WELCOME TO THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

 

When was the Book of Daniel written?

       Daniel Holy Bible Book Old Testament prophet Daniel Holy Bible Old Testament prophet. Open Scripture Book inspired by God Jesus Christ. Reading and studying prophesy. A Christian biblical concept. A close-up. Book Stock PhotoChapter one of the Old Testament book of Daniel begins by recording that in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim (609–598 B.C.) king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon besieged Jerusalem. It is recorded that Nebuchadnezzar brought some of the Israelites that had been taken captive into his service.  One of these Israelites was Daniel.  The book of Daniel records four different kings that Daniel served under while in Babylon.  These were the Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar (605-561 BC), Belshazzar (556-539 BC), Darius the Mede (years of reign unknown) and the Persian king Cyrus the Great (550-530 BC). 

       There were several kings that reigned in Babylon during Daniel’s time there that are not mentioned in the book of Daniel. A son of Nebuchadnezzar named Awil-Marduk (AKA Evil-merodach) reigned from 561 to 560 BC followed by his brother-in-law Nergal-shar-uṣur (called Neriglissar) who reigned 559 to 555 BC.   Nergal-shar-uṣur was followed by a man named Labashi-marduk who reigned for only nine months and was succeeded by Nabonidus. Nabonidus, who was another son of Nebuchadnezzar, reigned over the entire Babylonian Empire between 555-539 BC. At the same time, his son Belshazzar was co-regent with his father Nabonidus and reigned as king over the city of Babylon.  More on this later in this essay.

       Three of the kings mentioned in Daniel (Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Cyrus), are known from secular history. Darius, on the other hand, is nowhere mentioned in secular history. The name Darius first appears in secular history as the Persian king Darius the 1st and is seen as the successor to Cambyses II (530-522 BC) who had succeeded Cyrus (550-530 BC).  This Darius (522-486 BC) reigned well after the time of Daniel and is mentioned a number of times in the Book of Ezra and once in the Book of Nehemiah.

       The Book of Daniel is all about a man named Daniel who is shown to exist alongside the kings mentioned in Daniel.  Since these kings all reigned in the 6th century BC. it would appear logical to conclude that the man Daniel lived during this same period of time and that the Book of Daniel was written around the time the events it reports took place.  The first half of the Book of Daniel is written in the third person and appears to have been written not by Daniel but by someone familiar with the experiences of Daniel.  The second half of the Book is written in the first person and thus appears to be written by Daniel himself (See Daniel 8:1 and 9:2-3.)

      Many modern-day Biblical scholars have come to believe Daniel was not written in the 6th century BC (500’s BC) but was written by someone who lived during the time of the Maccabean revolt in the 2nd century BC (100’s BC).  It is believed this person wrote retrospectively about the Maccabean revolt as well as events going back to the time of Nebuchadnezzar going forward. This has been the standard view among critical scholars since the latter part of the nineteenth century.  One writer I read said that believing in a 2nd century versus a 6th century dating for Daniel has become a virtual test for one's scholarly credentials. Among scholars who take the 2nd century dating position are NT Wright and Bart Ehrman, both of whom are recognized as top-of-the-line Biblical scholars.

      The book of Daniel contains prophecies that describe events that historically line up very well with what Daniel prophesied. In Daniel 2 the prophet identified a succession of four earthly kingdoms.  Daniel identifies the Babylonian Kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar as the first of these kingdoms and then speaks of three kingdoms to follow which history identifies as the Medo-Persian Empire, the Greek Empire and the Roman Empire. In Daniel 7 these four kingdoms are again identified using different imagery. In Daniel 9 is the 70 weeks prophecy which identifies a succession of events beginning with the rebuilding of the temple that was destroyed during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and concluding with the Christ event and the destruction of the temple in AD 70.  In Daniel 11 is a detailed account of events beginning with the rebuilding of the temple all the way up to the Christ event hundreds of years later.

       The traditional view is that Daniel did indeed live during the time of the Babylonian captivity and was given insights as to events that would occur hundreds of years into the future and these insights were recorded by Daniel and/or scribes that lived during that time. 

