Skeptical Bible Study: Daniel — Introduction

117 thoughts on “Skeptical Bible Study: Daniel — Introduction”

1. Hi Tom,

   I haven’t read the entire article that you linked to, but I did go through most of it. Much of the article focuses on the prophecies in Daniel, and none of them are very convincing to me for the following reasons:

   1) The prophecies are heavy with imagery, which makes it difficult to nail down exactly what’s being talked about.

   2) The Bible contains clearer prophecies that I believe have failed, such as Ezekiel’s prophecy of Tyre. Because of that, I’m even more skeptical of books like Daniel.

   3) If God were going to give actual prophecies, I don’t see the need to be so vague about them.

   4) Other passages in Daniel give me the impression that the mainstream position on Daniel is accurate — that it was written around 165 BC by an observant Jew who was trying to encourage his countrymen to remain strong in the face of persecution from Antiochus Epiphanes.

   In this comment, I gave some detail about why I think Darius the Mede was not an actual figure from history, so I won’t belabor those points again. I also think that Daniel’s reference to Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar’s son is a very telling mistake, since we know from contemporary sources that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, who was no relation to Nebuchadnezzar. I’m also convinced that Christians are wrong when they claim that Daniel 11:40 begins talking about some future event, when all the verses before that were obviously talking about Antiochus Epiphanes. I think it makes much more sense to see the rest of that chapter as well as chapter 12 as continuing to talk about Antiochus Epiphanes and a divine judgement against him. I agree with William that the writer of Daniel seems to focus primarily on Greece as the 4th kingdom. I read through the arguments that Dr Anderson makes for the 4th kingdom being Rome, but I’m just not convinced.

   Obviously, this is a very brief comment in comparison to the length of Anderson’s article, so I’m not trying to address each point. And I’m not a scholar myself, so I doubt I could address everyone of them even if I had the time and space. As I said at the beginning of this comment, my reasons for siding with the consensus of scholars on this has a lot to do with problems found elsewhere in the Bible — not just a consideration of Daniel on its own. At the same time, if there are a couple of Anderson’s points that you think merit additional consideration, please let me know.

   Thanks for your comments!

   LikeLike

2. Dear Nate,

   Thanks for the reply. I have difficulty seeing the statements in Daniel as vague. Do you have any comments on the section giving evidence for an early date for the book? Some of it looks very difficult to explain away, but perhaps you have looked at the subject more than I have.

   LikeLike

3. Hey Tom,

   By vague, I mean that the main prophecies use lots of imagery. For example, chapter 2 uses a statue made out of different materials to represent 4 kingdoms. The only kingdom he identifies for us is the first. The same is true of the later vision that uses strange beasts to represent the kingdoms. It’s hard to say definitively which kingdoms match up with the different aspects of the visions — arguments can be made either way. That’s what I meant.

   As to dating the book, I was going to try to step through my thoughts on it, but I realized that the Wikipedia entry on the composition of Daniel pretty much matches my exact thoughts on it:
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Composition

   Were there specific points he made that you’d like me to address?

   Thanks again!

   LikeLike

4. There are a lot of difficulties that arise when seeking to justify Daniel as a historically true book written in the 6th century BC. Essentially every scholar acknowledges these difficulties. To some an explanation that Daniel was actually a second century composition explains these difficulties.

   Some people point to a 6th century composition based on language,however if the author was deliberately making the composition appear old then it would make sense to try to use words from a bygone era, like a person writing today in Elizabethan english as a deliberate ruse. In any case the dating of the language is somewhat speculative with no real academic consensus.

   Another argument for an early date is based on apparent quotes from the book of Daniel in 2nd century BC Jewish writings from Egypt. Some argue it would have taken a long time for Daniel to get to the people in Egypt. But this argument is hardly compelling as it is agreed that the Egyptian writings that quote Daniel post date the expected composition of 165 BC.

   There is a reference to a righteous man named Daniel in the book of Ezekiel. This puzzles scholars as the expected composition of Ezekiel would have probably predated the events of the book of Daniel even if they were historic. Most scholars think this reference is to another person from antiquity with the name of Daniel (or a very similar name). It seems there was a legendary righteous Job like figure of that name.

   When I studied the OT prophets as a person of faith I noted that scholars who supported the reliability of Daniel as 6th century BC composition had to come up with some ‘creative’ interpretations to explain away the difficulties. As I was a person of faith at the time I found these difficulties disturbing and the solutions proposed hardly convincing.

   If the Bible is inspired by a divine all powerful being I pose the simple question, ‘why would such a being allow such problems to exist in his testimony to the world?’

   In the end I found the four kingdoms sealed the matter for me. A plain reading and interpretation of the text fits exactly, Greece being the fourth kingdom. Those who argue for Greece being the third kingdom and Rome the fourth do so (in my opinion) based on an attempt to rescue the book for being failed prophecy, that is they are starting with their conclusion and interpreting the evidence based on the starting conclusion. If one starts with evidence not the conclusion then it screams at one that the fourth kingdom is Greece.

   Once again I pose the question, ‘why would such a being allow such problems to exist in his testimony to the world?’

   LikeLiked by 1 person

5. Dear Nate,

   Neither Wikipedia (hardly a scholarly source in any case, obviously) nor anything above dealing with the following (pgs. 33ff.; the PDF file is much easier to read of the work above than the webpage):

   Ezekiel prophesied only about fifteen years after Daniel was taken to Babylon and after the initial historical events recorded in the book of Daniel had taken place. His writings testify to the man Daniel’s righteousness and God-given wisdom, providing exactly the sort of evidence one would expect as validation of Daniel’s historicity. In Ezekiel’s Old Testament book, composed between 592 and 570 B. C.,[58] the prophet plainly refers to his contemporary[59] Daniel as a famous person of history known to his countrymen, one whose righteousness and wisdom stood in stark contrast to the majority of his rebellious and ungodly nation:

   Ezek. 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

   Ezek. 14:20 Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.

