Dictionary Article

Fourth book of the Major Prophets in the OT, characterized by vivid symbolism and reflecting heroic historical events during the Babylonian exile of the Jewish people. Because Daniel is not an easy book to understand, its interpretation requires careful study and reflection. Daniel himself wrote, when reflecting on the meaning of one of his visions, “I was greatly troubled by the vision and could not understand it” (Dn 8:27, NLT).

In the old Jewish division of the OT, Daniel is part of the third section, called the Writings, along with such books as Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. It was not included in the second section of the OT, called the Prophets. Although portions of his book may be interpreted from a prophetic perspective, Daniel is never explicitly identified as a prophet. The book’s two major divisions are narratives about Daniel’s life (1–6) and Daniel’s visions (7–12).

In terms of having a known author, the book of Daniel is anonymous, as are many books coming from the ancient world. The existing text bears only a title, “Daniel,” identifying the key subject matter of the book: the man himself.

The first six chapters of the book contain information about Daniel written in the third person; beginning in Daniel 7:2, however, the book purports to contain words written by Daniel in the first person. Although the traditional view within Judaism, later adopted by Christianity, was that Daniel wrote the entire book named for him, there is little confirming evidence. Jesus’ words about things “spoken of by the prophet Daniel” (Mt 24:15) do not clarify who wrote the whole book, since the words in question appear in the second half of the book of Daniel, explicitly identified as his words. Thus the problem of who wrote the first part remains.

Whether or not Daniel wrote the entire book, he is definitely the key character. The only source of information about him is the book itself. Daniel was a Hebrew from Judah, probably of royal lineage, born late in the seventh century BC. As a young boy, he was taken from his homeland to Babylon (in what is now southern Iraq) around 605 BC. There, after three years of formal education in language and literature (Dn 1:4-5), he became an official in the royal household. The first six chapters tell of particular incidents in Daniel’s life but do not provide a comprehensive biography of his life and times.

Daniel’s name means “God is my judge.” As a foreign resident in Babylon, he was given another name, Belteshazzar, which may have meant “may Bel (god) protect his life” in the Babylonian language.

Uncertainty about the authorship of the book of Daniel naturally contributes to uncertainty about the date of its writing. If Daniel was the author of the whole book, a date in the second half of the sixth century BC is likely. If he was not the author, a later date is possible. The conservative interpretation has usually been that the book was written in the sixth century BC. An alternative position is that the book was written about 165 BC.

Evidence exists to support both the early and late dates of Daniel. Those who argue for a late date and an author besides Daniel normally use two lines of argument, one historical and the other linguistic. But those espousing an earlier date have counterarguments, all of which are discussed below.

According to the historical argument, the writer was thoroughly familiar with the history of Near Eastern imperial power from the sixth to the second centuries, but had an incomplete, erroneous view of the historical details in the second half of the sixth century, Daniel’s era. Such an imbalance in knowledge implies a late date of writing.

The first part of the historical argument must be conceded by those holding a more conservative view. The book of Daniel does present a remarkable knowledge of Near Eastern history. The critical question is whether that knowledge was normal human knowledge, gained after the events, or special knowledge revealed to Daniel beforehand. That question is answered in different ways by different people, depending on their view of prophecy and other factors.

The second part of the historical argument is technically more complex. Was the writer’s knowledge of history in the late sixth century BC really erroneous? The most significant problem is that of the identity of Darius the Mede (Dn 5:30-31). The book of Daniel says that Darius the Mede conquered Babylon and was succeeded at a later date by Cyrus. External historical sources contain no reference to a Darius at the time, but show clearly that it was Cyrus who conquered Babylon. Advocates of a late date consider that strong evidence. Those who advocate an early date have no simple solution to the problem. One proposed solution is that Darius and Cyrus are two names for the same person. A basis for that hypothesis is that Daniel 6:28 can be translated: “Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even [that is] the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” An analogy appears in the use of the names Pul and Tiglath-pileser in 1 Chronicles 5:26. In summary, the dating of Daniel on the basis of the writer’s historical knowledge is difficult, whether one suggests an early or late date.

The linguistic arguments for the date of Daniel are also complex, especially for a person not familiar with the original languages of the book (Hebrew and Aramaic). Advocates of a late date use three related arguments: (1) the Aramaic language of the book is typical of late Aramaic (second century BC and later); (2) the presence of Persian loan words is a further indication of the late date of the book’s Aramaic; and (3) the presence of Greek loan words in the Aramaic shows that the language must be dated after the time of Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Orient (c. 330 BC). For the advocates of a late date for the book’s composition, the last argument is most compelling. It would be impossible, they affirm, to find Greek loan words in Aramaic two centuries before Alexander’s time.