       However, many modern-day Biblical scholars believe that the Book of Daniel was written by someone in the 2nd century BC somewhere between 167 and 164 BC.  They believe it contains a mixture of some confirmed history and a lot of fiction. The prophecies in Daniel are seen as interpretations of past history. While the existence of the kings mentioned in Daniel (except for Darius) are verified by secular history along with events such as the fall of Babylon to the Persians, events such as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fiery furnace and Daniel in the lion’s den are seen as fiction.  The Book of Daniel is not considered prophetic but a retrospective recording of historical events mixed in with fiction.

       In contrast to the traditional listing of the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7 as the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and  Roman Empires, modern day Biblical scholars see Daniel's listing of four successive kingdoms as the Babylonian Empire, the empire of the Medes, the Persian Empire and the Greek Empire. Therefore, the fourth beast of Daniel 2 and 7 is not seen as the Roman Empire as it has been traditionally viewed. Instead, it is seen as the Greek empire. The "little horn" associated with the fourth beast of Daniel 7 is interpreted to be Antiochus Epiphanes, the Syrian ruler of the land of Israel in 168 BC. Daniel is seen as writing during the time of Antiochus and the Maccabean revolt.  Therefore, Daniel is not seen as predicting anything about the Roman Empire.  The author of Daniel is seen as writing just prior to the development of the Roman Empire and writing retrospectively as to the history he presents. 

       Modern day scholars see the Book of Daniel as historical fiction. Historical fiction is narrative about real events that take place during a recognizable time in history but include imaginative events involving imaginative places and characters.  This is how Daniel is viewed by many Biblical scholars.

       Even though Daniel’s visions of future events fit well with a lot of recorded history, it is believed these events simply occurred in time and space with there being no foreseeing of them occurring. In fact, it is because there is such synergy in detail between events Daniel wrote about and the actual historical occurrence of these events that scholars have come to believe these events could not have been foreseen.  Therefore, their recording in the Book of Daniel must be after the fact and not before the fact.   

       For example, Daniel 11 appears to predict the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes (Antiochus IV) king of Syria followed by a subsequent resistance and revolt against Antiochus.

Daniel 11:29-32 and 168 BC

       Daniel 11:29-32: At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. Ships of the western coastlands oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant. His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.

       In 168 BC, Antiochus IV invaded Egypt but was unsuccessful in conquering Egypt. Having to leave Egypt, Antiochus returned to Syria through Judea in great anger over his defeat in Egypt.  He sent troops to Jerusalem who plundered the city, set it on fire and killed many Jews.  Antiochus published a decree that the Jewish worship was abrogated and that the temple be consecrated to Jupiter Olympias, a Greek god.  Antiochus abolished the daily sacrifice, and placed a pagan statue in the temple.  While a number of Jews abandoned their religion and allied with Antiochus, another group led by the priest Mattathias, along with his five sons, led a successful revolt against Antiochus and restored the temple worship.  This group became known as the Maccabees.  They held rule in Judea as the Hasmoneans, from around 164 BC. to 37 BC.

       As seen above, the secular historical record of these 2nd century BC events appears to fit well with what appears to be predictive narrative in Daniel 11:29-32. However, modern-day Biblical scholars believe Daniel 11:29-32 is not predictive and it, along with the rest of Daniel, was written after the events it describes had transpired. Does this position of modern-day scholarship hold up under careful investigation?  Is there evidence that confirms Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC rather than the 6th century BC as claimed?  Is there evidence Daniel was written in the 6th century BC? Let's take a look at the available evidence and go to where the evidence takes us.

      The Dead Sea Scrolls contain complete manuscripts of Old Testament Scriptures as well as a number of fragments of most of the books found in the Old Testament. There are eight fragments of the book of Daniel found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The oldest of the Daniel fragments appears to have been copied in the late second century BC. This would be only 50 years or so after the Maccabean period.  Those who argue for a 6th century dating of the Book of Daniel contend that if Daniel was written in the Maccabean period, it would seem unlikely that it would have come to have been seen as canonical, authoritative Scripture in that short amount of time, especially in view of the fact it would have been seen not as prophetic scripture but only as historical narrative. 

       In Daniel 2, it is recorded that Nebuchadnezzar had a troubling dream the meaning of which was revealed to Daniel in a vision. Daniel’s vision provides the identification of four kingdoms that are to be established on planet earth leading up to the kingdom of God. Those who argue for a 6th century dating of Daniel contend that people don’t have visions of things that have already happened. Therefore, this vision is seen as prophetic of things to come and not things that had already happened.   

