Interpretation of the book of the prophet Daniel

Chapter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The fourth place in the series of prophetic books of the Old Testament is occupied in the Greek-Slavic Bible by the book of the prophet Daniel, which received a similar name on behalf of its author. He was Daniel (“God judged me,” or “God is my judge”), a noble Jew (Dan.1:3, 6), taken in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim to Babylon (Dan.1:1, 3-6), brought up here at the royal court (Dan.1:4, 17-18), elevated to a high court rank for interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan.1:4, 17-18). Dan.2:48–49) and preserved it until the third year of the reign of Cyrus (Dan.10:1). The book of Daniel is recognized as the work of this person in both the Old Testament and New Testament churches. The exponent of the first view is the Jewish historian Josephus. “Having ended his life,” he says, Daniel acquired eternal memory, for the books that he wrote and left behind are still read among us today. And we are convinced by them that he talked with God. He left these things written down, which made clear to us the accuracy and immutability of his prophecies” (Jude 10:7). In the same (Jude Ancient 10:11) I. Flavius ​​considers the desecration of the Jerusalem temple by Antiochus Epiphanes as an exact fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel (Dan. 11:31), “pronounced in 408 years.” This evidence is in no way weakened by the Talmud's remark that the book of Daniel was written by the men of the Great Synagogue. And first of all, the Talmudists included the prophet Daniel among the members of this latter group, and in this case the book named after him could have been compiled by him himself. Secondly, the activities of the members of the Great Synagogue consisted, according to Talmudic tradition, in the revision, purification and division of the sacred books, or more precisely, the compilation of the canon. In accordance with this, the book of the prophet Daniel was “written” by them only in the sense that, after a preliminary revision, it was included in the canon. The Christian Church, having accepted the canon of sacred books from the Old Testament, testified to the authenticity of the book of the prophet Daniel through the lips of its Divine Founder. “So when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place,” let those who read understand, “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains” (Matthew 24:15–16). In these words, Jesus Christ affirms not only the existence of the prophet Daniel himself, but also the prophecy about the weeks that belongs to him (Dan.9:25–27). It was “spoken” by Daniel in the sense that it was written down and given to the church by himself 1 . In later times, the authenticity of the book of Daniel was recognized and defended against the attacks of the Neoplatonist Porphyry by Eusebius of Caesarea, Methodius of Tire, Apollinaris of Laodicea and Blessed Jerome. And such a view of it finds a solid basis in the writer’s self-testimony. Very often he calls himself by his own name: “I am Daniel” (Dan.7:2, 15, 28; Dan.8:1, 15, 27; Dan.9:2; Dan.10:2; Dan.12:5), says that others called him the same (Dan.9:22; Dan.10:11-12; Dan.12:4, 9), repeatedly notes that he received orders from an Angel to write down his visions, even sealed them (Dan.10:11), and, indeed, wrote them down (Dan.7:1). The Prophet Daniel poses as a contemporary of the Babylonian captivity. In accordance with this, his book bears traces of Babylonian origin: it, as a genuine work of a contemporary of the captivity, bears the imprint of this era. Its indicator is, first of all, the language of the book - Hebrew (Dan.1–2:3 and Dan.8–12 chapters) and Aramaic (Dan.2:4–7:28 chapters). As a Jew by origin, the author knows his native language, and as a Babylonian by residence, he knows Aramaic, the popular language in Babylon. He assumes the same familiarity with both dialects in the readers of his book - the Jews. The Aramaic language became accessible to the masses only during the period of captivity; Until then, it was the property of only the educated (2 Kings 18:26; Isaiah 36:11). But using the Aramaic dialect during the captivity, the people did not forget their native language (Ezra writes in Hebrew), as we see later, under the Maccabees. The Babylonian captivity was indeed a time when the Jews combined both dialects of the book of the prophet Daniel. No less clearly speak about its Babylonian origin and the peculiarities of the language. According to biblical scholars, the Hebrew dialect of the book of Daniel is similar to the language of the contemporary book of the exile of the prophet Ezekiel, and the Aramaic is similar to the language of the post-captivity books of Ezra and Nehemiah. This similarity is most clearly reflected in the use of rarely occurring words, the so-called harach legomena. So, “bug” Dan.1:5 = Ezek.25:7; "huv" Dan.1:10 = Ezek.18:7; “zevi” Dan.8:9 = Ezek.20:6, 15; "kelal" Dan.10:6 = Ezek.1:7 ; "zegar" Dan.12:3 = Ezek.8:2; “ben-adam” Dan.8:17 = Ezek.2:1, 3, 6, 8; Ezek.3:1, 3, 4, etc. An example of the coincidence of the adverbs of the book of Daniel and Ezra are, for example, the following expressions: “shemu” Dan.6:5 = 1 Ezra 4:22; “fail” Dan.2:5 = 1Ezra 6:11; “pitgama” Dan.4:14 = 1Ezra 6:17; “sim teem” Dan.5:2 = 1Ezra 5:4; 1Ezra 6:1; “di” Dan.5:30 = 1Ezra 5:17, etc. The presence in it of Persianisms and