   Ezek. 28:3 Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:

   Ezekiel refers to Daniel’s great wisdom (28:3), even as the Book of Daniel indicates that “God gave . . . Daniel . . .wisdom” (Daniel 1:17), and the book of Daniel clearly evidences Daniel’s righteousness (cf. 6:16, 20; 12:2-3, 13). The evidence is clear: Ezekiel, in the sixth century B. C., could hardly refer to Daniel as the real person described in the book of Daniel were he a fiction invented centuries later. The book of Ezekiel authenticates the legitimacy of Daniel and his Biblical book.[60]

   Early non-canonical works, as well as other books of the Old Testament itself,[61] provide further evidence that the Book of Daniel existed far before an anti-supernatural dating system allows.[62] The book of Tobit, probably the oldest composition in the Apocrypha, is dated by scholars to the third century B. C., and it necessarily predates the Maccabaean period,[63] in which anti-supernaturalists must date Daniel. However, Tobit contains clear verbal allusions to Daniel.[64] Likewise, the Book of Watchers, the first part of the pseudepigraphical Book of Enoch, is dated to the third century B. C. and necessarily predates the Maccabean era,[65] as the early dates for the copies of the book found at Qumran[66] verify. Furthermore, the “Hellenistic Jewish historian Demetrius . . . had already . . . drawn up . . . [a] chronology” of the seventy-weeks prophecy in Daniel 9 “in the late third century B. C. . . . [in] his own time, which was the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator.”[67] It would have been impossible to make chronological calculations based on Daniel 9 many years before the book was supposedly forged in the following century. The apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus or Ben Sirach was composed, at the very latest, between 200-175 B. C., and has even been dated to the fourth century B. C.; it can by no means be dated to the Maccabean period.[68] Nevertheless, Ecclesiasticus clearly refers to Daniel and contains a prayer that the prophecies of Daniel would be fulfilled soon.[69] Likewise, the book of Baruch predates the Maccabean era but contains clear allusions to Daniel.[70] Similarly, 1 Maccabees records Matthias on his deathbead counselling his sons to emulate the example of “Daniel[,] [who] for his innocency was delivered from the mouth of lions.” Matthias likewise challenges his sons to follow the example set by Daniel’s three Hebrew friends, who “because of their faith were saved from fire.”[71] However, the anti-supernaturalist dates Daniel after the death of Matthias. 1 Maccabees also contains verbal allusions to the LXX of Daniel, further requiring the existence of the book both in the original language and in translation.[72] Finally, 3 Maccabees records the following prayer: “When the three companions in Babylonia willingly gave their lives to the fire so as not to serve vain things, you sprinkled the scorching furnace and rescued them unharmed, even so far as a hair, and sent the flame upon all their enemies. When Daniel, through envious slander, was thrown to the lions below the earth as food for wild beasts, you brought him up to the light unscathed” (3 Maccabees 6:6-7). The authors of 1 and 3 Maccabees had no doubts about the genuineness of Daniel, and since 1 Maccabees is recognized by scholars as “a very accurate and excellent history,”[73] there is every reason to believe its accuracy when it records Matthias’s speaking about the book of Daniel prior to the date the anti-supernaturalist must assign it.

   LikeLike

6. Dear Peter,

   Your question about why God would allow there to be historical difficulties is not the greatest argument. It is saying that if God did not preserve enough uninspired history to verify everything in the Bible, the Bible is not true. This, of course, would falsify every other historical source as well from ancient times, as there is just about no ancient historical source that has everything in it verified from some third party.

   I cannot help but find the idea that the Daniel referenced in Ezekiel is someone else to be a desperate grasping at straws. Have you even read the Legend of Aqhat? I am too skeptical to believe in it, unless you can explain the following from the work referenced above on pgs. 34ff:

   [59] Pusey remarks:

   [I]t has been remarked long ago, that Ezekiel names as characteristics of Daniel, qualities which appear in him in early life. In the eleventh year, [Ezekiel 26:1] (i.e. as Ezekiel dates, of Jehoiachin’s captivity, [Ezekiel 1:2] B.C. 588) Ezekiel, in his prophecies to the prince of Tyre, says in irony [Ezekiel 28:2]; Behold thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee. Of the manifold varieties of human wisdom, Ezekiel selected that form, for which Daniel was celebrated [Daniel 1:17, 20] in the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e. the 5th of Jehoiakim, B.C. 606, eighteen years before this date. It is that for which the king praises the God of Daniel, that He is a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret [Daniel 2:47]. In asking him to explain his own later dream as to himself, the king says to him, no secret troubleth thee [4:9]. The Queen-mother spake of him to Belshazzar, shewing of hard sentences and dissolving of doubts were found in the same Daniel [5:12]. One who had his wisdom from God, but was placed by a heathen king as head over those far-famed wise-men, the Magi, might well stand as an eminent pattern of Divine wisdom in man. Tyre and its prince boasted themselves against the people of God in its overthrow, and plumed themselves on their human wisdom and sagacity. It is an anti-Theistic boast. Human wisdom would be wiser than Divine. The prince of Tyre claimed by his wisdom to have created all this wealth for himself [Ezekiel 28:4-5]. He despised Hebrew wisdom and the wisdom of God in it, because it was oppressed. The event, Ezekiel says, should shew. Plainly, unless Ezekiel had meant to speak of a contemporary, over against the contemporary prince of Tyre, the wisdom of Solomon had been the more obvious instance to select.

   In the other place in Ezekiel [14:13-21], God says, that, when the time of His judgment upon the land was come, whether it were famine, or noisome beasts, or the sword, or the pestilence, no righteousness of any individuals in it should avert His then irrevocable sentence; and, as pre-eminent instances of righteousness, He gives Noah, Daniel and Job. It is objected, “How came Ezekiel to mention Daniel his contemporary? And, if he did, how came he to place him between those two ancient patriarchs, Noah and Job?” . . .

