Jiří Moskala
The authorship of the book of Daniel has been debated for centuries. Two basic views have been held by biblical scholars. Some believe that the book was written by the prophet Daniel in the sixth century BC, as the book itself claims. Others teach that the book was written by an unknown Jew in the second century, during the so-called Maccabean era. The second view, therefore, is often called the Maccabean hypothesis.
To identify the writer of the book of Daniel is crucial because the interpretation and validity of the prophecies of the book depend on the identification of the author. If Daniel in the sixth century wrote the book then it contains real prophecies. If an unknown Jew wrote the book in the second century, its prophecies are not prophecies at all, but history written in the form of prophecy after the event prophesied had already occurred.
Sixth-century origin – Scholars who defend Danielic authorship maintain that the book was written and put together in stages by the prophet Daniel himself around 530 BC in Babylon. The focus of the book was to proclaim God’s sovereignty from an international perspective and encourage His children to follow faithfully the Lord knowing that He is in control of history. God cares, and He is the ultimate and highest Judge because all human beings are accountable to Him. Daniel presents a sequence of four world empires, the first coming of the Messiah, the rise and activities of the Antichrist (the little horn), the persecution of the saints, the heavenly Judgment, and finally the establishment of the eternal kingdom of God. The culmination of this apocalyptic book lies in the hopeful prediction of a resurrection at the end of time. This view may be designated as the Persian (or Exilic) hypothesis.
Second-century origin – The traditional dating of the book of Daniel to the sixth century BC by Jews and Christians was challenged from the end of the eighteenth century onward by the so-called Maccabean hypothesis, and this view prevails today among historical-critical scholars. The first critic who put the origin of Daniel in the second century BC was the neo-Platonist philosopher Porphyry (ca. AD 234–305). In the twelfth book of his work Against the Christians he argued that Daniel was written by an individual living in Judea during the time of persecution by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–163 BC), because it supposedly described these events too accurately for prophecy. In his commentary on the book of Daniel, the Church Father Jerome (ca. 345–420) addressed Porphyry’s arguments and defended the authorship of Daniel. Porphyry’s publications were later destroyed, and his view on the book of Daniel survived only because Jerome mentioned it.
According to the Maccabean hypothesis, an unknown author in the second century wrote the book and used the pseudonym “Daniel” to add authority to his manuscript. He recounted past history in the form of prophecy, and he genuinely prophesied only the events described in Daniel 11:40–12:2 with the resurrection expected in his time, which the author believed to be the time of the end. But this “genuine “prophecy failed, because what he predicted never happened. According to historical-critical scholarship, the writer made several historical mistakes because he was not well acquainted with the history of Babylon and Medo-Persia. He was only correct when he dealt with the history of his own time, the time of the Seleucids and Ptolemies. Thus, the Maccabean thesis claims that the book of Daniel was written in Judea around 165 BC, in a time of deep crisis when King Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated Jerusalem’s temple (167 BC) and brutally persecuted the Jews for their religious convictions. The purpose of the book, it is claimed, was to guide the Jews in their faithfulness to God and in their revolt against the tyrannical oppressive reign of this Greek king.
The following points will demonstrate the problem with the historical-critical view and document that there are in fact many arguments in favor of the sixth-century-BC origin of the book. Some of these points are:
1. The historical trustworthiness and reliability of the book – Contrary to the claims of many critics, there is a striking accuracy in the detailed accounts of historical events in Daniel, which are so precise in comparison to the known extra-biblical materials, that the conclusion is unequivocal: the author had to be an eyewitness who experienced these events and therefore could provide historically precise accounts. Primary sources definitely demonstrate that the author knew things that were unknown in the second century BC but recently rediscovered by archaeologists. A few examples must suffice to prove the point: (a) In Daniel 4 Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned as the proud builder of Babylon. This knowledge about his building activity was lost (it is never mentioned by the ancient historians Herodotus, Ctesias, Strabo, or Plinius) but has been confirmed by modern excavations of Babylon. Some inscriptions resemble the biblical account of Daniel 4 so closely (e.g., the Grotefend Cylinder) that R. H. Pfeiffer admitted, “We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar (4:30), as the excavations have proved”;1 (b) Belshazzar’s existence was disputed by scholars until the end of the nineteenth century. Then it was found that he was not only the firstborn son of Nabonidus but that his father made him coregent and “entrusted him the [Babylonian] kingdom.”2 Belshazzar, therefore, correctly offered Daniel the third position of authority in his kingdom (i.e., after Nabonidus and himself; see Dan 5:7, 16, 29); (c) The Nabonidus Chronicle confirms that Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king, was not in Babylon when it fell to the Persians in 539 BC
