Research Essay Assignment: The Authorship and Dating of the Book of Daniel

B 224: Apocalyptic Literature

Instructor: Tim Beech, Ph. D.

Donovan Neufeldt

11 June, 2010
 -2-
Introduction
The following essay is an examination of the authorship and dating of the book of Daniel based
on evidences both within and without the biblical text itself. The view that I seek to defend is the
traditional view that Daniel was written by the prophet Daniel during the Babylonian Exile of the sixth
century BC in accordance to the testimony of the book itself. The view I seek to expose and discredit has
become known as the Maccabean hypothesis, as it is advanced in modern liberal scholarship and holds
to the idea that the book is a fraudulent work written during or shortly after the Maccabean revolt of the
second century BC (most date it at 165 B.C.). The Maccabean thesis stresses uniformity and congruence
of the book’s characteristics to other pseudonymous works of the inter-testamental period as well as the
apocalyptic literary genre. In other words, it is suggested that a fraudulent author claiming Daniel’s
name did not really experience anything as recorded in the book, but used the name of Daniel, the
apocalyptic literary device, and ex eventu prophecy (describing past history in predictive language) as a
means lending credibility to the writing and reviving the hopes of fellow Jews in their resistance of
Antiochus Epiphanes IV. The book, therefore is seen as neither historical, nor as a work of genuine
predictive prophecy. The first six chapters are viewed as an adaptation of myths and legends that the
Maccabean author used to give a credible platform for his pseudo-prophecies in the final six chapters.

Inerrancy
The issue of canonicity and the doctrine of the inerrancy of God’s word are, perhaps, relevant
only to those who call themselves Christians and may presuppose that the Bible is inspired by God;
however, it is empty to those who wish to discredit the Christian faith. Although the genuineness of the
book of Daniel can be proven outside of the testimony of scripture itself, it is important to note that one
cannot hold to the Maccabean thesis while simultaneously affirming belief in the inerrancy of scripture
or the divinity of Jesus the Christ.
Modern critics of the book of Daniel have attempted to equate Daniel apocalyptic non-biblical
works among the pseudepigrapha and the apocalyptic genre (Collins, 85), yet it may be distinguished by
a more restrained character in the revelation, identification of the author, as well as its contribution and
agreement with biblical truth as a whole (Walvoord, 14) and may be rightly placed in a subgenre of
“Biblical Apocalyptic” (Arnold & Beyer, 438). Additionally, there is no clear proof of pseudonymity in
the Old Testament or of pseudonymous works being acceptable among the Jewish or Christian Cannon
(Baldwin, 12).
When affirming the inerrancy of scripture, one affirms the truth of the testimony of the scriptural
text itself. In this situation, it is critical to observe the testimony of the book itself to its own authorship
and Dating. There is little question that the book presents Daniel as its author (Walvoord, 11) as it is
specifically stated in 12:4, and because of the frequent usage of the first person with the name of Daniel
(7:2,15,28; 8:1,15,27; 9:2,22; 10:2,7,11,12; 12:5). The sixth century dating is given by the events and
visions which are described as occurring from 605 BC (the third year of Jehoiakim when
Nebuchadnezzar came to besiege Jerusalem, Dan. 1:1) until 537 BC (the third year of Cyrus, Dan. 10:1).
The testimony of the book is so strong and clear that if the writer was not Daniel, he must have lied, on a
most frightful scale, ascribing to God prophecies which were never uttered, and miracles which are
 -3-
assumed never to have been wrought (Pusey, 75). The prophecy would therefore be fraudulent,
possessing error, and containing falsity and lies.
Critical to those who esteem Christ as being divine and without sin are the words of Jesus; if
Jesus has made a statement on the authorship of Daniel, then one must decide if Jesus is trustworthy, if
He is the faithful and true witness, and if He is the amen, or if Jesus was in error, speaking falsehood,
and guilty of deception. In Matthew 24:15 Jesus stated, “So when you see standing in the Holy Place
‘the abomination that causes desolation’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel…” and thereby affirms
His belief that Daniel was a real historical person who, as a prophet, was inspired by God to foretell the
future. Because the only view during the time of Christ was that Daniel was written in the sixth century
B.C., Christ’s affirmation of the historicity of the individual Daniel also assumes the sixth century date
(Miller, 35). Jesus also exhibited belief that the prophecies of Daniel, which He quoted from (Matt.
24:15, 21, 30; 26:64; Mark 13:14, 14:62, Luke 22:69), came from Daniel himself, not a later author
writing fraudulently. It is also helpful to note that the writers of the New Testament also affirmed the
historical person of Daniel in the same measure as they affirmed the historicity of Gideon, Barak,
Samson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel (Heb. 11:33). One is left with two mutually exclusive positions,
the first is that Daniel was written by an anonymous author in the second century B.C.; therefore the
canonical text itself, the testimony of Jesus, and of the New Testament writers are false, the scripture is
not inerrant nor inspired, and Jesus was not divine nor truthful. The second and only acceptable view
within Christianity is that Daniel was written by Daniel in the sixth century in accordance with the
testimony of the inerrant word of God and Jesus’ own words.

