   The '''Book of Daniel''' (Hebrew: דניאל) is a book in the Hebrew Bible. In the Jewish canon, the book of Daniel is included with the Writings not in the Prophets. The book tells of how Daniel, a Judean exile at the court of Nebuchadnezzar II (605 to 562 BC), the ruler of Babylon, becomes a high government officialDaniel 2:48, Mesoretic text. In Jewish tradition Daniel is not counted in the list of prophets. and delivers various visions.   The traditionalist view dates Daniel to the 6th century. However, in the critical view, &quot;there would be few modern biblical scholars ... who would now seriously defend such an opinion.&quot; Modern biblical scholarship dates the book to the 2nd century BC: &quot;The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming.&quot; Opinions continue to differ, however, in light of apparently early forms of Aramaic language used in the Aramaic portions.  The earliest manuscripts discovered, like the traditional Jewish version, are written partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic,Vermes, Geza, ''The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English'', London: Penguin, 1998. ISBN 0-14-024501-4 and consist of a series of six third-person narratives (chapters one to six) followed by four apocalyptic visions in the first person (chapters seven to twelve). The narratives take the form of court tales which focus on tests of religious fidelity involving Daniel and his friends (chapters one, three and six), and Daniel's interpretation of royal dreams and visions (chapters two, four and five). In the second part of the book, Daniel recounts his own reception of dreams, visions and angelic interpretations.  ==Structure and contents== ===The Court Tales===  The first six chapters comprise a series of court tales involving Daniel and his three companions. The first account is in Hebrew; then Aramaic is used from ch. 2:4, beginning with the speech of the &quot;Chaldeans&quot;, through chapter seven. Hebrew is then used from chapter eight through chapter twelve. Three additional sections are preserved only in the Septuagint, and are considered apocryphal by Protestant Christians and Jews, and deuterocanonical by Catholic and Orthodox Christians.  ====Daniel in the service of the king==== After being taken captive to Babylon, Daniel and his three friends (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) keep the law and enter the king's service. In matters of wisdom, literature, and learning they are judged &quot;ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in the kingdom&quot;. Daniel, moreover, has a unique talent for interpreting dreams and visions.  ====The Great Image====  The king has a disturbing dream and asks his wise men to interpret it, but refuses to divulge its content. When they protest he sentences all of them, including Daniel and his friends, to death. Daniel intervenes and asks for a temporary stay of execution so that he can petition his God for a solution. He receives an explanatory vision in the night, and then relays the content and meaning of the king's dream the following day. Nebuchadnezzar has dreamed of an enormous idol made of four metals, with feet of mixed iron and clay.  The image is completely destroyed by a rock that turns into a huge mountain, filling the whole earth. The idol's composition of metals is interpreted as a series of successive kingdoms, starting with Nebuchadnezzar. Finally all of these dominions are crushed by God's kingdom, a kingdom that will &quot;endure forever&quot;.  ====The fiery furnace====  Daniel's companions Ananias (Hananiah/Shadrach), Azariah (Abednego), and Mishael (Meshach) refuse to bow to the emperor's golden statue and are thrown into a furnace. As seen by Nebuchadnezzar, a fourth figure appears in the furnace with the three and God is credited for preserving them from the flames.  ====The madness of Nebuchadnezzar==== Nebuchadnezzar recounts a dream of a huge tree which is suddenly cut down at the command of a heavenly messenger. Daniel is summoned and interprets the dream as referring to Nebuchadnezzar, who for seven years will lose his power and mind and become like a wild animal. All of this comes to pass until, at the end of the seven years, Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges that &quot;heaven rules&quot; and his kingdom and sanity are restored. The recurring image of a tree representing a kingdom appears at least three times in the Bible.  ====Belshazzar's feast==== Belshazzar and his nobles blasphemously drink from sacred Jewish temple vessels, offering praise to inanimate gods, until a hand mysteriously appears before the crowd and writes upon the wall of the palace. The horrified king eventually summons Daniel who is able to read the writing and offer the following interpretation: ''Mene, Mene'' - God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end. ''Tekel'' - You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. ''Upharsin'' - Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians. &quot;That very night&quot;, we are informed, Belshazzar was slain and &quot;Darius the Mede&quot; took over the kingdom.  ====Daniel in the lions' den==== Daniel is elevated to a pre-eminent position under Darius which elicits the jealousy of other officials. Knowing of Daniel's devotion to his God, these officials trick the king into issuing an edict forbidding worship of any other god or man for a 30 day period. Because Daniel continues to pray three times a day to God towards Jerusalem, he is accused and king Darius, forced by his own decree, throws Daniel into the lions' den. God shuts up the mouths of the lions and the next morning king Darius finds Daniel unharmed and casts his accusers and their families into the lions' pit where they are instantly devoured.  ===Apocalyptic visions ===  The four visions of chapters seven to twelve consist of four visions focusing on a fearsome future king who attacks the &quot;saints&quot;, and the city and temple of Jerusalem; in contrast to the earlier chapters, they are introduced in the first person. One feature of this section is Daniel's reliance on heavenly figures to interpret and explain his visions. The historical setting of the first chapters does not appear, except in the form of regnal dates. Chapter seven is written in Aramaic while chapters eight to twelve are in Hebrew. This section of Daniel contains the first references to the &quot;kingdom of God&quot; in Jewish scripture, and the first overt reference to the resurrection of the dead.  ====Vision of the great beasts====  The vision in the first year of Belshazzar the king of Babylon (7:1) concerning four great beasts (7:3) representing four future kings (7:17) or kingdoms (7:23), the fourth of which devours the whole earth, treading it down and crushing it (7:23). This fourth beast has ten horns representing ten kings. They are followed by a further wicked king, or &quot;little horn&quot;, who subdues three of the ten (7:24), speaks against the Most High, wages war against the saints, and attempts to change the set times and laws (7:25); after 'a time and times and half a time', this king is judged and stripped of his kingdom by an &quot;Ancient of Days&quot; and his heavenly court (7:26); next, &quot;one like a son of man&quot; approaches the Ancient of Days and is invested with worldwide dominion; moreover, his everlasting reign over all kings and kingdoms is shared with &quot;the people of the Most High&quot; (7:27)  ====Vision of the ram and goat====  The vision in the third year of Belshazzar concerning a ram and a male goat (8:1-27) which, we are informed, represent Medea, Persia (the ram's two horns), and Greece (the goat). The goat with a mighty horn becomes very powerful until the horn breaks off to be replaced by four &quot;lesser&quot; horns. The vision focuses on a wicked king who arises to challenge the &quot;army of the Lord&quot; by removing the daily temple sacrifice and desecrating the sanctuary for a period of &quot;twenty three hundred evening/mornings&quot;.  ====Prophecy of the Seventy Septets====   The vision in first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus (9:1) concerning seventy weeks, or seventy &quot;sevens&quot;, apportioned for the history of the Israelites and of Jerusalem (9:24) This consists of a meditation on the prediction in Jeremiah that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years, a lengthy prayer by Daniel in which he pleads for God to restore Jerusalem and its temple, and an angelic explanation which focuses on a longer time period - &quot;seventy sevens&quot; - and a future restoration and destruction of city and temple by a coming ruler.  ====Vision of the kings of north and south====  Daniel has a lengthy vision (10:1 - 12:13) in the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, regarding conflicts between the &quot;King of the North&quot; and the &quot;King of the South&quot; (= Egypt, 11:8). Starting with references to Persia and Greece it, again, culminates in the description of an arrogant king who desecrates the temple, sets up a &quot;desolating abomination&quot;, removes the daily sacrifice, and persecutes those who remain true to the &quot;holy covenant&quot;. The northern kingdom is likely that of the Seleucids, which climaxed in Antiochus IV &quot;Epiphanes&quot; persecuting Jews in Judea and placing an idol in the Temple in Jerusalem.  The visions of Daniel, with those of 1 Enoch, Isaiah, Jubilees, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, are the  inspiration for much of the apocalyptic ideology and symbolism of the Qumran community's Dead Sea scrolls and the early literature of Christianity.  &quot;Daniel's clear association with the Maccabean Uprising and those against Rome are a possible factor in the eventual downgrading of it, to include a redefinition of the role of prophet, keeping in mind that at roughly this time the Hebrew canon was being evaluated and adopted.&quot; (Eisenman 1997, p 19f).  ==Textual witnesses== The Septuagint translations of Daniel include material not found in the Hebrew Masoretic text version: the The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children in chapter 3, and the stories of Susannah and the Elders and Bel and the Dragon; there is little doubt that these were added after the completion of the Hebrew/Aramaic book.[ Collins, John Joseph, &quot;Daniel: with an introduction to apocalyptic literature&quot; (Eerdmans. 1984)] p.28  A total of eight copies of the book of Daniel have been found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. All eight manuscripts have been dated within the space of 175 years ranging from about 125 BC  (4QDanc) to about 50 AD (4QDanb). There were at least three versions extant: the twelve-chapter version preserved in the Masoretic text and the two longer Greek versions, the Theodotion version (c. 2nd century AD) and the original Septuagint version ( c. 100 BC; see above sections).[ Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible By David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, Astrid B. Beck] Both Greek versions contain the apocryphal chapters (c. 100 BC) not found in the Hebrew/Aramaic text of Daniel. Theodotion's translaton is much closer to the Hebrew/Aramaic Daniel of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible, and became so popular that it replaced the original Septuagint version of Daniel in all but two manuscripts of the Septuagint itself.[ Invitation to the Apocrypha By Daniel J. Harrington][ Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha By Watson E. Mills, Richard F. Wilson]Eerdmans commentary on the Bible By James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson  For its part, the older (pre-Theodotion) Septuagint edition sometimes agrees more with the older Hebrew / Aramaic readings of the text of the Qumran fragments, against the more recent Theodotion / Masoretic version reflected in modern translations.  ==Literary structure== 300px  Seventh-day Adventist William H. Shea Ph.D. (Archeology). suggests that the book of Daniel was composed as a double chiasm. Chiastic or concentric structure is a common feature of ancient Hebrew poetry and literature. A qualification, however, is appropriate: while the chiastic structure of chapters 2 - 7, originally identified by A. Lenglet in 1972, is widely accepted by scholars, Shea's proposal for a similar structure in chapters 8 - 12 is not.  ===Related themes have common label=== Related sections have a common label.  For instance those labeled '''A, A', A&quot;''' and '''A&quot;'''' are placed in parallel because they all have a similar theme: prophecies about successive kingdoms. God's people suffer trials in the parts labelled '''B, B', B&quot;''' and '''B&quot;'''', although the suggested parallels in chapters 9 and 10 seem to have little in common with 3 and 6. The decision of kings to choose Daniel's God or not are the themes in '''C, C', C&quot;''' and '''C&quot;'''', provided we can agree with Shea that two individual verses in chapter 9 are the structural counterparts of chapters 4 and 5.  The trial faced by the Messiah is portrayed in the focal point of the book ('''D''' ) by Shea.  ===Language emphasizes structure=== To emphasize the importance of the chiastic structure, the first chiasm was written in Aramaic and the second in Hebrew.   The literary structure explains why Aramaic continues to be used in chapter 7 rather than ending in chapter 6 at, seemingly, the end of the first half of the book.  ===Structure has precedence over chronology=== The literary structure of the book takes precedence over chronology.  The first 6 narrative chapters are fit into the structure rather than defining it.  For instance, chapter 6 ( '''B'''' ), which ought to follow chapter 7 ( '''A'''' ) chronologically, is put in parallel with chapter 3 ( '''B''' ) because they both deal with the persecution of Daniel and his friends.  And chapter 5 ( '''C'''' ) should follow chapters 7 and 8 ( '''A&quot;''' ).  