, a contemporary of the Babylonian captivity, was likewise concerned with preserving himself from defilement through food (Ezek 4:14). By its content the book of the Prophet Daniel is divided into two parts: historical (chapters 1–6) and prophetic (chapters 7–12). In the first part, the life of the Prophet Daniel and the contemporary events in the Babylonian and Medo-Persian kingdoms are described, in which he or his friends took direct part; in the second part are set forth the visions and revelations that came to him about the fate of Judah and the pagan kingdoms that had influence on the history of God’s people, from the Babylonian captivity until the establishment on earth of the kingdom of “the saints of the Most High.” The first of them, falling on the first year of Belshazzar, is the vision of four beasts, signifying the four kingdoms in their successive order: Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Macedonian (Greek), and Roman (chapter 7); the second (the third year of Belshazzar) is the vision of the ram and the goat—symbols of the Medo-Persian and Greek kingdoms (chapter 8); the third (the first year of Darius the Mede) is the vision of the seventy weeks (chapter 9); and finally, the fourth is the vision of the future fate of the Hebrew people in connection with the history of two pagan kingdoms—Egyptian and Syrian (chapters 10–12). Though differing in content, both parts of the book of the Prophet Daniel reveal one teaching about the universal kingdom of God and the Son of Man in their triumph over paganism. In its development it amounts to two principles: the universal kingdom cannot remain forever in the power of pagans; it exists only by means of and for the sake of Israel; in the person of the Son of Man the latter is destined for dominion over the world and the establishment on earth of God’s kingdom. The clarification of the first principle is devoted to the first six chapters of the book of the Prophet Daniel. They teach that power over the world belongs to the one God Most High. But His kingdom will open and come after the passage of a certain time, after the fall of four world monarchies (chapter 2). Until that time the Lord entrusts power over the universe to one or another monarch. Pagan kings can be rulers of the world only on the condition that they recognize the dependence of their power on the supreme power of God. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar, deprived of the throne for pride and arrogant attitude toward the Lord of hosts, remained king only because at the end of his life he confessed the greatness and power of the God of Israel (chapter 4). But both his and the two preceding confessions (chapters 2–3) have significance for him alone and are not accompanied by any results for his subjects. They remain pagans, not knowing the true God, that God who gives salvation not only to the Jews but also to them. Therefore they cannot be rulers of the world. And the further time advances, the clearer and clearer this impossibility becomes. Nebuchadnezzar’s successors lose the concept of the origin of their power. His descendant Belshazzar knew that the kingdom, greatness, honor, and glory are given by God (Dan 5:18-22), and yet he exalted himself against the Lord of heaven—defiled the vessels of the Jerusalem temple. For this he lost the throne and his life: the Babylonian empire perishes when its ruler forgets the true God. Power passes to another king—Darius the Mede. He did not need, like Nebuchadnezzar, instruction from the Prophet Daniel to know the true God, whom he considers the Lord of the universe. He also respects Daniel, seeing in him a servant of God. But this abstract knowledge brought Darius no benefit. He had no strength and courage to publicly confess his faith in God and protect His servant Daniel—he allowed him to be thrown into the lion’s den. Darius is not an enemy of God, like Belshazzar, but neither is he as convinced a worshiper as Nebuchadnezzar. He acts indecisively, now contrary to conscience, now in accordance with it. Lacking character and firm in faith, Darius could not be ruler of the world any more than the frivolous Belshazzar. Thus is explained on the examples from the lives of pagan kings the fundamental principle of the book of the Prophet Daniel about the incapacity of pagans to be rulers of the world. The concept of the true God, through whom kings reign, not only makes no progress among them but is increasingly weakened. Under such conditions, power over the world cannot remain in the hands of pagans but must pass to another people. And this people can only be Israel. As a ruler of the nations and of the universe, it appears already under Nebuchadnezzar in the person of its representative, the Prophet Daniel. But it will become the actual ruler of the world only after the fall of the fourth monarchy. The kingdom will then pass to “the saints of the Most High,” led by the Son of Man, and they will possess it “forever and ever.” The restoration of the glory and might of Israel in this, and not some other, period is determined by the fact that only by that time will all its