Daniel: Is it in the Prophets or the Writings?
Are Daniel's Prophecies ex eventu?
Is
the Book of Daniel a Unified Whole?
Daniel's Spelling of Nebuchadnezzar
Daniel and the book Wisdom of Sirach
Daniel and the Prayer of Nabonidus
Daniel's
Prophecies of the Kingdoms
Note to the reader: This document, written by David J. Conklin, has been altered slightly by the webmasters of this site to facilitate the readers understanding by making it more user friendly for the web. There is a list of abbreviations used in this document that occurs near the bottom. The contents of this document have been set up so that when you find one of these abbreviations, you can click on it, and the browser will go to the list of abbreviations at the bottom of this document. After you have found the abbreviation and it's definition, you may return by clicking on the Back Button at the top of your browser, and it should return you to the same location where you left off reading. A similar thing has also been done with the bibliography, for your convenience, so that you can look up individual references in the bibliography and then return to your reading. It is hoped that these simple changes will make the study of this document more enjoyable and informative. The list of abbreviations is in alphabetical order, and the bibliography is also in alphabetical order by author's last name. - the webmasters of http://www.666man.net.
Since certain prophecies in the book of Daniel seem to have their fulfillment in Antiochus IV Epiphanes and since some people have a presuppositional bias against predictive prophecy [Eissfeldt, 520] they believe that the book of Daniel must have been written at the time of the Antiochus, roughly 164 B.C. to 169/7 B.C.. [DiLella, 134; for the last date see Meyers and Rogerson, 278--they say that the tribulations that caused the Book of Daniel to be written [was] Antiochus' assault on the temple and Jerusalem. However, Collins (1984): 36 puts the date "between the profanation of the temple in 167 and the end of 164 BC."] That, in short, is the Maccabean thesis; for more of a description see Ferch (1986): 6-11. Anthony Collins, in 1727, expressed the modern critical arguments for the 2nd century dating of Daniel when he revived Porphyry's arguments. Anthony Collins noted the following features: "the historical problems, the Greek words, the prophecies relating to the second century ..., the book's location among the Writings, [and] the late Aramaic." [Goldingay, xxxvi] We will examine each of these features in this study. To use a suggestion made by Goldingay we will determine the truth "from actual study of the text of Scripture". We will also note where Goldingay and others have failed to do the same. We will not deal with the claims made by "some radical critics [who] have overreached themselves in finding 'absurdities' throughout the [book]." [Montgomery, 72 note 17]
We will find that there are a more than a few problems with the view of a Maccabean date for Daniel. Simply put, there is no evidence whatsoever that the book was written in 164/5 B. C.. It is only a theory and it needs to be called into question for the reasons I will show below. The usual claims in regards to the date of the book of Daniel are "examples of how much has been built on so little yet constantly reiterated by commentators till their weaknesses were exposed". [Robinson, 342] Yet one should take note of how old some of the sources are (in some cases from the late 1800's to early 1900's; and in one case from 1771!) which refute the commonly made claims.
As you will see it seems apparent that what has happened is that most writers have typically superimposed an a priori pattern upon the book and have then attempted to force the pieces to fit that pattern--and they have done this mostly by ignoring the evidence. In a review of Baldwin's commentary on Daniel the writer noted that she "gently chides advocates of the second-century date of the book [have] failed to change significantly their standard presentation since Driver [S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel. (Cambridge, 1900)] -- and this despite recent discoveries." [Gammie (1980): 453]
Daniel J. Boorstin has said: "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge." It is hoped that this study will lead the reader to re-consider and re-evaluate what they have read and heard in the past. My personal experience is that I was not aware of the level of, kinds of, and the sheer amount of detail in regards to the date of Daniel until I undertook this study. I really have to thank Farrel Till for publishing in his Skeptical Review an article by William Sierichs, Jr. about the book of Daniel ("Daniel in the Historians' Den"). This gave me the impetus to conduct this research; for I would not have had even the desire to study this topic without Sierichs comments against the book in general and specifically about the date.
Readily available sources (i.e., through inter-library loan), that I have examined are given in the bibliography at the end; more sources (in most cases these are more specialized or in a foreign language) are given in the text itself. If you engage in the method of compare/contrast (for instance, in terms of sources: the quantity and quality of these sources) you will note the sheer number and wide diversity of sources that I am providing as compared to that given by the critics, especially those of critics of the more "popular" variety.
One of the interesting lessons I learned in conducting this study was to see which objections and rationales used to be used against the book but have subsequently ceased to be used. See Farrar, 47-54 for some examples.
The points made in this paper are numbered sequentially
so we can see how many points of evidence there really are about the date of the
book of Daniel. There are 84 factors to consider as of May 19,
2000.
Return
to Top of Page
If Daniel was written as late as is claimed then those
who make the claim have to show:
1) If Antiochus seems to fulfill the prophecies recorded in 8:8-12 then why is there is no evidence that he fulfilled vs 9 and 12? See also the lack of fulfillment of 11:36-45. Both Daniel 8:9-12 and 11:36-45 deal with the blasphemous character of the king of the north which go far beyond anything that we know about Antiochus. He never destroyed the temple (see Dan. 8:11) and his military accomplishments hardly match those "recorded" in 8:9, 12 and 11:22. And while verse 37 states that "neither shall he regard the God of his fathers" it is "attested by Polybius and Livy [as being] the very opposite of his character. For he was more zealous in their worship, than any of the kings before him." [Pusey, 137] Even Towner notes that from 11:39 onwards Daniel does not fit with anything we know about Antiochus IV. [page 151--this is really disconcerting, to say the least, to the Maccabean hypothesis considering that the "predicted end of Antiochus differs from the stories of his death in I and II Maccabees ..." [William H. Brownlee, The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible. (Oxford, 1964): 35-6; Waltke (1976): 322; Baldwin (1978a): 199 notes that one scholar had to re-write this text in order to make it "approximate more exactly to the known history".] We could go even further by noting that Jesus did not consider that vs 31 had yet been fulfilled in his day! [Lacocque (1979): 229 simply refers the reader to Matt. 24:15 without noting that Jesus hadn't yet considered the verse to be fulfilled. Even the critic on the infidel web site, Larry Taylor, concedes that the events at 9:27 and 11:31 and after do not correspond to actual events.] Barnes reports that Bishop Newton and Sir Isaac Newton have looked at verse 31 and found that it was impossible to apply this verse to Antiochus and so they have suggested instead that it be applied to the Romans. [Barnes, 236-7] We can also note that none of his listeners corrected him by saying that this was fulfilled by Antiochus. Nor, did the Jewish leadership in its struggles against the early Christians point out this as an error. Lacocque attempts to escape this dilemma by dating 11:31 to Dec. 7, 167. [Lacocque (1979): 8] Koch points out that "nearly all the rabbis saw that the terrible catastrophe"--the fall of Jerusalem--strengthened the perception that Daniel's prophecies of 9:24-7 were being fulfilled. [Koch, 128--he refers to Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, IV, 100-1] BTW, Antiochus also failed to fulfill the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem as called for in 9:26. [Baldwin (1978): 171] Baldwin also notes that "Dan 9:24 has been expounded in detail to refer to the first advent of our Lord, all six items in that verse being shown to have been accomplished in His life, death and resurrection." [Baldwin (1978): 176]
For more information on how Antiochus IV Epiphanes does not fit the prophecies of Daniel see Shea (1982): 25-54.
