top of page
Search
Writer's pictureEdward D. Andrews
Sep 279 min read

How Can We Defend the Authenticity of the Book of Daniel?

The Book of Daniel Under Scrutiny


The book of Daniel, revered for millennia, has come under fire by critics who question its authenticity. While for centuries it was regarded as historical and prophetic, recent scholarly attacks have challenged the veracity of its authorship and claims. These criticisms often focus on the dating of the book and whether it could have been written in the sixth century B.C.E., as it claims, or if it was a later forgery penned during the Maccabean period in the second century B.C.E. The outcome of this debate is crucial, as the credibility of biblical prophecy hinges on the authenticity of Daniel.


Critics such as Porphyry, a third-century C.E. philosopher, argued that the book of Daniel was written retrospectively, casting known historical events as prophecy to promote the Jewish faith. Porphyry’s assertions have been echoed through the centuries, especially by rationalists and those who reject the possibility of divine prophecy. They argue that the detailed prophecies concerning the rise and fall of empires, including the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, must have been written after the fact. However, these critics underestimate the overwhelming internal and external evidence supporting the book of Daniel as a product of its claimed time period.



The Importance of Accurate Chronology


To begin with, the book of Daniel situates its historical narrative during the period from approximately 618 to 536 B.C.E. This time span includes the Babylonian exile, a significant event in Jewish history. Accurate biblical chronology confirms that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, besieged Jerusalem in 618 B.C.E., leading to the deportation of many Jews, including Daniel. The fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians in 539 B.C.E. is another key event recorded in Daniel, with the narrative ending around 536 B.C.E. when Cyrus the Great allows the exiles to return to Jerusalem.


Critics often focus on these dates, suggesting that Daniel’s book was written much later, between 167 and 164 B.C.E., during the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. However, the internal coherence of the book, the detailed knowledge of Babylonian and Persian customs, and the absence of historical errors point to its authenticity as a sixth-century document. To dismiss Daniel as a second-century forgery overlooks both the historical context in which it was written and the precise knowledge it contains—knowledge that could not have been fabricated centuries later.



The Case of Belshazzar: Missing Monarch or Eyewitness Testimony?


One of the central claims of critics is that the book of Daniel fabricates or distorts historical figures, particularly Belshazzar, whom Daniel describes as the king of Babylon during its fall to the Medes and Persians. For years, secular historians denied the existence of Belshazzar, asserting that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon. This discrepancy led critics to accuse Daniel of inaccuracy. However, archaeological discoveries in the mid-19th century unearthed cuneiform tablets that revealed Belshazzar was indeed the son of Nabonidus, and he ruled Babylon as coregent during his father’s long absences from the city. Thus, Belshazzar was in charge of Babylon when it fell, vindicating Daniel’s account (Daniel 5:1-30).


Moreover, Daniel’s reference to Belshazzar offering the third-highest position in the kingdom to whoever could interpret the mysterious writing on the wall (Daniel 5:7) provides further evidence of the accuracy of the book. If Belshazzar had been second-in-command, the third position would have been the highest reward he could offer. This subtle detail, confirmed by archaeological records, is something that could not have been fabricated by a later writer unfamiliar with Babylonian customs.


Critics also question Daniel’s claim that Belshazzar was the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 5:11). However, as noted earlier, Hebrew and Aramaic have no specific word for “grandson.” Thus, “son” can also mean “descendant.” It appears that Belshazzar was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar through his mother, as Nabonidus likely married Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter to legitimize his claim to the throne. This explanation aligns with both biblical language and historical practices.



Who Was Darius the Mede?


Another contentious point among critics is the figure of Darius the Mede, whom Daniel describes as assuming control of Babylon after its conquest by the Persians (Daniel 5:31; 6:1-28). Darius the Mede is not mentioned in any surviving Babylonian or Persian records, leading some to assert that he is a fictitious character. However, this conclusion is premature, as the historical record is far from complete. Just as the existence of Belshazzar was once denied but later confirmed, it is entirely possible that future archaeological discoveries will shed light on the identity of Darius the Mede.


