A short report on the dating of the Old Testament Book of Daniel with
respect to the Fundamental View of a supernatural God who is not devoid of
the ability to interject Himself into the affairs of his created world.
Believing, as does this writer, in the Fundamental viewpoint concerning
the inspiration of the entire Scripture, it seems fitting and proper to
begin this work, written on the date of the Book of Daniel, with a
quotation from the Apostle Paul taken from the New Testament.
In the first chapter, and the twentieth verse, of First Corinthians, Paul
says, �Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of
this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?�
Paul further elaborates on this theme in the first chapter of his letter
to the Romans: �Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...�
(Romans 1:22)
In view of the fallen nature of mankind it is not only reasonable, to be
expected, it is a proof of the veracity of the Fundamental position of
historic Christianity that hose very tenets are challenged as foolish.
Not only did Jesus predict that His followers would be challenged (Matthew
10:22 - �...ye shall be hated of all men...�), but the fact that sinful
mankind is in open rebellion against the Person and authority of God
demands that those who would align themselves with the righteousness of
God must be �out of step with� - considered foolish by, the world at
large.
Nowhere is this antagonism shown more clearly than in the controversy
which surrounds the date of the Book of Daniel. Consider the story which
the Christian is asked to believe in lieu of the supernatural origin of
the Book of Daniel.
"Once upon a time a pious man (who was either a fraud or an insane person)
decided to say that he was the Prophet Daniel. This man, who lived
centuries after the incidents which claimed to have witnessed, decided to
embellish his after-the-fact 'predictions' with a detailed description of
life in Nebuchadnezzer�s court. This novelist (one either mad or
dishonest as he took the name of one long dead) could have had little or
no direct knowledge of the facts of his creation. He was, however, very
lucky in his 'facts.' An example of this �luck� is contained in the story
of the three men in the fiery furnace. To most people of his day this
must have seem preposterous and absurd. However, in a letter dated even
before the time of Nebuchadnezzer (John B. Alexander, New Light on the
Fiery Furnace; Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 69, 1950, pp. 375-6)
mention is made of a royal decree ordering the death of a slave by burning
in a furnace."[1]
This is an amazing story. The Jewish people, a �People of the Book,� are
accused of accepting what must have been an obvious forgery into the canon
of their �Holy Scripture.
Consider the possibility of my writing a book today with he name of
�George Washington� as the author. Would anyone honestly accept it as the
work of our first president? Yet, this is exactly the same type of
proposition which the Christian is asked to accept. What would not be
accepted on the natural level is expected to be accepted, without
question, on the spiritual plane. To believe otherwise, the liberal tells
us, is to be �foolish.�
DATING
Although by one of faith the question does not really need to be asked, we
will ask: Where does one find evidence to support the early date for the
authorship of Daniel? The liberal scholar would put the date of the
writing of Daniel after the time of Alexander the Great. This is not done
without prejudice. The date is given so that the prophecy which is
contained within the book would become nothing more than another history -
although a forged and fanciful history. The fundamental scholar would
tend to put the writing of the Book of Daniel closer to the time which it
actually occurred.
The Book of Daniel was written by Daniel during the time of the Exile in
Babylon, and later during the empire of the Medes and the Persians.
Other than a disregard for the predictive aspect of prophecy, and thus a
preconceived bias among liberals that predictive prophecy must be written
after the fact, the main battle ground over Daniel would seem to be in the
area of the language in which it was originally written. �The book of
Daniel shares with the book of Ezra the unique phenomenon of being written
in two different Semitic languages."[2]
That statement, in itself, may come as a surprise to many conservatives
who have been exposed to the liberal logic. Of course, everyone knows
that Daniel was written in both Hebrew and Aramaic. But, so also was
Ezra. Why is the fact not so loudly proclaimed by the liberal? The
answer may lie in the fact that Ezra contains little of the type of
prophecy - precise, predictive and demonstratively fulfilled (in large
part) in history, as does the Book of Daniel. The liberal feels that he
has little to fear from Ezra. He feels no need to degrade this book at he
has done with Daniel.
The fact of the two languages is not disputed by the conservative. �The
transition from Hebrew to Aramaic to Hebrew at Daniel 2:3b and after
Daniel 7:28 is preserved in the Qumran fragments, indicating that the book
was composed in this manner.�[3]
One must remember that the Hebrew language would have been the native
tongue of Daniel. But, as he was also a slave, if not an appointed
official, of both the Babylonian and the Persian Courts. In these
situations, Aramaic was the �Court Language.� Indeed, a study of the
Aramaic portions of the text would lead to the conclusion that Daniel was
not written during the time of the Greek subjection of Palestine.
