Untitled Sermon (17)

Introduction to Daniel

Daniel is an Unusual Book.

Daniel is an Unusual Book.

On one hand, it contains stories about lions’ dens and fiery furnaces that we have known since we were children. On the other hand, it contains visions and prophecies that are some of the most difficult to unravel in all of the

On one hand, it contains stories about lions’ dens and fiery furnaces that we have known since we were children. On the other hand, it contains visions and prophecies that are some of the most difficult to unravel in all of the Bible.

On one hand, it contains examples of faith, conviction , and the power of prayer, yet the book has been viscously attacked by most modern scholars who doubt its authenticity.

Bible.On one hand, it contains examples of faith, conviction , and the power of prayer, yet the book has been viscously attacked by most modern scholars who doubt its authenticity.

On the other hand, it contains visions and prophecies that are some of the most difficult to unravel in all of the Bible.On one hand, it contains examples of faith, conviction , and the power of prayer, yet the book has been viscously attacked by most modern scholars who doubt its authenticity.Why Was the Book Written?What did the book mean to its original audience. (The key to unraveling its meaning.)Contrary to all of their expectations, God’s chosen people had been uprooted from their promised land and transported to Babylonian captivity.Of course, this should not have been unexpected. They had been warned by Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, and many other prophets (all the way back to Moses) that because of their flagrant apostasy and immorality, the city and the temple would be destroyed and they would be carried away in captivity. (Yet I imagine it came as a big surprise anyway.) tells us why they were in captivity.but they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and scoffing at his prophets, till the wrath of the Lord rose against his people, till there was no remedy. tells us who led them away.Behold, I am bringing upon you a nation from afar, O house of Israel, says the Lord. It is an enduring nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you do not know, nor can you understand what they say. 16 Their quiver is like an open tomb, they are all mighty men. 17 They shall eat up your harvest and your food; they shall eat up your sons and your daughters; they shall eat up your flocks and your herds; they shall eat up your vines and your fig trees; your fortified cities in which you trust they shall destroy with the sword. 18 But even in those days, says the Lord, I will not make a full end of you. 19 And when your people say, 'Why has the Lord our God done all these things to us?’ you shall say to them, 'As you have forsaken me and served foreign gods in your land, so you shall serve strangers in a land that is not yours.’How the world saw these events:The God of the Hebrews had been completely discredited. The mighty gods of Assyria and Babylon had burned his temple to the ground and led his people away in chains, and he was apparently powerless to stop them.Of course, the truth was that those foreign people and their false gods were serving God’s purpose by bringing punishment upon his people. God was still totally in control and in charge even though it may have appeared otherwise.In , God refers to King Nebuchadnezzar as “my servant.”The events in Daniel had a dual purpose:To convince the faithful Israelites that God had not forgotten them – and that they should not forget him. One day they would be vindicated.To show the pagan nations that God was truly sovereign and preeminent, and that any power they had was given to them by God and could be taken away anytime he desired.There are at least three great theological principles that run through the book of Daniel.THE ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD. The affairs of men and kings are subject to God’s decrees, and he is able to accomplish his purposes despite the determined opposition of the mightiest men.This is a message we need to hear today. The clear message of scripture is that the kingdoms of earth are raised up to serve God’s purpose.THE POWER OF PRAYER. Throughout the book we see that God acts in response to prayer. Again, this is a message we need to hear today. If we feel powerless it may be because we have become prayerless.The worst sin is prayerlessness. We usually think of murder, adultery, or theft among the worst, but the root of all sin is self-sufficiency – independence from God. When we fail to wait prayerfully for God’s guidance and strength, we are saying – with our action if not our lips – that we don’t need him. We can go it alone. The opposite of such independence is when we acknowledge our need of God’s instruction and supply. (Charles Hummel)The one concern of the devil is to keep Christians from praying. He fears nothing from prayerless studies, prayerless work and prayerless religion. He laughs at our toil, mocks at our wisdom, but trembles when we pray. (Samuel Chadwick)When a Christian shuns fellowship with other Christians, the devil smiles. When he stops reading the Bible, the devil laughs. When he stops praying, the devil shouts for joy. (Corrie ten Boom)If we get nothing else from the book of Daniel and all of the many things that we are going to look at in this book, I hope we all gain an appreciation of the incredible power and importance of prayer.You can do more than pray, after you have prayed, but you can never do more than pray until you have prayed. (A. J. Gordon)THE LONG RANGE NATURE OF THE PLAN OF REDEMPTION. God has been working to bring about our redemption since the fall. We see in this book just what great a plan it is, and we see the extraordinary lengths that God went to in order to bring Jesus into the world at the perfect time and in the perfect setting. We also see the supreme importance of his kingdom, the church. (It was not just a haphazard decision on God’s part!)How are Daniel & Revelation Related?One commentator has said that “the book of Daniel is to the Old Testament what Revelation is to the New Testament.” I agree, but probably not for the same reasons that that commentator had in mind.As we will soon see, Daniel has suffered about as much at the hands of careless commentators as Revelation has.We will need to proceed carefully and pay close attention to the historical context of the book and the time frame that is given for the prophecies.In at least one way, the two books are different:Daniel is NOT a message for those who are suffering in the midst of deadly persecution but rather for those who are living in a settled condition yet within an alien culture.In , God told the exiles to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.” This is very different from what God said in Revelation.In other ways, however, the books are very similar:Many similar symbols are used, and each book helps us understand the symbols in the other.Each book has much to say about the early Roman empire and its relation to the church.Keep in mind that while the two books say the same thing about this period, Daniel was written 600 years earlier.What is the Historical Setting?The book of Daniel opens with Nebuchadnezzar on the throne in Babylon after the deportation of the Jewish nobles to Babylon.After Nebuchadnezzar’s death in 562, his sons and grandsons proved worthless. A revolution in 556 placed an outsider (Nabonidus) on the throne.Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar were ruling jointly when Babylon fell to the Medes and the Persians under Cyrus in 539. Read .This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, says the Lord, making the land an everlasting waste.After this, the Near East was ruled by a succession of Persian rulers for about 200 years.Late in the fourth century, the Persian empire was overthrown by the Greeks under Alexander the Great.After Alexander, his kingdom in the Near East was split in two. The Ptolemies ruled Egypt and the Seleucids ruled Syria and Palestine.Eventually, the Romans defeated both groups and took control.Thus, we move in 600 years from the Babylonians to the Medes and the Persians to the Greeks and finally to the Romans. Daniel talks about all four of these kingdoms. In addition, he talks about a fifth kingdom that would follow and which would never fall. That kingdom is the church.We will have much more to say about the details of this history when we begin to unravel the prophecies in the book.The Controversy About DanielTwo Views Regarding When Daniel Was WrittenThe Early Date Position holds that the book of Daniel was written in Babylon in the late sixth century B.C. by the prophet Daniel who had been taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar in 606 B.C. The prophecies in the book are genuine and accurate.The Late Date Position holds that the book of Daniel was written in Palestine by an unknown Jew around 168 B.C. during the Maccabean period. The prophecies in the book concerning events prior to 168 B.C. were written after the fact and hence are not genuine prophecies. The other prophecies in the book were merely guesses of future events, many of which later proved to be inaccurate.Although this view has been readily adopted by virtually all modern scholars, it is not a modern view. It was first put forth in the third century A.D. by Porphyrius of Tyre. It was quickly abandoned, however, after Jerome published a refutation. During the so-called enlightenment it was picked up again and popularized.Why do so many hold the late date view?The Dual Tenets of Liberal TheologySupernatural explanations of historical events are not acceptable. Any event that requires such an explanation is not historical.Nothing in a general sense ever happens uniquely in history. All true occurrences must be repetitive in nature so that scientists may properly observe them.Consider the following comments about the modern approach to Daniel:“Such amazingly accurate predictions defy the possibility of merely human origin. If these prophecies were composed in the lifetime of the sixth century Daniel, they would compel our acceptance of special revelation from a transcendent, personal God. No anti-supernaturalist position can reasonably be defended if Daniel is a genuine book of prophecy composed in 530 B.C. or in the preceding years.”“In textbooks which represent the critical or higher critical viewpoint it is regarded as a matter of prime importance to explain the supernatural, which often means to explain it away, and to deal with the Bible in such a way that the supernatural will really cease to be supernatural.”Liberal theologians approach the Bible with the a priori assumption that the supernatural is impossible. From this assumption it must (and does, logically) follow that Daniel is a fraud.It is very important to realize that the radical critics are forced to hold the late-date view. (The radical critics are also called higher critics or destructive critics. In the church they are called liberals by others, progressives by themselves – and professors by our children.)These critics say that they are simply seeking the best theories and when a better theory comes along they will accept it instead. DO NOT BELIEVE THEM! They are seeking the best naturalistic theory – and the problem is that the best naturalistic theory is often not the best theory.Evolutionists say the same thing. They claim to be seeking the best theory to explain their observations but they aren’t. They are looking for the best naturalistic explanation – and they have found it.Evolution is the best (in fact, only! - if they had another they would use it!) naturalistic explanation for how we got here - but it is not the true explanation for how we got here.The true explanation is a supernatural explanation and they aren’t looking for that. They are not seeking the truth.Carl Sagan has said that evolution is a fact because he’s seen it.He reminds me of H. L. Mencken (famous Baltimore journalist) who was once asked if he believed in infant baptism. “Believe in it!,” he said, “I’ve seen it done!”Evolutionists are like that. When asked if they believe we evolved from the slime, they say “Believe it! I’ve seen it!” But have they really? No. They observe small adaptive changes and jump to conclusions that are completely unsupported by the fossil record. They have been searching for conclusive evidence since Darwin and that search has produced nothing. If it had you would have heard about it!What’s the connection with Daniel?Atheists are forced to believe in evolution – they have no choice. The radical critics are forced to accept a late date for Daniel – they have no choice.The Evidence for the Early Date ViewThe Testimony of Jesus supports the early date viewDid Daniel exist? Was he an actual historical figure? Jesus refers to him in .So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand).Was Daniel a prophet? Did he speak from God? Jesus calls him a prophet in .Did Daniel predict specific events that occurred many years from the date in which he lived? Jesus mentions an event in that had not yet occurred but would occur soon (see verse 34).Isaac Newton (the greatest scientist who ever lived) said that “too reject Daniel is to reject the Christian religion.” I agree with this statement, because if we reject Daniel then we must admit that either Jesus was mistaken about Daniel or the gospel records are hopelessly flawed about what Jesus taught. Either way, Christianity tumbles.The liberal critics simply discredit Christ as an authority on such matters. One even wrote that “Christ neither would nor could be a critical authority.” On the contrary, Jesus said that he had all authority in heaven and upon earth. is the main source of the title ‘Son of Man,’ which Jesus applied to himself many times as a Messianic title.I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.Jesus said that Daniel was a prophet and Jesus said that part of what Daniel said was fulfilled after the Greek empire. Thus, the clear statements of Christ are in direct opposition to the modern scholars. Who are we to believe?Daniel is accurate regarding Babylonian historyThe historical accuracy regarding Babylonian history makes it difficult to believe that the book was written 400 years after its historical setting. gives an accurate picture of Nebuchadnezzar’s building activities.and the king said, “Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?”“The East India House inscription, now in London, has six columns of Babylonian writing telling of the stupendous building operations which the king carried on in enlarging and beautifying Babylon.”How would a late author have known that Babylon’s greatness in the early sixth century was due to Nebuchadnezzar? Modern scholars didn’t find about it until recently. (Keep in mind that whereas they discount the testimony of scripture they trust ancient inscriptions completely!)Belshazzar is mentioned only in Daniel and in the recently uncovered Babylonian records. How did the author of Daniel know about him if he wrote 400 years after the fact?Nebuchadnezzar had Daniel’s friends thrown into a furnace yet Darius had Daniel thrown into a lions’ den. Why? Darius the Mede was a fire worshiper. How would someone have known details like this in 168 B.C.?Women’s participation at royal banquets (). The Persians did not permit women to feast in the presence of men but the Babylonians did.Daniel uses the term Shinar to indicate Babylon in . This term was no longer used when the radical critics claim the book was written.Daniel knew that it was impossible for anyone (even the king) to change a law of the Medes and Persians once it had been promulgated.Consider the following conclusions by several commentators:“Whoever is not the slave of preconceived opinions must confess when comparing [the first six chapters of Daniel] with the cuneiform monuments that they are really ancient and written but a short distance from the [time they describe].” (Lenormant)“No Jew whose people had been living for centuries under Persian and Grecian rule could relate with such unconscious simplicity the actual condition of affairs in Babylon 370 years before his own time.” (J.D. Wilson)“The author possessed a more accurate knowledge of Neo-Babylonian and early Persian history than any other historian since the sixth century B.C.” (Harrison)Daniel is accurate regarding Nebuchadnezzar’s lowly originThe description of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision in ends with the following statement:“This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.” (4:17)The lowly origin of Nebuchadnezzar’s family was otherwise unknown until an inscription made by his father Nabopolassar was found in which he was referred to as “the son of a nobody” (of non-royal birth), “insignificant,” “not visible,” “the weak,” and “the feeble.”This kind of knowledge (the lowly origin of Babylon’s greatest king) would have quickly been forgotten – but the author of Daniel knew about it.The decrees of the Babylonian kings in Daniel are remarkably similar to those found inscribed on ancient monuments. How would a Jewish writer produce such an accurate record 400 years after the fact?The Fourth Empire in Daniel is the Roman Empire.The visions in chapters 2 and 7 speak of four empires.The late date theorists hold that the fourth empire is Greece, which means that the third is Persia, the second is Media, and the first is the Chaldean empire. This view is very widely held today, but it falls apart when you read Daniel. One commentator has said that this viewpoint is the weakest part of the late date theory.There is no evidence that Daniel ever considered the Medes and Persians as separate empires whereas there is evidence that Daniel considered Medo-Persia to be a single empire.In , we find a single ram with two horns representing the kings of Media and Persia. In 8:21, a shaggy male goat (Greece) with a prominent horn (Alexander the Great) tramples the ram.Also, in chapter 5 when we read about the handwriting on the wall, the last word written is Peres which is derived from the word meaning “to divide” but also is a reference to Persia. That is, Persia was depicted as conquering the Babylonians – making Persia second and not third.If we can show (and we can) that the fourth empire is Rome then all of the arguments by the liberals to remove prophecy from the book fall apart. Copies of Daniel have been found that predate the Roman empire and Daniel made specific prophecies about Rome.I submit that any of these liberals would take the fourth kingdom to be Rome if they were given no information about when the book was written. But since they do have such information they must take the fourth kingdom to be Greece.They will date the book after the prophecies were fulfilled no matter what evidence there may be to the contrary. Their basic premise about naturalism must not be violated!Finally, Daniel predicts that the Messiah and his kingdom would appear during the fourth empire, which of course it did if we take the fourth empire to be Rome. The liberals say that again Daniel was mistaken because Jesus did not appear until after the Greek empire!Jesus in said that some things that Daniel had written had not yet been fulfilled (but would be fulfilled within a generation). If Greece is the fourth empire, then Jesus must have been wrong. One higher critic says that the ‘emptying’ that Paul spoke of in may have kept the incarnate Jesus from having complete knowledge about certain non-essential things. (The prophecies in Daniel are non-essential??)The Dead Sea Scrolls Support the Early Date View7 copies of Daniel dating from the Maccabean period have been found in 3 of the caves at Qumran. This makes it very unlikely that Daniel was written during the Maccabean period.The late date group are forced to believe that the Essenes at Qumran had near original copies of Daniel to retain their late date theory. A simpler explanation is that Daniel was written much earlier.One non-Biblical manuscript found in cave 4 refers to ‘Daniel the prophet.’ This fragment has been dated prior to 150 B.C. Another sectarian document from the caves uses the imagery of Daniel to describe the final conflict between good and evil.An honest scholar would accept the clear evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the modern scholars cannot accept it. They literally are unable to believe their own eyes because to do so would be to accept the supernatural source of the Bible.This is not just occurring in secular universities. Well known professors in our own Christian colleges are now writing books in which they suggest that the Bible is full of factual errors.The Book of Ezekiel Supports the Early Date ViewIn and 14:20, Daniel is listed with Noah and Job as an example of righteousness. says ‘Behold, you are wiser than Daniel.’ The representation of Daniel as righteous and wise fits perfectly with his description in the book of Daniel.Critics say that Ezekiel was not referring to Daniel but to Dan’el – a famous character from Ugaritic mythology. Does it seem reasonable to believe that a pious Jew would refer to a legendary pagan figure as an example of wisdom and righteousness?Dan’el was an idol worshipper who offered blood sacrifices to Baal for weeks at a time. He was a vengeful drunkard who convinced his daughter to commit murder.But Daniel was a contemporary of Ezekiel. This seems even more natural since then Ezekiel would use ancient and current examples to show the people that God was still at work among them.One commentator said that Noah, Job, and Daniel are spaced about 1500 years apart. Thus, Ezekiel may have given an example of righteousness from three different eras.The First Book of Maccabees Supports the Early Date ViewIn this book, Mattathias (the father of the Jewish patriot Maccabean brothers) encouraged his sons in their revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes by recalling how Daniel for his innocence was saved from the mouth of lions.Mattathias died in 166 B.C. – a year before the date that critics say Daniel was written. They say that Mattathias never said this!Josephus Supports the Early Date ViewIn his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus relates a story which if true would prove that the book of Daniel existed during the time of Alexander the Great (330 B.C.).Alexander was angry that the Jews would not give him their allegiance so he went to Jerusalem to punish them. Jewish priests met him and showed him in the book of Daniel how God had said that he would defeat the Persians. This pleased Alexander so much that he spared Jerusalem.Josephus wrote:The high priest then showed Alexander the passages in the prophecy of Daniel indicating that a Greek would destroy the empire of the Persians. Alexander, of course, accepted the prophecy as a reference to himself, and declared that God had ordained him to conquer Persia, which he proceeded to do. Furthermore, Alexander not only refused to execute any sanctions against Israel but bestowed upon that nation all kinds of favors and benefits, which was contrary to his usual custom.History confirms that Alexander marched near Jerusalem on his way to Egypt and that he treated the Jews kindly. How else can we explain why Alexander spared Jerusalem the ravages that he inflicted upon Tyre and Sidon?The consequence of this story is that it means that Daniel was known long prior to the year 334 B.C. and that even Alexander himself recognized that he was the one Daniel said would destroy the Medo-Persian power.In addition, Josephus says that the Jewish canon was completed before 424 B.C. and that Daniel was a part of the canon. This was not just his opinion, but was the Jewish national position. He also speaks of many books that were rejected.What do the critics say about all of this? They reject Josephus whenever he contradicts their naturalistic world view, but they enthusiastically accept him on virtually everything else. (They never give the Bible the benefit of the doubt. It is assumed to be wrong right from the start.)The Use of a Two–Horned Ram to Symbolize Medo–Persia Supports an Early Date.After Alexander the Great visited Egypt, he was forever depicted on coins with his head adorned with the ram’s horns of Amen-Ra. A thousand years later, Mohammed called him ‘Alexander, the lord of the two horns.’One commentator has written:It is impossible to believe that the writer of Daniel could, in the face of universal attribution of the two ram’s horns to Alexander, represent Persia, the power he overthrew, as a two-horned ram (,) unless he had written before the expedition into Egypt.If you read an article that compared the Eisenhower administration to the days of Camelot, would you conclude that it had been written before or after the Kennedy administration?Responses to Late Date ArgumentsWhy should we respond at all to these arguments?We should not ignore them (as many in the church are prone to do). If our position is correct, then we certainly have nothing to fear by confronting these opposing positions. Indeed, a failure to confront them might indicate a fear that our own position might not withstand their arguments.Also, in our outreach to others, we need to be able to answer whatever questions they might have about the book of Daniel.The Claim That Daniel’s Position in the Jewish Scriptures Implies a Late DateThe Old Testament books in the Hebrew Bible are divided into three sections.The Law (Books of Moses)The Prophets (Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 minor prophets)The Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, DANIEL, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 & 2 Chronicles) - called the Hagiographa (Holy Writings)Claim of Radical Critics: Since Daniel is not found in the second division (the Prophets) but in the third division (the Writings), it follows that Daniel was a very late addition to the Jewish canon.It is a mistake to assume that the books in the third division were written later than the books in the second division. In fact, Job, Ruth, Proverbs, and many of the Psalms were written before many of the prophetical books.Josephus says that no books were added to the canon after 424 B.C. – the death of Artaxerxes.Jewish tradition says that Malachi was the last inspired book, which would mean that the second division was closed after the third.The division is not based on the type of book but on the type of writer.The books in the first section were written by Moses.Those in the second section were written by men who had the prophetic office as well as the prophetic gift.Those in the third section were written by those who had the prophetic gift but not the prophetic office – inspired men but not official prophets.This explains why Ezekiel and Daniel, though contemporaries, are in different divisions.But what do we mean when we say that Daniel was not officially a prophet?Daniel does not introduce his book with his name, and he had no official position among the Jewish people.He did not live among the exiles like Ezekiel did, but he lived at the court of Babylon, and he dealt with heathen kings rather than with the people of Israel.Although he is called a prophet in the New Testament, that has more to do with his predictions than with any special prophetic office that he held. Note that David is called a prophet in .One who held the prophetic office served as a spiritual mediator between God and the Israelites. Daniel did not do this.We can turn this argument around on the radical critics! Why was Daniel added to the canon at all if it was not written until 160 B.C.?Listen to what R. D. Wilson has to say about this:Now, the radical critics, without any direct evidence to support them, profess to believe that, into the midst of these sacred writings for which men readily died, a forged document of unknown authorship and (according to the critics) full of easily detected errors … was quietly admitted as a genuine and authentic writing of a prophet hitherto unknown to history. … They cannot believe in miracles and predictive prophecy … but they can believe that a lot of obstreperous and cantankerous Jews who through all their history from Jacob and Esau down to the present time have disagreed and quarreled about almost everything, or nothing, could have accepted, unanimously and without a murmur … a forged and fictitious document, untrue to the well remembered facts of their own experience and to the easily ascertained facts concerning their own past history and the history of the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and Greeks of whom the author writes.Paul reminds us in that the Jews were entrusted with the very words of God – and they took that responsibility very seriously. (I wish that we took it as seriously today.)The Claim That Jesus ben Sirach’s Failure to Mention Daniel Implies a Late DateJesus ben Sirach wrote Ecclesiasticus between 200 and 170 B.C. At the end of the book, he reviews Israel’s history, mentioning some of the men that God used to lead Israel. Daniel is not on the list.Further, at one point he states that never had their been born a man like Joseph. (Daniel is similar in many respects to Joseph.)Daniel and Joseph both were exiles, both showed allegiance to God, both were falsely accused, both were vindicated, both interpreted dreams, both became confidants to the king, and both were given a high government position by the king.The radical critics claim that this omission supports the late-date view.Daniel was not the only Old Testament notable that was omitted from this list. Jonah, Mordecai, Ezra, and Job were also left off. (No radical critic uses the omission of Ezra to deny the authenticity of his book.)One commentator has noted:It is a remarkable fact that he does not pay any regard to the great men who had exercised their functions outside the bounds of the land of Israel, such as Jonah at Ninevah, Daniel in Babylon, and Mordecai in Persia. In speaking of Abraham, he does not refer to his coming out of Ur of the Chaldees, nor his visit to Egypt. In speaking of Jacob, Joseph, and Aaron, he says nothing of the land of Egypt; nor does he intimate that Moses had ever been in Egypt.His views might be characterized as Sadducean and nationalistic. When he gives an account of the great men of his nation, he selects … those who had most distinguished themselves according to his ideas of what constituted greatness.The Claim That Daniel is Mistaken About The Date of Nebuchadnezzar’s Siege of JerusalemSuch a mistake would indicate a lack of knowledge about the history of the time, and thus would support a late date. But was Daniel mistaken? states:1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his god. 3 Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility.Problems with these verses:The Babylonian Chronicle makes no reference to an action by Nebuchadnezzar in Judah during the third year of Jehoiakim or to a siege of Jerusalem.According to , the battle that opened the way for a Babylonian invasion of Judah did not occur until the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign, whereas says that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign.The questions we need to consider:When did Nebuchadnezzar arrive at Jerusalem and besiege it?When did he defeat Jerusalem?When did he carry away captives and sacred vessels?II Kings and II Chronicles record three separate occasions when Nebuchadnezzar carried away people and articles from the temple. and –8Jehoiakim gave allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar for three years and then rebelled. Nebuchadnezzar defeats his forces and takes Jehoiakim back in chains along with some items from the temple. and –10Jehoiachin succeeds Jehoiakim and reigns for three months while the servants of Nebuchadnezzar besiege Jerusalem. Again the siege is successful and Jehoiachin and much of the nobility is deported to Babylon. and –20Zedekiah rules for a few years and then rebels against Nebuchadnezzar. In the ninth year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar again besieges Jerusalem, which falls in the eleventh year of his reign (586 B.C.). The city was destroyed and most of the leading men were killed. The others were deported and all articles from the temple were taken. is a brief summary of these three events and is not intended to provide all of the details.There are some additional points to consider:Jerusalem was besieged – not captured.One critic has written that “Daniel begins with a glaring historical error, for Nebuchadnezzar did not take Jerusalem in the third year of King Jehoiakim.”But Daniel never states that Jerusalem was captured at the time – only besieged.In the middle of his Palestinian campaign, Nebuchadnezzar received news of his father’s death. He rushed back to Babylon to assume the throne and apparently abandoned the siege against Jerusalem before he captured the city.Babylon used a different dating system. seems to be in conflict with regarding the year of Jehoiakim’s reign when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Palestine.Jeremiah (writing in Jerusalem) used a different dating system than did Daniel (writing in Babylon).It was different in two respects - either one of which could explain the seeming discrepancy.The Babylonian calendar began each year in the spring and the Jewish calendar began each year in autumn. The Babylonian third year thus overlapped the Judean fourth year by about six months.In Babylon, the year in which a king began to reign was called ‘the year of accession to the kingdom,’ which was followed by the first, second, and subsequent years of his rule. Thus, a Babylonian king’s third year of reign would correspond to the actual fourth year of his reign. Daniel may have used the Babylonian system in verse 1.If this latter theory is correct it again points to an early date for the book. How could a Jew writing 400 years later know about the Babylonian system of dating?The Claim That Daniel’s Use of the Term ‘Chaldeans’ Implies a Late DateThe author of Daniel uses the word ‘Chaldeans’ to denote a special class of wise men. However, the word originally had a broader meaning and referred to a particular group of tribes. The late-date proponents claim that only the original meaning was in use during the sixth century.Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, was a Chaldean. Although ‘Chaldean’ and ‘Babylonian’ are not synonyms, they are sometimes treated that way since many Babylonian rulers were Chaldean. Jeremiah described Nebuchadnezzar’s army as the army of the Chaldeans. The term gradually came to mean a privileged class and then a special class of wise men. The question we must consider is when did this change occur?The claim that a single word can help date a document is not without merit. For example, if you read an English passage containing the word ‘sputnik’ you would be able to date it after 1957 because it was not until that time that the word passed into the English language. Of course, without this additional knowledge, the word would be of no help at all.Daniel uses the term “Chaldean” in BOTH ways – which destroys the liberal theory.In we see the “language of the Chaldeans,” which is clearly an ethnic use of the term.In , , and 5 we see another use where the term is used to describe master astrologers.Daniel was aware that “Chaldean” was an ethnic term for the race of Nebuchadnezzar. refers to Belshazzar as the king of the Chaldeans. seems to be an ethnic use of the term despite the poor NIV translation.Both uses of the term were known when Daniel was written.Herodotus who wrote The Histories around 450 B.C. implied that the term had been used to denote a class of wise men as far back as the time of Cyrus.One scholar has written: “It is hard to prove a negative. Our knowledge of the Babylonian literature of the time of Daniel is not so complete that we can safely affirm that ‘Chaldean’ never meant the caste of wise men in his time.”The Claim of Historical Errors in Daniel Regarding BelshazzarDaniel states that Belshazzar was king of Babylon. In addition, the book seems to indicate that Belshazzar was the Chaldean last king and that Nebuchadnezzar was his father.In fact, Nabonidus was the last king and Belshazzar was his son.QUESTION 1: Why is Nebuchadnezzar called the father of Belshazzar four times in and Belshazzar is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar once in that chapter?The Hebrew use of “father” and “son” can simply mean “ancestor” and “descendent.” It is possible that a genetic relationship existed between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. If Nabonidus married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar in order to legitimize his rule then his son by her would be the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar.This view is strengthened by the fact that Nabonidus named one of his sons Nebuchadnezzar.Also, an earlier king (Neriglissar) is known to have married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar.A second explanation is that “by ancient usage the term son often referred to a successor in the same office whether or not there was a blood relationship.”This may have been the usage in .All the nations shall serve him [Nebuchadnezzar] and his son and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings shall make him their slave.QUESTION 2: Why does Daniel say that Belshazzar was king of Babylon?Archaeology has shown that Nabonidus took up residence at Teman in North Arabia and left his son Belshazzar in charge of the northern frontier of the Babylonian empire. Thus, he became the de facto king of Babylon.One commentator has written:Belshazzar then, technically occupied a position subordinate to that of Nabonidus. Nevertheless, since he was the man in regal status with whom the Jews had to do, Daniel calls him king. This cannot justly be charged as an inaccuracy.Further, tablets dating from 543 B.C. have been found that implies that Belshazzar and his father were on equal footing. Daniel apparently knew what he was talking about!The radical critics argue that Belshazzar’s authority to appoint anyone he pleased as third ruler in the kingdom in indicates that he was an absolute ruler, not a sub-king.Just the opposite is true, however!Why did Belshazzar only promise the third and not the second ruler? Because he was the second and his father was the first!How would a Jew writing 400 years later have known this?Belshazzar was long thought to have never existed, until his name was found by archaeologists. (Eventually, they will learn not to bet against the Bible!)Daniel mentions him, as does the apocryphal book of Baruch, which many scholar believe was written in the fourth century B.C. How did the author of Baruch know about Belshazzar if Daniel had not yet been written. This further points to an early date for the book of Daniel.One modern scholar has written:We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar, as the excavations have proved, and that Belshazzar was functioning as king when Cyrus took Babylon in 538.The Claim That Darius the Mede Never ExistedIn we readThat very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.One critic has written that “the references to Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel have long been recognized as providing the most serious historical problem in the book.”The late-date proponents claim that:The author of Daniel believed that a Median kingdom, under Darius, conquered Babylon and subsequently gave way to the Persian empire under Cyrus. It is known that Babylon fell directly to Cyrus and the Persians.Darius the Mede never actually existed but was a confused reflection of a later Persian ruler, Darius I (Hystaspes).The four kingdoms in and are thus Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece.Five reasons why this view is wrong:(1) The book of Daniel never claims that Darius was the king of Media but only that he was of Median descent. To say that Napoleon was a Corsican does not mean that Napoleon was the king of Corsica.(2) The author of Daniel says that Darius and Cyrus had different ancestries (Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Mede), NOT that they ruled separate kingdoms.(3) saysSo they went to the king and spoke to him about his royal decree: “Did you not publish a decree that during the next thirty days anyone who prays to any god or man except to you, O king, would be thrown into the lions' den?” The king answered, “The decree stands – in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.”If Darius ruled an independent kingdom of Media then why was he subject to the law of the Persians?(4) Daniel’s interpretation of the handwriting on the wall in chapter 5 indicates that the Persians would be the main element of the empire that succeeded the Babylonians. The author clearly says that Babylon would be conquered not by the Medes alone but by the Medes and the Persians with the Persians playing the greater role.(5) The vision in chapter 8 depicts a combined Medo-Persian empire as a single ram with two horns. The horn depicting Persia comes up last, but BEFORE the ram sets out to conquer.Just because the name ‘Darius the Mede’ has not been found in any ancient inscriptions does not mean that he did not exist.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.The critics made similar claims about Belshazzar and Sargon and archaeology later proved them wrong.Who then was Darius? We will look at three proposed answers.(1) The author of Daniel was mistaken about the chronology of Persian rulers, and Darius the Mede was actually Darius I, a later ruler of Persia. This view must be rejected for the following reasons:Daniel calls Darius a Mede, and Darius I was a Persian.Daniel says that Darius the Mede was 62 when he began to rule. Darius I was in his 20’s when he began to rule. says that Darius the Mede “was MADE king” implying that he was appointed king over Babylon by some higher authority (Cyrus). Darius I, however, succeeded to the throne after the death of Cambyses.(2) Darius the Mede was another name for Cyrus the Persian. (Many people hold this view. I’m not sure what its allure is.) This view must be rejected for the following reason. says that “Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” This seems like an odd statement if the two men were the same person!(3) Darius the Mede was an early governor of Babylon under Cyrus.The references to Darius in Daniel do not say that he ruled the Persian empire – only that he took control of the conquered Chaldean empire.It was a well known practice of Cyrus to appoint Medes to high positions in order to foster goodwill and loyalty.Critics claim that Darius the Mede had too much authority to have been just a governor. Read .Then King Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations and men of every language throughout the land: “May you prosper greatly! I issue a decree that in every part of my kingdom people must fear and reverence the God of Daniel. For he is the living God and he endures forever; his kingdom will not be destroyed, his dominion will never end.”Yet the phrase “throughout the land” simply means all of the land over which he had been given authority. Remember that his land consisted of people from many different countries – such as Daniel and his friends.Which governor was he? One commentator has written:Gubaru the Governor of Babylon fits the Biblical description of Darius the Mede so remarkably that the writer believes he will be recognized in due time as the monarch who played such an important role in the life of Daniel and the fall of Babylon. … We believe that this identification is the only one which satisfactorily harmonizes the various lines of evidence which we find in the book of Daniel and in the contemporary cuneiform records.The Claim That Events in Daniel Are Improbable or AbsurdIn we read the account of Nebuchadnezzar’s illness in which he roamed the fields thinking himself to be an ox.Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like cattle. His body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird.Critics claim that the sickness of Nebuchadnezzar is too incredible to be true.Too incredible to be true? These critics need to pull their heads out of their books and watch a little daytime TV. If the talk shows on TV today do nothing else, they prove that nothing is too strange to be true. A man who thinks he is a cow? It wouldn’t even make the first cut on the Sally Jesse Raphael Show.Not only is it NOT that incredible, but is has a name: boanthropy.R. K. Harrison speaks of an encounter he had with such a person in a British mental hospital. He ate only vegetation and drank only water. His health was excellent and the only physical abnormality noticed was the length and coarseness of his hair and the thickened condition of his nails.No Babylonian record has been found that mentions any activity by Nebuchadnezzar during the period 582 to 575.The Claim That Daniel Violates the Supposed Nature of Biblical ProphecyThis is a classic straw man argument. The critics set up a straw man by defining prophecy and then seek to discredit Daniel because it does not fit their own definition.One critic has written that “prophecy in the Bible is characterized by an absence of specific predictions. It is forthtelling and not foretelling.” The prophecy in Daniel is primarily of the latter variety.What about Jesus? He made specific prophecies regarding his death, the manner of his death, the perpetrators of his death, his betrayal, the death of Peter, the denial by Peter, his resurrection, and the destruction of Jerusalem within a generation.“And now I [Jesus] have told you before it come to pass, that, when it come to pass, you might believe.” ()What do liberals do with the host of predictions found in both the Old and New Testaments? They usually call in an EDITOR to deal with the problem. That is, they say that someone came along after the book was written and after certain events had occurred and changed the book to make it look like those events had been predicted long ago. (Those magical and convenient late editors solve a variety of problems for the liberals.)The Claim That the Type of Aramaic Used in Daniel Indicates a Late DateDaniel 2:4b through 7:28 is in the Aramaic language. (The remainder is in Hebrew.) It has been claimed that the form of Aramaic used was the type used in the 3rd century B.C. and not the type used in the 6th century B.C.This argument fell apart in 1929 when a farmer discovered what were later called the Ras Shamra tablets inside an underground passage.The Aramaic in these tablets is similar to that in Daniel and they date back to 1400 B.C.It is also claimed that the Aramaic in Daniel is a western dialect that was only used in Palestine.Even if this were true it would not prove that Daniel was written in Palestine. The book was undoubtedly copied many times and the language may have been updated to conform to the common dialect.However, many scholars dispute the claim that the Aramaic in Daniel is western.One has asserted that it predates the eastern and western distinction.Another has written that the Aramaic in Daniel is a form that originated in the courts and governments of the seventh century B.C.E. J. Young has written that “it is becoming more and more clear that the languages CANNOT be employed as arguments against the antiquity of the book.”Why were two languages used?It is NOT unique to Daniel. In the book of Ezra, 4 chapters are written in Aramaic.Some critics have claimed that there were two authors, but even most of the liberals reject this since the message of the book is clearly woven throughout the entire work.But part of Daniel is written in the third person. Doesn’t this imply another author? No. It is common to switch between first and third person in the Bible. Even God does it in . (See verses 2 (first person) and 7 (third person).)One commentator has written:“Even critical scholars admit that only one author produced Daniel. The identity of the author appears from the unity of the plan, the relation of various parts to each other, the gradation of the oracles from the uncertain to the certain, the remarkable uniformity of ideas, images, forms, symbols, and that even in two languages there is a remarkable similarity of style.”Why then are two languages used? A much better explanation than two authors is that there were two audiences – which we know was true.One commentator has written:The Aramaic chapters deal with matters pertaining to the entire citizenry of the Babylonian and the Persian empires, whereas the other six chapters relate to peculiarly Jewish concerns and God’s special plans for the future of his covenant people.The Claim That the Type of Hebrew Used in Daniel Points to a Late DateThe Hebrew language underwent a big change around the time of Nehemiah. The critics claim that Daniel’s Hebrew resembles the later type and thus points to a late date for the book.The Hebrew portion of Daniel contains no Greek words.Again, this seems very odd if Daniel had been written after nearly 200 years of Greek rule in Palestine.The political terms in Daniel are largely Persian, which one would expect if the book had been written during the reign of Cyrus.The Hebrew used in the Dead Sea Scroll sectarian documents does NOT resemble the Hebrew used in Daniel, which seems odd if they were written at about the same time.One of the most radical critics has written that “from the Hebrew of the Book of Daniel no important inference as to its date can be safely drawn.”The Claim That the Use of Persian Words in Daniel Indicates a Late datePresent in the Hebrew and especially in the Aramaic parts of Daniel are several words of Persian origin.The radical critics assert that the Persian language did not penetrate the Aramaic of Babylon until long after Cyrus’ conquest.The Persian term ‘satrap’ is used throughout Daniel as if it were a Babylonian title. The critics say that such usage points to a much later date.It is possible that the term had become a Babylonian title due to the Persian influence that already existed.Also, if Daniel wrote the book after the fall of Babylon then he might have substituted Persian terms in place of the older Babylonian terms.Again, this argument can be turned against the late-date crowd.The first Greek translations of Daniel appeared around 100 B.C. (Septua¬gint and Theodotian)Many of the Persian words in these translations were MISTRANSLATED, which seems odd if the book had been written only 65 years earlier.Clearly, the words had been forgotten or had changed meaning since the time when Daniel was written, which points to an early date for the book.The Claim That the Use of Greek Words in Daniel Indicates a Late DateDaniel 3:5 (in the Aramaic section) contains three words of Greek origin, all are musical terms.It is claimed that such words could only have been used after Greek influence had spread throughout Asia after the conquest by Alexander the Great – again indicating a late date.How much cultural spread does it require to learn three new words? If the book had been written 400 years later, then wouldn’t we expect to find many Greek words instead of only two?There are 20 Persian words and three Greek words in Daniel. Does this make sense if Daniel had been written during the Greek empire and long after the Persian empire? (By 170 B.C., a Greek speaking government had controlled Palestine for 160 years.)One author has said “It is the fewness of the Greek words, coupled with the fact that they are only the names of musical instruments, that must prove fatal to the critics’ theory that the book was written in 165 B.C.”Anyway, experts now agree that Greek culture had penetrated the Near East long before the Neo-Babylonian period. The terms may have been introduced by Greek traders before the rise of the Persian empire.The Elephantine papyri is a fifth century Aramaic document that contains a number of Greek words.It is significant that the terms are all musical terms. Such terms are frequently borrowed when the instruments they describe become known.To Summarize Our PositionThe book of Daniel was written by Daniel in Babylon during the late sixth century B.C. That means that the prophecies it contains are genuine and accurate, and further they are proof of the Bible’s inspiration. The late date theory is only promoted by those who deny the inspiration of scripture, and we have shown that their arguments are specious.