One plausible identification for Darius the Mede is Gubaru, a general under Cyrus the Great who was appointed governor of Babylon after its conquest. Gubaru ruled with considerable authority and was responsible for the administration of the city, fitting the description of Darius in Daniel. Furthermore, Daniel’s account of Darius appointing 120 satraps to govern the kingdom (Daniel 6:1) aligns with what we know of Persian administrative practices, adding credibility to the identification of Darius as a prominent Persian official.


Additionally, the absence of Darius the Mede from other historical records does not prove that he did not exist. Many details about ancient rulers and officials have been lost to history, and the fact that Daniel provides such detailed accounts of the political landscape in Babylon suggests that the writer had firsthand knowledge of the events. It is more reasonable to view Darius as an authentic historical figure whose precise identity is still debated but whose existence is supported by the biblical text.



Daniel and the Reign of Jehoiakim


A third criticism leveled against the book of Daniel concerns the chronology of Jehoiakim’s reign. Daniel 1:1 states that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign, while Jeremiah 25:1 and 46:2 appear to date this event to Jehoiakim’s fourth year. Critics claim this discrepancy proves that Daniel is historically inaccurate. However, this argument overlooks the differences in how Babylonian and Jewish chronologies reckoned time.


Nebuchadnezzar became king of Babylon in 624 B.C.E., and the siege of Jerusalem occurred shortly afterward, around 620 B.C.E. Daniel, writing from the perspective of a Jew living in Babylon, likely counted Jehoiakim’s reign from the time he became a vassal of Babylon, which would have been his third year of subjection. On the other hand, Jeremiah, writing from the perspective of those in Jerusalem, counted Jehoiakim’s reign from his initial appointment by Pharaoh Necho. Thus, there is no contradiction between Daniel and Jeremiah—both accounts are accurate, but they use different starting points for Jehoiakim’s reign.


Furthermore, Daniel’s familiarity with the book of Jeremiah, as indicated by his reference to it in Daniel 9:2, strengthens the case for the authenticity of his account. If the book of Daniel were a later forgery, it seems unlikely that the forger would contradict Jeremiah so openly. Instead, the writer would likely have harmonized the accounts to avoid suspicion. The fact that Daniel presents this chronological detail in a straightforward manner indicates that he was not attempting to deceive his readers but was reporting events from his perspective as an exile in Babylon.



Babylonian and Persian Customs: Evidence of Authenticity


One of the strongest arguments in favor of the authenticity of the Book of Daniel is its detailed knowledge of Babylonian and Persian customs, many of which have been confirmed by archaeology. For instance, Daniel 3:1-6 describes Nebuchadnezzar setting up a giant image and demanding that all his subjects worship it under penalty of death. Archaeological discoveries have revealed that Nebuchadnezzar indeed sought to unify his empire through religious practices, and the use of public monuments to enforce loyalty was common during his reign. The fiery furnace punishment described in Daniel 3:6, once dismissed as a myth, has been corroborated by Babylonian records that mention this form of execution.


Similarly, Daniel’s account of Nebuchadnezzar’s prideful boasting about his construction projects (Daniel 4:30) aligns with historical records. Archaeologists have uncovered bricks and inscriptions throughout Babylon bearing Nebuchadnezzar’s name, attesting to his extensive building campaigns. How could a later writer, living centuries after Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, have known such specific details about his character and achievements?


Moreover, Daniel’s portrayal of the differences between Babylonian and Persian law is remarkably accurate. Under Babylonian law, Nebuchadnezzar had absolute authority and could change laws at will, as seen in his decree to throw Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego into the fiery furnace (Daniel 3:19-22). In contrast, Persian law, as exemplified by Darius the Mede, was immutable. Once a law was enacted, not even the king could alter it, as seen when Darius was forced to throw Daniel into the lions’ den despite his desire to save him (Daniel 6:12-16). This distinction between Babylonian and Persian legal practices is well-documented by historians, providing further evidence of the authenticity of Daniel’s account.



