Translate this document!
Those who have read the Book of Daniel will be aware that it is no longer regarded as having been written in the 6th century B.C. The swing in opinion came in the 19th century when rationalist scholars claimed that as the Book described events in 167 B.C. in such detail, its author must have been living at that time and have assumed the name Daniel and written it in the style of a prophecy in order to console those suffering during a persecution. This is the viewpoint for instance of 'the Jerusalem Bible’: 'The book of Daniel was written between 167 and 164 B.C. during the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes.. the aim of the book was to sustain faith and hope among the Jews in their persecution’ - and the 'Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church': ‘The traditional belief that the Book was written in the 6th Century B.C. by Daniel, one the Jewish exiles in Babylon, is now almost universally regarded as untenable.. The consensus of modern critical opinion is that it was written between 168 and 165 BC’'.
It would appear the Pontifical Biblical Commission also accepts this evaluation. For in its publication 'The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church' it refers to Jeremiah's prophecy that Jerusalem would be chastised for 70 years, and states '...much later, the author of Daniel returns to reflect on it once more, convinced that this word of God still conceals a hidden meaning that could throw light upon the situation of his own day (Dan 9:24-27). But Christ referred not to 'the author of Daniel' but to 'the prophet Daniel' and assigned the fulfilment of 9:26,27 not 'to his own day' but to the last times (Matt 24:15). Since truth cannot contradict itself, and since these prophecies may contain an important message for our times, I have undertaken an investigation into the grounds for the traditional viewpoint.
First, let us briefly summarise the Book of Daniel. It comprises 12 chapters, the first six being historical and the last prophetic in character. Chapter 7 reveals the 'vision of four beasts', foretelling the attacks of various nations, ending in an attack led by one who will be defeated by 'a son of man whose sovereignty is everlasting'. Chapter 8 foretells the above persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, while Chapter 9 foretells the coming of Christ, and in the last days, an attack on the sanctuary. Chapters 10 and 11 foretell events in the reign of Antiochus, while Chapter 12 foretells the 'general resurrection'.
The rationalist argument is that because the events of Antiochus's reign are foretold in such detail in Chapters 8, 10, and 11 – and because the attack revealed there resembles the attack in the last days as foretold in Chapters 7 and 9, the whole book was written as a means of strengthening those under persecution, in 167 B C. To consolidate their theory they adduce so-called 'historical and linguistic anomalies' which they claim to be incompatible with an authorship in 6th century Babylon. However others have refuted those arguments by adducing new historical and linguistic evidence, as I reveal below.
The rationalist argument is based on ‘higher criticism', a phenomenon that has had a general effect on Biblical studies. By concentrating on 'internal evidence', its advocates have challenged traditional views on the Pentateuch, the Book of Kings, and Isaiah. But their principles have not always been accepted, nor its claims. Indeed this whole approach to Biblical interpretation was attacked by Pope Leo XIII in an encyclical on Bible studies: 'There has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an inept method, dignified by the name of "higher criticism", which pretends to judge of the origin, integrity and authority of each Book from internal indications alone. It is clear that in historical questions, such as the origin and handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance, and that historical investigation should be made with the utmost care; and that in this matter internal evidence is seldom of great value, except as confirmation. To look upon it in any other light is to open the door to many evil consequences. It is to make the enemies of religion much more bold and confident in attacking and mangling the Sacred Books; and this vaunted "higher criticism" will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics. It will not throw on Scripture the light which is sought but will give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their persons; and seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracle, and of everything else that is outside the natural order' ('Providentissimus Deus' 1893).
One Evangelical scholar, Sir Robert Anderson, even claimed that Johann Eichhorn, the 'father' of higher criticism: 'set out with the deliberate design of eliminating God from the Bible... The Bible must be accounted for, and Christianity explained, on natural principles. The miracles therefore had to be got rid of, and prophecy is the greatest miracle of all.. Such passages as the 53rd Chapter of Isaiah could be jauntily disposed of, but the infidel could make nothing of the visions of Daniel. The Book stands out as a witness to God, and by fair means or foul it must be silenced. And one method alone of accomplishing this is possible. The conspirators set themselves to prove that it was written after the events it purports to predict.' ('The Coming Prince': Kregel Pubns., Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA).