Why Was the Book Written?

Why Was the Book Written?

What did the book mean to its original audience. (The key to unraveling its meaning.)Contrary to all of their expectations, God’s chosen people had been uprooted from their promised land and transported to Babylonian captivity.

What did the book mean to its original audience. (The key to unraveling its meaning.)

Contrary to all of their expectations, God’s chosen people had been uprooted from their promised land and transported to Babylonian captivity.

Of course, this should not have been unexpected. They had been warned by Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, and many other prophets (all the way back to Moses) that because of their flagrant apostasy and immorality, the city and the temple would be destroyed and they would be carried away in captivity.

Of course, this should not have been unexpected. They had been warned by Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, and many other prophets (all the way back to Moses) that because of their flagrant apostasy and immorality, the city and the temple would be destroyed and they would be carried away in captivity. (Yet I imagine it came as a big surprise anyway.)

(Yet I imagine it came as a big surprise anyway.)

tells us why they were in captivity.

tells us why they were in captivity.but they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and scoffing at his prophets, till the wrath of the Lord rose against his people, till there was no remedy.

2 Chronicles 36:16 KJV 1900

16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

tells us who led them away.Behold, I am bringing upon you a nation from afar, O house of Israel, says the Lord. It is an enduring nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you do not know, nor can you understand what they say. 16 Their quiver is like an open tomb, they are all mighty men. 17 They shall eat up your harvest and your food; they shall eat up your sons and your daughters; they shall eat up your flocks and your herds; they shall eat up your vines and your fig trees; your fortified cities in which you trust they shall destroy with the sword. 18 But even in those days, says the Lord, I will not make a full end of you. 19 And when your people say, 'Why has the Lord our God done all these things to us?’ you shall say to them, 'As you have forsaken me and served foreign gods in your land, so you shall serve strangers in a land that is not yours.’How the world saw these events:The God of the Hebrews had been completely discredited. The mighty gods of Assyria and Babylon had burned his temple to the ground and led his people away in chains, and he was apparently powerless to stop them.Of course, the truth was that those foreign people and their false gods were serving God’s purpose by bringing punishment upon his people. God was still totally in control and in charge even though it may have appeared otherwise.In , God refers to King Nebuchadnezzar as “my servant.”The events in Daniel had a dual purpose:To convince the faithful Israelites that God had not forgotten them – and that they should not forget him. One day they would be vindicated.To show the pagan nations that God was truly sovereign and preeminent, and that any power they had was given to them by God and could be taken away anytime he desired.There are at least three great theological principles that run through the book of Daniel.THE ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD. The affairs of men and kings are subject to God’s decrees, and he is able to accomplish his purposes despite the determined opposition of the mightiest men.This is a message we need to hear today. The clear message of scripture is that the kingdoms of earth are raised up to serve God’s purpose.THE POWER OF PRAYER. Throughout the book we see that God acts in response to prayer. Again, this is a message we need to hear today. If we feel powerless it may be because we have become prayerless.The worst sin is prayerlessness. We usually think of murder, adultery, or theft among the worst, but the root of all sin is self-sufficiency – independence from God. When we fail to wait prayerfully for God’s guidance and strength, we are saying – with our action if not our lips – that we don’t need him. We can go it alone. The opposite of such independence is when we acknowledge our need of God’s instruction and supply. (Charles Hummel)The one concern of the devil is to keep Christians from praying. He fears nothing from prayerless studies, prayerless work and prayerless religion. He laughs at our toil, mocks at our wisdom, but trembles when we pray. (Samuel Chadwick)When a Christian shuns fellowship with other Christians, the devil smiles. When he stops reading the Bible, the devil laughs. When he stops praying, the devil shouts for joy. (Corrie ten Boom)If we get nothing else from the book of Daniel and all of the many things that we are going to look at in this book, I hope we all gain an appreciation of the incredible power and importance of prayer.You can do more than pray, after you have prayed, but you can never do more than pray until you have prayed. (A. J. Gordon)THE LONG RANGE NATURE OF THE PLAN OF REDEMPTION. God has been working to bring about our redemption since the fall. We see in this book just what great a plan it is, and we see the extraordinary lengths that God went to in order to bring Jesus into the world at the perfect time and in the perfect setting. We also see the supreme importance of his kingdom, the church. (It was not just a haphazard decision on God’s part!)How are Daniel & Revelation Related?One commentator has said that “the book of Daniel is to the Old Testament what Revelation is to the New Testament.” I agree, but probably not for the same reasons that that commentator had in mind.As we will soon see, Daniel has suffered about as much at the hands of careless commentators as Revelation has.We will need to proceed carefully and pay close attention to the historical context of the book and the time frame that is given for the prophecies.In at least one way, the two books are different:Daniel is NOT a message for those who are suffering in the midst of deadly persecution but rather for those who are living in a settled condition yet within an alien culture.In , God told the exiles to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.” This is very different from what God said in Revelation.In other ways, however, the books are very similar:Many similar symbols are used, and each book helps us understand the symbols in the other.Each book has much to say about the early Roman empire and its relation to the church.Keep in mind that while the two books say the same thing about this period, Daniel was written 600 years earlier.What is the Historical Setting?The book of Daniel opens with Nebuchadnezzar on the throne in Babylon after the deportation of the Jewish nobles to Babylon.After Nebuchadnezzar’s death in 562, his sons and grandsons proved worthless. A revolution in 556 placed an outsider (Nabonidus) on the throne.Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar were ruling jointly when Babylon fell to the Medes and the Persians under Cyrus in 539. Read .This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, says the Lord, making the land an everlasting waste.After this, the Near East was ruled by a succession of Persian rulers for about 200 years.Late in the fourth century, the Persian empire was overthrown by the Greeks under Alexander the Great.After Alexander, his kingdom in the Near East was split in two. The Ptolemies ruled Egypt and the Seleucids ruled Syria and Palestine.Eventually, the Romans defeated both groups and took control.Thus, we move in 600 years from the Babylonians to the Medes and the Persians to the Greeks and finally to the Romans. Daniel talks about all four of these kingdoms. In addition, he talks about a fifth kingdom that would follow and which would never fall. That kingdom is the church.We will have much more to say about the details of this history when we begin to unravel the prophecies in the book.The Controversy About DanielTwo Views Regarding When Daniel Was WrittenThe Early Date Position holds that the book of Daniel was written in Babylon in the late sixth century B.C. by the prophet Daniel who had been taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar in 606 B.C. The prophecies in the book are genuine and accurate.The Late Date Position holds that the book of Daniel was written in Palestine by an unknown Jew around 168 B.C. during the Maccabean period. The prophecies in the book concerning events prior to 168 B.C. were written after the fact and hence are not genuine prophecies. The other prophecies in the book were merely guesses of future events, many of which later proved to be inaccurate.Although this view has been readily adopted by virtually all modern scholars, it is not a modern view. It was first put forth in the third century A.D. by Porphyrius of Tyre. It was quickly abandoned, however, after Jerome published a refutation. During the so-called enlightenment it was picked up again and popularized.Why do so many hold the late date view?The Dual Tenets of Liberal TheologySupernatural explanations of historical events are not acceptable. Any event that requires such an explanation is not historical.Nothing in a general sense ever happens uniquely in history. All true occurrences must be repetitive in nature so that scientists may properly observe them.Consider the following comments about the modern approach to Daniel:“Such amazingly accurate predictions defy the possibility of merely human origin. If these prophecies were composed in the lifetime of the sixth century Daniel, they would compel our acceptance of special revelation from a transcendent, personal God. No anti-supernaturalist position can reasonably be defended if Daniel is a genuine book of prophecy composed in 530 B.C. or in the preceding years.”“In textbooks which represent the critical or higher critical viewpoint it is regarded as a matter of prime importance to explain the supernatural, which often means to explain it away, and to deal with the Bible in such a way that the supernatural will really cease to be supernatural.”Liberal theologians approach the Bible with the a priori assumption that the supernatural is impossible. From this assumption it must (and does, logically) follow that Daniel is a fraud.It is very important to realize that the radical critics are forced to hold the late-date view. (The radical critics are also called higher critics or destructive critics. In the church they are called liberals by others, progressives by themselves – and professors by our children.)These critics say that they are simply seeking the best theories and when a better theory comes along they will accept it instead. DO NOT BELIEVE THEM! They are seeking the best naturalistic theory – and the problem is that the best naturalistic theory is often not the best theory.Evolutionists say the same thing. They claim to be seeking the best theory to explain their observations but they aren’t. They are looking for the best naturalistic explanation – and they have found it.Evolution is the best (in fact, only! - if they had another they would use it!) naturalistic explanation for how we got here - but it is not the true explanation for how we got here.The true explanation is a supernatural explanation and they aren’t looking for that. They are not seeking the truth.Carl Sagan has said that evolution is a fact because he’s seen it.He reminds me of H. L. Mencken (famous Baltimore journalist) who was once asked if he believed in infant baptism. “Believe in it!,” he said, “I’ve seen it done!”Evolutionists are like that. When asked if they believe we evolved from the slime, they say “Believe it! I’ve seen it!” But have they really? No. They observe small adaptive changes and jump to conclusions that are completely unsupported by the fossil record. They have been searching for conclusive evidence since Darwin and that search has produced nothing. If it had you would have heard about it!What’s the connection with Daniel?Atheists are forced to believe in evolution – they have no choice. The radical critics are forced to accept a late date for Daniel – they have no choice.The Evidence for the Early Date ViewThe Testimony of Jesus supports the early date viewDid Daniel exist? Was he an actual historical figure? Jesus refers to him in .So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand).Was Daniel a prophet? Did he speak from God? Jesus calls him a prophet in .Did Daniel predict specific events that occurred many years from the date in which he lived? Jesus mentions an event in that had not yet occurred but would occur soon (see verse 34).Isaac Newton (the greatest scientist who ever lived) said that “too reject Daniel is to reject the Christian religion.” I agree with this statement, because if we reject Daniel then we must admit that either Jesus was mistaken about Daniel or the gospel records are hopelessly flawed about what Jesus taught. Either way, Christianity tumbles.The liberal critics simply discredit Christ as an authority on such matters. One even wrote that “Christ neither would nor could be a critical authority.” On the contrary, Jesus said that he had all authority in heaven and upon earth. is the main source of the title ‘Son of Man,’ which Jesus applied to himself many times as a Messianic title.I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.Jesus said that Daniel was a prophet and Jesus said that part of what Daniel said was fulfilled after the Greek empire. Thus, the clear statements of Christ are in direct opposition to the modern scholars. Who are we to believe?Daniel is accurate regarding Babylonian historyThe historical accuracy regarding Babylonian history makes it difficult to believe that the book was written 400 years after its historical setting. gives an accurate picture of Nebuchadnezzar’s building activities.and the king said, “Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?”“The East India House inscription, now in London, has six columns of Babylonian writing telling of the stupendous building operations which the king carried on in enlarging and beautifying Babylon.”How would a late author have known that Babylon’s greatness in the early sixth century was due to Nebuchadnezzar? Modern scholars didn’t find about it until recently. (Keep in mind that whereas they discount the testimony of scripture they trust ancient inscriptions completely!)Belshazzar is mentioned only in Daniel and in the recently uncovered Babylonian records. How did the author of Daniel know about him if he wrote 400 years after the fact?Nebuchadnezzar had Daniel’s friends thrown into a furnace yet Darius had Daniel thrown into a lions’ den. Why? Darius the Mede was a fire worshiper. How would someone have known details like this in 168 B.C.?Women’s participation at royal banquets (). The Persians did not permit women to feast in the presence of men but the Babylonians did.Daniel uses the term Shinar to indicate Babylon in . This term was no longer used when the radical critics claim the book was written.Daniel knew that it was impossible for anyone (even the king) to change a law of the Medes and Persians once it had been promulgated.Consider the following conclusions by several commentators:“Whoever is not the slave of preconceived opinions must confess when comparing [the first six chapters of Daniel] with the cuneiform monuments that they are really ancient and written but a short distance from the [time they describe].” (Lenormant)“No Jew whose people had been living for centuries under Persian and Grecian rule could relate with such unconscious simplicity the actual condition of affairs in Babylon 370 years before his own time.” (J.D. Wilson)“The author possessed a more accurate knowledge of Neo-Babylonian and early Persian history than any other historian since the sixth century B.C.” (Harrison)Daniel is accurate regarding Nebuchadnezzar’s lowly originThe description of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision in ends with the following statement:“This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.” (4:17)The lowly origin of Nebuchadnezzar’s family was otherwise unknown until an inscription made by his father Nabopolassar was found in which he was referred to as “the son of a nobody” (of non-royal birth), “insignificant,” “not visible,” “the weak,” and “the feeble.”This kind of knowledge (the lowly origin of Babylon’s greatest king) would have quickly been forgotten – but the author of Daniel knew about it.The decrees of the Babylonian kings in Daniel are remarkably similar to those found inscribed on ancient monuments. How would a Jewish writer produce such an accurate record 400 years after the fact?The Fourth Empire in Daniel is the Roman Empire.The visions in chapters 2 and 7 speak of four empires.The late date theorists hold that the fourth empire is Greece, which means that the third is Persia, the second is Media, and the first is the Chaldean empire. This view is very widely held today, but it falls apart when you read Daniel. One commentator has said that this viewpoint is the weakest part of the late date theory.There is no evidence that Daniel ever considered the Medes and Persians as separate empires whereas there is evidence that Daniel considered Medo-Persia to be a single empire.In , we find a single ram with two horns representing the kings of Media and Persia. In 8:21, a shaggy male goat (Greece) with a prominent horn (Alexander the Great) tramples the ram.Also, in chapter 5 when we read about the handwriting on the wall, the last word written is Peres which is derived from the word meaning “to divide” but also is a reference to Persia. That is, Persia was depicted as conquering the Babylonians – making Persia second and not third.If we can show (and we can) that the fourth empire is Rome then all of the arguments by the liberals to remove prophecy from the book fall apart. Copies of Daniel have been found that predate the Roman empire and Daniel made specific prophecies about Rome.I submit that any of these liberals would take the fourth kingdom to be Rome if they were given no information about when the book was written. But since they do have such information they must take the fourth kingdom to be Greece.They will date the book after the prophecies were fulfilled no matter what evidence there may be to the contrary. Their basic premise about naturalism must not be violated!Finally, Daniel predicts that the Messiah and his kingdom would appear during the fourth empire, which of course it did if we take the fourth empire to be Rome. The liberals say that again Daniel was mistaken because Jesus did not appear until after the Greek empire!Jesus in said that some things that Daniel had written had not yet been fulfilled (but would be fulfilled within a generation). If Greece is the fourth empire, then Jesus must have been wrong. One higher critic says that the ‘emptying’ that Paul spoke of in may have kept the incarnate Jesus from having complete knowledge about certain non-essential things. (The prophecies in Daniel are non-essential??)The Dead Sea Scrolls Support the Early Date View7 copies of Daniel dating from the Maccabean period have been found in 3 of the caves at Qumran. This makes it very unlikely that Daniel was written during the Maccabean period.The late date group are forced to believe that the Essenes at Qumran had near original copies of Daniel to retain their late date theory. A simpler explanation is that Daniel was written much earlier.One non-Biblical manuscript found in cave 4 refers to ‘Daniel the prophet.’ This fragment has been dated prior to 150 B.C. Another sectarian document from the caves uses the imagery of Daniel to describe the final conflict between good and evil.An honest scholar would accept the clear evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the modern scholars cannot accept it. They literally are unable to believe their own eyes because to do so would be to accept the supernatural source of the Bible.This is not just occurring in secular universities. Well known professors in our own Christian colleges are now writing books in which they suggest that the Bible is full of factual errors.The Book of Ezekiel Supports the Early Date ViewIn and 14:20, Daniel is listed with Noah and Job as an example of righteousness. says ‘Behold, you are wiser than Daniel.’ The representation of Daniel as righteous and wise fits perfectly with his description in the book of Daniel.Critics say that Ezekiel was not referring to Daniel but to Dan’el – a famous character from Ugaritic mythology. Does it seem reasonable to believe that a pious Jew would refer to a legendary pagan figure as an example of wisdom and righteousness?Dan’el was an idol worshipper who offered blood sacrifices to Baal for weeks at a time. He was a vengeful drunkard who convinced his daughter to commit murder.But Daniel was a contemporary of Ezekiel. This seems even more natural since then Ezekiel would use ancient and current examples to show the people that God was still at work among them.One commentator said that Noah, Job, and Daniel are spaced about 1500 years apart. Thus, Ezekiel may have given an example of righteousness from three different eras.The First Book of Maccabees Supports the Early Date ViewIn this book, Mattathias (the father of the Jewish patriot Maccabean brothers) encouraged his sons in their revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes by recalling how Daniel for his innocence was saved from the mouth of lions.Mattathias died in 166 B.C. – a year before the date that critics say Daniel was written. They say that Mattathias never said this!Josephus Supports the Early Date ViewIn his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus relates a story which if true would prove that the book of Daniel existed during the time of Alexander the Great (330 B.C.).Alexander was angry that the Jews would not give him their allegiance so he went to Jerusalem to punish them. Jewish priests met him and showed him in the book of Daniel how God had said that he would defeat the Persians. This pleased Alexander so much that he spared Jerusalem.Josephus wrote:The high priest then showed Alexander the passages in the prophecy of Daniel indicating that a Greek would destroy the empire of the Persians. Alexander, of course, accepted the prophecy as a reference to himself, and declared that God had ordained him to conquer Persia, which he proceeded to do. Furthermore, Alexander not only refused to execute any sanctions against Israel but bestowed upon that nation all kinds of favors and benefits, which was contrary to his usual custom.History confirms that Alexander marched near Jerusalem on his way to Egypt and that he treated the Jews kindly. How else can we explain why Alexander spared Jerusalem the ravages that he inflicted upon Tyre and Sidon?The consequence of this story is that it means that Daniel was known long prior to the year 334 B.C. and that even Alexander himself recognized that he was the one Daniel said would destroy the Medo-Persian power.In addition, Josephus says that the Jewish canon was completed before 424 B.C. and that Daniel was a part of the canon. This was not just his opinion, but was the Jewish national position. He also speaks of many books that were rejected.What do the critics say about all of this? They reject Josephus whenever he contradicts their naturalistic world view, but they enthusiastically accept him on virtually everything else. (They never give the Bible the benefit of the doubt. It is assumed to be wrong right from the start.)The Use of a Two–Horned Ram to Symbolize Medo–Persia Supports an Early Date.After Alexander the Great visited Egypt, he was forever depicted on coins with his head adorned with the ram’s horns of Amen-Ra. A thousand years later, Mohammed called him ‘Alexander, the lord of the two horns.’One commentator has written:It is impossible to believe that the writer of Daniel could, in the face of universal attribution of the two ram’s horns to Alexander, represent Persia, the power he overthrew, as a two-horned ram (,) unless he had written before the expedition into Egypt.If you read an article that compared the Eisenhower administration to the days of Camelot, would you conclude that it had been written before or after the Kennedy administration?Responses to Late Date ArgumentsWhy should we respond at all to these arguments?We should not ignore them (as many in the church are prone to do). If our position is correct, then we certainly have nothing to fear by confronting these opposing positions. Indeed, a failure to confront them might indicate a fear that our own position might not withstand their arguments.Also, in our outreach to others, we need to be able to answer whatever questions they might have about the book of Daniel.The Claim That Daniel’s Position in the Jewish Scriptures Implies a Late DateThe Old Testament books in the Hebrew Bible are divided into three sections.The Law (Books of Moses)The Prophets (Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 minor prophets)The Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, DANIEL, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 & 2 Chronicles) - called the Hagiographa (Holy Writings)Claim of Radical Critics: Since Daniel is not found in the second division (the Prophets) but in the third division (the Writings), it follows that Daniel was a very late addition to the Jewish canon.It is a mistake to assume that the books in the third division were written later than the books in the second division. In fact, Job, Ruth, Proverbs, and many of the Psalms were written before many of the prophetical books.Josephus says that no books were added to the canon after 424 B.C. – the death of Artaxerxes.Jewish tradition says that Malachi was the last inspired book, which would mean that the second division was closed after the third.The division is not based on the type of book but on the type of