In earlier times the unity of the book was generally accepted, the only apparent exception being Josephus who speaks of several books written by Daniel, 'Antiquities' x, 267. Even the deutero-canonical sections were widely re garded as a part of the original work, in spite of Jerome's attitude, and the ascription of xiv to ethe prophet Habakkuk.' Until the 17th century the entire Hebrew-Aramaic text seems to have been assigned to the same author. But Spinoza distinguished between the stories which he did not ascribe to Daniel, and the visions. A similar view was taken by Isaac Newton (1732) and Isaac Beausobre (1742), while Edward Wells, 'A Help to the Understanding of Daniel' (1716), suggested that chapter i was written after Daniels time. J. D. Michaelis (1772) re garded the book as made of independent sec tions; Eichhorn (1787) regarded ii-vi as a work later than the exile but earlier than the Macca bwan age when i, vii-xii were written; and Ber tholdt (1808) considered the book as a com pilation of at least seven distinct pamphlets, the visions from the days of Antiochus IV, and the stories earlier. Volney, 'Recherches nouvelles sur l'histoire ancienne (1814), thought of sev eral authors living after Antiochus IV, one of them in the Roman period. Lagarde (Galt. gekhrte Anzeige, 1891), maintained that vii was written in 69 A.D., and that josephus did not have in his copy either vii or ix-xii. Hertlein has developed the theory more fully, assigning ii, vii, ix-xii to the year 70 A.D. Barton (1898) suggested, in addition to the introductory chap ter, nine independent pamphlets written by three or four different authors between 168 and 164 B.C. Views similar to that of Eichhorn have been expressed by Meinhold (1884), Strack, Wildeboer, Torrey, Kent, Sellin and Schmidt. Meinhold assigned ii-vi to the first part of the 3d century, vii-xii to the Maccabman period, and Torrey called special attention to the fact that no event later than the reign of Ptolemy III seems to be alluded to in ii, and dated the story-book c. 242 B.C. It seems necessary to assume several literary strata, such as (1) the 3d century Aramaic story book in which iii appears to have been a later insertion; (2) Daniel's -vision in Aramaic (vii), added to the story-book soon after 168 'cc.; (3) the visions in Hebrew (viii-xii) and the introduction in 165 a.c.; (4) the prayer in ix, 4-19, as pointed out by Gall and some minor interpolations, and (5), the deutero-canonical parts written in Aramaic be fore the end of the 2d century. Even strong defenders of the traditional view, like &lacier (1869), Myrberg (Bibelforskaren, 1894), Thompson (1897), and Wright (1906) have looked upon xi as an interpolation or an expan sion of the original text.
Among scholars maintaining the unity of the book it has generally been held until recent times that both the Hebrew and the Aramaic parts were written by Daniel. This opinion has been defended, with learning and acuteness, by Hengstenberg, Havernick, Pusey, Keil, Auber len, Hebberlynck, Comely, Wright and Wilson. Certain peculiarities, however, aroused doubts and questions already in antiquity, and in the last century many Protestant, Jewish and Cath olic scholars have been led to assign it as a whole to a later age. The Talmudic statement that Daniel was written by the men of the great synagogue °Baba bathre 15a, still remains obscure, but some kind of editorial activity is probably meant. Celsus (c. 178 A.D.) obviously did not believe in the story of Daniel in the lions' den or that it was told by the prophet himself, Origen, Celsum) vii, 53, 57; and even among Christians there seem to have been some doubts on this point in the time of Hippol ytus, (Com.) iii, 29, 4. Porphyry in the 3d century was forced to the conclusion that the author lived in the time of Antiochus IV. His opinions, set forth in the 12th book of his lost against the were fre uently quoted, sometimes with approval, by Jerome, who rejected the main thesis, but re marked, 'if this is said concerning Antiochus, what harm can it do to our religion?' Isidore of Seville (d. 632) declared that Daniel and Ezekiel were written aby some wise men' vi, 2. According to Maldonatus (1611),
some Maniclurans (Paulicians) and Anabap tists rejected the authenticity of Daniel; Tiriano was accused at Coira in 1547 of regard ing some parts of the Prophets as spurious, Comba, (I nostri protestanti) (II, 487, f. 1897). Uriel da Costa in 1624 maintained, in a lost work, 'That the book was written by some Phar isee in the Maccabwan period. (Levi athan) '(1651), only threw out the hint that Daniel and other early books may have received their present form after the exile, perhaps through Ezra. But Anthony Collins, The Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered) (1727), presented a solid array of arguments for a Mac cabman origin of the book; full justice has not yet been done to the scientific character of his reasoning. Corrodi (1781) regarded the work as made up of unconnected fragments written by an author living in the Maccababan age to which extensive additions and changes were subse quently made. Bleek (Theol. Zeitschrift,1822) urged against Eichhorn and Bertholdt the unity of the book and the Maccabwan origin of all its contents. This has become the view of a great majority of critics. Like Volney, Havet, (Le Christianisme et ses (1878), tbought of the Roman period, and he supposed that the author depicted Herod the Great under the guise of Antiochus IV. Among those who reject the unity, the visions are as a rule assigned to the Maccalkeari period, Lagarde and Hertlein being the chief exceptions.
The leading arguments for a later origin of the entire book than the exile, and for a Macca bman date of the visions of Daniel are (1) the position of the book in the Hebrew canon; (2) the omission of Daniel's name in Ecclesiasticus xlix; (3) the occurrence of Persian and Greek words and later forms of names; (4) the men tion of the Chaldmans as a priestly class; (5) the reflection upon the 70 years exile; (6) the use of the West Aramaic; (7) the absence of any acquaintance with the book before the 2d century }lc.; (8) later theological ideas; (9) the peculiar survey of history, involving seem ingly erroneous ideas of the earlier period, re markable familiarity with Antiochus IV and his immediate successors, but a mistaken notion as to the end of this king's reign ; and (10) the apparent' significance of the image, the four beasts, the °one like a son of man,' the little horn, and the 70 weeks. These arguments are not all of equal weight. Thus we know some thing about early critical opinions as to the status of sacred books, but as yet nothing with certainty concerning the time and manner of their acceptance for public reading. The silence of the author of Ecclesiasticus xlix (see Ec ctestAsncus) in regard to Ezra is even more remarkable than his omission of Daniel; Joseph is clearly an afterthought and his services to Israel may have seemed greater than Daniels. Persian and Greek words are not likely to have been used in Babylon at the time of the exile; the spelling of Nebuchadnezzar for Nebu chadrezzar may be due to a copyist; it is not known when the names of foreign gods began to be changed (Abed Nego for Abed Nebo, Shadrak for Marduk, Mishak for Nusku). There is a possibility that galdu or !raids was the name of a priestly class (Cf. Yale Oriental Series, 66ff, 1915), but the Hebrew Kasdim seems to be connected, not with Kaldu, but with Kashdu, the Babylonian name for the Chaldwan people. It is not easy to see why Daniel should have sought for a new interpre tation of the 70 years before the 70-year period was up. The use of West Aramaic, if original, favors Palestine as a place of composition. While there appears to be no trace of Danielic ideas in the Jewish writers after the exile, it is not certain that any of them had a natural occasion for referring to them. The advanced angelology does not 'with certainty show Zoroas trian influence, but the doctrine of a resurrection is probably of Persian origin. The direction in prayer, fasting as a preparation for a. revelation, and a rigid observance of dietary rules are not necessarily signs of a later age; and the refer ence to 'the books' only shows that some kind of a collection of sacred writings existed.