      Daniel is mentioned three times in the writings of Ezekiel who wrote during the Babylonian captivity and prophesied between 593 to 571 BC.  It appears that Ezekiel was a contemporary of Daniel. Ezekiel's mention of Daniel is seen by advocates of an early date for Daniel as proof positive that Daniel was indeed an ancient figure and not someone living in the second century BC.

       Ezekiel 14:13-14: Son of man, if a country sins against me by being unfaithful and I stretch out my hand against it to cut off its food supply and send famine upon it and kill its people and their animals, even if these three men—Noah, Daniel and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign LORD.

       Ezekiel 14:19-20: Or if I send a plague into that land and pour out my wrath on it through bloodshed, killing its people and their animals, as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, even if Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they could save neither son nor daughter. They would save only themselves by their righteousness.

       Ezekiel 28:2-3: Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says:” ‘In the pride of your heart you say, “I am a god; I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the seas.” But you are a mere mortal and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god. Are you wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?

       Modern day Biblical scholars argue that Ezekiel was not speaking of Daniel but of a mythological fourteenth century BC hero named Danel who appears in the ancient Ugaritic epic “The Tale of Aqhat.” Ugarit was founded around 6000 BC and lasted to about 1185 BC. “The Tale of Aqhat” was discovered in 1929 AD when a peasant plowing fields on the Mediterranean coast of Syria hit a solid object buried in the dirt. Archeological excavations revealed that the object was a stone tomb which contained stone slabs that told the story of the ancient epic of Aqhat and Danel.

The Epic of Aqhat and Danel:

       In this tale, Danel is seen as a strong and just ruler who desired a son above all else. He prays to the gods for six days in the temple and on the seventh day the god Baal intercedes with the god El who grants Danel his wish. Danel is seen as El’s servant in this epic and as his patron god. Danel is given a son who is named Aqhat. Aqhat grows up and becomes a man much like his father.  One day Danel offers hospitality to a divine being named Kothor. Kothor gifts Aqhat a special hunting bow. In time, a goddess named Anat becomes extremely upset that Kothor has given this special bow to a mortal man.   

       Anat comes to Aqhat and offers him wealth and immortality in return for the bow. Aqhat refuses her offer which upsets Anat even more. During a hunting party which Aqhat is a part of, Anat transforms herself into a falcon and drops her henchman Yatipan directly on top of Aqhat.  Aqhat is killed and Yatipan takes the bow and returns to Anat.  However, on his way back to Anat, Yatipan drops the bow and it breaks. This makes Anat very angry and she takes out her anger on the dead Aqhat by tearing him into pieces.

       In the meantime, Danel is unaware of all this as he is busy taking care of the subjects of his kingdom. Danel is informed of what had happened and Danel is very distraught. To make matters worse, a famine overtakes his kingdom resulting in much death and instability.  Danel curses Anat and gathers the remains of his son while his daughter Pughat begins to plan revenge against Anat. She disguises herself as Anat and goes to where Yatipan is and gets Yatipan drunk. At this point the epic comes to an end in the discovered stone slabs in which it is found. Except for some bits and pieces of narrative, nothing further has been discovered as to this epic.

       Ezekiel sees Daniel as a righteous man on par with Noah and Job. Late date advocates for the Book of Daniel argue that Danel is seen as worshiping El as his patron god in this epic. Since El identifies with Yahweh as the one and only true God in the Old Testament, it is Yahweh that Danel is seen as serving.  Therefore, it is concluded that it is Danel and not Daniel that Ezekiel is referring to.       

       Late date advocates point out that Daniel appears as a very young man (a boy) when taken captive to Babylon and would not have developed any tract record of accomplishment for Ezekiel to place him in the company of Noah and Job.  Daniel 1:4 speaks of it being young men that were being groomed in the courts of Nebuchadnezzar. The Hebrew word translated “young” is yeled and means child.  Therefore, it is argued that Ezekiel’s Daniel was not the Daniel of the book of Daniel but was Danel of the Aqhat epic who had been known from ancient times as a righteous man as were Noah and Job.  It is also argued that Danel was a non-Israelite as was Noah and Job which is seen as a better fit than Noah, Job and the Israelite Daniel.  The NET translation of Ezekiel 14:14 footnotes this passage in the following way:

       “Traditionally this has been understood as a reference to the biblical Daniel, though he was still quite young when Ezekiel prophesied. One wonders if he had developed a reputation as an intercessor by this point. For this reason some prefer to see a reference to a ruler named Danel, known in Canaanite legend for his justice and wisdom. In this case all three of the individuals named would be non-Israelites, however the Ugaritic Danel is not known to have qualities of faith in the Lord that would place him in the company of the other men.”