   Daniel now, in the 6th year [Ezekiel so dates chapter 8:1 in the sixth year, in the sixth month. He dates chapter 20 in the seventh year, in the fifth month.] of the captivity of Jehoiachin, had, according to his book, passed through some twelve years of greatness, trying above others to men, for its novelty and his youth. There is then, at least, nothing inharmonious in the selection of Daniel, to be united with Noah and Job. Rather it has a special force, that God joined with those two great departed patriarchs, a living saint. The Jews, as they trusted afterwards because Abraham was their father [Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8; John 8:33, 39], so now they hoped that, amid their own unholiness, they should be spared for the righteousness or intercession of others. To cut at the root of this hope, God singles out the great living example of righteous life, and pronounces him, in this early life, one of His chief saints, and says, that, though not he only, but two also of the greatest before him, were among them, their holiness should be unavailing except for themselves. The eyes of all the Jews must have been the more fixed upon Daniel, the more marvellous his rise, at that early age, from being a captive boy, though of royal blood, to be ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief over the governors of all the Magi of Babylon. The more depressed their lot, the more they must have looked to him, whom God, in His Providence, had so raised up to be a bright star in the night of their captivity, a protection to themselves, declaring the glory of their God.

   In this case, also, had not the selection of a contemporary had an especial force, we should have looked rather for one of the names of the righteous men of old, who interceded with God, as Abraham. But Noah, Daniel, and Job, do all agree in these things; 1) that all had had especial praise of God, over against the world. Noah was the unlistened-to preacher of righteousness during those 120 years in which the flood was delayed. God singles out Job, in answer to Satan who had been going to and fro in the earth and walking up and down in it [Job 2:2. See Zündel, Daniel, p. 264.], as his domain and his kingdom. “How greatly Daniel’s piety and prayer weighed in that scale, wherein Belshazzar was too light, the fact may attest, that he, like David and Abraham, and afterwards, the Virgin at Nazareth, was marked out as one greatly beloved, whereas the word of God comes to the contemporary prophet, son of man” [Ib. p. 266, 7; Lu 1:27, 8; Dan. 9:23, 10:11].

   2) All the three stood too, as representatives of a distinct relation of God to the world; Noah at the head “of the newly cleansed and as it were reborn world;” Job, as a worshipper of God in purity among the heathen world; Daniel, as the revealer, to the heathen world, of that kingdom, which was hereafter to supersede and absorb the kingdoms of the world [Zündel, p. 267].

   The order in which the three saints stand is explained by the application which Ezekiel makes of their history. All were holy, all interceded; but Job was heard, for the time, least of all. It is a climax of seeming failure [Hävern. on Ezek. 14:14. p. 207]. To Noah, his wife and his three sons and their wives were given; Daniel delivered his three friends by his prayer to God; Job was for the time bared of all. He sanctified [his sons and daughters] and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings, according to the number of them all, for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned; and he saved neither son nor daughter [Job 1:5]. In Job especially was that fulfilled, which Ezekiel gives as the result of the whole, “though these three men were in it, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters, they only shall be delivered” [14:16, 18].

   The mention of Daniel, then, by Ezekiel, in both cases, has the more force from the fact that he was a contemporary; both correspond with his actual character, as stated in his book. Granted the historical truth of Daniel, no one would doubt that Ezekiel did refer to Daniel, as described in his book. But then the objection is only the usual begging of the question. “Ezekiel is not likely to have referred to Daniel, a contemporary, unless he was distinguished by extraordinary gifts or graces.” “But his book not being genuine, there is no proof that he was so distinguished.” “Therefore,” &c.

   Scripture is in harmony with itself. Ezekiel is the first witness to the book of Daniel. The book of Daniel explains the allusions of Ezekiel. No other explanation can be given of Ezekiel’s words. Ezekiel manifestly refers to one, well known to those to whom he spoke; one, as well known as the great Patriarchs, Noah and Job. Such was Daniel, under whose shadow they of the captivity lived. But, apart from him, where is this man, renowned for his wisdom, holy as the holiest whose memory had survived from the foundation of the world; whom the Jews would recognize at once, as they would Noah and Job? “He does but name him,” says an opponent rightly [Bleek, p. 284], “because he could presuppose that he was already sufficiently known by all as a pattern of righteousness and wisdom.” (E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, with Copious Notes [Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1864], 102–107)

   [60] See “Modern Rationalism and the Book of Daniel,” Gleason Archer (Bibliotheca Sacra 136 [1979] 133-134) for conclusive evidence against the anti-supernaturalist argument based on the alternative formations d≈aœnˆî}eœl and d≈aœni}eœl. (Note that the LXX renders both forms as Danieœl.) The desperate anti-supernaturalist argument that the Daniel referenced by Ezekiel is not the righteous and wise servant of Jehovah who authored the book of Daniel and who is compared to Noah and Job as comparable righteous worshippers of Jehovah, all three of whom are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, but is an ungodly worshipper of the god Baal called Dan’el who is referenced in a ancient legend, is surely an argument made out of desperation in order to avoid the obvious implications of Ezekiel’s validation of the Jewish prophet Daniel and his inspired Book. Archer comments:

