by Daniel H. King, Sr.

© Guardian of Truth Foundation 2012. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America.

ISBN 10: 1-58427-343-7

ISBN 13: 978-1-58427-343-1

Front Cover Photo is of the magnificent ruins of the ancient city of Persepolis at sunset. They lie at the foot of Kuh-i-Rahmat or “Mountain of Mercy,” in the plain of Marv Dahsht about 400 miles south of the modern city of Teheran in Iran. The exact date of its founding is uncertain, although it is assumed that Darius I began work on the platform and its structures ca. 518-516 B.C., visualizing it as a show place and the seat of his vast Achaeme-nian Empire. An excavated foundation inscription reads: “And Ahuramazda was of such a mind, together with all of the other gods, that this fortress (should) be built. And (so) I built it. And I built it secure and beautiful and adequate, just as I was intending to” (see Erich F. Schmidt, Persepolis I: Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions, OIP 68 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 63.

Guardian of Truth FoundationC E I Bookstore

220 South MarionAthens, AL 35611

CEIbooks.com1-855-49-BOOKS or 1-855-492-6657

Table of Contents

Page

Lesson 1: Introduction to the Book of Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Lesson 2: Modern Challenges to the Authenticity and Integrity of Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Lesson 3: Introduction of Daniel and His Friends to the Babylonian Court (1:1-21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Lesson 4: Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream of the Statue and Its Interpretation (2:1-49) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Lesson 5: The Golden Image and the Fiery Furnace (3:1-30) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Lesson 6: Nebuchadnezzar’s Second Dream and His Madness (4:1-37) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Lesson 7: Belshazzar’s Great Feast and the Writing on the Wall (5:1-31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Lesson 8: Daniel in the Lion’s Den (6:1-28) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Lesson 9: A Dream and Three Visions: God’s Prophetic Plan for the Nations and His People (7:1-12:13) . . . . . 56

Lesson 10: The Vision of the Ram and the He-Goat (8:1-27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Lesson 11: Daniel’s Prophecy of Seventy Weeks of Years (9:1-27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Lesson 12: The Final Vision: A Prophetic Panorama (10:1-11:39) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Lesson 13: The End of the Period of Tribulation (11:40-12:13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Introduction to the Book of Daniel 5

1Le

ss

on

The Name DanielThe book of Daniel is given this

designation on account of its princi-pal character Dani’ēl. The specific verbal root from which it is derived is dîn, “to judge,” and the word in Hebrew means “God is my judge” or “My judge is God.” The name itself has been discovered in the literature of several other ancient languages: Akkadian, Sabaean, Palmyrene, Nabataean, and Canaan-ite Ugaritic. In the Bible this name is bestowed upon at least three and perhaps four persons. The first was the second son of King David (1 Chron. 3:1).

The second figure was a de-scendant of Ithamar, a priest who accompanied Ezra from Babylon (Ezra 8:2) and subsequently became a signatory to the covenant with the Lord in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 10:1, 6). It is worth mentioning that the other three names of the Jewish heroes from the book of Daniel are present during this same era (Hana-niah in Neh. 10:23; Mishael in Neh. 8:4; and Azariah in Neh. 10:2), so it is obvious that these are names which belong to that historic period of Israel’s life as a nation.

The third fellow was a man of extraordinary wisdom and right-eousness whose name is associated with Noah and Job (Ezek. 14:14, 20; 28:3). Some students have pointed out that the other two men men-tioned in these passages were from the far distant past, and that Daniel is named as if he appeared in the period between the other two, so that if this is the Daniel of the Book of Daniel, then he would have been a contemporary mentioned in the same breath with very ancient personages and his being named between the other two would have no signifi-cance at all other than to classify him (a fellow Jewish exile) as worthy of being in their storied company.

This has led some to conclude that this particular fellow must also have heralded from the far distant past, even though there is no men-tion in Scripture of anyone by this name from very ancient times who belongs in the company of such worthies as Noah and Job. It must be remembered, however, that it is the wisdom and righteousness of the persons mentioned which is emphasized in these contexts rather than the time when they lived. That is the thing which is often ignored by expositors in their approach to these texts. In our view this is the singular consideration that turns us toward the view that this Daniel mentioned in Ezekiel is our Daniel from the book which bears his name.

The main charac-ter of the Book of Daniel is much more likely the individual alluded to in the references found in Eze-kiel (Dan. 2:1). His sagacity had become proverbial in Babylon by 603 B.C. He is the principal biblical personage to have this name. Daniel was the fourth of the so-called “greater” prophets, of whose early career practically nothing at all is known except for what we are told in the book which bears his name.

According to Josephus (Antiqui-ties of the Jews 10.188) he was an Israelite of royal or at least of noble descent. He was carried captive to Babylon by King Nebuchadnezzar in the third year of Judah’s King Jehoiakim.

Along with various companions he was trained for royal service in the academy at the palace of the king in that legendary city. Subse-quently he was given the Babylo-

nian name Belteshazzar. Eventu-ally he gained a reputation as an interpreter of visions and dreams (Dan. 2-5) and later he predicted the future of the nation of Israel and the eventual triumph of God’s Messianic kingdom (Dan. 7-12). He successfully occupied leading governmental posts under Nebu-chadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, and recorded his final vision in the third year of King Cyrus of Persia.