In fact this standpoint was challenged from the beginning. Thus John Henry Newman wrote: 'The prophet Daniel is conspicuous among the inspired writers for the clearness and exactness of his predictions; so much so that some ... overcome by the truth of them, could only take refuge in the unworthy, and at the same time, unreasonable and untenable supposition, that they were written after the events which they profess to foretell' ('Lectures on the Patristical Idea of Antichrist').
His colleague at Oxford, Dr Edward Pusey, wrote: 'The Book of Daniel.. is either divine or an imposture. To write any book under the name of another, and to give it out to be his, is, in any case, a forgery, dishonest in itself, and destructive of all trustworthiness. But the case as to the Book of Daniel, if it were not his, would go far beyond this. The writer, were he not Daniel, must have lied on a most frightful scale, ascribing to God prophecies which were never uttered... In a word, the whole book would be one lie in the name of God' ' ('Daniel the Prophet': 1869).
In fact this 'rationalist' approach to the Book of Daniel was first proposed in the 3rd Century by a neo-Platonist called Porphyry. But his arguments were refuted by St Jerome, who pointed out that Daniel prophesied not one, but two attacks, that of Antiochus in 167 BC, and that of Antichrist in the last days - and that the reason they are so alike is that the one foreshadows the other ('Commentary on Daniel'). Likewise Hippolytus (180-245) had stated: 'Daniel has spoken of two abominations: the one of destruction and the other of desolation. What is that of destruction, but that which Antiochus established there at the time? And what is that of desolation, but that which shall be universal when Antichrist comes?’ (Commentary on Daniel: 40).
It is evident the rationalist view is not 'modern' at all, but originated centuries ago, when it was opposed by the Fathers. At the same time many of the Fathers clearly assigned the fulfilment of Daniel 9 to the last days, thus affirming it as valid prophecy. Thus St Augustine states: ‘Daniel prophesies of the last judgement in such a way as to indicate that Antichrist will come first..' (‘City of God’: 22:23) - and Origen wrote: ‘The prophecy regarding Antichrist is stated in the Book of Daniel, and is fitted to make an intelligent and candid reader admire the words as truly divine and prophetic; for in them are mentioned the things relating to the coming kingdom, beginning with the times of Daniel and continuing until the destruction of the world’ (contra Celsum).
But the strongest grounds for regarding Daniel 9 as truly prophetic is that Christ Himself, in the course of His teachings, assigned its fulfilment to the last days. This is the passage where He refers to 'the abomination of desolation of which the prophet Daniel spoke, set up in the Holy place’ (Matt 24:15). According to the 'Catholic Encyclopaedia': 'Christian tradition, both in the East and in the West, has been practically unanimous from Christ's time to the present in admitting the genuineness of the Book of Daniel. Its testimony is chiefly based on Matt 24:15 in which passage Christ treats Daniel's visions as true oracles, and expressly names that Prophet as their writer. In so doing, it is argued. Christ endorsed and confirmed by His authority the view which was then received among the Jews, and which regarded Daniel as the author of the book which bears his name'
Amazingly some scholars refuse to accept this argument and since their scepticism of Daniel is based on historical and linguistic points, we now challenge the validity of those objections.
Firstly, it is claimed there is no evidence that Belshazzar was King of Babylon (Ch 5:1ff) or was the 'son of Nebuchadnezzar' and that the person of Darius the Mede (5:30; 6:1-3) is unknown to history. However the ancient Monuments support the Biblical claim by revealing that the last King of Babylon, Nabonidus had a son called Belshazzar, who had control of the troops, and thus was regent in Babylon, which accounts for him making Daniel third ruler (5:29). Nabonidus had displaced Nebuchadnezzar, and as it was customary for a usurper to marry into the family of the king to strengthen his dynastic claims, he may have married Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, thus entitling their son Belshazzar to style himself 'son of Nebuchadnezzar'. It has been postulated that the influential queen who appears in Chapter 5 was Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, and thus the mother of Belshazzar, having married Nabonidus, a member of Nebuchadnezzar's court. Regarding Darius the Mede. It is postulated that the title was a dynastic one assumed by Cyrus following his conquest of the Medes in 550 BC, for Cyrus was referred to by Nabonidas in 546 as 'King of the Medes' only 4 years after defeating them. However, other scholars hold that Darius was the 'Gobyrus' named by the Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus, as the governor of Babylon.
