top of page
Search

The Authenticity and Dating of the Book of Daniel

A Comprehensive Defense


Introduction


The book of Daniel stands as a significant piece of Scripture, offering profound insights into prophecy, history, and God's sovereignty. However, it has faced accusations of being a forgery or a product of a much later period than traditionally believed. This article presents a thorough defense of the authenticity and early dating of the book of Daniel, addressing criticisms and providing evidence supporting its genuineness.


The Accusations Against the Book of Daniel


The book of Daniel has been accused by critics of being a pseudepigraphal work—a text written under a false name—with claims that it was composed in the second century B.C.E. rather than in the sixth century B.C.E. Critics argue that the detailed prophecies and historical references indicate a later authorship by someone other than Daniel. This accusation challenges the integrity of the Scripture and questions the validity of its prophetic revelations.



Importance of Defending Daniel's Authenticity


Defending the authenticity of the book of Daniel is crucial because it upholds the reliability of Scripture and the truthfulness of prophetic revelation. If Daniel were a forgery, it would undermine the confidence in the Bible's divine inspiration and historical accuracy. Therefore, examining the evidence in its defense is essential for maintaining the integrity of the biblical canon.


Conservative Scholars Affirming Daniel's Authenticity


Renowned conservative Bible scholars have consistently affirmed the authenticity of the book of Daniel. Gleason L. Archer stated that the linguistic and historical evidence supports a sixth-century B.C.E. date of composition. Norman L. Geisler emphasized that the detailed prophecies and accurate historical accounts attest to its genuineness. Josh McDowell highlighted archaeological findings that corroborate the events and figures mentioned in Daniel, reinforcing its credibility.


Historical Criticism of Daniel


Criticism of the book of Daniel began as early as the third century C.E. with the philosopher Porphyry, who argued that the prophecies were too accurate to have been written beforehand and must have been composed after the events occurred. In more recent centuries, higher criticism fueled similar skepticism, asserting that predictive prophecy is impossible and that Daniel must be a product of the Maccabean period (second century B.C.E.).



The Seriousness of the Forgery Charge


The charge against Daniel is severe because it implies intentional deception. If the book were written under a false name with fabricated prophecies, it would constitute a deliberate attempt to mislead readers. Such an accusation not only attacks the book itself but also questions the moral integrity of its purported author and the divine inspiration of Scripture.


Alleged Historical Inaccuracies in Daniel


Critics claim that the book of Daniel contains historical inaccuracies, particularly regarding the figures of Belshazzar and Darius the Mede. They argue that these individuals are either fictional or misrepresented, casting doubt on the book's historical reliability.


The Case of Belshazzar


For a long time, critics delighted in pointing out that there was no historical evidence for a Babylonian king named Belshazzar. They asserted that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon, not Belshazzar. However, archaeological discoveries, such as the Nabonidus Cylinder, have confirmed that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and acted as co-regent in Babylon during his father's absence. Daniel's reference to Belshazzar as king accurately reflects this arrangement.


In Daniel 5:1, it is written, "Belshazzar the king held a great feast for a thousand of his nobles, and he was drinking wine in the presence of the thousand" (UASV). This depiction aligns with historical findings that Belshazzar had significant authority and was viewed as king by the people.



Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar's Son


Daniel refers to Belshazzar as the "son" of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 5:2). Critics argue that this is historically inaccurate since Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus. However, in ancient Near Eastern terminology, the term "son" could also mean "descendant" or "successor." It is possible that Belshazzar's mother was a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, making him a grandson. Thus, Daniel's account remains accurate within the cultural context.


Daniel's Detailed Knowledge of Babylonian Monarchy


Daniel's descriptions of the Babylonian monarchy display a detailed understanding that surpasses that of other ancient historians. His accounts of court customs, administrative structures, and specific events indicate firsthand knowledge or access to reliable sources from the time.