   [The anti-supernaturalist theory that] the Daniel referred to in Ezekiel must have been the ancient hero named Dan’el, whose life story is narrated in the Ugaritic legend of AqhΩat (dating from about the fifteenth century B.C.) . . . [has extremely] serious difficulties[.] . . [T]he Lord’s declaration quoted in Ezekiel 14:14, 20 and 28:3 amounts to this: Even though such godly leaders as Noah (at the dawn of history), and Job (in the time of Moses or a little before), and Daniel (from the contemporary scene in Ezekiel’s own generation) should all unite in interceding for apostate Judah, God could not hear their prayers on behalf of that rebellious nation. . . . The . . . difficulty with identifying the Daniel of Ezekiel 14 with the Dan’el of the Ugaritic epic is found in the character and spiritual condition of Dan’el himself. When the legend of AqhΩat is studied in its full context, which relates the story of Dan’el, the father of young AqhΩat, it is found that he is praised as being a faithful idol-worshiper, principally occupied with seven-day periods of sacrifices to the various gods of the Canaanite pantheon, such as Baal and El. His relationship to Baal was especially close, and he made bold to petition him for a son, so that when Dan’el became so drunk at a wild party that he could not walk by himself, his son might assist him back to his home and bed, to sleep off his drunken stupor. Later on, after the promised son (AqhΩat) is born, and is later killed at the behest of the spiteful goddess Anath, Dan’el lifts up his voice in a terrible curse against the vulture (Samal) which had taken his son’s life. He prevails on Baal to break the wings of all the vultures that fly overhead, so that he can slit open their stomachs and see whether any of them contains the remains of his dead son. At last he discovers the grisly evidence in the belly of Samal, queen of the vultures. He then kills her and puts a curse on Abelim, the city of the vultures. The next seven years he spends in weeping and wailing for his dead son, and finally contrives to have his own daughter (PaghΩat) assassinate the warrior Yatpan, who was also involved in AqhΩat’s murder seven years before.

   From this portrayal of Dan’el it is quite apparent that he could never have been associated with Noah and Job as a paragon of righteousness and purity of life. Nothing could be more unlikely than that a strict and zealous monotheist like Ezekiel would have regarded with appreciation a Baal-worshiper, a polytheistic pagan given to violent rage and unremitting vengefulness, a drunken carouser who needed assistance to find his way home to his own bed. Apart from a passing mention of Dan’el’s faithful fulfillment of his duties as a judge at the city gate—a requirement expected of all judges according to the Torah—there is no suggestion in the Ugaritic poem that he is any outstanding hero of the faith, eligible for inclusion with Noah and Job. It is therefore quite hopeless to maintain this identification of Ezekiel’s “Daniel” with the Dan’el of Ugaritic legend. (Ibid).

   Thus, the Legend of Aqhat frequently mentions Dan’el’s worship of Baal, frequently connects Dan’el and drunkenness, emphasizes Dan’el’s son Aquat disobeying the goddess Anath, who kills Aqhat for his impiety, and speaks of a plot with Dan’el and his daughter to deceive and commit murder. The Legend of Aqhat never even once uses the adjectives “righteous” or “wise” for Dan’el. A simple reading of Ezekiel 14:14, 20; 28:3 and the pagan Legend makes any identification of the person spoken of by Ezekiel and the person specified in the Legend an instance of insanity. Only the extreme difficulty for anti-supernaturalism contained in Ezkeiel’s reference to the man Daniel, author of the inspired book of Daniel, explains anyone’s affirming what is so obviously false. The fact that such extreme measures must be pursued in order to attempt to eliminate Ezekiel’s testimony illustrates how powerful an evidence it is in favor of Daniel’s sixth century authorship of the book bearing his name, and thus of the reality of predictive prophecy.

   For translations of the Legend of Aqhat, see Mark S. Smith and Simon B. Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, Vol. 9, Writings from the Ancient World (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997), 49-78, 196-205 or N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 2nd ed., Biblical Seminar, 53 (London; New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 242–312.

   http://faithsaves.net/daniel-proof-bible/

   LikeLike

7. Tom in regard to Ezekiel’s reference to Job, Daniel Block in his commentary on Ezekiel comments:

   ‘Although Ezekiel’s Daniel has traditionally been identified with the Daniel of the biblical book, this interpretation raises several questions. How could a younger contemporary of Ezekiel earn the right to stand alongside traditional paragons of piety like Noah and Job within such a short period of time. What is Daniel the contemporary Hebrew doing in the company of two non Israelite heroes of long ago? Why goes Ezekiel spell the name dn’l, rather than dny’l?

   The book of Daniel is unusual in the Biblical canon being partly composed in Aramaic and Hebrew. This has posed the question of whether it was composed in parts at different dates. Daniel 1:1-2:4a and 8:1-12:13 are in Hebrew, while 2:4b-7:28 is in Aramaic. Longman and Dillard in their Introduction to the Old Testament note that this extensive use of two languages is unique in a single book and the arrangement raises questions that are not easily answered.

   So Tom it may be that there was more than one version of the Book of Daniel. Indeed we know there were two different versions of it. The version in the Greek Septuagint had three additional chapters to that in our Bible. So it seems there were at least two versions, perhaps there were more. Perhaps there was a version that predated 165 BC. The question would be then did that version include the specific predictions from Chapter 11 that seem to relate to Antiochus IV?

   Daniel is indeed a book that poses more questions than most others in the Bible.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

8. Tom I had not realised that you had already addressed the Danile reference in Ezekiel.

   You have posted a lot of material there. If it has been a cut and paste I would value the pasted part being put in quotes so I can differentiate between what you are saying and what you are quoting from scholars.

   As I suggested in my last post it may be that were multiple versions of the Book of Daniel. If it was truly written in the 6th century BC then it is truly puzzling as the predictions in chapter 11 exactly match actual events up to 165 BC and then post that date none match.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

9. Hi Tom,

   I’ve always found the attempts to explain why Ezekiel would list the Daniel of the Bible in between Noah and Job very hard to accept. It sounds too much like retconning. The information you provided on the ancient character Dan’el is interesting, but I don’t agree that it definitively removes the possibility that this is who Ezekiel is referencing. After all, Noah had some well known character flaws as well. And while Job didn’t really do anything wrong, he did have the temerity to point out the hiddenness of God (Job 21, 23, 24). If other people living in Ezekiel’s time still looked upon Dan’el as a revered figure from history, then it could still fit. Just as we might refer to Mother Teresa or Ghandi, even if we don’t agree with the specifics of their religious beliefs.