Introduction to the Book of Daniel

Daniel successfully occupied leading governmental posts under Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, and recorded his final vision in the third year of King Cyrus of Persia.

The Book of Daniel6

Authorship and DateThe question about author-

ship and date are inextricably tied together in the case of the book of Daniel. Why this is so will become patently obvious as we explore the various issues associated with both questions. As we thread our way through the maze of topics related to both the question of who wrote the book and when it was first set down in writing, two distinctively different approaches will become immedi-ately and conspicuously obvious.

The first is the traditional view, held by both church and synagogue relatively unchallenged for almost two thousand years, and the sec-ond is the historical-critical theory which has its ultimate roots in anti-Christian bias and is a relative newcomer to the scene of biblical studies. We shall attempt in the fol-lowing pages to give the strengths and weaknesses of both points of view, while endeavoring to set forth a modest defense of the traditional view in language that will, hope-fully, be understandable to the audience for which this workbook is being written.

A. The Traditional View: Daniel the Prophet Wrote the Book in the Fifth Century B.C.

Ancient Jewish tradition informs us that “the men of the Great Synagogue wrote . . . Dan-iel” (Baba Bathra 15a). The “Great Synagogue” (keneseth hagedolah), according to the references made to it in the Talmud, was that legislative body which was brought into being by Nehemiah immediately after the return from the Babylonian exile. It persisted during the first generation of the Second Temple period. The members of the Great Synagogue, or Grand Assembly, were the spiri-tual heirs of the prophets, receiv-ing from previous generations of

holy men the sacred Torah: “Moses received the Torah at Sinai, and handed it down to Joshua; Joshua gave it to the elders, the elders to the prophets, and the prophets hand-ed it down to the Men of the Great Synagogue” (Aboth 1:1).

Its existence, a matter of con-jecture only, is predicated upon the narrative found in Nehemiah 8-9 and is often numbered at 85 mem-bers (cf. Neh. 10:2-28). Among the other duties ascribed to them in the literature are certain edito-rial processes whereby the ancient biblical books were brought to their final form and meticulously copied for preservation and enjoyment by future generations.

By this statement in the Talmud, the Jews did not intend to deny that the prophet Daniel was the author of the book which bears his name. In fact, it is the universal testimony of both Jewish and Christian tradition that Daniel himself, living at the royal court of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and the later Medo-Persian Empire, composed his book during the sixth century B.C.

Jesus of Nazareth quoted the book of Daniel, citing either Daniel 9:27 or 12:11 or else both

of them together, and saying that “the abomination of desolation was spoken of by Daniel the prophet” (cf. Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14). The Lord did not allude to this special designation as being from “the book of Daniel,” but instead says that it “was spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” This particular citation is especially important, since the later critics who have assigned the latter portion of the book of Daniel to the Maccabean Age are frustrated by the undeniable fact that Jesus Christ certainly regarded at least this segment of the work as having its origin from the hand of Daniel himself.

The earliest known copies of the book of Daniel were found among the manuscripts of Qumran: 1QDan(a) sometimes designated 4Q112 is dated at ca. 50 B.C., and 4Qdan(c) or 4Q114 is dated to the late second century B.C. (sections from chapters 10-11, within fifty years or so of the date sometimes assigned to these chapters by many critical scholars!). Trivial objec-tions were at first lodged against the canonical status of Daniel at Qumran, but after the full text of 4Q Florilegium (4Q174) was shown to contain a quotation of Daniel 12:10 and 11:32, said to be “written in the book of Daniel the prophet” (cf. Matt. 24:15), all doubt about the canonical status of Daniel at Qum-ran came to an abrupt and conclu-sive end. As J. Baldwin has noted, “Manuscript evidence is disturbing (to the late date view) because it leaves too little time between a mid-second-century autograph and the acceptance of the book as canoni-cal” (Tyndale OT Commentaries: Daniel, 46).

B. The Historical-Critical View: A Pious Fraud Written in the Sec-ond Century B.C. under the Name of Daniel the Prophet.

Jesus quoted the book of Daniel, citing either Daniel 9:27 or 12:11 or else both of them together, saying that “the abomination of desolation was spoken of by Daniel the prophet” (cf. Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14).

Introduction to the Book of Daniel 7

One of the first figures to ques-tion the validity of the traditional view of the date and authorship of the book of Daniel was a Neopla-tonist philosopher named Porphyry, born in the city of Tyre in Phoeni-cia, who lived in the third century (ca. A.D. 234-305). He was a very prolific writer on a wide variety of subjects. In fact, Porphyry wrote in almost every branch of study pur-sued by serious thinkers of his day, but very little of what he wrote has survived to our own time.

During a period of residence in Sicily he composed a fifteen-volume work entitled Against the Christians, in which he endeavored to refute the leading tenets of Chris-tianity. His disapproving and dam-aging opus was ordered suppressed by the Emperor Constantine, but nevertheless it survived to the point where Theodosius II commanded it to be finally destroyed in A.D. 448.

