1. What is the book of Daniel?
The book of Daniel, according to its own testimony, is the record of the life and prophetic revelations given to Daniel, a captive Jew carried off to Babylon after the first conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 605 b.c. The record of events extends to the third year of Cyrus, 536 B.C., and, accordingly, covers a span of about seventy years. Daniel himself may well have lived on to about 530 b.c, and the book of Daniel was probably completed in the last decade of his life. John F. Walvoord
.
“Daniel” means “God is my judge” and aptly characterizes the prophet’s beliefs and practices. Daniel and Ezekiel were the only prophets to conduct their entire ministries while in captivity. Daniel was deported to Babylon as a teenager, selected to serve in the king’s court, and appointed by God to be His spokesman for the seventy year period of Judah’s exile. Daniel communicated God’s message in a form distinct from that of other Old Testament writers. He used apocalyptic writing which involved elaborate visions and images describing future events among God’s people and in the supernatural world. Other books such as Isaiah, Zechariah, and Ezekiel make some use of this genre, but not to the same extent as Daniel. The Book of Revelation is an example of apocalyptic writing in the New Testament. BSBN
.
2. Who wrote Daniel?
.
There is little doubt among conservative scholars that Daniel himself wrote this book under the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Probably he did so late in his life, which could have been about 530 B.C. or a few years later. Several Persian-derived governmental terms appear in the book. The presence of these words suggests that the book received its final polishing after Persian had become the official language of government. This would have been late in Daniel’s life. What makes Daniel’s authorship quite clear is both internal and external evidence.
.
Internally the book claims in several places that Daniel was its writer (8:1; 9:2, 20; 10:2). References to Daniel in the third person do not indicate that someone else wrote about him because it was customary for ancient authors of historical memoirs to write about themselves this way (cf. Exod. 20:2, 7).Gleason L. Archer Jr., “Daniel,” inDaniel-Minor Prophets, vol. 7 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 4.
.
“As in several other books of prophecy (e.g., Jeremiah and Hosea), the author is also the chief actor in the events recorded.” Robert D. Culver, “Daniel,” in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 769.
.
Externally the Lord Jesus Christ spoke of this book as the writing of Daniel (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14). The Jews believed that Daniel was its writer from its earliest appearance. The early church father Jerome argued for Daniel’s authorship against a contemporary critic of his, Porphyry, who contended that someone composed it about 165 B.C. and claimed that he was Daniel. CN
.
Matthew 24:15-16 (NKJV) “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
.
Mark 13:14 (NKJV) “So when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not” (let the reader understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
.
In several passages (such as 9:2 ; 10:2 ) the book implies that Daniel was its author. With this, Jesus appears to have concurred, as evidenced by his reference to “‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel” NIVSN
.
Daniel, according to the testimony of this book and of various historical references, cp. Matthew 24:15-21; Mark 13:19; 1 Peter 1:10-11; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, its author, was a member of one of the foremost Jewish families, possibly even of kingly descent. Having been led away into captivity at one of the conquests of Jerusalem, about in the year 606 B. C., he was taken to Babylon and there, under the name Belteshazzar, trained for special service at the court of Nebuchadnezzar. Popular Commentary of the Bible, The – – Old Testament, Volume 2.
.
1 Peter 1:10-11 (NKJV) Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.
.
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 (NKJV) Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
.
Traditionally, Christians and Jews have maintained that Daniel wrote the prophecy that bears his name in the sixth century b. c. and that his predictions are supernatural and accurate. ASB
.
Both Jewish and Christian tradition have held that the author of this book is Daniel, a Jew who lived during the sixth-century b.c. Babylonian exile. ESVN
.
3. When was Daniel written?
.
The record of events extends to the third year of Cyrus, 536 B.C., and, accordingly, covers a span of about seventy years. Daniel himself may well have lived on to about 530 b.c, and the book of Daniel was probably completed in the last decade of his life. John F. Walvoord
.
Daniel, the main character from whom this book gets its name, was probably only a teenager when he arrived in Babylon in 605 B.C. The Hebrew words used to describe him, the internal evidence of chapter 1, and the length of his ministry, seem to make this clear. He continued in office as a public servant at least until 538 B.C. (1:21) and as a prophet at least until 536 B.C. (10:1). Thus the record of his ministry spans 70 years, the entire duration of the Babylonian Captivity. He probably lived to be at least 85 years old and perhaps older.
.
4. Why has Daniel come under such criticism and attack?
.
However because the book contains prophecies that Antiochus Epiphanies fulfilled in the second century B.C. many rationalistic critics who deny that the Bible contains predictive prophecy have said that Daniel could not have written it. Bruce K. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 133:532 (October-December 1976):319-29.
“Human inventiveness in things spiritual or unspiritual is very limited. It would be difficult probably to invent a new heresy. Objectors of old were as acute or more acute than those now; so that the ground was well-nigh exhausted.”Edward B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet, p. iii.