Ezekiel and Other Pre-Maccabean References

Very important to verification of the historicity of Daniel is the references to Daniel that Ezekiel
makes on three occasions (Ezek. 14:14,20; 28:3). These were written during the sixth century exilic
period in which Daniel was written, after Daniel had ascended to a high rank in the Babylonian king’s
court (Leupold, 5-7), over twelve years after Daniel’s deportation (Miller, 42). These references state
that if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in Jerusalem they would save only themselves by
their righteousness (Ezek 14:14, 20), and the king of Tyre is mockingly asked “are you wiser than
Daniel” (Ezek. 28:3). Liberal scholarship, which dates Daniel to a date later than the sixth century,
completely disregard these three references in Ezekiel saying, “The Bible contains no reference to a
prophet by this name outside the book of Daniel” (Collins, 86), or they suggest that the Daniel Ezekiel
was referring to was a different Daniel than the author of the book bearing that name. The only figure
that has been suggested (to my knowledge) is a figure named Daniel (Dânêl) from the Ugaritic (about
1400 B.C.) story of Aqhat (Collins, 87). This “traditional saint” is portrayed as being sympathetic to
orphans and widows and thus is asserted to qualify as a righteous man on par with Noah and Job
(Montgomery, 2-4). A little investigation will reveal, however, that the suggestion that this is the Daniel
of Ezekiel is highly improbable (in not outright absurd). This ancient Canaanite, Daniel, was a devout
worshipper of Baal and partook of food in the house of Baal. He was a pagan idolater who was known
for cursing enemies and lived without any hope or belief in Yahweh (Pritchard, 149-155). Furthermore,
the context in which these figures of righteousness are found is Ezekiel’s rebuke of Israel, specifically,
those whose idolatry brought God’s Judgment upon the nation. The heavy rebuke against idolatry and
exposure of Israel’s unfaithfulness in Ezekiel 14:1-13 is sharply contrasted with the righteousness of
 -4-
Noah, Daniel, and Job. How can one claim that the Daniel referred to in Ezekiel is the Daniel of Ugaritic
texts when this Daniel’s God was not Yahweh, but the gods Baal, El, and the murderous Anath (Miller,
41)? The suggestion that Ezekiel would select an idolater as an example to Jewish idolaters to forsake
idolatry is incomprehensible and ridiculous, whereas the Daniel described in the book of Daniel
perfectly fits the description a man with extraordinary righteousness and wisdom (Daniel 4:9; 5:10-11,
6:3). All things considered, the references to Daniel in the book of Ezekiel ought to be considered
conclusive evidence for the sixth century dating of the book of Daniel. No plausible explanation has
been produced to explain the use of the name Daniel by the prophet Ezekiel, other than that they were
actually contemporaries and that Daniel had gained widespread recognition by the time of Ezekiel’s
ministry.
Also decisive in displaying the early dating are clear references and quotation from the book in
extra-biblical pre-Maccabean literature. As Glen Miller has pointed out, three documents which are
clearly pre-Maccabean are Sirach (which borrows from Dan. 2, Dan. 9, and Dan. 11-12), 1 Enoch
(which borrows from Dan. 4 and Dan. 7), and Baruch (which borrows from Dan. 9). There are also
another four known documents that borrow from Daniel that could be dated before or after the
Maccabean revolt (though probabilities favor a pre Maccabean date), two dated immediately after the
revolt, and one that requires the existence of the Septuagint (Greek) translation of Daniel to have been
completed before the Maccabean times (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3b.html).

