Blog

In part 1 of this series, we saw how critics attempt to assign a late date of around 167 B.C. to the book of Daniel, in order to claim that the prophecies in Daniel were not supernatural at all, but simply forgeries written after the fact.  We saw how detailed the prophecies were, and how they reach even beyond the 167 B.C. date of the critics.  But how do we answer their arguments for a late date to Daniel?

Daniel not one of the prophets?

• Skeptics claim that since Daniel was included in the Kethuvim, or “Writings” in the Masoretic text, it must have been dated no earlier than 200 B.C., after all the canonical prophets were written and about the time when the writings were supposedly assembled. But this objection doesn’t fly, because some of the other books listed in this group, such as the book of Job and the Davidic Psalms are ancient, Job being one of the oldest books, the Psalms of David about 1000 B.C.
• Further, there is evidence that Daniel used to be grouped with the prophetic books. jewish historian Josephus in 100 A.D. classifies the book of Daniel among the prophets {1}

The term Chaldeans:

It is alleged by critics that the term “Chaldeans” (Kasdim) used for the class of soothsayers in Daniel 2:2 did not become a special term for them until a later time than the sixth century B.C., and that in Nebuchadnezzar’s day it was only used as an ethnic term for Babylonians.

• But the author of Daniel was apparently aware of the use of “Chaldeans” as an ethnic term, as in Daniel 5:30, he mentions the “King of the Chaldeans”.
• Also, Herodotus in the 5th century B.C. used the term in a secondary sense for priests, so it had acquired a secondary meaning long before the critic’s date for Daniel.
• Another possibility research by scholar R.D. Wilson {2} is that the word for priest (Kasdu or Kaldu)  was derived from a word Galdu  that simply meant “master” and was a common title.  This would mean that the resemblance between Galdu and Kaldu would be accidental. {2}

Critics charge that the representation of Belshazzar as king of Babylon and son of Nebuchadnezzar  in chapter  5 is a historical blunder showing the author was a late date forger.  This is because Nabonidus was actually Nebuchadnezzar’s successor to the throne of Babylon.  Some skeptics even claimed that Belshazzar was a fictional character.

• In 1854 a series of archaeological discoveries proved the existence of Belshazzar.  The Nabonidus Cylinders  showed a prayer by King Nabonidus offered  a prayer for himself and his son Belshazzar, in a form of prayer normally offered for the reigning king.  Other ancient tablets refer to Belshazzar presenting sheep and oxen as an “offering of the king”. Then discovery of the Nabonidus Chronicle in  1882 showed that Nabonidus was  an absentee ruler most of the time, having moved to Arabia, and so often left his son Belshazzar in charge as the de facto king, as his viceroy.  This same document also explains that Nabonidus was away from Babylon when it fell.   In the Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus,  it states that as Nabonidus “started out on a long journey”  he “entrusted the kingship to his oldest,the firstborn” {3}
• In fact, this is why Daniel was offered as a reward the position of “third ruler in the kingdom” (Dan 5:16), since Belshazzar was officially number two, and his absentee father Nabonidus was number one ruler.   A later writer not living in the 6th century B.C. would likely not be familiar with these facts.  The fact that Herodotus, writing in the 5th century B.C. seems to have forgotten the name of Belshazzar entirely, supports this conclusion. {4}
• Finally, how about Belshazzar being the son of Nebuchadnezzar?   This overlooks the fact that in that time period the term “son” was often used for a successor to the same office whether or not they were a blood relative. {5}
•  Also, Nabonidus probably married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar since he was a usurper and not a blood descendant, making his son Belshazzar a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar.  And it is common knowledge that the word for father (abba)  can mean “grandfather” or even “great grandfather”.

Critics contend that “Darius the Mede” mentioned in Daniel 5:31 and 6:25, was a fictional character and could not have been spoken of as king or given credit for the capture of Babylon.  They charge the author of Daniel with confusing Darius the Mede with the later king Darius the son of Hystaspes, king of Persia, and not a Mede.

• But it is the critics that may be confused here.  There is no evidence that the two Darius’ were the same person.  Darius son of Hystaspes was not Median, but a Persian.  Dan. 5:31 states that Darius the Mede was 62 years old when he became a ruler in Babylon, where as the other Darius was a young man when he assumed the throne.
•  Also in Dan. 9:1 it is stated that Darius the Mede was “made” king, indicating a higher authority, and fitting the possibility that he was made a kind of viceroy or other subordinate ruler by Cyrus.  The same is indicated in Dan 5:31, where Darius the Mede is said to have “received” (qabbel)  the kingdom.
• The name “Darius” could also have been a title, much like “Pharaoh” in Egypt.  As for the charge that a mere subordinate ruler could not have made a decree to “all the earth” (Dan 6:25), it must be pointed out that the word for “earth” (Ar’a in Aramaic) may only mean “land” or “country” {6}
• There is one historical figure that fits very well with Darius the Mede, and that is Gubaru, a provincial governor under King Cyrus.  He is not to be confused with a general named Ugbaru as some critics do, who died just after Babylon was taken.  Gubaru, also called Gobryas, is mentioned in various sixth century tablets. {7}.  John Whitcomb, who has done much research on this topic, theorizes that   “”Darius” may have been a  royal title given to Gobryas when he was made a deputy ruler while Cyrus was absent on a European campaign {8}  This title could have been a temporary one.  And the term king is used in the Behistun inscription in reference to subordinate rulers {10}
• Whitcomb comments further:”It is our conviction that Gubaru, the governor of Babylon…appears in the book of Daniel as Darius the Mede…we believe that this identification is the only one which satisfactorily harmonizes the verious lines of evidence which we find in the book of Daniel and in the contemporary cuneiform records.” {9}
• Yet another possibility is that Darius the Mede and Cyrus were the same person. The “Mede” part of the name could have been used to emphasize the fact that Cyrus had a Median blood line-his mother was a Mede.  The age, 62, seems to fit well with what either Cyrus’ or Gubaru’s age would have been at the time.