No significant writer espoused a late date for the book after Jerome refuted Porphyry until the eighteenth century A.D. J. D. Michaelis revived Porphyry’s theory in 1771, and it took root in the rationalistic intellectual soil of the Enlightenment. Since then many scholars who disbelieve in predictive prophecy have insisted that this book must have been the product of the Maccabean revolt (168-165 B.C.). Liberal critics still consider the late dating of Daniel to be one of the most assured results of modern scholarship. Nevertheless there is ample evidence in the book itself that Daniel wrote it and that it dates from the sixth century B.C. R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 1110-26;
“One who claims that the book of Daniel is a product of the Maccabean age thereby denies that it is a work of true predictive prophecy as it purports to be. Furthermore, if the book of Daniel comes from the age of the Maccabees, I do not see how it is possible to escape the conclusion that the book is also a forgery, for it claims to be a revelation from God to the Daniel who lived in Babylon during the exile.” Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, p. 5.
“In NT prophecy Daniel is referred to more than any other OT book. Moreover, it contains more fulfilled prophecies than any other book in the Bible.” Archer, “Daniel,” p. 3.
“The book of Daniel is unquestionably the key to all biblical prophecy. It is the great apocalyptic book of the Old Testament, whereas Revelation is that of the New Testament. Passages such as Matthew 24—25, Mark 13,Luke 21, and the book of Revelation are unintelligible without a knowledge of the book of Daniel.” Charles L. Feinberg, Daniel: The Kingdom of the Lord, p. 13.
“No one who has reverently studied the book of Daniel in the context of the completed Scriptures can deny the crucial contribution of this book to God’s complete prophetic revelation. Our Lord spoke often of ‘the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 5:3; Dan. 2:44) and of Himself as ‘the son of man’ (Matt. 26:64; Dan. 7:13-14). Looking toward His second coming to the earth, He referred to ‘a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now’ (Matt. 24:21; cf. Dan. 12:1), and to ‘the abomination of desolation’ that will stand in the Temple (Matt. 24:15; Dan. 9:27; 12:11). The apostle Paul also referred to this work of ‘the man of lawlessness’ (2 Thess. 2:3-4; cf. Dan. 7:25; 11:36-39) but rejoiced that someday ‘the saints will judge the world’ (1 Cor. 6:2; Dan. 7:18, 22, 27).” Whitcomb, p. 16 CN
This is a major problem for the modern advocate of “higher criticism” which denies the supernatural.
.
5. What are some of the major controversies with regard to this book and what are the rebuttals.
.
a. Attacks on the Dating and Authorship:
The dating of this book is one of the most controversial subjects in the field of
Old Testament Introduction. The controversy is not due to the obscurity of evidence but to the presuppositions of critics. Some of this has been discussed previously in a general way.
.
The skeptic must at all cost push the dating of Daniel to the from the 6th to the 2nd century b.c.
.
Rebuttal:
Eight manuscripts of the text of Daniel have survived two millennia in the caves of Qumran. They were produced sometime between the second century b. c. and the first century a. d. These fragments demonstrate the Qumran community’s high regard for the book of Daniel and the faithfulness with which the biblical text was preserved over the centuries. ASB
.
The Dead Sea Scroll versions of Daniel attest to the early form of the Hebrew text of Daniel which closely matches that of the Masoretic Text which is the basis of our modern translations. “[With the advent of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments] we are able to compare for the first time in history the Hebrew and Aramaic of the book of Daniel with manuscripts of the same book that are about 1,000 years older. A comparison between the MT and the earlier manuscripts contained in 1QDana, 1QDanb, and 6QDan, based upon a careful study of the variants and relationships with the MT, reveals that ‘the Daniel fragments from Caves 1 and 6 reveal, on the whole, that the later Masoretic text is preserved in a good, hardly changed form. They are thus a valuable witness to the great faithfulness with which the sacred text has been transmitted’ (Mertens 1971:31). These textual witnesses demonstrate that the MT was faithfully preserved and confirm that the Hebrew and Aramaic text of Daniel is reliable.”– Gerhard Hasel, “New Light On The Book Of Daniel From The Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Bible and Spade, vol. 5 no. 2 (Associates for Biblical Research, Wi
Ezekiel, the sixth- century prophet, mentioned Daniel three times in his book (Ezk 14:14, 20; 28:3) —seemingly clear verification of the traditional view. Critical scholars, however, insist Ezekiel was speaking of a mythological hero named Danel who appears in the ancient Ugaritic epic “The Tale of Aqhat.” A decisive argument against such a theory is that the epic Danel was an idolater, hardly a model of faithfulness to Israel’s God. Ezekiel must have been referring to the author of the book of Daniel. If so, the historicity of Daniel and his book would seem to be established.
.
Ezekiel 14:14 (NKJV) Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness,” says the Lord GOD.
.
Ezekiel 14:20 (NKJV) even though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live,” says the Lord GOD, “they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness.”
.
Ezekiel 28:3 (NKJV) (Behold, you are wiser than Daniel! There is no secret that can be hidden from you!
.
