Dating of Book of Daniel
This website proves that the Book of Daniel
chapter in the bible was a legitimate prophetic piece of work, written by the
prophet Daniel from the year 570 BC - 536 BC, as traditionally thought. And is
not a fraudulent piece of writing, written sometime between 167 BC to 63 BC as
claimed by critics - In other words written after the world events that the
book of Daniel had prophecised, as critics claim.
It also counters the arguments made by the
critics, who claim that the Book of Daniel is not a prophetic piece of writing,
written from 570 BC - 536 BC, but really a fraudulent piece of writing, written
between 167 BC to 63 BC.
The following text is not my own writing but
credit goes to a free book named: ''Pay Attention to Daniel's prophecy''. However I have slightly edited some bits or
added my own writing, for the purpose of clarity.
1. Proof that the Book of
Daniel was written around 536 BC
Prophet Ezekiel
One of Daniel’s contemporaries was the prophet
Ezekiel (622 BC - 570 BC). He too served as a prophet during the Babylonian
exile. Several times, the book of Ezekiel mentions Daniel by name. (Ezekiel
14:14,20; 28:3) These references show that even during his own lifetime, in the
sixth century BC, Daniel was already well-known as a righteous and a wise man,
worthy of being mentioned alongside God-fearing Noah and Job.
Dead Sea Scrolls
The authenticity of the book of Daniel further
received support when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the caves of Qumran,
Israel. Surprisingly numerous among the finds discovered in 1952 are scrolls
and fragments from the book of Daniel. The oldest has been dated to the late
second century BC At that early date, therefore, the book of Daniel was already
well-known and widely respected. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the
Bible notes: "A Maccabean dating (167 BC-63 BC) for Daniel has now to be
abandoned, if only because there could not possibly be a sufficient interval (time)
between the composition (writing) of Daniel and its appearance in the form of
copies in the library of a Maccabean religious sect."
Telling Details
Consider some other details in the book of Daniel
indicating that the writer had firsthand knowledge of the times he wrote about.
Daniel’s familiarity with subtle details about ancient Babylon is compelling
evidence of the authenticity of his account. For instance, Daniel 3:1-6 reports
that Nebuchadnezzar set up a giant image for all the people to worship. Archaeologists
have found other evidence that this monarch sought to get his people more
involved in nationalistic and religious practices. Similarly, Daniel records
Nebuchadnezzar’s boastful attitude about his many construction projects.
(Daniel 4:30) Not until modern times have archaeologists confirmed that
Nebuchadnezzar was indeed behind a great deal of the building done in Babylon.
As to boastfulness—why, the man had his name stamped on the very bricks!
Daniel’s critics cannot explain how their supposed forger of Maccabean times
(167 BC-63 BC) could have known of such construction projects— some four
centuries after the fact and long before archaeologists brought them to light. The
book of Daniel also reveals some key differences between Babylonian and Medo-Persian
law. For example, under Babylonian law Daniel’s three companions were thrown
into a fiery furnace for refusing to obey the king’s command. Decades later,
Daniel was thrown into a pit of lions for refusing to obey a Persian law that
violated his conscience. (Daniel 3:6; 6:7-9) Some have tried to dismiss the
fiery furnace account as legend, but archaeologists have found an actual letter
from ancient Babylon that specifically mentions this form of punishment. To the
Medes and the Persians, however, fire was sacred. So they turned to other
vicious forms of punishment. Hence, the pit of lions comes as no surprise.
Another contrast emerges. Daniel shows that
Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar could enact and change laws on a whim. King
Darius however could do nothing to change ‘the laws of the Medes and the
Persians’—even those he himself had enacted! (Daniel 2:5, 6, 24, 46-49; 3:10,
11, 29; 6:12-16)
Historian John C. Whitcomb writes: "Ancient
history substantiates this difference between Babylon, where the law was
subject to the king, and Medo-Persia, where the king was
subject to the law."
The thrilling account of Belshazzar’s feast,
which is recorded in Daniel chapter 5, is rich in detail. Apparently, it began
with lighthearted eating and plenty of drinking, for there are several
references to wine. (Daniel 5:1, 2, 4) In fact, relief carvings of similar
feasts show only wine being consumed. Evidently, then, wine was extremely
important at such festivities. Daniel also mentions that women were present at this
banquet—the king’s secondary wives and his concubines. (Daniel 5:3, 23)
Archaeology supports this detail of Babylonian custom. The notion of wives
joining men at a feast was objectionable to Jews and Greeks in the Maccabean
era (167 BC-63 BC). In view of such details, it seems almost incredible that
the Encyclopedia Britannica could describe the author of the book of Daniel as
having only a "sketchy and inaccurate" knowledge of the exilic (587
BC–538 BC) times. How could any forger of later centuries have been so
intimately familiar with ancient Babylonian and Persian customs? Remember, too,
that both empires had gone into decline long before the second century BC.
There were evidently no archaeologists back then; nor did the Jews of that time
pride themselves on knowledge of foreign cultures and history.