Although the arguments are at first convincing, on closer examination they are less persuasive to those who hold the conservative view. Each of the three parts of the argument has been answered.

1. Aramaic was in common use in the Near East from about the ninth century BC, being recognized as an official language in Assyria from the eighth century BC. Ninety percent of the Aramaic words in Daniel were used in that older language, in both the Old and Imperial Aramaic dialects. The remaining 10 percent, known only in later texts in the light of present evidence, might indicate a late date, but they could equally be early uses of the words in question.

2. The evidence of Persian loan words in Aramaic can function like a boomerang. It is true that later Aramaic has many Persian loan words (about 19 appear in Daniel), but one can give an alternative explanation for Persian loan words in Daniel at an early date. The story of Daniel is set, in part, in the context of life in a Persian-controlled court. The Persians used Aramaic in their administrative control of the empire, and their own language inevitably penetrated Aramaic. If one assumes an early date for the book of Daniel, then it was being written in precisely the period when Persian would be having its greatest influence on Aramaic.

3. The evidence of Greek words in Daniel’s Aramaic (a total of three) is not altogether compelling. Greek (or “Ionian”) traders traveled in various parts of the Near East from the eighth century BC onward. Greek mercenaries fought for Near Eastern states in and after the seventh century BC. In Daniel’s lifetime King Nebuchadnezzar is known to have employed Greek artisans in the city of Babylon. Thus, it is unnecessary to limit the possibilities of Greek penetration of the Aramaic language to the period after Alexander. The conqueror was by no means the first Greek to set foot in the Orient.

The historical and linguistic arguments for the date of Daniel are inconclusive for either an early or late date of writing. To a large extent, dating the book depends on other matters, such as authorship, intention, and the extent to which one takes a “prophetic” interpretation of portions of the book. To postulate that Daniel was the author is consistent with the evidence currently available. Further, evidence provided by some of the Daniel material from the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran does not support a late date for the book. All Daniel manuscripts and fragments are second-century BC copies, thus requiring an earlier date for the original. One manuscript, related paleographically to the large Isaiah Scroll, must have come originally from the same period—estimated to be several centuries before the Qumran copy of Isaiah. Other manuscripts from Qumran show that no OT canonical material was composed later than the Persian period. Thus, no manuscript evidence exists for a second-century BC date for Daniel.

One of the most interesting features of the book of Daniel is not immediately evident to a reader of the English Bible. The book is bilingual. Daniel 1:1–2:4a and Daniel 8–12 are written in Hebrew, the language of the other OT books. The middle section (Dn 2:4b–7:28), however, is written in Aramaic, a different but related language. Various explanations have been offered for this phenomenon. Some have suggested that an original Aramaic book was expanded by a Hebrew writer, with additions to the original book at the beginning and the end. Others suggest that a portion of the original Hebrew book was lost, so the missing section was replaced from a surviving Aramaic translation. More complex and ingenious suggestions have also been made, but none has been commonly accepted.

Another suggestion is possible. The book of Daniel (whatever date one prefers) may simply reflect the bilingual character of its cultural setting. (As a modern example, consider the many written materials in Canada that appear in both English and French.) Finally, one can regard the bilingual character as another of the mysterious aspects of the book that make its interpretation difficult.

The background of the book of Daniel can be examined from two perspectives. It may be viewed from the perspective of the Babylonian exile, of which Daniel was a part (early sixth century BC), or in the light of future historical events (second century BC), toward which the visions in the book’s second half seem to point.

Although Daniel himself was exiled about 605 BC, the major phase of the Babylonian exile began in 586 BC, following the defeat of the kingdom of Judah and the destruction of Jerusalem. The account extends through the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar (properly Nebuchadrezzar) and Belshazzar, culminating in the early years of the Persian king Cyrus, who took over the city of Babylon in 539 BC. For the Jews the exile was a time of hardship but also a time of renewed theological understanding. Both aspects are reflected in the book of Daniel.

Daniel’s visions in the latter half of the book appear to refer to the Seleucid period in Palestine, specifically the time when the Jews were ruled by Antiochus Epiphanes, a member of the Seleucid dynasty (175–163 BC). Whether the visions were prophetic anticipations of future events or reflections of contemporary culture, the Seleucid period is important to a full understanding of the book.

