Daniel, Book of
Daniel, Book Of This important and in many respects remarkable book takes its name not only from the principal person in it, but also and chiefly from him as its real author, there being no just cause of doubt that, as the book itself testifies, it was composed by Daniel (Da 7:1,28; Da 8:2; Da 9:2). It occupies, however, but a third rank in the Hebrew canon; not among the Prophets, but in the Hagiographa, owing apparently to the correct view of the composers of the canon, that Daniel did not exercise his prophetic office in the more restricted and proper sense of the term "prophecy," but stood to the theocracy in a different relation from those real prophets whose calling and profession consisted exclusively in declaring the messages they received, and in the communion which they held with God. These latter are termed, in the ancient Hebrew idiom, נבִיאִים, prophets, in contradistinction to חֹזִים, seers, who, though they were equally favored with divine revelations, were nevertheless not prophets by profession, a calling that claimed the entire service of a man's whole life. SEE CANON. The Babylonian exile supplied the outward training and the inward necessity for this last form of divine teaching; and the prophetic visions of Ezekiel form the connecting link between the characteristic types of revelation and prophecy (comp. Lucke, Versuch, 1:17 sq.; Hitzig, Daniel, Vorbem. § 9; Hilgenfeld, Die Jud. Apok. 1 sq.). This book has given rise to many and various polemical discussions both mi ancient and modern times.
1. The book of Daniel divides itself into two parts, historical (ch. 1-6) and prophetic (ch. 7-12), arranged respectively in chronological order. In the first seven chapters, accordingly, Daniel is spoken of historically (Da 1:8-21; Da 2:14-49; Da 4:8-27; Da 5:13-29; Da 6:2-28; Da 7:1-2); in the last five he appears personally as the writer (Da 7:15-28; Da 8:1-9:22; Da 10:1-19; Da 12:5). Its object is by no means to give a summary historical account of the period of the exile, or of the life of Daniel himself, since it contains only a few isolated points both as to historical facts and prophetic revelations. But the plan or tendency which so consistently runs through the whole book is of a far different character; it is to show the extraordinary and wonderful means which the Lord made use of, in a period of the deepest miisery, when the theocracy seemed dissolved and fast approaching its extinction, to afford assistance to his people, proving to them that he had not entirely forsaken them, and making them sensible of the fact that his merciful presence still continued to dwell with them, even without the Temple and beyond the Land of Promise.
The wonders related in Daniel (ch. 1-6) are thus mostly of a peculiar, prominent, and striking character, and resemble in many respects those performed of old time in Egypt. Their divine tendency was, on the one hand, to lead the heathen power, which proudly fancied itself to be the conqueror of the theocracy, to the acknowledgment that there was an essential difference between the world and the kingdom of God; and, on the other, to impress degenerate and callous Israel with the full conviction that the power of God was still the same as it was of old in Egypt.
The following are the essential features of the prophetic tenor of the book of Daniel, while the visions in ch. 2 and 7, together with their different symbols, may be considered as embodying the leading notion of the whole. The development of the whole of the heathen power, until the completion and glorification of the kingdom of God, appeared to the prophet in the shape of four powers of the world, each successive power always surpassing the preceding in might and strength, namely, the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Syrian (otherwise Roman). The kingdom of God proves itself conqueror of them all; a power which alone is everlasting, and showing itself in its utmost glorification in the appearance of the Messiah, as Judge and Lord of the world. Until the coming of the Messiah, the people of God have yet to go through a period of heavy trials. That period is particularly described, ch. 8 and 11, in the struggles of the Maccabaean time, illustrative of the last and heaviest combats which the kingdom of God would have to endure. The period until the appearance of the Messiah is a fixed and sacred number — seventy weeks of years (ch. 9). After the lapse of that period ensues the death of the Messiah; the expiation of the people is realized; true justice is revealed, but Jerusalem and the Temple are in punishment given up to destruction. The true rise from this fall and corruption ensues only at the end of time, in the general resurrection (ch. 12).
