The Book of Daniel, written in Hebrew and Aramaic, is a book in both the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the Christian Old Testament. The book is set during the Babylonian Captivity, a period when Jews were deported and exiled to Babylon. The book revolves around the figure of Daniel, an Israelite who becomes an adviser to Nebuchadnezzar, the ruler of Babylon from 605 BC - 562 BC.
The book has two distinct parts: a series of narratives and four apocalyptic visions. Three of the narratives involve Daniel, who is depicted as having a gift for interpreting the meaning of dreams and divine omens. Two other narratives feature Israelites who have been condemned for their piety being miraculously saved from execution. In the second part of the book, the author depicts Daniel as revealing and partially interpreting a set of visions which are described in the first person.
The dating and authorship of Daniel has been a matter of great debate among Jews and Christians. The traditional view holds that the work was written by a prophet named Daniel who lived during the sixth century BC, whereas most modern Biblical scholars maintain that the book was written or redacted in the mid-second century BC and that most of the predictions of the book refer to events that had already occurred. A third viewpoint, based on comparison of the Hebrew and Aramaic found in Daniel to that found in more firmly dated texts, places the final editorial work in the fourth century BC.

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua (Jesus Nave)
Judges
Ruth
1–2 Samuel
1–2 Kings
1–2 Chronicles
Ezra (see Esdras for other names)
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Minor prophets
Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom (of Solomon)
Ben Sira
Baruch, includes Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah)
Additions to Daniel
Additions to Esther
1 Esdras (see Esdras for other names)
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees (in appendix but not canonical)
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
2 Esdras
Jubilees
Enoch
1–3 Meqabyan
4 Baruch
Psalms 152–155
2 Baruch Literary structure
The first part, the first six chapters, comprises a series of court tales, instructive narratives, or miracle tales. As illustrated above, the first story is in Hebrew; then Aramaic is used from ch. 2:4, beginning with the speech of the "Chaldeans" through chapter seven. Hebrew is then used from chapter eight through chapter twelve. Three additional sections are preserved only in the Septuagint, and are considered apocryphal by Protestant Christians and Jews, and deuterocanonical by Catholic and Orthodox Christians.
1. After being taken captive to Babylon, Daniel and friends choose to obey their God and not consume the non-kosher court diet. After a trial period they were judged 10 times better than all others. The use of the number 10 appears in prophecy as being a time of judgement.
2. Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a idol made of four metals and a mixture of iron and clay. The image is destroyed by a rock that then dominates the world. The idol's composition of metals is interpreted as a series of successive empires ending with God's kingdom. A statue made in Nebuchadnezzar's image but composed entirely of gold, the topic of the next narrative, was based upon this dream.
3. The story of the fiery furnace, in which Ananias (Hananiah/Shadrach), Azariah (Abednego), and Mishael (Meshach) refuse to bow to the emperor's golden statue and are thrown into a furnace. Daniel, as the emperor's favorite, had just been promoted was untouchable. While Daniel could not be accused, his three companions were vulnerable. God preserves them from the flames, seemingly setting a precedent for the last days.
4. Nebuchadnezzar tells of his dreams of a tall tree. His pride results in him losing his mind. When he accepts Daniel's God as his God he regaining his mind. The recurring image of a tree representing a kingdom appears at least three times in scripture.
5. Belshazzar's Feast, where Belshazzar insults Daniel's God and Daniel interprets the writing on the wall mene mene tekel upharsin to be:
Mene: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.
Tekel: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.
Upharsin: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.
6. Daniel in the lions' den
7. Susanna and the elders (apocryphal to Jewish and Protestant canons)
8. Bel and the Dragon (apocryphal to Jewish and Protestant canons)
Protestant and Jewish editions omit the sections that do not exist in the Masoretic text: in addition to the two chapters containing accounts of Daniel and Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon, a lengthy passage inserted into the middle of Daniel 3; this addition contains the prayer of Azariah while the three youths were in the fiery furnace, a brief account of the angel who met them in the furnace, and the hymn of praise they sang when they realized they were delivered. The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children are retained in the Septuagint and in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholic canons; the "Song of the Three Holy Youths" is part of the Matins service in Orthodoxy, and of Lauds on Sundays and feast days in Catholicism.
The narratives are set in the period of the Babylonian captivity, first at the court of Nebuchadnezzar and later at the court of his successors Belshazzar and a 'King Darius' of unclear identity (see 'Historical Accuracy' and 'Date' below). Daniel is praised in Easton's Bible Dictionary, 1897, as "the historian of the Captivity, the writer who alone furnishes any series of events for that dark and dismal period during which the harp of Israel hung on the trees that grew by the Euphrates. His narrative may be said in general to intervene between Kings and Chronicles on the one hand and Ezra on the other, or (more strictly) to fill out the sketch which the author of the Chronicles gives in a single verse in his last chapter: 'And them that had escaped from the sword carried he (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar) away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia' (2 Chr. 36:20)."
Daniel appears as an interpreter of dreams and visions in these early court tales. He is depicted later in the book as a "prophet" with his early experiences serving as the basis for his future ministry.

