Page 260 - Daniel

liturgical type which existed since the Deuteronomic age represented by
Solomon’s Prayer, 1 Ki. 8, the prayers of Jer., Jer. 26.32.44, and the
prayers in Ezr.–Neh., Ezr. 9, Neh. 1.9.” Montgomery goes on to say, “By
far the largest part of this prayer consists of language found in those
other compositions.” 19

Not all the higher critics, however, accept the explanation that Daniel
9:2–19 is an interpolation not originally in the book. Montgomery has

summarized the complicated arguments both for and against this view:

Von Gall, Einheitlichkeit, 123–126, has developed the thesis that Dan.’s
prayer is an interpolation, although the rest of his work contends for
the practical integrity of the canonical books. He is followed by Mar.,
Cha. [Marti’s Commentary, and Charles]. It is patent, as these scholars
argue, that the theme of the prayer does not correspond to the
context, which would seem to require a prayer for illumination, cf.
2:20 ff., and not a liturgical confession bearing on the national

catastrophe. Further, Dan.’s prayer for immediate redemption is in
contrast to the recognition of the far distance of that event, 8:26 and
end of this chap. It is pointed out that 5:4a repeats 5:3 and especially
that 5:20 is a joint with the main narrative, which is resumed in 5:21;
this would explain the repetition: “while I was speaking and praying
and confessing” “while I was speaking in prayer.” The present writer

agrees with Kamp. [Kamphausen] in finding these arguments
inconclusive. The second-century author may well have himself
inserted such a prayer in his book for the encouragement of the
faithful, even as the calculation of the times was intended for their
heartening…. For an elaborate study of the Prayer, defending its
authenticity and also arguing for its dependence on the Chronicler, S.
Bayer, Daniel-studien, Part 1. 20

The critics’ argument is based on the false premise that Jeremiah’s

seventy years and the seventy weeks of Daniel 9:24–27 are the same.
Because Daniel distinguishes these two periods, it is argued that the
material is an interpolation. But it is the critics who are wrong, not
Daniel. The alleged copying from a common source on the part of
Daniel, Nehemiah, and Baruch is better explained by the fact that Daniel
was written first (sixth century B.C.) and that Nehemiah and Baruch had