The interpretation of Daniel has hitherto proved an inexhaustible field for the ingenuity of commentators, and the certain results are comparatively few. According to the traditional view, which appears as early as the fourth book of Ezra, SEE ESDRAS and the epistle of Barnabas (ch. 4), the four empires described in ch. 2 and 7 are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Greek, and the Roman. With nearly equal consent it has been supposed that there is a change of subject in the eleventh chapter (Da 11:31 sq.), by which the seer passes from the persecutions of Antiochus to the times of Antichrist. A careful comparison of the language of the prophecy with the history of the Syrian kings must, however, convince every candid student of the text that the latter hypothesis is wholly unfounded and arbitrary. The whole of the eleventh chapter forms a history of the struggles of the Jewish Church with the Greek powers up to the death of its great adversary (Da 11:45). This conflict, indeed, has a typical import, and foreshows in its characteristic outlines the abiding and final conflict of the people of God and the powers of evil, so that the true work of the interpreter must be to determine historically the nature of each event signalized in the prophetic picture, that he may draw from the past the lesson of the future. The traditional interpretation of "the four empires" seems to spring from the same error as the other, though it still finds numerous advocates (Hofmann, Auberlen, Keil, Halvernick, Hengstenberg, and most English commentators). It originated at a time when the triumphant advent of Messiah was the object, of immediate expectation, and the Roman empire appeared to be the last in the series of earthly kingdoms. The long interval of conflict which has followed the first Advent formed no place in the anticipations of the first Christians, and in succeeding ages the Roman period has been unnaturally prolonged to meet the requirements of a theory that took its rise in a state of thought which experience has proved false. SEE HORN, LITTLE.
The parallel character and striking fulfillment of Daniel's predictions, many of which are carried out with a detail elsewhere unknown, may be seen from the following synoptical table. Those relating to the seventy weeks (Da 9:24-27) will be treated separately under that head.
2. The language of the book is partly Chaldee (Da 2:4; Da 7:28) and partly Hebrew. The latter is not unlike that of Ezekiel, though less impure and corrupt, and not so replete with anomalous grammatical forms. The Chaldee is noways that of the Chaldaeans proper, but a corrupt vernacular dialect, a mixture of Hebrew and: Aramaic, formed during the period of the exile. It resembles mostly the Chaldee pieces in Ezra, but differs greatly from the dialect of the later Targums (see Hilgenfeld, Esra u. Daniel und ihre neuesten Bearbeitungen, Halle, 1863). SEE CHALDEE LANGUAGE.
The style is, even in the prophetic parts, more prosaic than poetical, as Lowth has already observed. The historical descriptions are usually very broad and prolix in details; but the prophecies have a more rhetorical character, and their delivery is frequently somewhat abrupt; their style is descriptive, painting with the most lively colors the still fresh impression which the vision has made on the mental eye.
3. The unity of the book has been disputed by several critics, and more especially by Eichhorn and Bertholdt, who conceived it to have been written by more than one author, on account of some contradictions which they thought they had discovered in it, such as in Da 1:21, compared with Da 10:1; and in Da 1:5-18, compared with Da 2:1. With regard to the first supposed contradiction, we consider the meaning of Da 1:21, to be that Daniel had lived to see the first year of the reign of Cyrus, as a particularly memorable, and, for the exiled people, a very important year. This does by no means exclude the possibility of his having lived still longer than up to that period.
Respecting the second presumed contradiction, the matter in Da 1:5-18, belongs properly to the co-regency of Nebuchadnezzar, which term is there added to his period of government, while in Da 2:1, his reign is counted only from the year of his actual accession to the throne. These attempts to disturb the harmony of the work are also discountenanced by the connecting thread which evidently runs through the whole of the book, setting the single parts continually in mutual relation to each other. Indeed, most critics have now given up that hypothesis, and look at the book as a closely connected and complete work in itself.