Instead, it is put in parallel with chapter 4 ( '''C''' ). In both divine judgements are pronounced against arrogant Babylonian kings.  ===Grouping Emphasizes Prophecies=== This chiastic grouping of chapters having the same theme has important implications when it comes to the chapters containing prophecies ( '''A, A', A&quot;, A'&quot;''' ).   Not only are they parallel because they contain prophecies, but the prophecies themselves are parallel to each other. This parallelism between the prophecies has been recognized for millennia. This does not mean, however, that Christian commentators have identified the same kingdoms in each chapter. While chapters 2 and 7 have generally - though not exclusively - been interpreted as extending to Roman times, chapter 8, for example, has traditionally been applied to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Ford speaks of 'the almost universal application of [the little horn symbol of chapter 8] to Antiochus Epiphanes'. He also quotes the pre-critical and post-counter reformation view of the Anglican Bishop Thomas Newton in his &quot;Dissertation on the Prophecies...&quot; originally published in the mid 1700s (JF Dove,1838, p247): 'This little horn [of Daniel 8] is by the generality  of interpreters, both Jewish and Christian, ancient and modern, supposed to mean Antiochus Epiphanes.' Newton adds that 'most of the ancient fathers and modern divines and commentators' agree with Jerome in identifying Antiochus in chapter 8, while also allowing that &quot;Antiochus Epiphanes was a type of Antichrist&quot;.  ==Historical accuracy==  A major critic of Daniel, H. H. Rowley, considered chapter 11 as &quot;a first-class historical source for that period&quot; Another scholar ranked the fifth chapter of Daniel &quot;just below the cuneiform literature&quot;, for accuracy as far as outstanding events are concerned, for non-Babylonian records on the close of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.  Even allowing for such possible exceptions, most of the content of the narrative is unhistorical. The six objections given below represent, in order of significance, some of the major anachronisms.  ===Darius the Mede===  Some historians criticize the notion of a separate Mede rule by pointing out that the Persians at that point in history had control over the Medes, and that the contemporary cuneiform documents, such as the Cyrus Cylinder and the Babylonian Chronicle, leave no room for any Mede occupation of Babylon before the Persians under Cyrus conquered it. It has been suggested that the author's apparent confusion on this issue could be due to his reliance on Jeremiah (see Dan. 9:2): and Jeremiah prophesied (in Jeremiah 51:11), at the height of the Median empire's power, that Babylon would fall to the Medes.  The personage whom ''Daniel'' describes as taking control of Babylon after Belshazzar is deposed is named as ''Darius the Mede,'' who rules over Babylon in chapters 6 and 9. ''Daniel'' reports that Darius was 'about 62 years old' when he was 'made king over Babylon.' Darius the Mede, while mentioned in the book of Daniel, the works of Flavius Josephus, and Jewish Midrash material, is not known from any primary historical sources. Neither the Babylonian nor the Persian histories record such a person. Herodotus, who wrote his history about 440 BC, records that Babylon fell to the Persian army, under the control of King Cyrus, who had conquered the Median Empire as early as 550 BC.  As Darius the Mede is unknown to any other source, many historians view his presence in ''Daniel'' as simply a mistake of a much later author, who has perhaps inadvertently placed the Persian King Darius I at an earlier date than he actually reigned. Three key pieces of information seem to support this. Firstly, Darius I, like Cyrus, also conquered Babylon and personally commanded the Persian army that took the city in 522 BC to put down a rebellion. Secondly, Daniel's reference to Darius organising the empire by appointing satraps and administrators fits Darius I perfectly: he is known to history as the Persian king par excellence who professionalised the empire's bureaucracy and organised it into satrapies and tax districts. Thirdly, Darius I was an important figure in Jewish history, remembered as a king associated with Cyrus who permitted the returned exiles to rebuild the temple (see Ezra chs 1-6).  In Daniel 9:1, Darius is said to be the son of Ahasuerus, commonly acknowledged to be a variant spelling of Xerxes (Esther 1:1). Darius I was the father of a king called Xerxes.  ====Responses to the problem of Darius the Mede====  As no ruler of this name is recorded, scholars have attempted to identify him with other figures:  ;&quot;Darius the Mede&quot; as Cyrus the Great This theory was first proposed by Donald Wiseman in 1957. Unlike Gubaru or Astyages, Cyrus the Great of Persia was the king who took over the Babylonian Empire.  Cyrus was also married to a Mede, and had a Median mother.  Indeed, his maternal grandfather Astyages, to whom he owed fealty, was the so-called &quot;Last King of the Median Empire.&quot; An analysis of variant early texts, particularly the Septuagint, reveals that the names &quot;Darius&quot; (דריוש DRYWS in Hebrew) and &quot;Cyrus&quot; (כורש KWRS) are reversed in 11:1, and may have been miscopied elsewhere. The appellation &quot;Mede&quot; (Heb. מדי MDY) may have been used as an ethnic term to apply to Persians as well, who were of the same race.e.g., as stated in Hippolytus' ''Diamerismos'', §204, among other places. In addition, Dan. 6:28, &quot;So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian&quot;, could also be translated, &quot;So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus the Persian.&quot; Furthermore, kings commonly took dual titles and Nabonidus, Cyrus' cousin, referred to Cyrus as &quot;the king of the Medes.&quot;  ;&quot;Darius the Mede&quot; as Gubaru/Ugbaru Gubaru was the governor of Gutium, who actually led Cyrus's army that captured Babylon in the month of Tashritu in the 17th year (see Pierre Briant below). Two weeks later Cyrus made his triumphal entry into Babylon and a week after that Gubaru died. It is possible that Cyrus may have rewarded Gubaru with a regional governorship for capturing the capital of the Babylonian Empire and ending the war.  Furthermore, under the first translation of Dan. 6:28, Darius ruled during the reign of Cyrus, and Dan. 5:31 states that Darius the Mede &quot;''received'' the kingdom&quot; of the Chaldeans.  Complicating this view is the question of whether or not Gubaru and Ugbaru are two different people, or simply variant spellings of the same name.  Verse 1 of &quot;Bel and the Dragon&quot; mentions Astyages the Mede, who was indeed the last king before Cyrus; but nearly the same verse is added in the Greek LXX after the end of chapter 6 of Daniel, but with &quot;Darius&quot; in place of &quot;Astyages&quot;. ( LXX Dan. 14:1 and Dan 6:29)  ;&quot;Darius the Mede&quot; as king of the Medes Talmudic and midrashic sources describe Darius the Mede as the uncle and father-in-law of Cyrus the Great, to whom Cyrus owed fealty.  