In the month of Tashritu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Nabonidus) massacred the confused inhabitants. The 14th day, Sip-par was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The 16th day, Gobryas (Ugbaru), the governor of Gutium and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned (there).3
R. P. Dougherty strongly affirms the historicity of the book of Daniel: “Of all the non-Babylonian records dealing with the situation at the close of the Neo-Babylonian empire, the fifth chapter of Daniel ranks next to cuneiform literature in accuracy so far as outstanding events are concerned.”4
Only one historical problem, the identification of Darius the Mede, remains in the book of Daniel. It has not yet been satisfactorily solved because of the lack of adequate historical background material. William Shea’s hypothesis of identifying this figure with Gubaru/Ugbaru/Gobryas, general of Cyrus’ army who conquered Babylon in October 539, is the best option in the current debate.5
2. The language of the book – Historical-critical scholars have claimed that the language of Daniel indicates a second-century origin. However, linguistic comparisons of Daniel’s Hebrew with Qumran Hebrew manuscripts (second century BC) speak in favor of the Persian hypothesis, because Daniel’s Hebrew is not close to the Hebrew of the Qumran literature. Also the Persian loanwords in Daniel are Old Persian words indicating their antiquity; their meaning is sometimes hard to discern or even lost. In addition, the Aramaic of Daniel belongs to the official or Imperial Aramaic (ca. 600–330 BC) and not to the second-century Aramaic. Gleason Archer explains that “the Genesis Apocryphon furnishes very powerful evidence that the Aramaic of Daniel comes from a considerably earlier period than the second century BC”6
There are only three Greek words in Daniel, and they all designate the names of musical instruments (Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15). This is not very surprising in view of the fact that Greek trade was going on all over the ancient Near East from the eighth century BC onwards. Also Greeks were employed in Babylon in the time of Nebuchadnezzar as soldiers in his army, and they could have brought these musical instruments with them. If the book had been written in the middle of the second century, as the Maccabean hypothesis claims, then the document should teem with Greek words because at that time it was the predominant language in the East, and Greek culture was prevalent in the Middle East.
3. Daniel’s four empires – The Maccabean hypothesis claims that the four world empires in Daniel are Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. However, the proper sequence of the four world empires is Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. This can be documented by the following facts: (a) In 550 BC, the Persian king Cyrus defeated the Median king Astyages and formed one kingdom known as Medo-Persia, which means that, at the time of the fall of Babylon in 539 BC, Medo-Persia was already a united empire; (b) The symbolism employed in the book describing the Medo-Persia kingdom indicates that it was counted as one kingdom and not two – the silver part of the statue has two arms (Dan 2:32); the bear representing the same power has two unequal sides (Dan 7:5); and the ram, identified as Medo-Persia, has two different horns (Dan 8:3, 20); (c) Daniel clearly identifies the first three empires as Babylon, Medo-Persia (one united kingdom!), and Greece (Dan 2:38; 5:28; 6:8, 12, 15; 8:20, 21). As far as the biblical text is concerned, the book makes no separation between the Median and Persian empires. Rome is the fourth empire since it succeeded the Grecian Empire in history.
4. The time element in the book of Daniel – The scope of the book goes far beyond Maccabean times, namely, to the time of the end. It means that the sequence of the four successive kingdoms does not end in the Maccabean time. The book predicts the first (Dan 9) and the second coming of Jesus (Dan 2 and 7) with the resurrection at the end of time as the climax of the book (Dan 12:2, 13). The message of Daniel is centered on God and His eternal kingdom in the future.
“The arguments for the Maccabean dating of Daniel can hardly be said to be convincing. Such a period of composition is in any event absolutely precluded by the evidence from Qumran, … because there would have been insufficient time for Maccabean compositions to be circulated, venerated, and accepted as canonical Scripture by a Maccabean sect” (R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1969], 1127).