writer.The books in the first section were written by Moses.Those in the second section were written by men who had the prophetic office as well as the prophetic gift.Those in the third section were written by those who had the prophetic gift but not the prophetic office – inspired men but not official prophets.This explains why Ezekiel and Daniel, though contemporaries, are in different divisions.But what do we mean when we say that Daniel was not officially a prophet?Daniel does not introduce his book with his name, and he had no official position among the Jewish people.He did not live among the exiles like Ezekiel did, but he lived at the court of Babylon, and he dealt with heathen kings rather than with the people of Israel.Although he is called a prophet in the New Testament, that has more to do with his predictions than with any special prophetic office that he held. Note that David is called a prophet in .One who held the prophetic office served as a spiritual mediator between God and the Israelites. Daniel did not do this.We can turn this argument around on the radical critics! Why was Daniel added to the canon at all if it was not written until 160 B.C.?Listen to what R. D. Wilson has to say about this:Now, the radical critics, without any direct evidence to support them, profess to believe that, into the midst of these sacred writings for which men readily died, a forged document of unknown authorship and (according to the critics) full of easily detected errors … was quietly admitted as a genuine and authentic writing of a prophet hitherto unknown to history. … They cannot believe in miracles and predictive prophecy … but they can believe that a lot of obstreperous and cantankerous Jews who through all their history from Jacob and Esau down to the present time have disagreed and quarreled about almost everything, or nothing, could have accepted, unanimously and without a murmur … a forged and fictitious document, untrue to the well remembered facts of their own experience and to the easily ascertained facts concerning their own past history and the history of the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and Greeks of whom the author writes.Paul reminds us in that the Jews were entrusted with the very words of God – and they took that responsibility very seriously. (I wish that we took it as seriously today.)The Claim That Jesus ben Sirach’s Failure to Mention Daniel Implies a Late DateJesus ben Sirach wrote Ecclesiasticus between 200 and 170 B.C. At the end of the book, he reviews Israel’s history, mentioning some of the men that God used to lead Israel. Daniel is not on the list.Further, at one point he states that never had their been born a man like Joseph. (Daniel is similar in many respects to Joseph.)Daniel and Joseph both were exiles, both showed allegiance to God, both were falsely accused, both were vindicated, both interpreted dreams, both became confidants to the king, and both were given a high government position by the king.The radical critics claim that this omission supports the late-date view.Daniel was not the only Old Testament notable that was omitted from this list. Jonah, Mordecai, Ezra, and Job were also left off. (No radical critic uses the omission of Ezra to deny the authenticity of his book.)One commentator has noted:It is a remarkable fact that he does not pay any regard to the great men who had exercised their functions outside the bounds of the land of Israel, such as Jonah at Ninevah, Daniel in Babylon, and Mordecai in Persia. In speaking of Abraham, he does not refer to his coming out of Ur of the Chaldees, nor his visit to Egypt. In speaking of Jacob, Joseph, and Aaron, he says nothing of the land of Egypt; nor does he intimate that Moses had ever been in Egypt.His views might be characterized as Sadducean and nationalistic. When he gives an account of the great men of his nation, he selects … those who had most distinguished themselves according to his ideas of what constituted greatness.The Claim That Daniel is Mistaken About The Date of Nebuchadnezzar’s Siege of JerusalemSuch a mistake would indicate a lack of knowledge about the history of the time, and thus would support a late date. But was Daniel mistaken? states:1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his god. 3 Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility.Problems with these verses:The Babylonian Chronicle makes no reference to an action by Nebuchadnezzar in Judah during the third year of Jehoiakim or to a siege of Jerusalem.According to , the battle that opened the way for a Babylonian invasion of Judah did not occur until the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign, whereas says that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign.The questions we need to consider:When did Nebuchadnezzar arrive at Jerusalem and besiege it?When did he defeat Jerusalem?When did he carry away captives and sacred vessels?II Kings and II Chronicles record three separate occasions when Nebuchadnezzar carried away people and articles from the temple. and –8Jehoiakim gave allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar for three years and then rebelled. Nebuchadnezzar defeats his forces and takes Jehoiakim back in chains along with some items from the temple. and –10Jehoiachin succeeds Jehoiakim and reigns for three months while the servants of Nebuchadnezzar besiege Jerusalem. Again the siege is successful and Jehoiachin and much of the nobility is deported to Babylon. and –20Zedekiah rules for a few years and then rebels against Nebuchadnezzar. In the ninth year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar again besieges Jerusalem, which falls in the eleventh year of his reign (586 B.C.). The city was destroyed and most of the leading men were killed. The others were deported and all articles from the temple were taken. is a brief summary of these three events and is not intended to provide all of the details.There are some additional points to consider:Jerusalem was besieged – not captured.One critic has written that “Daniel begins with a glaring historical error, for Nebuchadnezzar did not take Jerusalem in the third year of King Jehoiakim.”But Daniel never states that Jerusalem was captured at the time – only besieged.In the middle of his Palestinian campaign, Nebuchadnezzar received news of his father’s death. He rushed back to Babylon to assume the throne and apparently abandoned the siege against Jerusalem before he captured the city.Babylon used a different dating system. seems to be in conflict with regarding the year of Jehoiakim’s reign when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Palestine.Jeremiah (writing in Jerusalem) used a different dating system than did Daniel (writing in Babylon).It was different in two respects - either one of which could explain the seeming discrepancy.The Babylonian calendar began each year in the spring and the Jewish calendar began each year in autumn. The Babylonian third year thus overlapped the Judean fourth year by about six months.In Babylon, the year in which a king began to reign was called ‘the year of accession to the kingdom,’ which was followed by the first, second, and subsequent years of his rule. Thus, a Babylonian king’s third year of reign would correspond to the actual fourth year of his reign. Daniel may have used the Babylonian system in verse 1.If this latter theory is correct it again points to an early date for the book. How could a Jew writing 400 years later know about the Babylonian system of dating?The Claim That Daniel’s Use of the Term ‘Chaldeans’ Implies a Late DateThe author of Daniel uses the word ‘Chaldeans’ to denote a special class of wise men. However, the word originally had a broader meaning and referred to a particular group of tribes. The late-date proponents claim that only the original meaning was in use during the sixth century.Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, was a Chaldean. Although ‘Chaldean’ and ‘Babylonian’ are not synonyms, they are sometimes treated that way since many Babylonian rulers were Chaldean. Jeremiah described Nebuchadnezzar’s army as the army of the Chaldeans. The term gradually came to mean a privileged class and then a special class of wise men. The question we must consider is when did this change occur?The claim that a single word can help date a document is not without merit. For example, if you read an English passage containing the word ‘sputnik’ you would be able to date it after 1957 because it was not until that time that the word passed into the English language. Of course, without this additional knowledge, the word would be of no help at all.Daniel uses the term “Chaldean” in BOTH ways – which destroys the liberal theory.In we see the “language of the Chaldeans,” which is clearly an ethnic use of the term.In , , and 5 we see another use where the term is used to describe master astrologers.Daniel was aware that “Chaldean” was an ethnic term for the race of Nebuchadnezzar. refers to Belshazzar as the king of the Chaldeans. seems to be an ethnic use of the term despite the poor NIV translation.Both uses of the term were known when Daniel was written.Herodotus who wrote The Histories around 450 B.C. implied that the term had been used to denote a class of wise men as far back as the time of Cyrus.One scholar has written: “It is hard to prove a negative. Our knowledge of the Babylonian literature of the time of Daniel is not so complete that we can safely affirm that ‘Chaldean’ never meant the caste of wise men in his time.”The Claim of Historical Errors in Daniel Regarding BelshazzarDaniel states that Belshazzar was king of Babylon. In addition, the book seems to indicate that Belshazzar was the Chaldean last king and that Nebuchadnezzar was his father.In fact, Nabonidus was the last king and Belshazzar was his son.QUESTION 1: Why is Nebuchadnezzar called the father of Belshazzar four times in and Belshazzar is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar once in that chapter?The Hebrew use of “father” and “son” can simply mean “ancestor” and “descendent.” It is possible that a genetic relationship existed between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. If Nabonidus married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar in order to legitimize his rule then his son by her would be the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar.This view is strengthened by the fact that Nabonidus named one of his sons Nebuchadnezzar.Also, an earlier king (Neriglissar) is known to have married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar.A second explanation is that “by ancient usage the term son often referred to a successor in the same office whether or not there was a blood relationship.”This may have been the usage in .All the nations shall serve him [Nebuchadnezzar] and his son and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings shall make him their slave.QUESTION 2: Why does Daniel say that Belshazzar was king of Babylon?Archaeology has shown that Nabonidus took up residence at Teman in North Arabia and left his son Belshazzar in charge of the northern frontier of the Babylonian empire. Thus, he became the de facto king of Babylon.One commentator has written:Belshazzar then, technically occupied a position subordinate to that of Nabonidus. Nevertheless, since he was the man in regal status with whom the Jews had to do, Daniel calls him king. This cannot justly be charged as an inaccuracy.Further, tablets dating from 543 B.C. have been found that implies that Belshazzar and his father were on equal footing. Daniel apparently knew what he was talking about!The radical critics argue that Belshazzar’s authority to appoint anyone he pleased as third ruler in the kingdom in indicates that he was an absolute ruler, not a sub-king.Just the opposite is true, however!Why did Belshazzar only promise the third and not the second ruler? Because he was the second and his father was the first!How would a Jew writing 400 years later have known this?Belshazzar was long thought to have never existed, until his name was found by archaeologists. (Eventually, they will learn not to bet against the Bible!)Daniel mentions him, as does the apocryphal book of Baruch, which many scholar believe was written in the fourth century B.C. How did the author of Baruch know about Belshazzar if Daniel had not yet been written. This further points to an early date for the book of Daniel.One modern scholar has written:We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar, as the excavations have proved, and that Belshazzar was functioning as king when Cyrus took Babylon in 538.The Claim That Darius the Mede Never ExistedIn we readThat very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.One critic has written that “the references to Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel have long been recognized as providing the most serious historical problem in the book.”The late-date proponents claim that:The author of Daniel believed that a Median kingdom, under Darius, conquered Babylon and subsequently gave way to the Persian empire under Cyrus. It is known that Babylon fell directly to Cyrus and the Persians.Darius the Mede never actually existed but was a confused reflection of a later Persian ruler, Darius I (Hystaspes).The four kingdoms in and are thus Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece.Five reasons why this view is wrong:(1) The book of Daniel never claims that Darius was the king of Media but only that he was of Median descent. To say that Napoleon was a Corsican does not mean that Napoleon was the king of Corsica.(2) The author of Daniel says that Darius and Cyrus had different ancestries (Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Mede), NOT that they ruled separate kingdoms.(3) saysSo they went to the king and spoke to him about his royal decree: “Did you not publish a decree that during the next thirty days anyone who prays to any god or man except to you, O king, would be thrown into the lions' den?” The king answered, “The decree stands – in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.”If Darius ruled an independent kingdom of Media then why was he subject to the law of the Persians?(4) Daniel’s interpretation of the handwriting on the wall in chapter 5 indicates that the Persians would be the main element of the empire that succeeded the Babylonians. The author clearly says that Babylon would be conquered not by the Medes alone but by the Medes and the Persians with the Persians playing the greater role.(5) The vision in chapter 8 depicts a combined Medo-Persian empire as a single ram with two horns. The horn depicting Persia comes up last, but BEFORE the ram sets out to conquer.Just because the name ‘Darius the Mede’ has not been found in any ancient inscriptions does not mean that he did not exist.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.The critics made similar claims about Belshazzar and Sargon and archaeology later proved them wrong.Who then was Darius? We will look at three proposed answers.(1) The author of Daniel was mistaken about the chronology of Persian rulers, and Darius the Mede was actually Darius I, a later ruler of Persia. This view must be rejected for the following reasons:Daniel calls Darius a Mede, and Darius I was a Persian.Daniel says that Darius the Mede was 62 when he began to rule. Darius I was in his 20’s when he began to rule. says that Darius the Mede “was MADE king” implying that he was appointed king over Babylon by some higher authority (Cyrus). Darius I, however, succeeded to the throne after the death of Cambyses.(2) Darius the Mede was another name for Cyrus the Persian. (Many people hold this view. I’m not sure what its allure is.) This view must be rejected for the following reason. says that “Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” This seems like an odd statement if the two men were the same person!(3) Darius the Mede was an early governor of Babylon under Cyrus.The references to Darius in Daniel do not say that he ruled the Persian empire – only that he took control of the conquered Chaldean empire.It was a well known practice of Cyrus to appoint Medes to high positions in order to foster goodwill and loyalty.Critics claim that Darius the Mede had too much authority to have been just a governor. Read .Then King Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations and men of every language throughout the land: “May you prosper greatly! I issue a decree that in every part of my kingdom people must fear and reverence the God of Daniel. For he is the living God and he endures forever; his kingdom will not be destroyed, his dominion will never end.”Yet the phrase “throughout the land” simply means all of the land over which he had been given authority. Remember that his land consisted of people from many different countries – such as Daniel and his friends.Which governor was he? One commentator has written:Gubaru the Governor of Babylon fits the Biblical description of Darius the Mede so remarkably that the writer believes he will be recognized in due time as the monarch who played such an important role in the life of Daniel and the fall of Babylon. … We believe that this identification is the only one which satisfactorily harmonizes the various lines of evidence which we find in the book of Daniel and in the contemporary cuneiform records.The Claim That Events in Daniel Are Improbable or AbsurdIn we read the account of Nebuchadnezzar’s illness in which he roamed the fields thinking himself to be an ox.Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like cattle. His body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird.Critics claim that the sickness of Nebuchadnezzar is too incredible to be true.Too incredible to be true? These critics need to pull their heads out of their books and watch a little daytime TV. If the talk shows on TV today do nothing else, they prove that nothing is too strange to be true. A man who thinks he is a cow? It wouldn’t even make the first cut on the Sally Jesse Raphael Show.Not only is it NOT that incredible, but is has a name: boanthropy.R. K. Harrison speaks of an encounter he had with such a person in a British mental hospital. He ate only vegetation and drank only water. His health was excellent and the only physical abnormality noticed was the length and coarseness of his hair and the thickened condition of his nails.No Babylonian record has been found that mentions any activity by Nebuchadnezzar during the period 582 to 575.The Claim That Daniel Violates the Supposed Nature of Biblical ProphecyThis is a classic straw man argument. The critics set up a straw man by defining prophecy and then seek to discredit Daniel because it does not fit their own definition.One critic has written that “prophecy in the Bible is characterized by an absence of specific predictions. It is forthtelling and not foretelling.” The prophecy in Daniel is primarily of the latter variety.What about Jesus? He made specific prophecies regarding his death, the manner of his death, the perpetrators of his death, his betrayal, the death of Peter, the denial by Peter, his resurrection, and the destruction of Jerusalem within a generation.“And now I [Jesus] have told you before it come to pass, that, when it come to pass, you might believe.” ()What do liberals do with the host of predictions found in both the Old and New Testaments? They usually call in an EDITOR to deal with the problem. That is, they say that someone came along after the book was written and after certain events had occurred and changed the book to make it look like those events had been predicted long ago. (Those magical and convenient late editors solve a variety of problems for the liberals.)The Claim That the Type of Aramaic Used in Daniel Indicates a Late DateDaniel 2:4b through 7:28 is in the Aramaic language. (The remainder is in Hebrew.) It has been claimed that the form of Aramaic used was the type used in the 3rd century B.C. and not the type used in the 6th century B.C.This argument fell apart in 1929 when a farmer discovered what were later called the Ras Shamra tablets inside an underground passage.The Aramaic in these tablets is similar to that in Daniel and they date back to 1400 B.C.It is also claimed that the Aramaic in Daniel is a western dialect that was only used in Palestine.Even if this were true it would not prove that Daniel was written in Palestine. The book was undoubtedly copied many times and the language may have been updated to conform to the common dialect.However, many scholars dispute the claim that the Aramaic in Daniel is western.One has asserted that it predates the eastern and western distinction.Another has written that the Aramaic in Daniel is a form that originated in the courts and governments of the seventh century B.C.E. J. Young has written that “it is becoming more and more clear that the languages CANNOT be employed as arguments against the antiquity of the book.”Why were two languages used?It is NOT unique to Daniel. In the book of Ezra, 4 chapters are written in Aramaic.Some critics have claimed that there were two authors, but even most of the liberals reject this since the message of the book is clearly woven throughout the entire work.But part of Daniel is written in the third person. Doesn’t this imply another author? No. It is common to switch between first and third person in the Bible. Even God does it in . (See verses 2 (first person) and 7 (third person).)One commentator has written:“Even critical scholars admit that only one author produced Daniel. The identity of the author appears from the unity of the plan, the relation of various parts to each other, the gradation of the oracles from the uncertain to the certain, the remarkable uniformity of ideas, images, forms, symbols, and that even in two languages there is a remarkable similarity of style.”Why then are two languages used? A much better explanation than two authors is that there were two audiences – which we know was true.One commentator has written:The Aramaic chapters deal with matters pertaining to the entire citizenry of the Babylonian and the Persian empires, whereas the other six chapters relate to peculiarly Jewish concerns and God’s special plans for the future of his covenant people.The Claim That the Type of Hebrew Used in Daniel Points to a Late DateThe Hebrew language underwent a big change around the time of Nehemiah. The critics claim that Daniel’s Hebrew resembles the later type and thus points to a late date for the book.The Hebrew portion of Daniel contains no Greek words.Again, this seems very odd if Daniel had been written after nearly 200 years of Greek rule in Palestine.The political terms in Daniel are largely Persian, which one would expect if the book had been written during the reign of Cyrus.The Hebrew used in the Dead Sea Scroll sectarian documents does NOT resemble the Hebrew used in Daniel, which seems odd if they were written at about the same time.One of the most radical critics has written that “from the Hebrew of the Book of Daniel no important inference as to its date can be safely drawn.”The Claim That the Use of Persian Words in Daniel Indicates a Late datePresent in the Hebrew and especially in the Aramaic parts of Daniel are several words of Persian origin.The radical critics assert that the Persian language did not penetrate the Aramaic of Babylon until long after Cyrus’ conquest.The Persian term ‘satrap’ is used throughout Daniel as if it were a Babylonian title. The critics say that such usage points to a much later date.It is possible that the term had become a Babylonian title due to the Persian influence that already existed.Also, if Daniel wrote the book after the fall of Babylon then he might have substituted Persian terms in place of the older Babylonian terms.Again, this argument can be turned against the late-date crowd.The first Greek translations of Daniel appeared around 100 B.C. (Septua¬gint and Theodotian)Many of the Persian words in these translations were MISTRANSLATED, which seems odd if the book had been written only 65 years earlier.Clearly, the words had been forgotten or had changed meaning since the time when Daniel was written, which points to an early date for the book.The Claim That the Use of Greek Words in Daniel Indicates a Late DateDaniel 3:5 (in the Aramaic section) contains three words of Greek origin, all are musical terms.It is claimed that such words could only have been used after Greek influence had spread throughout Asia after the conquest by Alexander the Great – again indicating a late date.How much cultural spread does it require to learn three new words? If the book had been written 400 years later, then wouldn’t we expect to find many Greek words instead of only two?There are 20 Persian words and three Greek words in Daniel. Does this make sense if Daniel had been written during the Greek empire and long after the Persian empire? (By 170 B.C., a Greek speaking government had controlled Palestine for 160 years.)One author has said “It is the fewness of the Greek words, coupled with the fact that they are only the names of musical instruments, that must prove fatal to the critics’ theory that the book was written in 165 B.C.”Anyway, experts now agree that Greek culture had penetrated the Near East long before the Neo-Babylonian period. The terms may have been introduced by Greek traders before the rise of the Persian empire.The Elephantine papyri is a fifth century Aramaic document that contains a number of Greek words.It is significant that the terms are all musical terms. Such terms are frequently borrowed when the instruments they describe become known.To Summarize Our PositionThe book of Daniel was written by Daniel in Babylon during the late sixth century B.C. That means that the prophecies it contains are genuine and accurate, and further they are proof of the Bible’s inspiration. The late date theory is only promoted by those who deny the inspiration of scripture, and we have shown that their arguments are specious.