Qumran
The recent discovery of the Qumran scrolls have caused the reconsideration of a pre-supposed
Maccabean dating Old Testament books among which are the Psalms and 1 and 2 Chronicles (Brownlee,
30). For example, Jacob Meyers changed his belief in a Maccabean dating of 1 & 2 Chronicles to a
belief in a Persian dating (538-333 B.C.) after publication of the scrolls (Page LXXXVII). Based on the
fact that all Daniel manuscripts from Qumran are copies, the original copy is necessarily a minimum of
half a century older, before the supposed Maccabean date of authorship (Cross, 33). It is entirely
inconsistent to abandon belief in Maccabean dating of the Psalms and Chronicles, while maintaining
belief in the Maccabean dating of Daniel despite the consistency of like evidence discrediting a late date.
Furthermore, it very improbable that Jews living in the Maccabean period would accept Daniel as
scripture, had it not had a previous history of Canonicity (Walvoord, 21), there would have been
insufficient time for it to be circulated, venerated, and accepted as canonical Scripture by a Maccabean
sect (Harrison, 1127) The presence of two known strands of Daniel reproductions (Masoretic and
Qumran) a much earlier date as well based on necessary time for literary diffusion. Whether the
Maccabean hypothesis is entirely precluded by the Qumran evidence may be debated, but fair treatment
of data makes it extremely difficult to maintain (Miller, 39).

Languages, Loan Words, and LXX (The Septuagint)

What is interesting to note is that the Aramaic portion of the book of Daniel (2:4-7:28) is written
in biblical Aramaic (also called Chaldee), which matches the Aramaic used in Ezra 4:8-6:18, Ezra 7:12-
26, and Jer. 10:11 (Martin, 712-713) and was the lingua franca of the exilic time period (Ezra is 5 th
Century B.C. and Jeremiah is 7th Century B.C) and so it is not surprising that Daniel would use this
 -5-
language to compose a large portion of his writings. The liberal argument that the Aramaic in Daniel
was western (and not used in Babylon at the time) has been proven erroneous by archeology; a
distinction between Eastern and Western Aramaic did not exist in pre-Christian times (Martin, 712).
Furthermore, the Aramaic of Daniel does not conform to later samples of the language and linguistic
evidence is clearly against a second century date (Miller, 31). The Hebrew in Daniel resembles that of
Ezekiel, Haggai, and Chronicles more than that of the later Qumran scrolls (Harrison, 1125), which also
supports the early dating.
Another interesting language feature to consider is the use of loan words. There is a significant
amount of Persian governmental terminology as well as official words and expressions (Leupold, 21),
which support the books testimony of being written after the Persian conquest of Babylon as it would
minimize confusion to those living under the new government and culture. If, however, the book was
written during the second century (during the peak of hellenization) these word would cause great
confusion to any readers (pre-supposing that the second-century author knew such ancient governmental
terms). In fact, the Persian loan words are “Old Persian” which was in use only before 300 B.C.
(Kitchen, 77). It is for this very reason that the translations of four Persian loan words into the Greek
LXX are “hopelessly inexact--mere guesswork”, the terms were so old that their meanings were already
lost and forgotten by the time the translator set to work (only three decades from the alleged date of
authorship) (Kitchen, 43). The use of the word “Chaldean” to refer to a magician, rather than only an
ethnicity is also discovered to date back to about 450 B.C. during the Persian era (Harrison, 1113).
Critics of the traditional view of authorship have objected based on the presence of Greek loan
words (Montgomery, 201), however, recent archeology has proven that Greek mercenaries served in the
Assyrian and Babylonian armies, as well as Greek traders were present as early as 683 B.C. and possibly
earlier (Leupold, 143). This explains why all three Greek loan words are names of musical instruments
(zither, harp, and pipes). Such a small number of Greek loan words actually provide a powerful case for
the early dating; if it were written in the Maccabean time period (when Greek speaking governments had
controlled Babylon and Palestine for over 150 years), the writer would have used many more Greek
words and expressions, especially when using governmental terminology.
The presence of the book of Daniel in the LXX also provides a weighty argument against the late
dating. If it was written circa 165 B.C. as liberal scholars propose, it would mean that within three
decades of the books authorship, it was received into the cannon, carried on foot to Alexandria, Egypt
(500km away), and there translated into Greek (Miller, 39). Such a suggestion is highly improbable.
Again, the books age was evidenced by mistranslations of words that were so old that they had lost their
meaning and recognition (Kitchen, 43).

