Frederic Farrar - The Expositor's Bible - The Book of Daniel

v. If we turn to the New Testament, the name of Daniel only occurs in the reference to "the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet." 33 33 Matt. xxiv. 15; Mark xiii. 14. There can be of course no certainty that the "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" is not the comment of the Evangelist. The Book of Revelation does not name him, but is profoundly influenced by the Book of Daniel both in its form and in the symbols which it adopts. 34 34 See Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ , passim .

vi. In the Apocrypha Daniel is passed over in complete silence among the lists of Hebrew heroes enumerated by Jesus the son of Sirach. We are even told that "neither was there a man born like unto Joseph, a leader of his brethren, a stay of the people" (Ecclus. xlix. 15). This is the more singular because not only are the achievements of Daniel under four heathen potentates greater than those of Joseph under one Pharaoh, but also several of the stories of Daniel at once remind us of the story of Joseph, and even appear to have been written with silent reference to the youthful Hebrew and his fortunes as an Egyptian slave who was elevated to be governor of the land of his exile.

Unable to learn anything further respecting the professed author of the Book of Daniel, we now turn to the Book itself. In this section I shall merely give a general sketch of its main external phenomena, and shall chiefly pass in review those characteristics which, though they have been used as arguments respecting the age in which it originated, are not absolutely irreconcilable with the supposition of any date between the termination of the Exile (b. c. 536) and the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (b. c. 164).

I. First we notice the fact that there is an interchange of the first and third person. In chapters i. – vi. Daniel is mainly spoken of in the third person: in chapters vii. – xii. he speaks mainly in the first.

Kranichfeld tries to account for this by the supposition that in chapters i. – vi. we practically have extracts from Daniel's diaries, 35 35 Kranichfeld, Das Buch Daniel , p. 4. whereas in the remainder of the Book he describes his own visions. The point cannot be much insisted upon, but the mention of his own high praises ( e. g. , in such passages as vi. 4) is perhaps hardly what we should have expected.

II. Next we observe that the Book of Daniel, like the Book of Ezra 36 36 See Ezra iv. 7, vi. 18, vii. 12-26. is written partly in the sacred Hebrew, partly in the vernacular Aramaic, which is often, but erroneously, called Chaldee. 37 37 "The term 'Chaldee' for the Aramaic of either the Bible or the Targums is a misnomer, the use of which is only a source of confusion" (Driver, p. 471). A single verse of Jeremiah (x. 11) is in Aramaic: "Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods who made not heaven and earth shall perish from the earth and from under heaven." Perhaps Jeremiah gave the verse "to the Jews as an answer to the heathen among whom they were" (Pusey, p. 11).

The first section (i. 1-ii. 4 a ) is in Hebrew. The language changes to Aramaic after the words, "Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriac " (ii. 4 a ); 38 38 אֲרָמִית; LXX., Συριστι — i. e. , in Aramaic. The word may be a gloss, as it is in Ezra iv. 7 (Lenormant). See, however, Kamphausen, p. 14. We cannot here enter into minor points, such as that in ii. – vi. we have אֲלוּ for "see," and in vii. 2, 3, אֲרוּ; which Meinhold takes to prove that the historic section is earlier than the prophetic. and this is continued to vii. 28. The eighth chapter begins with the words, "In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel"; and here the Hebrew is resumed, and is continued till the end of the Book.

The question at once arises why the two languages were used in the same Book.

It is easy to understand that, during the course of the seventy years' Exile, many of the Jews became practically bilingual, and would be able to write with equal facility in one language or in the other.

This circumstance, then, has no bearing on the date of the Book. Down to the Maccabean age some books continued to be written in Hebrew. These books must have found readers. Hence the knowledge of Hebrew cannot have died away so completely as has been supposed. The notion that after the return from the Exile Hebrew was at once superseded by Aramaic is untenable. Hebrew long continued to be the language normally spoken at Jerusalem (Neh. xiii. 24), and the Jews did not bring back Aramaic with them to Palestine, but found it there. 39 39 Driver, p. 471; Nöldeke, Enc. Brit. , xxi. 647; Wright, Grammar , p. 16. Ad. Merx has a treatise on Cur in lib. Dan. juxta Hebr. Aramaica sit adhibita dialectus , 1865; but his solution, "Scriptorem omnia quæ rudioribus vulgi ingeniis apta viderentur Aramaice præposuisse" is wholly untenable.

But it is not clear why the linguistic divisions in the Book were adopted. Auberlen says that, after the introduction, the section ii. 4 a -vii. 28 was written in Chaldee, because it describes the development of the power of the world from a world-historic point of view; and that the remainder of the Book was written in Hebrew, because it deals with the development of the world-powers in their relation to Israel the people of God. 40 40 Auberlen, Dan. , pp. 28, 29 (E. Tr.). There is very little to be said in favour of a structure so little obvious and so highly artificial. A simpler solution of the difficulty would be that which accounts for the use of Chaldee by saying that it was adopted in those parts which involved the introduction of Aramaic documents. This, however, would not account for its use in chap. vii., which is a chapter of visions in which Hebrew might have been naturally expected as the vehicle of prophecy. Strack and Meinhold think that the Aramaic and Hebrew parts are of different origin. König supposes that the Aramaic sections were meant to indicate special reference to the Syrians and Antiochus. 41 41 Einleit. , § 383. Some critics have thought it possible that the Aramaic sections were once written in Hebrew. That the text of Daniel has not been very carefully kept becomes clear from the liberties to which it was subjected by the Septuagint translators. If the Hebrew of Jer. x. 11 (a verse which only exists in Aramaic) has been lost, it is not inconceivable that the same may have happened to the Hebrew of a section of Daniel. 42 42 Cheyne, Enc. Brit. , s. v. "Daniel."

The Talmud throws no light on the question. It only says that —

i. "The men of the Great Synagogue wrote" 43 43 כתבו. See 2 Esdras xiv. 22-48: "In forty days they wrote two hundred and four books." – by which is perhaps meant that they "edited" – "the Book of Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, the Book of Daniel, and the Book of Ezra"; 44 44 Baba-Bathra , f. 15, 6: comp. Sanhedrin , f. 83, 6. and that —

ii. "The Chaldee passages in the Book of Ezra and the Book of Daniel defile the hands ." 45 45 Yaddayim , iv.; Mish. , 5.

The first of these two passages is merely an assertion that the preservation, the arrangement, and the admission into the Canon of the books mentioned was due to the body of scribes and priests – a very shadowy and unhistorical body – known as the Great Synagogue. 46 46 See Rau, De Synag. Magna. , ii. 66 ff.; Kuenen, Over de Mannen der Groote Synagoge , 1876; Ewald, Hist. of Israel , v. 168-170 (E. Tr.); Westcott, s. v. "Canon" (Smith's Dict. , i. 500).