4. Much greater is the difference of opinion respecting the authenticity of the book. The oldest known opponent of it is the heathen philosopher Porphyry, in the third century of the Christian era. The greater the authority in which the book of Daniel was held at that time by both Jews and Christians in their various controversies, the more was he anxious to dispute that authority, and he did not disdain to devote one whole book (the twelfth) — out of the fifteen which he had composed against the Christians — to that subject alone. He there maintains that the author of the book of Daniel was a Palestinian Jew of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, that he wrote it in Greek, and fraudulently gave to past events the form of prophecies. Porphyry was answered by Eusebius of Caesarea, Methodius of Tyre, and Apollinaris of Laodicea. But their works, as well as that of Porphyry himself, are lost; and we know the latter only from the numerous quotations and refutations in the Commentary of Jerome.
Porphyry found no successor in his views until the time of the English deists, when Collins attempted to attack the authenticity of Daniel, as was done by Semler in Germany. After this a few critics, such as J. D. Michaelis and Eichhorn, disputed the authenticity of the first six chapters. The learned Swiss, Corrodi (Freimuth. Versuch, etc., Berlin, 1783), went still further, and, reviving the views of Porphyry, questioned the genuineness of the whole book. The question of the authenticity of the book is discussed in most of the later commentaries, and specially by Hengstenberg (Die Authentie der Daniel erwiesen, 1831, translated by Ryland, Edinb. 1847, 8vo), Havernick (Neue krit. Untersuch. Hamb. 1838, 8vo), Delitzsch (in Herzog's Encyklopadie, s.v. 1854), Keil (Lehrb. der Ein. in der A. T. Frank. 1853, 8vo), Davidson (Introduction to the O.T. 2, Lond. 1846, 8vo, who maintain the affirmative; and by Bleek (Berl. theolog. Zeitschr. 3, 1822), Bertholdt (Einleit. Erlang. 1814), Lucke (Versuch einer vollstind. Einl. 2d ed. Bonn. 1852), and De Wette (Einlit. 7th ed. Berl. 1852), who deny its authenticity. See Ewald (Die Proph. d. Alt. Bund. 2:559 sq.).
The real grounds on which most modern critics rely in rejecting the book are the "fabulousness of its narratives" and "the minuteness of its prophetic history." "The contents of the book," it is said, "are irrational and impossible" (Hitzig, § 5). It is obvious that it is impossible to answer such a statement without entering into general views of the providential government of the world. It is admitted that the contents of the book are exceptional and surprising; but revelation is itself a miracle, however it be given, and essentially as inconceivable as any miracle. There are times, perhaps, when it is required that extraordinary signs should arrest the attention of men, and fix their minds upon that Divine Presence which is ever working around them. Prodigies may become a guide to nature. Special circumstances may, and, according to the Bible, usually do determine, the peculiar form which the miraculous working of God will assume at a particular time; so that the question is, whether there is any discernible relation between the outward wonders and the moral condition of an epoch. Nor is it impossible to apply this remark to the case of Daniel. The position which he occupied was as exceptional as the book which bears his name. He survived the exile and the disappointment which attended the first hopes of the Jews. The glories which had been connected with the return in the foreshortened vision of earlier prophets were now felt to be far off, and a more special revelation may have been necessary as a preparation for a period of silence and conflict. The very character of the Babylonian exile seems to have called for some signal exhibition of divine power. As the first exodus was distinguished by great marvels, it might appear natural that the second should be also (comp. Mic 7:15; Delitzsch, p. 272, etc.). National miracles, so to speak, formed the beginning of the theocracy; personal miracles, the beginning of the Church. To speak of an "aimless and lavish display of wonders" is to disregard the representative silnilicance of the different acts, and the relation which they bore to the future fortunes of the people. A new era was inaugurated by fresh signs. The Jews, now that they were left among the nations of the world, looked for some sure token that God was able to deliver them and work out his own purposes. The persecution of Antiochus completed the teaching of Daniel; and the people no longer sought without what at length they had found within. They had withstood the assault of one typical enemy, and now they were prepared to meet all. The close of special predictions coincided with the consolidation of the national faith. SEE ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES.
The following are the more important of the arguments which evidence the genuineness of the book (see the works on the Authenticity of Daniel, by Boyle [Lond. 1863] and Waters [ib. eod.]).