Under Antiochus, Palestinian Jews experienced a time of considerable hardship. The ancient faith was severely undermined, the high priesthood in Jerusalem was sold to the highest bidder, and the temple was desecrated in several ways. Pressure was exerted on the Jews to adapt their lives and faith to Hellenistic (Greek-influenced) culture. Although some capitulated, others refused and steadfastly held firm to the old faith. A rebellion against the oppressive measures of Antiochus began in 168 BC. By 164 the rebels had largely succeeded in getting rid of the objectionable practices. But the Seleucid period was generally a bad time for faithful Jews, when all the forces of history seemed to work against the true faith. Part of the book of Daniel’s greatness lies in its theological understanding of history, which enabled men and women to continue living in faith through a time of terrible crisis.

The scriptural section of the OT called the Writings served a variety of purposes. The psalms, for example, were used primarily in Israel’s worship. The proverbs may have been part of Israel’s school curriculum. The book of Job addressed a specific human and theological problem.

The purpose of the book of Daniel is not so easy to determine, since it is essentially a story, a partial biography of Daniel. It is not strictly a prophetic book, nor is it history in the modern sense. Much of it is concerned with dreams and their interpretations.

Nevertheless, the word “history” provides a clue to its purpose. Daniel seeks to provide theological understanding of history. The first six chapters tell about Daniel and his companions, not merely to satisfy historical curiosity but to teach the reader. OT theology insisted that the God of Israel participated in human life and history. To read biblical history, therefore, is to discover God’s participation in human affairs and to learn how God and human beings relate to each other. In the opening chapters of Daniel one reads of events in the life of a man of remarkable faith, the kind of history from which one may learn how to live.

The last six chapters focus on Daniel’s dreams. Although neither the dreams nor the interpretations are easy to understand, it is possible to see the theme of history emerging again. The emphasis in chapters 7–12 is not on history as a record of past events but on the meaning of history and the world’s future. In the biblical perspective, the movements of human societies in the present and future matter as much as past history. Though Daniel’s visions are dominated by nations and superpowers, they have a more basic theme: God’s power over human beings and nations. History often appears to be a conglomeration of chaos and human conflict. Yet God ultimately controls history and moves it toward a goal. In spite of ambiguous details at the end of the book, Daniel provides hope for people living in a time of crisis. Even if what is said about the “time of the end” cannot be understood now (Dn 12:9), the end of history is full of hope for those with faith in God (v 13). The purpose of the book of Daniel thus has to do with the meaning of history, both what can be learned from the past and what can be hoped for in the present and future.

The book also contains specific theological statements on such matters as human faith, divine salvation, and the nature of revelation. One theological matter in Daniel deserves particular attention: the doctrine of resurrection.

The NT’s clear doctrine of resurrection followed by judgment is not a central theme in the OT. For the most part, the Hebrews’ faith was fixed on the realities of earthly life. Hope for life beyond the grave is hinted at in many texts but remains implicit. Only in the later writings of the OT, especially those of Ezekiel and Daniel, does a more explicit doctrine of resurrection develop.

The Kingdom Will Come

Earthly kingdoms dominate Daniel’s visions, but Jesus established the kingdom of God. That kingdom, however, has only partially come; it will reach its fullness in Christ’s second advent. The message of Daniel speaks within that tension of a kingdom already come and yet still to come in its fullness. The modern world reveals not the universal kingdom of God but the clamorous kingdoms of humanity. They are powerful and often appear to hold the world’s future firmly in their hands. Daniel’s message is that they do not: God is sovereign, and his kingdom will finally come in its full power.

To say more than that with respect to Daniel’s visions is a delicate business. Trying to identify the nations of Daniel’s dreams with modern nations misses the intention of the book. If Daniel, even with the help of angelic interpreters, found it difficult to understand his own visions, caution is appropriate for the modern reader. Yet Daniel ended his mysterious book with a note of hope: “As for you, go your way until the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days, you will rise again to receive the inheritance set aside for you” (12:13, NLT).

The focal point of that doctrine in the book of Daniel is 12:2: “Many of those whose bodies lie dead and buried will rise up, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (NLT). The doctrine of personal resurrection provides a basis for individual hope within an understanding of present and future history. Nations move against nations in apparent turmoil. God is believed to be in ultimate control, but what becomes of all the people who die while history is still in motion? The dead shall rise again, says Daniel, and in their resurrection bodies shall be judged according to their deeds. Some will be rewarded with everlasting life, but others will be condemned to shame.