The Identity of Darius the Mede


Daniel mentions Darius the Mede as the ruler who took over Babylon after its fall (Daniel 5:31). Critics claim that there is no historical record of such a person, suggesting that Daniel fabricated this figure. However, several plausible explanations reconcile this issue.


One possibility is that Darius the Mede was another name for Gubaru (also known as Gobryas), a general under Cyrus the Great who governed Babylon after its conquest. Alternatively, Darius may have been a throne name for Cyaxares II, a Median king who ruled under the authority of Cyrus. The absence of Darius the Mede from secular records does not conclusively prove nonexistence, as historical records from that period are incomplete.



Lessons from Belshazzar and Shalmaneser


Critics should exercise caution before categorically denying the existence of biblical figures due to a lack of secular evidence. The case of Belshazzar demonstrates that archaeological discoveries can vindicate biblical accounts previously deemed inaccurate. Similarly, Shalmaneser, once thought to be a fictional king, was later confirmed through historical findings.


Reasons for Secular Records Omitting Darius the Mede


Secular records may not mention Darius the Mede due to the focus on more prominent rulers like Cyrus the Great. It's also possible that Darius served in a subordinate capacity, making his reign less notable to historians of the time. Daniel's account, however, provides valuable details preserved through divine inspiration.


Synchronization of Daniel and Jeremiah on Jehoiakim's Reign


Critics point to an alleged discrepancy between Daniel and Jeremiah regarding the years of King Jehoiakim's reign. Daniel 1:1 states, "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it" (UASV). Jeremiah refers to the fourth year (Jeremiah 25:1). This difference arises from the use of different calendrical systems. Daniel, writing from a Babylonian perspective, uses the accession-year system, whereas Jeremiah uses the non-accession-year system of Judah. When accounting for this, the dates align without discrepancy.



The Dating in Daniel 1:1


Attacking the dating in Daniel 1:1 is a weak argument because it overlooks the ancient practices of recording reigns and events. Understanding the historical context and dating methods resolves the perceived conflict between Daniel and other biblical accounts.


Archaeological Evidence Supporting Daniel


Archaeological discoveries have corroborated various details in Daniel's account:


  • Nebuchadnezzar's Religious Image: Daniel 3 describes Nebuchadnezzar setting up a golden image for worship. Archaeological findings have uncovered Babylonian practices of erecting large statues for religious purposes, supporting Daniel's narrative.

  • Nebuchadnezzar's Boastfulness: In Daniel 4:30, Nebuchadnezzar boasts, "Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built as a royal residence by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?" (UASV). Inscriptions attributed to Nebuchadnezzar have been found, echoing similar pride in his building projects.


Forms of Punishment Reflecting Accuracy


Daniel accurately reflects the different forms of punishment under Babylonian and Persian rule. Under Babylonian law, execution by fire was common (Daniel 3:6). Under Persian rule, punishment by being thrown into a den of lions was practiced (Daniel 6:7). This distinction demonstrates the author's knowledge of the legal practices of each empire.



Contrast Between Babylonian and Medo-Persian Legal Systems


The book of Daniel highlights the unchangeable nature of Medo-Persian laws (Daniel 6:8). Once a decree was issued, it could not be altered, even by the king. This contrasts with Babylonian law, where the king had more flexibility. Daniel's awareness of these differences indicates his familiarity with the respective legal systems.


Details of Belshazzar's Feast Reflecting Firsthand Knowledge


Daniel's account of Belshazzar's feast includes specific details that suggest firsthand knowledge of Babylonian customs. For example, the presence of wives and concubines at the feast (Daniel 5:2) aligns with Babylonian practices but differs from later Greek customs, where women were not present at such banquets. This accuracy points to an author who lived during the events described.


Explanation for Daniel's Intimate Knowledge


The most reasonable explanation for Daniel's intimate knowledge of the times and customs of the Babylonian exile is that he was an eyewitness. As a high-ranking official in both the Babylonian and Medo-Persian administrations, Daniel had direct access to the royal courts and firsthand experience of the events he recorded.