   I checked out the footnotes in Anderson’s paper where he refers to textual references to Daniel in books like Tobit, 3 Maccabees, etc. I don’t see that as compelling evidence. For one, most scholars think 3 Maccabees was written in the late 1st century BCE — after the date ascribed to Daniel. The section of Tobit that he refers to is:

   it speaks of “the prophets of Israel” as predicting times and seasons, in the manner of Daniel, “until the
   time when the time of the seasons is fulfilled” (Tobit 14:4f.; cp. Dan. 2, 7–9, 11–12)

   To me, that’s not enough to draw a clear connection. And even if someone tried to, how do they know which text is the original and which is borrowing?

   When I was a Christian and first came upon attacks on Daniel, I assumed that the nature of the attacks would center around people not accepting that real prophecy was possible. But that’s not an assumption that I had — and I still don’t have that assumption. I agree that if God exists, and he’s omniscient, then actual prophecy may be possible. But Daniel has actual historical problems that are very hard to ignore. It’s not being attacked because of its accuracy, but because of its inaccuracy.

   Does it really not bother you that Daniel 5 indicates Belshazzar is Nebuchadnezzar’s son, when we know for a fact that he was not? And that while its allowable to refer to Belshazzar as ruler, there’s still no mention at all of his father Nabonidus? And are you not at least a little bothered that there’s no historical reference to Darius the Mede? And that the “prophecies” about Antiochus Epiphanes are very accurate until a certain point? And if we ignore Ezekiel’s “Daniel,” there seems to be no other reference to the character until around 140 BCE. Those are all issues that I find very problematic, and I think it’s extremely unlikely that God would allow the evidence to stack up against his revelation like this if the text were actually inspired.

   Do you have thoughts on those issues? Do you at least see why some people find them hard to overlook?

   LikeLike

10. @Tom

    I do accept Jews. But I think you’ll be hard pressed to find Jewish scholars agreeing that Daniel points to Jesus.

    The correct answer should have been – if scholars truly understood how prophesies in Daniel really came through, they would have been christians.

    That is the standard response.

    LikeLike

11. Dear Powellpowers,

    If you accept Jews, then the existence of orthodox Jewish commentaries that accept Daniel’s authorship of the book bearing his name means that you will now believe that as well, based on this:

    Find me a non-christian historian or OT scholar that agrees with you that Daniel is divine.

    As for OT scholars, here are a few from pgs. 70ff. of http://faithsaves.net/daniel-proof-bible/:

    Waltke, Bruce, “The Date of the Book of Daniel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976) 319-326.
    This article is available for free online at http://faithsaves.net/Gods-Word/.
    Bruce Waltke earned a B. A. from Houghton College, a Th. M. and Th. D. from Dallas
    Theological Seminary, and a Ph. D. from Harvard University. His doctorate at Dallas was in Greek
    and New Testament, and his doctorate at Harvard was in ancient Near Eastern languages and
    literature. He has held professorships in Old Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, Regent
    College, Westminster Theological Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Knox Theological
    Seminary. He has written many scholarly books and served as a director for a number of
    archaeological investigations.
    Archer, Gleason L. Jr., “Modern Rationalism and the Book of Daniel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 136:542
    [April 1979] 129-147.
    A fine survey and refutation of anti-supernaturalist views of Daniel.
    Archer, Gleason L. Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd. ed. Chicago, IL: Moody Press,
    1994.
    This book is one of the best overall introductions to the Old Testament, with careful and
    scholarly defenses of the historicity of each book of the Hebrew Scriptures, including the book of
    Daniel.
    Harrison, Roland K., Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969.
    This work is another worthwhile introduction to the Old Testament and defense of Biblical
    historicity.
    Roland K. Harrison earned a B. D., Th. M., and Ph. D. at the University of London. After
    teaching at Clifton College, Bristol, he became Professor of Old Testament at Huron College,
    71
    University of Western Ontario, and then Professor of Old Testament at Wycliffe College, University of
    Toronto. The author of many books, he has been called one of the most competent Old Testament
    scholars of his day.
    Wilson, Robert Dick, Studies in the Book of Daniel: A Discussion of the Historical Questions, 2 Vol.
    New York, NY: G. P. Putnam, 1917.
    This work is available for free at http://faithsaves.net/Gods-Word/. It is extremely detailed and
    thorough, representing some of the best scholarship of its day. Because of its detail, it is an advanced
    resource, not an introductory work.
    Robert Dick Wilson completed his undergraduate work at Princeton at the age of twenty. After
    studying at Western Theological Seminary and the University of Berlin, he proceeded to earn his Ph.
    D. from Princeton University. He then engaged in post-doctoral studies at the University of Berlin.
    He also received a D. D. from Lafayette College and an LL. D. from Wooster College. He became
    Professor of Semitic Philology and Old Testament at Western Theological Seminary before moving to
    Princeton Theological Seminary, where he taught for nearly three decades. He spent his final years
    teaching at Westminster Theological Seminary. He mastered Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic,
    Latin, French, German, Italian, Spanish, and many other languages—a total of 26 in all. At the age of
    25, he undertook the following program of study:
    I decided that I would give my life . . . [to] the Old Testament. . . . I felt I might reasonably live till I was 70, so I
    divided my life into periods of 15 years. I gave myself the first 15 years to study languages . . . I would learn all
    the Semitic languages, every language which threw light on the vocabulary or the syntax of the Old Testament.
    Of course, I did already know Syriac, and Aramaic, and Hebrew, but there was Ethiopic and Phoenician and
    Babylonian, and Assyrian, and a number of others—about twelve different Aramaic dialects. Secondly, I would
    learn all languages that threw light on the history of the Old Testament, taking in Egyptian, Coptic, and others.
    Then, thirdly, I would learn all languages that threw light on the text of the Old Testament, down to the year 600
    after Christ . . . that took me into Armenian and several other languages, Gothic, and Anglo-Saxon, etc. . . . The
    second part of my life I would devote to . . . studying the text of the Old Testament, the comparison of the Hebrew
    text with the Versions, Greek, Latin, Syriac, especially, and all the versions down to 600. . . . The last 15 years,
    after which I had acquianted myself with all the machinery, I would tackle the subject which is called the [antisupernaturalist]
    Higher Criticism of the Old Testament, including all that the critics have said, and so be able by
    that time to defend the history, the veracity of the Old Testament.173
    After many years of the highest level of scholarly research, what was Dr. Wilson’s conclusion? “The
    evidence in our possession has convinced me that . . . the OT in Hebrew [is] . . . immediately inspired
    by God . . . [and] by his singular care and providence [has] been kept pure in all ages . . . no one . . .
    [can] show that the Old Testament . . . is not true.”174 “I can tell you . . . with the fullest assurance
    that ‘Jesus loves me, this I know, For the Bible tells me so.’”175
    Pusey, Edward B., Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the
    University of Oxford, with Copious Notes. Oxford: John Henry & James Parker; Rivingtons,
    1864.
    This advanced work also available for free online at http://faithsaves.net/Gods-Word/. Even
    the most virulent of anti-supernaturalist Bible critics such as S. R. Driver admitted that “E. B. Pusey[’s] .
    . . Daniel the Prophet . . . [is] extremely learned and thorough.”176
    173 “Life and Work of Robert Dick Wilson,” Brian Nicks. The Master’s Seminary Journal 19/1 (Spring 2008) 94.
    174 “Life and Work of Robert Dick Wilson,” Brian Nicks. The Master’s Seminary Journal 19/1 (Spring 2008)102.
    175 See David Otis Fuller, ed., Which Bible? (Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1997) 39-48.
    176 S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel with Introduction and Notes, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
    (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), ciii–civ.
    72
    Dr. Pusey studied at Oxford, Göttingen, and Berlin. n A extremely capable linguist and
    scholar, he was Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford for 54 years.
    Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm, Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
    1848.
    This advanced work is also available for free online at http://faithsaves.net/Gods-Word/.
    Ernst W. Hengstenberg, a master philologist and scholar, received his doctorate from the
    Univesrity of Berlin, where he taught for many years.
    Material specifically on Daniel’s Prophecy