Detailed Historical Insight

Although modern liberal scholars have accused Daniel of containing historical inaccuracy (the
common accusations will be responded to in subsequent sections of this paper), the book actually
contains such detailed, intimate, and accurate knowledge of Babylonian history and government that it
collectively precludes the possibility of Maccabeus dating. Even those who resist the traditional view of
authorship have confessed, “We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new
Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:30) as excavations have proved… and that
 -6-
Belshazzar, mentioned only in Babylonian records, in Daniel, and in Baruch 1:11, which is based in
Daniel, was functioning as king in Babylon when Cyrus took Babylon in 538” (Pfeiffer, 758-759). In
fact, Daniel knew not only that Belshazzar was acting as king in Babylon, but also that he was co-regent
with his father Nabonidus, which is why Daniel was offered the position of third highest ruler in the
kingdom and not second (Daniel 5:7, 16, 29). It is also admitted by liberal scholars that the author “was
quite accurate in recording the change from punishment by fire under the Babylonians to punishment by
being thrown to lions under the Persian regime (Dan. 6:7), since fire was sacred to the Zoroastrians of
Persia” (Harrison, 1120-1121). A second century pseudo author could not have had such far reaching
information about that timeframe; the only explanation is that the author lived through that historical
period or shortly following (given that the information discovered in recent archeology was unavailable
to the people of the second century B.C. outside of the book of Daniel itself).

Allusions to Maccabean Crisis and Lack of Governmental Hostility

Those whoaccept the late date of dating commonly assert that the book was written to address
the problems of the Maccabean revolt, yet if this were so, one would expect to find many more precise
allusions to Maccabean crises than are present in the work (especially considering the assertion that it
was written within weeks or months of the actual occurrence of the “pseudo-prophecies.” One would
also expect references to the Maccabeus family, as this would be a sure way to bring courage to those
involved in the revolt (provided that they buy into the testimony of the fraudulent work), yet none exist.
Why would the pseudo-author leave leaders such as Judas Maccabeus and Mattathias completely
unnamed and not alluded to? An examination of the book will also reveal that many of the supposed
references to the Maccabean crisis are unconvincing (Miller, 27).
Another discrepancy in the liberal view is exposed in that the stories of Daniel 1-6 show no
animosity from the government towards the Jews that compares to the cruelty and sacrilege of
Antiochus Epiphanes IV. Daniel is also characterized as not being an adversary of the government, but
the very opposite. In almost every instance (the exception is Belshazzar), Daniel is the king’s friend, and
they shared a mutual respect and affection. In fact, the fourth chapter is written entirely under the
authority and testimony of a pagan (the middle section is written in third person because
Nebuchadnezzar was too insane to give accurate report); it is the king’s testimony of Yahweh’s work in
his life. All of these above scenarios do not correspond to the time of Antiochus, when Godly Jews were
brutally persecuted and murdered. These Jews did not esteem or admire Antiochus, but despised him
and his evil ways (Miller, 27). A Maccabean author would surely formulate or adapt the stories to match
his situational context and would not author a chapter under the authority and viewpoint of a pagan king.
Even John J. Collins (112) confesses that Daniel lacks enthusiasm for the Maccabean Revolt.