After Darius's death, Cyrus took the throne. According to Josippon, the Ahasuerus in the book of Esther was the son of Darius the Mede. The Midrash Tanchuma describes the fall of Babylon as described in Daniel and adds to the narrative Darius taking Vashti, the daughter of Belshazzar, as a wife for his son Ahasuerus.  ;&quot;Darius the Mede&quot; as Cyaxares II The little we know of Cyaxares from extra-Biblical sources matches the description offered in the Book of Daniel. According to Daniel, he began ruling when he was 62 years old (chapter 5, verse 31), appointed 120 satraps to govern over their provinces or districts (chapter 6, verse 1), was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans (chapter 9, verse 1), and pre-dated Cyrus (chapter 11, verse 1).  ===Belshazzar=== For many years Belshazzar (Akk. bêl-šar-usur), was an enigma for historians. The book of Daniel states that he was &quot;king&quot; (Ar. מֶלֶך) the night that Babylon fell (chap. 5) and says that his &quot;father&quot; (Ar. אַב) was Nebuchadnezzar (5:2, 11, 13, 18). Prior to 1854, archeologists and historians knew nothing of Belshazzar outside the book of Daniel. Indeed, while the deuterocanonical Book of Baruch (Baruch 1:11, 12) and the writings of Josephus (Antiquities 10.11.2-4 §231-247) do mention Belshazzar, the references to Belshazzar in these works are ultimately dependent on the book of Daniel. Both Xenophon (Cyropaedia, 7.5.28-30) and Herodotus (The Histories, 1.191) recount the fall of Babylon to Cyrus the Great, yet neither of these writers give the name of the king of Babylon. Additionally, both Berossus’ and Ptolemy's king lists have Nabonidus (Akk. ''Nabû-nā'id'') as the last king of Babylon with no mention of Belshazzar.  From that time new evidence from Babylon has verified the existence of Belshazzar as well as his co-regency during the absence of his father, Nabonidus, in Temâ. For example, In the Nabonidus Cylinder, Nabonidus petitions the god Sin as follows: &quot;And as for Belshazzar my firstborn son, my own child, let the fear of your great divinity be in his heart, and may he commit no sin; may he enjoy happiness in life&quot;. In addition, The Verse Account of Nabonidus (British Museum tablet 38299) states, &quot;[Nabonidus] entrusted the army (?) to his oldest son, his first born, the troops in the country he ordered under his command. He let everything go, ''entrusted the kingship'' (Akk. ''šarrûtu'') to him, and, himself, he started out for a long journey. The military forces of Akkad marching with him, he turned to Temâ deep in the west&quot; (Col. II, lines 18 - 29. 18). In line with the statement that Nabonidus &quot;entrusted the kingship&quot; to Belshazzar in his absence, there is evidence that Belshazzar's name was used with his father's in oath formulas, that he was able to pass edicts, lease farmlands, and receive the &quot;royal privilege&quot; to eat the food offered to the gods.  The available information concerning Belshazzar's regency goes silent after Nabonidus' fourteenth year. According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Nabonidus was back from Temâ by his seventeenth year and celebrated the New Year's Festival (Akk. ''Akitu''). Whether or not Belshazzar continued his regency under his father's authority after his return cannot be demonstrated from the available documents. Some scholars have argued that the non-observance of the ''Akitu'' during Nabonidus' absence demonstrates that Belshazzar was not the &quot;king&quot; since it shows that he could not officiate over the festival. However, The Verse Account of Nabonidus says, &quot;Nabonidus said: 'I shall build a temple for him (the Moon god Sin)...till I have achieved this, till I have obtained what is my desire, I shall omit all festivals, I shall order even the New Year's festival to cease!'&quot; Thus, the halting of the ''Akitu'' may have been done by the king's command rather an inability on the part of Belshazzar.  This stated, the fact that Belshazzar did not disobey his father's command is evidence that Nabonidus remained the official (and actual) king of Babylon.International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: K-P, By Geoffrey W. Bromiley, see &quot;Nebonidus,&quot; pp 468-470  ]] There is no evidence that Belshazzar ever officially held the title of &quot;king&quot; as he is never called such in the Nabonidus Cylinder. Furthermore, the Aramaic term מלך (''mlk'', king) applied in Daniel could be used to translate titles of various levels of high ranking officials. (This can be seen in the case of a 9th century BC Akkadian/Aramaic bilingual inscription found at Tel Fekheriyeh in 1979 which reads &quot;king&quot; for the Akkadian &quot;governor&quot;.)  A contract tablet dating to the third year of his regency (550 BC) includes the designation &quot;son of the king.&quot;  This, of course, is not proof that he possessed any status as the official king of Babylon.  The bottom line is that Nabonidus was still alive when Cyrus conquered Babylon, and had not been replaced as the official king of Babylon by Belshazzar.  No known extrabiblical text indicates a blood relation between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Historians have objected to this aspect of the record in Daniel. There were several rulers over Babylon between the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the rulership of Nabonidus and Belshazzar. Some have attributed the lack of mention of these rulers as indicating the author mistakenly thought that the two rulerships were consecutive. The ''Jewish Encyclopedia'', holding to a later date of the book (see 'Date'), supposed that &quot;during the long period of oral tradition the unimportant kings of Babylon might easily have been forgotten, and the last king, who was vanquished by Cyrus, would have been taken as the successor of the well-known Nebuchadnezzar.&quot; Based on this reasoning, some historians have considered the reference to Belshazzar's relationship to Nebuchadnezzar simply an error based on the above misconception.  However, there is another explanation.  Belshazzar is never called an independent king in the book of Daniel.  In fact, in Daniel 5:7, 16, 29 Belshazzar implies that he is the second ruler in the kingdom, not the sole ruler; and yet, he has sufficient power to make someone the third ruler in the kingdom.  Secondly, co-regencies were not that uncommon in the Ancient Near East. Third, Wilson, in the previous reference, showed that the very word &quot;king&quot; was used in a variety of ways other than that which we use today. The same also applies to the use of the word &quot;son&quot;--it doesn't necessarily mean a biological relationship and can carry the meaning &quot;successor.&quot; For example, the 9th century Assyrian Black Obelisk lists Jehu as the &quot;son of Omri&quot; even though Jehu was from a different lineage and did not take the crown directly after Omri.  