The composition is no longer extant in its entirety, but portions of the twelfth volume, in which Porphyry inveighed against the Old Testament book of Daniel, were preserved in the commentary on Daniel written by the Christian scholar Jerome. On the ground that the later chapters of the book de-picted the events of the Maccabean age so accurately, Porphyry denied a sixth-century B.C. date for the book, and instead assigned it to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. On account of his philosophical predi-lections, he commenced his reason-ing from the a priori assumption that there could be no predictive element in prophecy, so that he con-cluded that the work could only be historical in nature, and therefore of a late date. This formidable heathen antagonist of the Christian faith maintained that the author of Daniel had lied in order to revive the hopes

of contemporary Jews in the midst of their adversaries.

It must be recalled that this original assault upon the traditional authorship and date of the book of Daniel came from the hand of an avowed enemy of Christian-ity. Moreover, his perspective was decidedly anti-supernaturalistic, especially as regards predictive prophecy. To his mind Daniel was primarily a history written after the fact rather than a prophecy of future events. Porphyry found particularly offensive the prophetic value which Christians placed on Daniel with respect to the coming of Christ. Later orthodox Christians respond-ed vigorously to the attack on the historicity of the book. Eusebius wrote three books defending the traditional view of Daniel, Apolli-narius penned one book in defense, and Jerome, as we have just noted, authored a commentary responding briefly to his position.

By and large, though, the majority of modern scholarship has accepted the thesis of the anti-Chris-tian protagonist Porphyry on both of his two main points of contention. It is one of the most intriguing exam-ples of self-justification that we can think of, that in spite of this obvious contradiction of traditional Christian orthodoxy many of these scholars still claim a “Christian” identity and perspective even though they have in every way that matters allied themselves with an anti-Christian assault upon the genuineness and integrity of the Bible.

Use of Two Languages in Daniel

The first and last sections of the work (1:1-2:4a and 8:1-12:13) are written in Hebrew, whereas the middle section (2:4b-7:28) is writ-ten in Aramaic. Aramaic is a sister language (cognate) to Hebrew. They

have many things in common, but not everything. The situation in the book of Daniel with its two lan-guages, namely Hebrew-Aramaic-Hebrew (from the viewpoint of formal structure, it is A:B:A), is like that of the book of Ezra.

The change of language in Daniel is best explained in the recognition that the opening of the document (1:1-2:4a) and its second part (chapters 8-12) correspond to the fundamental structures of the book. The Aramaic begins at the point where the foreign language newly learned by Daniel was used by the Babylonian wise men in their speech to the king of Babylon. Moreover, the Aramaic stops when the focus moves away from the political and religious interests of 2:4b-7:28 to give way to primarily religious concerns (chapters 8-12). In addition to the A:B:A pattern in the over-all structure, there is clear literary arrangement, or symmetry, in the Aramaic part of the book.

Purpose and Important Religious Ideas of the Work

Like most other biblical books, Daniel is multifaceted in its purpose and theology. Unlike some others, though, it does not anywhere ex-plicitly state its purpose in so many words. The book must be read care-fully and analyzed thoughtfully in

The first and last sections of Daniel (1:1-2:4a and 8:1-12:13) are written in Hebrew, whereas the middle section (2:4b-7:28) is written in Aramaic.

The Book of Daniel8

order to determine its purpose. It is simplistic to suggest a single over-arching theme to the book when it is clear that there are several majes-tic truths which the author is intent upon setting before his readership.

In the following paragraphs we intend to summarize what we con-sider to be the major points which Daniel emphasizes. These, however, are not meant to provide an exhaus-tive treatment of the complexities of this writer’s emphasis or strategy. Every chapter in fact has its own unique set of minor points to make, and it is not our intention to attempt to exhaust the thematic content of all 12 chapters.

A. Daniel Stresses the Providen-tial Working of God in History dur-ing the Dark Days of the Captivity

In that dark hour of Israel’s defeat and captivity, with the tragic destruction of the once glorious city of David, Jerusalem, and its formerly majestic Temple, there was a desper-ate need for a clear and forceful voice that would testify to the ongo-ing might and providential power of God in the lives of the people. Clearly this was one of the major purposes of the book of Daniel. It is obviously not the plan of the book to give a detailed account of Daniel’s life, as interesting as it may have been, for important details such as his lineage, age, and even the time or circumstances of his death are not mentioned at all in the book.

Only scattered incidents in his long life are recounted on the pages of the work. Little is said to add to what we already know about the history of Israel or the lot of the unfortunate Jewish captives in Babylon. The book of Daniel, like Esther, reveals the particulars of God’s continuing work among and on behalf of His people Israel even during the most dishearten-

ing hours of her chastening for her numerous sins. In this framework, the tremendous revelation concern-ing the times of the Gentiles and the program of God for His people’s future was unfolded.

B. Daniel Seeks to Show the Superiority of the God of Israel over the Idol gods of the Heathen Nations.

Since Israel’s capital city lay in ruins and her holy temple had been destroyed by pagan enemies, some of the less faithful among the Jews may have been tempted to entertain the notion that the gods of their heathen conquerors were greater and more powerful than Israel’s God. After all, Babylon was victorious, alive with music and dance, and Bel and Merodach and the host of other deities revered there were exalted, and their beloved Jerusalem sat a smoldering pile of blackened rubble.