Narratives in Daniel
The second part, the remaining six chapters, are visionary, an early example of apocalyptic literature, in which the author, now speaking in the first person, reveals a vision entrusted to him alone. The historical setting of the first chapters does not appear, except in briefest form, consisting of regnal dates. This section also consists of text from two languages, part (to 7:28) written in Aramaic, the rest (chapters 8-12) in Hebrew. The apocalyptic part of Daniel consists of three visions and one lengthened prophetic communication, mainly having to do with the destiny of Israel:
The prophetic and eschatological visions of Daniel, with those of Ezekiel and Isaiah, are the scriptural inspiration for much of the apocalyptic ideology and symbolism of the Qumran community's Dead Sea scrolls and the early literature of Christianity. The purpose behind the latter revelations are related to the establishment of Daniel's prominence in later revelations. That is, a prophetic ministry does not occur in a vacuum, the early events in his life serve to establish his later role as a prophet. The latter prophecies serve the purpose of confirming in the near future the basis for the acceptance of his final prophecies. "Daniel's clear association with the Maccabean Uprising and those against Rome are a possible factor in the eventual downgrading of it, to include a redefinition of the role of prophet, keeping in mind that at roughly this time the Hebrew canon was being evaluated and adopted.(Eisenman 1997, p 19f).
In Daniel are the first references to a "kingdom of God", and the most overt reference to the resurrection of the dead in the Tanakh.

The vision in the first year of Belshazzar the king of Babylon (7:1) concerning four great beasts (7:3) representing four future kings (7:17) or kingdoms (7:23), the fourth of which devours the whole earth, treading it down and crushing it (7:23); this fourth kingdom is represented by a beast with ten horns representing ten kings, an empire, the last persom described arises out of the fourth kingdom and subdues three of the ten kings (7:24), speaks against the Most High and the saints of the Most High, and intends to change the times and the law (7:25); after a time and times and half a time (three and a half years), this person is judged and his dominion is taken away (7:26); then, the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven are given to the people of the saints of the Most High (7:27)
The vision in the third year of Belshazzar concerning a ram and a male goat (8:1-27); Daniel interprets the goat as the "kingdom of Yawan" that is, the Hellenistic kingdom (8:21)
The vision in first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus (9:1) concerning seventy weeks, or seventy "sevens", apportioned for the history of the Israelites and of Jerusalem (9:24)
A lengthy vision in the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, regarding conflicts between the "King of the North" and the "King of the South" (10:1 - 12:13) Apocalyptic visions in Daniel
Some modern historians of Babylonia or Achaemenid Persia do not adduce the narratives of Daniel as source materials, as they consider some statements in Daniel to be in conflict with other historical accounts. However, a major critic of Daniel, H. H. Rowley considered chapter 11 as "a first-class historical source for that period" However, this stated, it is clear that Dougherty ranks the cuneiform literature as first in accuracy.
The four objections given below represent, in order of significance, the major instances of error historians generally find in Daniel.