       Early date advocates point out that while it is apparent that Daniel was very young when taken to Babylon, he was still old enough to be recognized as being well versed in all kinds of wisdom, well-educated and having keen insight (Daniel 1:13-21). This would indicate he was old enough to have developed these attributes and thus it wouldn’t have taken long for him to generate recognized accomplishments in the king’s court, accomplishments that would become known to Ezekiel. 

       Daniel 1:13-21 The king commanded Ashpenaz, who was in charge of his court officials, to choose some of the Israelites who were of royal and noble descent—young men in whom there was no physical defect and who were handsome, well versed in all kinds of wisdom, well-educated and having keen insight, and who were capable of entering the king’s royal service (NET).

        Early date advocates believe that most devastating to the Danel position is the fact that Danel is seen as a polytheist in this epic, praying to various pagan gods. While he is seen as a worshiper of El, he is also seen as a worshiper of Baal. It would appear incongruous for Ezekiel to be referring to a pagan mythical character that is polytheistic in the same breath as Noah and Job who were monotheistic. Furthermore, it must be asked why Ezekiel would compare real people such as Noah and Job with a fictional character such as Danel.

More scholarly objections to an early date:

       Late date advocates point out that half of Daniel is written in Aramaic which is a language the Jews spoke during the intertestamental period and during the time of Christ but not a language spoken in the 6th century BC.  Therefore, Danial could not have been written in the 6th century BC.

       Early date advocates point out that Aramaic was spoken by a semitic people called Arameans as far back as 1000 BC. Some historians see Aramaic as the oldest continuously spoken and written language in the Middle East, even older than written Hebrew. By the 8th century BC, it had been embraced by the Assyrians as a second language. Aramaic began to replace Hebrew as the language of the Israelites during the Babylonian captivity. In addition to portions of Daniel being written in Aramaic, a portion of Ezra is written in this language as well.  Recent studies have found that the Aramaic used in Daniel was used in the courts of kings beginning in the 7th century BC and going forward. To argue that Daniel was written in the 2nd century based on part of it being written in Aramaic appears to be a bogus argument. The following Scriptures are instructive as to Aramaic being spoken during the time of Daniel.

       2nd Kings18:26: Then Eliakim son of Hilkiah, and Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, “Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it. Don’t speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall.”

       Ezra 4:7: And in the days of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his associates wrote a letter to Artaxerxes. The letter was written in Aramaic script and in the Aramaic language.

       Isaiah 36:11: Then Eliakim, Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, “Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it. Don’t speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall.”

       Late date advocates point out that Daniel 3 includes three Greek words which suggests that the book was written after Greek became the common language in the middle and near east which was way after the time of Daniel. These three Greek words are the names of musical instruments. 

       Early date advocates respond by pointing out that the Greek language goes back as far as 3000 BC. Greek words would have been available to Daniel living in the 6th century BC. Recent research has revealed that there were contacts between the Greeks and Persians in the 7th century BC.  By the time of the 2nd century BC, Greek had become the “universal language” of the day.  This being the case, if the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC, you would think that much more of the book if not all of it would have been written in Greek and not just a few words describing musical instruments.

       Late date advocates point to what they believe are historical inaccuracies of several passages in Daniel.  In Daniel 1:1 it’s recorded that “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.” Jeremiah 46:2 suggests Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign, not the third year.

       Jeremiah 46:2: Concerning Egypt: This is the message against the army of Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt, which was defeated at Carchemish on the Euphrates River by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon in the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah:

       Early date advocates point out that Egyptians and Israelites counted the months between a king's accession and the new year as a complete year. On the other hand, the Babylonians counted a king's reign from the first new year after accession. It appears the Egyptian/Israelite system of counting was used by Jeremiah and the Babylonian system of counting was used by Daniel and thus Daniel’s designation of the third year. That Daniel would use the Babylon system of counting makes perfect sense as he would have been writing as an officer of the Babylon court.  The fact that the writer of the book of Daniel was using the Babylonian system as opposed to the Israelite system of counting gives evidence to the book of Daniel being written in the 6th century BC.  If Daniel would have been written in the 2nd century BC, the writer would have used the Israelite system of counting extant at the time.