The treasures and sacred ob-jects from the Temple of the Lord sat gathering dust in the treasuries of Babylonian temples dedicated to their gods of gold and silver. More-over, Israel’s God seemed not to have the power to resist the mighty forces of the seemingly invincible Babylonian conquerors. In the face of all this the book of Daniel nar-rates the stories of Daniel and his friends which set forth in easily dis-cernable language the clear lesson that Israel’s God is superior to the idol gods of Babylon and Persia.

Too, it sets forth a view of world history which reveals the coming kingdom of God and how all of the mighty kingdoms of this world eventually will be crushed in its wake. All of these foreign world powers had been used by the Al-mighty as his instruments to bring judgment upon unfaithful Israel. Nevertheless, as Daniel explains, with the passing of time these great

nations will also disappear from the earth. But Israel has a splendid future ahead of her. So, the sover-eignty of God is taught not only in the sense that He is sovereign over His people, but also in that He is so in terms of the mighty kingdoms of the world and the gods of gold and silver which they so ardently revere.

C. Daniel Teaches the Sover-eignty of God Over All Potential Enemies, Tragedies, and Circum-stances.

God’s demoralized and broken people needed reassurance regarding His ultimate sovereignty during their darkest hours of humiliation and conquest. The book of Daniel ac-complishes this feat in both aspects of its presentation, the narratives of the first six chapters and the visions of the final six. Three main themes are set forth in the court stories with regard to God’s sovereignty.

First, God is presented as the one who reveals what is otherwise unknown: this begins at 1:17 and continues in chapters 2, 4 and 5. Daniel’s prayer and thanksgiv-ing on the first of these occasions (2:18-23) should be viewed as paradigmatic of them all. The point they are trying to make is that God knows and maintains control during the course of human events, and He has the power to reveal them to His prophet when He wishes to do so.

Second, God’s sovereignty means He is able to act on behalf of His faithful people and save them from danger or death. This is the message of chapter 1, but is especially prominent in chapters 3 and 6, both of which involve God sending His angel to protect His faithful servants. The divine ability to intervene and overrule in hu-man affairs is the concluding note in both of these chapters (3:28-29; 6:25-27).

Introduction to the Book of Daniel 9

Third, God’s sovereignty is seen in His dealings with secular rulers. Nebuchadnezzar is humbled because of his pride until he ac-knowledges God’s sovereignty (4:25, 34-37). Removal of Belshaz-zar, who failed to learn from the lessons of Nebuchadnezzar, rein-forces this message in the strongest possible way. There is also repeated reference through the Aramaic sec-tion to God’s everlasting kingdom in comparison with the transience of earthly kingdoms (2:44; 4:3-34; 6:26; 7:14).

In addition, the use of particular names for God in this section stress the fact that He is the sovereign Lord of all the earth and not only the covenant God of Israel: God in heaven, God of heaven, King of heaven, Lord of heaven, God of gods, Lord of lords, great God, living God, and Most High. Each of these titles looks beyond the borders of Israel’s native land and extends even to the farthest reaches of Babylonian hegemony.

In the visions of the latter chapters this same sovereignty is emphasized and exploited at every turn. Here God’s control is seen in His ability to predict the future, and the correlative assumption that He is in command throughout the onward movement of the various historical processes.

D. Daniel Attempts to Provide a Survey, Part Historical and Part Prophetic, of the Whole Period of Gentile Imperial Rule from Ne-buchadnezzar’s First Assault on Jerusalem and the Abolition of the Davidic King until the Setting up of the Messianic Kingdom.

In spite of the common allega-tion to the contrary, here there is no narrow concentration on the few years of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ persecution of the Jews, nor even

exclusive attention to the end time as some other interpreter’s have alleged. Instead, the book encom-passes the whole of history from a divine perspective.

Beginning with Daniel’s own day history moves steadily and selectively toward the inevitable establishment of the kingdom of God when all peoples, nations, and languages will render Him undi-vided worship, and His saints will receive and possess the kingdom for ever and ever. Daniel is certain that absolutely nothing can hinder God’s ultimate purpose toward this eventual dramatic end.

In spite of all appearances, man is left neither to the fortuitous whims of his fellows nor to the acci-dental forces of nature. God as He is depicted in Daniel is not an absent, unpredictable landlord of the hoary past or distant future; rather, He is Lord of present history. The be-liever can rest assured therefore that God is in control of life today. The fortunes of God’s people during the exile are set forth as a virtual foil for the experiences of the saints during the period of the history of Gentile dominion over them.

The future, as with the past, will not be particularly pleasant or easy. Suffering, persecution, and decima-tion in the now will be the lot of the

faithful as much as deliverance and vindication in the end.

A lofty view of God is pre-sented in Daniel. He is unequaled in wisdom, power, and mercy. His knowledge extends over the past, present, and future. No fiery furnace or lion’s den, no human arrogance, no historical circumstance, not even death can frustrate His eternal purpose.

At the end of the day God will have His say and eventually will have His way. He will rout His enemies and reward His faithful people.

The Significance of DanielThe book of Daniel was enor-

mously popular and very influen-tial in all three sectors of the New Testament literature. It is clear that Jesus, Paul, and John had read from Daniel and were making direct, if not in some cases indirect, adver-tences to the very words of the book of Daniel. In this way they estab-lished beyond all doubt the fact that they believed Daniel was to be regarded as canonical Scripture.