Historical accuracy
The personage whom Daniel describes as taking control of Babylon after Belshazzar is deposed is named as Darius the Mede, who rules over Babylon in chapters 6 and 9. Daniel reports that Darius was 'about 62 years old' when he was 'made king over Babylon.'
'Darius the Mede, son of Ahasuerus' is a figure unknown by that name outside the Book of Daniel and Flavius Josephus, the only other source to offer any other detail.
As Darius the Mede is unknown to any other source, many historians view his presence in Daniel as simply a mistake of a much later author, who has perhaps inadvertently placed the Persian King Darius I at an earlier date than he actually reigned. They criticize the notion of a separate Mede rule by pointing out that the Persians at that point in history had control over the Medes, and that the contemporary cuneiform documents, such as the Cyrus Cylinder and the Babylonian Chronicle, leaves no room for any Mede occupation of Babylon before the Persians under Cyrus conquered it.
Among writers trying to maintain an early date for the Book of Daniel, there are several interpretations of the identity of Darius the Mede. On the difficulty of ascertaining the correct view, H.H. Rowley in Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel states: "[T]he references to Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel have long been recognized as providing the most serious historical problems in the book." His view concludes that Darius is just another name for Cyrus the Great, who captured Babylon on October 15th, 539 BCE. Another view, promoted by John Whitcomb (though first proposed by Babelon in 1883) in his 1959 book, Darius the Mede says that Darius is another name for the historical figure of Gubaru (sometimes spelled as Ugbaru). The third view (also that of Syncellus) sees Darius as another name for Astyages, the last Mede king who was ultimately deposed by Cyrus. Josephus makes Darius the son of Astyages, and uncle of Cyrus. Several scholars in the past (including Calvin, Ussher and John Gill) as well as in more recent times (eg. Keil and Delitzsch Vol.6, p.546-548) have thus attempted to identify 'Darius the Mede' with a certain Cyaxares II, who is mentioned as having the same relationships by Xenophon, who were of the same race. In addition, Dan. 6:28, "So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian," could also be translated, "So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus the Persian."
"Darius the Mede" as Gubaru/Ugbaru: Gubaru is the historical general known to have actually led the army that captured Babylon (see Pierre Briant below), according to Nabonidus. It is possible that Cyrus would have rewarded Gubaru with a regional governorship for capturing the capital of the Babylonian Empire and virtually ending the war. Furthermore, under the first translation of Dan. 6:28, Darius ruled during the reign of Cyrus, and Dan. 5:31 states that Darius the Mede "received the kingdom" of the Chaldeans.
Also, verse 1 of "Bel and the Dragon" (chapter 14 in Greek Daniel) references Astyages the Mede, who was indeed the last king before Cyrus; but nearly the same verse is added in the Greek LXX after the end of chapter 6, only reading "Darius" in place of "Astyages". ( LXX Dan. 14:1 and Dan 6:29)

Identity of "Darius the Mede"
For many years Belshazzar (Akk. bêl-šar-usur), was an enigma for historians. The book of Daniel states that he was "king" (Ar. מֶלֶך) the night that Babylon fell (chap. 5) and says that his "father" (Ar. אַב) was Nebuchadnezzar (5:2, 11, 13, 18). Prior to 1854, archeologists and historians knew nothing of Belshazzar outside the book of Daniel. Indeed, while the deuterocanonical book of Baruch (Baruch 1:11, 12) and the writings of Josephus (Antiquities 10.11.2-4 §231-247) do mention Belshazzar, the references to Belshazzar in these works are ultimately dependent on the book of Daniel (Collins, p. 32). Both Xenophon (Cyropaedia, 7.5.28-30