"Aramaic is divided into several major groups. The two that concern us
here are 'Official Aramaic' (700 to 300 B. C.), ... And 'Middle Aramaic'
(300 B. C. to the early Christian centuries."[4]
The discovery of the Genesis Apocryphon must push the date of the
composition of Daniel back into the second century B. C. at the earliest.
"In 1956 the Aramaic document Genesis Apocryphon (1 Qap Gen) was published.
One paleographic and linguistic grounds it belongs to the first century
B. C. P. Winter noted that the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra is Official
(Imperial) Aramaic but that of the Genesis Apocryphon is later."[5]
Although the Christian who has watched liberal bias at work in areas of
scholarship pertaining to Scripture may tend to view even this with
skepticism, this is given with strong scholarship to back it up.
However, once a liberal bias, always a liberal bias.
"The discovery of the Job Targum (11 Q) with a language date of later than
Daniel yet earlier than Genesis Apocryphon would mitigate for a date
earlier than the liberal view of Daniel. Yet ... the treatment and dating
of the Aramaic of Daniel, is apt to be colored by certain
presuppositions."[6]
Indeed, the presuppositions of the liberal bias did, in fact, color the
finds after the Job Targum had been found. The sure date, with all the
scientific data to support that date, was changed from the first century
B. C. to the first century A. D. This was done, not on the basis of
scientific fact; it was done so that the Book of Daniel would still fit
into the preconceived pattern of bias of the liberal scholar.
Gerhard Hasel, quoting F. M. Cross, Jr. (The Ancient Library of Qumran,
Garden City, NY, 1961), states that:
"...one copy of Daniel (from 4 Q) is inscribed in a script of the late
second century B. C. ... in some ways its antiquity is more striking
than that of the oldest manuscripts from Qumran, ... [dated from]
...the last quarter of the third century B. C."[7]
The fact of the mechanics of writing is also discussed by Dr. Hasel:
"If some significant amount of time is needed between the Job Targum and
the universally acknowledged earlier Aramaic of the book of Daniel, then
the Aramaic of the book of Daniel would point to an earlier date for the
book..."[8]
So much for the Aramaic argument. But, language is not a dead issue. The
liberal critic is much like the �home town referee� at an international
boxing meet: �If I can�t win one way,� he seems to say, �I�ll win
another!�
Although there are some Greek words in the text of Daniel, it should be
noted that the existence of a few Greek words is not proof of a late
authorship. (Some would even deny that there are any Greek words in the
text of Daniel!) A book written during the time period allowed by the
liberal bias would be greatly influenced by Greek words and styles.[9]
If the liberal view were correct one would expect to find many Greek words
and phrases in the text, not just a few.
There are many Indian words in the culture of Central Illinois. The word,
Illinois, itself is derived from Indian culture. The use of these words
do not prove that the people of Illinois live in an Indian culture. The
words do prove that the people of Illinois have had contact with Indian
culture.
As to the use of a few Greek words that may be part of the text of Daniel:
�One hundred years before Daniel, Greek mercenaries served in the Assyrian
army under Exahaddon (683 B. C.) and in the Babylonian army under
Nebuchadnezzar.�[10]
Rather than proving the liberal date for the Book of Daniel, the existence
of a few Greek words point to the antiquity of the Book.
We have looked at some of the reasons why Daniel is not from the time of
the Greek subjection. Now, we will examine a few reasons, other than
revelation, why the Christian believes that Daniel dates from the time of
the Babylonian Exile.
There is, of course, the issue of tradition. The tradition of the church
has always been of an Exilic date for the composition of the Book of
Daniel. That seems reasonable as those earlier peoples lived closer to
the time of writing that do we. Also,
"Recent evidence, and particularly the Dead Sea Scrolls, reinforce the view
of the early church and the Jewish tradition about Daniel�s authorship and
the sixth century B. C. composition date."[11]
Mitigating for a sixth century B. C. date, there is the fact of Qumran.