And yet critical scholars such as John J. Collins continue to claim that: "We are relatively well-informed about the situation in which Daniel was composed. Despite the persistent objections of conservatives [whom he does not name and/or interact with], the composition of the visions (chaps. 7-12) between the years 167 and 164 B.C. is established beyond reasonable doubt." ["Daniel and His Social World," Interpretation 39 (1985): 131-2; in his book Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature. Vol. 20 (Eerdmans, 1984)] He either seems to be "unaware", or, he ignores [this is, as we will see, a favorite tactic for the critics] "several important twentieth-century discoveries and recent scholarly evaluations such as[:] studies of Dan 1:1 in the light of the Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (published by D. J. Wiseman back in 1956[!]); the cuneiform data for the evidence of a Bel-sar-usur, the son of Nabonidus and the Belshazzar in Daniel (ANET, p. 309, n. 5) ["The name is expressed by three monograms, the first signifying the god Bel; the second, shar, a king; and the third being the same sign which terminates the name of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Nergalshareser, &c." Sir H. Rawlinson [1854], note in Pusey, 344-5]; relevant evidence from Qumran; etc." [Ferch, 57; see also Hasel (1986): 108-10]
If Daniel was written as late as is claimed then how did
he know of details about Babylon that had been lost within a half-century of its
fall to Cyrus in 539 B.C. (Xerxes having destroyed its palaces, walls, and
temples in 480 B.C.)? The typical Daniel, critic ignores this point. For
examples of the details:
Return
to Top of Page
2) Neither Herodotus nor Xenophon, two Greek historians
who wrote in the 5th and 4th century B.C., respectively, knew either
about Belshazzar, or even just his name. [Rowley (1931): 27; Xenophon correctly
reports that the king was killed when Babylon fell; but, without giving us his
name; for more information see Boutflower (1923): 114-120] Outside of Daniel,
Belshazzar was only known from Baruch and Josephus. [Shea (Summer 1992): 133;
Montgomery, 66ff.; Dummelow, 530 tries to escape from this dilemma by claiming
that "the writer had access to some independent sources of information about
Babylonian history"--note that he does not name them nor are we aware of what
these sources could have been; Collins (1992): 30, to put the best face on it,
seems to be unaware of the information that follows.] As Raymond Dougherty, an
eminent scholar in this field, has pointed out:
"Of all the non Babylonian records dealing with the situation at the close of the Neo-Babylonian empire the fifth chapter of Daniel ranks next to
cuneiform literature in accuracy so far as outstanding events are concerned. The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it
employs the name Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom.
Babylonian cuneiform documents of the sixth century B.C. furnish clear-cut evidence of the correctness of these three basic historical nuclei contained
in the Biblical narrative dealing with the fall of Babylon. Cuneiform texts written under Persian influence in the sixth century B.C. have not preserved the
name Belshazzar, but his role as a crown prince entrusted with royal power during Nabonidus's stay in Arabia is depicted convincingly. Two famous
Greek historians of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. do not mention Belshazzar by name and hint only vaguely at the actual political situation which exist-
ed in the time of Nabonidus. Annals in the Greek language ranging from about the beginning of the third century to the first century B.C. are absolutely
silent concerning Belshazzar and the prominence he had during the last reign of the Neo-Babylonian empire. The total information found in all available
chronologically-fixed documents later than the cuneiform texts of the sixth century B.C. and prior to the writings of Josephus of the first century A.D.
could not have provided the necessary material for the historical framework of the fifth chapter of Daniel." [Nabonidus and Belshazzar. (Yale, 1929): 199-200]
Thus after carefully examining the available evidence Dougherty points out that this means the 5th chapter could not have originated during the Maccabean age; the first point was noted by Rowley in his Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires. (Cardiff, 1935): 10; Millard's The Bible B.C.. (1982): 29; Harrison (1969): 1123 says that Dougherty came to the view that the idea that this chapter "originated in the Maccabean period was thoroughly discreditable."]
3a) Sierichs, writing in 1996, said that Belshazzar "was never king". [see also Russell, 83; Soggin, 408; Farrar, 54; Fishbane, 238; Rowley (1935/6): 218; Larue, 405; Collins (1992): 29; McCabe; we should note here that Daniel does NOT say that Belshazzar was the next king after Nebuchadnezzar, contra Eissfeldt (and others), 521] However, Theophilus G. Pinches noted back in 1882 that the "Nabonidus Chronicle", discovered in 1881, "regarded Belshazzar as king." [Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, vol. 7, (1882): 150; for a discussion of the nature of this Chronicle see Shea (1972): 95-111; Boutflower (1923) has an English translation in his Addendum at the front of his book.] In that same article, Pinches notes that Belshazzar "seems to have been commander- in-chief of the army, probably had greater influence in the kingdom than his father, and so was regarded as king." [ibid.] Pinches published another text that showed Nabonidus and Belshazzar jointly invoked in an oath--which would not have occurred unless there was a co-regency. [Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, vol. 38 (1916): 30; note also the remark made by Dougherty above; see also Harrison, ISBE. (1979): 863] These documents are dated to the 12th and 13th years of Nabonidus (544-2 B.C.); Oppenheim points out that "there is no parallel in cuneiform literature" for an oath being sworn by the life of both the king and someone else. [A. L. Oppenheim, "Belshazzar," IDB, 1:379-80; Hasel (1977): 156-7] Later, in 1924, Sidney Smith showed [Babylonian Historical Texts. (London: Methuen & Co., 1924): 84, 88] that Nabonidus had "entrusted the kingship" to his son Belshazzar-an English translation can be found in Boutflower (1923), Addendum. The text he worked from is called the "Verse Account of Nabonidus"; translated by Oppenheim in Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Edited by Pritchard (Princeton, 1950): 313; see also Yamauchi (1980): 6; Montgomery 67; the author of the article on Belshazzar for Collier's does not reveal a knowledge of these texts.] This text settled all doubts of a kingship for Belshazzar and was a severe blow to the higher-critical scholars who had claimed that Daniel was written in the 2nd century B.C.. This was acknowledged by R. H. Pfeiffer of Harvard University [Introduction to the Old Testament. (Harper, 1941): 758-9] His comment is worth noting because Pfeiffer was recognized as "one of the more radical critics of Daniel" [Harrison (1969): 1120]: "We shall presumably never know how our author learned ... that Belshazzar, mentioned only in Babylonian records, in Daniel, and in Baruch 1:11 [written in the 4th century B.C.; Moore, 317, gives us the reasons for dating the book as early as the 4th century B.C. in footnotes 35 and 36.], which is based on Daniel, was functioning as king when Cyrus took Babylon." [Montgomery, 66] So, the question becomes: How could a 2nd century Jew know that Belshazzar functioned as king of Babylon in his father's absence, and not just as a "crown prince" as Keller claimed, when no one else knew this? Yet we now know from cuneiform evidence that the kingship was entrusted to him; that his name was used along with that of his father Nabonidus in oath formula's [Pinches in an article for Expository Times in April 1915 pointed out that: "Oaths were never sworn by the names of any men except kings." [cited by Wilson (1917): 102 note 2; 110-1; see also Boutflower, 60 note 3, and in his book (1923): 119; Montgomery, 67--he cites Dougherty: "There is no other instance in available documents of an oath being sworn in the name of the son of the king."] Wilson also notes that "only the names of gods and kings were used in oaths, the single exception being that of the city of Sippar."