       Late date advocates point out that in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, the Book of Daniel is not included in the second section known as “the prophets” but is listed in the third section known as “the writings.” This is believed to show that Daniel was not considered one of the prophets and therefore must be a later work.  However, the translators of the Septuagint (translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek) placed Daniel with the prophets.

The Nabonidus/Belshazzar Problem:

       Those who challenge the 6th century BC date for Daniel believe that Belshazzar is erroneously called "king" in Daniel 5:1, 7:1 and 8:1. Secular history shows his father Nabonidus was king of the Babylonian Empire from 555 to 539 BC. First century Jewish historian Josephus writes that the historian Ptolemy lists Nabonidus as the last Babylonian king. It is believed that if Daniel lived during this period of time, he would have known Nabonidus was the king of Babylon and not Belshazzar.  The fact that Nabonidus is not even mentioned in the Book of Daniel is seen as evidence that the writer was not writing in the 6th century BC. 

       However, history shows Belshazzar served for a time (556–539 BC) as co-regent with his father Nabonidus and therefore was king as well.  The fact the writer of Daniel knew this makes it evident that this writer lived at the time of this event and not in the 2nd century BC. As discussed below, Belshazzar was not known to history outside of the Book of Daniel until 1854 AD.  The writer of Daniel provides implicit recognition of Belshazzar being second in the Kingdom as Belshazzar offers to make Daniel the third highest ruler in the kingdom and not the second. The implication is that he (Belshazzar) was second in the kingdom and his father Nabonidus was number one in rulership (Daniel 5:7).  

       Prior to 1854 AD, nothing was known of Belshazzar outside of the book of Daniel. Then in 1854, archologist J.G Taylor found four cuneiform cylinders (wedge-shaped writing on clay tablets rolled up as a cylinder) in the foundation of a ziggurat (a rectangular stepped tower) at Ur.  These cuneiform cylinders were found to be written by Nabonidus. In 1881, Assyriologist Hormuzd Rassam discovered a clay cylinder at a place called Sippar in Babylonia (now called Abu Habba) that was written by Nabonidus.  This cylinder is now in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, a museum I had the opportunity to visit many years ago.

       A translation of the cylinder found at Sippar revealed Nabonidus to be the son of Nebuchadnezzar and a translation of the cylinders at Ur revealed Nabonidus to be the father of Belshazzar as seen in the following quote.

       "As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, save me from sinning against your great godhead and grant me as a present a life long of days, and as for Belshazzar, the eldest son -my offspring- instill reverence for your great godhead in his heart and may he not commit any cultic mistake, may he be sated with a life of plenitude."

       The Nabonidus cylinders reveal that Belshazzar served as king of Babylon while his father Nabonidus was in another area of the Babylonian Kingdom called Tema. An Akkadian inscription which was published under the title, “A Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus,” shows that Nabonidus divided his power with his eldest son Belshazzar and entrusted the kingship to him in the city of Babylon while he, (Nabonidus) was busy conquering Tema in order to make it the capital of the western part of the Babylonian empire.

       It is historically evident that Nabonidus became king of the Babylonian Empire as a whole and reigned over the Empire for around 16 years while his son Belshazzar was ruling as co-regent in the city of Babylon.  This being the case, it is rather strange that Nabonidus is not mentioned in Daniel.  However, it is apparent that Nabonidus was away from the city of Babylon during much of his reign and involved in wars with surrounding territories in an effort to expand the Babylonian Empire. Therefore, Daniel may have had little contact with Nabonidus and consequently did not include him in his writings.

       It is instructive that a Babylonian priest by the name of Berossus wrote and published in Greek a three volume History of Babylonia around 290–278 BC. It is apparent he got much of his information from ancient sources since lost to history. In the third volume of this work, he lists the kings of Babylon prior to its fall in 539 BC. Included in this list is King Nabonidus. This work of Berossus was still being used in the 1st century AD as we find the Jewish historian Josephus using material from it in his writings.