Isaiah has been called the prince of the prophets, and I would like to say that Daniel, then, is the king of the prophets. Both of these prophecies are very important in Scripture and have been especially attacked by unbelievers.The Book of Daniel has been a battlefield between conservative and liberal scholars for years, and much of the controversy has had to do with the dating of the writing of the book. Porphyry, a heretic in the third century a.d. declared that the Book of Daniel was a forgery written during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees. That would place its writing around 170 b.c., almost four hundred years after Daniel lived. The German critics seized upon this hypothesis and, along with Dr. S. R. Driver, developed this type of criticism of the book. These critics, as well as present–day unbelievers, assume the premise that the supernatural does not exist. Since foreknowledge is supernatural, there can, therefore, be no foretelling, no prophesying. JVM
.
The very interesting thing is that the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, was translated before the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and it contains the Book of Daniel! The liberal scholars have ignored similar very clear testimony from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those scrolls confirm the fact that there was only one author of the Book of Isaiah. The liberal has wanted to argue that there was a duet or even a trio of “Isaiahs” who wrote that book. The Dead Sea Scrolls are very much alive, and they refute the liberal critic on that point.It is interesting how these questions which are raised concerning the Bible are always answered in time. The heretic, the critic, and the cultist always move in an area of the Bible where we do not have full knowledge at the time. Everyone can speculate, and you can speculate any way you want to—generally the speculation goes the wrong way. However, in time, the Word of God is proven accurate.
Flavius Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, Vol. 1, p. 388) also records an incident during the time of Alexander the Great which supports the early authorship of Daniel. When Alexander’s invasion reached the Near East, Jaddua, the high priest, went out to meet him and showed him a copy of the Book of Daniel in which Alexander was clearly mentioned. Alexander was so impressed by this that, instead of destroying Jerusalem, he entered the city peaceably and worshiped at the temple.These arguments clearly contradict the liberal critics; yet there are those who blindly ignore them. JVM
Sir Isaac Newton declared, “To reject Daniel is to reject the Christian religion.”
.
Except for the attack of the pagan Porphyry (third century a.d.), no question was raised concerning the traditional sixth century b.c. date, the authorship of Daniel the prophet, or the genuineness of the book until the rise of higher criticism in the seventeenth century, more than two thousand years after the book was written. Important confirmation of the historicity of Daniel himself is found in three passages in Ezekiel (Eze 14:14, 20; 28:3), written after Daniel had assumed an important post in the king’s court at Babylon.2 Convincing also to conservative scholars is the reference to “Daniel the prophet” by Christ in the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24:15; Mk 13:14).
Higher critics normally question the traditional authorship and dates of books in both the Old and New Testaments, and therefore disallow the testimony of the book of Daniel itself, dispute the mention of Daniel by Ezekiel, and discount the support by Christ in the New Testament. But conservative scholars have given almost universal recognition to the book of Daniel as an authentic sixth century b.c. composition of Daniel, the captive of Nebuchadnezzar. Consideration of the arguments of higher critics is given in the later discussion of the genuineness of the book of Daniel, upon which the conservative opinion rests. Walvoord John F.
.
The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the OT produced in Alexandria, Egypt, that came to be used widely by the Jews of the Diaspora. Scholars generally agree that at least the Pentateuch (first five books) was translated in the middle of the third century b. c., but it is likely that all the Bible books were translated into Greek about the same time. If so, a second century date for Daniel is impossible. According to the critical view, only 30 years after it was written, the book of Daniel was received into the canon and carried to Alexandria, approximately 300 miles away, and there translated into Greek. Such a proposal seems unlikely.
The book of Daniel was accepted as canonical by the community of Qumran (who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls). This is telling because this group emerged as a separate party in Judaism between 171 and 167 b.c., before the proposed late date. They would not have accepted the book if it had appeared after the split. ESVN
.
The denial that the book was in existence in the sixth century B.C. disregards the three citations referring to Daniel in Ezekiel (Eze 14:14, 20; 28:3), as well as all the evidence in the book of Daniel itself. Liberal critics tend to disregard the references to Daniel in Ezekiel. James Montgomery, for instance, states, “There is then no reference to our Daniel as an historic person in the Heb. O.T…” Montgomery holds that Ezekiel’s reference is to another character, whom he describes as “the name of an evidently traditional saint.”
.
The “traditional saint” mentioned by Montgomery refers to a “Daniel” who apparently lived about 1400 b.c. In 1930, several years after Montgomery wrote his commentary, archeologists digging at ancient Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra) found some clay tablets detailing a legend of a Canaanite by name of Aqhat who was the father of a man called Daniel. In the tablet Daniel is portrayed as being a friend of widows and orphans, and as a man who was unusually wise and righteous in his judgments. This is the one who Montgomery asserts is referred to in Ezekiel 14:14, 20 as a worthy ancient character on the same plane as Noah and Job. Daniel, the son of Aqhat, however, was a Baal worshiper who prayed to Baal and partook of food in the house of Baal. He is pictured as worshiping his ancestral gods and offering oblations to idols. He was also guilty of cursing his enemies and living without a real hope in God. It is hard to imagine that Ezekiel, writing by inspiration, would hold up such a character as an example of a godly man. Such a judgment is hardly in keeping with the facts.