Moreover, in their thinking the prophecies of Daniel were to be viewed as inspired of God and prof-itable in aiding human understand-ing regarding certain eschatologi-cal concepts and principles. What those concepts and principles may

In spite of all appearances, man is left neither to the fortuitous whims of his fellows nor to the accidental forces of nature. God as He is depicted in Daniel is not an absent, unpredictable landlord of the hoary past or distant future; rather, He is Lord of present history.

The Book of Daniel10

have been are certainly debated by different writers in our own time, depending upon their particular viewpoint concerning the eschaton (end of the age) and the timing and circumstances of its arrival, but these two points are wholeheartedly agreed upon by all evangelical and conservative biblical scholars.

Questions1. What is the meaning of the name Daniel? ______________________________________________________

2. What are some of the facts of the life of this fellow named Daniel? _________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

3. Summarize the traditional view of the authorship and date of the book of Daniel. ______________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

4. Summarize the late date view of Daniel. _______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

5. What is meant by the idea of the book being a “pious fraud”? ______________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

What are some problems intrinsic to this view? _________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Is it possible for a believer to hold this view and maintain a right relation with the Lord? Explain your conclu-sion. ___________________________________________________________________________________

6. What are the two languages of the book of Daniel?

a. _____________________________________________________________________________________

b. _____________________________________________________________________________________

7. What is the explanation for the use of two different languages in the work? ___________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

8. How is the idea of the providence of God important in the book? ___________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction to the Book of Daniel 11

9. Why is Daniel associated with the concept of the superiority of the God of Israel over the idol gods of the heathen? ________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

What are some illustrations of this idea found within the book? ____________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

10. In what way is the sovereignty of God over tribulation and persecution stressed in Daniel? _______________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

11. Gentile rule over the Jews during their captivity was a harsh historical reality. How does the book of Daniel treat this subject? _________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

12. Was the book of Daniel important to the writers of the New Testament? _____________ Did Jesus quote from Daniel? _____________ Offer some examples that prove the significance of Daniel for the literature of the New Testament. __________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

This Babylonian tablet tells of the destruction of Jerusalem and capture of Jehoiakim.

The Book of Daniel12

2Le

ss

on

No document in all of Sacred Scripture has been so virulently and vociferously assaulted at almost every turn and from almost every vantage point like the book of Daniel. Nearly every historical statement found within it has been challenged on some count or other. Many of the most respected bibli-cal scholars of our time consider it to be a mere “pious fraud” written by a later pretender to the prophet-ic office.

Ironically, at the same time we have become the beneficiaries of a veritable treasure-trove of important archaeological and literary evidence from various cultures and a host of cultural and temporal settings that have been supportive of the book as it is found in the canon of Holy Scripture. Nevertheless, most of this information is either ignored alto-gether or else downplayed by those eager to contest the authenticity and integrity of the book. Its miracles offend their anti-supernaturalistic bias and its prophetic forecasts are an affront to their utter faithlessness and consequent denial of predictive prophecy.

The following are some of the areas of dispute raised by the com-mitted enemies of Daniel’s veracity. In each instance it will be observed that there is a thoroughly believable alternative to the view espoused by

those who have objected to various elements of the book.

A. Some Modern Writers Claim that Pseudepigraphy (Writing under an Assumed or False Name) Is A Vi-able Option in Our Approach to the Daniel Literature. In Other Words, as They See It, The Historical Daniel Did Not Write the Book That Bears His Name, nor Did He Play Any Part at All in Its Production.

The earliest indisputable evidence for document forgery and publication under a false name comes from the third century B.C. That century saw the foundation of the phenomenal Museum of Alex-andria by Ptolemy Philadelphus (283-247 B.C.), to be followed in the next by the equally illustri-ous one at Pergamum, founded by Eumenes II (197-159 B.C.). These great centers of academic learning created a tremendous demand for literary works by famous authors so that it also had the unintended consequence of creating an inevi-

table but unfortunate industry of hoax and counterfeit. It became a lucrative occupation to write what appeared to be ancient works and pass them off as genuine.

When the kings of Egypt and of Pergamum sought to outdo each other in their efforts to increase the holdings in their respective libraries, literary forgeries began to multiply at a rapid pace. Accord-ing to Galen of Pergamum (A.D. 129-200), monetary rewards were offered to those who would provide a copy of some ancient author, and, in consequence, many shoddy and a very few skillful imitations of ancient works were composed and palmed off to the public as genu-ine. The condemnation implied by Galen, who himself suffered from fraudulent imitators, is obvious. Even in his own time, forgeries and unscrupulous editions of his work were a problem, prompting him

to write a document titled, On His Own Books.

A state of almost utter confu-sion was the regrettable result of this malevolent practice. Over the years many different titles appeared for the same treatises. Forgeries in Latin, Arabic, or Greek continued to be accepted as genuine till the Renaissance. Consequently research on Galen’s work into our own time is fraught with implicit hazard.

Two of the earliest forgeries in Greek history, “perpetrated in the interests of securing greater

Modern Challenges to the Authenticity and Integrity of Daniel

No document in all of Sacred Scripture has been so virulently and vociferously assaulted at almost every turn and from almost every vantage point like the book of Daniel.