       Since Nabonidus is listed as a king of Babylon in Berossus’ History of Babylonia written in the early 3rd century BC, it is obvious that knowledge of Nabonidus as a king of Babylon was extant at the time.  Therefore, you would think that mention would have been made of Nabonidus being a King over the Babylonian Empire in the Book of Daniel if indeed Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC. However, as we know, there is no mention of Nabonidus in the Book of Daniel. This is prima facie evidence that Daniel was not written in the 2nd century BC.

       What wasn’t historical knowledge in the 2nd century BC is that Belshazzar was a real person and that he served as a co-regent with his father Nabonidus. Belshazzar is not mentioned in Berossus’ History of Babylonia which was written in early 3rd century BC.   

       Prior to 1854, nothing was known of Belshazzar outside of the book of Daniel.  This knowledge first came to light in 1854 AD when archeologist J.G Taylor found the cuneiform cylinders as discussed above.  This being the case, how could the Book of Daniel, which includes narrative about Belshazzar, be written in the 2nd century BC and include narrative about Belshazzar when there was no historical knowledge of Belshazzar other than the Book of Daniel.  This appears to cancel out the argument that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC.  

The Nebuchadnezzar/Belshazzar Puzzle:

       The writer of Daniel states that Nebuchadnezzar was the father of Belshazzar (Daniel 5:2, 11, 13 and 18).  In 5:11 It is the queen who identifies Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar. In 5:13 it is Belshazzar that does so and in 5:18 it is Daniel that does so.

       Yet it is apparent from secular historical records that Nabonidus, a son of Nebuchadnezzar, was the father of Belshazzar and not Nebuchadnezzar. This appears to be indicated within the Scriptures as well where a son and grandson of Nebuchadnezzar are seen as ruling over the kingdom of Babylon. This would seem to be a reference to Nabonidus (son) and Belshazzar (grandson) who ruled subsequent to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

       Jeremiah 27:6-7: Now I will give all your countries into the hands of my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; I will make even the wild animals subject to him. All nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his land comes; then many nations and great kings will subjugate him.  

       What also appears to be problematic is the account of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness in Daniel 4. Babylonian records do not show that Nebuchadnezzar became mad but that Nabonidus became mad while in Tema where it is shown he lived from the seventh through eleventh years of his reign. Ancient records also indicate that it was Nabonidus and not Nebuchadnezzar that built the image spoken of in Daniel 3.

       There is a very instructive volume entitled Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, available online at https://www.tarsus.ie/resources/Wisdom-Lit.-/ANET-PDF.pdf. This volume is a compilation of narrative from many ancient sources, including narrative related to the reign of Nabonidus.  In narrative relating to Nabonidus, there is strong indication that it was Nabonidus and not Nebuchadnezzar that built the great image spoken of in Daniel 3 (see page 313 of Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament).

       As to the supposed madness of Nebuchadnezzar as recorded in Daniel 4, it is instructive that The Dead Sea scrolls found at Qumran in 1948 indicate that Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar, was the mad king. A fragmentary document entitled “The Prayer of Nabonidus” written in Aramaic, tells of a king who while at Tema, suffered a skin disease caused by the God of Israel but that God forgave him and healed him.  This document speaks of an adviser who counsels him to honor God, reminding him that he has been smitten for seven years because he had been praying to gods of silver and stone.

       There are obvious differences between this account and the account in Daniel 4. Nabonidus is seen as having a skin ailment whereas Nebuchadnezzar is seen as experiencing a madness.  Daniel is seen as warning Nebuchadnezzar before God judged him whereas the advisor tells Nabonidus to honor God after God had healed him. Thirdly, Nabonidus confesses to worshiping false gods while in Daniel 4 it is Nebuchadnezzar’s pride that leads to God’s judgement upon him.  However, there are noticeable similarities.  The similarities include the seven years of suffering, the decree of God against a Babylonian king, and the king giving praise to God after the seven-year ordeal is over.

       Is Nabonidus the Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 3 and 4?  Is it Nabonidus that is meant as the father of Belshazzar in Daniel 5 and not Nebuchadnezzar?  As mentioned above, Daniel 2:4 to the end of chapter seven is written in Aramaic while the rest of the book is in Hebrew.  It has been speculated that the entire book of Daniel was originally written in Hebrew and that at some point some of the Hebrew text was damaged and the damaged part of the book got translated into Aramaic where Nabonidus was translated as Nebuchadnezzar rather than Nabonidus. One commentator I read wrote the following:

       “Although Aramaic is closely related to Hebrew, it would have been an easy translation error to mistake Nebuchadnezzar for Nabonidus. Since neither Hebrew nor Aramaic represents the vowels, Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus would have been written (here in English transliteration) NBKDNZR and NBND. Note that all four letters in Nabonidus’s name are found in Nebuchadnezzar’s name, with the last two transposed. A Scribe or Aramaic translator could have easily assumed that NBND in the original Hebrew was an abbreviation for the name of the better-known king Nebuchadnezzar. And once the error was initially made, it would easily have been perpetuated throughout the translation.”