transgressions be forgiven, which up to now have hindered the revelation of the universal kingdom of God in it (chapter 9). In the composition of the universal kingdom that opens from this moment on will enter all “inscribed in the book.” Its members will include even those who awaken afterward from the dead. They will rise for participation in the blessings of salvation, for receiving reward for their righteousness. Sinners will also rise, but—to suffer punishment for the evil they committed (chapters 10–12). The head of this eternal kingdom will be the Son of Man—the promised Messiah. In the Greek-Slavonic Bible the book of the Prophet Daniel holds the fourth place among the prophetic books. It is assigned to it according to the numbering of Old Testament books in the Sinai Codex (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve prophets). In the Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, in the 85th Apostolic Rule, the 60th Rule of the Council of Laodicea, in the 39th festive epistle of Athanasius the Great, and among the Church Fathers—Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, Amphilochius of Iconium, Epiphanius of Cyprus, John of Damascus—the book of Daniel is placed last among the prophetic books, while in the list of Melito of Sardis and Origen—before the book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Being placed in the Christian canon in the section of prophetic writings, the book of Daniel occupies a different place among the Hebrews. In the time of Sirach it apparently was not considered prophetic (Sir 49:10-12); in the time of Josephus it was recognized as such (Jewish Antiquities 10–11); now, as in the time of the blessed Jerome, it is placed in the section of the writings (Ketubim). “I remind,” says he, “that the Hebrews did not count Daniel among the prophets but among those who wrote historical accounts.” And indeed, the Talmudists did not recognize Daniel as a prophet. “Daniel,” we read in the Midrash, “was not a prophet, even in comparison with the three last prophets, but he was a seer and an apocalyptist, which they were not” (Furst. Canon., 101 p.). According to the Jews contemporary with the blessed Jerome, the assignment of the book of the Prophet Daniel to the section “writings” was conditioned by his life at a foreign court (Commentary on Daniel Dan 1:3). The presence of the book of the Prophet Daniel in the earliest lists of canonical books is convincing and clear evidence of its canonical worth. As canonical, though without mention of the author’s name, it is frequently cited in the New Testament in the speech of Jesus Christ and His apostles. Thus, apart from the reference to Dan 9:27, the Savior applies to Himself the designation “Son of Man” (Dan 7:13; Matt 10:23; Matt 16:27-28; Matt 19:28; Matt 24:30; Matt 25:31 and so on), taken, by general agreement, from the book of Daniel, and thereby confirms its messianic divine teaching. The image of the “Son of Man” outlined by Jesus Christ fully agrees with Daniel. He comes on the clouds with power and glory, sits at the right hand of power (Matt 24:30; Matt 25:31-32; Luke 22:69; Mark 14:61-62; Dan 7:13-14). The vision of the Son of Man by the protomartyr Stephen finds its explanation in that very prophecy of Daniel (Acts 7:56). Equally, the Apostle Paul, speaking of those who “quenched the power of fire and stopped the mouths of lions” (Heb 11:33-34), undoubtedly refers to the persons described in the book of Daniel (chapters 3 and 6), and like him characterizes the antichrist (2 Thess 2:4; Dan 11:36-39). Finally, in the Apocalypse there are many images and symbols explained from the book of the Prophet Daniel, especially from chapter 7 (Rev 11:7 = Dan 7:7; Rev 5:11 = Dan 7:10; Rev 20:4 = Dan 7:9 and so on). The book of the Prophet Daniel has come down to us in two ancient translations—Hebrew Masoretic and Greek. The latter was accepted by the church not in the Septuagint recension but in that of Theodotion. “The Church of the Lord,” says the blessed Jerome in the preface to his translation of the Book of Daniel, “does not read the book of the Prophet Daniel according to the translation of the Seventy interpreters, using the edition of Theodotion.” Having come into use at the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th century, the recension of Theodotion enjoyed reputation also in an earlier time. According to his translation did people read the book of Daniel—not only Origen, Hippolytus, Tertullian, but Hermas and Clement of Rome; and from it were made translations of the book into other languages: Old Latin, Coptic, Arabic, and Slavonic. Such a preference for Theodotion’s translation over the Septuagint text in the Book of Daniel is explained by the corrupted state of the latter. According to the blessed Jerome, it “strongly deviates from the truth (Hebrew text) and therefore was rightly rejected.” Recent research has confirmed as much as possible the justice of such an assessment. In the Septuagint translation, the book of the Prophet Daniel far from reproduces its Hebrew-Aramaic original. At every step there are all sorts of changes