Belshazzar
A third significant objection by historians is the account of the insanity suffered by Nebuchadnezzar found in the fourth chapter of Daniel. In the Dead Sea Scrolls a fragment known as The Prayer of Nabonidus (4QPrNab, sometimes given as 4QOrNab) discusses a disease suffered by Nabonidus, and there are obvious parallels between the two accounts (1).
There are a number of superficial differences between The Prayer of Nabonidus and the account of Nebuchanezzar's madness:

Nebuchadnezzar's "affliction" was of the mind whereas Nabonidus' was an "evil ulcer."
Nebuchadnezzar's was a punishment from Daniel's god for sin, there is no indication that such was the case for Nabonidus -- his was supposedly for idolatry. (It could be argued, however, that Nebuchadnezzar's "sin" was also a form of idolatry, involving self-idolization, rendering this difference quite superficial.)
In the case of Nabonidus the "exorcist pardoned my sin" whereas in the case of Nebuchadnezzar he "lifted up my eyes unto heaven and mine understanding returned unto me." (KJV)--i.e., when he recognized (accepted) the sovereignty of Daniel's god.
Nabonidus' condition was cured by an unnamed Jewish exorcist whereas Nebuchadnezzar's recovery is not attributed to a human agent.
Nebuchadnezzar's illness came while he was in Babylon; while that of Nabonidus was in Tema, although it does state in Daniel 4:33 that Nebuchadnezzar was "driven away from mankind." (NASB)
Finally, some of the words and phrases of the prayer have to be inferred from the context because they are missing in the original fragment. [Archer, Gleason L. "Daniel," Expositor's. Vol. 7 (Zondervan, 1985): 15; he cites Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. (Tyndale, 1969): 1118-9] Madness of Nebuchadnezzar
The Book of Daniel begins by stating:
In the third year of the reign of Jehoi'akim king of Judah came Nebuchadnez'zar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoi'akim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god. (King James Version)
This appears to be a description of the first siege of Jerusalem in 597 BC, which occurred in the twelfth year of Jehoiakim and into the reign of his son Jehoiachin. (see 2 Kings 24, Daniel 5:1-5, and 2 Chronicles 36). The third year of Jehoiakim (606 BC), saw Nebuchadnezzar not yet King of Babylon, and the Egyptians still dominant in the region. Advocates of an early date of Daniel generally explain this by positing an additional, otherwise unmentioned, siege of Jerusalem in 605 BC, shortly after the Battle of Carchemish.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego
Traditionally, the Book of Daniel was believed to have been written by its namesake during and shortly after the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century BC. Although this view continues to be held by traditionalist Christians and Jews, it has been discredited by critical scholars. Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the altar around 167 BC, and the Book of Daniel (in its final form) was written, these scholars propose, in reaction to that incident. The citing of Antiochus as being the one whose abomination causes desolation is accurate, based upon independently documented historical data and careful analysis of the text. (A conceptual precedent of sorts was set by Manassah when he set up idols on temple grounds, which allegedly resulted in the desolation of Jerusalem by the god of Israel.) Traditionalists, attempting to establish an earlier date for the Book of Daniel, occasionally make reference to Josephus, who states that upon Alexander the Great's approach, a small party met him outside of Jerusalem, telling him that his presence was ordained by scripture. However, Josephus wrote about 400 years after the event in question, and cannot be justifiably considered as a reliable source in this matter. Additionally, some point to the Dead Sea scrolls found at Qumran dating to the mid-2nd-cent BC. These scrolls include several manuscript copies of Daniel, the premise being that there must have been much time between the original writing and the copying of the manuscripts found at Qumran, since it would have taken time for the book to have gained acceptance and be made available for copying. However, it is more likely that the relatively large number of copies at Qumran was due to the current (at the time) popularity of this recently "published" book.