.
If the Ezekiel references were insufficient, certainly the clear attestation of Christ to the genuineness of Daniel in Matthew 24:15 should be admitted as valid. As Boutnower expresses it, Now, what is the witness of Christ respecting this Book of Daniel, for it is evident from His position as a teacher, His tastes, and the time at which He lived, that He must know the truth of the matter; whilst from His lofty morality we are sure that He will tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? How does Christ treat this Book, of which the critics form so low an estimate, regarding it as a religious romance with a pseudonymous title, and its prophetic portion as a Jewish apocalypse, a vaticinium post eventum?The answer is that this is the Book which Christ specially delights to honour. To Him its title is no pseudonym, but the name of a real person, “Daniel the prophet”— “the prophet” in the sense of one inspired of God to foretell the future, “what shall come to pass hereafter.” Our Saviour in His own great Advent prophecy—Matt. 24—uttered on the eve of His death, quotes this Book of Daniel no less than three times [Matt. 24:15, 21; cp. Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:30; cp. Dan 7:13].
.
The recent discoveries at Qumran have given impetus to the trend to reconsider late dating of such books as the Psalms and 1 and 2 Chronicles. Brownlee on the basis of recent discoveries indicates that the Maccabean authorship of the Psalms can no longer be held. He states, “If this is true, it would seem that we should abandon the idea of any of the canonical Psalms being of Maccabean date.” Myers gives ample evidence that the Maccabean dating of 1 and 2 Chronicles (after 333 b.c. ) is no longer tenable since the publication of the Elephantine materials. He concludes that 1 and 2 Chronicles now must be considered written in the Persian period (538-333 b.c.).
.
This trend toward recognition of earlier authorship of these portions of the Old Testament point also to the inconsistency of maintaining a late date for Daniel. If, on the basis of the scrolls recently discovered, Psalms and Chronicles can no longer be held to be Maccabean, then Daniel, on the same kind of evidence, also demands recognition as a production of the Persian period and earlier. Raymond K. Harrison has come to this conclusion when he states, “While, at the time of writing, the Daniel manuscripts from Qumran have yet to be published and evaluated, it appears presumptuous, even in the light of present knowledge, for scholars to abandon the Maccabean dating of certain allegedly late Psalms and yet maintain it with undiminished fervor in the case of Daniel when the grounds for such modification are the same.” Harrison points out that the Qumran manuscripts of Daniel are all copies; and if the Qumran sect was actually Maccabean in origin itself, it would necessarily imply that the original copy of Daniel must have been at least a half century earlier, which would place it before the time of the alleged Maccabean authorship of Daniel.
The principles adopted by critics in evaluating other manuscripts and assigning them to a much earlier period than had been formerly accepted, if applied to Daniel, would make impossible the liberal critical position that Daniel is a second century B.C. work. Strangely, liberal critics have been slow to publish and comment upon the Qumran fragments of Daniel which seem to indicate a pre-Maccabean authorship. The facts as they are now before the investigator tend to destroy the arguments of the liberals for a late date for Daniel. The evidence against the canonicity of Daniel is without support. Besides, it is highly questionable whether the Jews living in the Maccabean period would have accepted Daniel if it had not had a previous history of canonicity.
.
Rejection of detailed prophecy. In the original objection of Porphyry to Daniel, the premise was taken that prophecy is impossible. This, of course, is based on a rejection of theism in general, a denial of the doctrine of supernatural revelation as is ordinarily assumed in the Scriptures by conservative scholars, and a disregard of the omniscience of God which includes foreknowledge of all future events. The defense of the possibility of prophecy should be unnecessary in treating the Scriptures inasmuch as it is related to the total apology for the Christian faith. John F. Walvoord
.
b. Attack of the placement within the Hebrew canon of scripture.
.
The Book was not placed with the Prophets the section of the other major prophets and therefore was added later.
Rebuttal:
Daniel was not placed in the Writings because the book was written later or the author’s prophetic credentials were in doubt. At Qumran, the religious center from which came the Dead Sea Scrolls, the prophecy enjoyed unusual prominence and both the Septuagint and Josephus (Against Apion 1. 8) classified Daniel with the Prophets. Apparently those responsible for fixing the order of the Hebrew Bible did not include the book in the prophetic section because Daniel was mainly a statesman, not a preacher to the nation of Israel in the manner of Isaiah or Jeremiah. ASB
.
The book of Daniel, written last of all the major prophets, appears in this order among the major prophets in the English Bible. In the Hebrew Old Testament—divided into three divisions consisting of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, which is also called Kethubim (Hebrew) or Hagiographa (Greek)—Daniel is included in the third section, the Writings. In the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Luther, however, it is placed with the major prophets. Josephus also includes it in the second division of the Jewish canon, the Prophets, rather than in the Hagiographa. There is, therefore, general recognition of the prophetic character of the book.