Babylonianisms, that is, words explained from Persian and Babylonian terminology, is quite consistent with the era of writing the book of the prophet Daniel. These are, according to the instructions of the exegetes: “azda” Dan.2:5, 8 from the ancient Persian “aranda” - science; "gaddam" Dan.2:5; Dan.3:29 – from the Persian “handam” – member; “patbag” Dan.1:5, 8, 13 – from the ancient Persian “patibaga” - meal of the gods; “Gedaberim” Dan.3:2, 3 – from the ancient Persian “gasbar” – treasurer; “foot” Dan.3:3, 27 – from the ancient Persian “paik” - governor. "Arioch" Dan.2:14 = Assyrian. Eri Aсhu, i.e. slave of the Moon goddess; "Meshach" Dan.1:6 = Assir. Misa Achu, i.e. who is like Aku - the moon god; “Shadrach” Dan.1:6 = Sudar Achu, i.e. the command of the god Aku; “Abednego” Dan.1:6 = Abad Nabu, i.e. servant of the god Heaven; “ashafim” Dan.2:2 = Assyrian. "assipu"; “tabagaya” Dan.2:14 = Assyrian. "tabihu"; “hashhin” Dan.3:16 = Assyrian. haspuhu, etc. As the work of a contemporary and eyewitness of the events described, the book of the prophet Daniel is further distinguished by the complete historical accuracy of its messages. Such, for example, are the stories about the taking of Jewish captives to Babylon not personally by Nebuchadnezzar himself, but on his orders by Aspenaz (Dan. 1:3), about the education of captive youths at the royal palace and in court schools (Dan. 1: 5–6), about the division of the Chaldean priests and government officials into various classes (chap. 2 and 4; Dan. 3: 3), about the Nebuchadnezzar on the field of Dvir, a huge golden statue (Dan.3), about the procession accompanying its opening, about Nebuchadnezzar’s illness, etc. All of them are confirmed in wedge-shaped inscriptions and the testimony of ancient writers. (For more information about this and much more, see the interpretations of the text). Even what was previously considered a mistake on the part of the prophet (the names and personalities of Belshazzar and Darius the Mede), now turns out, thanks to the latest discoveries in the field of Assyriology, to be undeniably true. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the eyes of impartial scientists this feature of the book of the prophet Daniel is one of the convincing proofs of its authenticity. “The more often I read the book of the prophet Daniel,” says Lenormand, “the more clearly the truth of the picture of ancient Babylon appears to me. Only a contemporary and eyewitness could have painted such a picture.” “The Book of Daniel,” notes another scholar, Menan, “reproduces with the greatest accuracy the Chaldean civilization of the era of Nebuchadnezzar. An apocryphist could not write like that.” Justified by the contents of the book, the testimony of the prophet Daniel about himself as a contemporary of the Babylonian captivity is finally confirmed by the book of the prophet Ezekiel. His appeal to the Tyrian king: “You are wiser than Daniel” (Ezek. 28:3) - suggests that contemporaries of the captivity were familiar with the contents of the first five chapters of the book of Daniel, which tell about his outstanding wisdom. Another place in the book of the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 14:14–20) refers to the story of the second chapter of the book of Daniel about his saving the lives of the Chaldean wise men. While, in the light of these data, the question of the authenticity of the book of the prophet Daniel is resolved by orthodox biblical literature in the affirmative sense, representatives of the negative direction do not attach any importance to them. Thus, Kunen tries to weaken the strength of the testimony of Jesus Christ about Daniel by pointing out that the words about the “abomination of desolation spoken by the prophet Daniel” do not belong to Him, but to the evangelist, and Berthold and de Wette put forward against the self-testimony of Daniel the consideration that in the book of his name there are so many excessive praises of Daniel that the prophet himself could not in any case write about himself like that. But as for Künen’s statement, there is nothing to prove the fact that the evangelist changed the Lord’s words about the prophecy of the seventy weeks belonging to Daniel: according to the context, they belong to the Savior, and not to the evangelist Matthew. Likewise, the cases of praise addressed to him found in the book of the prophet Daniel do not at all speak against the authorship of the prophet. And indeed, in Daniel’s instructions on his virtues (Dan.1:17, 19–20; Dan.6:4) there is not even a shadow of self-praise. He considers them a work of God's mercy, and not the fruit of personal efforts. The mercy of God caused the prophet to please the chief of the eunuchs (Dan. 1:9); God, and not his own wisdom, reveals to him the highest secrets (Dan. 2:18–23, 28, 30); He gave him the understanding of “visions and dreams” (Dan. 1:17); the spirit of God exalted Daniel under Darius the Mede (Dan.6:3). The prophet's modesty and humility are not weakened by self-praise, since along with them he talks about his sins, which he repented of (Dan.9:20), about his mental and moral weaknesses (Dan.10:8; Dan.12:8). Even less evidence of Daniel’s self-praise are those parts of his book in which he gives reviews of himself from outsiders (Dan.5:11-12; Dan.9:23; Dan.10:11). Not content with trying to weaken the strength of external and internal evidence of the authenticity of the book of the prophet Daniel, representatives of the negative movement cite a number of positive data to confirm the idea of ​​​​its forgery. According to some of them, the book of the prophet Daniel is not the work of one writer, but is a collection of individual passages compiled at different times by different authors and then combined by an unknown editor. Thus, Michaelis counts 8 similar passages and, therefore, eight original writers, Berthold - 9, and Eichhorn - even 10. Hahneberg and, most recently, Delitzsch (The Bible and Babylon. 