The biblical prophet Daniel was treated with hostility during his lifetime and has been attacked throughout history by sceptical or apostate Jews and Christians. At the same time, he has been cherished and defended by people of all generations, including faithful Jews, Jesus Christ, and modern researchers, who have systematically responded to criticisms and objections raised against his book and prophecies.
However, many modern theologians have joined forces in a unanimous challenge to the authorship of the biblical Book of Daniel. In their treatises, they argue that the book was written by an unknown author around 165 BC. The reason for denying the book’s historicity and veracity is not, as some might imagine, because Daniel’s prophecies failed to come true, but quite the opposite. It is precisely the fulfilment of the prophetic details in the Book of Daniel, to the letter and to the millimetre, that has led some to claim that it must have been written “after the event”. Thus, precisely what should have given the book credibility has become an argument against it. The arrows fly in both directions. It remains to be seen where the Achilles’ heel lies. Is it with Daniel, or with his critics?
Historical arguments
Was the Book of Daniel written in the 2nd century AD? Critics intended to prove that Daniel’s prophecies were merely historical accounts written in the form of prophecy after the event. This created a circular argument, forcing all of Daniel’s prophecies to “come true” during the conflict between the Jews and Antiochus Epiphanes in the 2nd century AD. Antiochus does indeed feature prominently in chapter 11 and to some extent in chapter 8 of the Book of Daniel. However, even these predictions extend beyond Antiochus’s lifetime and explicitly refer to ‘the time of the end’, which is marked by the resurrection of the dead (Daniel 8:17, 19; 12:1-2).
Had the prophecies been written after the event, their content would have had to be clear and precise. However, none of the prophetic periods mentioned in Daniel’s prophecies align with the events of Antiochus’s reign.[1] Furthermore, some historical details in Daniel would be inexplicable if these prophecies had been written after the event, namely at the end of Antiochus’s persecution. For instance, 1 Maccabees 1:17 quotes Daniel’s prophecies as having been fulfilled under Antiochus Epiphanes: “He invaded Egypt with a large fleet of ships and a powerful army, including chariots, elephants, and cavalry.”[2] However, Daniel had written: “… with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships” (Daniel 11:40). This discrepancy suggests that Daniel’s prophecy was written prior to the introduction of elephants as “war machines” in the Near East, which occurred around 330 BC.[3]
Again, if Daniel’s prophecy was written during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes to encourage the persecuted Hasidim, then why is there no “post-event prophecy” that praises the Maccabees, who led the revolt against Antiochus, for their deeds? In fact, the author of the book describes the Maccabean restoration as “a little help” for those who know God, and as an opportunity for political opportunists among the apostate Jews (Daniel 11:33–34). Furthermore, the author predicts that persecutions like that of Antiochus will be repeated “until the time of the end” (Daniel 11:35).
During the Hellenistic period (323–30 BC), and especially after the Maccabean Revolt, the Jews’ default attitude was nationalistic. Cultural hostility towards other nations increased. Hebrew was favoured over the other languages spoken by Jews and believers in Scripture disavowed Greek culture, even though apostate and Hellenistic Jews preferred Greek culture, language, and sometimes religion. However, the Book of Daniel is written partly in Aramaic, and although its heroes are opposed to paganism, they have a positive attitude towards Babylonian culture, foreign languages, and socialising with non-Jews. Daniel even accepts the strange title of “chief of the magicians” (Daniel 4:9). King Nebuchadnezzar, who has long been viewed by critics as a literary reflection of Antiochus Epiphanes, is determined to accept worship of the Creator. In contrast, Antiochus dies in terrible agony without receiving the forgiveness he sought.
Daniel mentions the Edomites, Moabites, and elite Ammonites among those who would escape the Syrian king’s grasp, while the “Beautiful Land” would suffer great losses (Daniel 11:41). Believing that such a statement could have been written by an ordinary Jew who created a pseudo-prophetic forgery simply to encourage the Jews to resist Antiochus requires a great deal of faith.