Although the ministry of Daniel was prophetic, it was of different character than the other major prophets; and apparently for this reason, the Jews included Daniel in the Writings. As Robert Dick Wilson has pointed out, the reason for this was not that the Jews regarded Daniel as inferior nor because the prophetic section of the canon had already been closed, but as Wilson states, “It is more probable, that the book was placed in this part of the Heb Canon, because Daniel is not called a na„bhi„á (‘prophet’), but was rather a ho„zeh (‘seer’) and a ha„kha„m(‘wise man’). None but the works of the nebhi„áim were put in the second part of the Jewish Canon, the third being reserved for the heterogeneous works of seers, wisemen, and priests, or for those that do not mention the name or work of a prophet, or that are poetical in form.”
J. B. Payne observes, “For though Christ spoke of Daniel’s function as prophetic (Matt. 24:15), his position was that of governmental official and inspired writer, rather than ministering prophet (cf. Acts 2:29-30).”4
In any case, the Jews did not regard the third division as less inspired, but only different in character. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that they included in it such venerable writings as Job, Psalms and Proverbs, the historical books of 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, along with others not considered either the Law or the Prophets. There is no hint anywhere in ancient literature that the Jews regarded Daniel as a pious forgery. John F. Walvoord
.
The Jews placed Daniel in the Writings section of their Bible. The first two divisions of the Hebrew Bible are the Law and the Prophets. The Writings in Hebrew are the Kethubim and in Greek the Hagiographa. Thomas J. Finley, “The Book of Daniel in the Canon of Scripture,”Bibliotheca Sacra 165:658 (April-June 2008):195-208.
.
They did this because Daniel was not a prophet in the sense in which the other Hebrew prophets were. He functioned as a prophet and wrote inspired Scripture, but he was a government official, an administrator in a Gentile land, rather than a preaching prophet (cf. Nehemiah).
.
“. . . though Christ spoke of Daniel’s function as prophetic (Matt. 24:15), his position was that of governmental official and inspired writer, rather than ministering prophet (cf. Acts 2:29-30).”Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Book of Daniel,” by J. Barton Payne.
.
In contrast to Ezekiel, his contemporary in Babylon, Daniel lived and worked among Gentiles primarily, whereas Ezekiel live and ministered among the Israelites. Only Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi follow Daniel chronologically among the prophetic books of the Old Testament, but Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Chronicles also do among the historical books.
.
The Greek and Latin translators of Daniel placed this book among the other Major Prophets in the Septuagint and Vulgate versions because of its prophetic content. That tradition influenced the scholars who produced our English versions.
.
Rejection of canonicity. As previously explained under consideration of the place of Daniel in the Scriptures, the book is included in the Writings, the third section of the Old Testament, not in the prophetic section. Merrill Unger has defined the erroneous critical view of this as follows: “Daniel’s prophecy was placed among writings in the third section of the Hebrew canon and not among the prophets in the second division because it was not in existence when the canon of the prophets was closed, allegedly between 300-200 B.C.”As previously explained, Daniel was not included because his work was of a different character from that of the other prophets. Daniel was primarily a government official, and he was not commissioned to preach to the people and deliver an oral message from God as was, for instance, Isaiah or Jeremiah. It is questionable whether his writings were distributed in his lifetime.
Further, the Writings were not so classified because they were late in date, inasmuch as they included such works as Job and 1 and 2 Chronicles, but the division was on the classification of the material in the volumes. Most important, the Writings were considered just as inspired and just as much the Word of God as the Law and the Prophets. This is brought out by the fact that Daniel is included in the Septuagint along with other inspired works, which would indicate that it was regarded as a genuine work of inspiration. John F. Walvoord
.
In contrast to Ezekiel, his contemporary in Babylon, Daniel lived and worked among Gentiles primarily, whereas Ezekiel live and ministered among the Israelites. Only Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi follow Daniel chronologically among the prophetic books of the Old Testament, but Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Chronicles also do among the historical books.
.
The Greek and Latin translators of Daniel placed this book among the other Major Prophets in the Septuagint and Vulgate versions because of its prophetic content. That tradition influenced the scholars who produced our English versions. CN
.
c. The language was not appropriate for the time. It has sections written in Aramaic.
Rebuttal:
Daniel is one of the few books in the Old Testament that was originally written in two different languages. One was Aramaic (also known as Chaldee or Syriac), the common language of the ancient Near East, and the other was Hebrew. The other Aramaic passages are Ezra 4:8—6:18; 7:12-26; and Jeremiah 10:11. The compound name Jegar-Sahadutha in Genesis 31:47 is also Aramaic. The Aramaic portions in Daniel deal with matters pertaining to all the citizens of the Babylonian and Persian empires whereas the Hebrew sections describe predominantly Jewish concerns and God’s plans for Israel. Probably Daniel wrote the Aramaic sections for the benefit of his Gentile neighbors, and he wrote the whole book for the Jews who could read both languages.
.