4th ed., p. 51, 1907) look at the book named after him as a collection of individual stories about Daniel. Other scholars - Zakk, Herbst, Kohler - distinguish two parts in the book of Daniel, historical and prophetic (chap. 1-6 and 7-12), as two independent literary works. The basis for denying the unity of the book of the prophet Daniel, and therefore the authenticity, is the use of two dialects in it - Hebrew (Dan.1:1-2:3 - Dan.8-12 ch.) and Aramaic (Dan.2:5-7:28 ch.), the name of the prophet is in the first person (chap. 7-12), then in the third (chap. 1-6) and, finally, some alleged contradictions ( Dan.1:21 cf. Dan.10:1; Dan.2:47 cf. Dan.3:15; Convincing for critics of rationalists, and even then not for everyone (the exceptions are Bleek - Wellhausen, Berman), these considerations are in fact so weak that in no way can they speak against the unity and authenticity of the book of the prophet Daniel. In its duality of language it is similar to the writings of Ezra and Nehemiah. In Ezra, mostly foreign royal decrees and letters are presented in Aramaic to confirm their historical authenticity (1 Ezra 4:11–22; 1 Ezra 5:6–17). For the same reasons, Daniel cited in Aramaic the speech of the Chaldean wise men and Nebuchadnezzar’s responses to it (Dan. 2:4–11), his two decrees (Dan. 3:96–100; 4 ch.), probably published in Aramaic, and the decree of Darius the Mede (Dan. 6:25–27). Likewise, the rest of the content of the Aramaic section required presentation only in this dialect. All the events described in it proclaim the endless omnipotence of the supreme King Lord, who holds in his power all the kingdoms of the earth; they are a visual self-revelation, a self-testimony of the true God among the pagans of the Babylonian empire. And if the latter were to learn this truth, then the only way to do this was to present the events revealing it in their native language, which they understood. The prophet expounds what the Babylonians need in Aramaic. Accordingly, it can be said without error that the rest of his book was written in Hebrew because it was intended for the Jewish people, represented and had meaning exclusively for them. And this, indeed, is the description of the life of the prophet Daniel, his upbringing and rise at the royal court (chap. 1). These are also the visions of the pagan kingdoms in their relationship to the Jewish people (chap. 8, 10–11), the prophecy of the weeks (chap. 9) and the future resurrection. The duality of the language of the book of the prophet Daniel does not, therefore, speak against its unity. But this is not enough. Unity is not disturbed by duality. The Aramaic and Hebrew departments are in the closest connection, and one without the other is incomprehensible. Thus, the Aramaic section of the historical part (Dan. 2:4–6 ch.) cannot be separated from the Hebrew (Dan. 1:1–2:3), because the beginning of the story about Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is in the Hebrew section, and the direct continuation is in the Aramaic. Namely, Daniel 2:4 says: “And the Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic.” Who were the Chaldeans, on what occasion, when and to what king did they speak, the answer to these questions is given only by the Hebrew passage Daniel 2:1-3. In the Aramaic part, both names of the prophet are used without explanation: Daniel and Belshazzar (Dan.2:26; Dan.4:5–6, 15–16; Dan.5:12), since the explanation is given by the author in the Hebrew part (Dan.1:7). The Aramaic story about Belshazzar's desecration of the vessels of the Jerusalem temple (Dan. 5 etc.) refers to the Jewish story Dan. 1:2. Likewise, the Hebrew section presupposes Aramaic in its expressions. Thus, the expression Daniel 8:1: “a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after the one that appeared to me before,” refers the reader to the vision of the seventh Aramaic chapter. In the same way, other words of the same eighth chapter: “I... began to attend to the affairs of the king” (Dan.8:27), find their explanation in the previous Aramaic section (Dan.2:48–49; Dan.5:29; Dan.6:28). Different in language, the Hebrew and Aramaic sections of the book of the prophet Daniel are also similar in symbolic images (chap. 7 cf. ch. 8, 10 and 11), expressions (Dan.7:25 = Dan.8:25; Dan.7:25 = Dan.12:7; Dan.2:34, 45 = Dan.8:25; Dan.4:27 = Dan.8:24; Dan.12:7) and the thoughts revealed in them. They are imbued with the idea of ​​​​the dependence of pagan kingdoms and rulers on the almighty God of Israel, who holds all the kingdoms of the earth in His power, about the transience of these latter and the eternity of the Kingdom of the Lord, triumphant over paganism. The unity of the book of the prophet Daniel is not undermined by the fact that in the historical part (chap. 1-6) the prophet is spoken of in the third person, as an outsider, and in the prophetic part (7-12) - in the first, as a person speaking about himself. This way of