Modern Challenges to the Authenticity and Integrity of Daniel 13

credence for certain doctrines and claims,” date from the sixth century B.C. and concern interpolations into Homer’s Illiad and the Oracles of Mutaeus. Both were detected and one of the offenders was identified and banished from Athens. This evidence is important, because it demonstrates that for one to inter-polate additions into an ancient text with an ulterior motive, even if that motive was considered by him to be beneficial or corrective, was not only not tolerated in Greece in the sixth century B.C. but was regarded as a serious crime.

Furthermore, it is significant that within the period covered by the Old Testament no example has so far come to light of a spurious document which was recognized as such and approved or cherished as an authoritative book, and, on the evidence just cited, there was certainly opposition to the inter-polation of new material into a traditional text.

Writing under an assumed, and therefore false, name was not an ac-cepted practice in the ancient world. It was considered forgery, pure and simple. Those who make this insulting allegation regarding the book of Daniel are doing so in spite of the evidence from the historical sources, not on account of it.

B. Some Authors Allege that “After the Fact” Prophecy Is Pres-ent in the Daniel Literature. Thus, Daniel Was Not Written by the His-torical Daniel or During the Time Period Claimed for It in the Book.

Along with the question of pi-ous forgery there is also the impor-tant and obviously associated issue of “prophecy after the fact.” Criti-cal scholars are all but unanimous in judging that chapters 7-12, in which Daniel purports to write in the first person, were written under

a pen name by someone besides the Daniel of history. The ground of such certainty is in the last analy-sis the content of those chapters which seem to foretell future stages of world history, and in particular chapter 11.

These disclosures of the future are regularly classified as examples of history written up as if it con-stituted a genuine prophecy, and evidence in other ancient literatures is frequently adduced as parallel and therefore corroboration for the existence of this phenomenon, even though in point of fact there are no comparable examples of genuine “after the fact” prophecy in the literature of the ancient world.

The high moral stance of the biblical writers militates against any

such presumption on their part and begs for real proof from Scripture rather than from pagan authors to establish a firm basis for the asser-tion that the author of the Daniel literature wrote after the time of these prophecies.

A powerful body of evidence exists within the Dead Sea Scroll materials, which obviously holds the book of Daniel in the highest regard in spite of the fact that ac-cording to many modern writers it was put to paper only a few short decades before the Scrolls them-selves! Were the covenanters of Qumran so naïve that they were in-tellectually captivated by this book and held it in such high esteem that

they included it as part of the sacred canon of Scripture even though they did so in the absence of any ancient tradition to attest its genuineness and when in fact the writer practi-cally lived in their own time!

This scenario stretches the bounds of credulity for those of us who take such matters seriously. The real reason for the skeptic’s willingness to accept this recon-struction of events is that they find it utterly incredible that God might be able to use such men as Daniel to predict future happenings with great precision. Thus, faithlessness is the real culprit in their biased analysis and skepticism is the actual reason for their persistent disparagement of the Daniel materials as historically valuable.

C. It is Alleged by Many Scholars that the Book of Daniel is Rife with Historical Inaccuracies. According to their Reconstruction of Events, a Second Century Author Wrote the Document in the Context of his own Age and Thus Clumsily Stumbled over the Facts of Real History Repeatedly.

(1) Such allegations take many different forms. For example, it is argued that the rulers portrayed in Daniel are actually picture portraits of Antiochus IV Epiphanes from the writer’s time rather than having historical roots in the earlier periods in which these leaders supposedly appeared.

Critical scholars are all but unanimous in judging that chapters 7-12, in which Daniel purports to write in the first person, were written under a pen name by someone besides the Daniel of history.

The Book of Daniel14

The historical Antiochus Epiphanes was quite unlike the Nebuchadnezzar and the Darius described in the book of Daniel. Yet on the assumption that the second-century view is correct these figures ought to reflect the character of the great persecutor Antiochus. Ac-cording to the Maccabean theory of its origin the book is all about him, from beginning to ending. Without question Nebuchadnezzar and Darius are the chief characters representational of government op-pression of the pious Jew, and yet neither one of them fits in well with the picture of Antiochus which his-tory provides for us.

Whereas Antiochus deliber-ately attempted to root out the Jewish religion, and went after it ferociously at its epicenter in Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar and Darius are described in Daniel as having persecuted faithful Jews only inadvertently. In addition, both of these men as they are described in the book underwent a moral and mental “conversion” of sorts after they discovered their mistakes (see chapters 2, 3, and 6). How can this be understood to square with the facts of the history of Antiochus and his age?

(2) How may we explain the acceptance of Daniel into the list of inspired works of the ancient Hebrew prophets if it was a second century production by an unknown forger? Most often it is assumed by critical scholars that the list of inspired and therefore authoritative works was still an open question for at least two hundred years after the Maccabean era. This is a supposi-tion that begs for convincing proof. It would be indeed a surprise to find an allegedly fraudulent work being accepted as Holy Scripture at all; it would be startling if it were accepted as Scripture as soon as it

appeared, when everyone would at least have realized its novelty! Yet this far-fetched reconstruction of events is precisely what we are ex-pected to believe if we are to accept the negative critic’s reconstruction of events.

