ARTICLES

home

about carson

about maccabee

articles

free stories

contact me

Why Defend Daniel?

Sometime during the third century AD, a Neo-Platonist by the name of Porphyry (c.232/4-c.305) wrote a fifteen volume work entitled Against the Christians in which he attacked the Christians of his day along with their sacred books.  He claimed the Christians were ignorant deceivers.  In the midst of his attacks he proposed for the first time, at least in what remains of recorded history, that the book of Daniel is essentially a fraud, that it was not written by a man named Daniel who lived in Babylon during the sixth century BC and who prophesied of coming world events.  Porphyry’s assertion was rather that book of Daniel was the product of an unknown author who wrote during the time of the Maccabean revolt against the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes (168-165 BC).  It should be noted that Porphyry’s “discovery” did not come until almost five hundred years after even the late date for the writing of Daniel that he proposed, despite the fact that knowledge of the history involved was the same as it had been for all the previous generations.  Such was the subjective nature of his assertions.

Porphyry’s heresy was recognized for what it was by the early church, and his book was banned and destroyed in 448, though copious extracts remain in the works of Augustine, Eusebius, and others.  His particular heresy regarding the book of Daniel remained dormant for over 1,500 years until it was awakened in recent times by the proponents of higher textual criticism.  Those who approached the Bible with an anti-supernatural bias found it impossible to accept the miracles and the prophecy, especially prophecy much of which may now be looked back upon in its detailed fulfillment.  Thus, they went to work to disprove the authenticity of the book of Daniel.  Ironically, their proposals often came in the guise of spirituality.  For example, one such commentary author, after going to great lengths to demonstrate that the book of Daniel was a fabrication written by an unknown author four centuries after the fact, made the ludicrous comment: “The author was a person inspired of God, living under duress of persecution, who drew from the past and created a great hero-image which inspired the weak to be strong.”^[1]  By all appearances, this writer considers God to be the author of deception.

Those who object to the traditional early dating of Daniel raise several points, most of which tend to be subjective in nature, but some of which are more objective and deserve a rational response.  Among those objections (I do not claim to state the whole case for Daniel’s detractors here.  Such information is readily available in the various liberal commentaries.) are:

• Historical inaccuracies.
• The failure of the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus to mention Daniel among the great men of Israel.
• The use of Greek words.
• The presentation of historic details only up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes but no further.

I will explore these points along with the more important attestation of history in my defense below.

A Proper Understanding of Historical Knowledge

To carry on honest debate, it is understood that a conclusion is reached by the weighing of evidence.  But one must also understand what constitutes good evidence in a question of a historical nature, as is the question at hand.  One scholar observes that “the real gains in a century of biblical criticism have not been in the slippery field of literary reconstructions, but in the fields of archeology and linguistics.”[2]  Archeology is a digging into the past, and the linguistics in question is an effort to understand ancient languages.

Evidence for historical matters is notably different from evidence for matters of science.  In historical matters, one is looking for what was at one time known.  In science, one is looking to discover what has never been known.  If something has never been known before, as in the existence of an unknown planet, by its discovery one has moved from a position of “no knowledge” to “knowledge.”  However, if one is dealing with something that has been at one time known (for instance, whether or not the book of Daniel is a fraud), then one must return to that knowledge which has already existed.  Nothing new is discovered, only relearned.  Anything in history, while it may be cloudy at present, was absolutely clear to anyone present at the time of its making.  History is not learned by studying the present, but rather the past, when it occurred.  Therefore, one must seek to understand what was known at a time more contemporary to the time in question.

One does not suddenly arrive at new knowledge without new evidence.  All the new evidence regarding the book of Daniel, in the historical sense of learning from the past, has only served to reaffirm the old knowledge.  The further in time one finds oneself from an event, the less one can know of that event if left to one’s own means.  To gain knowledge of any event in the past outside one’s experience, one must receive the witness of someone who was contemporary to the event.  If such is not possible, one must move as close to that event as possible and seek corroboration among multiple witnesses.  This is the only way to avoid the shaky ground of conjecture that grows out of a previous bias.

The Evidence from Multiple Witnesses

Beginning with the more recent of the ancient witnesses and working backwards, one sees that the authenticity of Daniel was never put in question.

• Josephus, writing his history in the first century AD, attested that Daniel’s prophecies were known before the time of Alexander the Great (who died in 323 BC).[3]  He also directly asserted that Daniel’s visions came many years before Antiochus Epiphanes came to power.[4]  In the same reference, he interpreted Daniel as having spoken in regard to the Roman empire, which would have been future for Daniel as the dominant power even for those proposing a late date for its writing.

• In Matthew 24:15,[5] Jesus speaks of Daniel the prophet and speaks of the particular prophecy in question as yet unfulfilled at that time.  The year in which Jesus spoke would have been about AD 29.

• 1 Maccabees 2:59-60, written c. 125 BC, speaks of the three Israelites in the fiery furnace and of Daniel in the lions den.  Though written after the proposed late date, it is a mere single generation after that date.  Daniel and his three compatriots are listed with Abraham, Joseph, Phinehas, Joshua, Caleb, and David as people who stood faithful to God.  There is no indication whatsoever that they are recognized in a separate category as the others or that any question exists as to their historicity.

