Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture

By Stephen Miller

THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY is for the minister or Bible student who wants to understand and expound the Scriptures. Notable features include:* commentary based on THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION;* the NIV text printed in the body of the commentary;* sound scholarly methodology that reflects capable research in the original languages;* interpretation that emphasizes the theological unity of each book and of Scripture as a whole;* readable and applicable exposition.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BH Publishing Group
• Release date: Aug 31, 1994
• ISBN: 9781433675591

Stephen Miller

Stephen Miller is a creator and entrepreneur who has grown his platform to nearly one million followers in just two years through his show The Miller Fam, a channel that displays the beauty of diversity and adoption featuring his large, diverse, adoptive family of nine. No clickbait. No fake drama. Just a story that says, “Where grace guides, we'll go.” With over fifteen years of ministry in some of the nation's largest churches, Stephen has recorded six studio albums and is the author of Liberating King and Worship Leaders, We Are Not Rock Stars.

Book preview

General Editor

E. RAY CLENDENEN

Consulting Editors

Old Testament

L. RUSS BUSH

DUANE A. GARRETT

LARRY L. WALKER

New Testament

RICHARD R. MELICK, JR.

PAIGE PATTERSON

CURTIS VAUGHAN

Production Editor

LINDA L. SCOTT; MARC A. JOLLEY

© Copyright 1994 • B&H Publishing Group

All rights reserved

ISBN: 978-08054-0118-9

Dewey Decimal Classification: 224.5

Subject Heading: BIBLE. O.T. DANIEL

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 94-25014

Printed in the United States of America

18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 20 19 18 17 16 15 14

Unless otherwise indicated. Scripwre quotations are from the Holy Bible. New International Version (NIV). copyright © 1973. 1978. 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondcrvan Bible Publishers. Quotations marked NEB are from The New English Bible. Copyright © The Delegates of the Oxford University Press and the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press. 1961. 1970. Used by permission. Scripture quotations marked GNB arc from the Good News Bible, the Bible in Today's English Version. Old Testament: Copyright © American Bible Society 1976: New Testament: Copyright © American Bible Society 1966. 1971. 1976. Used by pcnnission. Quotations marked NRSV arc from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Quotations marked NASB are from the New American Standard Bible. © The Lockman Foundation. 1960. 1962. 1963. 1968. 1971. 1972. 1973. 1975. 1977. Used by permission.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Miller. Stephen R.. 1949-

Daniel / Stephen R. Miller.

p. cm.

Includes indexes.

ISBN 0-8054-0118-0

I. Bible. O.T. Daniel-Commentaries. I. Bible. O.T. Daniel.

English. New International. 1994. II. Tille.

BSI555.3.M55 1994

224'.5077-dc20

Editors' Preface

God's Word does not change. God's world, however, changes in every generation. These changes, in addition to new findings by scholars and a new variety of challenges to the gospel message, call for the church in each generation to interpret and apply God's Word for God's people. Thus, THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY is introduced to bridge the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. This new series has been designed primarily to enable pastors, teachers, and students to read the Bible with clarity and proclaim it with power.

In one sense THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY is not new, for it represents the continuation of a heritage rich in biblical and theological exposition. The title of this forty-volume set points to the continuity of this series with an important commentary project published at the end of the nineteenth century called AN AMERICAN COMMENTARY, edited by Alvah Hovey. The older series included, among other significant contributions, the outstanding volume on Matthew by John A. Broadus, from whom the publisher of the new series, Broadman Press, partly derives its name. The former series was authored and edited by scholars committed to the infallibility of Scripture, making it a solid foundation for the present project. In line with this heritage, all NAC authors affirm the divine inspiration, inerrancy, complete truthfulness, and full authority of the Bible. The perspective of the NAC is unapologetically confessional and rooted in the evangelical tradition.

Since a commentary is a fundamental tool for the expositor or teacher who seeks to interpret and apply Scripture in the church or classroom, the NAC focuses on communicating the theological structure and content of each biblical book. The writers seek to illuminate both the historical meaning and contemporary significance of Holy Scripture.

In its attempt to make a unique contribution to the Christian community, the NAC focuses on two concerns. First, the commentary emphasizes how each section of a book fits together so that the reader becomes aware of the theological unity of each book and of Scripture as a whole. The writers, however, remain aware of the Bible's inherently rich variety. Second, the NAC is produced with the conviction that the Bible primarily belongs to the church. We believe that scholarship and the academy provide an indispensable foundation for biblical understanding and the service of Christ, but the editors and authors of this series have attempted to communicate the findings of their research in a manner that will build up the whole body of Christ. Thus, the commentary concentrates on theological exegesis, while providing practical, applicable exposition.

THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY's theological focus enables the reader to see the parts as well as the whole of Scripture. The biblical books vary in content, context, literary type, and style. In addition to this rich variety, the editors and authors recognize that the doctrinal emphasis and use of the biblical books differs in various places, contexts, and cultures among God's people. These factors, as well as other concerns, have led the editors to give freedom to the writers to wrestle with the issues raised by the scholarly community surrounding each book and to determine the appropriate shape and length of the introductory materials. Moreover, each writer has developed the structure of the commentary in a way best suited for expounding the basic structure and the meaning of the biblical books for our day. Generally, discussions relating to contemporary scholarship and technical points of grammar and syntax appear in the footnotes and not in the text of the commentary. This format allows pastors and interested laypersons, scholars and teachers, and serious college and seminary students to profit from the commentary at various levels. This approach has been employed because we believe that all Christians have the privilege and responsibility to read and seek to understand the Bible for themselves.

Consistent with the desire to produce a readable, up-to-date commentary, the editors selected the New International Version as the standard translation for the commentary series. The selection was made primarily because of the NIV's faithfulness to the original languages and its beautiful and readable style. The authors, however, have been given the liberty to differ at places from the NIV as they develop their own translations from the Greek and Hebrew texts.

The NAC reflects the vision and leadership of those who provide oversight for Broadman Press, who in 1987 called for a new commentary series that would evidence a commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture and a faithfulness to the classic Christian tradition. While the commentary adopts an American name, it should be noted some writers represent countries outside the United States, giving the commentary an international perspective. The diverse group of writers includes scholars, teachers, and administrators from almost twenty different colleges and seminaries, as well as pastors, missionaries, and a layperson.

The editors and writers hope that THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY will be helpful and instructive for pastors and teachers, scholars and students, for men and women in the churches who study and teach God's Word in various settings. We trust that for editors, authors, and readers alike, the commentary will be used to build up the church, encourage obedience, and bring renewal to God's people. Above all, we pray that the NAC will bring glory and honor to our Lord, who has graciously redeemed us and faithfully revealed himself to us in his Holy Word.

SOLI DEO GLORIA

The Editors

Author's Preface

For years the Book of Daniel has held a special fascination for me. I have taught the prophecy many times in seminary classes and have preached through it in several churches. Part of Daniel's attraction involves the exciting stories contained in its pages. What child or adult is not enthralled by the stories of Daniel's courageous stand in the metropolis of Babylon; the king's dream of the colossus; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace; Nebuchadnezzar's bizarre animal-like behavior; the handwriting on the wall; and Daniel in the lions' den? And then there are the prophecies! Though sometimes difficult to understand, certainly anyone must agree that accounts of angels, beasts rising from the sea, and a talking little horn with eyes and a big mouth is intriguing reading.

Work on this commentary began over five years ago, and though at times zeal for the writing task may have waned, love and appreciation for Daniel's prophecy has steadily grown. Increasingly, the value and relevance of this great book written over 2,500 years ago has become apparent. How many times, for example, are people today called upon to make commitments which may cost them—even their lives?

Interpretation of many facets of the Book of Daniel are vigorously debated, and certainly everyone will not agree with every interpretation offered in this commentary. However, I have endeavored to present fairly and kindly other points of view.

I would like to express my love and appreciation to my wife, Paula, and daughters, Miriam and Rachel, for their support and patience during the many long hours spent in the preparation of this volume. Thanks are also due my parents who at a very early age instilled within me a love and respect for the Word of God. My wife's parents have encouraged me all along the way, and I want to thank them as well. Finally, I thank and praise you, O God (Dan 2:23a) for your infinite mercies.