Daniel’s Hebrew is consistent with a sixth century date (it resembles the Hebrew of Ezekiel), and his Aramaic exhibits striking parallels with that of the Elephantine Papyri, also written in imperial Aramaic and dated to the fifth century b. c. By contrast, the Aramaic of the book does not conform to later samples of the language found at Qumran (e. g., Genesis Apocryphon).
.
An non typical feature of the book is that it is written in two languages—Daniel 1:1 –2:4a and 8:1 –12:13 are in Hebrew and Daniel 2:4 b–7:28 is in Aramaic. Critics insist that the use of Aramaic reflects a late date (when Aramaic had replaced Hebrew) but offer no convincing explanation as to why only a portion of the book is written in Aramaic. Chapter 7 (Aramaic) seems particularly problematic for the critical position since it is the same literary genre (apocalyptic vision) as chapters 8–12 (Hebrew). The most satisfying proposal is that Daniel wrote in Aramaic (the common language of that region in that period) the parts of the book with universal appeal or special significance for the Gentile nations and employed Hebrew in sections more applicable to the Jewish people. ASB
.
An unusual feature of the book of Daniel is the fact that the central portion (2:4-7:28) is written in biblical Aramaic also called Chaldee (AV, “Syriack”). A similar use of Aramaic is found in Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Jer 10:11; and the two words of the compound name Jegar-Sahadutha in Genesis 31:47.8 The use of the Aramaic, which was the lingua franca of the period, was related to the fact that the material concerned the Gentile world rather than Israel directly. The fact that there are similar portions elsewhere in the Bible should make clear that there is nothing unusual or questionable about the Aramaic section in Daniel. As pointed out by Brownlee,9 the shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic and back again in Daniel are found in the scrolls of Daniel at Qumran, supporting the legitimacy of this feature of the Massoretic text commonly used in English translations.
.
The argument that the Aramaic of Daniel was western and not used in Babylon, as popularized by S. R. Driver,now has been clearly shown to be erroneous by later archeological evidence. As Martin observes, relative to Driver’s contention, “When he [Driver] wrote, the only material available was too late to be relevant. Subsequently, R. D. Wilson, making use of earlier materials that had come to light, was able to show that the distinction between Eastern and Western Aramaic did not exist in pre-Christian times. This has since been amply confirmed by H. H. Schaeder.”
.
As Gleason L. Archer expresses the Aramaic problem, “The Jews apparently took no exception to the Aramaic sections in the book of Ezra, most of which consists in copies of correspondence carried on in Aramaic between the local governments of Palestine and the Persian imperial court from approximately 520 to 460 B.C. If Ezra can be accepted as an authentic document from the middle of the fifth century, when so many of its chapters were largely composed in Aramaic, it is hard to see why the six Aramaic chapters of Daniel must be dated two centuries later than that. It should be carefully observed that in the Babylon of the late sixth century, in which Daniel purportedly lived, the predominant language spoken by the heterogeneous population of this metropolis was Aramaic. It is therefore not surprising that an inhabitant of that city should have resorted to Aramaic in composing a portion of his memoirs.” CN
.
d. The book has Greek and Persian words used in later times.
.
Rebuttal:
Critics have objected to the presence of various Greek and Persian words in the book of Daniel as if this proved a late date. As brought out in the exposition of Daniel 3 where a number of these Persian and Greek words are found, in the light of recent archeological discoveries this objection is no longer valid. It has now been proved that one hundred years before Daniel Greek mercenaries served in the Assyrian armies under the command of Esarhaddon (683 B.C.) as well as in the Babylonian army of Nebuchadnezzar. As Robert Dick Wilson has noted, if Daniel had been written in the second century, there would have been far more Greek words rather than the few that occur. Yamauchi has also demonstrated that the critical objections to Greek words in Daniel are without foundation.
.
The use of Persian words is certainly not strange in view of the fact that Daniel himself lived in the early years of the Persian empire and served as one of its principal officials. He naturally would use contemporary Persian description of various officials in chapter 3 in an effort to update the understanding of these offices for those living after the Persian conquest of Babylon in 539 b.c. It must be concluded that objections to the book of Daniel as a sixth century writing on the basis of Greek and Persian words is without reasonable scholarly support and increasingly becomes an untenable position in the light of archeological evidence. John F. Walvoord
.
The linguistic argument is that Daniel could not have been written in the sixth century because the book contains Persian and even Greek words, and the Aramaic is alleged to be a variety from a later date.
Since, however, Daniel lived and served into the Medo-Persian period (530’s b.c.) the presence of Persian words indicates quite the opposite of the liberal contention. The chances of a second century forger in Palestine knowing Persian are dim.
.
As to the Greek words, most Bible students are shocked when they find out that there are only three—and all names for musical instruments! It is a well-known fact that the names of objects from a culture often go into another language long before there is heavy intercultural involvement. While the Greek Empire was still in the future when Daniel wrote, Greek culture and inventiveness were already spreading in the ancient world.
MacDonald, William ; Farstad, Arthur: Believer’s Bible Commentary : Old and New Testaments. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1995, S. Da 1:1
.
e. Historical and factual discrepancies.