• Daniel is attested to by eight manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated from around 200 BC to AD 70.[6]  No manuscript brings into question the authenticity of Daniel.  Of special note here is the absence of the apocryphal works 1 and 2 Maccabees among the Dead Sea Scrolls which were written during that same time period.  It is thought that the Essene sect which was responsible for having written and stored the Dead Scrolls over two millennia ago, came into being out of a clash with the Maccabees (Jonathan and/or possibly Simon) who had taken the office of High Priest even though they were not of the Aaronic line.[7]  One might question whether or not the Essene community would have retained the book of Daniel if it had been written as a tract to support the Maccabean revolt as some have suggested.

• Ezekiel 14:14, 20; 28:3 speaks of Daniel.  There is some question here due to a variant spelling.  However, the Ezekiel 28:3 reference speaks of secrets not being hidden from Daniel, seemingly an allusion to his dreams and visions.  Even liberal theologians who have questions about who wrote Ezekiel reckon the book to have been written sometime in the early fifth century BC, which would place Daniel’s writings before then in order for Daniel to be referred to by Ezekiel. 

Given the acceptance of the book of Daniel as authentic scripture in ancient documents much closer to the source, one may with reason disregard the assertions of Porphyry who, many centuries later in a blatant effort to discredit scriptures in any way associated with Christianity, wrote on the basis of preconception and bias rather than historical evidence.

Rebuttals to Arguments Against the Traditional Dating

Accusations of historical inaccuracies in Daniel are made by those who have concluded that the sketchy information available to them of the history of the time is concise and complete enough to make such a judgement.  Given below are three points raised by Daniel’s detractors along with rebuttals:

• Daniel 5:2 and 18 state that the father of Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar when in actual fact, Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus.  The simple response to this objection is that the use of the term “father” was figurative.  Even the Jews of Jesus’ day said that Abraham was their father despite the many generations that had intervened (see John 8:39).

• There is no evidence in history of the “Darius the Mede” who is said to have succeeded Belshazzar in Daniel 5:31.  It is agreed by all that Cyrus the Persian was the true conqueror.  However, because the Medes were not completely out of the picture at this time, it is very possible that Cyrus ceded the province of Babylon to a Median king.  John Calvin contends that Darius was the uncle and perhaps father-in-law of Cyrus, basing his assessment on Xenophon’s writings.  Though of higher rank and majesty, Cyrus conceded the title of king of Babylon to Darius.[8]
• The author had a poor understanding of history, portraying the four empires Babylon, Persia, Media, and Greece in Daniel 2 and 7, for in actual fact Media never existed alone as the dominant power.  The problem here is that liberal commentator has added his interpretation to what is written on the basis of his bias.  His argument becomes circular.  His wrong interpretation supports his error in dating which in turn supports his wrong interpretation.  The consensus among those accepting the authenticity of Daniel is that the four empires are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. 

Much remains to be learned concerning ancient history, and archaeology continues to make new discoveries by digging into the past.  Just this year, a tablet was discovered that confirmed the existence of a lesser known figure in the Babylonian empire but who is mentioned in Jeremiah 39 as Nebuchadnezzar’s chief officer.[9]  To date, absolutely no historical evidence has been presented that shows that the book of Daniel diverges from historical fact.

Those refusing to accept the authenticity of Daniel have used as an argument that the apocryphal Book of Ecclesiasticus (written about 200 BC) listed among the great men of Israel Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Nehemiah and the Twelve Prophets, but made no mention of Daniel.  However, before much should be made of this, it must also be noted that Ecclesiasticus also fails to mention Ezra as well as other prominent men in the Old Testament such as Gideon, Samson, and Jehoshaphat.  The omission of Daniel in the list in Ecclesiasticus is understandable considering Daniel’s placement in the Hebrew Bible, commonly referred to as the Tanakh since it is divided into three sections as given below:

• Torah – The five books of Moses.
• Nevi’im – The prophets.
• Kethuvim – The writings.

Daniel is placed in the Kethuvim, the writings, rather than in the Nevi’im, the prophets.  Some maintain that this in itself should demonstrate the lesser importance of Daniel as a prophet and therefore probably came after the prophetic canon was closed.  However, when one considers that 1 and 2 Kings are in the Nevi’im while 1 and 2 Chronicles find their place in the Kethuvim despite their recounting parallel histories, it becomes clear that no issue can be made of the placement of the book of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible.

Some have made an issue of the use of Greek words in the book of Daniel, asserting that Greek words would have found their way into the text only after the conquests of Alexander the Great.  However, the only words in question are two of the musical instruments mentioned in Daniel 3.  As the Babylonians were importing captives from various conquered lands, there is little doubt that among these would have been Greek musicians.  Indeed, Psalm 137 indicates the Babylonians expressed a desire to hear from the Hebrew musicians.

The objection that Daniel only presents historic details up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes is more subjective than objective.  As noted before, some interpreters have, with good reason, interpreted the prophecies to include the Roman Empire.  John Calvin considers Daniel 11:36-45 to be a reference to the Roman Empire.  Many other interpreters believe this to be a reference to the future reign of the Antichrist.  In any case, the objection can be raised only if one interprets the book without allowing for the possibility of a supernatural knowledge of future events.  Thus the objection is based on bias more than empirical observation.

Conclusion

The assertion that the book of Daniel is the creation of an unknown author during the Maccabean revolt and which fraudulently presents itself as having been written by an Jewish man named Daniel living during the Babylonian Empire and participating in its government is the product of the preconceived notion that miracles and prophecy are impossible.  Such an assertion has no basis in historical fact.

_______________________________________________ 

 Endnotes

© 2007 David C. Carson. All rights reserved.