Is the book of Daniel critiquing Humanism?

Question

Assumptions:

• across the whole old Testament, the city of Jerusalem is (in part) a literary symbol for God's work
• in contrast, across the whole old Testament, the city of Babylon is (in part) a literary symbol for Human achievement

In Daniel, there are several mentions of 'four kingdoms' across different chapters. Now these have specific meanings in each chapter and generally aren't necessarily connected.

We do however see a pattern (among other patterns). The last Kingdom in each is a 'lesser Kingdom'. You might be prompted to ask the question, "What does Daniel have against the fourth kingdom?"

The answer I heard last night (in church) was that, "in a way, Daniel is critiquing the idea that the world is getting better on its own."

What do you think? Is there evidence to suggest that the book of Daniel critiquing Humanism?

Answer 1

It would probably be more accurate to say that it is critiquing empire. In fact the whole Old Testament can be read as a polemic against empire and in favor of a limited government that stays within limited borders rather than trying to conquer all its neighbors (i.e. Israel's limited monarchy with definite borders "From Dan to Beersheba"). There's a book by a Jewish scholar that was written to that effect, The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture by Yoram Hazony, published by Cambridge University Press, 2012. His thesis is basically that even people who don't believe the Bible is inspired can read the Hebrew scriptures (i.e. Old Testament) as a political treatise against globalism, and as philosophy presented in narrative form.