�The eight separate scrolls of Daniel found at Qumran would appear to
require more time than a Macabean date for the book would allow.[12]
Also, the respect with which the people of Qumran seemed to hold for
Daniel points to their acceptance of that Book as ancient and not a recent
forgery. The people of Qumran quoted from Daniel with the same reverence
with which they quoted Isaiah or Jeremiah. The fact that the
�...apocryphal additions to the book of Daniel (Susanna and the Elders,
Bel and the Dragon, and The Prayer of Azariah and the Son of the Three
Young Men) have not appeared at Qumran - indicates that Daniel was
consider canonical.�[13]
"Although the Hebrew canon has placed Daniel in the third division of
'Writings,' the Qumran community, as later also Jesus (Matt. 24:15),
speaks of Daniel as 'the prophet' who has written the book."[14]
Again, as to the question of what the ancient considered of Daniel:
"In his introduction to The Wisdom of Ben-Sira, Dr. Schecter cites three
quotations from Daniel that he discovers in Ecclesiasticus, which must
have been written by Jesus, the son of Sirach, at least a quarter of a
century before Antiochus Ephiphanes began to reign."[15]
It seems, then, that the general feeling of the traditions of the church
is that the Book of Daniel was written during the sixth century, B. C. by
an historical personage by the Hebrew name of Daniel and the Babylonian
name of Beltshazzar. Indeed, W. A. Criswell would say that,
"While portions of the book may have been committed to writing at earlier
times, Daniel�s final penning of the treatise must have been written in or
shortly after 535 B. C."[16]
It has been said that,
"...no other book reveals to the same magnitude details in history, [and]
exact time predictions, ... It should come as no surprise ... That the
bok [of Daniel] has not escaped criticism."[17]
It is strange how the liberal mind will bend over backwards in order to
attack the veracity of Scripture. Take, for example, the liberal and the
histories of Josephus.
Josephus stands as a valuable and respected source of history about the
Jewish people. Time and again his words are referred to as being
trustworthy. In this writers mind the only real reference to Masada (as
in the recent television production [@ 1975 - 1980] come from the pen of
Josephus.
However, when Josephus says that, �...when the book of Daniel was shewed
to [Alexander the Great)...,�[18] thereby indicating that the Book was in
existence before the time of the Macabees, an immediate cry is raised as
to the unworthiness of the histories of Josephus, the Christian mind can
not help but sit back in bemused amazement at the �wisdom� of the world.
The basis of language and tradition have been passed over as to the case
for an early date for the Book of Daniel. Now a very short look will be
taken at the question of the historical accuracy of the accounts of the
Book.
Although the criticism of Daniel is �old hat� among the enemies of the
church, there are some recent discoveries which are interesting.
Archeological finds have firmly supported the kingship of Belshazzar so
that the �chronological error� which has been spoken of in reference to
Daniel 1:1 is found to be no error, except on the part of those who
doubted the accuracy of the statement. �The Babylonian names given to the
friends of Daniel, and to Daniel, himself, can now be adequately explained
on the basis of Babylonian onomastics.� Also, Nebuchadnezzar is now know
to have rebuilt Babylon as �...claimed in the book of Daniel.�[19]
As has happened in so many instances in the past, the alleged error on the
part of the Holy Scripture has proven to be nothing more than a lack of
knowledge on the part of man.
The date of the writing of Daniel may be firmly established in the sixth
century, B. C. The Book of Daniel is neither forgery nor lie. It is the
work of Daniel. �The only serious question left concerning the
authenticity of Daniel has to do with the likelihood of the supernatural.�[20]
DARING
The Christian may ask the question as to why anyone would seek to dispute
the authenticity of Scripture. The answer would be the same as it has
always been - Man does not attack Scripture; man, in his puny way, attacks
the God of the Scripture.
Daniel is a definite case in point.
"The first attack on the traditional sixth century B. C. date for the
composition of the book [of Daniel] comes from Porphyry (A. D. 232-303), a
vigorous opponent of Christianity..."[21]
The attack is not on the Book of Daniel - or on any other Book so derided.
The attack is upon that brand of the Christian religion which dares to
accept the possibility of a supernatural God.
That this thesis is true may be further observed in this quotation taken
from a current public college textbook on religion. �The courses actually
available, and the training of men actually available to teach them, are
on the whole calculated to turn a fundamentalist into a liberal.�[22]
Again, this is to be expected if what the Bible says about the duality of
nature within humankind is correct. Fallen man must be in rebellion
against the God of that Scripture or that Scripture is wrong. Scripture
is not wrong.
"...modern commentaries on the Book of Daniel are written from the
perspective of this historical-critical method. ... this method of
research originated in the presuppositions of the Age of Enlightenment."[23]
Those presuppositions mitigate against, and are in opposition to, the
consideration of a supernatural Deity as they - as a matter of basic
thought structure - search for a rational and natural explanation for all
phenomena.