Stephen R. Miller

Memphis, Tennessee

Abbreviations

Bible Books

Apocrypha

Introduction Outline

The Prophet

Authorship and Date

Views

History of Criticism and the Present Situation

Issues Regarding Authorship and Date

Position in the Canon

Ben Sira's Testimony

Historical Considerations

Language

Theology

The Nature of Prophecy

Testimony of Jesus Christ and the New Testament Writers

Claims of the Book of Daniel

Qumran Evidence

The Septuagint and the Date of the Book

Tradition of Church and Synagogue

Daniel and the Book of Ezekiel

Historical Setting

The Last Days of Judah

A Brief Survey of Neo-Babylonian History

Other Empires in the Book of Daniel

Type of Literature

Language

Texts and Versions

Theological Emphases

Structure of the Book of Daniel

The Book of Daniel is not only one of the most intriguing works in the Bible, but it is also filled with timeless truths that are just as relevant to modern believers as they were to those who first heard them. Yet too often this beautiful prophecy is neglected or deliberately avoided by believers because some of its passages seem strange and difficult. Upon careful examination, however, Bible students will find the principal message of Daniel clear and a study of the book extremely profitable.

1. The Prophet

As the book opens, the reader is introduced to a young Daniel being taken captive to Babylon by King Nebuchadnezzar in 605 B.C. Since Daniel the author (see the following section) also recorded the downfall of Babylon (539 B.C.) and subsequent events, he must have resided in Babylon from 605 B.C. until about 535 B.C. According to the testimony of the book, therefore, Daniel lived throughout the entire Neo-Babylonian period and even into the time of Persian dominance. He had a long, eventful life and a ministry that spanned about seventy years. If Daniel was taken into captivity at about fifteen years of age, he would have lived to the age of about eighty-five years. Tradition has assigned two locations to Daniel's tomb: in the royal vault in Babylon a little west of the acropolis and in one of the Synagogues of Susa.¹

Daniel's name means God is my judge.² Elsewhere in Scripture the prophet is mentioned five times (Ezek 14:14, 20; 28:3; Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14) and is alluded to in Heb 11:33–34. The name Daniel also appears in other Semitic languages, including Akkadian and Ugaritic.³

2. Authorship and Date

The authorship of Daniel has been the subject of great debate among Old Testament scholars, and there is little middle ground on the issue. One's view concerning authorship and date is significant because it ultimately determines the interpretation of every aspect of this prophecy.

(1) Views

Traditionally it has been held that Daniel wrote the book substantially as it exists today, that the prophecy is historically reliable, and that its predictions are supernatural and accurate. Likely there was some modernization of the language as the work was copied throughout the centuries, but otherwise it originated with the prophet in the sixth century B.C. Daniel would have completed his prophecy as an old man soon after the last dated event recorded in the book (10:1; 536 B.C.).

In modern times many scholars have maintained that the book in its present form was produced by an anonymous Jew during the second century B.C., writing under the pseudonym Daniel, and that it consists of nonhistorical accounts and pseudoprophecies. The purpose of the work was to encourage Jewish believers in their struggle against the tyrant Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–163 B.C.) during the Maccabean period.⁴ This supposition may be called the Maccabean thesis. According to this view the Book of Daniel would be the latest of the Old Testament Scriptures. Often scholars who accept the Maccabean thesis identify the second-century writer as a member of the religious sect known as the Hasidim.⁵

(2) History of Criticism and the Present Situation

For almost 1,800 years the traditional view went virtually unchallenged within both Judaism and Christianity.⁶ Porphyry (ca. A.D. 232–303) was an exception. Eissfeldt explains: "The Neo-Platonist Porphyry ... in the twelfth book of his polemical work ‘Against the Christians' indicated the second century B.C. as the actual date of the book's composition and described the greater part of its ‘prophecies' as vaticinia ex eventu, that is, prophecies or predictions made after the event.⁷ His polemic Against the Christians has been lost, but its argument is preserved in Jerome's commentary on Daniel. Porphyry reasoned from the a priori assumption that there could be no predictive element in prophecy.⁸ According to Jerome, Porphyry claims that the person who composed the book under the name of Daniel made it all up in order to revive the hopes of his countrymen. Not that he was able to foreknow all of future history, but rather he records events that had already taken place."⁹

Porphyry's work was condemned by the church, and B. Croke relates that the ultimate condemnation of the notorious Arian heretics was for them to be officially referred to as ‘Porphyrians.'¹⁰ In spite of its origins, the Maccabean thesis has become popular today.¹¹

Regarding the work's composition and unity, scholars who subscribe to the traditional view agree that the book was recorded by Daniel (or a contemporary), but there is no unanimity among those who espouse the Maccabean thesis. The majority of these scholars consider chaps. 7–12 to be essentially an original creation of the Maccabean author who introduced his material with the tales of chaps. 1–6, a collection borrowed from a Danielic corpus dating to the previous century.¹²

(3) Issues Regarding Authorship and Date

Position In The Canon

In the English versions, Daniel appears as the last of four major prophetic books (following the LXX). However, in the Jewish canon Daniel is placed with the Writings rather than the Prophets, suggesting a late date of composition to scholars who consider the books in the Writings to have been produced after the prophetic canon was closed.¹³ Other scholars object that the books in the Writings are not necessarily later than those in the prophetic section. Many of the Psalms and the Proverbs are unquestionably early even though these books are included in the Writings.