(1.) The existence and authority of the book are most decidedly testified by the New Testament. Christ himself refers to it (Mt 24:15), and gives to himself (in virtue of the expression in Da 7:13) the name of Son of Man; while the apostles repeatedly appeal to it as an authority (1Co 6:2; 2Th 2:3). Apart from the general type of apocalyptic composition which the apostolic writers derived from Daniel (Rev. passim; comp. Mt 26:64; Mt 21:44?), the New Testament incidentally acknowledges each of the characteristic elements of the book, its miracles (Heb 11:33-34), its predictions (Mt 24:15), and its doctrine of angels (Lu 1:19,26). To the objection that Christ and the writers of the New Testament are here no real authority, inasmuch as they accommodate themselves to the Jewish notions and views, we reply that the genuineness of the book of Daniel is so closely connected with the truth of its contents — in other words, that the authenticity of the book is so immediately connected with its authority — that it is impossible to doubt its genuineness without suspecting at the same time a willful cheat in its contents; so that the accommodation in this case to national views would be tantamount to willfully confirming and sanctioning an unpardonable fraud.
(2.) The period of the exile would be altogether incomprehensible without the existence of a man like Daniel, exercising great influence upon his own people, and effecting their return to Palestine by means of his high station in the state, as well as through the peculiar assistance of God with which he was favored. Without this assumption, it is impossible to explain the continued state of independence of the people of God during that period, or to account for the interest which Cyrus took in their affairs. The exile and its termination are indicative of uncommon acts of God towards highly-gifted and favored men; and the appearance of such a man as Daniel is described in that book as having been, is an indispensable requisite for the right understanding of this portion of the Jewish history.
(3.) An important hint of the existence of the book in the time of Alexander is found in Josephus (Ant. 11:8, 4), according to which the prophecies of Daniel had been pointed out to that king on his entrance into Jerusalem. It is true that the fact may have been somewhat embellished in its details by Josephus, yet is it historically undeniable that Alexander did bestow great favors on the Jews, a circumstance which is not easily explained without granting the fact recorded by Josephus to be true in the main. SEE ALEXANDER (THE GREAT).
(4.) The first book of the Maccabees, which is almost contemporary with the events related in it, not only presupposes the existence of the book of Daniel, but actually betrays acquaintance with the Alexandrian version of the same (1 Maccabees 1:54; comp. Da 9:27; Da 2:49; comp. Daniel 3), a proof that the book must have been written long before that period.
(5.) If the book had been written in the Maccabsean period, there would probably have been produced in that period some similar prophetic and apocalyptic productions, composed by Palestinian Jews. Of such, however, not the slightest notice can anywhere be found; so that our book-if of the Maccabaean timeforms an isolated enigmatical phenomenon in the later Jewish literature.
(6.) The reception of the book into the canon is also an evidence of its authenticity. In the Maccabaean age the canon had long been completed and closed; but, even doubting that point, it is not likely that, at a time when so much scrupulous adherence was shown towards all that was hallowed by time and old usage, and when scriptural literature was already flourishing — it is not probable, we say, that a production then recent should have been raised to the rank of a canonical book.
(7.) We have an important testimony for the authenticity of the book in Eze 14:14,20; Eze 28:3. Daniel is there represented as an unusual character, as a model of justice and wisdom, to whom had been allotted superior divine insight and revelation. This sketch perfectly agrees with that contained in our book.