       While the above perspective is speculative, it does offer a reasonable solution to the problem of Nebuchadnezzar being called the father of Belshazzar.  It is evident that various historical documents clearly identify Nabonidus as the father of Belshazzar and appear to identify Nabonidus rather than Nebuchadnezzar as connected to the image and madness of Daniel 4 and 5. 

The Darius Dilemma:

       Some question the early date for Daniel based on the fact that in Daniel chapters 5, 6 and 9 the writer speaks of Darius the Mede as a Persian king who succeeded Belshazzar as king over the kingdom of Babylon.  There is no historical record outside of Daniel that identifies a person named Darius the Mede as king over Babylon. 

       Daniel 5:30-31: That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.

       Daniel 6:28 Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian. 

       Daniel 9:1 In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (Ahasuerus) (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom—

       Late date advocates contend that since the name Darius as king of Babylon is absent from history except for the book of Daniel, it is a fictitious name.  It is believed that if Daniel was written at the time of king Cyrus, who is a known historical figure, the writer would not have spoken of a non-historical figure as Darius.  The implication is that Darius is a made-up name that a writer came up with in a 2nd century writing of the Book of Daniel (part of the supposed fictionalization of the Book of Daniel).

       In actuality, the fact that the name Darius is found in the book of Daniel in association with the Persian Empire provides implicit indication that such a person existed during this time.  Why would someone writing in either the 6th or the 2nd century BC insert a non-historical name into narrative about a known historical figure (Cyrus) and a known historical Empire (Persia)? 

       It’s apparent there was someone called Darius that was a ruler in Babylon apparently at the same time Cyrus was overall king of the Persian empire.  Daniel 6:28 reads: “So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.”  This indicates that the reign of Darius and Cyrus were simultaneous. Danial 9:1 says that rulership of Babylon was given to Darius. This indicates that someone else was in power that gave rulership to Darius.  This would have been Cyrus.

       Darius may have been an alternative name for someone else. Some have concluded that Darius the Mede is an alternate name for Cyrus the Persian.  The Expositors Bible Commentary, volume 7, page 76-77, records that a man named Gubaru was appointed by Cyrus to rule over Babylon after it was conquered by the Persians.  It is conjectured that Darius was a title name given to Gubaru (also spelled Gobryas).      

       The Expositors Bible Commentary refers to an ancient record called the Nabonidus Chronicle for information about Gubaru. The Nabonidus Chronicle is an ancient Babylonian text of unknown origin inscribed in cuneiform script on clay tablets. It deals primarily with the reign of Nabonidus and covers the conquest of Babylon by the Persian king Cyrus the Great.  The Chronicle was acquired by the British Museum in 1879 from an antiquities dealer. Its original place of discovery is unknown.

       One reading of the Nabonidus Chronicle appears to identify Gobryas as being appointed by Cyrus as governor of the city of Babylon. Such appointment of someone to govern the city of Babylon appears to be supported by Daniel 5:31 that speaks of Darius receiving the Kingdom and Daniel 9:1, where Darius is seen as being made ruler. 

       However, one reading of the Nabonidus Chronicle seems to indicate that Gobryas died shortly after the fall of Babylon and therefore could not be Darius as Darius is seen in Daniel as reigning for a number of years. Other readings of the Nabonidus Chronicle suggest that it was Ugbaru who died shortly after the fall of Babylon and not Gubaru/Gobryas. Ugbaru is the Persian general that led the attack on Babylon.  Some who see the Chronicle as showing it was Gubaru/Gobryas who died argue for Ugbaru being the one appointed governor of Babylon and therefore Ugbaru is Daniel’s Darius.  This all being said, the view that Gubaru/Gobryas is the Darius of the Book of Daniel has been and continues to be the primary view of many conservative evangelical scholars.