Rationalists also point out Daniel's account of a 'siege of Babylon' (ch 5) is not substantiated by the Book of Kings. But both Xenophon and Herodotus do describe the taking of Babylon by Cyrus, who is said to have diverted the waters of the Euphrates so that his soldiers could enter by the river-bed. The Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus, found in 1880, does mention Belshazzar by name, and tells how Nabonidus, the king and Belshazzar's father, was taken prisoner in Babylon without fighting; that three months later Cyrus entered Babylon; that Gobryas was made governor, and that 8 days later he made a night assault and the king's son was slain. Babylon was divided by the Euphrates with the king's palace on the eastern side. Gobryas entered the western part of the city without fighting, and finding Nabonidus there, took him prisoner. Belshazzar still held out in the eastern part of city for three months, and his father being a prisoner, Belshazzar was virtually king. During those three months the Persians were digging to divert the river; then Cyrus came, and on the night of 11th of Marchesvan, while Belshazzar's feast was in progress, the enemy waded through the now shallow waters, and he was found in the palace and slain.
For those supporting the older dating of Daniel, the presence of Persian and Greek words (Dan 3: 5,15) has long been a problem. But linguistic arguments alone are inadequate when it comes to dating the book, as our knowledge of the development of the vocabularies of Aramaic and Hebrew from 6th to the 3rd Century BC is too fragmentary. But there are certain factors that favour an early date, such as the mistranslation of the Septuagint (2nd Cent BC) of some of the Aramaic words used in Daniel. Such an occurrence is more explicable if the translators were dealing with words with which they were no longer familiar (i.e. the text of Daniel from 6th Century BC) than if they were working on a contemporary manuscript. Persian words found in Daniel are traceable to the Old Persian Period which ended about 300 BC.
There are three Greek words in Daniel, all names of musical instruments. But there were Greek colonies on the coast of Palestine in the time of Hezekiah, a century before Daniel was born and archaeology reveals in strongest terms there were bonds between Greece and the East during the relevant period 800-480 BC. Furthermore we know that in Nebuchadnezzar's time Greek craftsmen and mercenaries were working in Babylon. You might say that the fewness of Greek words is strong evidence for a date before the conquest of Alexander the Great. As for the Aramaic words, there is evidence of a Jewish colony on the island of Elephantine on the Nile around 494 BC, which would account for the prevalence of Aramaic around the earlier dating for Daniel.
There is further support: In his 'Antiquities of the Jews' (Book 11, Chapter 8, verse 5), the Jewish historian Josephus (circa A.D. 40 - 100) wrote: "When the Book of Daniel was shown to Alexander the Great (died B.C. 323), wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that he himself was the person intended." Furthermore, before the Christian era, the 1st Book of Maccabees (written very early in the 1st Century BC) shows acquaintance with the Septuagint version of the Prophecy of Daniel (cf. 1 Macc 1:54 with Dan 9:27; 1 Macc 2:59,60 with Dan 3: 6), which infers (i) that at that date the Book of Daniel must have been for some considerable time rendered into Greek; and (ii) that its composition must have preceded this translation by some considerable time more, so that its origin under Antiochus Epiphanes is hardly probable. Again the Sybilline Oracles (Bk III, vv 388ff), supposed to have been written about 170 BC., contain an allusion to Antiochus IV, and to the ten horns of Dan 7:24, and thus point to an earlier date that that proposed nowadays.
Finally, according to Josephus (Contra Apion VIII), the Old Testament Canon of the Jews, which has always included Daniel among 'The Writings', was closed by Ezra in the middle of the 5th Century BC, that is to say, at a date so near the composition of the book that its genuineness could then be easily ascertained, and would naturally be the reason for the insertion of the work into the Palestinian Canon.
Thus the evidence supports the traditional dating of Daniel and hence its relevance to today.
Iain Colquhoun 45 St Nicholas Court, Killay, Swansea SA2 7AG, Wales UK