Did Daniel make chronological errors? Critics claim that the author of the Book of Daniel made chronological errors. For example, in Daniel 1:1, Nebuchadnezzar conquers Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign. However, according to Jeremiah (25:1; 46:2), this event occurred in the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign and the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. However, critics overlook the fact that, in those days, different calendar systems and methods of calculating years of reign were used. Furthermore, Jeremiah wrote in Jerusalem, while Daniel wrote in Babylon. For the Babylonians, a king’s reign was calculated from the next New Year celebration in autumn. King Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar’s father, is known to have died in August 605 BC while his son was on a military campaign in the west. According to the traditional inclusive calculation (ante-dating), which was probably practised in Jerusalem and which calculated the beginning of the year in spring, Nebuchadnezzar’s first year was between spring 605 and spring 604 BC. However, according to the Babylonian calculation, which did not count the year of accession to the throne (postdating), Nebuchadnezzar’s first year was between autumn 605 and autumn 604 BC. Thus, according to the Babylonian calculation, the year 604/603 is the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, whereas according to the traditional Hebrew calendar it is the first. The same reasoning also applies to the reign of Jehoiakim. There is no contradiction in the fact that Jeremiah speaks of the fourth year and Daniel of the third.
Who is Darius? Critics have also pointed out the historical “error” of the presence of a Median king named “Darius, son of Ahasuerus”, who reigned in Babylon for at least a year immediately after its conquest on 12 October 539 BC. Indeed, this “Darius” figure has not yet been confirmed outside of the Bible, and there is no consensus regarding his identity. However, until 1950, critics were equally preoccupied with the identity of Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon (mentioned in Daniel 5). The only thing historians knew was that the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus. However, the deciphering of some Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions proved that Nabonidus’ heir was named Bel-shar-utsur, and that he had been co-regent with Nabonidus during the final years of Babylon.[4]
It seems that critics have learned nothing from this, as they continue to argue that the presence of “Darius the Mede” in the Book of Daniel is contradicted by history. They forget that the science of history is only one part of the historical truth, and that historiography and archaeology only uncover one part of the past, and that only some of what archaeology has uncovered has been studied.
According to Josephus (Antiquities 10:232-248), Darius the Mede was the son of Astyages, the king of the Medes. He claims that Darius was related to Cyrus, whose mother was Astyages’ daughter, and that they conquered Babylon together and that Darius had another name among the Greeks.[5] Xenophon (c. 430–354 BC) states that Cyrus marched against Babylon in alliance with Cyaxares II, his uncle and father-in-law. D. Wiseman (1957) suggested that “Darius the Mede” was Cyrus’s Median name,[6] while J. Whitcomb identified him with Gubaru (Gau-baruva) in the Chronicle of Nabonidus: a relatively unknown Iranian figure who ruled as governor of Babylon under Cyrus for around 14 years. Regardless of which of these three solutions is correct, the important thing is that the silence of historical documents cannot be used as an argument against the Bible.
Unlike ancient historiography, the Book of Daniel is the only source of information about the construction of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4:30) and the existence of Belshazzar, who was second in line to the throne of the empire (Daniel 5:7, 16, 29). This was only discovered a few decades ago; the authors of the Maccabean era did not have this information. Daniel must have been very close to the events in order to have knowledge of Darius the Mede, whom he describes as a Mede who was “made ruler” over the Chaldeans (Daniel 9:1) and who was 62 years old when he ascended the throne (Daniel 5:31).
The Book of Daniel begins in Hebrew (Daniel 1:1–2:4), continues in Aramaic (2:4–7:28) and then returns to Hebrew (10:1–12:13). All attempts to explain this manner of writing have proved unconvincing. However, it is clear that, although it was not accepted as a sacred language, Aramaic was predominant at the court of Babylon and in official relations with the provinces during the Maccabean era. The only other biblical author to write in this way, alternating between Hebrew and Aramaic, was the Jewish scribe Ezra, who hailed from Babylon. Literary evidence shows that both authors found switching between languages very natural.
Critics have argued that the Hebrew and Aramaic in Daniel must be more recent than the book claims because it contains some Persian and Greek terms. In reality, Aramaic was the language of circulation, culture, and commerce throughout the Near East from the time of the Assyrian Empire. It naturally adopted terms from various languages, which it then passed on to local languages.