Porphyry
The historical view that has been held for over 1800 years with virtually no challenge in Judaism
and Christianity is that Daniel wrote the book substantially as it is today, it is historically reliable, and
that the predictions are supernatural and accurate (Eissfeldt, 517). It is unlikely that the universal
consensus among the Jewish community would be this if it were not true. The first to reject the
traditional view was the Neo-Platonic pagan named Porphyry, who argued that Daniel was not written in
 -7-
the course of the Babylonian exile, but was a second century B.C. forgery that was written in the time of
Antiochus Epiphanes to revive the hopes of his countrymen (Collins, 87) (Jerome, 142). Now, it is
asserted that Porphyry’s view has stood the test of time and is held as beyond reasonable doubt by all
critical scholarship (Collins, 88). This is not true, however, as conservative scholarship has given almost
universal recognition to the authenticity of the work and sixth century dating (Walvoord, 11).
Porphyry’s introduction of what we now call the Maccabean hypothesis were written in his
books titled, “Against the Christians”, however, the only way we know of these works are through
Jerome’s commentary on and defense of the authenticity of Daniel where he stated,
“Because Porphyry saw that all these things [Daniel’s prophecies] had been fulfilled and
could not deny that they had taken place, he overcame this evidence of historical
accuracy by taking refuge in this evasion, contending that whatever is foretold
concerning Antichrist at the end of the world was actually fulfilled in the reign of
Antiochus Epiphanes, because of certain similarities to things which took place at his
time. But this very attack testifies to Daniel's accuracy. For so striking was the
reliability of what the prophet foretold that he could not appear to unbelievers as a
predictor of the future, but rather a narrator of things already past.” (Jerome, 15-16).
As a prominent leader in the early Christian Church, Jerome condemned Porphyry as a heretic
and condemned his attack on the authenticity of Daniel. Throughout history, the Church has affirmed
Jerome’s position with the exception of modern liberalism which has confessed to picking up where
Porphyry left off (Collins, 88), thus continuing Porphyry’s anti-supernatural premise and conviction that
the work is neither historical nor prophetic; the author made it all up and used ex eventu prediction to
advance his own agenda. John F. Walvoord (17) has the following to say concerning Porphyry’s theory,
“It should be noted at the outset (1) that the theory had an anti-Christian origination; (2)
that no new facts had been determined to change the previous judgment of the church; (3)
that the support of Porphyry by higher critics was a part of their overall approach to the
Scriptures, which tended almost without exception to denial of traditional authorship,
claimed that books frequently had several authors and went through many redactions, and
– most important – included the almost universal denial by the higher critics of the
traditional doctrine of biblical inerrancy and verbal, plenary inspiration. The attack upon
Daniel was part of an attack upon the entire Scriptures, using the historical, critical
method.”
Porphyry’s rejection of predictive prophecy is based on a rejection of theism in general, rejection
of the doctrine of supernatural revelation as ordinarily assumed in the scriptures, and a disregard for
God’s omniscience and foreknowledge of the future (Walvoord, 21). It is absurd and nonsensical that
some view adherence to Porphyry’s thesis as a legitimate position within Christian theology.
There are some scholars and teachers such as Dr. Tim Beech who have supported the late dating,
while not ruling out the possibility of miraculous prediction. The approach to prophetic literature,
however, assumes that it is not the nature of biblical prophecy or apocalyptic writing to give a literal
accurate description of events before they take place. The practical issue with this is that available
information does not necessitate a late date (but rather the opposite). The theological issue with this
position is that if the author could not accurately foretell the events of the second century B.C. within
 -8-
apocalyptic writing, he also could not have foretold the first or second comings of Jesus the Messiah
(which is clearly contrary to the New Testament teaching and testimony of Jesus Himself). Perhaps this
is why some have identified the “One like a Son of Man” from Daniel 7 as an angel, and not as the
Messiah with whom Jesus identified himself (Collins, 103). The honest question may be raised, what
would motivate God to reveal information that concerns second century Palestine to a man living in
sixth century Babylon? It must first be noted that Antiochus was spoken of in context to a prophetic
historical overview, secondly, the presence of a bold resistance to Antiochus IV was critical to the
survival of Israel as we know it. Had Mattathias not been strengthened and emboldened by the book of
Daniel to lead a revolt (1 Macc. 2:59-60) as he knew it to be infallibly true and inspired by God, all the
Jews would have been either killed or would have conceded with corruption, hellenization, and apostasy
(Whitcomb, 11-12). This was nothing less than a threat to the existence of God’s covenant people,
Israel, and thus a threat to the promised seed (messiah) who would come forth from Israel, crush the
head of the serpent, and bring the Kingdom of God to the Earth.

Theological Considerations
Another issue some have with the early dating is due to a presumption that theological concepts
of Messiah, angels, spiritual warfare, resurrection of the dead, and eschatological judgment are
undeveloped elsewhere in the Old Testament. This reveals a lack of true familiarity with such consistent
Hebrew concepts in the Old Testament. Angels are referred to many times in many books throughout all
sections (Law, Histrory, Poetry, and the Prophets). Likewise with the concept of Messiah, which is
introduced in Genesis 3:15, and further developed and foreshadowed throughout (especially in Isaiah).
Belief in resurrection of the dead is clearly evident in the life of Abraham who assumed Isaac would be
raised from the dead and died without yet receiving what God had promised him. The theology of the
resurrection also occurs in Job 19:25-27 and Isaiah 26 19. In fact, all of the above theological concepts
are present in Isaiah who lived long before the Babylonian captivity. Even if these were shown to be
present only in Daniel it would prove nothing but that God chose to surprise Daniel by revealing these
new things to him.