Dating and content
Modern scholars have demonstrated that the Prophesies in the Book of Daniel reflect the persecutions of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC), and his desecration of the altar in the temple at Jerusalem, and consequently date its composition to that period. In particular, the vision in Chapter 11, which focuses on a series of wars between the "King of the North" and the "King of the South," is generally interpreted as a record of Levantine history from the time of Alexander the Great down to the era of Antiochus IV, with the "Kings of the North" being the Seleucid kings of Syria and the "Kings of the South" being the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt. This conclusion was first drawn by the philosopher Porphyry of Tyros, a third century pagan and Neoplatonist, whose fifteen-volume work Against the Christians is only known to us through Jerome's reply.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes
Many biblical scholars have concluded that the four kingdoms beginning with Nebuchadnezzar, mentioned in the "statue vision" of chapter 2, are identical to the four "end-time" kingdoms of the vision in chapter 7, and usually consider them to represent (1) Babylonia, (2) Media, (3) Persia, and (4) Greece (Collins). Some conservative Christians (eg. Young) believe that they should be identified as (1) the Neo-Babylonian empire, (2) the Medo-Persian empire (3) the Hellenistic empire of Alexander and his successors, and (4) the Roman empire. Others (eg. Stuart, Lagrange) have advocated the following schema: (1) the Neo-Babylonian, (2) the Medo-Persian, (3) the short-lived rule of Alexander, and (4) the rival Diadochi, viz. Egypt and Syria.
There are serious difficulties in assigning Media and Persia to different world empires. Daniel, in his first reference to the empire that succeeds Babyon, calls it the "Medes and the Persians" (Daniel 6:28: "Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians." Daniel also quotes the king and the subordinate rulers calling their own kingdom the "Medes and Persians: (: Daniel 6:8, 12, 15), while Cyrus was married to a Mede and himself had Mede blood, making the Medes and Persians merged kingdoms by marriage at the time of the conquest of Babylon. However, as noted previously, a late author's apparent reliance on Jeremiah may explain this.

Four Kingdoms
Scholars have speculated about the bilingual literary structure of Daniel - Chapters 2 through 7 in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew. One of the most frequent speculations is that the entire book (excepting 9:4-20) was originally written in Aramaic, with portions translated into Hebrew, possibly to increase acceptance (Hartman and Di Lella, 1990, p. 408) - many Aramaisms in the Hebrew text find proposed explanation by the hypothesis of an inexact initial translation into Hebrew.
According to John Collins in his 1993 commentary, Daniel, Hermennia Commentary, the Aramaic in Daniel is of a later form than that used in the Samaria correspondence, but slightly earlier than the form used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, meaning that the Aramaic chapters 2-6 may have been written earlier in the Hellenistic period than the rest of the book, with the vision in chapter 7 being the only Aramaic portion dating to the time of Antiochus. The Hebrew portion is, for all intents and purposes, identical to that found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, suggesting a second century BC date for the Hebrew chapters 1 and 8-12.

Language
Three Greek words used within the text have long been considered evidence for a late dating of Daniel. All three are used for musical instruments. The existence of the Greek word 'symphonia' was cited by Rowlings as having its earliest use in second century BC, but it has subsequently been shown that Pythagoras used the term to denote an instrument, while its use to refer to a group performing together is found in the 'Hymni Homerica, ad Mercurium 51'; both instances date from the sixth century BC, the supposed setting of Daniel. Despite this, there is no evidence for the use of these Greek terms in Mesopotamia in the Neo-Babylonian period.
There are also nineteen Persian loan-words in the book, most of them having to do with governmental positions.

Loan words
The book of Daniel uses the term "Chaldean" to refer both to an ethnic group, and to astrologers in general. According to Montgomery and Hammer, Daniel's use of the word 'Chaldean' to refer to astrologers in general is an anachronism, as during the Neo-Babylonian and early Persian periods (when Daniel is said to have lived), it referred only to an ethnicity. (Compare the later Chaldean Oracles).