To the readers of the book of Daniel, the doctrine of resurrection provided hope in an otherwise bleak and hopeless world. It was a reminder that the actions of earthly life are important—they form the basis of future judgment. The world has a larger horizon of life beyond the body’s death. Ultimately, there will be justice, even though justice is rarely seen in the present existence. Evildoers may live without ever being punished. Yet beyond the death of the body lies a final judgment characterized by God’s justice.

So the book of Daniel is about history and hope. Life must be lived now; for that, the book offers in the first six chapters the insight of Daniel’s experience. Life is lived in the context of war and international chaos; for that, chapters 7–12 depict God’s sovereignty and his purposes in history. Individual life moves toward death; for that, the writer speaks of resurrection and judgment.

Daniel and his companions—Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah—were exiled to Babylon some 19 years before the main exile following the destruction of Jerusalem. The four healthy young men, selected from among many Jewish exiles, were at the command of King Nebuchadnezzar assigned to a special three-year training program to make them court aides.

As soon as the four Jewish youths entered Babylon’s high society, they faced a dietary problem. The king provided them with the best food and wine from the royal kitchens, but a Jew’s diet was restricted by the laws of God (see Dt 14). The four asked for a diet of vegetables and water, not to be fussy or ungrateful, but to remain faithful to their God. The story tells how the dietary situation worked out and sees them through their education and Daniel’s appointment as a royal counselor.

The first episode thus focuses on a key issue faced by all Jewish exiles: How could one live in a foreign land, with foreign food and customs, yet remain faithful to God and his laws? Daniel provided a model. He was courageous enough not to compromise, but wise enough to seek a solution acceptable to all. His faithfulness was rewarded by God. By the end of the episode, Daniel is seen as a person with special wisdom and gifts from God. The rest of his life was marked by the exercise of those gifts.

The king had a dream and, although he could not remember its substance, it weighed heavily on his mind. When his corps of professional interpreters could do nothing for him, he ordered that they be executed. The king’s order included Daniel and his companions, whose training qualified them as interpreters. Daniel obtained a stay of execution by offering to interpret the dream. After prayer, Daniel received from God both the substance of the dream and its interpretation, which he relayed to the king. The grateful Nebuchadnezzar promoted Daniel and his companions to important positions in Babylon.

Although the writer recorded both the king’s dream and Daniel’s interpretation, the problem for a modern reader is how to interpret the interpretation. The king saw in his dream a statue, with head of gold, chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron, and feet of part iron and part clay. The interpretation identified Nebuchadnezzar as the head of gold. His kingdom would be followed by three other kingdoms, each represented by the statue’s parts and substances. At that point modern interpretations begin to diverge.

A common interpretation of the four sequential kingdoms is as follows: Chaldean Empire (gold), MedoPersian Empire (silver), Greece (brass), Rome (iron and clay). Others suggest an alternative interpretation: Chaldean Empire (gold), Media (silver), Persia (brass), Greece (iron and clay). To focus too much attention on identifying the four kingdoms can result in failure to see the chapter’s key feature. From the midst of those human kingdoms, “During the reigns of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed; no one will ever conquer it. It will shatter all these kingdoms into nothingness, but it will stand forever” (2:44, NLT). The Babylonian king’s dream anticipated the coming of a greater kingdom, that of Jesus Christ.

The story continues, focusing on Daniel’s three friends and using their Babylonian names—Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. King Nebuchadnezzar constructed a massive gold statue, 90 feet (27.4 meters) high. At its dedication ceremony everyone was required to bow down and worship as a band began to play. The three young Hebrews, who refused to worship, were summoned before the king. Their continued firm refusal led to a sentence of execution, and they were thrown into a fiercely burning furnace. Remarkably, they did not burn, and a fourth being appeared with them in the furnace. As they emerged unharmed from the ordeal, the king acknowledged God’s power of salvation and rewarded them.

The story illustrates a second dilemma of the Jews in exile. Faithfulness to God’s first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Dt 5:7), could lead to death. The three young men were faithful—not out of confidence that God would rescue them, but whether or not he chose to spare their lives (Dn 3:17-18). As it happened, God delivered them; they were tossed into the furnace bound, but they came out free men. The message was profound: certainly the Jews should believe in a God able to deliver from the flames of persecution, but they should believe and hold fast even if no deliverance could be seen beyond the trial.

On two occasions Nebuchadnezzar had confessed faith in the living God: when Daniel had interpreted his dream of the statue (2:47), and on the release of Daniel’s three companions from the furnace (3:28). Nonetheless, the king’s faith was shallow. The story in chapter 4 recounts a lapse of faith that brought terrible consequences. After eight years, when those consequences had run their course, the king again acknowledged God (4:37).