    LikeLike

12. Dear Peter,

    Thanks for the comment. Is there a shred of manuscript evidence that the Aramaic or Hebrew sections of Daniel were written by different people in different centuries, or is that blind faith on your part? Are there any Hebrew manuscripts that support your assertion?

    LikeLike

13. Dear Nate,

    Thanks for the comment. I don’t have more to say on the Dan’el thing. If you really think that Ezekiel would refer, in between Noah and Job as spectacular examples of fidelity to Jehovah, as an example of a paragon of virtue a Baal worshipper who is never called righteous or wise in any extant MS of the Legend of Aquat but is ungodly by the standards of any Jew of Ezekiel’s era, I don’t know what else there is to say about that. Is it Daniel, Ezekiel’s contemporary who actually was righteous and wise if the book is true, and who would have been a comfort to Ezekiel and his fellow Jews if he existed? No, of course not–it is a drunken Baal worshipper put between Noah and Job. You may find that convincing, but I can’t. It seems to me like extreme skepticism concerning Daniel and extreme credulity on anything that would seem to undermine the book.

    If Ezekiel had written in 165 BC or later, would you doubt that the book of Ezekiel contained a reference to Daniel?

    You don’t just have the Ezekiel quote to deal with–there is Zechariah, 1 Maccabees, etc. 1 Macc records Judas Maccabeus encouraging people with the prophecy of Daniel, but he died before 165 BC. How did he do that?

    Pgs. 43-56 of http://faithsaves.net/daniel-proof-bible/ deal very clearly with the objections you brought up. I will not cut and paste all that information below because it is not necessary to do so. If you will deal with the material there, then I will be happy to see if the objections to historicity are good. However, at this point, the objections do not seem very good at all, and the evidence to the contrary seems strong. For example, the book of Daniel declares that Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were three friends of Daniel who possessed important positions in the Babylonian court (Daniel 1:11, 19) and who were miraculously delivered from death by the Son of God (Daniel 3). These three names are attested as high court officials on on a clay prism found in Babylon listing the names of Nebuchadnezzar’s government c. 593 B. C. Is it more reasonable to think that an anonymous writer living in Judea in 165 B. C. happened to correctly guess the names of the officials king Nebuchadnezzar appointed in the distant country of Babylon over 450 years earlier, or that Daniel was a real historical figure in Nebuchadnezzar’s court who knew the names of his three fellow Jews and fellow court officials? How did the book of Daniel know what the walls of the palace in Babylon were made out of? How did he know that the Babylonians had a sexagesimal numbering system? How did he know Daniel could only be the third ruler in the kingdom, not the second, because of the Babylonian co-regency? And so on.

    Thank you very much.

    LikeLike

14. Tom, I don’t have any evidence that the Aramaic or Hebrew sections of Daniel were written by different people. The different languages genuinely perplex scholars. Part of the confusion is that the different languages don’t seem to line up with logical structuring of the text.

    It does not prove that the book has had different authors. But it is just part of the mystery that is the book of Daniel a book that gives rise to more perplexing issues than perhaps any other in the Bible.

    The questions arise more readily than the answers.

    Perhaps it like another great mystery of the Bible, who wrote the Book of Hebrews? That is another mystery where there are many theories but an answer might well remain elusive.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

15. If Ezekiel had written in 165 BC or later, would you doubt that the book of Ezekiel contained a reference to Daniel?

    I’d be open to either possibility. Again, putting Daniel (a contemporary) between two ancient figures is suspect. Besides, Ezekiel is addressing the king of Tyre, who probably would have been far more familiar with Dan’el than with a Jew serving under Nebuchadnezzar. And again, while Dan’el may have been a flawed character, he was still revered in Levantine culture. And being flawed has not stopped observant Jews from revering certain individuals: Noah, Moses, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc.