The most logical explanation for the book's insertion in the Writings rather than in the prophets is that Daniel was primarily an administrator and a governmental official. Strictly speaking, he was not a prophet like Isaiah or Jeremiah who preached in Israel to the Jewish people. Daniel is referred to in Scripture as a prophet in a general sense, like Abraham or Moses (cf. Gen 20:7; Deut 18:15) because he received messages from God and shared these with the people.¹⁴

Ben Sira' Testimony

Often the second-century date is supported on the basis that Ben Sira (ca. 180 B.C.) in his enumeration of Israelite worthies (Sir 44–50) fails to mention Daniel, although he does mention Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and (collectively) the Twelve Minor Prophets.¹⁵ Knight deduces from this that the author was not familiar with the Book of Daniel.¹⁶

Arguments from silence are notoriously precarious, and Ben Sira's list, though large, is selective. Soggin observes that although Daniel is not named in Ben Sira (also called Ecclesiasticus), many fragments of Daniel have been found at Qumran, an evident sign that the book had acquired considerable importance at the earliest in the third century and certainly in the second.¹⁷ Even Driver acknowledges that standing alone, it would be hazardous to press the argument from Ben Sira's list.¹⁸

On the other hand, evidence does appear to indicate that Ben Sira was acquainted with the Book of Daniel. About 130 B.C. the original Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus was translated into Greek, and the Hebrew versions were eventually lost. In recent times, however, five Hebrew fragments have been discovered in the Cairo Geniza that preserve about two-thirds of the book, and Geniza Hebrew manuscript B of Ben Sira exhibits instances of dependence upon the Hebrew portions of Daniel. Though the Geniza documents appear to have been copied in the medieval period, Sir 39:27–44:17 was found at Masada, and other fragments were found at Qumran, all dating to the first century B.C. A comparison of these texts with the medieval manuscripts confirms the antiquity of the corresponding readings in the Geniza finds. If Ben Sira alluded to the Book of Daniel, these referenced portions could have been written before 180 B.C.¹⁹

Historical Considerations

Adherents of the Maccabean view contend that errors occur in the book concerning the history of the pre-Greek period because the author was far removed from the time of the events.²⁰ Many of these scholars maintain, however, that the historical inaccuracies have no bearing on the theological value of the book. For example, Di Lella insists that the reader should not demand of ancient writers historical accuracy when their intent is essentially religious, and he compares the stories of Daniel to the parables of Jesus.²¹ Yet Jesus made no pretense at historicity for his parables, contrary to the Book of Daniel. Historical detail was not an end in itself for Daniel or any of the Scripture writers, but events necessarily were related accurately.

In fact, the author of Daniel exhibited a more extensive knowledge of sixth-century events than would seem possible for a second-century writer. R. H. Pfeiffer (who argued that the work contains errors) acknowledged that Daniel reports some amazing historical details: We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar (4:30 [Heb. Heb 4:27]), as the excavations have proved ... and that Belshazzar, mentioned only in Babylonian records, in Daniel, and in Bar. 1:11, which is based on Daniel, was functioning as king when Cyrus took Babylon in 538 (chap. 5).²² Harrison comments that the author was quite accurate in recording the change from punishment by fire under the Babylonians (Dan 3:11) to punishment by being thrown to lions under the Persian regime (Dan 6:7), since fire was sacred to the Zoroastrians of Persia.²³ During the course of the exposition, other examples of the historical reliability of the book will be observed, and alleged discrepancies (such as the historicity and date of Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Judah in Jehoiakim's third year and the identification of Darius the Mede) will be discussed.²⁴

Regarding the historical setting, it is commonly claimed by those who accept the late date that the Book of Daniel was composed (in final form at least) exclusively to address the problems of the Maccabean revolt, and all agree that the prophecy speaks of Antiochus IV and his persecutions of the Jewish people. Yet, as A. Ferch points out concerning Dan 11, one would expect more precise allusions to the Maccabean crisis than actually occur, especially since this material supposedly was written possibly within a matter of months after the events transpired.²⁵ Ferch also comments, "Even if the author was a member of the Hasidim or was a pacifist, it is unlikely that he would not warm up more to the successes of his countrymen and that he would leave unnamed such heroes as Mattathias and Judas Maccabeus."²⁶ An examination of the book also reveals that many of the supposed references to the Maccabean crisis (including those thought to be present in all of the narratives in chaps. 1–6) are unconvincing.