Jeremiah 5:15–19 KJV 1900

15 Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the Lord: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say. 16 Their quiver is as an open sepulchre, they are all mighty men. 17 And they shall eat up thine harvest, and thy bread, which thy sons and thy daughters should eat: they shall eat up thy flocks and thine herds: they shall eat up thy vines and thy fig trees: they shall impoverish thy fenced cities, wherein thou trustedst, with the sword. 18 Nevertheless in those days, saith the Lord, I will not make a full end with you. 19 And it shall come to pass, when ye shall say, Wherefore doeth the Lord our God all these things unto us? then shalt thou answer them, Like as ye have forsaken me, and served strange gods in your land, so shall ye serve strangers in a land that is not yours.

Jeremiah 5:15–19 KJV 1900

15 Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the Lord: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say. 16 Their quiver is as an open sepulchre, they are all mighty men. 17 And they shall eat up thine harvest, and thy bread, which thy sons and thy daughters should eat: they shall eat up thy flocks and thine herds: they shall eat up thy vines and thy fig trees: they shall impoverish thy fenced cities, wherein thou trustedst, with the sword. 18 Nevertheless in those days, saith the Lord, I will not make a full end with you. 19 And it shall come to pass, when ye shall say, Wherefore doeth the Lord our God all these things unto us? then shalt thou answer them, Like as ye have forsaken me, and served strange gods in your land, so shall ye serve strangers in a land that is not yours.

tells us who led them away.

Jeremiah 5:15–19 KJV 1900

15 Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the Lord: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say. 16 Their quiver is as an open sepulchre, they are all mighty men. 17 And they shall eat up thine harvest, and thy bread, which thy sons and thy daughters should eat: they shall eat up thy flocks and thine herds: they shall eat up thy vines and thy fig trees: they shall impoverish thy fenced cities, wherein thou trustedst, with the sword. 18 Nevertheless in those days, saith the Lord, I will not make a full end with you. 19 And it shall come to pass, when ye shall say, Wherefore doeth the Lord our God all these things unto us? then shalt thou answer them, Like as ye have forsaken me, and served strange gods in your land, so shall ye serve strangers in a land that is not yours.

How the world saw these events:

The God of the Hebrews had been completely discredited. The mighty gods of Assyria and Babylon had burned his temple to the ground and led his people away in chains, and he was apparently powerless to stop them.

Of course, the truth was that those foreign people and their false gods were serving God’s purpose by bringing punishment upon his people. God was still totally in control and in charge even though it may have appeared otherwise.

In , God refers to King Nebuchadnezzar as “my servant.”

Jeremiah 25:9 KJV 1900

9 Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the Lord, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.

The events in Daniel had a dual purpose:

1, To convince the faithful Israelites that God had not forgotten them – and that they should not forget him. One day they would be vindicated.

2, To show the pagan nations that God was truly sovereign and preeminent, and that any power they had was given to them by God and could be taken away anytime he desired.

There are at least three great theological principles that run through the book of Daniel.

THE ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD.

The affairs of men and kings are subject to God’s decrees, and he is able to accomplish his purposes despite the determined opposition of the mightiest men.

This is a message we need to hear today. The clear message of scripture is that the kingdoms of earth are raised up to serve God’s purpose.

THE POWER OF PRAYER.

Throughout the book we see that God acts in response to prayer. Again, this is a message we need to hear today. If we feel powerless it may be because we have become prayerless.

The worst sin is prayerlessness. We usually think of murder, adultery, or theft among the worst, but the root of all sin is self-sufficiency – independence from God. When we fail to wait prayerfully for God’s guidance and strength, we are saying – with our action if not our lips – that we don’t need him. We can go it alone. The opposite of such independence is when we acknowledge our need of God’s instruction and supply. (Charles Hummel)

The one concern of the devil is to keep Christians from praying. He fears nothing from prayerless studies, prayerless work and prayerless religion. He laughs at our toil, mocks at our wisdom, but trembles when we pray. (Samuel Chadwick)

When a Christian shuns fellowship with other Christians, the devil smiles. When he stops reading the Bible, the devil laughs. When he stops praying, the devil shouts for joy. (Corrie ten Boom)

If we get nothing else from the book of Daniel and all of the many things that we are going to look at in this book, I hope we all gain an appreciation of the incredible power and importance of prayer.

You can do more than pray, after you have prayed, but you can never do more than pray until you have prayed. (A. J. Gordon)

THE LONG RANGE NATURE OF THE PLAN OF REDEMPTION.

God has been working to bring about our redemption since the fall. We see in this book just what great a plan it is, and we see the extraordinary lengths that God went to in order to bring Jesus into the world at the perfect time and in the perfect setting. We also see the supreme importance of his kingdom, the church. (It was not just a haphazard decision on God’s part!)

How are Daniel & Revelation Related?

One commentator has said that “the book of Daniel is to the Old Testament what Revelation is to the New Testament.” I agree, but probably not for the same reasons that that commentator had in mind.

As we will soon see, Daniel has suffered about as much at the hands of careless commentators as Revelation has.

We will need to proceed carefully and pay close attention to the historical context of the book and the time frame that is given for the prophecies.

In at least one way, the two books are different:

Daniel is NOT a message for those who are suffering in the midst of deadly persecution but rather for those who are living in a settled condition yet within an alien culture.

In , God told the exiles to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.” This is very different from what God said in Revelation.

In other ways, however, the books are very similar:

Many similar symbols are used, and each book helps us understand the symbols in the other.

Each book has much to say about the early Roman empire and its relation to the church.

Keep in mind that while the two books say the same thing about this period, Daniel was written 600 years earlier.

What is the Historical Setting?

The book of Daniel opens with Nebuchadnezzar on the throne in Babylon after the deportation of the Jewish nobles to Babylon.

After Nebuchadnezzar’s death in 562, his sons and grandsons proved worthless. A revolution in 556 placed an outsider (Nabonidus) on the throne.

Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar were ruling jointly when Babylon fell to the Medes and the Persians under Cyrus in 539. Read .

This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, says the Lord, making the land an everlasting waste.

After this, the Near East was ruled by a succession of Persian rulers for about 200 years.

Late in the fourth century, the Persian empire was overthrown by the Greeks under Alexander the Great.

After Alexander, his kingdom in the Near East was split in two. The Ptolemies ruled Egypt and the Seleucids ruled Syria and Palestine.

Eventually, the Romans defeated both groups and took control.

Thus, we move in 600 years from the Babylonians to the Medes and the Persians to the Greeks and finally to the Romans. Daniel talks about all four of these kingdoms. In addition, he talks about a fifth kingdom that would follow and which would never fall. That kingdom is the church.

We will have much more to say about the details of this history when we begin to unravel the prophecies in the book.

The Controversy About Daniel

Two Views Regarding When Daniel Was Written

The Early Date Position holds that the book of Daniel was written in Babylon in the late sixth century B.C. by the prophet Daniel who had been taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar in 606 B.C. The prophecies in the book are genuine and accurate.

The Late Date Position holds that the book of Daniel was written in Palestine by an unknown Jew around 168 B.C. during the Maccabean period. The prophecies in the book concerning events prior to 168 B.C. were written after the fact and hence are not genuine prophecies. The other prophecies in the book were merely guesses of future events, many of which later proved to be inaccurate.

Although this view has been readily adopted by virtually all modern scholars, it is not a modern view. It was first put forth in the third century A.D. by Porphyrius of Tyre. It was quickly abandoned, however, after Jerome published a refutation. During the so-called enlightenment it was picked up again and popularized.

Why do so many hold the late date view?

The Dual Tenets of Liberal Theology

Supernatural explanations of historical events are not acceptable. Any event that requires such an explanation is not historical.

Nothing in a general sense ever happens uniquely in history. All true occurrences must be repetitive in nature so that scientists may properly observe them.

Consider the following comments about the modern approach to Daniel:

“Such amazingly accurate predictions defy the possibility of merely human origin. If these prophecies were composed in the lifetime of the sixth century Daniel, they would compel our acceptance of special revelation from a transcendent, personal God. No anti-supernaturalist position can reasonably be defended if Daniel is a genuine book of prophecy composed in 530 B.C. or in the preceding years.”

“In textbooks which represent the critical or higher critical viewpoint it is regarded as a matter of prime importance to explain the supernatural, which often means to explain it away, and to deal with the Bible in such a way that the supernatural will really cease to be supernatural.”

Liberal theologians approach the Bible with the a prior assumption that the supernatural is impossible. From this assumption it must (and does, logically) follow that Daniel is a fraud.

It is very important to realize that the radical critics are forced to hold the late-date view. (The radical critics are also called higher critics or destructive critics. In the church they are called liberals by others, progressives by themselves – and professors by our children.)

These critics say that they are simply seeking the best theories and when a better theory comes along they will accept it instead. DO NOT BELIEVE THEM! They are seeking the best naturalistic theory – and the problem is that the best naturalistic theory is often not the best theory.

Evolutionists say the same thing. They claim to be seeking the best theory to explain their observations but they aren’t. They are looking for the best naturalistic explanation – and they have found it.

Evolution is the best (in fact, only! - if they had another they would use it!) naturalistic explanation for how we got here - but it is not the true explanation for how we got here.

The true explanation is a supernatural explanation and they aren’t looking for that. They are not seeking the truth.

Carl Sagan has said that evolution is a fact because he’s seen it.

He reminds me of H. L. Mencken (famous Baltimore journalist) who was once asked if he believed in infant baptism. “Believe in it!,” he said, “I’ve seen it done!”

Evolutionists are like that. When asked if they believe we evolved from the slime, they say “Believe it! I’ve seen it!” But have they really? No. They observe small adaptive changes and jump to conclusions that are completely unsupported by the fossil record. They have been searching for conclusive evidence since Darwin and that search has produced nothing. If it had you would have heard about it!

What’s the connection with Daniel?

Atheists are forced to believe in evolution – they have no choice. The radical critics are forced to accept a late date for Daniel – they have no choice.

The Evidence for the Early Date View

The Testimony of Jesus supports the early date view

Did Daniel exist? Was he an actual historical figure? Jesus refers to him in .

So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand).

Was Daniel a prophet? Did he speak from God? Jesus calls him a prophet in .

Did Daniel predict specific events that occurred many years from the date in which he lived? Jesus mentions an event in that had not yet occurred but would occur soon (see verse 34).

Isaac Newton (the greatest scientist who ever lived) said that “too reject Daniel is to reject the Christian religion.” I agree with this statement, because if we reject Daniel then we must admit that either Jesus was mistaken about Daniel or the gospel records are hopelessly flawed about what Jesus taught. Either way, Christianity tumbles.

The liberal critics simply discredit Christ as an authority on such matters. One even wrote that “Christ neither would nor could be a critical authority.” On the contrary, Jesus said that he had all authority in heaven and upon earth.

is the main source of the title ‘Son of Man,’ which Jesus applied to himself many times as a Messianic title.