--presumably none of the critics would care to argue that Belshazzar was either a god or a city. [Wilson (1917):125] Belshazzar also showed his "regal power" when he "granted leases and issued commands" [Young, The Prophecy of Daniel. (Eerdmans, 1949): 117; Harrison, ISBE. (1979): 863; Hasel (Spr. 1981): 43; *all of these* Rowley (1931) acknowledges--it's too bad the more "popular" critics can't do the same] McNamara mentions how Belshazzar's name was linked with that of his father in "inscriptions (e.g. the Nabonidus-Chronicle), as well as in incantations, prayers and omens and even in an oath" and yet McNamara had just said that Belshazzar "was never really king of Babylon, in the full sense of the word" and then admitted Belshazzar "very probably came to be looked upon as the de facto king." [(1970): 143; Boutflower (1923): 118] Oppenheim first notes, on page 85, the leasing of "extensive farmlands" then on page 189 he notes the granting of the "royal privilege" to eat the food offered to the god and that "this person was always the king" and yet Oppenheim simply refers to Belshazzar as "crown prince"--it isn't until page 400 that he acknowledges the "joint rule" with his father. It should also be noted that both names are coupled in prayers on foundation documents. Archer acknowledges that there is "no cuneiform record [that] refers to Belshazzar by the explicit term sharru ("king"); but he also points out that there are "cuneiform temple receipts from Sippar" that show "Belshazzar presented sheep and oxen there as "an offering of the king"." [Archer (1979): 135] According to Baldwin: "There is evidence that he received royal dues and exercised kingly prerogatives". [Baldwin (1978a): 22] Even Rowley, one of the severest critics of the book of Daniel, conceded: "'The practical work of the government he [i.e., Nabonidus] seems to have left in the hands of his son Bel-shar-uzur." "This was based on the evidence of the Nabonidus Chronicle." [(1931): 13 citing a previous work of his; see also Winckler, 325] Clines points out that Belshazzar "clearly exercised many of the functions of kingship." [Clines, 455] Rowley tries to evade admitting fully that Belshazzar co-reigned with his father by claiming that the statement in the Persian Verse Account is "merely a poetic expression of the already recognized fact that Belshazzar exercised many of the functions of government." [Rowley (1931): 13; emphasis mine] He further attempts to cast doubt on Belshazzar being a king over Babylon by noting the absence of any "formal" pronouncement. [13, 14, 15, 17, and 18] Of course, this type of negative argument from silence is the weakest of all--it could always be that we have not yet found, or translated, or published the relevant cuneiform. Next, Rowley claims that: "The book of Daniel betrays no consciousness that Belshazzar is anything but effective and sole king." While it is certainly true that the book of Daniel may be representing an "effective situation rather than a state position" it is definitely not true that Daniel pictures Belshazzar as "sole king" [Emery, 114; nor was he ever an "independent king" as Montgomery, 67 argued] against O. Ploger, Das Buch Daniel. (Gutersloh, 1965): 107--but as Hasel properly noted: "Is there any claim anywhere that Belshazzar was ever an "independent king"?" (1977): 168 note 91, emphasis added]-- Daniel repeatedly shows that Belshazzar recognized that he was only the second in the kingdom, see Dan. 5: 7, 16, 29. [Millard (1977): 71; Young, A Commentary on Daniel. (1949): 115ff.; contra Rowley's claim: "no suggestion anywhere that he is one of two joint monarchs." (1931): 19] Thus, when Rowley then claims that Daniel "provides no support" for in the otherwise "obscure phrase 'the third ruler'" we can know that he is in error. [(1931): 31] On this Clines notes that the verse Daniel clearly reflects that Belshazzar was "subordinate to Nabonidus". [Clines, 455; Shea (Summer 1992): 145]
Daniel was then, at a minimum, either relying upon the past experience of his people or was describing the practical effect of the situation. The evidence suggests that both of these factors may be in operation here as the most appropriate conclusion. This would certainly not then be a "further error" as Rowley then claims. Note that in each of the above verses Belshazzar first offers (first to anyone and then to Daniel) and then clothes Daniel in "a scarlet robe," this is certainly being "formal invested with the [royal] purple" that Rowley looks for in regard to Belshazzar. Why would Belshazzar clothe Daniel in a robe of royalty if Belshazzar hadn't been, in some sense, likewise clothed? [Rowley (1931): 13; see also Baldwin (1978a): 121] Would a commoner clothe another commoner in royal robes? Finally, Rowley claims that the very idea of a joint monarchy is "alien to the background of the narrative." [(1931): 19] If one were to look solely to a Babylonian background and used a traditional conception for what constitutes a monarchy this would be true; however, in this case it is false on both counts. First, the background of Daniel's people was filled with examples of co-regencies. [see Shea (Summer 1992): 147 for a table of such] Secondly, even in ANE there are several recorded instances where a reigning king has appointed others as king as well. For instance, Sennacherib in 702 B.C. "placed Bel-ibni, a scion of a noble family of Babylon ..., upon the throne of Babylon as a sub-king" and later "in 699 he enthroned his own son Ashurnadin-shum in Babylon. [Wilson, 107--he gives several more examples of a similar nature on pages 107-111; Shea (Summer 1992): 148-9 has more examples; see also Shea (1971): 100-5 for evidence that relates to the co-regency of Cyrus and Cambyses] Plus, as Wilson showed back in 1917, the word "king" was used by the peoples of the ANE in a variety of ways. [(1917): 88-95; 111-2]
We need to remember that Daniel is not writing an official state document for Babylon such as one would expect from the court scribes. [Millard (1977): 71; Young, A Commentary on Daniel. (1949): 115ff.] Yamauchi states that: "Belshazzar served as the de facto king of Babylon as far as the Jews there were concerned." [Yamauchi, 469; Wilson (1917): 101, 103 concurs; see also Goldingay, 106; and McNamara (1970): 143] He also notes that during the fall of Babylon to the Medes and the Persians: "According to Xenophon (Cyropedia vii.5.1-36) two of Cyrus's nobles killed the king [of Babylon] in the palace." [see also "Belshazzar," EBD, 135; Towner (1984): 71; Shea (Summer 1992): 144; Boutflower, 47-8; Goldingay, 107; Montgomery, 67-70 cites the Nabonidus Chronicle for the same event; apparently Hammer is unaware of either source--Hammer, 65; Farrar, 54-5 who dismisses it as an "avowed romance" and "has not the smallest historical validity."] But "Berossus (preserved in Josephus [in his Contra Apion I 20, 153] [maintained] that Cyrus spared Nabonidus and gave him a residence in Carmaria in south central Persia." [see also Roux, 323; Goldingay, 107; contra Collier's article on "Belshazzar" which says both Belshazzar and Nabonidus "were probably slain in the course of the conquest of Babylon". Vol. 3, page 326] This means that the "king" who was killed during the fall of Babylon was Belshazzar. Roux has Belshazzar being killed at the battle at Opis he does not say what his source is for this "fact". [Roux, 323]
Sierichs cites various articles in the Oxford Companion
to the Bible as a source for his views. One of those mentioned is that about
Belshazzar by Donald J. Wiseman. Wiseman states very clearly: "The king
[Nabonidus] relinquished all control and entrusted the kingship to Belshazzar"
... [here Wiseman cites the Persian Verse Account] Belshazzar, as crown prince
and co-regent, exercised genuine royal powers ... [supported by what was given
in the previous paragraph]" [Wiseman, 78] Another one of the sources Sierichs
cites is that of Joan Oates' book Babylon. She notes that Nabonidus
installed "his son Bel-shar-usur (Belshazzar) as regent in Babylon [Oates, 133;
see also the following: J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of
Ancient Israel and Judah. (Westminster, 1986): 429] Other comments on
Belshazzar (in list form):
Werner Keller, another one of Sierichs' sources, rather understates the matter: "Belshazzar was crown prince, therefore the second man in the Babylonia. He could only therefore hold out a promise of third highest place in the kingdom." [Keller, 299; Emery, 47] But, again, would anyone in second place who was not royalty put the third man in a "scarlet robe"--a symbol of royalty? [Hammer, 62] Why shouldn't Nabonidus be allowed to make anyone a king as he wishes--he had already done so with several others! [Wilson, 111-2] After examining all of the evidence Baldwin concludes that "it is pedantic to accuse the writer of the book of Daniel of inaccuracy in calling" Belshazzar "the king". [(1978a):22] Hammer suggests that the interpretation of "third in the kingdom" as meaning third in rank as "a somewhat pedestrian way of interpreting the text." [Hammer, 63; compare with Goldingay, 101 note 7c] Such is the pull of the preconceived opinion; even concrete facts can't deter it!