(3) The theory of a late Daniel creates quite a number of unaccept-able conflicts. For example, in point of fact it is impossible to squeeze 490 years (Dan. 9:24-27) between the decree of Cyrus (538 B.C.) and the Maccabean period, ca. 170 B.C. Traditional Messianic interpreters of Daniel like the present writer ar-

gue that if the decree of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7 (458 B.C.) is the starting point intended by the prophecy, and this is highly probable, then this prognostication gives a fairly accu-rate date for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (ca. A.D. 32).

Another view of the number 490, though, sees it only as a sym-bolic number, equal to ten jubilees (Lev. 25). Either way, if the material saw its beginning in the Maccabean age, there is no way to reconcile the number with historical realities. The 490 years reflected in the text thus lead us nowhere and to nothing in particular. Why then would such a fanciful number appear in the mate-rial at all?

(4) If Daniel was written in the late sixth century, as it claims for itself, then it was “inherently canonical” from the very time it was composed, as was true with the remainder of the books of the Bible. It would therefore have achieved recognition as such by the Jew-ish people as the inspired Word of God very soon after its publication. On account of its unique content it would have found a ready reception among the exiles who returned to Judea under Zerubbabel because it had the force of encouraging them to trust in God’s continuing provi-dence on their behalf during the considerable discouragements of those early years of re-colonization of the Holy Land and reconstitution of the nation of Israel. Among the Qumran sectarians of the two cen-turies B.C., we have already noted that the Book of Daniel enjoyed a very exalted status. They quoted it often and relied upon it as they eagerly looked for signs of the com-ing Messiah. Much of their end-time expectation was derived from Daniel’s predictions describing the final struggle between the forces of good and evil.

It is impossible for us to be con-vinced that a work which had been written only about fifty years or so earlier by an unknown anonymous author pretending to be a writer from ancient times could have positioned itself in so prestigious a place in the hearts and minds of these Jewish sectarians so readily as the book of Daniel apparently did.

(5) External evidence for a Maccabean date also has been ad-duced by liberal scholars from the absence of the name Daniel from the catalog of famous Israelite heroes (including Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel) in the apocryphal Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira (Sirach or Ecclesiasticus), in chapter 44:1ff.

If Daniel was written in the late sixth century, as it claims for itself, then it was “inherently canonical” from the very time it was composed.

Modern Challenges to the Authenticity and Integrity of Daniel 15

Since this source was in extant form by about 180 B.C., according to their reasoning it implies that the author knew nothing either of Dan-iel or his book.

However, it seems difficult to conceive of such a traditional figure as Daniel being unknown to a second century B.C. Hebrew sage since he is mentioned in Ezekiel and it is almost a “sacred cow” among liberal critics to argue that the Daniel alluded to in the proph-ecies of Ezekiel was an ancient figure already when these refer-ences were made (going back to the Dan’el of the Canaanites’ mythic materials from Ugarit). Once more, liberal critics cannot have it both ways. Either Daniel was an ancient figure from many centuries before, or else he is a construct of the sec-ond century B.C. He is one or the other, but he cannot be both at the same time.

(6) In addition, according to some modern theorists the sagas about Daniel were written and received with enthusiasm by the Jewish populace because they were based upon much older traditional stories which had circulated among the Jews for perhaps several genera-tions.

Once again, the shallowness and erroneous nature of such a posi-tion has been amply demonstrated by the Qumran discoveries, which make it virtually impossible to deny that Daniel was immensely popular during this period – if the number of copies and fragments of the com-position may be taken as furnishing any indication at all of the more general situation.

A proper assessment of the evidence provided by Ecclesiasticus (where the name of Daniel is absent from the list of ancient worthies) should include recognition of the

possibility that Ben Sira deliber-ately excluded Daniel from his list of notables for unknown reasons, as he did also with Job and all of the Judges, except Samuel, as well as Kings Asa and Jehoshaphat, Mor-decai, and even the storied reformer Ezra.

Are we to infer on account of his failure to mention them that Sirach knew nothing of Samson or Deborah? Ecclesiastes is therefore clearly limited in its usefulness as a ground of appeal for estab-lishing the historicity of certain well-known Hebrew personages, if indeed it should ever be employed at all in this manner. It ought also to be noted, though, that there are al-lusions to Daniel and his book in 1 Maccabees (2:59ff.), Baruch (1:15-3:3), and the Sibylline Oracles (III, 397ff.), all of which are generally accepted as at least second century B.C. compositions, and these works certainly attest to the familiarity of the Daniel traditions at that time.

(7) Exponents of the Macca-bean date hypothesis point out that in the traditional text of the Hebrew Old Testament, Daniel was assigned to the category of the Writings (kethubhim) rather than that of the Prophets (nebhi’im). Even though Daniel was included among the Major Prophets by the Old Greek and the other early versions, some detractors argue that the Hebrew scribes could not have considered Daniel to have been a true, accred-ited prophet, or they would have included his book within the Latter Prophets in their canon of inspired books.

Furthermore, say the same critics, the book itself must have been composed after the prophetic canon was pretty well established by the Jewish authorities, i.e. about 200 B.C. So, they conclude that the

document must have been written after 200 B.C. These deductions, however, are wholly unjustified because they are based on a series of unproven and unprovable as-sumptions. If the various prophetic books were truly inspired of God at the time of their writing, they must have been “inherently canoni-cal” from the point at which they were first introduced to the reading public.

The frequent quotations of the earlier prophets by the later ones are clear indications that they were so regarded by the community of faith even as far back as in the pre-exilic period (compare Isa. 44:12-15; 46:7 and Jer. 10:1-16; Isa. 48:6 and Jer. 33:3; Isa. 53:7 and Jer. 11:19; Isa. 66:15 and Jer. 4:13; Isa. 47:8-10 and Zeph. 2:15; Isa. 17:1, 7; 66:20 and Zeph. 3:10). The arbitrary sup-position of a 200 B.C. canonization of these written materials which were no doubt considered sacred from their very inception is totally without documentary proof of any kind and is largely the result of a pattern of biased and circular rea-soning on the part of many modern students of Daniel.

(8) It is quite beyond dispute that the book of Daniel makes reference to a number of historical events and persons which are not otherwise recorded in the ancient historical record. We may presume that that there is a logical reason for this even though we may never be altogether certain what that reason is. There are several possibilities which we might entertain in order to explain this otherwise difficult historical phenomenon.

First, it is possible that the author actually lived through the events so described and therefore had direct knowledge of these veri-ties and recorded them precisely as

The Book of Daniel16

he encountered them, even though a good many of these things were forgotten by later generations and failed to be recorded (for whatever reasons) by the classical historians. Some of these matters may never be independently corroborated by ar-chaeological discovery, even though a few may eventually find some independent verification. This con-stitutes the traditional approach to these matters, and it is entertained by most conservative and evangeli-cal scholars.

A second but not particularly popular approach is that the author had in hand his own ancient sources of information which are not ac-cessible to the present generation of scholarship, and now probably never will be because they are for-ever lost to students of antiquity.

A third view sees the author as having only a muddled and con-fused understanding of the people and events of the period which he describes on account of the fact that he wrote so long afterward and was not himself a very careful or capable student of the history of that era. Therefore, even though

there may in some cases be sev-eral alternative ways of explaining that which we encounter in Daniel without resorting to the charge of “contradiction” or “inaccuracy,” these writers always declare that the author is grossly wrong on many different points and level at him the accusation that he is mistaken about various persons and events about which he writes.

Conservative scholars will not surrender their view of the inspira-tion and authority of the work as Holy Scripture and so they respond that there are alternative ways of viewing the material which do not lead us to conclude that the author was incorrect, but hardened nega-tive critics are generally unmoved by these explanations. Instead, they are resolute in their efforts at under-mining the integrity and consequent authority of the document.

Therefore, the two approaches are utterly irreconcilable, and so the student must choose which of the two major ways of viewing the Daniel literature he will sub-scribe to in his own reading of the text. The present author views the

material from the first perspective, holding that the author was Daniel himself and therefore privy to infor-mation which later generations may not have known when they recorded what they knew of those men and events which they set down in writ-ing for posterity.

So, the book of Daniel has the superior position and perspective by virtue of its antiquity and actual proximity to the events and persons described, in our way of thinking, over later classical Greek and other historians writing generations after the Babylonian and Persian period. Some of these latter may have been misinformed or else there may have been gaps in their knowledge. To assume that the classical historians were always fully informed and were not at times subject to errors in judgment or that their sources were not occasionally slanted or mistaken (whether intentionally or otherwise) is not a safe course to pursue. The guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit over the produc-tion of the book of Daniel is a much better alternative, in our own way of thinking.

Questions1. What series of circumstances led to the beginning of pseudonymity in the ancient world? ________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

2. Is there any real evidence that writing under an assumed name was ever an accepted practice in the period of the biblical writings? __________ Does evidence exist that suggests it was unacceptable and considered an illegitimate and immoral activity? __________ Give a summary of the evidence. ______________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Modern Challenges to the Authenticity and Integrity of Daniel 17

3. On what basis do certain modern scholars claim that the prophecies of Daniel were written “after the fact”?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

4. How does the high moral stance of the biblical writers enter into the question of whether prophecy was writ-ten “after the fact” or not? __________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________If a writer on the one hand condemns falsification and lying as sin and then misrepresents the actual circum-stances of his writing, can the product of his literary efforts be trusted? ______________________________

5. Why is the Dead Sea Scroll evidence considered important in refuting the claim that Daniel was a product of the second century and its prophecies were penned after the events which they appear to predict? _________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

6. Does the date of the closing of the canon of the Old Testament enter the resolution of issues regarding the date and origin of the book of Daniel? How so? _____________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

7. How does our own particular view of the 490 years mentioned in Daniel 9:24-27 enter into the discussion of the date of the book? ______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

8. How is the absence of Daniel’s name from the list of ancient worthies in the apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus treated by some negative critics? _____________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

What do they conclude from the fact that the name is missing? _____________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

9. What is the conclusion drawn by some thinkers relative to the fact that Daniel was assigned to the category of the Writings rather than that of the Prophets in the catalog of Old Testament books? ____________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

What would you say in response? ____________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

10. Why are we left with so many historical mysteries regarding the book of Daniel? ______________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Is it fair for some historians to treat Daniel as if it possessed no verifiable historical information at all, when in fact it has a great many historical allusions that have been shown to be accurate? ______________________