    Referring to 1 Maccabees’ use of “abomination of desolation” as a quote from Daniel is just an assumption. The Book of Daniel could just as easily have been borrowing it from 1 Maccabees.

    The clay prism in Istanbul that you’re referring to is not necessarily a reference to the characters found in Daniel. Biblehistory.net had this to say about it:

    Found on the list is the name Ardi-Nabu, Official of the royal prince. This name is the equivalent to the Aramaic name Abednego and may in fact be the first mention of one of Daniel’s friends outside of the bible.

    Another name found on the list is Hanunu, Commander of the king’s merchants. The name Hanunu may be the Babylonian equivalent for the Hebrew name Hananiah.

    Another name found on the list is Meshallim -Marduk, who was an official to Nebuchadnezzar. Marduk was the name of a Babylonian god. If Marduk is left out of the name we wind up with Meshallim which may refer to Mishael.

    Daniel 1:6-7 says this:

    Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah. And the chief of the eunuchs gave them names: Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego.

    Since the Babylonian names given to these individuals are Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, it seems suspect to me that two of the names on the tablet are considered possible matches, but they have more in common with the Hebrew names than the Babylonian ones. And even then, none of them actually match.

    For anyone interested in the full text of this tablet, it’s interesting to see the wide variety of names on it. I don’t think it would be too difficult to find names close enough to make a connection, whether the connection is real or imagined. At the following link, you can type in “333” in the page number textbox. The list begins at the bottom of that page.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/133239814/ANCIENT-NEAR-ESTERN-TEXTS-Related-to-the-Old-Testament-J-B-Pritchard#scribd

    Finally, I’ll check out pages 43-56 of Anderson’s paper and see if there’s anything else I’d like to add. As the conversation moves along though, it seems to me that we’ll probably reach a point where we have to “agree to disagree” pretty soon, as we just see these things in very different ways. Thanks, though.

    LikeLike

16. Ooh, I didn’t know that would paste in the actual document! Pretty cool 🙂

    LikeLike

17. @Tom

    I think you are missing my point.

    I have no issue with Daniel being the author or whatever, even though I may lean towards this book being a forgery. But that is not the thrust of my point.

    My issue is with the book being a book of prophesies, and furthermore prophesies that point to Jesus.

    My assumption is that this is your conclusion? I might have read you wrong but honestly that’s a lot of TL:DR so I think it would be fair if you are more forgiving towards me.

    Thank you

    LikeLike

18. Dear Nate,

    Thanks for the comment. I will hold off on saying anything further until I hear what you have to say on pgs. 43-56 of http://faithsaves.net/daniel-proof-bible/. Thanks for also posting the book (at least if it is out of copyright; I own an e-version as part of a package of books I purchased). I will just ask two brief questions:

    1.) Can you give me any indication in Ezekiel or elsewhere were a drunken Baal worshipper is given as an example of piety and ability to successfully intercede with Jehovah? This isn’t like Jehovah-worshipping Noah, Solomon, etc. who also committed some sins–sorry.

    2.) If it is just chance that Nebuchadnezzar actually had officials with names like the three of Daniel’s friends, then there should be lots of other tablets that have the same sort of thing on them, since we have lots of lists of Babylonian officials. Could you please give me at least one example of a list of Babylonian officials anytime, anywhere, during any period that the Babyonian empire existed, that had three names like these that could by “chance” fit Daniel 1? Thanks.

    LikeLike

19. Hi Tom,

    1) The Bible acknowledges that the Israelites had long periods where they served idols, often in addition to serving El or Yahweh. Archaeology has demonstrated that as well. While Ezekiel would have condemned such a thing, it may still be the case that many people living in his time still had reverence for local legends like Dan’el, regardless of which god he served. As others have pointed out, Noah and Job weren’t Jews anyway, so including another non-Jewish hero is not a big stretch.

    Furthermore, Ezekiel is addressing the king of Tyre, who certainly wouldn’t have looked down upon Dan’el. He would likely have had a higher regard and known more about Dan’el than Daniel anyway, which strengthens the point Ezekiel was making.

    At best, this is a point that could go either way. There’s nothing in the passage to definitively link Ezekiel’s reference to either Daniel or Dan’el. Each of us strongly believes it’s pointing to one or the other, and we have our reasons, but there’s not a way to settle it. So maybe we should move to other points?

    2) It wouldn’t shock me if there are some, but I just don’t have the time or inclination to undertake a search like that. There are dozens of names just on this one clay prism, and combined with the names listed in other records, I’m not surprised that people have been able to find similar enough names to create a connection. As I said in my earlier comment, the names they’ve found aren’t complete matches. And the only way they’ve gotten their matches is by looking for both the Hebrew and Babylonian names of these individuals. Why Nebuchadnezzar’s court would give these individuals names, but then not use them seems very strange to me. Furthermore, these names were bound to be similar to other Babylonian names of the time, anyway. After all, we see that Daniel is given the name Belteshazzar, which is incredibly close to Belshazzar. So this kind of thing is just not convincing to me. I would expect a message from God to have stronger evidence.

    ---

    After going through pgs 43-56 of Anderson’s paper, I still don’t really see anything new that stands out to me. I think the points in favor of giving Daniel an early date do not outweigh the problems that indicate a later one. I don’t find his explanation of Darius the Mede convincing. I didn’t see him address the father-son relationship between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, but I may have missed that. Either way, I’ve never found the typical explanations satisfying.

    Anderson makes good arguments about the writer’s knowledge of Belshazzar and the language used in the book, but to me, those don’t overturn the problems. I don’t know what kinds of sources the writer may have had, and I don’t discount the possibility that portions of the book may be older than the Maccabean period.

    Again, the overriding issue for me is that I don’t think God would have allowed so many questionable lines of evidence to come against his word. In the Bible, countless individuals are given all kinds of overwhelming evidence that God exists and that certain people speak on his behalf. I can’t believe the same God would give such ambiguous evidence to support his book.