Another argument against the Maccabean view is that the pagan governments in the historical accounts in Daniel do not exhibit a hostile attitude toward the Jews, contrary to conditions under Antiochus IV. Even Montgomery asserts: It must be positively denied, as earlier conservative comm., and now Mein., Holscher, have rightly insisted, that Neb. and Darius are types of the infamous Antiochus, or that the trials of the confessors in the bk. represent the Macc. martyrdoms.²⁷ Neither was Daniel an antagonist of Nebuchadnezzar but even seems to have admired him. In almost every instance, Daniel was a friend of the monarch, and the king exhibited great respect and even affection for him. Such a scenario certainly does not correspond to the time of Antiochus, when the godly Jews were being persecuted and murdered by that pagan despot. These Jews did not admire Antiochus but despised his evil ways. Even if the stories were written earlier than the second century B.C. and adapted by a Maccabean author, it seems logical to expect that he would have changed elements of the stories to fit his present situation.

Language

A late date for the book has been argued on the basis of language, and Soggin has recently declared that the language is certainly postexilic.²⁸ Certain linguistic features, however, also have been cited as evidence for an early date.

Persian Loan Words. Driver argues that the number of Persian words in the book indicates a late date.²⁹ Yet, according to the book, Daniel wrote after the Persian conquest of Babylon and even served in the new administration. He would naturally have utilized the new language when appropriate. In fact, about half of the (approximately twenty) Persian expressions found in the book are in the class of governmental terminology, names of officials and so forth,³⁰ just the kinds of words one would expect to find updated to avoid confusion for persons living under the new regime.

Actually, the Persian expressions in the book would seem to be rather strong evidence for an early time of composition. Kitchen points out that "the Persian words in Daniel are specifically, Old Persian words."³¹ Old Persian gave way to Middle Persian ca. 300 B.C., so these terms must have come from an era before Persia fell to the Greeks since the Middle Persian period began at that time and there are no Middle Persian expressions in the book.³² According to the majority of critical scholars, the Old Greek (Septuagint) translation was made only thirty years (ca. 130 B.C.) after the time Daniel allegedly was written (164 B.C.). Kitchen points out that renderings of four Persian loan words in the Greek version of Daniel are hopelessly inexact—mere guesswork, which suggests that the terms were so ancient that their meaning was already lost and forgotten (or, at the least, drastically changed) long before he [the translator] set to work.³³ Thus Kitchen concludes that the facts suggest an origin for the Persian words in the Aramaic of Daniel before ca. 300 B.C.³⁴

Greek Loan Words. Three Greek loan words that appear in the Aramaic portion of the book (cf. 3:5, 7, 10, 15) are commonly cited as proof of a late date. Jeffery insists that these words—qaytĕrôs, zither (Greek kitharis), pĕsantērîn, harp (Greek psaltērion), and sûmpōnĕyâ, pipes (Greek symphōnia)—have a history within Greek that shows that they could hardly have come into Oriental languages until that spread of Greek culture which followed the campaigns of Alexander the Great.³⁵ According to Montgomery, The words are of interest as giving the only solid philological evidence for the reflection of Hellenic civilization in Dan.³⁶

Yet Kitchen points out that the Greek kitharis (3:5, 7, 10, 15) is known from Homer (eighth century B.C. at the latest [Iliad 13.731; Odyssey I:153]) and is not a certain sign of late composition.³⁷ Although the other two words are not attested in Greek until after the sixth century B.C., this argument from silence does not mean that they were not present in the Greek language or that they were unknown in Babylon in the sixth century B.C. "There are plenty of parallels in the Near East for the accidental preservation of words of one language as loan-words in another tongue at an earlier date than extant known occurrences in the original tongue.³⁸ After an excellent survey of the problem, Kitchen concludes, Thus, these two words psntrn and smpny'— and only two words from an entire book!—are necessarily indecisive, when the only appeal is to ignorance."³⁹