Whitcomb cites Young on this point: "Belshazzar was the king with whom Daniel had to do--and not Nabonidus ... What other word would Daniel have employed to denote a man whose status was regal? The term crown-prince, from a Jewish viewpoint, would not have been sufficient. In the designation of Belshazzar as king, therefore, we see [another] example of remarkable accuracy which this chapter exhibits." [Whitcomb, 36; Young, Prophecy of Daniel, 118] This evidence is so strong that Montgomery cites Dougherty: "It appears that he was invested with a degree of royal authority, not only at the close of the reign of his father, but throughout large part, if not the whole, of the reign of Nabonidus." [Montgomery, 67--no source given for the Dougherty quote]
3b) late as 1850, the commentator Ferdinand Hitzig stated that Belshazzar was a "figment of the Jewish writer's imagination" based on the absence of evidence. [Millard, 74; Yamauchi (1974): 67; in 1854 "contemporary Babylonian inscriptions" were found that mentioned Belshazzar--"Belshazzar," Encyclopedia Britannica. Micropaedia, Vol. 2 (Encyc. Brit., 1988): 84; Free, 36 notes that it was these discoveries that made the arguments against Daniel in reference to Belshazzar invalid.] So, how did the writer of Daniel know about him? Isn't it rather odd that a 2nd century Jew in Palestine should be better informed about events in Babylon in the 540's B.C. than Herodotus who according to Boutflower (1923): 38 visited Babylon "probably prior to 447 B.C." and then writing in 450 B.C.? [For more info on Belshazzar from cuneiform inscriptions see R. P. Dougherty "New Cuneiform References to Belshazzar [Dan 5:1ff]," JAOS 39 (1919): 147]
3c) Xenophon records that the king of Babylon was killed
the night that the city fell and yet we know that Nabonidus was captured and
later deported. So who was Xenophon referring to? Xenophon also describes this
king as "a riotous, indulgent, cruel, and godless young man" (hint: this is NOT
a good description of Nabodinus!)
Return
to Top of Page
4) Nebuchadnezzar as the great builder of Babylon. [Wiseman, 553; Boutflower (1923): 65-77; Gurney, 42; see also E. Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. Vol. 3, part 2, p. 25, 39 for sample inscriptions] The ancient historians Herodotus following the Persian tradition, Ctesias following the Assyrian tradition, Strabo, and Pliny all make frequent reference to Babylon; but, not to Nebuchadnezzar as its builder. The Greek historians ascribed the building of Babylon to Queen Semiramis (Her name from the cuneiform is Sammu-ramat. She was a queen mother in Assyria and had nothing to do with the building of Babylon.) This information in Daniel is greatly puzzling to critical scholars who do not believe that Daniel was written in the 6th century, rather than in their proposed 2nd century. As R.H. Pfeiffer, one of the more radical critics of Daniel, was compelled to admit: "We shall never know [especially when you don't want to, right?] how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar (4:30), as the excavations have proved ...." [Introduction to the Old Testament. (Harper, 1941): 758; cited by Waltke (1976): 328-9] This information wasn't found out until the excavations begun in 1899! [See also, R. Koldewey, Excavations at Babylon. 1915--these excavations lasted till 1917] As Gleason Archer has said: "Pfeiffer could not explain such knowledge, on the basis of the Maccabean date hypothesis. Neither can anyone else--on that basis." [(1985): 20; see also McDowell, 14 quoting Wilson who cites Lenormant: "The more I read and reread Daniel, the more I am struck with the truth of the tableaux of the Babylonian Court traced in the first six chapters . Whoever is *not* the slave of preconceived opinions must confess when comparing these with the cuneiform monuments that they are really ancient and written but a short distance from the Courts themselves." [Joseph D. Wilson, Did Daniel Write Daniel? (Cook, n.d.) page 89; emphasis mine]
McDowell reports that "Ira Price, a liberal critic, admits that Daniel 4:30 gives a true picture of Nebuchadnezzar's building activities." [ McDowell, 11; Ira M. Price, The Monuments and the Old Testament. (Judson, 1925): 302-3] McDowell also notes that Raven concludes that the book of Daniel must have been written in Babylon based on its accurate representation of Babylonian history. [ibid; John H. Raven, Old Testament Introduction. (Revell, 1910): 331]
We can also note, in reference to Nebuchadnezzar, that Daniel 4:17 describes God as giving kingdoms "to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." An inscription made by Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, describes himself as "in my littleness, the son of a nobody," "me, the insignificant, who among men was not visible," "I, the weak, the feeble," etc. [McDowell, 12-3] We can ask is it likely that a 2nd century Jew would have pictured the father of a conquering king in such an unlikely manner? "This is the [very] kind of knowledge --the lowly origin of Babylon's greatest king--which succeeding generations soon must have forgotten, and therefore it constitutes strong evidence for the historical accuracy of Daniel." [Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel. (1923): 91]
5) Herodotus doesn't even mention Nebuchadnezzar and at
one time critics doubted his very existence based on that silence.