5. The tone in the book of Daniel – The atmosphere of the book of Daniel does not correspond to or fit the situation of the Maccabean revolt. The prophet Daniel has a very reverent attitude towards Nebuchadnezzar and Darius the Mede (Dan 2:37, 38; 6:21). He works for them in very high government positions and is loyal to them. He speaks with great respect and dignity even to the wicked King Belshazzar (Dan 5:22–24). Nebuchadnezzar himself acts very reverently toward Daniel, even bows down before him (Dan 2:46-48); and according to chapter 4, Nebuchadnezzar reports his conversion story and praises the true High God (Dan 4:34, 37). Even though in the prophetic part of the book, the faithful are persecuted and suffer, they never are encouraged to organize a revolt against their rulers and oppressors. It is a picture rather of passive resistance. This stands in sharp contrast to the Maccabean revolt against king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the second century. J. J. Collins rightly argues that “the court-tales in chapters 1-6 were not written in Maccabean times. It is not even possible to isolate a single verse which betrays an editorial insertion from that period.”7
6. The evidence from the Qumran Manuscripts – The Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts speak persuasively in favor of the Persian hypothesis. Daniel is called a prophet, and his book was extensively used in Qumran. Eight manuscripts of Daniel were found there in three caves (1Q, 4Q, and 6Q); they date from 125 BC to AD 50. This means that this community of faith highly respected and widely used the book of Daniel. It is quoted along with other books such as Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and the Psalms. This would have been highly unusual if the book had been written only in the middle of the second century, only two decades prior to the use of this document by the Qumran community. This period of time is far too short for the book to have been written, copied, and widely read, which would have been necessary for it to gain such great popularity and authority.
7. The dating of the visions – The manner of dating the visions in the book of Daniel corresponds closely to the dating used in the books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Haggai (sixth century), but not to the book of Malachi (fifth century). The practice of putting a date to the visions in the book of Daniel (2:1; 7:1; 8:1; 9:1; 10:1) is similar to the prophets closely connected with the Babylonian exile. Jeremiah marked eight visions (1:2, 3; 25:1; 28:1; 32:1; 36:1; 41:1; 45:1; 46:1, 2), and others he described by certain events (21:1; 24:2; 26:1; 27:1; 33:1; 38:1, 7; 39:15; 40:1; 47:1). The book of Ezekiel has 12 visions with a specific date (1:1, 2; 8:1; 20:1; 24:1; 29:1, 17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1, 17; 33:21; 40:1). The small book of Haggai, written in 520 BC, contains five visions, and all are dated (1:1; 1:15; 2:1; 2:10; 2:20). The book of Malachi (ca. 425 BC) comprises several visions, but none is dated! The same is true of the apocalyptic literature of the second century BC and later. The book of Daniel is, in this respect, closer to the exilic prophets than to the Jewish apocryphal or pseudepigraphical works in which visions are not dated.
8. The testimony of the book of Daniel – The book presents itself as a work from the sixth century BC, in the Babylonian-Persian setting, and clearly states that Daniel is its author (7:1; 12:4, 9). Daniel is directly mentioned as the author of several chapters that are written in the first-person (7:2, 4, 6, etc.; 8:1, 2; 9:2-4, 20-23; 10:2, 7, 10, 15-19; 12:5, 7, 8). That he also refers to himself in the third person (1:6; 2:14; 5:29; 6:1-4, 28; 7:1; 10:1) is no contradiction, because even some ancient extra-biblical documents were written in this style (for example, Xenophon’s Anabasis, or Gaius Julius Caesar’s Gallic War).
9. The testimony of Jesus Christ – In the New Testament, Jesus speaks highly of Daniel (Matt 24:15). He calls him a prophet and connects the prophecy about “the abomination of desolation” (Dan 9:27) to the future fall of Jerusalem in the year AD 70 (see Matt 24:16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20, 21). Jesus takes Daniel as a historical figure of the sixth century and explains that the focus of the book goes far beyond the Maccabean times!
Conclusion – The Maccabean hypothesis has serious weaknesses and is not convincing. To deny that God knows the end from the beginning (Isa 46:10) and is able to accurately predict the flow of history before it happens is in direct opposition to the biblical assertions that God revealed the future to Daniel (Dan 2:19-23; 7:1, 2; 8:1, 2). The existence of genuine predictive prophecies and God’s foreknowledge of historical events are the interpretative keys that unlock the meaning of Daniel.
Objections raised by historical-critical scholars and problems related to a sixth-century authorship of the book can be adequately explained. The author of the book of Daniel is the prophet Daniel himself.
1 Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1941), 758, 759.
2 James B. Pritchard, ed., “Verse Account of Nabonidus,” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, third ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 312–315.
3 Idem, “Nabonidus Chronicle,” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 306.
4 Raymond P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar: A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1929), 216.
5 William H. Shea, “Darius the Mede: An Update” in Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (1982): 229–247.
6 Gleason L. Archer, Jr., “The Aramaic of the ‘Genesis Apocryphon’ Compared with the Aramaic of Daniel,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Paine (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1970), 169.
7 John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel, Harvard Semitic Monographs 16 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), 11.