expression is not anything unusual in biblical writing; it is also observed in other prophets. When recounting their visions, they, like Daniel, speak about themselves in the first person (Isa.6:1; Is.8:1, 5; Is.21:2, 6, 10; Jer.1:4; Jer.2:1; Ezek.1:4), and in historical stories they express themselves in the third (Is.1:1; Is.2:1; Is.7:3; Jer.1:1, 2; Jer.7:1 ; Jer.14:1 ; Eze.1, etc.). The reasons for this phenomenon, according to exegetes, are that in visions that require vivid images, the first person is much more appropriate than the third. Like the opponents of the unity of the book of the prophet Daniel, its authenticity is also rejected by those exegetes who claim that it is not the work of a contemporary of the Babylonian captivity, but was written by an unknown person in Palestine during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees between 170 and 164 BC. The first defender of this view was the Neoplatonist Porphyry, followed by Spinoza, Berthold, Lengerke, Knobel, Hitzig, Bunsen, Bachmann, Ewald, Noldeke, Graf, Rome, Stade, Kühnen, Cornille, König, Meingolad and most recently Delitzsch. The only direct basis for attributing the origin of the book of the prophet Daniel to the era of Antiochus Epiphanes are Daniel 8:23–25 and Daniel 11:31, considered by the listed scientists, starting with the Neoplatonist Porphyry, not as a prophecy about the distant future, but as a description of past events in prophetic form. But such an understanding of these passages meets with an irremovable objection in the testimony of the writer of the 1st Book of Maccabees. If the book of Daniel was written under Antiochus Epiphanes, then why did its imaginary contemporary, the author of the Book of Maccabees, consider it a prophecy about this time (1 Mac. 2:49–62; 1 Mac. 1:39–54 = Dan. 9:27; Dan. 11: 31–32)? Referred to for the above reasons to the era of Antiochus Epiphanes, the book of Daniel is considered by the above-mentioned persons to be an allegorical legendary reproduction of the history of this king and the Maccabean times. Under the name of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and Darius the Mede, Antiochus is supposedly depicted in various manifestations of his hatred of Judaism, and under the name of Daniel and his friends - the Jews persecuted by Epiphanes. The unnaturalness of such parallels is self-evident. Daniel and his friends are brought up at the royal court, surrounded by honors, sometimes, however, they live in separation from the affairs of government; the Maccabean Jews, on the contrary, were the target of Antiochus’s persecution and were mercilessly persecuted by him. Daniel was a friend of the kings who revered him, treated them with respect and sympathy (Dan.2:38; Dan.4:16); The Maccabees call Antiochus “the inventor of all evils, the wicked and most criminal of all people” (2 Mac. 7:31–37), foretelling him the terrible wrath of God. The Babylonian and Median kings, under the leadership of Daniel, knew the power of the Most High, glorified the power of His omniscience, omnipotence, Justice (Dan.2:47; Dan.3:95; Dan.4:34; Dan.6:26-27), and Antiochus set out to destroy the Jewish religion, replace it with a pagan one, and therefore demanded that the Jews renounce rituals, circumcision, offering sacrifices to the Lord (1 Mac.1:41–42; 1 Mac.1:44–50). No less weak are the other considerations of scientists in defense of the Maccabean, or rather post-exilic, origin of the book of the prophet Daniel. This is, first of all, their reference to the absence of the name of the prophet in the list of famous men of antiquity found in Jesus son of Sirach: from Ezekiel and the 12 prophets he goes directly to Zerubbabel (Sir.49:10-13), and to the unfamiliarity with the book of Daniel of the post-exilic prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Sirach's silence about the prophet Daniel, which is incomprehensible in its reasons, cannot, however, serve as a basis for attributing the latter's life to a later era, based on the fact that Jehoshaphat and Ezra, not mentioned by Sirach, should also be recognized as having lived in the 3rd century. BC Without mentioning the name of Daniel, Sirach is thought to be familiar with his book, evidence of which is his teaching about the leaders of each nation and the remark about the succession of monarchies (Sir. 17:14; cf. Dan. 2: 37–45). As for the unfamiliarity of the post-exilic prophets with the book of Daniel, that too is fictitious and not real. Thus, some dark places in the prophecies of Zechariah become clear only when they are compared with the corresponding prophecies of Daniel, which they assume to be known. This includes the exegetes' vision of the four horns, “scattering Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem” (Zech. 1:18–21) and the four chariots with different horses in each (Zech. 6:1–8). A complete parallel to both is Daniel's visions of the four kingdoms that successively ruled over the Jews. There is no mention at all of the Maccabean origin of the book of the prophet Daniel and the peculiarities of its language, primarily the Greek expressions found in it. Berthold counts ten of them: panterim (Dan.1:3) - famous 2, from προτιμοι; pitgam (Dan.3:16; Dan.4:14) – word 3, from φλεγμα; karoz (Dan.3:4) – herald, from κηρυξ; keraz (Dan.5:29) – to proclaim, from κηρυσσειν; patisch (Dan.3:21) – undergarment, from πετασος; nebisba (Dan.2:6; Dan.5:17) – gift 4, from νομισμα; sabka (Dan.3:5) from σαμβυκη; sumphonia (Dan. 3:5), from συμφωνια; pesanterim (Dan.3:5) from ψαλτηριον, kriros from κιυαρις. 