Finally, Daniel is not writing an official state document for Babylon such as one would expect from the court scribes, although the lack of accurate specificity in the references also tends to be inconsistent with the claim of an early date for Daniel.  ===Madness of Nebuchadnezzar === There are also historical objections to the account of the insanity suffered by Nebuchadnezzar found in the fourth chapter of Daniel. Three Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls fragments known as ''The Prayer of Nabonidus'' (4QPrNab, sometimes given as 4QOrNab) seem to contain a number of parallels with Daniel chapter four: a Babylonian king (spelled ''N-b-n-y'') is afflicted by God with an &quot;evil disease&quot; for a period of seven years; he is cured and his sins forgiven after the intervention of a Jewish exile who is described as a &quot;diviner&quot;; he issues a written proclamation in praise of the Most High God, and speaks in the first person. These tiny fragments turned up in a collection of Dead Sea Scrolls possessed by the Jordanian Government, and were first published by Milik in 1956. Long before this, scholars had speculated that Nabonidus' exile in Teima lay behind the story of Nebuchadnezzar's banishment and madness in Daniel chapter four.   There are also a number of differences between ''The Prayer of Nabonidus'' and the account of Nebuchadnezzar's madness:  # Different kings are involved in the two accounts # Nebuchadnezzar's &quot;affliction&quot; was of the mind whereas Nabonidus' seems to have been a skin disease. # According to one possible translation, the exorcist or diviner heals Nabonidus and pardons his sins, whereas in Daniel Nebuchadnezzar is cured when he &quot;[lifts] up [his] eyes to heaven&quot; and &quot;[acknowledges] that the Most High is sovereign&quot;. (An alternative reading with sound support, however, attributes the healing and forgiveness of Nabonidus' sins to God Peter W. Flint, ''The Daniel Tradition at Qumran'', in Collins et al. (2002), p.336. ) # Nebuchadnezzar's illness occurs in Babylon; Nabonidus is stricken in Tema. (The end result, though, is that both kings are absent from Babylon for the duration of their illnesses, since Nebuchadnezzar is &quot;driven away from mankind.&quot; (4:33, NASB)) # Finally, some of the words and phrases of the prayer have to be inferred from the context because the text is fragmentary. [Archer, Gleason L. &quot;Daniel&quot;, Expositor's. Vol. 7 (Zondervan, 1985): 15; he cites Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. (Tyndale, 1969): 1118-9]  Some feel that the ''Prayer of Nabonidus'' shows signs of dependence upon the book of Daniel, while others argue for direct dependence in the reverse direction. Regardless of whether there is any direct literary dependence, however, the &quot;general consensus&quot; of scholars is that Daniel four ultimately draws upon traditions and legends about Nabonidus.  Matthias Henze further suggests that the story of Nebuchadnezzar's madness draws on the Mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh. He argues that the author of Daniel uses elements from the description of the wild man Enkidu, who roams the steppe with the animals, to paint a sarcastic and mocking portrait of the king of Babylon.The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar..., Leiden, Brill, 1999  It is possible that a reference to the insanity of Nebuchadnezzar is to be found in a cuneiform text: BM 34113.  ===Date of Nebuchadnezzar's first siege of Jerusalem=== The Book of Daniel begins by stating:  :In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnez'zar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god. (King James Version)  This appears to be a description of the first siege of Jerusalem in 597 BC, which occurred in the 11th year of Jehoiakim and into the reign of his son Jehoiachin. (see (), (), and ()). The third year of Jehoiakim (606 BC), saw Nebuchadnezzar not yet King of Babylon, and the Egyptians still dominant in the region. Nebuchadnezzar did not become &quot;King of Babylon&quot; until after the Battle of Carchemish, in Jehoiakim's fourth year(Jer 25:1). In Jeremiah 36:9, we find Jehoiakim in Jerusalem in his fifth year, two years after the time that Daniel claims he was carried away to Babylon.  Rashi (ad loc.) clarifies this matter as follows. He quotes KingsII 24:1 which states that Jehoiakim, after being captured, served Nebuchadnezzar for three years and then rebelled against him. Daniel 1:1, says Rashi, refers to the third year of Jehoiakim's rebellion, which was within his eleventh year.  The ''Babylonian Chronicle'' records that Nebuchadnezzar first defeated the Egyptians under Pharaoh Necho in Battle of Carchemish. He then conquered the whole of Hatti-land, a region that includes the kingdom of Judah. Apologists argue this would coincide with the coming of Nebuchadnezzar recorded in Dan 1:1. The historian Berossus records that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives back to Babylon after the Battle of Carchemish. The Berossus account however is based on the mistaken premise that Babylonia already ruled Syria, Palestine and Egypt before the Battle of Carchemish. The Berrosus excerpts are very fragmented and may not have been preserved unadulterated.[ Studies on the Hasmonean period], Joshua Efrón, 59  ===Antiochus IV Epiphanes===  (''King of the Gods'') enthroned  carrying the Goddess Nike (''Victory''). The legend reads: &quot;King Antiochus. God Manifest, Bearing Victory.&quot;]] Critical scholars have asserted that the prophecies in the Book of Daniel reflect the persecutions of the Jews by the Greek Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes who ruled the Jews from 175&amp;ndash;164 BC, and his desecration of the altar in the temple at Jerusalem, and consequently they date its composition to that period. In particular, the vision in Chapter 11, which focuses on a series of wars between the &quot;King of the North&quot; and the &quot;King of the South&quot;, is generally interpreted as a record of Levantine history from the time of Alexander the Great down to the era of Antiochus IV, with the &quot;Kings of the North&quot; being the Seleucid kings of Syria and the &quot;Kings of the South&quot; being the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt.  