Alleged Historical Inaccuracies

As noted previously, the accuracy and detailed insight into the Babylonian regime is remarkable,
and the specific detailed prophecies that were given by Daniel were fulfilled so perfectly that it is what
caused those biased against supernatural prediction to reject a dating prior to about 165 B.C. There still,
however, are a number of historical inaccuracies that Daniel is accused of containing, the most prevalent
ones will be given a response in the following paragraphs. As one may possibly notice, all are arguments
from silence (the lack of sufficient extra-biblical manuscripts to reiterate all that is said in Daniel,
though nothing to the contrary has been found either). When it comes to the prophecies, those who hold
to the Maccabean hypothesis seem to willfully twist Daniel’s statements, presenting them as teaching
what they do not teach (for example, a separate Median empire (Collins, 86)), and thus making a
discrepancy between the prophecy and it’s fulfillment in the mind of critics; the objections are products
of the critics own theory, which they then use to turn around and criticize Daniel for not corresponding
to their idea of second century authorship (Walvoord, 24). John F. Walvoord (24) states that,
 -9-
“The critics are guilty of circular argument, based on a false premise which leads to
questionable conclusions. The larger problem of interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy does
not in itself invalidate the genuineness of the book unless it can be demonstrated that the
prophecy itself is inaccurate. Up to the present, critics have not been able to prove this.”
A common objection is that Antiochus IV did not die in the way Daniel 11 predicts him to die
because Daniel wrote it while Antiochus was still alive (Collins, 111). The critics, however, disregard
Daniel’s assertion in 11:35 that he was transitioning to a discussion of the time of the end (Speaking of a
future Antichrist figure typified by Antiochus IV). This is reiterated again in Daniel 11:40 and 12:4, 9,
13. Daniel 11:31-35 is revealed to be dual fulfillment as well when Jesus clarifies that the abomination
of desolation of Daniel 11:31 and 9:27 is still future (Matthew 24:15).
Some critics are skeptical that Nebuchadnezzar’s episode of insanity at the end of his life ever
occurred and that the author confused his story for a tradition concerning Nabonidus (Belshazzar’s
Father) as found in the Dead Sea scrolls (Arnold & Beyer, 435). This is a very weak argument from
silence, however, as there is very little in ancient documents that speak concerning the latter years of
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and ancient manuscripts have been discovered that mention a severe illness just
before his death (Baldwin, 108-109). The differences between Daniel 4 and the prayer of Nabonidus are
significantly different as well (concerning the name of the King, the kind of illness, and location, etc),
making the conjecture that the author used this as his source unlikely.
Because Babylonian records say that Belshazzar was only the son of the king (and not the king),
and because historians knew little of Belshazzar prior to the mid 19 th century, many regarded the name
to be purely an invention of the author (Beaulieu, 186-188). It was also postulated that if Belshazzar was
a historical person, he certainly wasn’t king because other documents referred to Nabonidus as king.
Recent archeology, however, has revealed that Belshazzar was appointed co-regent with his father
Nabonidus and exercised royal authority in Babylon for ten years while his father was away at the oasis
of Teima in Arabia (Beaulieu, 90-98). Critics, who have been forced to recede their former position,
have now focused more on the semantics of the word king being an inaccurate description of a co-regent
(Leupold, 210). Daniel’s statement that Belshazzar was king is accurate, however, because he was acting
king in Babylon, and the Aramaic term “king” has a broader meaning than our English word (Arnold &
Beyer, 435). Daniel was aware of the co-regency that was discovered in recent archeology as evidenced
by his offer of being made the third highest ruler in the kingdom (Dan. 5:7, 16, 29), as Belshazzar was
already the second. The critics who have raised this issue, just to be refuted and embarrassed by further
available data now find themselves facing a question concerning the reliability of their own theory: how
did a second century fraud come to posses such exact knowledge of this forgotten figure Belshazzar and
not mention the figure Nabonidus who may have been recognized by those in the second century.
Darius the Mede is perhaps the foremost alleged example of the historical inaccuracy in Daniel,
and critics accuse the author of Daniel of making up this figure, who never existed, in his own
imagination (Collins, 86). The theory that Darius is a fictional creation of the author is highly
improbable for two reasons apart from cannonicity: the suggestion that any semi-educated Jew could be
ignorant of one of the most important events in Jewish history, when Cyrus conquered Babylon and
allowed the Jewish captives to return to their homeland is unthinkable, and the book of Ezra 1 (which
would be available to the second century Jews) specifically names Cyrus as the one to release the Jews
 -10-
from Babylonian captivity (Miller, 174). Joyce Baldwin (24) states that “to assume that Darius the Mede
did not exist… is high-handed and unwise, especially in light of its vindication in connection with
Belshazzar, who was [also] at one time reckoned to be a fictional character.”
The misunderstanding of Darius is on our part due to lack of detailed information (Arnold &
Beyer, 435). Two solutions have been offered for the historical identity of Darius, both of which have
not yet been contradicted by any manuscripts or historical findings: it is either another name for Cyrus
himself or an appointee of Cyrus who was of Median race (Walvoord, 24). The most convincing case is
for the former, for eight reasons as set forth by Stephen Miller (175-176) which are paraphrased below.
First is that Dual Titles were not uncommon; Cyrus ruled both Median and Persian territories, and using
the name “Darius the Mede” would satisfy and win favor from the Medes. Furthermore, Cyrus’ father
was Persian while his mother was Median (Jews commonly emphasized maternal ancestry, and calling
him Darius the Mede emphasizes fulfillment of Isaiah 13:17 and Jeremiah 51:11, 28). The second is that
dual titles and names are commonly used in the book; the book was written in two languages, and
Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were also called Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abednego. Third, Cyrus’ Age conforms to historical data; in 539 B.C. Cyrus would have been about
sixty two years old, which is the figure given for Darius in Daniel 5:31. The fourth support is that
Babylon was Cyrus’ winter residence, making the reports of his presence in the city reasonable. The
fifth support is almost stated by Daniel himself in 6:28 which may be translated “Daniel prospered in the
reign of Darius, even (Aramaic waw) the reign of Cyrus the Persian. This explains to the reader that
Darius and Cyrus are the same individual (just as 1 Chr. 5:26 uses the same language to clarify that two
titles refer to one person). Sixth, Daniel 9:1 designated Darius as “son of Ahasuerus”; Cyrus is the
grandson of the man with whom that title is identified. Seventh, when the Jews translated Daniel to
Greek in the LXX (Septuagint) and Theodotion, they translated Darius with Cyrus, suggesting that the
translators and ancient Jewish community knew the double name and wished to reduce confusion by
using the one that was more well known. The Jewish author of Bel and the Dragon stated that Cyrus was
the one who threw Daniel to the lions. Lastly, there are many other parallels between Cyrus and Darius;
Both are said to have ruled Medo-Persia from the conquest of Babylon, both are said to be ruler over
Babylon, and both appointed satraps after conquering Babylon. There is no evidence against these
solutions offered by conservative scholars; hopefully evidence will be discovered giving greater clarity
to the issue of Darius, just as recent finds have brought clarity to the identity and historicity of
Belshazzar.
John Collins (108) accuses Jeremiah’s prophecy of the exile and desolations of Jerusalem
(Jeremiah 25:11-12, and 29:10) as cited in Daniel 9:2 as being historically inaccurate as the elapsed
years were less than seventy. It is true, that the date Judah came under Babylonian control and the first
captives were deported was 605 B.C., and the release of the captives was in 537 B.C. (Miller, 241), thus
making the captivity 68 years and not exactly seventy. This time difference is hardly worth citing as
inaccurate, seventy years was likely given as a round number, and when seen as such is remarkably
accurate. It is for this reason that Daniel believed and realized that the literal, predictive, chronologically
calculated prophecy of Jeremiah was coming to completion in his time, which is why he responded with
intercession. Daniel’s view of the literality of Jeremiah’s seventy years exposes the error in the assertion
that Daniel’s seventy weeks of years were not meant to reflect a chronological calculation but a
traditional schema (Collins 109).
 -11-