Placement of Daniel in the Hebrew Canon


Critics argue that the placement of Daniel among the Writings (Ketuvim) rather than the Prophets (Nevi'im) in the Hebrew canon suggests a later date and lesser status. However, the categorization in the Hebrew Scriptures is based on literary genre and function rather than on the date or prophetic authority. Daniel is placed among the Writings due to its apocalyptic and wisdom literature characteristics.


Ancient Jewish View of the Book of Daniel


The ancient Jews highly regarded the Book of Daniel. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus treated Daniel as a historical figure and his book as authentic Scripture. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which include portions of Daniel, indicate that it was accepted and revered well before the second century B.C.E.



The Apocryphal Book Ecclesiasticus and Daniel


Some critics note that the apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach), written around 180 B.C.E., does not mention Daniel in its list of notable men, suggesting Daniel was not yet known. However, this reasoning is faulty because Ecclesiasticus is not exhaustive in its mentions, omitting other significant figures like Ezra and Job. The absence of Daniel does not prove non-existence or late authorship.


The Apostle Paul's Allusions to Daniel


The apostle Paul, in Hebrews 11:33-34, alludes to events recorded in Daniel: "who through faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire" (UASV). This reference affirms the acceptance of Daniel's accounts among early Christians.



Josephus' Testimony Regarding Alexander the Great


Josephus recounts that when Alexander the Great approached Jerusalem, the high priest showed him the book of Daniel, wherein Alexander saw prophecies concerning himself (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, Chapter VIII). This account, while debated among historians, fits with known history in that Alexander treated the Jews favorably, possibly influenced by their Scriptures.



Linguistic Evidence Supporting Daniel


The linguistic composition of Daniel, written in both Hebrew and Aramaic with some Persian and Greek words, aligns with the historical context of the sixth century B.C.E.


  • Hebrew and Aramaic Usage: Daniel's Hebrew is consistent with other sixth-century B.C.E. writings like Ezekiel and Ezra. The Aramaic sections correspond to Imperial Aramaic used during that period.

  • Greek Words: The presence of a few Greek words, mainly names of musical instruments (Daniel 3:5), does not necessitate a late date. Greek culture had already influenced the Near East before the sixth century B.C.E. The minimal use of Greek terms suggests an earlier date since a second-century B.C.E. author would likely have incorporated more Greek language due to Hellenistic dominance.


The Dead Sea Scrolls and Daniel


The Dead Sea Scrolls, dated from the third to the first century B.C.E., contain multiple copies of the book of Daniel. The high number of manuscripts indicates that Daniel was considered Scripture well before the alleged second-century B.C.E. composition date proposed by critics.


Ezekiel's Reference to Daniel


The prophet Ezekiel, a contemporary of Daniel, mentions him three times (Ezekiel 14:14, 20; 28:3), acknowledging Daniel's righteousness and wisdom. This serves as the oldest evidence of Daniel's existence and prominence during the Babylonian exile.



Jesus Christ's Testimony


The most convincing proof of the book of Daniel's authenticity comes from Jesus Christ Himself. In Matthew 24:15, He says, "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place..." (UASV). Jesus refers to Daniel as a prophet and validates his writings. Accepting Jesus' authority necessitates accepting the authenticity of Daniel.


The Unbelief of Critics


Despite substantial evidence, many critics remain unconvinced of Daniel's authenticity due to a bias against supernatural prophecy. Their skepticism stems from a philosophical presupposition that predictive prophecy is impossible. This prejudice prevents them from acknowledging the validity of the evidence supporting Daniel.


Conclusion


The comprehensive examination of historical, linguistic, archaeological, and scriptural evidence supports the authenticity and early dating of the book of Daniel. The criticisms leveled against it fail to withstand scrutiny when all the facts are considered. The book stands as a genuine work of a faithful servant of Jehovah, providing profound prophecies and insights that continue to edify believers today.



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


14 views0 comments

Comments

bottom of page