Use of the word 'Chaldeans'
Whereas almost all scholars conclude a second century dating of the book in its final form, scholarship varies greatly regarding the unity of Daniel. Many scholars, finding portions of the book dealing with themes they do not believe fit with the time of Antiochus, conclude separate authors for different portions of the book. Included in this group are Barton, L. Berthold, Collins, and H. L. Ginsberg. Some historians who support that the book was a unified whole include J.A. Montgomery, S.R. Driver, R. H. Pfeiffer, and H.H. Rowley in the latter's aptly titled essay "The Unity of the Book of Daniel" (1952). Those who hold to a unified Daniel claim that their opponents fail to find any consensus in their various theories of where divisions exist. Montgomery is particularly harsh to his colleagues, stating that the proliferation of theories without agreement showed a "bankruptcy of criticism." They also charge that composite theories fail to account for the consistent thematic portrayal of Daniel's life throughout the book of Daniel.

Unity of Daniel
As mentioned above, the prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children from the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel are widely used in Orthodox and Catholic prayer.
The various episodes in the first half of the book are used by Christians as moral stories, and are often believed to foreshadow events in the gospels.
The apocalyptic section is important to Christians for the image of the "Son of Man" (Dan. 7:13). According to the gospels, Jesus used this title as his preferred name for himself. The connection with Daniel's vision (as opposed to the usage in the Book of Ezekiel) is made explicit in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (Matt 26:64; Mk 14:62). Christians see this as a direct claim by Jesus that he is the Messiah.
Traditional Christians have embraced the "prophecies" of Daniel, as they believe they clearly illustrate that Jesus Christ of Nazareth must be the Messiah. or a future Antichrist immediately preceding Judgement Day. Some consider the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks to be particularly compelling due to what they interpret to be prophetic accuracy.
According to modern-day scholars, Daniel 12:2 is the earliest clear reference in the Old Testament to the resurrection of the dead (Hartman and Di Lella, 1990, p. 419), with many of "your countrymen" awakening from death, some to eternal life and some to eternal disgrace. The notion of resurrection was to be perfected in the New Testament and Christian doctrine.

Christian uses of Daniel
Daniel's alleged presence in the royal court would have exposed him to the running of an empire. His purported "knowledge," as in the case of other so-called "prophets," is presented as serving as the basis for his "revelations." It has been claimed that Daniel's importance is that of introducing the age of the gentiles, the framework for events from then to the last days. Due to its apocalyptic character and its place in both the Jewish and Christian canons, the book of Daniel has had great influence in Jewish and Christian history.
The Book of Daniel is included in the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, in the section known as the Ketuvim (Hagiographa, or the "Writings") . Daniel was considered a prophet at Qumran (4Q174 [4QFlorilegium]) and later by Josephus (Antiquity of the Jews 10.11.7 §266) and the author (the "Pseudo-Philo") of Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (L.A.B. ["Book of Biblical antiquities"] 4.6, 8), and was grouped among the prophets in the Septuagint, the Jewish Greek Old Testament, and by Christians, who place the book among the prophets. However, Daniel is not currently included by the Jews in the section of the prophets, the Nebiim.
The Jewish exegete Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon, sometimes called simply RaMBaM and later called Maimonides, was so concerned that the "untutored populace would be led astray" if they attempted to calculate the timing of the Messiah that it was decreed that "Cursed be those who predict the end times." This verbiage can be both found in his letter Igeret Teiman and in his booklet The Statutes and Wars of the Messiah-King.
Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel lamented that the times for the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel "were over long ago" (Sanhedrin 98b, 97a).
Many Orthodox Jews believe that the prophecy refers to the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 AD. Secular scholars however, believe that the prophecy better fits the reign of Antiochus, and that it is an example of vaticinium ex eventu (prophecy after the fact).
Medieval study of angels was also affected by this book, as it is the only Old Testament source for the names of two of the archangels, Gabriel and Michael (Dan 9:21; 12:1). The only other angel given a name in the Old Testament is Raphael, mentioned in the deuterocanoncial Book of Tobit.

The importance of Daniel's visions

Main article: Daniel's Tomb See also