Interpretive Issues
Those who hold to the Maccabean hypothesis insist that Daniel believed in and taught a schema
of four kingdoms in which Media Preceded Persia (Cokkins, 86), which was not the case in history as
Babylon was conquered by Cyrus, who ruled the joint Medo-Persian Empire. This, however, is not an
evidenced presupposition, and is formed on the premise of late authorship and dating. In this
interpretation, the four headed beast of Daniel 7:6 is seen as Persia, which is then criticized as being an
inaccurate portrayal of Persia. If, however, a joint Medo-Persian empire (and early dating with
predictive prophecy) is acknowledged, that would make this third Beast Greece, which fits history
precisely (Walvoord, 67). Many other alleged problems with the four kingdoms and other prophecies are
really problems with the interpretation of the critic, as an acknowledgment of prophecy (rather than
pseudo prophecy) causes these problems to disappear. Even if one assumes second century authorship, it
is still evident that the author specifically viewed Medo-Persia as one kingdom represented by a singular
beast (the two horned ram of Dan. 8:20, paralleled by the Bear raised on one side and the chest with two
arms). It is also evident that the author viewed Medo-Persia as a single joint kingdom (as history
verifies) by Daniel’s statement that Belshazzar’s kingdom would be given to the Medes and Persians as
well as Darius’ establishment and compliance with his own unchangeable decree according to the law of
the Medes and Persians (Dan. 5:8, 12, 15).
Liberal scholars view the decree in Daniel’s seventy weeks of years to be Jeremiah’s prophecy
(605 B.C.) as it is viewed as a re-interpretation of Jeremiah’s seventy years (Collins, 109), yet the start
of the seventy weeks is inconsistently held to commence in 586 B.C. to make the time chart work better
(Montgomery, 196, 392). The termination is viewed to be in 164 B.C. at the cleansing of the temple,
which brings an end to Antiochus’ persecution (Montgomery, 394), although it fails to account for about
67 years, which was apparently the result of the authors miscalculation (Montgomery, 393). One
problem with this is that it is difficult to believe that the writer would be so historically uninformed that
he would lose track of over half a century. Another is that the Kingdom of God, and everlasting
righteousness did not come in the time of Antiovhus IV. Two plausible interpretive solutions to Daniel
9:24-27 are presented by Stephen Miller (254-257).