Critics have claimed that the Aramaic in Daniel does not fit the sixth century because it contains Persian and Greek loan words.  They contend that this shows Daniel must have been composed in the Greek period in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century B.C.

• Here’s what they don’t tell you.  The Persian loan words are about 15 in number, and are government and administrative terms.  This makes sense when we realize that the book of Daniel was composed in final form after the Persian conquest of Babylon, Daniel himself mentioned in the book as having lived long enough to serve for several years under Persian rule.  Also note that six of the Persian loan words are not found later than 330 B.C., called “Old Persian”, which fits the early date better.
• As far as the Greek load words go, there are only three, and they are all the names of musical instruments that would have been familiar to traders in the Near East long before Daniel’s time.  They were in the Aramaic as the Italian words “piano” or “viola” are in English.
• A bigger problem for the skeptics is this: Why, if Daniel was written in the Greek Empire in the second century, are there no Greek governmental and administrative terms found in the book, after Greek had supposedly been the main language for over 160 years?
• As for the presence of Aramaic in Daniel meaning a late date, we see that critics accept Ezra as a 5th century book, yet it contains Aramaic.  In sixth century Babylon, the primary language spoken was Aramaic, which explains its use for part of the book of Daniel.
• As for the style of the Aramaic in Daniel, the critics used to charge that it matched up with Western Aramaic from a later time than the sixth century B.C..  But since the discovery of the 5th century Elephantine Papyrii in Egypt, it has been found that the Aramaic in Daniel matches with the Elephantine Papyrii Aramaic, called “Imperial Aramaic” or “Eastern Aramaic”  from the 5th and 4th centuries B.C., making the later date untenable.  Further, when the Aramaic is compared to that of a 2nd century document called the Genesis Apocryphon found at Qumran, the grammar and style do not match up, much as our modern English doesn’t match the Elizabethian style used in the King James English.  Critical scholars have actually conceded on this point {11}  Archer comments:  “If Daniel then was composed in Eastern Aramaic, it could not possibly have been written in second-century Palestine, as the Maccabean theory demands.” {12}
• As far as the Hebrew style in the Hebrew portions of Daniel, the styles are a little harder to match with specific time periods. Nevertheless, when the Hebrew in Daniel is compared to the Hebrew in later Qumran documents, they do not compare favorably.  Also, where the style difference is hard to see, it may be because the Hebrew was translated originally from Aramaic.

Speaking of documents found at Qumran, there is one more piece of archaeological evidence that severely damages the late date theory.   Manuscripts of Daniel have been found that date to the late second century B.C.    At least 8 scrolls of Daniel were found, some containing large portions of the book.  If Daniel had really been composed only a few decades earlier, why would there have been such a large number of scrolls preserved by the community, when the book had not much time to have been modified and edited as the critics charge, before finally being declared canonical?  There likely would not have been enough time, and so this evidence fits an earlier date for the composition of Daniel. [13}

We have been through extensive evidence in these two articles on the authenticity of the Book of Daniel.  But you’re going to be mad at me.  Because I will tell you now that you could have saved all this reading and me all the research by just believing Jesus when He said: “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand:)”  (Matt. 24:15)

If we believe Jesus, we can save hundreds of hours of library research.  If we don’t believe Jesus, we have much bigger problems than who wrote the book of Daniel!  As always, as the Lord shut the mouths of the lions for Daniel, so He shuts the mouths of critics of His word to this day!

{1} Archer, Gleason, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, revised edition, Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1994, page 424.

{2} Ibid., pp. 425-426.

{3} Belshazzar, the second most powerful man in Babylon, by Keaton Halley, Creation.com, Creation Magazine 37(3) 2015.

{4} Archer, page 427.

{5} Ibid., p. 426.

{6} Ibid., p. 428.

{7} Ibid., p. 428-429.

[8} Ibid., p. 429.

{9} Ibid., p. 429.

[10} www.tektonics.org/print.php4 -retrieved 12/26/12.

{11} Ibid.

{12} Archer, p. 435.

[13} New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls -retrieved 12/26/12-www.biblearchaeology.org.