Daniel - Introduction: Part 3

Date of the Book of Daniel

The Maccabean Hypothesis

• An Important Issue
  The issue of when the Book of Daniel was written is critical because the very nature of the Messiah is connected with it. Jesus staked His character on the truthfulness of whether Daniel was a prophet and whether the book contains bona fide prophecy. If Jesus were wrong on these matters, or intentionally misrepresented the truth, then He was not sinless and could not be Who He claimed to be--God incarnate.

• The Critical Position
   "Porphyry’s insight was resisted for well over a millennium, but its validity has been widely acknowledged by modern critics, beginning in the 18th century... Daniel refers to no events later than the time of Epiphanes, and evidently expected the end of history shortly thereafter." 
  --John J. Collins, “DANIEL, BOOK OF,” in David Noel Freeman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), 2:30.

Daniel Among the Writings

• The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings
  In the original Hebrew arrangement, the Old Testament writings are divided into three major groups: (1) the Law (Torah ); (2) the Prophets (Nebiim ); (3) the Writings (Ketubim ). Critics believe Daniel was written late or was thought to have less authority because the book appears among the Writings rather than the Prophets.

• Daniel Lacked Prophetic Mantle
  Although Daniel was given prophetic revelation and Jesus referred to him as a prophet, he didn't wear the prophetic mantle in the same way as other prophets. He did not make public pronouncements on behalf of God to the nation of Israel and never used the signature phrase, “thus says the LORD.” His book may have been placed among the Writings in recognition of the fact that he was primarily a statesman and did not occupy the office of a prophet.

• The Writings are Early and Authoritative
  The Writings contains works of great authority and antiquity such as Job, the Davidic psalms, and the writings of Solomon. Nobody argues that these books were written late or lack authority because they, like Daniel, are found among the Writings.

The Book of Ecclesiasticus

• Daniel Not Mentioned
  The Greek apocryphal Book of Ecclesiasticus contains a lengthy passage within which a number of biblical notables are mentioned. Daniel is not one of them. Critics hold that the omission of Daniel indicates he was unknown to the author, Jesus Ben Sirach.

• List of Representative Samples
  The passage covers a very large span of time, from Adam down past the Babylonian Captivity, but explicitly mentions only 16 names. Many other notables fail to appear in the list (e.g., Moses, Joshua, Solomon, Samuel, Sampson, Ezra).

• Hebrew Ecclesiasticus Dependent Upon Daniel
  The discovery of the Hebrew version of Ecclesiasticus provided a more faithful rendering of the book which allowed scholars to recognize its literary dependency upon the Book of Daniel. Thus, Ecclesiasticus may actually provide evidence in favor of the existence of the Book of Daniel at an earlier date.

Early Testimony to Daniel

• Scripture
  In the OT, Ezekiel, writing in the sixth-century, refers to Daniel on three separate occasions (Eze. 14:14, 20; 28:3). Especially significant is Ezekiel’s use of the name “Daniel” without further qualification. In the NT, the chief witness to the reliability of Daniel is the reference made by Jesus in the gospels to “Daniel the Prophet” and the “abomination of desolation” (Mtt. 24:15; Mark 13:14). We may add to this the many references throughout the NT to the events recorded in Daniel (e.g., Thessalonians, Revelation).

• Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS)
  Among the finds at Qumran are fragments of every chapter of the Book of Daniel except one. A comparison of these fragments from the DSS with the Masoretic Text (MT) underlying our modern Bibles demonstrates that the MT has been carefully preserved. Thus, the text that was handed down to us through a period spanning about 1,100 years is remarkably reliable. Fragments from cave 4 (4QDan^c) are considered to be the earliest witness to the Hebrew text of Daniel. These fragments have been dated to the late second century B.C. which implies at least a pre-second century date for the book’s origin. This alone invalidates the critical hypothesis of a Maccabean era date for Daniel.

• The Jewish Historian Josephus
  First, Josephus describes the Hebrew Scriptures in such a way that it appears that in his day the Book of Daniel was considered to be among the Prophets (not the Writings). Second, Josephus held that Daniel was the author of the work and that it was in completed form by 332 B.C. when Alexander the Great arrived in Jerusalem. Third, Josephus interprets the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes as being the fulfillment of prophecies made by Daniel in the sixth century B.C. Josephus, a historian living much closer to the Maccabean era than any of Daniel’s critics, knows nothing of a Maccabean origin for Daniel or any alternative author than the biblical Daniel.

• The Septuagint
  Living much closer to the events in view, the translators of the Septuagint (the Greek OT) understood Daniel to contain bona fide prediction and accepted the book as an authoritative portion of the Hebrew Scriptures which they dutifully translated into Greek. Four of the Persian “loan words” found within Daniel were mistranslated by the translators of the Septuagint which implies that enough time had elapsed between the writing of Daniel and its translation for the Septuagint that the meanings of the words had been lost to the Hebrews.

• 1^st Maccabees
  The Book of 1^st Maccabees, which contains a reliable historical account of the events surrounding the Maccabean Revolt, makes mention of events from the Book of Daniel (1 Maccabees 2:51-60). Elsewhere, 1^st Maccabees refers to Daniel by representing the events of Antiochus as being a fulfillment of Daniel’s predicted “abomination of desolation” (Dan. 12:11 cf. 11:31).st Maccabees could have been written anytime after the events it records, but most likely near 166 B.C. and no later than 100 B.C. But this is almost the same time period in which the critics say Daniel was written.-->

• Book of Baruch
  The Book of Baruch is an apocryphal writing which is dated as early as the fourth century before Christ and as late as 60 B.C. Baruch 1:10-12 makes mention of Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon whose infamous party is recorded in Daniel 5. Since no other historic writings of that period mention Belshazzar, the question arises as to how the author of Baruch knew of him? As we mentioned previously, for many years the Book of Daniel was the only writing known that made mention of Belshazzar.

• Historical Details in Daniel
  The author of Daniel had detailed knowledge of sixth-century Babylon and Medo-Persia which was unknown by the time of the Maccabees such as: (1) coregency of Belshazzar; (2) Babylon rebuilt by Nebuchadnezzar; (3) meaning of Persian terms; (4) Babylonian vs. Medo-Persian rule; (5) Mede over Babylon; (6) Shushan in province of Elam; (7) Revelry at overthrow of Babylon.