The entire story is presented in the form of a proclamation, written by Nebuchadnezzar and widely circulated after the events in the story had transpired. The king dreamed of a tall tree growing in a field to ever greater heights. A divine messenger ordered the tree cut down, with only a stump and roots left in the ground. The stump and roots then took the form of a man, but the man’s mind was replaced with that of an animal. For seven years that semihuman creature behaved like a beast.

Daniel showed the king how the dream applied to the king himself. Nebuchadnezzar was the great tree that would be cut down; he would behave like a beast in the field for seven years. One year after the king had been told that interpretation, the judgment came. For seven years he behaved like an animal until his sanity returned.

The moral of the king’s story is that his madness was no accident but rather divine judgment. His arrogant belief that he had the power of God led to heavy retribution (4:30). The king was probably afflicted with a rare and peculiar form of mental illness today called “boanthropy.” The true meaning of the story lies at a deeper level: to think that one is God, having absolute power and control of one’s own life, is madness. That kind of madness can be cured and overcome only with the realization that absolute power and authority belong to God alone.

The scene shifts to the reign of a later king in Babylon, Belshazzar. The son of Nabonidus, he was probably co-regent with Nabonidus (555?–539 BC), with special authority in the region of Babylon. The theme of his story is similar to that of chapter 4. Belshazzar, in the course of an enormous feast, called for the sacred vessels captured from the temple in Jerusalem. With the sacred vessels the Babylonians toasted the local gods, a sacrilegious act that invited divine judgment. It came in the form of words written on the wall by a hand, which Daniel interpreted for the king as words of judgment (5:26-28). Although he praised Daniel for the interpretation, the king missed both the true meaning of the words and the lesson taught to Nebuchadnezzar, his predecessor (vv 18-22). Belshazzar was killed that very night when Darius the Mede entered the city and captured it. The theme continues remorselessly: human pride and arrogance do not pass unnoticed by the God of history, who controls and directs human events toward the fulfillment of his purpose.

The theme of chapter 6 is similar to that of chapter 3, but with Daniel as the story’s central figure. He is portrayed as one unwilling to compromise, fully obedient to Darius as long as that was possible, but unwilling to disobey the law of God. Hence, Daniel knowingly disobeyed a royal decree that prohibited prayer to anyone other than the king himself. Although he was aware of the consequences, Daniel remained faithful to God. The immediate outcome, when his enemies reported him, was an order of execution—Daniel was thrown to the lions. He was delivered from the hungry cats, and the king, relieved of a terrible predicament, had the plotters punished.

A double message emerges from the story. On the one hand, God’s servant must be faithful in prayer and worship, regardless of the outcome; God delivers, and in that case did deliver Daniel from disaster. On the other hand, the effect of Daniel’s faithfulness was that the king, who had ordered his subjects to worship him, learned about true worship (6:25-27). The effects of faithfulness, like ripples from a pebble tossed in a pool, spread far beyond the one who is faithful.

With the beginning of chapter 7 the chronological sequence of the book of Daniel changes; Daniel’s first vision goes back to the first year of Belshazzar (7:1), but subsequent visions take place as late as the reign of Cyrus, the Persian king (10:1). Chapters 7–12 emphasize the meaning of history and God’s sovereignty in history, expressed in the mysterious symbolism of dreams. The whole section can be divided as follows: (1) vision of four beasts (7:1-28); (2) vision of the ram and the goat (8:1-27); (3) Daniel’s prayer (9:1-27); (4) vision of the end times (10:1–12:13).

The first vision again takes up the theme of four kingdoms, already seen in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (ch 2). In the second vision the focus is narrowed down to two kingdoms, Persia and Greece. Much of the final vision of the end times deals with events occurring during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century BC. All the visions play on the same theme. Although human kingdoms may exert their might in a chaotic world, the sovereign God acts through history’s apparent chaos toward an ultimate goal of salvation.

The primary interpretation of the visions can be perceived in past historical events, but a further messianic dimension can be seen in the light of the NT. That dimension is most evident in chapter 7. In the context of the four kingdoms, a divine court of judgment is established, presided over by the “Ancient of Days”—the almighty God (7:9). Then Daniel sees the arrival of “one like a son of man” (7:13). Though the phrase “son of man” was later perceived to be a messianic title, it did not technically have that meaning in the book of Daniel. Daniel 7:13 is a principal source for the title “Son of Man,” which Jesus commonly used to designate himself. His most significant use of that term was at his trial, where he directly associated his title with Daniel 7 (Mt 26:63-64).

Tyndale Open Bible Dictionary