5 Other scientists, Lykke and de Wette, significantly limit this number: they recognize the names of four musical instruments as undoubtedly Greek words. Their use in the book of the prophet Daniel cannot serve as evidence of its composition in the era of Alexander the Great and the spread of the Greek language in the east, i.e., not earlier than the 3rd century, as scientists say, for two reasons. Firstly, mutual relations between the Babylonians and Greeks began long before Alexander the Great, even before Nebuchadnezzar. Thus, a contemporary of the prophet Isaiah, the Assyrian king Sargon knew, as can be seen from one Ionian inscription, and called the Mediterranean Sea washing the island of Cyprus the Ionian Sea and even received ambassadors from the seven princes of this island (Ragozina. History of Assyria. P. 306). Later, Asargadon and Assurbanipal subjugated the Greek kings of the islands of Paphos, Cyprus, etc.; finally, during the Babylonian captivity, the Greeks were already so familiar with the East that a contemporary of the captivity, Anaximander, compiled a map of the ancient world. Given such acquaintance, it is not surprising if the Assyro-Babylonians had long known Greek musical instruments and came into use among them under their Greek names. Indeed, the psalter is depicted on the bas-relief of Assurbanipal, and the cithara in an improved form is depicted on the monuments of later kings. Secondly, the Greek origin of the instruments and their names mentioned by Daniel is not nearly as indisputable as they think. Athenaeus considers, for example, Syria to be the place of origin of the samvica, and Strabo calls it a “barbarian instrument.” From the east it moved to Greece, and not vice versa. Depending on this, the Semitic “sabka” can be recognized not as a derivative form from the Greek “σαμβυκη”, but as an original one in relation to this latter. As for the name “kifara”, it perhaps comes from the Persian “sitareh” - six-string. Finally, “pesanterim” is recognized as a word of Semitic origin, derived either from “phas” - hand and “natar” to jump, or from the Arabic “santir” - harp. This conclusion was recently reached by the Danish scientist Ditlef-Nielsen, who claims that kitros, pesanterim, and sinopeia represent sayings that were formed not from Greek, but from the foundations of the Chaldean or ancient Aramaic language (Chronicle Ch. 1903. 1, p. 674). In addition to the names of musical instruments, in the language of the book of the prophet Daniel, according to scientists, there are other features that distinguish it from the language of captivity and bring it closer to the language of the post-captivity era. Thus, Daniel calls Nebuchadnezzar, they say, Nebukadnetsar, and the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 26:7), as in the wedge-shaped inscriptions, Nebukadnetsar. The pronunciation of Daniel is a later resounding of this name, which has parallels in LXX, Berosus and Josephus. But pointing out only these parallels means omitting the fact that the name Nebukadnetsar is found in the prophet Jeremiah Jer. 26:7; Jer. 29:18, 19 and 2 Kings 25:22, and therefore its use in the book of Daniel cannot serve as evidence of its later origin. This is also not indicated by the coincidence of its language with the language of the Talmud and Aramaic: in both, “continuous sacrifice” 6 is designated by the word “tamid” (Dan.8:11-12; Dan.11:31), in Nehemiah it is “olah tamid” (Neh.10:34) 7; “generation”, “generation” – “gil” (Dan.1:3; Dan.3:10), “to circumcise” – “chattak” (Dan.9:24), “to write down” – “rascham” (Dan.10:21). These and similar examples - the 2nd person plural form - “Khom” and “hom” only testify to the closeness of the language of the book of the prophet Daniel to Aramaic and to its greater coloring with Aramaic forms than in other writers, although in these latter one can often find “apax-legomena”, which have parallels only in the Aramaic dialect (Yungerov ibid, p. 95–6). As a sign of the post-exilic origin of the book of the prophet Daniel, they also point to the use in it of the word “Chaldeans” in the common sense of “wise men” (Dan.1:4; Dan.2:4, 10; Dan.5:7, 11); It supposedly could not have had such a meaning in the Babylonian era. But the use of the term “Chaldeans” in the meaning of “sages” is confirmed by the testimony of ancient writers, among other things, Diodorus Siculus and Herodotus, of whom the first calls them people who “devote their entire lives to the pursuit of philosophical thinking and astrology.” The statement that the Babylonian sages could not speak Aramaic (Dan. 2:4), that is, the language of the Palestinian Syrians, is also unfounded. Already the prophet Isaiah notes that the Assyrian officials of Sennacherib and the Jewish Hezekiah explained themselves “in Aramaic” (Is. 36:11). The Prophet Jeremiah recognized the Aramaic language as commonly used in Babylon (Jer. 10:11). The last evidence for attributing the book of Daniel to the post-exilic – Maccabean era is its supposedly later beliefs. This is the teaching about God (Dan.7:9-10), about the Messiah - the Son of Man (Dan.7:13) and His eternal Kingdom (Dan.2:44; Dan.7:13-14; Dan.12:1-3), about the angels high and low (Dan.8:16; Dan.9:21; Dan.12:1), about the resurrection of the dead (Dan.12:2), about the custom of praying three times a