Dating Daniel’s Book. Pt. 2.

        In our previous article on ‘dating Daniel’s book by G. H. Hasel we looked basically at the Qumran scrolls which provide an excellent argument for the traditional view of an early date, around the 6^th century BC. and that the biblical Daniel was the Author.  Both internal and external evidence speak in favour of Daniel as author and for an early dating of the book. If one does not subscribe to a conservative Christian and biblical worldview, then an early authorship date is rejected. Those rejecting biblical conservatism do not accept that any one person can make predictions and have them come to pass as did Daniel.  

        Regardless of biblical conservatism or liberalism the fact is that we must follow the evidence wherever it leads. The following url: https://amazing discoveries.tv/media/1877/141/ will help to demonstrate the conundrum that non-believers in biblical inerrancy have although many may call themselves Christians.

        In past years higher critics had issues with Daniel being the author in the 6^th. century BC: they concluded that Daniel was fictitious and was the name of an unknown 2nd Century BC author; these higher critics also faulted Daniel because they disbelieved that anyone could foretell the future as precisely as he did. However, apart from the philosophical arguments on miracles or future telling, many doubts on the book of Daniel have been cleared up archaeologically and the few remaining ones are not problems that cannot be cleared up. 

A strong argument against a 6^th century date was an external one:

        There was a discrepancy between Daniel and Jeremiah on the Babylonian king’s entry into Jerusalem. Jeremiah is known to be accurate by archaeologist so higher critics found fault with Daniel whose date was off by a year; was it the 4^th year of Jehoiakim and the 1^st year of Nebuchadnezzar or was it as Daniel said, the 1^st year of Nebuchadnezzar and the 3^rd year of Jehoiakim? This problem has now been cleared up when we learnt that the accession year of Babylonian kings were not reckoned as the 1^st year of the ruler’s reign. The second year was counted as the first year of a Babylonian king.  This apparent discrepancy in Daniel 1:1 and Jer. 24:1 has now been resolved.

Arguments supporting the traditional view, internal evidence. 

        It should first be borne in mind that even if Daniel was written in the 2^nd century BC, his prophecies run well beyond the second century to the appearance of the Roman Empire, the Medieval Christian church (the Roman Catholic Church), the Holy Roman Empire, the establishment of the Vatican and the final destruction of the sinful human systems we are presently living under. Therefore, early date or late date for authorship still cannot explain how the predictions were accurately fulfilled right down to the present time.

1. The claims of the book. The prophet speaks in the first person; claims that his writings were from God. At the same time reference to himself in the 3^rd person is not a problem since this is the practice among many authors. Either the person is making his account up or he is demented. History shows that this was not the work of a lunatic.
2. Daniel presents Nebuchadnezzar as the builder of Babylon, Dan. 4:30. Daniel presents Nebuchadnezzar as the great builder of Babylon; however according to the Greek historians, Nebuchadnezzar played an insignificant role in the affairs of ancient history. He is never referred to as a great builder or as the creator of a new and greater Babylon. That this honour is usually ascribed to Queen Semiramis, who is given a prominent place in the history of Babylonia, is evident to every reader of classical Greek histories.[i]

        Yet the contemporary cuneiform records, unearthed by the archaeologist during the last hundred years, have entirely changed the picture derived from classical writers, and have corroborated the account of the book of Daniel, which credits Nebuchadnezzar with the building (rebuilding) of “this great Babylon.” Semiramis, called SammuBramat in cuneiform inscriptions, is now known to have been a queen mother of Assyria, regent for her infant son Adad-nirari III, and not a queen over Babylonia as the classical sources claimed. The inscriptions have shown that she had nothing to do with any building activity in Babylon. On the other hand, numerous building inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar prove that he became, in a sense, the creator of a new Babylon by rebuilding the palaces, temples, and temple tower of the city, and by adding new buildings and fortifications.

        Only a man of the 6^th century BC well versed in Babylonian affairs could have provided the historical facts found in the book. The knowledge of these facts was lost after the 6^th century BC, not being recorded in other ancient literature after that time.  Only recent archaeological finds have once more brought these facts to light, thus validating Daniel’s historical account. Only someone of the Neo-Babylonian age could know this information for it had been completely lost by the time of the Hellenistic era. The presence of such information in the book of Daniel greatly puzzles critical scholars who do not believe that Daniel was written in the 6th century, but rather in the 2d. A typical example of their dilemma is the following statement of R. H. Pfeiffer, of Harvard University: “We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar, as the excavations have proved.”[ii]

3. Belshazzar, King of Babylon. The fact that the name of this king had not been found in any non-Biblical writings of antiquity, while Nabonidus always appeared as the last Babylonian king prior to the Persian conquest, was regularly used as one of the strongest arguments against the historicity of the book of Daniel. But discoveries since the mid-nineteenth century have refuted all critics of Daniel in this respect and vindicated the trustworthiness of the prophet’s historical narrative with regard to Belshazzar in a most impressive way.
4. The prophet Ezekiel’s Testimony. The biblical prophet Ezekiel was a contemporary of Daniel. In Ezekiel 14:19, 20 he mentions Noah, Daniel and Job. And again Eze. 28:3 he gives reference to the wisdom of Daniel.[iii]

        4. Jesus’ reference to Daniel. Jesus in the gospels, Mat. 24:15-16 refers to Daniel’s prophecy as he warns his disciples when to flee the city of Jerusalem. None can dispute that Jesus was not historical.[iv] Please see my previous article on Jesus’ historicity: https://hangonthebestisyettocome.com/to-be-or-not-to-be-shakespeare-hamlet-how-real-was-jesus/. 

[i] Rev. Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, (Neptune, New Jersey, pub. Loizeau Brothers Inc., 1915, 2^nd edition 1959), chap. 1, pp 4-6

[ii] Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, (Pub. Harper & Brothers, Revised Ed., 1948)

[iii] Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, (Washington, DC: Pub. Review and Herald Pub. Ass., 1944), p. 15

[iv] Uriah Smith, 15

 Pastor Ron Henderson is a Seventh-day Adventist Pastor.  You may reach him at ron.hende@gmail.com if you have any comments or questions.