Only Daniel the prophet, an eyewitness of the
times and events he described, could have written the Bible chapter bearing his
name.
2. Countering the critics
arguments
The case of the missing monarch
Daniel wrote that Belshazzar, a "son"
of Nebuchadnezzar, was ruling as king in Babylon when the city was overthrown.
(Daniel 5:1, 11, 18, 22, 30)
Critics long assailed this point, for
Belshazzar’s name was nowhere to be found outside the Bible. Instead, ancient
historians identified Nabonidus, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar, as the last of
the Babylonian kings. Thus, in 1850, Ferdinand Hitzig said that Belshazzar was
obviously a figment of the writer’s imagination. But does not Hitzig’s opinion
strike you as a bit rash? After all, would the absence of any mention of this
king—especially in a period about which historical records were admittedly
scanty—really prove that he never existed? At any rate, in 1854 some small clay
cylinders were unearthed in the ruins of the ancient Babylonian city of Ur in
what is now southern Iraq. These cuneiform documents from King Nabonidus
included a prayer for "Bel-sar-ussur, my eldest son." Even critics
had to agree: This was the Belshazzar of the book of Daniel.
Click on picture to enlarge
The Nabonidus Cylinder names King Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar
Yet, critics were not satisfied. "This
proves nothing," wrote one named H. F. Talbot. He charged that the son in
the inscription might have been a mere child, whereas Daniel presents him as a
reigning king. Just a year after Talbot’s remarks were published, though, more
cuneiform tablets were unearthed that referred to Belshazzar as having
secretaries and a household staff. No child, this! Finally, other tablets
clinched the matter, reporting that Nabonidus was away from Babylon for years
at a time.These tablets also showed that during these periods, he
"entrusted the kingship" of Babylon to his eldest son (Belshazzar).
At such times, Belshazzar was, in effect, king—a
coregent with his father. Still unsatisfied, some critics complain that the
Bible calls Belshazzar, not the son of Nabonidus, but the son of
Nebuchadnezzar. Some insist that Daniel does not even hint at the existence of
Nabonidus. However, both objections collapse upon examination.
Nabonidus, it seems, married the daughter of
Nebuchadnezzar. That would make Belshazzar the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar.
Neither the Hebrew nor the Aramaic language has words for
"grandfather" or "grandson"; "son of" can mean
"grandson of" or even "descendant of." (Compare Matthew
1:1.)
Further, the Bible account does allow for
Belshazzar to be identified as the son of Nabonidus. When terrified by the
ominous handwriting on the wall, the desperate Belshazzar offers the third
place in the kingdom to anyone who can decipher the words. (Daniel 5:7) Why
third and not second? This offer implies that the first and second places were
already occupied. In fact, they were—by Nabonidus and by his son, Belshazzar.
So Daniel’s mention of Belshazzar is not evidence of "badly garbled"
history. On the contrary, Daniel—although not writing a history of
Babylon—offers us a more detailed view of the Babylonian monarchy than such
ancient secular historians as Herodotus, Xenophon, and Berossus. Why was Daniel
able to record facts that they missed? Because he was there in Babylon. His
book is the work of an eyewitness, not of an impostor of later.
The Matter of Language
When the writing of the book of Daniel was
completed in about 536 BC it was written in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages,
with a few Greek and Persian words. Such a mixture of languages is unusual but
not unique in Scripture. The Bible book of Ezra too was written in Hebrew and
Aramaic. Yet, some critics insist that the writer of Daniel used these
languages in a way that proves he was writing at a date later than 536 BC One
critic is widely quoted as saying that the use of Greek words in Daniel demands
a late date of composition. He asserts that the Hebrew supports and the Aramaic
at least permits such a late date—even one as recent as in the second century
BC.
However, not all language scholars agree. Some authorities have said that
Daniel’s Hebrew is similar to that of Ezekiel and Ezra. As to Daniel’s use of
Aramaic, consider two documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. They too are
in Aramaic and date from the first and second centuries BC—not long after the
supposed forgery of Daniel. But scholars have noted a profound difference
between the Aramaic in these documents and that found in Daniel. Thus, some
suggest that the book of Daniel must be centuries older than its critics
assert.
What about the "problematic" Greek
words in Daniel?
Some of these have been discovered to be Persian,
not Greek at all! The only words still thought to be Greek are the names of
three musical instruments. Does the presence of these three words really demand
that Daniel be assigned a late date? No. Archaeologists have found that Greek
culture was influential centuries before Greece became a world power.
Click on picture to enlarge
Greece and it's colonies in 550 BC - The most powerful civilisation in Europe at that time. Greece was clearly already a power and influential back than, before the Book of Daniel was completed by the prophet Daniel.
Furthermore, if the book of Daniel had been composed during the second century BC like critics claim, when Greek culture and language clearly was the dominate language and culture in the world and very pervading, would it contain only three Greek words? Hardly. It would likely contain far more. So the linguistic evidence really supports the authenticity of Daniel.
___________________________________________Back to Mainpage:
www.GreekOrthodoxNation.blogspot.com