(8.) The book betrays such an intimate acquaintance with Chaldaean manners, customs, history, and religion as none but a contemporary writer can fairly be supposed to possess. Thus, e.g. the description of the Chaldaean magians and their regulations perfectly agrees with the accounts of the classics respecting them. The account of the illness and insanity of Nebuchadnezzar is confirmed by Berosus (in Joseph. c. Apion. 1:20). The edict of Darius the Mede (Daniel 5) may be satisfactorily explained from the notions peculiar to the Medo-Persian religion, and the importance attached in it to the king, who was considered a sort of incarnate deity. The scene and characters of the book are Oriental. The colossal image- (צלֵם, 3, 1, not necessarily a human figure; the term is applied familiarly to the cross, Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb. s.v.), the fiery furnace, the martyr-like boldness of the three confessors (Da 3:16), the decree of Darius (Da 6:7), the lions' den (Da 6:7,19, גֹּב), the demand of Nebuchadnezzar (Da 2:5), his obeisance before Daniel (Da 2:46), his sudden fall (Da 4:33; comp. Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9:41; Joseph. c. Ap. 1:20), are not only consistent with the nature of Eastern life, but in many instances directly confirmed by other evidence. SEE DARIUS THE MEDE for the difficulties of Da 1:1; Da 2:1; Da 5:31.
(9.) The religious views, the ardent belief in the Messiah, the purity of that belief, the absence of all the notions and ceremonial practices of later Judaism, etc., the agreement of the book in these respects with the genuine prophetic books, and more especially with the prophets in and after the exile-all this testifies to the genuineness of Daniel. In doctrine the book is closely connected with the writings of the exile, and forms a last step in the development of the ideas of Messiah (Da 7:13, etc.), of the resurrection (Da 12:2-3), of the ministry of angels (Da 8:16; Da 12:1, etc.), of personal devotion (Da 6:10-11; Da 1:8), which formed the basis of later speculations, but received no essential addition in the interval before the coming of our Lord.
(10.) The linguistic character of the book is most decisive for its authenticity. In the first instance, the language in it, by turns Hebrew and Arammean, is particularly remarkable. In that respect the book bears a close analogy to that of Ezra. The author must certainly have been equally conversant with both languages — an attainment exactly suited to a Hebrew living in the exile, but not in the least so to an author in the Maccabaean age, when the Hebrew had long since ceased to be a living language, and had been supplanted by the Aramaean vernacular dialect. The Hebrew in Daniel bears, moreover, a very great affinity to that in the other later books of the Old Testament, and has, in particular, idioms in common with Ezekiel. The Aramaic, also, in the book differs materially from the prevailing dialect of the later Chaldaean paraphrastic versions of the Old Testament, and has much more relation to the idiom of the book of Ezra. Nor is the mention of Greek musical instruments (3, 5, 7, 10, קִיתָרֹס, κίθαρα; סִבּכָא σαμβυκή; סוּמפֹּניָה, συμφωνία; (פּסִנתּרִין, ψαλτήριον), for these words only can be shown to be derived from the Greek (De Wette, Einl. p. 255 b.), other than suitable to a time when the intercourse of the East and West was already considerable, and when a brother of Alcaeus (B.C. 600-500) had gained distinction "at the farthest end of the world, aiding the Babylonians" (Alc. Frag. 33, Bergk.; Brandis, in Delitzsch, p. 274). (For a full view of the criticism, history, and literature of the book of Daniel, see Stuart's Commentary, p. 373-496.)
5. There is no Chaldee translation of Daniel, and the deficiency is generally accounted for, as in the parallel case of Ezra, by the danger which would have existed in such a case of confounding the original text with the paraphrase; but, on the other hand, the whole book has been published in Hebrew. Kennicott prepared a special commentary on the Chaldee portions (ed. Schulze, Hal. 1782, 8vo); comp. Bird (Lectures, Lond. 1845).
The Greek version has undergone singular changes. At an early time the Sept. translation was supplanted in the Greek Bibles by that of Theodotion, which in the time of Jerome was generally "read by the churches" (c. Ruffin. 2:33; Praef. in Comm.). This change, for which Jerome was unable tf account (Praef. in Vers, Dan.), may have been made in consequence of the objections which were urged against the corrupt Sept. text in controversy with Jews and heathen. The Sept. version was certainly very unfaithful (Jerome, 1. c.); and the influence of Origen, who preferred the translation of Theodotion (Jerome in Da 4:6), was probably effectual in bringing about the substitution (comp. Credner, Beitr. 2:256 sq.). In the course of time, however, the version of Theodotion was interpolated from the Sept., so that it is now impossible to recover the original text. Comp.
