Outline of Daniel
A few conclusions are in order. First, when an author gives such a major clue as a shift in the very language he uses to communicate his message, the wisest course of action is to allow such to shape the outline of the book. Second, the Aramaic section of the book contains an interesting chiastic pattern in which the various parts mirror each other. To some degree, we should expect the corresponding chapters also to interpret one another. Thus, as we intimated earlier, the prophecies in chapter 2 need to be read in the light of the prophecies of chapter 7, and vice versa. Third, at the same time, the chiastic parallels do not necessarily indicate precisely the same message. For example, in chapters 4 and 5, the judgments on the proud rulers differ in severity and outcome. Fourth, the chiastic pattern in Daniel illustrates a phenomenon not often observed by modern-day interpreters. Few New Testament scholars today see chiasmus in that corpus, for example, even there is strong evidence that many books are arranged on a chiastic pattern (e.g., Galatians, Titus, Romans, Ephesians, etc.). As many as one third of the Psalms have been arranged chiastically as well. In the least, we ought to be open to this organizational principle, especially in places where a more traditional outline ends up in a dead end.
1 There are, to be sure, other approaches, such as found in Gleason Archer, Old Testament Introduction, 377-79 (twelve main divisions).
2 The following outline also implicitly argues for the literary unity of the book, suggesting that one author penned it.