External Testimony Supporting Daniel's Authenticity


In addition to the internal evidence of Daniel’s accuracy, there is significant external testimony supporting its authenticity. One notable source is the Jewish historian Josephus, who records that when Alexander the Great entered Jerusalem during his conquest of the Persian Empire, the Jewish priests showed him the Book of Daniel. According to Josephus, Alexander was so impressed by Daniel’s prophecies that he spared the city and treated the Jews favorably, recognizing himself in the prophecy that described the fall of the Persian Empire. This incident occurred in the fourth century B.C.E., long before the critics’ proposed date of 167-164 B.C.E. If Josephus’s account is accurate, it provides compelling evidence that the book of Daniel was already in existence and widely respected centuries before the Maccabean period.


Another critical piece of evidence comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in the caves of Qumran in 1952. Among the scrolls were fragments of the Book of Daniel, some of which date to the second century B.C.E. The presence of these fragments suggests that Daniel was already considered a canonical and authoritative text by that time. The scholars of Qumran were meticulous in preserving their sacred texts, and the inclusion of Daniel among their collection indicates that the book had been in circulation for some time, further undermining the claim that it was written in the second century B.C.E.


The prophet Ezekiel, who was a contemporary of Daniel, also provides significant testimony to Daniel’s authenticity. In Ezekiel 14:14, 20 and 28:3, Daniel is mentioned by name as a model of righteousness and wisdom, alongside figures such as Noah and Job. This shows that Daniel was already a well-known and respected figure during his own lifetime, reinforcing the idea that the book of Daniel is a genuine product of the sixth century B.C.E.



Jesus' Testimony: The Ultimate Evidence


Perhaps the most compelling evidence in favor of the Book of Daniel comes from Jesus Christ himself. In Matthew 24:15, Jesus refers to "Daniel the prophet" when discussing the signs of the last days, specifically citing Daniel’s prophecy of the "abomination of desolation" (Daniel 11:31; 12:11). For Christians who accept the authority of Jesus’ words, this testimony is irrefutable. If Jesus, who is "the faithful and true witness" (Revelation 3:14), affirmed the authenticity of Daniel, then no amount of scholarly criticism can negate its truth.


Jesus’ reference to Daniel also aligns with the prophetic timeline given in Daniel 9:24-27, which predicts the coming of the Messiah. Jesus’ ministry and sacrificial death fulfilled this prophecy, confirming both the accuracy of Daniel’s predictions and the divine inspiration of the book. To claim that Daniel was a forgery written during the Maccabean period not only calls into question the reliability of the book but also undermines the credibility of Jesus’ testimony and the foundation of Christian faith.



Conclusion: The Book of Daniel as an Inspired Record of Prophecy


The evidence overwhelmingly supports the authenticity of the Book of Daniel as a product of the sixth century B.C.E. The criticisms leveled against it, whether based on historical inaccuracies, chronological discrepancies, or external testimony, fail to hold up under scrutiny. The detailed knowledge of Babylonian and Persian customs, the accurate portrayal of historical events, and the external testimony of figures such as Josephus and Ezekiel all point to Daniel as an eyewitness account of the events it describes.


Most importantly, the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, affirms the truthfulness of the book of Daniel. Jesus’ reference to Daniel as a prophet and the fulfillment of Daniel’s messianic prophecies provide the ultimate validation of the book’s authenticity. For Christians, the words of Jesus carry far more weight than the opinions of modern scholars, whose biases against supernatural prophecy cloud their judgment.


Daniel’s prophecies, far from being a fraudulent attempt to manipulate history, stand as a testament to Jehovah’s sovereign control over the course of human events. The rise and fall of empires, the coming of the Messiah, and the future establishment of God’s kingdom are all foretold in this remarkable book. As Jesus declared, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). The book of Daniel, preserved through centuries of skepticism and attack, continues to offer hope and guidance to those who trust in Jehovah’s promises.



About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220 books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).


RECOMMENDED READING


18 views0 comments

Comments

bottom of page