Return
to Top of Page
6) A. R. Millard notes the high proportion of correct detail in and close correspondence between Dan 1-6 and early records as compared to 2nd "century B.C. Judith and later works, and taking its place besides the much earlier Story of Ahiqar ...." [(1977): 73; for more examples of basic historical errors see Tobit and 1st and 2nd Maccabees; none of these are included in the canon in part because of their errors. And yet, according to the critics, Daniel was able to slip by and be included in the canon--even though no other source that was available to the people agreed with Daniel.] However, "[w]riting as long ago as 1895 F. Lenormant noted the book 'is tinged with a very decided Babylonian tint and certain features of life at the court of Nebuchadnezzar ... pictured with a truth and exactitude, to which a writer a few centuries later could hardly have attained.'" [Montgomery, 74; cited by Baldwin (1978a): 36; see also Dummelow, 530] Even McNamara notes that an "eastern origin of Daniel 2-6 will explain the intense oriental colouring of the traditions they enshrine." [McNamara (1970): 149]
As Waltke put it: "the author possessed a more accurate knowledge of Neo-Babylonia and early Achaemenid Persia history than any other known historian since the sixth century B.C." [Waltke (1976): 328]
7) How did a 2nd century Jew know about the sexagesimal system (numbering based on 60) that was used and invented in Babylonia? An example is found in Dan. 3:1. Neither Goldingay or Lacocque mention this fact; Hartman and DiLella do. [Hartman and DiLella. 412]
8) How did a 2nd century Jew know that the walls of the palace were plastered? See Dan. 5:5. Goldingay does mention this fact. [Goldingay, 108] Note also the circumstantial detail the text adds by saying that the plastered wall was "opposite the lampstand". The word used here for "lampstand" "is not otherwise known" so it "may have been unusual." [Baldwin (1978a): 121]
9) How could a 2nd century Jew know the cultural differences between the Babylonian and the Persian? The first, for instance, is that in the Babylonian culture wives and concubines were allowed to be present at feasts (5:2 and Xenophon's Cyrop. v. 2, 28); whereas in the Persian culture they were not allowed to be present (Esther 1) [Lacocque (1979): 93 cites Herodotus as saying that the Persians did permit women "to such festivities"!] The Septuagint translator was so offended at the presence of women at the feast that he left the passage out of the verse and in verse 10 where the queen enters the chamber unbidden the LXX has the additional introductory phrase 'The king called the queen on account of the mystery'. [Barnes, 61; Baldwin (1978a): 122] The second, is that in the Babylonian culture one did not need to prostrate before the king; whereas in the Persian it was required. As Barnes puts it: "How could a Pseudo-Daniel know of this nice distinction, when all the Oriental sovereigns of whom he had knowledge had, at least for four centuries, exacted prostration from all who approached them?" [Barnes, 66]
10) In 8:2 Daniel refers to "Shushan [Susa] ... in the province of Elam". But, in Greek and Persian times Shushan was in the province of Susiana; Shushan was part of Elam in Chaldean times and before (see the NIV map, 1305). This kind of information, and others noted above, would scarcely have been accessible to a 2nd century B.C. author. Goldingay doesn't reveal this information. [Goldingay, 208] Lacocque claims that "Elam was a Median, not a Babylonian province (Esth. 1.2; 9.12; Neh. 1.1)." Note that none of these verses support his contention. (1979): 160]
11) The extent of the intellectual integrity of the critics is partially revealed by their willingness to accept the testimony of Josephus in regards to Jaddua being a High Priest "during the time of Alexander the Great" [see his The Antiquities of the Jews. VI, 7, 2; XI, 8, 5.] and thus "assign a date" "for the work of the Chronicler" between 350 and 250 B.C. and YET be "completely unwilling" to accept from that same source "the testimony to the fact that the book of Daniel was in its completed form by 330 B.C." [Harrison (1969): 512] Such is the "pull" of a preconceived hypothesis.
12) If Daniel was written in 164 B.C. how did the author know that Nebuchadnezzar was "able to enact and modify Babylonian laws with absolute sovereignty (Dan. 2:12f., 46), while [at the same time] representing Darius the Mede as being completely powerless to change the laws of the Medes and Persians (Dan. 6:8f.; cf. Est. 1:9; 8:8)?" [Harrison (1969): 1120; Hammer, 69]
13) Collins points out that the "glorification of
Nebuchadnezzar [with the head of gold in his dream] is scarcely in accordance
with a Jewish viewpoint, but it is entirely appropriate for a Babylonian."
[Collins (1975): 222; the last phrase is revealed to be true when Nebuchadnezzar
had an entire statute covered with gold; contra Montgomery, 74] This is another
very strong indicator that this material was not written during the Maccabean
age.
Return
to Top of Page
14) They have to show why Daniel paints such a positive picture of the relationship between the Hebrew captives and their foreign ruler in the days of the Maccabees. As J. G. Gammie wrote "the single, most outstanding weakness of the Maccabean theory of interpretation is that the king in chaps. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 is uncommonly friendly and sympathetic with the young Jewish members of his court. This portrait hardly suits the latter days of the hated Hellenizer, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. An acceptable interpretation of the book *must be able* to provide an adequate explanation of so dominant a feature." [Gammie (1976): 191, emphasis mine; cited by Ferch, 130 note 4; the weakness of the portrayal is admitted by Hammer, 5-6; Davies (1980): 35 notes that "the attitude to Gentiles and Gentile monarchs in particular hardly reflects a Maccabean context." Davies refers to Humphreys' article (page 223): "The reader must stretch his credulity to the breaking-point in being asked to accept that the Daniel, who is both completely loyal to his Jewish heritage and God is able to function as a skilled and loyal courtier holding the highest office in the court of foreign monarchs, is also the Daniel whose visions in the latter part of the book reveal these same monarchs and nations as oppressive and completely condemned in the divine plan."; Ginsberg, 247 note 2: "the absence of bitterness against any heathen monarchy argues against dating him, without compelling reasons, during Epiphanes' attempt to eradicate Judaism--of all times!" But, he then suggests that this material was written "nearly a century to more than a century and a quarter before the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes."; Montgomery, 75 also notes that Nebuchadnezzar and Darius are portrayed as having "friendly, human natures" and "are models of what kings, when corrected may become. The milieu of the story is rather that of an earlier age than the Maccabean ..." Collins (1992): 30 notes, on page 89, Montgomery refers to these "amiable religious minded monarchs."] For instance, Gammie notes that based on the desirability of "learning a foreign language and joining the king's court", as presented in 1:1-2:4a, it is therefore "unlikely" that this passage came "from the persecution period of Antiochus IV Epiphanes." [Gammie (1976): 195; Humphreys, 222 note 34 acknowledges "that the center of these tales is the life of a Jewish courtier in a foreign court." Collins (1992): 30 claims that "An author of the Maccabean period found these stories relevant to his situation, but they were not composed with that situation in mind." (!)] Baldwin also pints out that the "second century Maccabees rejected the language, literature and customs of the Greeks, whereas Daniel and his friends accepted and adapted all three". [Baldwin (1978a): 133] In fact, Davies points out that a "lack of reference to the Antiochan persecution, ... is very difficult to evaluate." [Davies (1980: 35] We can add to that the notion of a Maccabean author giving the Jewish captives "the names of idol-gods"--given the "hearty hatred of heathenism by all the pious in the time of the Maccabees" the very idea is absurd and impossible to conceive on any logical foundation. [Barnes, 66] Likewise, Collins is constrained by the evidence to admit that "Daniel 1 sets a scene where Jews can prosper in the service of a pagan king. Such optimism would be unlikely during the Maccabean crisis." [Collins (1984): 45] Smith-Christopher claims that in the book of Daniel the captives are "openly hostile" to the authority of their foreign conquerors. [Smith-Christopher, 21] He doesn't provide any evidence for this claim. The arguments against Daniel having been composed within the milieu of the Maccabean age leads Humphreys to make the opposite suggestion of Smith-Christopher; that the "tales [of Daniel] originated in Jewish circles sympathetic to Antiochus IV Epiphanes". [Humphreys, 221] This leads Collins to point out that Humphreys "underestimates the importance of the religious conflict and the denunciation of the Gentile king, especially in Daniel 5." [Collins (1975): 218 note 3]
The whole setting of the book of Daniel is incongruent for a book written to "fit the needs" of the Maccabean era. In fact, Rowley "saw that certain features of this story, and of others, would not have suited the alleged purpose of a Maccabean author at the time of the conjectured Sitz-im-Leben." [Gooding, 48] After all, why compose a set of tales set in Babylon in which the hero functions like a Chaldean wise man? How does that meet the needs of the Maccabean age? Which is why Harrison stated that it is "not easy to see how the beleaguered Jews could have been encouraged by a narration of past history [that was] made to look like prophecy." [Harrison, ISBE. (1979): 862] Compare this with the flowery attempt by Bewer [Bewer, 411-2]
A better example of a book written to meet the needs of the Maccabean age is the apocryphal book of Judith. We can also note that the book of Judith gets basic history wrong by describing Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians and ruling from Nineveh. [noted by Larue, 409-he also points out that Nineveh "had been destroyed seven years before Nebuchadrezzar was crowned."] Montgomery notes that this book more clearly than Daniel expresses the anti-Semitism of the Maccabean age. [Montgomery, 75]
Ginzberg and Rowley agree that "the situation of the Jews of Judea during the Epiphanian persecution was one in which the production of anything new in the way of literature that did not have an obvious special relevance to that situation was practically inconceivable." [Ginzberg, 258 note 2]
15) "[If the book is intended to be a tract with parallels being drawn between the days of the Babylonian captivity and the Maccabean persecution, why did the writer not try to make that Babylonian story fit better into the times he is supposed to be writing for? Why did he not choose more relevant stories; and if he was going to change them [such as supposedly took place between the illness of Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar] why did he not make a decent job of the whole thing?" [Wallace, 20]
16) If the book was written during the Maccabean era then why is it so silent about the exploits about the Maccabees (such as those in 1 Macc. 3 and 4 which occurred in 166 B.C.) --wouldn't it have made the "prophecy" more grand if they had been included? One would expect that if the book was written during this time that it would contain a detailed and accurate recounting of the events of this time period. It doesn't.