day, facing Jerusalem (Dan. 6:10), about fasting, etc. But all these beliefs have an earlier origin. Thus, the image of the Most High is defined by almost the same features in the prophet Ezekiel (cf. Dan. 7:9–10 and Ezek. 1:26–27); Isaiah and other exiled prophets speak about the Messiah and His eternal, righteous and peaceful reign (Is.9:6-7; Ps.71:1). The doctrine of Angels is one of the essential points of Old Testament dogma. The completed books speak about the chief strategists and the heavenly host (Josh. 5:14; Ps. 102:20–21), about the Angels of peoples and tribes (Ex. 14:19; Ex. 23:20; Ex. 32:34), about the guardian angels of individuals (Gen. 16: 7–9; Gen. 19:1; Gen. 21:17); Job 33:23, etc.); The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is also not alien to them (Job.19:25-32; Is.26:19, 21; Hos.13:14; Ezek.37:3-14). The custom of praying to God three times a day existed long before the captivity (Ps. 54:18). The captive Jews also had to direct their prayerful thoughts to Jerusalem and its church, as the place of the Lord’s residence (1 Kings 8:47–48; 2 Chronicles 6:34). As for fasting, the prophet Ezekiel, a contemporary of the Babylonian captivity, also took care of preserving himself from defilement by food (Ezek. 4:14). In terms of its content, the book of the prophet Daniel is divided into two parts: historical (chap. 1–6) and prophetic (chap. 7–12). The first describes the life of the prophet Daniel and contemporary events in the Babylonian and Medo-Persian kingdoms, in which he or his friends were directly involved; the second sets out the visions and revelations that he had about the fate of Judea and the pagan kingdoms that had an influence on the history of the people of God, from the captivity of Babylon to the establishment of the Kingdom of the “saints of the Most High” on earth. The first of these, falling in the first year of Belshazzar, is a vision of four animals, signifying the four kingdoms in their successive sequence: Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Macedonian (Greek) and Roman (chap. 7); the second (third year of Belshazzar) vision of a ram and a goat, symbols of the Medo-Persian and Greek kingdoms (chap. 8); the third (the first year of Darius the Mede) a vision of seventy weeks (chap. 9) and, finally, the fourth - a vision of the future fate of the Jewish people in connection with the history of two pagan kingdoms - Egyptian and Syrian (chap. 10-12). Different in content, both parts of the book of the prophet Daniel reveal one teaching about the universal Kingdom of God and the Son of Man in their triumph over paganism. In its development, it comes down to two provisions: the world kingdom cannot forever remain in the power of the pagans, it exists only through the mediation and for the sake of Israel; in the person of the Son of Man, the latter is destined for dominion over the world, the implementation of the Kingdom of God on earth. The six initial chapters of the book of the prophet Daniel are devoted to clarifying the first position. Power over the world, they teach, belongs to the Almighty God alone. But His Kingdom will open and come after a certain time, after the fall of four world monarchies (chap. 2). Until this time, the Lord entrusts power over the universe to one or another monarch. Pagan kings can be rulers of the world only under the condition of recognizing the dependence of their power on the supreme power of God. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar, deprived of the throne for his pride and arrogant attitude towards the Lord of hosts, remained king only because at the end of his life he confessed the greatness and power of the God of Israel (chap. 4). But both this and the two preceding confessions (chap. 2–3) have meaning for him alone and are not accompanied by any results for his subjects. They remain pagans who do not know the true God, the God who grants salvation not only to the Jews, but also to them. Therefore, they cannot be the rulers of the world. And the further time goes, the clearer and clearer this impossibility becomes. Nebuchadnezzar's successors are already losing the concept of the origin of their power. His descendant Belshazzar knew that kingdom, majesty, honor and glory are bestowed by God (Dan. 5:18-22), and nevertheless he ascended against the Lord of heaven - he desecrated the vessels of the Jerusalem temple. For this he lost his throne and his life: the Babylonian empire perishes when its ruler forgets the true God. Power passes to another king - Darius the Mede. He did not need, like Nebuchadnezzar, instructions from the prophet Daniel to know the true God, whom he considered the ruler of the universe. He also respects Daniel, seeing in him a servant of God. But this abstract knowledge did not bring Darius any benefit. He does not have the strength and courage to publicly confess his faith in God and protect His servant Daniel - he allows him to be thrown into the lions' den. Darius is not an enemy of God, like Belshazzar, but also not such a convinced admirer of Him as Nebuchadnezzar. He acts indecisively, sometimes acts contrary to his conscience, sometimes in accordance with it. The characterless Darius, not firm in his faith, could not be the ruler of the world, just like the frivolous Belshazzar. This is how the main position of the book of the prophet Daniel about the inability of the pagans to be rulers of the world is explained using examples from