Wald, Curae in hist. textus Dan. (Lips. 1783). SEE DANIEL, APOCRYPHAL ADDITIONS TO. Meanwhile the original Sept. translation passed entirely out of use, and it was supposed to have been lost till the last century, when it was published at Rome from a Codex Chisianus (Daniel secundum LXX. . . . Romas, 1772, ed. P. de Magistris), together with that of Theodotion, and several illustrative essays. It has since been published several times (ed. Michaelis, Gotting. 1774; ed. Segaar, Utrecht, 1775; ed. Hahn, Lpz. 1845), and lastly by Tischendorf in the second edition of his Septuagint (Lips. 1856). Another recension of the text is contained in the Syro-Hexaplaric version at Milan (ed. Bugatus, 1788); but a critical comparison of the several recensions is still required. SEE SEPTUAGINT.
On other ancient versions, see Munter, Spec. versionumn Daniel Copticarum. etc. (Romans 1786); Wald, Ueb. d. Arab. Uebers. d. Dan. (in Eichhorn's Repertor. 14:205 sq.). SEE VERSIONS.
6. The commentaries on Daniel are very numerous. Those in Hebrew by R. Saadiah Haggaon († 942), Rashe († c. 1105), and Aben Ezra († c. 1167), are printed in the great Rabbinic Bibles of Bomberg and others. That of Abarbanel († c. 1507) has been printed separately several times (Amst. 1647, 4to), and others are enumerated below. Among the patristic commentaries the most important is that of Jerome (vol. v, ed. Migne), who noticed especially the objections of Porphyry; also those of Chrysostomn (Opera, 6:228), Theodoret (2. 1053 sq., ed. Schulze; interp. Gabio, Rom. 1562, fol.), and Ephraem Syrus (Op. Syr. ii, Romae, 1740). 'There are also annotations by Rupert Tuitiensis (Opera, 1:520), Thos. Aquinas [rather Thos. Wallensis] (Commentarii, etc., Paris, 1641, fol.), Albertus Magnus (Opera, viii), and Peter the Archdeacon (Martene and Durand's Collectio, 9:275). Considerable fragments remain of the commentaries of Hippolytus (collected in Migne's edition, Paris, 1857) and Polychronius (Mai, Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vol. i); and Mai has published (ib.) a catena on Daniel, containing fragments of Apollinarius, Athanasius, Basil, Eusebius, and many others. The chief reformers, Luther (Auslegung d. Proph. Daniel 1530-1546; Op. Germ. vi, ed. Walch), Ecolampadius (In Daniel libri duo, Basil. 1530), Melancthon (Comm. in Daniel proph. Vitemb. 1543), and Calvin (Praelect. in Daniel Geneve, 1563, etc.; in French, 1565; in English, Lond. 1852-3), wrote on Daniel; also Joachim the Abbot (Ven. 1519, 4to). A comparison of the prophecies of Daniel with the visions of the Apocalypse (Newton, On the Prophecies, London, 1733, 4to) opened the way to a true understanding of Daniel. Auberlen (Der Proph. Daniel u. d. Ojfenbarung Joh. etc. 2d ed. Basel, 1857, translated into English from the 1st ed. by Saphir, 1856, 12mo) has thrown considerable light upon the general construction and relations of the book. Comp. Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erfullung, 1:276 sq.; Burton, Numbers of Daniel and John (Norw. 1766-8); Anon., Seven prophetical Periods (Lond. 1790); Birks, The four prophetic Empires (London, 1844), and The two later Visions of Daniel (ib. 1846); Elliott, Horce Apocalyptice (Lond. 1844); Tregelles, Remarks on the prophetic Visions of Daniel (Lond. 1852); Stuart, Hints on Prophecy (Andov. 1844); Desprez, Daniel the Apocalypse of the O.T. (Lond. 1865, 8vo). SEE REVELATION. Among subsidiary works additional to the above may be named Bleek, Weissag. in D. (in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1860, v); Walter, Genuineness of Daniel (Lond. 1862); Baxmann, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1863, 4; Fuller, Authenticity of Daniel (Cambr. 1864); Bosanquet, Inspiration of Daniel (Lond. 1866); Harman, in the Meth. Quart. Rev. Oct. 1854.
Other special exegetical works on the entire book. or principal portions of it, are the following, of which the most important are designated by an asterisk (*) prefixed: Bafiolas, פֵּדוּשׁ (s. 1. ante 1480, 4to; and in the Rabb. Bibles); Alscheich, חֲבִצֶּלֶת הִשָּׁרוֹן (Safet, 1568, 4to, and since); Teitsak, לֶחֶם סתָרִים (Ven. 1608, 4to); Joy, Exposition (Genev. 1545, 16mo; Lond. 1550, 8vo); Draconites, Commentarius (Marb. 1544, 8vo); *Suaningius, Commentarii (Havn. 1554-66, also 1688, 2 vols. fol.); Strigelius, Concio (Lips. 1565,1571, 1572, 8vo); Selnecker, Erklrung (Jen. 1567,1608, 4to); Wigand, Explicatio (Jen. 1571, Erf. 1581, 8vo); Bullinger, Homiliae (Tigur. 1576, fol.); Pintus, Commentarii (Conimb. 1582, 8vo; Ven. 1583, 4to; Colon. 1587, Antw. 1595, 8vo); Pererius, Commentarii (Rom. 1586, fol.; Lugd. 1588, 4to; 1591, 1602, 8vo; Antw. 1594, 4to); Heilbrunner, Loc communes (Lauing. 1587, 8vo); Marcellinus, Commentarius (Ven. 1588, 4to); Rollock, Commentariets (Edinburgh, 1591, 8vo; Basil. 1594, 4to; Genev. 1598, 8vo; 1670, 4to); Junius, Expositio (Heidelb. 1593, Genev. 1594, 4to); Broughton, Annotations (in Works, p. 164, 261; in Lat. ed. Boreel, Basil. 1599, 4to); Polanus, Commentarius (Basil. 1599, 4to; 1606, 8vo); Gesner, Disputationes (Viteb. 1601, 4to; 1607, 1611, 1638, 8vo); Elucidarius (ib. 1658, 8vo); Veldius, Commentarius (Antw. 1602, 8vo); Leyser, Commentarius (in 6 parts, Darmst. and Francof. 1609-10, 4to); Willet, Hexzspla (Cantuar. 1610, fol.); Veld, Commentarius (Antwerp, 1611, 4to); Sanctius, Commentarius (Lugd. 1612, fol.); Rhumelius, Paraphrasis (Norimb. 1616, 8vo); Angelocrator, Erklarung (Cassel, 1638, 4to); Alsted, Trifolium (Herb. 1640, 4to); Huit, Paraphrase (London, 1643, 4to); Brightman, Exposition (ib. 1644, 4to); Parker, Exposition (ib. 1646, 4to); *Geier, Praelectiones (Lips. 1667, 1684, 1697, 1702, 4to); Varenius, Animadversio (Rost. 1667, 4to); Wingendorp, Paraphrasis (Leyd. 1674,1680, 8vo); Jungmann, Commentarius (Cass. 1681, 4to); Moore, Exposition (Lond. 1681, 4to); Answers (ib. 1684, 4to); Supplement (ib. 1685, 4to); Notes (ib. 1685, 4to); Bekker, Vitlegginge (Amst. 1688,1698, 4to); Meissner, Amerkungen (Hamb. 1695, 12mo); Anon., Explanation (Lond. 1700, 12mo); Kerkhedere, Prodromus (Lovan. 1710, 8vo); Wells, Help, etc. (Lond. 1716, 8vo); Friderici, Daniel et ejus vaticinia (Lpz. 1716, 4to); Musaus, Schola (Quedlinb. 1719, 4to); — Michaelis, Annotationes (Hal. 1720, 4to); Petersen, Sinn, etc. (F. ad M. 1720, 4to); Koch, Auslejung (Lemg. 1740, 4to); Venema, Dissertationes (Leid. 1745, 1752, 1768, 4to); Petri, Zahlen Daniels (Offenb. 