We can also note that "[c]hapters 1-6 contain no clear reference to Antiochus Epiphanes or his times ... There is no obvious reference to events in the land of Judah." [Collins, 11] See further below.
17) Again, if the book was written during the Maccabean era to meet the current needs then why does so little of the book reflect the events that are recorded in 1 and 2 Maccabees? Why is there no call to arms? Why the silence concerning the revolt, its leaders, and heroes? This is especially surprising since the uprising began in 168 B.C.! [contra Graubart, 260; notice also that the book doesn't mention the asphyxiation of a thousand devout Jews (Hasidim) by Antiochus' troops in their desert caves--Trever, 89] Notice that Daniel and his three friends didn't gain "their release and exaltation by any action or skill of their own"! [Collins (1975): 225] One would expect that the book would reflect the perspectives and have the same emphasis that one finds in known Maccabean literature. The absence of these calls into question the Maccabean thesis. However, Towner suggests that the reason Daniel doesn't mention the exploits of the Maccabeans is because these had not yet occurred by the date of 25 Kislev [Nov/Dec], 164 B.C.E. [Towner, 151; contra Clifford who claims Daniel should dated as late as 163 B.C.] Wenham notes the absence of these features and points out that on this basis von Rad [G. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology. II (Oliver and Boyd, 1965): 315] "argued that Daniel was written by opponents of the Maccabees, not their supporters"! [Wenham, 51] The question then becomes why does the book supposedly do so well before this point and yet fail so miserably here if in fact it was describing present day events? (Note also that no other scholar has echoed this opinion.) And how does that failure meet the needs of the Maccabean age? And how could, and why should, the people of that day and age then accept such an obviously flawed work?
It should be noted that the very tenor of the book of Daniel differs markedly from that of 1 and 2 Maccabees. For instance, where the book of Daniel is concerned with the activities of the king of the north the Maccabean literature is concerned with Jewish opposition to the Seleucid king.
18) Rowley has repeatedly claimed [(1935/6): 218; (1950): 160; (1952): 264; see also Hill and Walton, 349-50] that "[p]oint can be found for every story of the first half of the book in the setting of the Maccabean age to which the latter part is assigned." However, upon closer examination, Collins responded: "Despite Rowley's lengthy arguments, it is clear that the court-tales in chapters 1-6 were *not written in Maccabean times*. It is not even possible to isolate a single verse which betrays an editorial insertion from that period." [emphasis mine, page 11] On page 9, he states that the court tales are "quite inappropriate for the Maccabean period." Collins has also noted that "none of these stories requires a setting" in the Maccabean period. [Collins (1992): 30] Gammie also notes that: "Many scholars have argued that at least the Aramaic stories of Dan 2:4b-6:28 were from the third century B.C." [Gammie (1976): 195; Davies, 392; Ginsberg, 248; Eissfeldt, 517-9 notes several of these scholars] Here of course we should ask in what setting then was the book written? What is it drawing on from the 3rd century? How do these stories reflect the historical situation of that day and age? Davies rebuts Rowley by noting that "many aspects of the story ... clearly do not fit--for example, the portrayal of the king and Daniel's service to him. It has rightly been seen that these and other aspects of the story presuppose a different setting." [Davies, 395] In addition he notes that the context of chapter 2 indicates that it was composed in a setting of the Babylonian Diaspora. [Davies, 396] Baldwin declares that the "Babylonian background of chapters 1-6 has been confirmed". [Baldwin (1979): 77] In her commentary on Daniel Baldwin declares that there is "no lack of scholarly support for the contention that chapters 1-6 have a Babylonian provenance". [Baldwin (1978a): 37] Based on the total sum of the evidence she concluded that the "late Neo-Babylonian or early Persian period best accounts for the exact information about the Babylonian empire which we have shown to be preserved in these stories." [Baldwin (1978a): 37]
In fact, reading the court tales closely would only discourage
a Jew of Maccabean times for it shows the pride, fall, and _restoration_ of
Nebuchadnezzar. This is hardly an appropriate foil for Antiochus if the book
was written for the alleged purpose of encouraging the Jews who were being persecuted
by Antiochus. On top of that Daniel is pictured as a "loyal subject of the king"
and the story serves "to set a model of Diaspora life"; this is of course hardly
the portrait one would suggest as a model of behavior during a time of persecution
to the point of extermination. [Davies, 396] In an environment where a people
are faced with a hostile government that is attempting to take them over and
destroy their religion, way of life, and very lives it is difficult to see how
a portrait of "amiable religious minded monarchs" would be accepted as canonical
literature. [Montgomery, "Daniel," ICC, 89] Likewise, Grant's claim that
the book of Daniel illustrates "Jewish feelings during the period of the Maccabean
liberation" is not only more than hard to swallow, he does not explain how the
book does such a thing. [Grant, 212]
Return
to Top of Page
What makes all of the above information all the more remarkable is how the critics have ignored it. For instance, Rowley said "the modern challenges of tradition have demonstrated ... the gross inexactness of the knowledge of Neo-Babylonian times. ... the lack of accord between the Book of Daniel and sixth-century history has been overwhelmingly demonstrated." [Rowley (1935/6): 216 -- note how this directly contradicts the extended quote from Dougherty under Belshazzar] It is highly unlikely that a 2nd century Jew could have known the details laid out above without them having been preserved elsewhere as well. The opening chapters of Daniel (1-6) "has enough "local color" of the Babylonian era to preserve the realistic atmosphere." [Collins (1984): 45] Freedman also notes that "the Babylonian origin of chaps. 1-6 is strengthened by the new evidence." [Freedman, 31] The factors given above show that Brettler was wrong in arguing that there is "[c]lear historical and linguistic evidence [that] suggests that Daniel was written in the second century B.C.E." [Marc Brettler, Bible Review (Aug. 1989): 13; contra Casey's claim as well, 33]
So, when we read claims like:
We can know that these writers are relying on the lack of historical knowledge by their readers of either era rather than making a correct and precise statement of the available facts at hand. Whitcomb cites Wilson on this point: "the very last impression one could derive from the book itself would be that the writer himself felt that he had a dim and uncertain knowledge of the events which he narrates." [Whitcomb, 52 quoting R. D. Wilson (1917): 148] To Sierichs credit we must note that when presented with evidence that Daniel could not have been written in 164 B.C. he backed off from maintaining a hard stance on that point.