Scottish theologian John Drane notes that other details of the stories in the early chapters of Daniel are also similar to the prevailing conditions in the era of Antiochus. &quot;Belshazzar for example, falls from power because he defiled the sacred objects taken from the Temple in Jerusalem (Dan. 5:1-4), in much the same way as Antiochus repeatedly robbed the Temple in Jerusalem. The worship of the great statue set up by Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 3:1-18) and the story of the Bel found in the Septuagint highlighted the same issues as Antiochus' action in setting up an image of Zeus in the Temple at Jerusalem. Indeed it may be implied that the images were actual statues of the kings themselves. Even the story of Nebuchadnezzar's madness (Dan. 4:19-33) may have been intended to be reminiscent of the commonly held belief that Antiochus was mad (&quot;epimanes&quot;). The people of a later age would also recognize those apostate Jews who collaborated with the unbelieving Seleucids in the duplicitous figures of the spies and informers who plotted against Daniel and ensured that he was shut up in the den of lions (Dan. 6:1-14). The issue of food, which features so largely in the opening story of Daniel (Dan. 1:3-16), was one of the whole crucial points in the whole argument about Hellenism. Much of the opposition that sparked the Maccabean revolt was concerned with the unwillingness of faithful Jews to eat pork and other unclean foods&quot;.''Introducing the Old Testament'' By John William Drane, John Drane, pp. 221-222   This conclusion regarding the date of composition was first drawn by the philosopher Porphyry of Tyros, a 3rd century pagan and Neoplatonist, whose fifteen-volume work ''Against the Christians'' is only known to us through Jerome's reply. The ''identification'' of Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel, however, is a much olderCasey P.M, Porphyry and the origin of the Book of Daniel, ''Journal of Theological Studies'', 1976, pp. 15-33 interpretation which seems to be reflected, for example, in 1 Maccabees 1:54 (c100 BC), where an idol of Zeus set up upon the altar of burnt offering under Antiochus is referred to as an &quot;abomination of desolation&quot; (cf. Dan. 9:27, 11:31).Horrible abomination: šiqqǔṣ šômēm in the original Hebrew, a contemptuous pun on the title 'baal hashshamayim' (Lord of heaven), title of the Semitic storm god Hadad with whom Zeus Olympius had been identified. ''cf. e.g., J.A. Montgomery, Daniel, p. 388'' This identification is made explicit in Josephus' exposition of Daniel chapter eight (''Antiquities'' 10:11, c94 AD) where he almost certainly cites a common Jewish interpretative tradition by identifying the &quot;little horn&quot; as Antiochus. According to British historian Bryan Rennie, the conclusion that the Book of Daniel was written at the time of the profanation of the Temple by Antiochus IV would explain why the author is not very precise about 6th century events, why he is so precise about the time of Antiochus, and why he was never counted among the prophets.[ The Dating of the Book of Daniel, Bryan Rennie] Scholars are virtually unanimous in regarding the Book of Daniel as a message of encouragement to those people(hasidim)Interpreting the Bible: a handbook of terms and methods, W. Randolph Tate, [ suffering for their faith under the oppression of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.  ===The Kingdoms=== ====Pre-Roman interpretation====  Referencing the canonization of Jewish scripture, most likely ending during the Hasmonean period (see Development of the Jewish canon, the Jewish section of Bible canon, as well as the section &quot;Antiochus Epiphanes&quot; above), most secular historians and higher critics, and some contemporary Jewish and Christian scholars advocate a scheme of interpreting the kingdoms in the Book of Daniel strictly within the context of the kingdoms that reigned over Judea from the Babylonian Empire to the Seleucids of Syria, dealing with other issues separately.  The prototypical pre-Roman scheme  includes: # the Neo-Babylonian period of involvement from ''c.'' 587–539 BC, # the Medo-Persian period of involvement from ''c.'' 539–332 BC, # the Macedonian period of involvement, starting with Alexander the Great and continuing through the Diadochi from ''c.'' 332–305 BC to # the Ptolemaic period of involvement from ''c.'' 305–219 BC, and # the Seleucid period of involvement starting with Antiochus III Megas and culimating in the events of the Maccabean Revolt and the confrontation with Antiochus IV Epiphanes.  The Maccabean Revolt concluded with the Jews' victory over the Seleucids on the Day of Nicanor, 161 BC.[ Nicanor]  The following chart lays out the typical pre-Roman interpretation of the Book of Daniel.  {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; |- ! Chapter ! colspan=6|Pre-Roman interpretation of Daniel's kingdoms |- ! ! style=&quot;background: #ece992;&quot; colspan=4 |Pre-Maccabean Revolt ! style=&quot;background:#cc9;&quot;|Maccabean Revolt ! style=&quot;background: #cdfcfd;&quot;|Future Perspective (if any) |- |Daniel 2 | style=&quot;background: #ece992;&quot;|Gold Head is Babylon | style=&quot;background: #f7f6f6;&quot;|Silver Arms are Medo-Pesian | style=&quot;background: #ffee7a;&quot;|Bronze Torso is Macedonia | style=&quot;background: #e2e2e0;&quot;|Legs of Iron are the Ptolemies and Seleucids | style=&quot;background:tan;&quot;|Feet of Iron &amp; Clay are kingdoms under Antiochus III Megas. &quot;Little horn&quot; is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The &quot;Stone&quot; is Judas Maccabees. | style=&quot;background: #cdfcfd;&quot;|Separate issues |- |Daniel 7 | style=&quot;background: #f7f6f6;&quot;| | style=&quot;background: #f7f6f6;&quot;|Winged Lion is Medo-Persia | style=&quot;background: #ffee7a;&quot;|Lopsided Bear is Macedonia | style=&quot;background: #e2e2e0;&quot;|Four-winged Leopard is Diodachi, leads to Ptolemys and Seleucids | style=&quot;background:#cc9;&quot;|Iron-toothed beast is combined Empires under Antiochus IV Epiphanes | style=&quot;background: #cdfcfd;&quot;|Separate issues |- |Daniel 8 | | style=&quot;background: #f7f6f6;&quot;|2-horned Ram is Medo-Persia | style=&quot;background: #ffee7a;&quot;|4-horned Goat is Macedonia | style=&quot;background: #e2e2e0;&quot;|Ptolemys and Seleucids | style=&quot;background:#cc9;&quot;|Combined Empires | style=&quot;background: #cdfcfd;&quot;|Separate issues |- |Daniel 11-12 | | style=&quot;background: #f7f6f6;&quot;|Kings of Medo-Persia | style=&quot;background: #ffee7a;&quot;|Macedonia | style=&quot;background: #e2e2e0;&quot;|Ptolemies and Seleucids | style=&quot;background:tan;&quot;|Combined Empires | style=&quot;background: #cdfcfd;&quot;|Separate issues |}  Separate issues:  * Some secular historians and certain critics would say that the book of Daniel has little to no significance beyond its historical setting.  * Reconstructionists of all types, Idealists, and the advocates of Realized/Sapiential Eschatology would say that the Book of Daniel is primarily historical, but it is significant as godly instruction.  * In ''Revelation'' , John divided the kingdoms the same way as the Jews of his day would have, speaking of five kings that &quot;were&quot; (from Babylon to the Seleucids), one that &quot;is&quot; (the Roman Empire), with a seventh that was &quot;yet to come&quot; which would &quot;become an eighth, but is of the seven.&quot;  * Insofar as Judaism and Christianity is concerned, the Jews' cleansing of the Temple in Jerusalem near the midpoint of the Maccabean Revolt is commemorated annually at Hanukkah, which Jesus observed according to John .  ====Post-Roman interpretation==== Jewish and Christian Historicists, Futurists, Dispensationalists, Partial Preterists, and other futuristic Jewish and Christian hybrids, as well as certain Messianic Jews typically believe that the kingdoms in Daniel (with variations) are:  #the Neo-Babylonian Empire #the Medo-Persian Empire #the Macedonian Empire of Alexander and his successors to the Ptolomaic and Seleucid Empires together, and #the Roman Empire, with other implications to come later.  This was the scheme described by Jerome in his &quot;Commentary on Daniel.&quot;  Full Preterists, Idealists, certain Reconstructionists and other non-futurists likewise typically believe in the same general sequence, but they teach that Daniel's prophecies ended with the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem, and have little to no implications beyond that.  All of these schools of prophetic thought typically start from the same basic premise (with variations), but differ in their conclusions (as described afterward):     {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;    |-    ! Chapter    ! colspan=5|Historicist interpretations of Daniel from the 4th century to the Reformation    |-    !    ! style=&quot;background: #ece992;&quot; colspan=3 |Jewish History    ! style=&quot;background:#cc9;&quot;|Roman Occupation    ! style=&quot;background: #cdfcfd;&quot;|Future antichristian empire    |-    |Daniel 7    | style=&quot;background: #f7f6f6;&quot;|Winged Lion is Medo-Persia    | style=&quot;background: #ffee7a;&quot;|Lopsided Bear is Macedonia    | style=&quot;background: #e2e2e0;&quot;|Leopard is Ptolemys &amp; Seleucids    | style=&quot;background:#cc9;&quot;|Iron-toothed beast is Romans    | style=&quot;background: #cdfcfd;&quot;|Future antichristian empire    |-    |Daniel 8    | style=&quot;background: #f7f6f6;&quot;|Ram is Medo-Persia    | style=&quot;background: #ffee7a;&quot;|Goat is Macedonia   | style=&quot;background: #e2e2e0;&quot;|Little Horn is Seleucids    | style=&quot;background:#cc9;&quot;|The &quot;Son of Man&quot; cleanses the Sanctuary during the Roman occupation    | style=&quot;background: #cdfcfd;&quot;|Future antichristian empire    |-    |Daniel 11-12    | style=&quot;background: #f7f6f6;&quot;|Medo-Persia    | style=&quot;background: #ffee7a;&quot;|Macedonia    | style=&quot;background: #e2e2e0;&quot;|Ptolemys and Seleucids    | style=&quot;background:tan;&quot;|Romans    | style=&quot;background: #cdfcfd;&quot;|Future antichristian empire    |}  * Other scholars argue that there was a split between the Medes and Persians.A short introduction to the Hebrew Bible, John J. Collins, p. 282  Separate issues:  ''The following statements are archetypical, and do not represent every variant of this mode of interpreting Daniel's kingdoms:''  * Jewish and Christian Historicists (as generally taught in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Churches [see Historicism (Christianity)]) believe that the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel continue in a straight line through to the End of the Age.  * Jewish and Christian Futurists, Dispensationalists, and, to some degree, Partial Preterists believe that the prophecies of Daniel stopped with the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem and will resume at some point in the future after a gap in prophecy that accounts for the Church Age.  * Jewish Reconstructionists and Full Preterists believe that Daniel is completely fulfilled, and that the believers are now working to establish the Kingdom of God on earth.  ====Other views====  Others like Walton have advocated a combination of both schemes, but in different parts of Daniel.[ &quot;The Four Kingdoms Of Daniel&quot;] by John H. Walton, ''Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society'' 29.1 (1986): 25-36.  ===Language=== Scholars have speculated about the bilingual literary structure of Daniel - Chapters 2 through 7 in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew.  One of the most frequent speculations is that the entire book (excepting 9:4-20) was originally written in Aramaic, with portions translated into Hebrew, possibly to increase acceptanceHartman and Di Lella, (1990), 408. - many Aramaisms in the Hebrew text find proposed explanation by the hypothesis of an inexact initial translation into Hebrew.  According to John Collins in his 1993 commentary, ''Daniel, Hermeneia Commentary'', the Aramaic in Daniel is of a later form than that used in the Samaria correspondence, but slightly earlier than the form used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, meaning that the Aramaic chapters 2-6 may have been written earlier in the Hellenistic period than the rest of the book, with the vision in chapter 7 being the only Aramaic portion dating to the time of Antiochus.  The Hebrew portion is, for all intents and purposes, identical to that found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, meaning chapters 1 and 8-12 were in existence before the late 2nd century BC.Daniel, Hermeneia Commentary  Contrary to the above, the ''Expositor's Bible Commentary'' (Zondervan, 1990) claims that the language of Daniel, in comparison with the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Hellenistic period, &quot;prove quite conclusively to any scholar that the second-century date and Palestinian provenance of the Book of Daniel cannot be upheld any longer without violence being done to the science of linguistics.&quot; It adds that the serious mistakes of the Septuagint to render many Persian and Accadian terms, as the offices mentioned in Dan. 3:3, proves ignorance of words of the old past, already forgotten in the Hellenistic period, indicating that the Book of Daniel was written in the late 6th century BC.&quot;There is no possibility that the text of Daniel could have been composed as late as the Maccabean uprising, and that there is every likelihood that the Aramaic comes from the same period, if not a century earlier, than the Aramaic of the Elephantine Papyri and of Ezra, which are admittedly fifth-century productions. It goes without saying that if the predictions concerning the period of Antiochus III and Antiochus IV (222-164 BC) are composed in language antedating the second-century and third-century B.C., then the whole effort to explain Daniel as a vaticinium ex eventu must be abandoned.&quot;  E.C. Lucas is more cautious in his assessment of linguistic arguments as well. Evaluating Collins' approach, he considers &quot;the wide geographical spread from which the material comes and the implicit assumption that linguistic developments would have occurred uniformly throughout this area&quot; a weakness and concludes, &quot;The character of the Hebrew and Aramaic could support a date in the fifth or fourth century for the extant written form of the book, but does not demand a second-century date.