The fact that certain administrative or court terms are of Medo-Persian origin does not necessarily mean that the writing emerged long after the Persian conquest. Since 1990, the Romanian language has adopted terms of American origin with the advent of computerisation. We did not need to be conquered or have centuries pass in order to adopt words that we still write according to foreign rules, such as “mouse”, “hard disk”, “site”, “summit”, “brand”, and “top.” Similarly, the languages spoken by Daniel’s people had borrowed Persian words as early as 530 BC. Words of Greek origin only appear as the names of a few Greek instruments in Daniel 3. Moreover, the Greeks’ connections with the Near East predate the Chaldean Empire.
External (documentary) arguments
It has been claimed that there is no external evidence for the existence of the Book of Daniel prior to the Maccabean era. Daniel’s widespread acceptance around the year 100, and the prophet’s recognised fame, could not be explained if the book had been written in the Maccabean era.
Ezra and Nehemiah (c. 400 BC) most likely modelled their prayers on Daniel’s (9:4-19; cf. Ezra 9; Nehemiah 9:32), though critics believe the opposite to be true. The earliest mention of Daniel’s name and fame is in Ezekiel (14:14, 20; 28:3). However, no consideration is given to the evidence by destructive criticism: critics claim that this refers to another Daniel, namely the pagan king Daniel of Ugarit, who is mentioned in a childish Canaanite legend written around 800 years before Ezekiel. Critics ignore the fact that this Daniel had a son (Aqhat) who was more prominent than his father, that he was not renowned for his wisdom, and that he worshipped Baal and loved wine.
In the Book of Ezekiel, Daniel is mentioned alongside Noah and Job, and is considered comparable to them in terms of moral excellence and determination to save those close to him. Ezekiel refers to this quality. Noah saved his three sons, Job interceded with God for his three friends, and Daniel also sought the well-being of his three friends. When correctly understood, Ezekiel’s message refers to his contemporary Daniel, at the court of Babylon.
Theological arguments
Theological arguments are also very important to critics. They argue that belief in angels and resurrection in Judaism was adopted only during the Persian era. Therefore, if Daniel speaks of angels and gives them names, and if Daniel 12:1 refers to resurrection, then it must be a late book. However, any reader of the Bible knows that cherubim and angels are mentioned in the books of Moses, and that resurrection and ascension to heaven without death are also illustrated in the pre-exilic books. If Leviticus 16 contains the name of an evil angel (Azazel), why should the presence of two heavenly names (Michael and Gabriel) in the Book of Daniel suggest that it is of very late origin?
Philosophical arguments
This final set of arguments could accurately be described as weak; they are purely psychological and emotional. Some people cannot believe in the supernatural, instead deeming the miracles recounted in the Bible to be legends and myths. They also claim that the prophecies must have been written after the events took place because knowledge of the future is impossible. This argument is fundamental to the attitude of critics and is the cheapest of all. This means that, as in any field of knowledge, there exists an irreducible conflict between the acceptance (critical, but with faith) of the affirmation of Scripture and the purely humanistic study of Scripture, of which we must be aware.
A different perspective
Nonetheless, the dominance of destructive criticism did not come about without constant challenges from conservative critics. E. B. Pusey, a professor of Hebrew at Oxford who died in 1882, wrote in his famous Lectures on Daniel, “I selected the book of Daniel, because unbelieving critics considered their attacks upon it to be one of their greatest triumphs… The exposure of the weakness of criticism, where it thought itself most triumphant, would, I hoped, shake the confidence of the young in their would-be misleaders. True! Disbelief of Daniel had become an axiom in the unbelieving critical school. Only, they mistook the result of unbelief for the victory of criticism. They overlooked the historical fact that the disbelief had been antecedent to the criticism. Disbelief had been the parent, not the offspring of their criticism; their starting-point, not the winning-post of their course.”
If you remove the supernatural elements (miracles and prophecy) from the Bible, all religious meaning and hope is lost, and it becomes merely a collection of immortal stories. The Book of Daniel would then contain a few bedtime stories for children and some apocalyptic literary creations designed to frighten adults. However, the best way to counteract the lies that seek to diminish the depth and grandeur of Daniel’s prophecies is to read the book itself intelligently. If scepticism is the issue, let’s start by being a little more sceptical of the critics.