I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

Jesus said that Daniel was a prophet and Jesus said that part of what Daniel said was fulfilled after the Greek empire. Thus, the clear statements of Christ are in direct opposition to the modern scholars. Who are we to believe?

Daniel is accurate regarding Babylonian history

The historical accuracy regarding Babylonian history makes it difficult to believe that the book was written 400 years after its historical setting.

gives an accurate picture of Nebuchadnezzar’s building activities.

and the king said, “Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?”

“The East India House inscription, now in London, has six columns of Babylonian writing telling of the stupendous building operations which the king carried on in enlarging and beautifying Babylon.”

How would a late author have known that Babylon’s greatness in the early sixth century was due to Nebuchadnezzar? Modern scholars didn’t find about it until recently. (Keep in mind that whereas they discount the testimony of scripture they trust ancient inscriptions completely!)

Belshazzar is mentioned only in Daniel and in the recently uncovered Babylonian records. How did the author of Daniel know about him if he wrote 400 years after the fact?

Nebuchadnezzar had Daniel’s friends thrown into a furnace yet Darius had Daniel thrown into a lions’ den. Why? Darius the Mede was a fire worshiper. How would someone have known details like this in 168 B.C.?

Women’s participation at royal banquets (). The Persians did not permit women to feast in the presence of men but the Babylonians did.

Daniel uses the term Shinar to indicate Babylon in . This term was no longer used when the radical critics claim the book was written.

Daniel knew that it was impossible for anyone (even the king) to change a law of the Medes and Persians once it had been promulgated.

Consider the following conclusions by several commentators:

“Whoever is not the slave of preconceived opinions must confess when comparing [the first six chapters of Daniel] with the cuneiform monuments that they are really ancient and written but a short distance from the [time they describe].” (Lenormant)

“No Jew whose people had been living for centuries under Persian and Grecian rule could relate with such unconscious simplicity the actual condition of affairs in Babylon 370 years before his own time.” (J.D. Wilson)

“The author possessed a more accurate knowledge of Neo-Babylonian and early Persian history than any other historian since the sixth century B.C.” (Harrison)

Daniel is accurate regarding Nebuchadnezzar’s lowly origin

The description of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision in ends with the following statement:

“This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.” (4:17)

The lowly origin of Nebuchadnezzar’s family was otherwise unknown until an inscription made by his father Nabopolassar was found in which he was referred to as “the son of a nobody” (of non-royal birth), “insignificant,” “not visible,” “the weak,” and “the feeble.”

This kind of knowledge (the lowly origin of Babylon’s greatest king) would have quickly been forgotten – but the author of Daniel knew about it.

The decrees of the Babylonian kings in Daniel are remarkably similar to those found inscribed on ancient monuments. How would a Jewish writer produce such an accurate record 400 years after the fact?

The Fourth Empire in Daniel is the Roman Empire.

The visions in chapters 2 and 7 speak of four empires.

The late date theorists hold that the fourth empire is Greece, which means that the third is Persia, the second is Media, and the first is the Chaldean empire. This view is very widely held today, but it falls apart when you read Daniel. One commentator has said that this viewpoint is the weakest part of the late date theory.

There is no evidence that Daniel ever considered the Medes and Persians as separate empires whereas there is evidence that Daniel considered Medo-Persia to be a single empire.

In , we find a single ram with two horns representing the kings of Media and Persia. In 8:21, a shaggy male goat (Greece) with a prominent horn (Alexander the Great) tramples the ram.

Also, in chapter 5 when we read about the handwriting on the wall, the last word written is Peres which is derived from the word meaning “to divide” but also is a reference to Persia. That is, Persia was depicted as conquering the Babylonians – making Persia second and not third.

If we can show (and we can) that the fourth empire is Rome then all of the arguments by the liberals to remove prophecy from the book fall apart. Copies of Daniel have been found that predate the Roman empire and Daniel made specific prophecies about Rome.

I submit that any of these liberals would take the fourth kingdom to be Rome if they were given no information about when the book was written. But since they do have such information they must take the fourth kingdom to be Greece.

They will date the book after the prophecies were fulfilled no matter what evidence there may be to the contrary. Their basic premise about naturalism must not be violated!

Finally, Daniel predicts that the Messiah and his kingdom would appear during the fourth empire, which of course it did if we take the fourth empire to be Rome. The liberals say that again Daniel was mistaken because Jesus did not appear until after the Greek empire!

Jesus in said that some things that Daniel had written had not yet been fulfilled (but would be fulfilled within a generation). If Greece is the fourth empire, then Jesus must have been wrong. One higher critic says that the ‘emptying’ that Paul spoke of in may have kept the incarnate Jesus from having complete knowledge about certain non-essential things. (The prophecies in Daniel are non-essential??)

The Dead Sea Scrolls Support the Early Date View

7 copies of Daniel dating from the Maccabean period have been found in 3 of the caves at Qumran. This makes it very unlikely that Daniel was written during the Maccabean period.

The late date group are forced to believe that the Essenes at Qumran had near original copies of Daniel to retain their late date theory. A simpler explanation is that Daniel was written much earlier.

One non-Biblical manuscript found in cave 4 refers to ‘Daniel the prophet.’ This fragment has been dated prior to 150 B.C. Another sectarian document from the caves uses the imagery of Daniel to describe the final conflict between good and evil.

An honest scholar would accept the clear evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the modern scholars cannot accept it. They literally are unable to believe their own eyes because to do so would be to accept the supernatural source of the Bible.

This is not just occurring in secular universities. Well known professors in our own Christian colleges are now writing books in which they suggest that the Bible is full of factual errors.

The Book of Ezekiel Supports the Early Date View

In and 14:20, Daniel is listed with Noah and Job as an example of righteousness. says ‘Behold, you are wiser than Daniel.’ The representation of Daniel as righteous and wise fits perfectly with his description in the book of Daniel.

Critics say that Ezekiel was not referring to Daniel but to Dan’el – a famous character from Ugaritic mythology. Does it seem reasonable to believe that a pious Jew would refer to a legendary pagan figure as an example of wisdom and righteousness?

Dan’el was an idol worshipper who offered blood sacrifices to Baal for weeks at a time. He was a vengeful drunkard who convinced his daughter to commit murder.

But Daniel was a contemporary of Ezekiel. This seems even more natural since then Ezekiel would use ancient and current examples to show the people that God was still at work among them.

One commentator said that Noah, Job, and Daniel are spaced about 1500 years apart. Thus, Ezekiel may have given an example of righteousness from three different eras.

The First Book of Maccabees Supports the Early Date View

In this book, Mattathias (the father of the Jewish patriot Maccabean brothers) encouraged his sons in their revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes by recalling how Daniel for his innocence was saved from the mouth of lions.

Mattathias died in 166 B.C. – a year before the date that critics say Daniel was written. They say that Mattathias never said this!

Josephus Supports the Early Date View

In his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus relates a story which if true would prove that the book of Daniel existed during the time of Alexander the Great (330 B.C.).

Alexander was angry that the Jews would not give him their allegiance so he went to Jerusalem to punish them. Jewish priests met him and showed him in the book of Daniel how God had said that he would defeat the Persians. This pleased Alexander so much that he spared Jerusalem.

Josephus wrote:

The high priest then showed Alexander the passages in the prophecy of Daniel indicating that a Greek would destroy the empire of the Persians. Alexander, of course, accepted the prophecy as a reference to himself, and declared that God had ordained him to conquer Persia, which he proceeded to do. Furthermore, Alexander not only refused to execute any sanctions against Israel but bestowed upon that nation all kinds of favors and benefits, which was contrary to his usual custom.

History confirms that Alexander marched near Jerusalem on his way to Egypt and that he treated the Jews kindly. How else can we explain why Alexander spared Jerusalem the ravages that he inflicted upon Tyre and Sidon?

The consequence of this story is that it means that Daniel was known long prior to the year 334 B.C. and that even Alexander himself recognized that he was the one Daniel said would destroy the Medo-Persian power.

In addition, Josephus says that the Jewish canon was completed before 424 B.C. and that Daniel was a part of the canon. This was not just his opinion, but was the Jewish national position. He also speaks of many books that were rejected.

What do the critics say about all of this? They reject Josephus whenever he contradicts their naturalistic world view, but they enthusiastically accept him on virtually everything else. (They never give the Bible the benefit of the doubt. It is assumed to be wrong right from the start.)

The Use of a Two–Horned Ram to Symbolize Medo–Persia Supports an Early Date.

After Alexander the Great visited Egypt, he was forever depicted on coins with his head adorned with the ram’s horns of Amen-Ra. A thousand years later, Mohammed called him ‘Alexander, the lord of the two horns.’

One commentator has written:

It is impossible to believe that the writer of Daniel could, in the face of universal attribution of the two ram’s horns to Alexander, represent Persia, the power he overthrew, as a two-horned ram (,) unless he had written before the expedition into Egypt.

If you read an article that compared the Eisenhower administration to the days of Camelot, would you conclude that it had been written before or after the Kennedy administration?

Responses to Late Date Arguments

Why should we respond at all to these arguments?

We should not ignore them (as many in the church are prone to do). If our position is correct, then we certainly have nothing to fear by confronting these opposing positions. Indeed, a failure to confront them might indicate a fear that our own position might not withstand their arguments.

Also, in our outreach to others, we need to be able to answer whatever questions they might have about the book of Daniel.

The Claim That Daniel’s Position in the Jewish Scriptures Implies a Late Date

The Old Testament books in the Hebrew Bible are divided into three sections.

The Law (Books of Moses)

The Prophets (Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 minor prophets)

The Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, DANIEL, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 & 2 Chronicles) - called the Hagiographa (Holy Writings)

Claim of Radical Critics: Since Daniel is not found in the second division (the Prophets) but in the third division (the Writings), it follows that Daniel was a very late addition to the Jewish canon.

It is a mistake to assume that the books in the third division were written later than the books in the second division. In fact, Job, Ruth, Proverbs, and many of the Psalms were written before many of the prophetical books.

Josephus says that no books were added to the canon after 424 B.C. – the death of Artaxerxes.

Jewish tradition says that Malachi was the last inspired book, which would mean that the second division was closed after the third.

The division is not based on the type of book but on the type of writer.

The books in the first section were written by Moses.

Those in the second section were written by men who had the prophetic office as well as the prophetic gift.

Those in the third section were written by those who had the prophetic gift but not the prophetic office – inspired men but not official prophets.

This explains why Ezekiel and Daniel, though contemporaries, are in different divisions.

But what do we mean when we say that Daniel was not officially a prophet?

Daniel does not introduce his book with his name, and he had no official position among the Jewish people.

He did not live among the exiles like Ezekiel did, but he lived at the court of Babylon, and he dealt with heathen kings rather than with the people of Israel.

Although he is called a prophet in the New Testament, that has more to do with his predictions than with any special prophetic office that he held. Note that David is called a prophet in .

One who held the prophetic office served as a spiritual mediator between God and the Israelites. Daniel did not do this.

We can turn this argument around on the radical critics! Why was Daniel added to the canon at all if it was not written until 160 B.C.?

Listen to what R. D. Wilson has to say about this:

Now, the radical critics, without any direct evidence to support them, profess to believe that, into the midst of these sacred writings for which men readily died, a forged document of unknown authorship and (according to the critics) full of easily detected errors … was quietly admitted as a genuine and authentic writing of a prophet hitherto unknown to history. … They cannot believe in miracles and predictive prophecy … but they can believe that a lot of obstreperous and cantankerous Jews who through all their history from Jacob and Esau down to the present time have disagreed and quarreled about almost everything, or nothing, could have accepted, unanimously and without a murmur … a forged and fictitious document, untrue to the well remembered facts of their own experience and to the easily ascertained facts concerning their own past history and the history of the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and Greeks of whom the author writes.

Paul reminds us in that the Jews were entrusted with the very words of God – and they took that responsibility very seriously. (I wish that we took it as seriously today.)

The Claim That Jesus ben Sirach’s Failure to Mention Daniel Implies a Late Date

Jesus ben Sirach wrote Ecclesiasticus between 200 and 170 B.C. At the end of the book, he reviews Israel’s history, mentioning some of the men that God used to lead Israel. Daniel is not on the list.

Further, at one point he states that never had their been born a man like Joseph. (Daniel is similar in many respects to Joseph.)

Daniel and Joseph both were exiles, both showed allegiance to God, both were falsely accused, both were vindicated, both interpreted dreams, both became confidants to the king, and both were given a high government position by the king.

The radical critics claim that this omission supports the late-date view.

Daniel was not the only Old Testament notable that was omitted from this list. Jonah, Mordecai, Ezra, and Job were also left off. (No radical critic uses the omission of Ezra to deny the authenticity of his book.)

One commentator has noted:

It is a remarkable fact that he does not pay any regard to the great men who had exercised their functions outside the bounds of the land of Israel, such as Jonah at Ninevah, Daniel in Babylon, and Mordecai in Persia. In speaking of Abraham, he does not refer to his coming out of Ur of the Chaldees, nor his visit to Egypt. In speaking of Jacob, Joseph, and Aaron, he says nothing of the land of Egypt; nor does he intimate that Moses had ever been in Egypt.

His views might be characterized as Sadducean and nationalistic. When he gives an account of the great men of his nation, he selects … those who had most distinguished themselves according to his ideas of what constituted greatness.

The Claim That Daniel is Mistaken About The Date of Nebuchadnezzar’s Siege of Jerusalem

Such a mistake would indicate a lack of knowledge about the history of the time, and thus would support a late date. But was Daniel mistaken?

states:

1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his god. 3 Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility.

Problems with these verses:

The Babylonian Chronicle makes no reference to an action by Nebuchadnezzar in Judah during the third year of Jehoiakim or to a siege of Jerusalem.

According to , the battle that opened the way for a Babylonian invasion of Judah did not occur until the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign, whereas says that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign.

The questions we need to consider:

When did Nebuchadnezzar arrive at Jerusalem and besiege it?

When did he defeat Jerusalem?

When did he carry away captives and sacred vessels?

II Kings and II Chronicles record three separate occasions when Nebuchadnezzar carried away people and articles from the temple.

and

Jehoiakim gave allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar for three years and then rebelled. Nebuchadnezzar defeats his forces and takes Jehoiakim back in chains along with some items from the temple.

and

Jehoiachin succeeds Jehoiakim and reigns for three months while the servants of Nebuchadnezzar besiege Jerusalem. Again the siege is successful and Jehoiachin and much of the nobility is deported to Babylon.

and

Zedekiah rules for a few years and then rebels against Nebuchadnezzar. In the ninth year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar again besieges Jerusalem, which falls in the eleventh year of his reign (586 B.C.). The city was destroyed and most of the leading men were killed. The others were deported and all articles from the temple were taken.

is a brief summary of these three events and is not intended to provide all of the details.

There are some additional points to consider:

Jerusalem was besieged – not captured.

One critic has written that “Daniel begins with a glaring historical error, for Nebuchadnezzar did not take Jerusalem in the third year of King Jehoiakim.”

But Daniel never states that Jerusalem was captured at the time – only besieged.

In the middle of his Palestinian campaign, Nebuchadnezzar received news of his father’s death. He rushed back to Babylon to assume the throne and apparently abandoned the siege against Jerusalem before he captured the city.

Babylon used a different dating system.

seems to be in conflict with regarding the year of Jehoiakim’s reign when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Palestine.