in phrases and individual expressions of the original, omissions and abbreviations alternate with expansions of the text. Not one chapter is free from such lapses and defects. In this respect they are all the same; the difference between them lies only in the fact that the general imperfection of the translation takes on different shades in different chapters, appearing now in larger, now in smaller dimensions. The greatest closeness to the original is distinguished by the translation of chapters 1–3 and 7–12. In general they are translated correctly and carefully, although they adhere more to meaning than to the letter. This characteristic is especially evident in chapters 1–3 and 7. The thought of the original is conveyed in them historically and correctly and skillfully, so that neither the original significance of the words nor the genius of the language suffers. On the contrary, chapters 8–12 follow the letter of the original so slavishly that, for example, chapter 11 can be understood only when compared with the original. But with the general satisfactoriness of the translation, this group of chapters presents many cases of various deviations from the original. Literal translation alternates in them with additions, omissions, and outright misunderstanding. Moreover, some of the incorrectly translated passages reveal in the author the absence of historical knowledge, others a straight tendency. Thus, verses 5–20 of chapter 11 present in the original a bare but accurate survey of the history of the Ptolemies and Seleucids, and verses 21–39 a detailed prophetic picture of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Meanwhile, the translator, not understanding the original, distorted it and drew a completely false picture. An example of such tendency is the translation of chapter 11. The prophecy contained in it about the 70 weeks, the author refers to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes and accordingly changes the numbers of the original: instead of the 7 and 62 weeks that must pass from the decree about the restoration of Jerusalem until Christ, he put 77 and 62, which sum to 139—a number indicating the beginning of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes according to the Seleucid era. A completely different character distinguishes the translation of chapters 4–6. The deviation of their Greek Alexandrian text from the Aramaic is such as if it were a matter not of different readings but of two completely independent accounts. The translator uses the text of these chapters with unlimited freedom: he now expands it (Dan 4:7-9; Dan 5:4; Dan 6:18 and so on), now abridges it (Dan 4:3-7; Dan 5:1-3; Dan 6:8). The arbitrary nature here is incredible: without any justification the translator interprets the text, then paraphrases it, then abridges it. Almost no verse of the Greek text corresponds to the Masoretic, in many cases only a word or two remains of the original (Bludau. The Alexandrian Translation of the Book of Daniel and its Relationship to the Masoretic Text. Freiburg. 1897.). The rejection by the ancient church of the Alexandrian translation of the book of the Prophet Daniel was the reason that it fell out of use in subsequent times and was nearly lost. It was found at the end of the 18th century and published in Rome in 1772 from a 9th-century manuscript. Another peculiarity of the Alexandrian translation of the Book of Daniel is the existence in it of additions beyond the Hebrew text. These are verses 24–90 of the third chapter (Dan 3:24-90), the history of Susanna set forth in chapter 13, and the accounts in chapter 14 of Bel and the dragon. (See the discussion of them in the corresponding places.) Bibliography: Archbishop Theodore (Bukharev). The Holy Prophet Daniel. A Sketch of His Age, Prophetic Service, and Holy Book. M. 1864. - On the Book of the Holy Prophet Daniel. Supplement to the Works of the Holy Fathers. 1871, 1–146 p. - Smirnov. The Holy Prophet Daniel and His Book. Ryazan. 1879. - Razumovskiy. The Holy Prophet Daniel. SPB. 1891. - Lesotskiy. The Holy Prophet Daniel. Kiev. 1897 - A. Rozhdestvensky. The Revelation to Daniel of the Seventy Weeks. SPB. 1896 - P. Yungerov. A Special Historical-Critical Introduction to the Sacred Old Testament Books. Issue 2. pp. 87–110. Kazan. 1907. He also lists the outstanding foreign literature on the Book of the Prophet Daniel. * * * Notes Yungerov. Special Introduction to the Sacred Old Testament Books. Issue 2, p. 100 In Dan 1:3 and in the Russian and Slavonic translations from the Septuagint there is no word “distinguished” in this verse; a note by the editor. The word “word” is absent in the Russian translation; it is in the Slavonic from the Septuagint: Dan 3:16—we have no need to answer you about this word; Dan 4:14—with the declaration of a brave word, and the utterance of the holy is a prayer; a note by the editor. Gifts; in the Slavonic Septuagint—giving; note by the editor. Sabka, sumphonia, pesanterim, kriros—names of musical instruments. Note by the editor. “Daily sacrifice” In the Russian translation—“altar”; in the Slavonic—“altar”; note by the editor.