Conclusion
In light of internal evidence, external evidence, and theological considerations, it is clear and
convincing that book of Daniel is an authentic work of the author, Daniel, who lived through the stories
as recorded in the book, and gave remarkably accurate predictive prophecies which were written in the
sixth century B.C. The alternate theory of authorship and dating known as the Maccabean hypothesis
contains numerous weighty theological and evidential difficulties that make it not a viable theory for any
person who claims to be a Christian, any who assert belief in scriptural inerrancy, any who adhere to
belief in the deity of Jesus (and thus truth of His words), and any who claim to value honest treatment of
the available evidence.

Works Cited
 -12-
Arnold, Bill T., and Bryan E. Beyer. Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.
Baldwin, Joyce G. Is There Pseudonymity in the Old Testament? Themelios 4.1. 1978.
Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel. England: Inter-Varsity Press. 1978.
Beaulieu, Paul-Alian. The Reign of Nabonidus , king of Babylon, 556-539 B.C.. New Haven, Conn.:
Yale University Press. 1989.
Brownlee, William H. The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible. New York: Oxford, 1964.
Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2nd
Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Cross, F. M. The Ancient library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. Westport: Greenwood. 1958.
Eissfeldt, O. The Old Testament. Oxford: Blackwell. 1966
Harrison, Raymond K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.
Jerome. Commentary on Daniel. Translated by Gleason L. Archer. Grand Rapids: Baker. 1958.
Kitchen, K.A. The Aramaic of Daniel: Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. London: The
Tyndale Press, 1970.
Leupold, H.C. Exposition of Daniel. Baker Books. 1969
Martin, W.J. Language of the Old Testament. The New Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1965.
Miller, Glenn M. Was Daniel written AFTER the events he foretold?: Literary References Section. The
Christian ThinkTank. N.p., Dec 2000. Web. 3 Jun 2010. <http://www.christian-
thinktank.com/qwhendan3b.html>.
Miller, Stephen R. The New American Commentary: Daniel. Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.
Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. New York: C.
Scribner. 1927
Myers, Jacob M. The Anchor Bible, I Chronicles. Yale University Press. 1965.
Pfeiffer, R. H. Introduction to the Old Testament London: A & C Black. 1952
Pusey, E.B. Daniel the Prophet. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1978
Pritchard, James B. Ancient near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton University
Press. 1992
Walvoord, John F. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1989.
Whitcomb, John C. Daniel. Chicago, IL: Moody Press. 1985.