Moreover, recent archaeological evidence has demonstrated that the whole argument based upon the premise that Greek loan words could not have been found in Near Eastern literature before the time of Alexander the Great is flawed. W. F. Albright declared: Greek traders and mercenaries were familiar in Egypt and throughout Western Asia from the early seventh century on, if not earlier. As early as the sixth century B.C. the coasts of Syria and Palestine were dotted with Greek ports and trading emporia. ... There were Greek mercenaries in the armies of Egypt and Babylonia, of Psammetichus II and Nebuchadnezzar.⁴⁰ Greek words have been attested in the Aramaic documents of Elephantine dated to the fifth century B.C.⁴¹ Yamauchi asserts: In light of the many contacts of Greeks with the Near East before the fifth century, it should not be surprising to find Greek words in an Aramaic document of that date. The only element of surprise to this writer is that there are not more Greek words in such documents (as the Book of Daniel).⁴²

In fact, the meager number of Greek terms in the Book of Daniel is a most convincing argument that the prophecy was not produced in the Maccabean period, the heart of the Greek era. By 170 B.C. Greek-speaking governments had controlled Babylon and Palestine for 150 years, and numerous Greek terms would be expected in a work produced during this time. Most of the apocryphal books were either written or translated into Greek in the second or first centuries B.C.,⁴³ displaying the profound influence of Greek upon the language at about the time when some argue Daniel was composed. Kitchen aptly notes that in Daniel, Persian terms are used for government terminology where one would expect a writer of the second century B.C. to have employed Greek expressions.⁴⁴

Aramaic of Daniel. An unusual feature of the Book of Daniel is that part of it is written in Hebrew, and part (a little over half) is in Aramaic. Driver argued that the Aramaic of Daniel "is a Western Aramaic dialect, of the type spoken near Palestine,"⁴⁵ and inferred that the book must have been written in Palestine. This idea has now been totally discredited by recent discoveries of fifth-century Aramaic texts that demonstrate that both Daniel and Ezra were "written in a form of Imperial Aramaic (Reichsaramaisch), an official or literary dialect which had currency in all parts of the Near East."⁴⁶ Even though the type of Aramaic used in the book does not indicate a late date, Rowley argued that certain features of Daniel's Aramaic supported a time of composition not earlier than the fourth century B.C.⁴⁷ Yet reevaluations of the data in light of newer materials have not sustained Rowley's conclusions.⁴⁸

Moreover, the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra exhibits striking parallels with early examples of the language found in such documents as the Elephantine Papyri, also written in Imperial Aramaic and dated to the fifth century B.C. As a matter of fact, Kraeling, who published many of the Elephantine Papyri, maintains: There is no very great difference between the language of the [fifth century B.C. Elephantine] papyri and the so-called Biblical Aramaic.⁴⁹ E. Yamauchi adds, Discoveries, such as Adon's letter in Aramaic (sixth cent. B.C.), have confirmed the fact that the Aramaic of Ezra and of Daniel is basically the same as the Aramaic of the sixth-fifth centuries as we know it from contemporary evidence.⁵⁰

On the other hand, the Aramaic of the book does not conform to later samples of the language. Archer compared the Aramaic of Daniel to that of the Genesis Apocryphon, a first century B.C. copy from Qumran of a document originally composed probably in the third century B.C. and concluded on the basis of the language that the Apocryphon must have been written considerably later than Daniel, Ezra, and the Elephantine Papyri.⁵¹ According to Kutscher, it can be stated with confidence that the language of the Scroll [the Genesis Apocryphon] is of a later type than Biblical Aramaic.⁵² Thus the Aramaic portions of Daniel must have been written at an early date. Hasel concluded: "On the basis of presently available evidence, the Aramaic of Daniel belongs to

Reviews for Daniel

[vanjr-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The NAC series used to be my favorite commentary series until i found the NICOT/NICNT. But there is no NICOT available for the book of Daniel. This is a conservative interpretation of Daniel with a focus of the fore-telling aspect of prophecy rather than a forth-telling one. I would have preferred more of a what does the Aramaic and Hebrew mean rather than a focus on interpretation. I did learn that Daniel was written in both of the above languages rather than just Hebrew like the rest of the OT which is fascinating in itself. (Why!?). I find it odd that the author suggested at times that meanings in Daniel should be such and such since Revelation said something-I would assume it would always be the other way, ie Revelations understanding depends on Daniel.