Often, especially in Scripture, there is neither rational nor natural
explanation. Such must be sought by this method even if it stretches the
bounds of credulity. It is the nature of those who hold this mindset.
This is simply part of mankind�s fallen and sinful nature.
DESTINATION
Man will continue to argue against the Bible, and against the God of the
Bible. That is simply part of the nature of fallen man.
The duty of the Christian is to continue to reach out toward man with the
words of Scripture. Whether or not mankind accepts the fact, only the
Words from God�s Book offer the solution to the problems of the human
race.
Jesus Christ, Himself, not only commissioned the Christian, He also
commanded the Christian to take the Words of Life into a world which
stands in need of those Words.
To the Christian: We have a Book which we can trust. God gave it to us.
Use it!
To the non-Christian: There is only one answer to the problems which you
face - mortality, meaninglessness, and all the rest. That answer is Jesus
Christ. There is nothing to pay because He has already done that! �But
as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God,
even to them that believe on his name.� (John 1:12)
It is our prayer that, in some way, this study has been a blessing.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Dart. Ronald L., Here's Why the Critics Can't Ignore the Prophets, p. 35
[2] Hasel, Gerhard, F., Is the Aramaic of Daniel Early or Late?. p. 12
[3] Hasel, Gerhard F., Daniel Survives the Critics Den, p. 11
[4] Hasel, Gerhard F., Is the Aramaic of Daniel Early or Late?, p. 12
[5] Loc. Cit.
[6] Hasel, op. cit., p. 13
[7] Hasel, Gerhard F., Daniel Survives the Critics Den, p. 10
[8] Hasel, Gerhard F., Is the Aramaic of Daniel Early or Late?, p. 13
[9] Gabbe, L. L., Daniel - Battlegroud of Biblical Criticism, p. 38
[10] Ryrie, Charles Caldwell, Ryrie Study Bible, The, p. 1217
[11] Lindsell, Harold, Lindsell Study Bible, The, p. 961
[12] Hasel, Gerhard F., Daniel Survives the Critics Den, p. 11
[13] Hasel, op. cit., p. 10
[14] Hasel, op. cit., p. 11
[15] Tatford, Fredrick A., Climax of the Ages, The, p. 11
[16] Hasel, op. cit., p. 9
[17] Criswell, W. A., Criswell Study Bible, The, p. 976
[18] Josephus, Flavius, Works of Flavius Josephus, The, Book XI, Chapter VII
[19] Hasel, op. cit., p. 9
[20] Richards, Larry, Springtime Coming, p. 64
[21] Hasel, op. cit., p. 9
[22] Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, Religious Diversity, p. 44
[23] Hasel, op. cit., p. 9
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(The compiler of this work does not agree doctrinally with all of the
sources used herein. With some he would be in sharp disagreement.
However, the compiler does firmly believe that each source cited is expert
in his field and trustworthy in his judgement on the material cited.
Otherwise, they would not have been used as sources!)
Criswell, W. A.; Criswell Study Bible, The; Thomas Nelson Publishers;
Nashville, TN; 1979
Cort, Richard L.; Here�s Why the Critics Can�t Ignore the Prophets;
Tomorrow�s World, Jan. 1971; pp. 22-27
Grabbe, L. L.; Daniel - The Battleground of Biblical Criticism; Tomorrow�s
World, Jan. 1971; pp. 38-49
Hasel, Gerhard F.; Daniel Survives the Critics Den; Ministry, Jan. 1979;
pp. 8-11
__________; Is the Aramaic of Daniel Early or Late?, Ministry, Jan. 1980;
pp. 12-13
Josephus, Flavius, Works of Flavius Josephus, The, Winston, William,
Trans.; Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc.; Grand Rapids, MI; 1980
Lindsell, Harold; Lindsell Study Bible, The; Tyndale House Publishers;
Wheaton, IL; 1980
McDowell, Josh; Daniel in the Critics Den; Campus Crusade for Christ; San
Bernadino, CA; 1979
Richards, Larry; Springtime Coming; David C. Cook Publishing Company;
Elgin, IL; 1978
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell; Ryrie Study Bible, The; Moody Press; Chicago, IL;
1978
Smith, William Cantwell; Religious Diversity; Oxtoby, Willard C., ed.;
Harper & Row Publishers; New York, NY; 1976
Tatford, Frederick A; Climax of the Ages, The; Oliphants Ltd.; London, GB;
1964