.
1. What was the first year of Jehoiakim
.
Daniel 1:1 (NASB) 1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.
.
Jeremiah 46:2 (NKJV) Against Egypt. Concerning the army of Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, which was by the River Euphrates in Carchemish, and which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah:
It should first be noted that Daniel did not say Nebuchadnezzar defeated Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, but only that he took certain people captive to Babylon. Secondly, the Palestinian method of reckoning the number of years of a king’s reign from the time of his accession differed from that of the Babylonian method. The Babylonian method did not count the year of a king’s accession; the Palestinian method did. Thus, Daniel (by the Babylonian method) spoke of the event as being in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign, and Jeremiah (by the Palestinian method) as being in the fourth. RD
.
2. Belshazzar is not recorded as the last king of Babylon.
The difficulty of identifying Belshazzar (chap. 5), the source of much critical objection to the accuracy of Daniel on the ground that his name did not occur in ancient literature, has been remedied by precise information provided in the Nabonidus Chronicle.
Some older critical scholars claimed that Belshazzar was never a king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. However modern discoveries have shown that Belshazzar acted as king during his father’s frequent and prolonged absences from Babylon.
“The last actual Chaldean king, Nabonidus, ‘entrusted the kingship’ in 539 B.C. to his son Bel-sar-usur during his ten-year absence from Babylon, returning as the threat from Cyrus grew.” Goldingay, p. 106. See also N. W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, p. 76;
Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar’s grandfather rather than his father, but the original language commonly used “father” in the sense of ancestor.
.
“Neither in Hebrew, nor in Chaldee, is there any word for ‘grandfather,’ ‘grandson.’ Forefathers are called ‘fathers’ or ‘fathers’ fathers.’ But a single grandfather, or forefather, is never called ‘father’s father’ but always ‘father’ only.”CN
.
3. History records Cyrus as the Persian King, while Daniel speaks about Darius the Mede.
While questions may continue to be raised concerning the identity of Darius
.
The identity of Darius the Mede is one of the most interesting problems in the Daniel controversy, and it is a problem which cannot be ignored. The critics do not dispose of it by declaring the Book of Daniel to be a “pseudepigraph” of Maccabean days. Accepting that hypothesis for the sake of argument, the mention of Darius remains to be accounted for. Some writers reject it as “pure fiction”; others denounce it as a “sheer blunder.” Though these are wholly inconsistent hypotheses, Dr. Farrar adopts both. Both, however, are alike untenable; and the “avowed fiction” theory may be dismissed as unworthy of notice. The writer would have had no possible motive for inventing a “Darius,” for the events of Daniel vi. might just as well have been assigned to some other reign, and a figment of the kind would have marred his book. The suggestion is preposterous. And the author must have been a man of extraordinary genius and of great erudition. He would have had before him historical records now lost, such as the history of Berosus.
He would have had access to the authorities upon which the book of the Antiquities is based; for the student of Josephus cannot fail to see that his history is partly derived from sources other than the Book of Daniel. And besides all this, he would have had the Book of Ezra, which records how Darius the Persian issued an edict to give effect to the decree of Cyrus for the rebuilding of the Temple, and also the prophecies of Haggal and Zechariah, which bring this fact into still greater prominence. It may safely be averred, therefore, that no intelligent schoolboy, no devout peasant, in all Judah could have been guilty of a blunder so gross and stupid as that which is attributed to this “holy and gifted Jew,” the author of the most famous and successful literary fraud the world has ever seen! The “sheer blunder” theory may be rejected as sheer nonsense.Accepting, then, for the sake of argument, the pseudepigraph theory of Daniel, the book gives proof of a definite and well-established historical tradition that when Cyrus conquered Babylon, “Darius the Mede received the kingdom.” How, then, is that tradition to be accounted for? The question demands an answer, but the critics have none to offer. SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
.
The Identity of Darius the Mede. Daniel provides us with a number of facts about Nabonidus’ successor to the throne of Babylon: i) His name was Darius; ii) He was the son of Xerxes; iii) he was a Mede (Dan. 9:1), and iv) he began to rule when he was 62 years old (6:1). Despite this no extrabiblical evidence that such a person existed. It is generally agreed that this remains the strongest evidence against a seventh century origin for the book of Daniel (Wiseman, 1970: 9). Two main solutions have been suggested by conservative scholars. Both argue that the name Darius was a honorific title just as “Caesar” and “Augustus” was in the Roman Empire (Hoerth, 1998: 384). a) The first of these explanations sees Darius is another name for Gorbryas (Gubaru), a man who played a significant part both in the capture of Babylon and later its new administration where he served as provincial governor.