the life of pagan kings. The concept of the true God, by whom kings reign, not only does not make progress among them, but, on the contrary, is weakened more and more. Under such conditions, power over the world cannot remain in the hands of the pagans, but must pass to another people. And this people can only be Israel. He became the ruler of the nations and the universe already under Nebuchadnezzar in the person of his representative the prophet Daniel. But he will become the real ruler of the world only after the fall of the fourth monarchy. The kingdom will then pass to the “saints of the Most High,” headed by the Son of Man, and they will possess it “for ever and ever.” The restoration of the glory and power of Israel in this and not any other period is determined by the fact that only at this time will all its sins be forgiven, which until now have prevented the opening of the universal Kingdom of God among it (chap. 9). The composition of the universal kingdom that is opening from this moment will include all those “written in the book.” The dead who will subsequently be resurrected will also become members of it. They will rise to share in the benefits of salvation, to receive the reward for their piety. Sinners will also rise, but in order to be punished for the evil they have done (chap. 10-12). The head of this eternal kingdom will be the Son of man, the promised Messiah. In the Greek-Slavic Bible, the book of the prophet Daniel occupies fourth place among the prophetic books. It is assigned to her, according to the calculation of the Old Testament books, in the Codex Sinaiticus (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and the 12 prophets). In the codes of Alexandria, the Vatican, in the 85th Apostolic Rule, 60 Ave. of the Council of Laodicea in the 39th Feast Epistle of Athanasius the Great, among the church fathers - Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, Amphilochius of Iconia, Epiphanius of Cyprus, John of Damascus, the book of Daniel is placed last among the prophetic, and in the register of Meliton of Sardis and Origen - formerly the book of the prophet Ezekiel. Placed in the Christian canon in the department of prophetic writings, the book of Daniel occupies a different place among Jews. Under Sirach, it apparently was not considered prophetic (Sir.49:10-12), under Josephus it was recognized as such (Jude. Ancient. 10-11), and now, as under Blessed Jerome, it belongs to the department of scriptures (ketubim). “I remind you,” he says, “that the Jews did not consider Daniel among the prophets, but among those who were written by ethnographers.” Indeed, the Talmudists did not recognize Daniel as a prophet. “Daniel, we read in the Midrash, was not a prophet, even if compared with the last three prophets, but he was a seer and an apocalyptic, which they were not” (Furst. Kanon., 101 p.). According to the Jews contemporary to Blessed Jerome, the assignment of the book of the prophet Daniel to the “scriptures” department was determined by his life at a foreign court (Comm. in. Dan. Dan. 1: 3). The presence of the book of the prophet Daniel in the most ancient calculations of canonical books is convincing and clear proof of its canonical dignity. As canonical, although without mentioning the name of the author, it is often quoted in the New Testament in the speeches of Jesus Christ and His apostles. Thus, in addition to the reference to Daniel 9:27, the Savior applies to Himself the title “Son of Man” borrowed, in general opinion, from the book of Daniel (Dan.7:13; Matt.10:23; Matt.16:27–28; Matt.19:28; Matt.24:30; Matt.25:31, etc.) and thereby confirms its messianicity inspired teaching. Quite in accordance with Daniel, the image of the “Son of Man” is also outlined by Jesus Christ. He comes on the clouds with power and glory, He sits at the right hand of power (Matt. 24:30; Matt. 25:31–32; Luke 22:69; Mark 14:61–62; Dan. 7:13–14). In the same prophecy of Daniel, the vision of the Son of Man by Archdeacon Stephen finds its explanation (Acts 7:56). Likewise, the Apostle Paul, speaking about the men who extinguished the power of the fire and stopped the mouths of the lions (Heb. 11:33–34), undoubtedly has in mind the persons described in the book of Daniel (chap. 3 and 6), and characterizes the Antichrist in the same way (2 Sol. 2:4; Dan. 11:36–39). Finally, in the Apocalypse there are quite a few images and symbols explained from the book of the prophet Daniel, especially from Chapter 7. (Rev.11:7, 15 = Dan.7:7, 27; Rev.5:11 = Dan.7:10; Rev.20:4, 11 = Dan.7:9, etc.). The book of the prophet Daniel has reached us in two ancient translations - Jewish Masoretic and Greek. The latter was adopted by the church not in the edition of LXX, but of Theodotion. “The Church of the Lord,” says Blessed Jerome in the preface to the translation of the book. Daniel, they do not read the book of the prophet Daniel according to the translation of the LXX interpreters, using the edition of Theodotion.” Coming into use at the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th century, Theodotion’s edition was famous in earlier times. Based on his translation, the book of Daniel was read not only by Origen, Hippolytus, Tertullian, but by Hermas and Clement of Rome, and from it translations of the book were made into other languages: ancient Latin, Coptic, Arabic and Slavic. This preference for Theodotion's translation in the book of Daniel over the LXX text