1768, 8vo); Roos, Auslegung (Lpz. 1771, 8vo; tr. into Engl. Edinb. 1811, 8vo); Harenberg, Asfilarung (Blankenb. and Quedlinb. 1773, 4to); Scharfenberg, Animadversiones (Lips. 1774, 8vo); Segaar, Animadversiones (Utr. 1775, 8vo); Ammer, Essay, etc. (Lond. 1776, 8vo); Zeis, Erklarung (Dresd. 1777, 8vo); Holber, D. Zeiten in d. Danielschen Weisag. (Frkf. and Lpz. 1777, 8vo); Wald, Curse (Lips. 1783, 4to); Muller, Animadversiones (Heidelb. 1786, 4to); Luderwald, Prifung (Helmst. 1787, 8vo); Volborth, Ammerkungen (Hanover, 1788, 8vo); Anon., Briefe (in Beytrage zum Denken in d. Rel. pt. 9); Kemmericb, Uebers. etc. (Helmst. 1791, 2 vols. 8vo); *Wintle, Notes, etc. (Oxf. 1792, 4to; Lond. 1807. 4to; 1836, 8vo); Thube, Erklarung (Schwerin and Wism. 1797, 8vo); *Bertholdt, Erklarung, etc. (Erlang. 1806, 8vo); Ben-Jachajah, דָּנַיּאֵל (ed. Philippsohn, etc.; Dessau, 1808, 4to and 8vo); Menken, Monarchienbild (Brem. 1809, 8vo); Frere, Combined View, etc. (Lond. 1815,8vo); Griesinger, Ansicht (Stuttg. and Tub. 1815, 8vo); Girdlestone, Observations (Oxford, 1820, 8vo); Bleek, Verfasser u. Zweck (in the Theolog. Zeitschr. Berl. 1822, in); Wilson, Dissertations (Oundle, 1824, 8vo); Irving, Discourse (Glasg. 18~6, 2 vols. 12mo); Kirmss, Commentatio (Jen. 1828, 4to); *Rosenmüller, Scholia (Lips. 1832, 8vo); *Havernick, Commentatar (Hamburg, 1832, 8vo); Jeitteles, דָּנַיּאֵל, etc. (Vienna, 1835, 8vo); Cox, Lectures (Lond. 1834, N. Y. 1836, 12mo); *Lengerke, Auslegung (Konigsb. 1835, 8vo); Tyso, Elucidation (London, 1838, 8vo); Farquharson, Illustrations (London, 1838, 8vo); Gaussen, Lectures (London, 1840, 12mo); Miles, Lectures (ib. 1840-1, 2 vols. 12mo);
Folsom, Interpretation (Boston, 1842, 12mo); Chase, Remarks (ib. 1844, 8vo); George (Duke of Manchester), Times of Daniel (Lond. 1846, 8vo); Wood, Lectures (ib. 1847, 12mo); Jacobi, vol. i of Kirchliche Lehre, etc. (Berl. 1847, 8vo); Harrison, Outlines (Warburt. Lect. London, 1849, 8vo); *Stuart, Commentary (Bost. 1850, 8vo); *Barnes, Notes (N. Y. 1850, 12mo); *Hitzig, Erklar. (Lpz. 1850, 8vo); Cumming, Lectures (Lond. 1850, 8vo); Ramsay, Exposition (ibid. 1853, 12mo); Oshon, Daniel Verified (N. Y. 1856, 12mo); Magnin. Notes (Par. 1861, 8vo); Zundel, Untersuch. (Basel, 1861, 8vo); Bellamy, Translation (Lond. 1863, 4to); Pusev, Lectures (new ed. ibid. 1865, 4to); Shrewsbury, Notes (Edinb. 1865, 8vo); Cowles, Commentary (N. Y. 1867,12mo); Kranichfeld, Erklar. (Berl. 1868, 8vo); Kliefoth, Erklar. (Schw. 1868, 8vo); Fuller, Erklar. (Basel, 1868, 8vo). SEE PROPHETS.