The use of double throne names is not without precedent (Tiglath-pileser of Assyria=Pul in 2 Kings 15:19-29; cf. 1 Chron. 5:26). Factors which make this identification doubtful are that facts that Gorbryas is never described elsewhere as the son of Xerxes, of 62 years of age or of Median descent. The use of a royal title by a governor of a city is also without precedent and there is no evidence than Gorbryas ever bore such a title at any time in his life. Most seriously of all this identification is contradicted by extant inscriptions which portray Gorbryas as a Persian (Wiseman, 1970: 10-12). b) A more likely theory is that of D.J. Wiseman that Darius was a “throne name” or honorific title for Cyrus. Cyrus was referred to by Nabonidas in 546 as “the king of the Medes”, only four years after Cyrus’ conquest of the Median Empire. There is also some evidence that Cyrus was descended from the Medes on his father’s side and was probably about 62 when he captured Babylon. The name Xerxes (Ahasuerus) may also be an ancient royal title, which would solve the remaining difficulty. While the theory is not without its weaknesses (e.g. Xerxes occurs in Ezra 4:6 and throughout the book of Esther as a real name) it remains the best explanation pending the discovery of further relevant archaeological evidence (Wiseman, 1970: 12-16).
.
4. The listing of Greece as the last world kingdom precludes a future revived Roman Empire.
The widely held view that the book of Daniel is largely fictional rests mainly on the modern philosophical assumption that long-range predictive prophecy is impossible. Therefore all fulfilled predictions in Daniel, it is claimed, had to have been composed no earlier than the Maccabean period (second century b.c. ), after the fulfillments had taken place. But objective evidence excludes this hypothesis on several counts: To avoid fulfillment of long-range predictive prophecy in the book, the adherents of the late-date view usually maintain that the four empires of chs. 2 and 7 are Babylonia, Media, Persia and Greece. But in the mind of the author, “the Medes and Persians” ( 5:28 ) together constituted the second in the series of four kingdoms ( 2:32-43 ). Thus it becomes clear that the four empires are the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman. NIVSN
.
7. What would be some major themes of Daniel?
.
The Covenant-Keeping God.
.
Universal Rule of Yahweh.
Although the narrative of the book centres around a group of Hebrews in Babylon the book’s perspective is not simply concerned either with their fate, or even that of their people; it is universal in scope. God is shown to be working at the very heart of a pagan empire and its rulers are forced to acknowledge that he is Lord is King of kings and Lord of lords. It is he who raises up and puts down rulers and it is he alone who directs the course of history (as the visions and dreams demonstrate). Although they might have taken the sacred objects from the temple with impunity when they are used in a sacrilegious manner Yahweh proves himself more than capable of defending his honour (5:1-30).
.
God’s Rule is Not Unopposed.
God’s will is opposed both in the heavens and on earth. When Daniel prayed and fasted for 21 days for insight God’s answer was given on the first day he prayed. However, we are told that the Prince of Persia opposed God’s messenger until another angel (Michael) was sent to help. Throughout that time Daniel continued to fast, unaware why he had not had an answer to his request (10:1, 12-14). On earth God’s will is opposed by kings and rulers, some of whom can be turned to repentance (4:34-35), some of whom cannot (5:1-4, 30; 11:36-38).
.
Suffering.
Being a believer in Yahweh does not guarantee a life free from suffering. Israel suffered because of military conquest, but Daniel and his friends had to chose between their faith and an easy life (3:8-23; 6:3-12). Further defeats are foretold for Israel, but God will ultimately vindicate them (7:21-25; 8:23-25; 9:26; 11:36-45; 12:7b) and bring every deed to judgement (5:2-6, 22-30; 6:24; 7:9-10; 12:1-3)
God is in Control of Human History.
.
Behind the scenes of history the Lord is working out his purposes (2:44). The kings of the earth rule by his will (2:37-38, 47; 4:28-35; 5:18-21; 6:26) and their end is already known (2:31-35, 44-45)
.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_daniel.html
.
· ESVN………….ESV Study Bible Notes
· MSBN…….MacArthur NASB Study Notes
· NIVSN…..NIV Study Notes.
· JVM ……………..J Vernon McGee,
· ACC ……………. Adam Clarke’s Commentary
· BN ……………..Barnes Notes
· WBC……………. Wycliffe Bible Commentary
· CN …… …………..Constables Notes
· IC………………….Ironside Commentary
· NET……………….Net Bible Study Notes.
· JFB…………..Jamieson Fausset Brown Commentary
· VWS……………..Vincent Word Studies
· CMM………….Commentary on Matthew and Mark
· BDB………….. Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
· Darby………..John Darby’s Synopsis of the OT and NT
· Johnson………Johnson’s Notes on the New Testament.
· NTCMM…………..The New Testament Commentary: Matthew and Mark.
· EHS………………….Expositions of the Holy Scriptures
· CPP…………………The Complete Pulpit Commentary
· SBC…………………Sermon Bible Commentary
· K&D……………….Keil and Deilitzsch Commentary on the OT
· EBC…………………Expositors Bible Commentary
· CBSC……………….Cambridge Bible for Schools and College
· GC……………………Guzik Commentary
· RD……………………. Robert Deffinbaugh
ASB………………………….Apologetics Study Bible
BSBN…………………Blackaby Study Bible Notes.
“Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107
The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues. It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please feel free to make civil comment. Divergent views encouraged,