is explained by the faulty nature of the latter. According to Blessed Jerome, he “strongly diverges from the truth (Hebrew text) and is therefore justly rejected.” The latest research could not have confirmed the legitimacy of such a review. In the LXX translation, the book of the prophet Daniel does not reproduce its Hebrew-Aramaic original. At every step there are various changes in phrases and individual expressions of the original; omissions and abbreviations alternate with expansion of the text. No chapter is free from such mistakes and shortcomings. In this respect they are all the same; the difference between them lies only in the fact that the general imperfection of the translation takes on different shades in different chapters, appearing sometimes in larger and sometimes smaller sizes. The translation of chapters 1–3 is the closest to the original. and 7–12 ch. In general, they are translated correctly and carefully, although they preserve the meaning more than the letter. This feature is especially clear in chapters 1–3 and 7. The idea of ​​the original is conveyed in them historically, correctly and skillfully, so that neither the original meaning of the words nor the genius of the language suffers here. On the contrary, Ch. 8–12 follow the letter of the original, follow so slavishly that, for example, Ch. 11 can only be understood by comparison with the original. But while the translation is generally satisfactory, this group of chapters also presents quite a few cases of various deviations from the original. Free translation alternates with additions, omissions and outright misunderstandings. At the same time, some of the incorrectly translated passages reveal a lack of historical knowledge in the author, while others reveal direct bias. So, 5–20 tbsp. Chapter 11 present in the original a bare but accurate overview of the history of the Ptolemies and Seleucids, and v. 21–39. a detailed prophetic depiction of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Meanwhile, the translator, not understanding the original, distorted it and painted a completely false picture. An example of bias is the translation of Chapter 11. The author attributes the prophecy contained in it about 70 weeks to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and, accordingly, changes the numbers of the original: instead of 7 and 62 weeks, which had to pass from the publication of the decree on the restoration of Jerusalem to Christ, he put 77 and 62, giving a total of 139 - the number indicating the beginning of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes in the Seleucid era. The translation of chapters 4–6 has a completely different character. The deviation of their Greek Alexandrian text from the Aramaic is similar to as if the matter was not about different readings, but about two completely independent stories. The translator disposes of the text of these chapters with unlimited freedom: he either expands it (Dan.4:7–9, 16, 24, 28, 30, 34; Dan.5:4, 6, 30; Dan.6:18, 20, etc.), or shortens it (Dan.4:3–7, 11–13; Dan.5:1–3, 10–11); Dan.6:8). The arbitrariness that prevails here is incredible: without any right, the translator either interprets the text, then paraphrases, or shortens it. Almost not a single verse of the Greek text corresponds to the Masoretic one; in many cases a word or two remains from the original (Bludau. Die alexandrinische Ubersetzung des Buches Daniel und ihr Verhaltnisszum massoretischen Text. Freiburg. 1897.). The rejection by the ancient church of the Alexandrian translation of the book of the prophet Daniel was the reason that it fell out of use in subsequent times and was almost lost. It was found at the end of the 18th century. and published in Rome in 1772 based on a 9th century manuscript. Another feature of the Alexandrian translation of the book. the prophet Daniel is the existence in it of additions that are unnecessary against the Hebrew text. This is Art. 24–90 of the third chapter (Dan 3.24–90), the story of Susanna, set out in chapter 13, and the stories of chapter 14. about Vila and the dragon. (See the appropriate places for details). Literature: Archbishop Theodore (Bukharev). Holy Prophet Daniel. Essay on his century, prophetic ministry and St. books. M. 1864. – About the book of the holy prophet Daniel. Add. to creativity Holy Father. 1871, 1 –146 p. - Smirnov. Holy Prophet Daniel and his book. Ryaz. 1879 – Razumovsky. Holy Prophet Daniel. St. Petersburg 1891. – Lesotsky. Holy Prophet Daniel. Kyiv. 1897 – A. Rozhdestvensky. Revelation to Daniel about the seventy weeks. St. Petersburg 1896 – P. Yungerov. A private historical-critical introduction to the sacred Old Testament books. Vol. second. pp. 87–110. Kazan. 1907. He also lists outstanding foreign literature about the book. Prophet Daniel. Yungerov. Particular Introduction to the Holy Old Testament Books. Vol. 2, p. 100 in Daniel 1:3, both in Russian and in Slavic with LXX translations, there is no word in this verse - famous; approx. ed. the word “word” is not in the Russian translation; it is in Slavonic with LXX: Dan.3:16 - you do not need us to answer you about this verb; Dan.4:14 is a word of courage, and a word of prayer for the saints; approx. ed. gifts; in Slav. LXX-i – giving; approx. ed. Sabka, sumphonia, pesanterim, kriros are the names of musical instruments. Note ed. in Russian translation – “altar”, in Slavic – “altar”; approx. ed. You might be interested in: