v. also Beltshazzar
Educated in the king’s palace, Dan 1:1-7; steadfast in his purpose, Dan 1:8-16; interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, Dan 2:14-45; read the writing on the wall, Dan 5:17-29; delivered from the lions’ den, Dan 6:10-24; dreams and visions, Dan: 7
Daniel (Heb. and Aram. Dâniyyê’l; more correctly, Dâni’êl, “God is my judge” or “God’s judgment”; Ugar. and Nab. Dn’l; Pal. Dny’l; Ac. Dânilu; Gr. Daniel). 1. Son born to David with Abigail at Hebron (1Ch 3:1); also called Quileab* (2Sa 3:3). 2. Priest of Nehemiah’s time who affixed his signature to the pact of loyalty to God, probably as head of his father’s house (Ezr 8:2; Neh 10:6). 3. In Eze 14:14-20 and 28:3 a reference is made to a Daniel, and in the Hebrew text Dn’l appears instead of Dny’l as it appears in the book of Daniel. In the first 2 passages he stands, along with Noah and Job, as an example of a just man, and in the 3rd passage, as an extraordinarily wise man. The discovery of the Ugaritic texts brought to light a hero of ancient times, “Dan’el, the Rephaite”, who was known as “judge of the cause of widows, solution of the case of orphans”. From this discovery, many scholars have suggested that this Dan’el must have been the one mentioned in Ezekiel along with the other 2 ancestors (Noah and Job) rather than Daniel, Ezekiel’s contemporary. They point out that the spelling of the name Dan’el in Ezekiel and in the Ugaritic texts is the same, while that of the statesman Daniel is different. In this regard, we must remember that in Jewish tradition there was an antediluvian Dan’el, since the pseudo-epigraphic book of Jubilees (produced in the 3rd or 2nd centuries BC) says that Enoch’s father-in-law was Dan’el (4:20) . Furthermore, it is worth noting that Dan’el of the Ugaritic texts is called rp’, “Rephaite”, a parallel term to “Rephaim”, a people of patriarchal times (Gen 14:5; Deu 2:11, 20, JB; 3:11, 13, JB; etc.). Bib.: ANET 149-151. 4. Statesman and prophet in the court of Nebuchadnezzar during the Babylonian captivity, and author of the book that bears his name. Daniel was from a royal family (Dan 1:3) and therefore from the tribe of Judah. He was obviously young when he was taken captive, for his service abroad, first for a time at the Babylonian court, and later briefly under the Persian Empire, spanned a period of at least 67 years (1:1 -4, 7, 21; 10:1; 12:13). Since he was a promising and capable young prince (1:3, 4), he was selected, along with others, for a 3-year course designed to prepare him to serve at court (vs 5, 19). The curriculum included, among other things, “the letters and language of the Chaldeans” (v 4). The students who took the course were considered members of the court and enjoyed certain special privileges (v 5). Apparently, from the beginning Daniel’s kind personality and integrity of character won him the favor of the court officials in whose charge he was (1:8, 9). These qualities soon gave him the opportunity to demonstrate the advantages of a healthy diet (vs 8-16). At the end of the course (3 years, computation inclusive), Daniel and his 3 classmates graduated with highest honors (vs 17-20). In this way, even before entering the service of the court, Daniel had won the respect and trust of the king and his courtiers, having given evidence of his likeable personality, his healthy physique and his superior intellect, in addition to his his natural talent and his integrity of character. 150. Peak-shaped dome of the building which, according to tradition, is the tomb of Daniel in Susa. Very soon thereafter a situation arose which, in God’s providence, began a career for Daniel as a minister and counselor to the king (Dan_2). Nebuchadnezzar had a dream of a great image which, by its spectacular climax, made a deep impression on the interest of an idolatrous monarch. When he woke up, he discovered that the content of the dream had been erased from his mind. He called his wise men to remind him, who admitted that only “the gods” could answer the king’s request (vs 10, 11). In this scenario Daniel demonstrated his relationship to the God of heaven, not only by revealing the dream but also by interpreting it, thereby earning Nebuchadnezzar’s trust as a representative of the true God (vs 46-49). After an unstated time had elapsed, Nebuchadnezzar erected a magnificent golden statue and demanded that all his officers bow down to it (cp 3). This image was probably meant to represent an empire that would never end, as a challenge to the prediction of the dream of ch 2, which pointed out that Babylon would be succeeded by another world power (2:38, 39). For some reason, it seems that Daniel was not summoned on that occasion. Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar, knowing the firmness of his minister and holding him in high esteem for his valor and services to the kingdom, so as not to expose him to certain refusal, previously sent him on some mission to a distant land so that he could not be present at the worship of God. the image, and thus save him from death; or he would be sick. After another unstated period, perhaps towards the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, the king again forgot the God of heaven (4:4, 30). The Lord gave him a dream that presaged his humiliation (vs 5-18), and once again Daniel showed that he was the only one capable of interpreting it (vs 19-27). After the humiliating experience predicted by the dream (vs 28-34), Nebuchadnezzar publicly acknowledged the greatness of God, manifested submission to God and implied his willingness to cooperate with the divine plan for his kingship (vs 1- 3, 34-37). But the successors on the throne, who knew all that very well, refused to follow the king in submitting him to God’s will (5:22), and actually defied him (vs 2-4, 23). This persistent and stubborn resistance to fulfilling the divine plan brought about the fall of the kingdom in a short time, a few years before the end of the 70 years of captivity (Jer 25:12; 29:10; Dan 9:1, 2). Daniel’s subsequent appointment as a high official of the Persian Empire gave him the opportunity to testify of his faith before the leaders of the nation that was destined by God to fulfill the foretold return of the Jews to their land and to help them settle again in the land. she. His deliverance from the lions’ den enhanced Daniel’s recognition as an ambassador from the court of heaven (Dan 6:22-28), and no doubt opened the way to calling Cyrus’ attention to the prophecies concerning him and his role in the restoration of Jerusalem (Is. 44:24-45:13). On at least 4 occasions Daniel received divine revelations: 1. In the vision of Dan_7, at the beginning of Belshazzar’s reign. 2. In the vision of cp 8, about 2 years later. 3. In the communication of cp 9, after the conquest of Babylon by the Persians. 4. In the vision of Dan_10 and the long explanation that followed it, recorded in chs 11 and 12, in the 3rd year of the new empire (see CBA 4:890). Daniel lived until at least Cyrus’s 3rd year, and at that time he must have been nearly 90 years old. See Daniel, Book of. Daniel, Book of. In the Spanish translations, as well as in the LXX and the Vulgate, Daniel appears among the Major Prophets, after Ezekiel. However, in the Hebrew canon Daniel is classified among the Kethûbîm (“Writings”), which included the books that appear in the Castilian bibles from 1 Cr. to Cnt., with Rt. and Lm. Various explanations have been given for Daniel’s position in the Hebrew canon, of which the most important are: 1. Daniel was not accepted by the Jews as part of the sacred canon until the content of “the law” (the Pentateuch) and “the prophets” (Lk 24:44). 2. Daniel, although he is called a prophet (Mat 24:15), was primarily an official and statesman, not a prophet. According to this view, he had the prophetic gift, but not the prophetic office; that is, he did not address his contemporaries in the name of the Lord and exhort them as the other prophets did. At the same time, he received important visions. See Daniel IV. I. Author. The traditional view, both of Jews and Christians, is that the book of Daniel was written by Daniel. its main character, during the 6th century BC Josephus refers to Daniel as a great prophet, and to the book as prior to Alexander the Great (who died in 323 BC) and even Artaxerxes I (who began to reign in 465 BC). ). Christ spoke in a similar way about Daniel: as a prophet and as the author of the book that bears his name (Mat 24:15). In addition to these external evidences, the author of the book is identified as Daniel, the main character in it, and often speaks in the 1st person (Dan 8: 1, 2; 9: 2 1O: 1, 2; etc.). That he also writes in the 3rd person (cps 1; 2; etc.) does not necessarily imply that he was not the author, as this was common practice among ancient writers. II. Setting. Since the time of the Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry (c 300 AD), one of the first critics to attack the historicity of the book, its authenticity and inspiration have been repeatedly attacked, particularly during the last 2 centuries. Today, most Christian scholars attribute it to an anonymous author from the time of the Maccabean rebellion, in the middle of the 2nd century BC. The 3 main arguments they use are: 1. The main theme of the prophetic portion of Daniel is the great persecuting power described from chapter 7 onwards: Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164/63 BC). Connected with this is the rejection of the idea that the prophets had the ability to accurately predict the future. To this end, they maintain that if what purports to be predictive prophecy appears as a reasonably exact fulfillment in history, it is because the prediction should have been written after the event occurred. 2. The historical sections of the book contain numerous historical errors, anachronisms, and misconceptions. 3. The inclusion of Persian and Greek words in the book are evidence of its late date. With respect to the 1st criticism, 3 points can be highlighted: a. That some of the prophetic specifications seem to fit Antiochus (and many commentators who accept the book as genuine predictions admit at least some applications to Antiochus in chs 8 and 11) does not show that a later fulfillment can fit the requirements properly. the same or more complete. b. The insistence that Antiochus was the persecuting power of cp 7 is at least as subjective as believing that power is later; it is absolutely indispensable for those who suppose that the fulfillment of the prediction is to be looked for during the time in which it was written or even before. c. The inconsistency of this interpretation with the historical facts, both about Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus AND from Antiochus onwards, is presented as proof that the author was ignorant of those facts and…