    LikeLike

20. Hi all,
    I have a similar story to Nate in that when I did a study of Daniel early in my deconversion process I came away surprised by what I found. So I was interested to see this thread pop back up. I thought I’d throw in a few additional thoughts that may or may not have been mentioned yet:
    1) The faithsaves article doesn’t seem to explain why chapters 8 and 11 are continuous narratives from the events leading up to Antiochus IV Epiphanes through to the “end of days”. Under the proposed interpretation the lack of a discontinuity there is a pretty big issue.
    2) It is quite plausible that the story of Daniel had been around for a while before it was adopted to incorporate the prophetic narratives. This would account for some of the proposed lines of evidence for an older date while remaining consistent with the lines of evidence for the later date. Double win!
    3) The faithsaves article accurately sees Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Dan 8 and 11 but when it claims that the fourth beast in Dan 7 is Rome it completely ignores the parallels between the 11th horn of Dan 7, the small horn of Dan 8 and the last king of the north in Dan 11. In particular:
    – The focus on his character as arrogant and deceitful, having ‘taken’ the throne.
    – His defeat of some of the holy army.
    – His halting of sacrifices for 3 1/2 years.
    4) There are a few other parallels between prophecies that don’t appear to be mentioned in the faithsaves piece. For example:
    – The Dan 8 beast has four wings and heads and 11:1 indicates that the rule of Darius the Mede is followed by four Persian kings before Greece.
    – Chapters 8 and 11 all unambiguously portray the last kingdom as a divided Greece that gives way to God’s eternal kingdom. Similarly, in Dan 2 and 7 the last kingdom is divided and ends at the hands of God’s eternal kingdom.
    – The halting of sacrifices occurs in Dan 7:25, 8:11, 9:27 and 11:31 but under the proposed interpretation Dan 7 and 9 refer to something different than Dan 8 and 11.
    – The abomination is mentioned in Dan 8:13, 9:27 and 11:31 but under the proposed interpretation Dan 9 refers to something different than Dan 8 and 11.

    I appreciate the work that went into the arguments put forth by the author of the faithsaves article and I even discovered a few things that I hadn’t previously encountered. I remember how much effort I put into my study of Daniel, and that effort probably pales in comparison to the work that went into this. There’s a labor of love here, but when I survey everything the arguments just don’t stack up compared to the Maccabean Thesis.

    If anybody’s interested, here are the posts I wrote on the kingdom prophecies, the authorship and the 70 weeks prophecy.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

21. Thanks for the comment, Travis. It’s been years since I’ve looked deeply into the Daniel stuff, so thanks for bringing up so many things that I didn’t remember or hadn’t initially realized.

    And I appreciate your comment about the time and effort that went into the faithsaves article. You’re right — it illustrates a deep devotion and lots of hours of hard work.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

22. Travis and Nate you have both showed great patience and diligence in response to Tom’s queries on Daniel. I applaud you for it. The position that you both put forward is not an easy one for a person of faith to accept because it requires an acceptance that the Bible may not be all that one thinks it is.

    Ultimately if one’s faith is based on inerrancy of Scripture, the standard Evangelical position, then accepting your position would lead to a crisis of faith.

    I thought Travis summarised the points really well. The possibility that there was an older story of Daniel that was revisited and finalised around 165 BC would pretty much tick every box on the evidence list.

    I would encourage all people of faith who consider the reliability of Daniel to focus on what are the four kingdoms, look at how each is described in the Book of Daniel then look at the history books and decide what kingdoms they might be.

    Aside from the fourth kingdom exactly matching Greece, the second kingdom could not be a combined Media/Persia as it is said to be inferior to the first kingdom. No historian would argue that Persia was inferior to Babylon. The Persian empire was at its time the greatest the world had seen. Thus it only makes sense for the second kingdom to be Media not a combined Media and Persia.

    Likewise the four heads of the fourth kingdom are a perfect match for the kingdom of Alexander being divided into four parts after his death.

    So I suppose I am saying that for Tom to accept we are correct in our interpretation would probably require him to reexamine the whole basis of his faith. As former people of faith we all know what a hard road that is.

    But in the end truth can only be found if one is prepared to follow the evidence no matter where it may lead.

    LikeLiked by 3 people

23. Yeah, you nailed it, Peter. And for what it’s worth, I’ve really appreciated your comments in this thread, too. Tom’s as well. It’s not easy for a Christian to come onto an atheist blog for a discussion, just as it’s not easy to do the reverse. And he’s been very polite and reasonable, too.

    Ultimately if one’s faith is based on inerrancy of Scripture, the standard Evangelical position, then accepting your position would lead to a crisis of faith.

    You, Travis, and I all know exactly what this feels like. And so do most of the other regular commenters here. It’s an incredibly difficult position to be in.

    It’s not easy to hold onto inerrancy. While our position can concede that the Bible gets some things right, the inerrantist can’t accept that a single error exists. It really is like walking a tightrope, in that one misstep can bring the whole thing down. Of course, this just makes it even harder for people who believe in inerrancy to ever consider the other side. And thinking there are eternal consequences hanging in the balance only makes it worse.

    LikeLike

24. I would just add that I highly recommend the articles from Travis’ blog that he linked to in his comment.

    Nate you spell things out well in your last paragraph of your last comment. Fear of Hell and punishment can be paralysing. I know from personal experience that fear does not look at things logically. That is one of the reason I put so much effort into ensuring my conclusion that the Bible is a human, not a divine, book is based on solid evidence. The Book of Daniel is one of the clearer examples but is just one of many.

    The straw which broke the camel’s back in my case was my conclusion that the Exodus as described in the Bible could not have happened.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

25. Yeah, the archaeological findings in Israel, especially in relation to the conquest, were big for me. And the prophecy of Tyre, of course. I mention it all the time, I know… but that was a huge one for me.

    LikeLike