       Another view is that the Mede king Cyaxares II is Daniel’s Darius. Cyaxares II is described in the writings of the Greek historian Xenophon and what he writes about Cyaxares II appears to line up well Daniel’s Darius the Mede.  The view that Cyaxares II is Darius the Mede was the view held by the first century Jewish historian Josephus and various early Christian writers.

       In reviewing the various views as to the identification of Daniel’s Darius, non are definitive. However, the absence in secular history of a Darius as a king or ruler over Babylon subsequent to its fall to the Persians doesn’t negate the historicity of Darius.  As discussed above, the name Belshazzar was unknown to history outside the Book of Daniel until only recently.  Could it be that the name Darius will show up in some future archeological find?  Only time will tell.

Daniel in the New Testament:      

       Daniel is mentioned by name only once in the New Testament (NT). In Matthew 24: 15 we read: “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand.”  This same passage of Daniel is alluded to in Mark 13:14. This appears to be a direct reference to Daniel 9:27 where in the 70 weeks prophecy the writer informs us that “He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”   

       In Matthew 24:30, we read, “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.” This may be a reference to Daniel 7:13 where we read “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.” 

       There is also allusion to Daniel 7:13 in Matthew 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27 and 22:69. In all these references in Matthew, Mark and Luke, it is Jesus who is speaking of events future to Him. Therefore, it is apparent that Jesus saw Daniel as prophesying events future to the time of Jesus and not events already past. Advocates of a late date for Daniel (2nd century BC) see Daniel not predicting future events but writing about events that have already occurred. 

       If indeed Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC and is not prophetic of future events, it would appear Jesus is using Daniel inappropriately.  If this were to be true, it would have devastating consequences for the integrity of the teachings of Jesus and the Biblical Scriptures in general.     

Conclusion:

       In reviewing the various arguments for an early versus late date for the writing of the Book of Daniel, I feel the preponderance of evidence points to an early date.  As seen in the foregoing discussion, every argument for a late date can be neutralized or cancelled out by a corresponding argument for an early date. I have not seen compelling evidence for a late date for the Book of Daniel. On the other hand, I do see compelling evidence for an early date.   

       The argument for Danel being the Daniel of Ezekiel 14 and 28 is negated in that Danel is seen as a polytheist in the Epic of Aqhat, including being a worshiper of Baal.  It is extremely unlikely Ezekiel would have placed Danel in the same category as Noah and Job who were monotheists.  Therefore, the narrative in Ezekiel provides strong evidence for a 6th century existence of Daniel.

       Nabonidus is not mentioned in the Book of Daniel. However, Nabonidus is listed as the last king of the Babylonian Empire in Berossus’ History of Babylonia written in the early 3rd century BC. Therefore, knowledge of Nabonidus as a king of Babylon was extant in the 2nd century BC. and beyond. This being the case, you would think that mention would have been made of Nabonidus being a King over the Babylonian Empire in the Book of Daniel if indeed Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC. However, as we know, there is no mention of Nabonidus in the Book of Daniel. This is prima facie evidence that Daniel was not written in the 2nd century BC.

       The knowledge that Belshazzar was a real person and that he served as a co-regent with his father Nabonidus first came to light in 1854 AD.  Belshazzar is not mentioned in Berossus’ History of Babylonia which was written in early 3rd century BC. Nothing was known of Belshazzar outside of the book of Daniel until 1854 AD.  This being the case, the Book of Daniel, which includes narrative about Belshazzar, could not have been written in the 2nd century BC as there was no historical knowledge of Belshazzar other than the Book of Daniel.  An author writing in the 2nd century BC would not have known about Belshazzar.  This alone should close the door on the late date perspective.

       There are questions that remain as to the identification of Darius, the paternity of Belshazzar in Daniel 5 and whether it is Nabonidus or Nebuchadnezzar that are spoken of in Daniel 3 and 4.  However, these issues don’t appear to have any direct bearing on the dating of Daniel. 

       Lastly, as discussed above, Jesus saw Daniel as prophesying events future to his time and not events already past as advocates of a late date for Daniel claim the Book of Daniel is all about.  If indeed Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC and is not prophetic of events future to Jesus as claimed by Jesus, the consequences for the integrity of the Christian theological system should be apparent.  

       I trust this discussion of the dating of the Book of Daniel has been instructive and I welcome constructive. evidence based response.