Jeremiah (writing in Jerusalem) used a different dating system than did Daniel (writing in Babylon).

It was different in two respects - either one of which could explain the seeming discrepancy.

The Babylonian calendar began each year in the spring and the Jewish calendar began each year in autumn. The Babylonian third year thus overlapped the Judean fourth year by about six months.

In Babylon, the year in which a king began to reign was called ‘the year of accession to the kingdom,’ which was followed by the first, second, and subsequent years of his rule. Thus, a Babylonian king’s third year of reign would correspond to the actual fourth year of his reign. Daniel may have used the Babylonian system in verse 1.

If this latter theory is correct it again points to an early date for the book. How could a Jew writing 400 years later know about the Babylonian system of dating?

The Claim That Daniel’s Use of the Term ‘Chaldeans’ Implies a Late Date

The author of Daniel uses the word ‘Chaldeans’ to denote a special class of wise men. However, the word originally had a broader meaning and referred to a particular group of tribes. The late-date proponents claim that only the original meaning was in use during the sixth century.

Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, was a Chaldean. Although ‘Chaldean’ and ‘Babylonian’ are not synonyms, they are sometimes treated that way since many Babylonian rulers were Chaldean. Jeremiah described Nebuchadnezzar’s army as the army of the Chaldeans. The term gradually came to mean a privileged class and then a special class of wise men. The question we must consider is when did this change occur?

The claim that a single word can help date a document is not without merit. For example, if you read an English passage containing the word ‘sputnik’ you would be able to date it after 1957 because it was not until that time that the word passed into the English language. Of course, without this additional knowledge, the word would be of no help at all.

Daniel uses the term “Chaldean” in BOTH ways – which destroys the liberal theory.

In we see the “language of the Chaldeans,” which is clearly an ethnic use of the term.

In , , and 5 we see another use where the term is used to describe master astrologers.

Daniel was aware that “Chaldean” was an ethnic term for the race of Nebuchadnezzar. refers to Belshazzar as the king of the Chaldeans. seems to be an ethnic use of the term despite the poor NIV translation.

Both uses of the term were known when Daniel was written.

Herodotus who wrote The Histories around 450 B.C. implied that the term had been used to denote a class of wise men as far back as the time of Cyrus.

One scholar has written: “It is hard to prove a negative. Our knowledge of the Babylonian literature of the time of Daniel is not so complete that we can safely affirm that ‘Chaldean’ never meant the caste of wise men in his time.”

The Claim of Historical Errors in Daniel Regarding Belshazzar

Daniel states that Belshazzar was king of Babylon. In addition, the book seems to indicate that Belshazzar was the Chaldean last king and that Nebuchadnezzar was his father.

In fact, Nabonidus was the last king and Belshazzar was his son.

QUESTION 1: Why is Nebuchadnezzar called the father of Belshazzar four times in and Belshazzar is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar once in that chapter?

The Hebrew use of “father” and “son” can simply mean “ancestor” and “descendent.” It is possible that a genetic relationship existed between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. If Nabonidus married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar in order to legitimize his rule then his son by her would be the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar.

This view is strengthened by the fact that Nabonidus named one of his sons Nebuchadnezzar.

Also, an earlier king (Neriglissar) is known to have married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar.

A second explanation is that “by ancient usage the term son often referred to a successor in the same office whether or not there was a blood relationship.”

This may have been the usage in .

All the nations shall serve him [Nebuchadnezzar] and his son and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings shall make him their slave.

QUESTION 2: Why does Daniel say that Belshazzar was king of Babylon?

Archaeology has shown that Nabonidus took up residence at Teman in North Arabia and left his son Belshazzar in charge of the northern frontier of the Babylonian empire. Thus, he became the de facto king of Babylon.

One commentator has written:

Belshazzar then, technically occupied a position subordinate to that of Nabonidus. Nevertheless, since he was the man in regal status with whom the Jews had to do, Daniel calls him king. This cannot justly be charged as an inaccuracy.

Further, tablets dating from 543 B.C. have been found that implies that Belshazzar and his father were on equal footing. Daniel apparently knew what he was talking about!

The radical critics argue that Belshazzar’s authority to appoint anyone he pleased as third ruler in the kingdom in indicates that he was an absolute ruler, not a sub-king.

Just the opposite is true, however!

Why did Belshazzar only promise the third and not the second ruler? Because he was the second and his father was the first!

How would a Jew writing 400 years later have known this?

Belshazzar was long thought to have never existed, until his name was found by archaeologists. (Eventually, they will learn not to bet against the Bible!)

Daniel mentions him, as does the apocryphal book of Baruch, which many scholar believe was written in the fourth century B.C. How did the author of Baruch know about Belshazzar if Daniel had not yet been written. This further points to an early date for the book of Daniel.

One modern scholar has written:

We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar, as the excavations have proved, and that Belshazzar was functioning as king when Cyrus took Babylon in 538.

The Claim That Darius the Mede Never Existed

In we read

That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.

One critic has written that “the references to Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel have long been recognized as providing the most serious historical problem in the book.”

The late-date proponents claim that:

The author of Daniel believed that a Median kingdom, under Darius, conquered Babylon and subsequently gave way to the Persian empire under Cyrus. It is known that Babylon fell directly to Cyrus and the Persians.

Darius the Mede never actually existed but was a confused reflection of a later Persian ruler, Darius I (Hystaspes).

The four kingdoms in and are thus Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece.

Five reasons why this view is wrong:

(1) The book of Daniel never claims that Darius was the king of Media but only that he was of Median descent. To say that Napoleon was a Corsican does not mean that Napoleon was the king of Corsica.

(2) The author of Daniel says that Darius and Cyrus had different ancestries (Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Mede), NOT that they ruled separate kingdoms.

(3) says

So they went to the king and spoke to him about his royal decree: “Did you not publish a decree that during the next thirty days anyone who prays to any god or man except to you, O king, would be thrown into the lions' den?” The king answered, “The decree stands – in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.”

If Darius ruled an independent kingdom of Media then why was he subject to the law of the Persians?

(4) Daniel’s interpretation of the handwriting on the wall in chapter 5 indicates that the Persians would be the main element of the empire that succeeded the Babylonians. The author clearly says that Babylon would be conquered not by the Medes alone but by the Medes and the Persians with the Persians playing the greater role.

(5) The vision in chapter 8 depicts a combined Medo-Persian empire as a single ram with two horns. The horn depicting Persia comes up last, but BEFORE the ram sets out to conquer.

Just because the name ‘Darius the Mede’ has not been found in any ancient inscriptions does not mean that he did not exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The critics made similar claims about Belshazzar and Sargon and archaeology later proved them wrong.

Who then was Darius? We will look at three proposed answers.

(1) The author of Daniel was mistaken about the chronology of Persian rulers, and Darius the Mede was actually Darius I, a later ruler of Persia. This view must be rejected for the following reasons:

Daniel calls Darius a Mede, and Darius I was a Persian.

Daniel says that Darius the Mede was 62 when he began to rule. Darius I was in his 20’s when he began to rule.

says that Darius the Mede “was MADE king” implying that he was appointed king over Babylon by some higher authority (Cyrus). Darius I, however, succeeded to the throne after the death of Cambyses.

(2) Darius the Mede was another name for Cyrus the Persian. (Many people hold this view. I’m not sure what its allure is.) This view must be rejected for the following reason.

says that “Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” This seems like an odd statement if the two men were the same person!

(3) Darius the Mede was an early governor of Babylon under Cyrus.

The references to Darius in Daniel do not say that he ruled the Persian empire – only that he took control of the conquered Chaldean empire.

It was a well known practice of Cyrus to appoint Medes to high positions in order to foster goodwill and loyalty.

Critics claim that Darius the Mede had too much authority to have been just a governor. Read .

Then King Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations and men of every language throughout the land: “May you prosper greatly! I issue a decree that in every part of my kingdom people must fear and reverence the God of Daniel. For he is the living God and he endures forever; his kingdom will not be destroyed, his dominion will never end.”

Yet the phrase “throughout the land” simply means all of the land over which he had been given authority. Remember that his land consisted of people from many different countries – such as Daniel and his friends.

Which governor was he? One commentator has written:

Gubaru the Governor of Babylon fits the Biblical description of Darius the Mede so remarkably that the writer believes he will be recognized in due time as the monarch who played such an important role in the life of Daniel and the fall of Babylon. … We believe that this identification is the only one which satisfactorily harmonizes the various lines of evidence which we find in the book of Daniel and in the contemporary cuneiform records.

The Claim That Events in Daniel Are Improbable or Absurd

In we read the account of Nebuchadnezzar’s illness in which he roamed the fields thinking himself to be an ox.

Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like cattle. His body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird.

Critics claim that the sickness of Nebuchadnezzar is too incredible to be true.

Too incredible to be true? These critics need to pull their heads out of their books and watch a little daytime TV. If the talk shows on TV today do nothing else, they prove that nothing is too strange to be true. A man who thinks he is a cow? It wouldn’t even make the first cut on the Sally Jesse Raphael Show.

Not only is it NOT that incredible, but is has a name: boanthropy.

R. K. Harrison speaks of an encounter he had with such a person in a British mental hospital. He ate only vegetation and drank only water. His health was excellent and the only physical abnormality noticed was the length and coarseness of his hair and the thickened condition of his nails.

No Babylonian record has been found that mentions any activity by Nebuchadnezzar during the period 582 to 575.

The Claim That Daniel Violates the Supposed Nature of Biblical Prophecy

This is a classic straw man argument. The critics set up a straw man by defining prophecy and then seek to discredit Daniel because it does not fit their own definition.

One critic has written that “prophecy in the Bible is characterized by an absence of specific predictions. It is forthtelling and not foretelling.” The prophecy in Daniel is primarily of the latter variety.

What about Jesus? He made specific prophecies regarding his death, the manner of his death, the perpetrators of his death, his betrayal, the death of Peter, the denial by Peter, his resurrection, and the destruction of Jerusalem within a generation.

“And now I [Jesus] have told you before it come to pass, that, when it come to pass, you might believe.” ()

What do liberals do with the host of predictions found in both the Old and New Testaments? They usually call in an EDITOR to deal with the problem. That is, they say that someone came along after the book was written and after certain events had occurred and changed the book to make it look like those events had been predicted long ago. (Those magical and convenient late editors solve a variety of problems for the liberals.)

The Claim That the Type of Aramaic Used in Daniel Indicates a Late Date

through 7:28 is in the Aramaic language. (The remainder is in Hebrew.) It has been claimed that the form of Aramaic used was the type used in the 3rd century B.C. and not the type used in the 6th century B.C.

This argument fell apart in 1929 when a farmer discovered what were later called the Ras Shamra tablets inside an underground passage.

The Aramaic in these tablets is similar to that in Daniel and they date back to 1400 B.C.

It is also claimed that the Aramaic in Daniel is a western dialect that was only used in Palestine.

Even if this were true it would not prove that Daniel was written in Palestine. The book was undoubtedly copied many times and the language may have been updated to conform to the common dialect.

However, many scholars dispute the claim that the Aramaic in Daniel is western.

One has asserted that it predates the eastern and western distinction.

Another has written that the Aramaic in Daniel is a form that originated in the courts and governments of the seventh century B.C.

E. J. Young has written that “it is becoming more and more clear that the languages CANNOT be employed as arguments against the antiquity of the book.”

Why were two languages used?

It is NOT unique to Daniel. In the book of Ezra, 4 chapters are written in Aramaic.

Some critics have claimed that there were two authors, but even most of the liberals reject this since the message of the book is clearly woven throughout the entire work.

But part of Daniel is written in the third person. Doesn’t this imply another author? No. It is common to switch between first and third person in the Bible. Even God does it in . (See verses 2 (first person) and 7 (third person).)

One commentator has written:

“Even critical scholars admit that only one author produced Daniel. The identity of the author appears from the unity of the plan, the relation of various parts to each other, the gradation of the oracles from the uncertain to the certain, the remarkable uniformity of ideas, images, forms, symbols, and that even in two languages there is a remarkable similarity of style.”

Why then are two languages used? A much better explanation than two authors is that there were two audiences – which we know was true.

One commentator has written:

The Aramaic chapters deal with matters pertaining to the entire citizenry of the Babylonian and the Persian empires, whereas the other six chapters relate to peculiarly Jewish concerns and God’s special plans for the future of his covenant people.

The Claim That the Type of Hebrew Used in Daniel Points to a Late Date

The Hebrew language underwent a big change around the time of Nehemiah. The critics claim that Daniel’s Hebrew resembles the later type and thus points to a late date for the book.

The Hebrew portion of Daniel contains no Greek words.

Again, this seems very odd if Daniel had been written after nearly 200 years of Greek rule in Palestine.

The political terms in Daniel are largely Persian, which one would expect if the book had been written during the reign of Cyrus.

The Hebrew used in the Dead Sea Scroll sectarian documents does NOT resemble the Hebrew used in Daniel, which seems odd if they were written at about the same time.

One of the most radical critics has written that “from the Hebrew of the Book of Daniel no important inference as to its date can be safely drawn.”

The Claim That the Use of Persian Words in Daniel Indicates a Late date

Present in the Hebrew and especially in the Aramaic parts of Daniel are several words of Persian origin.

The radical critics assert that the Persian language did not penetrate the Aramaic of Babylon until long after Cyrus’ conquest.

The Persian term ‘satrap’ is used throughout Daniel as if it were a Babylonian title. The critics say that such usage points to a much later date.

It is possible that the term had become a Babylonian title due to the Persian influence that already existed.

Also, if Daniel wrote the book after the fall of Babylon then he might have substituted Persian terms in place of the older Babylonian terms.

Again, this argument can be turned against the late-date crowd.

The first Greek translations of Daniel appeared around 100 B.C. (Septua¬gint and Theodotian)

Many of the Persian words in these translations were MISTRANSLATED, which seems odd if the book had been written only 65 years earlier.

Clearly, the words had been forgotten or had changed meaning since the time when Daniel was written, which points to an early date for the book.

The Claim That the Use of Greek Words in Daniel Indicates a Late Date

(in the Aramaic section) contains three words of Greek origin, all are musical terms.

It is claimed that such words could only have been used after Greek influence had spread throughout Asia after the conquest by Alexander the Great – again indicating a late date.

How much cultural spread does it require to learn three new words? If the book had been written 400 years later, then wouldn’t we expect to find many Greek words instead of only two?

There are 20 Persian words and three Greek words in Daniel. Does this make sense if Daniel had been written during the Greek empire and long after the Persian empire? (By 170 B.C., a Greek speaking government had controlled Palestine for 160 years.)

One author has said “It is the fewness of the Greek words, coupled with the fact that they are only the names of musical instruments, that must prove fatal to the critics’ theory that the book was written in 165 B.C.”

Anyway, experts now agree that Greek culture had penetrated the Near East long before the Neo-Babylonian period. The terms may have been introduced by Greek traders before the rise of the Persian empire.

The Elephantine papyri is a fifth century Aramaic document that contains a number of Greek words.

It is significant that the terms are all musical terms. Such terms are frequently borrowed when the instruments they describe become known.

To Summarize Our Position

The book of Daniel was written by Daniel in Babylon during the late sixth century B.C. That means that the prophecies it contains are genuine and accurate, and further they are proof of the Bible’s inspiration. The late date theory is only promoted by those who deny the inspiration of scripture, and we have shown that their arguments are specious.