In terms of our knowledge about the "Greek period" Ferch notes that "the most important primary contemporary sources depicting the events between 168-164 B.C. in detail are few, limited primarily to 1 and 2 Maccabees [the latter is filled with errors according to Barnes, 65; the first book doesn't do so well either; Barnes cites specific examples] and Polybius. Complicating the issues further is the fact that there are a number of weighty disagreements within these sources about both details and the order of events during this period. ... given these divergences in the presently available primary and contemporary sources, it is difficult to draw up a consistent and accurate historical reconstruction for the events under consideration." [Ferch (1986): 15; see also P. Schafer, "The Hellenistic and Maccabean Periods," Israelite and Judean History. Editors: J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller (1977): 560-8, especially 564; contra Walton in Hill and Walton, 350] Which is why Baldwin correctly notes that: "we ought not to exaggerate the extent to which the Daniel narrative fits into known history of the period." ["Daniel," p. 41]
In private correspondence with Sierichs (Aug. 12, 1996,
page 3) he asked: "How can a few accurate but minor details balance the major
blunders about Babylonian and Persian history?" It was nice to see that he could
admit that Daniel could be accurate about some details. However, to dismiss all
of the above as "minor" is really stretching it; he also failed to mention what
the "major blunders" were despite repeated requests to do so. In comparison,
Bruce Metzger notes that the "intimate acquaintance with Babylonian manners,
customs, history, and religious life [are none that] but a contemporary would
have known." [Metzger, 219] After giving several examples he then asks: "What
elucidation does the critic offer as to how these minute touches in the
narrative were included in the book if not by Daniel? The best answer some Bible
critics could offer to this question is to note Metzger's age when he wrote this
(see Taylor [5])! It is of further interest to note that none of these amateur
critics could cite a source where Metzger explicitly retracted the above
statement.
Return
to Top of Page
There are a large number of language difficulties with
the Maccabean theory (for a quick introduction to this issue see Harrison,
ISBE. (1979): 860-1).
Return
to Top of Page
19) On page 17 of Albert Barnes Notes:
"It is by no means probable that one who lived so late as the time of Antiochus Epiphanes could have written the book as it is written; that is, that
he would have been so familiar with the two languages, Hebrew and Chaldee, [page 18] that he could use them with equal ease. It is an uncommon
thing for a man to write in two different languages in the same work, and he never does it without some special design--a design for which there would
not have been likely to be occasion if one were writing in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. It was perfectly natural that Daniel should write in this
manner, and perfectly unnatural that any one should do it in a later age, and in different circumstances. If the book had been forged by a Hebrew in
the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, there is every reason to believe that he would have been careful to write it in as pure Hebrew as possible, for that was
the language in which the canonical books were written, and if he endeavored to gain credit for the book as one of Divine authority, he would not have
intermingled so much of a foreign language." (original emphasis in text)
See below for more comments in regards to the language of the book.
20) He also points out that Gesenius "classed Daniel in
the "silver age" of Hebrew, with Ezra, Nehemiah, the Chronicles, Esther and some
older books." [Pusey, 8; see also Harrison (1979): 247; Hammer, 5; contra
Hartman and DiLella, 408 who label the Hebrew of Daniel a "late"] Pusey notes
that "after a careful examination of the Hebrew portion of Daniel" Bleek and De
Wette "distinctly renounced Bertholdt's notion of the lateness of the style of
Daniel." [Pusey, 98] Barnes notes that Prof. Stuart looked at "the judgment
of Gesenius (Geschich. Heb. Sprach. P. 35), [that the book of Daniel] has
decidedly a purer diction that Ezekial; in which opinion, as far a I am able to
judge, after much time spent upon the book, and examining minutely every word
and phrase in it many times over, I should entirely coincide." [Barnes, 19]
Barnes later notes that "it is well known that the Hebrew language became
greatly adulterated by foreign admixtures soon after the return from the exile,
and never regained the purity which it had in the early periods of its history."
[Barnes, 57] Metzger cites Delitzsche as saying that the "Hebrew of Daniel is
closely related to that of Ezekial." He goes on, "Ezekial, it is agreed, was
written about 570 B.C.." [Metzger, 219]
Return
to Top of Page
21) If the book was written under the Hellenizer Antiochus why is there so few Greek words in the text? To state it another way: if the book was written during a time of such intensive and extensive Greek influence then why are there *only* 3 Greek words in the entire text?[contra Lenormant who claims the book is "interspersed .. in various places with Greek words". cited by Montgomery, 74] In fact, Yamauchi and Boutflower are surprised "that there are not more Greek words" in this document if it was indeed written in the Maccabean age--note the deep influence of Greek culture and customs on the Books of Maccabees; and yet we see none of this in Daniel! [Edwin M. Yamauchi, Greece and Babylon. (Baker, 1967): 94; cited by Waltke (1976): 325; Emery, 21; Boutflower, 246] Baldwin points out that "the fact that no more than three Greek words occur in the Aramaic of Daniel (and these are technical terms) argues against a second-century date for the writing of the book." [Baldwin (1978a): 34] This fact, as noted by Boutflower (page 246), is especially relevant in comparison with the 19 Persian loan words that are present in the text. Why should an older language assume such prominence in this work? This is the opposite of what we should expect given the normal custom of the ANE (or anywhere else for that matter). As Kitchen, professor of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool, notes: "In Ancient Near Eastern literature, a later writer tends to deck his description of an earlier period with trappings of his *own* time, while retaining archaic features that have survived." [emphasis mine, Kitchen (1965): 49]