&quot; He agrees with Collins that there are &quot;clear differences&quot; between Qumran Hebrew and the Hebrew of Daniel.E.C. Lucas, ''Daniel'' (Apollos OT Commentary; Apollos, 2002) p. 307.  ===Loan words=== Three Greek words used within the text have long been considered evidence for a late dating of Daniel.  All three are terms for musical instruments: ''κιθαρις'' (cithara), ''ψαλτηριον'' (psaltery) and ''συμφωνια'' (symphonia). The existence of the Greek word ''symphonia'' was cited by Rowlings as having its earliest known use in the 2nd century BC, but it has subsequently been shown that Pythagoras, born in the 6th century BC, used the term,  while its adjectival use meaning &quot;in unison&quot; is found in the ''Hymni Homerica, ad Mercurium 51''; both instances date from the 6th century BC, the supposed setting of Daniel.  It is known that &quot;Greek mercenaries and slaves served in the Babylonian and Assyrian periods, some of whom were undoubtedly versed in Greek music and musical instruments.&quot; It has been speculated that this would explain the existence of the three Greek musical terms in Daniel's book. On the other hand, it has been claimed that the non-existence of other Greek words is a strong witness against the theory of the writing of the book in the Hellenistic period, since &quot;it is inconceivable that Greek terms for government and administration would not have been adopted into Aramaic by the second century BC&quot;Frank E. Gaebelein, ''The Expositor's Bible Commentary'', Vol. 7, Zondervan, 1985, p. 21. Even John Goldingay, a proponent of the late date, admits &quot;the Greek words hardly necessitate a very late date.&quot; John E. Goldingay, Daniel, (Word Biblical Commentary, 30; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), p. xxv.  There are also nineteen Persian loan-words in the book, most of them having to do with governmental positions. Judea was under Persian administration for two centuries until the arrival of Alexander the Great in 333 BC.  ===Use of the word 'Chaldeans'=== The book of Daniel uses the term &quot;Chaldean&quot; to refer both to an ethnic group, and to astrologers in general.  According to Montgomery and Hammer  Daniel's use of the word 'Chaldean' to refer to astrologers in general is an anachronism, as during the Neo-Babylonian and early Persian periods (when Daniel is said to have lived), it referred only to an ethnicity.  (Compare the later Chaldean Oracles).  ==Unity of Daniel== There exists a broad consensus among scholars that the legendary stories of chapters 1-6 are almost certainly older than the visions in chapters 7-12.[ Collins, John Joseph, Flint, Peter W., VanEpps, Cameron (eds)' &quot;The book of Daniel: composition and reception&quot; (Brill, 2001)] p.2 The wide differences between the oldest manuscripts of chapters 4-6 suggests that these chapters originally circulated separately from the rest of the book and may have been transmitted orally,[ Collins, John Joseph, Flint, Peter W., VanEpps, Cameron (eds)' &quot;The book of Daniel: composition and reception&quot; (Brill, 2001)] p.3 and it is clear that the stories and visions that make up the book as we now have it were selected from a wider corpus of Daniel literature available to the author(s).[ Collins, John Joseph, Flint, Peter W., VanEpps, Cameron (eds)' &quot;The book of Daniel: composition and reception&quot; (Brill, 2001)] p.4  ==Christian uses of Daniel==   The &quot;Song of the Three Holy Youths&quot; is part of the Matins service in Eastern Orthodoxy, and of Lauds on Sundays and feast days in Catholicism.  The various episodes in the first half of the book are used by Christians as moral stories, and are often believed to foreshadow events in the gospels.  The apocalyptic section is important to Christians for the image of the &quot;one like a son of Man&quot; (Dan. 7:13),[ Parallel translations of Daniel 7:13] and Jesus is presented using the same wording in the Book of Revelation in 1:13-15. The connection with Daniel's vision (as opposed to the usage in the Book of Ezekiel) is made explicit in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62). According to the gospels, Jesus used the title &quot;Son of Man&quot; as his preferred name for himself (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62). Christians sometimes see this as a claim by Jesus that he is the Messiah.  According to the New American Bible and some Christian theologians, &quot;one like a son of man&quot; represents &quot;the saints of the Most High&quot; as interpreted in the vision later (Dan 7:16-18, 21-22, 25-27) and Jesus made the title &quot;Son of Man&quot; a distinguishing self reference.[ New American Bible][ Introducing the New Testament: its literature and theology], Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green, Marianne Meye Thompson[ An introduction to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity], Delbert Royce Burkett Later Jewish interpreters interpreted this figure as the Jewish Messiah. Such interpretation appears in the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra.  Traditional Christians have embraced the prophecies of the Book of Daniel, as they believe they were clearly advised by their Messiah, Jesus, to be watchful for their fulfillment in the &quot;end times&quot; of this world. In the Olivet discourse (, ) Jesus applies Daniel's prophecy of a desolating sacrilege set up in the temple (Dan. 9:27, 11:31) to a future event—the CE 70 destruction of Jerusalem.Craig Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, Apollos 1997, pp.322-326 According to Jesus' words, this event would involve the leveling of the temple, flight from Judea, and would happen in Jesus' own generation (Mark 13: 2-4, 14, 30).  Many Christians today re-apply this prediction to a final tribulation immediately preceding Judgement Day. Some consider the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks to be particularly compelling due to what they interpret to be prophetic accuracy.  According to some scholars, Dan. 12:2 is the earliest clear reference in the Hebrew Scriptures to the resurrection of the dead,Hartman and Di Lella, 1990, p.&amp;nbsp;419 with many &quot;countrymen&quot; awakening from death, some to eternal life and some to eternal disgrace. This belief is also expressed in 2 Maccabees and is linked, as in Daniel, with the idea of divine retribution.[ Encyclopedia of theology: the concise Sacramentum mundi],  Karl Rahner2 Macc. 7:14 : &quot;And when he was now ready to die, he spoke thus: It is better, being put to death by men, to look for hope from God, to be raised up again by him; for, as to thee (Antiochus Epiphanes), thou shalt have no resurrection unto life&quot;. The notion of resurrection was to be elaborated in the New Testament and Christian doctrine.  ==Poly-traditional tomb sites of Daniel==  There are six different locations all claimed to be the site of the tomb: Babylon, Kirkuk and Muqdadiyah in Iraq, Susa and Malamir in Iran, and Samarkand in Uzbekistan.  