It should be noted that these three Greek words are all *musical instruments*! These words are found in 3: 5, 7, 10, and 15. [For more detail on these musical instruments see the article by T. C. Mitchell and R. Joyce, "The Musical Instruments in Nebuchadnezzar's Orchestra," Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. Edited by D. J. Wiseman, et al (Tyndale, 1965) or Archer (1985): 21; see also Yamauchi, (1974): 11-13; Emery, 96-102; McDowell, 95-102; see also Kutscher's analysis and conclusion, 401-2; Lacocque (1979): 57] The Greek instruments in these verses are: the "harp" (qithros from the Greek kitharis), the "psaltry" (pesanterin from the Greek psalterion), and the "dulcimer" (sumponeyah from the Greek symphonia--"the historian Polybius (204-122 B.C.) uses it of an instrument rather like a bagpipe" as in the RSV [Smith-Christopher, 63; Farrar, 23-4; also Servius according to Barnes, 210; see also Barry's article on this instrument], "But it is more likely to have been a stringed instrument, as it is listed with other stringed instruments." [Hammer, 40, 5; quotes are in this page order]). Porteous notes that if this was a bagpipe "its sound would not blend very well with that of the other instruments!" [Porteous, 58; Barnes, 210 says that it emits a "mournful sound"] On the last word Rowley claimed that this "word is first found in Greek literature in this sense in the second century B.C.". [Rowley (1950): 157; Hammer, 5; Lacocque (1979): 57] In fact, we now know that Pythagoras used this term around 530 B.C.; i.e., about the time of Daniel. If this instrument is a bagpipe then it is also pictured in a Hittite relief at Eyuk (20 miles north of Boghazkoy in central Anatolia); this relief is from the middle of the second millennium B.C.--i.e. 1500 B.C.. What Rowley may be referring to by the words "in this sense" is in terms of a specific musical instrument or an orchestra. But, it may be that Daniel is NOT using this word to refer to a "specific musical instrument" at all; he may be using it adjectively ("in unison") which is the meaning of the word in Hymni Homerica, ad Mercurium 51 from the early sixth century B.C. [see the Mitchell and Joyce article, pages 19-27 or Baldwin (1978a): 102; see also the NEB: "concord of sound"; Pusey, 94 note 1 points out that the context of Polybius' use of the word indicates that it means "concert"] It has also been pointed out that it could be that this word is a dialectal form of tympanon which dates back to at least the sixth century B.C.. Kitchen notes that it is only "the elementary fallacy of negative evidence" that allows Rowley to claim that this word is first known in the second century B.C. [Kitchen (1965): 47] Thus, Rowley's claim is an appeal to ignorance; Kitchen notes that this is due to "the inadequacy of our Greek source material." On this last point, Boutflower refers the reader to James Kennedy's observation: "Our knowledge of the everyday life of antiquity is extremely fragmentary and limited." Boutflower, 254; Kennedy's words can be found in his book The Book of Daniel from a Christian Standpoint, page 210] The critics, of course, do not inform their readers of the absence of these basic facts. Nor do they explain, how the presence of these loan-words (and no others!) "lends support to the Hellenistic dating" (see Taylor).
We should also note the complete absence of any Hebrew musical instruments in these listings. Rowley tried to claim that these "few Greek loan-words ... contained within themselves [a] pointed reference to the oppressor and his banquets." [(1950): 160; Hammer, 40] Note that Rowley doesn't point out how the mere mention of a few musical instruments would accomplish the purpose for which he claims. And, finally, no other scholar has made mention of such a pointer existing in the words of these 3 musical instruments.
As Dr. E. B. Pusey, in his commentary on Daniel [page xxiv, written in 1865!] notes "[t]he exclusion of them [the Greek words] all from this enumeration in Nebuchadnezzar's festival fits in with the history [as recorded in Daniel], but would have been very unlikely in a book, written some centuries afterward in Palestine." (emphasis mine)
It used to be claimed that the presence of these Greek words meant that the book was a late composition. For instance, the absence of Greek words was one of the details that led Driver to claim that "... the Greek words demand ... a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (B.C. 332)." [Driver, An Introduction to the Old Testament. (T. & T. Clark, 1898): 476, emphasis his; see also Acquistapace, 142; Larue (405) echoes Driver's remark without providing any support for it] Unfortunately, for the critics, the presence of Greek words has long been demonstrated by "an avalanche of evidence" to have entered into "the Semitic milieu long before the sixth century B.C." [Vasholz, 316; Kitchen (1965): 44-48, Archer (1985): 21; McDowell, 98-102; this also means that Davies (1988) 38 errs when he sates that the "balance of probability weighs heavily against" the argument that these words would have been "available to a sixth-century Jew."]
22) Given that the language of Daniel reflects the lingua franca that had readily absorbed Persian terms in the areas of government and administration "it is inconceivable that Greek terms [in those same areas] would not have been adopted" by the writer of the book. [Archer (1985): 21] One reason for this is, as Emery points out, that these Greek words "easily could have been substituted for obsolete words at any late copying of the book." [Emery, 21]
23) If the book of Daniel was written in Palestine after a period of 160 years of influence and control by the Greeks then why didn't the writer use more Greek terms "pertaining to government and administration" rather than use long-forgotten Persian words -- and how did the author know these words? Is this really conceivable and realistic? It might be argued that the author did this so as to create an apparent age to the work. However, this means that the general public and other intelligentsia of that day and age would have been aware of the meaning of those Persian words -- and yet we know from above that they did not. Also, there is no evidence that is currently available to show that the people knew of these words.
The reason the above points are important is that after
the conquests by Alexander the Great the Greek language had supplanted the
Aramaic as the lingua franca of theANE.
Return
to Top of Page
24) In terms of the Aramaic of the text it has been concluded that the book could _*NOT*_ have been written *later than* 300 B.C.. [See the book review of Klaus Koch's Das Buch Daniel by Arthur Ferch in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 23 (July 1982): 119-123] Stefanovic studied Old Aramaic inscriptions from the ninth to the seventh centuries B.C. and found significant similarity to the Aramaic used in Daniel. [Zdravko Stefanovic, Correlations between Old Aramaic Inscriptions and the Aramaic Section of Daniel. Ph.D. dissertation, Andrews University, 1987]
25) Koch also points out that the vocalization of the Aramaic of Daniel appears to be of Eastern type and the general context and royal figures point to the east. [See Koch's book, page 47] Also the famous Aramaic scholar E. Y. Kutscher has shown that the Aramaic of Daniel points to an Eastern origin. [Kutscher, 400; cited by Hasel, (1981): 219 and (1986): 132] A Western origin would be required if the Maccabean thesis were correct. This factor alone strongly suggests that a Maccabean source for the book is in error. On this basis Kitchen notes that a number of scholars "would consider an Eastern (Mesopotamian) origin for the Aramaic part of Daniel (and Ezra) as probable." [Kitchen (1965): 76-7; Baldwin (1996): 256; Boutflower, 246, note 1]
26) Peter Coxon notes that the use of the prosthetic aleph with the verb "to drink" in Dan 5:3 indicates that the Aramaic is early [Official Aramaic] and is specifically a feature of Eastern Aramaic (the latter point, and information already given above, shows that Burtchaell is in error when he claims that the Aramaic of Daniel was "not in the dialect of Mesopotamia, but in that Palestine." [page 482] Wilson also points out that "the dialect of Daniel ... must have been used at or near Babylon at a time not long after the founding of the Persian Empire." [Wilson (1912) cited by Collins (1993): 14] Coxon has also noted that the eastern word order puts the content in the pre-second century. [Coxon ZAW 276; and in HUCA 120 and 122]
27) The critics of the book of Daniel used to claim that the presence of the word "herald" in Dan. 3:4 meant that the book was of late origin. But, H. H. Schaeder was able to show that in fact this word was of Old Iranian origin. [Iranische Beitrage I (Halle, 1930) 56; Archer (1985): 20-21, Kitchen (1965): 144;