Daniel Prophet and Man of God

II. Critics and our Response

ARGUMENT 1: Daniel was not listed among the famous Israelites by Ecclesiasticus 44:1ff. Since this document was in existence by 180 B.C., Daniel must have lived at a time later than 180 B.C.

RESPONSE: Among the Qumran discoveries were manuscripts and fragments from the Book of Daniel. “Since the [Qumran] community was itself Maccabean in origin, it testifies to the way in which Daniel was revered and cited as Scripture in the second century B.C.” ⁷ Harrison points out that Ecclesiasticus not only omits any direct reference to Daniel, but also to Job and all the Judges except Samuel, as well as Kings Asa and Jehoshaphat. Mordecai and even Ezra himself are also omitted.⁸ Harrison further points to allusions to Daniel by this same author (Ben Sira) in some of his other writings. He alludes to Daniel in Maccabees (1 Macc. 2:59ff.), Baruch (1:15-3:3), and Sibylline Oracles (III, 397ff.).⁹

Also, Josephus relates to us that the high priest in311BC showed the book of Daniel to Alexander the GreatDaniel pg. 17 18)

Antiquities of the Jews:

Book 11 - Chapter 8

“And when he went up into the temple,

he offered sacrifice to God, according to the high priest's direction, and

magnificently treated both the high priest and the priests. And when the Book of

Daniel was showed him (23) wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks

should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the

person intended. And as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the

present; but the next day he called them to him, and bid them ask what favors

they pleased of him; whereupon the high priest desired that they might enjoy the

laws of their forefathers, and might pay no tribute on the seventh year. He granted

all they desired. And when they entreared him that he would permit the Jews in

Babylon and Media to enjoy their own laws also, he willingly promised to do

hereafter what they desired. And when he said to the multitude, that if any of

them would enlist themselves in his army, on this condition, that they should

continue under the laws of their forefathers, and live according to them, he was

willing to take them with him, many were ready to accompany him in his wars.

6. So when Alexander had thus settled matters at Jerusalem, he led his army into

the neighboring cities; and when all the inhabitants to whom he came received

him with great kindness, the Samaritans, who had then Shechem for their

metropolis, (a city situate at Mount Gerizzim, and inhabited by apostates of the

Jewish nation,) seeing that Alexander had so greatly honored the Jews,

determined to profess themselves Jews; for such is the disposition of the

Samaritans, as we have already elsewhere declared, that when the Jews are in

adversity, they deny that they are of kin to them, and then they confess the truth;”

ARGUMENT 2: In the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, the Book of Daniel is not included in the second section (the prophets), but in the third (the writings).¹⁰ This shows that Daniel was not considered one of the earlier prophets. The book must therefore be a later work.

RESPONSE: In the Septuagint(285bc) (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) Daniel is listed with the prophets, indicating the translators, like Jesus, accepted Daniel as one of the prophets. Daniel was not a typical prophet like Isaiah or Jeremiah. His ministry was more like that of Joseph. Both were interpreters of dreams in a foreign land. Inclusion among the writings does not indicate anything about the date of the book. Job, for example, is included among the writings and is generally regarded to be the oldest book.

ARGUMENT 3: The language of the Book of Daniel argues for a late date. Certain Persian and Greek words are used which originated later than the 6^th century B.C. The Aramaic used in Daniel is “late” in form.

RESPONSE: Each individual language argument falls apart under scrutiny. The more we learn about the language of Daniel’s day, the more critical arguments collapse.¹¹

a.) Alledged Greek loan words

How could such words have been part of the vocabulary of sixth-century B.C. Aramaic in Babylon? Very easily, for the inscriptions of Sargon II (722-705) back in the Assyrian period refer to Greek captives from Cyprus and Ionia sold into slavery. Some of them may well have been musicians who played these instruments. The celebrated poet Alcaeus of Lesbos (c. 600 B.C.) refers to his brother Antimenidas as serving in the Babylonian army. E.F. Weidner ("Jojachin Konig von Juda," Melanges Syriens 2 [1939]: 923-35) published some Neo-Babylonian ration tablets listing supplies for Ionian carpenters, shipbuilders, and others, along with musicians from Ashkelon. It is therefore evident that Greek mercenaries and slaves served in the Babylonian and Assyrian periods, some of whom were undoubtedly versed in Greek music and musical instruments. It is no more surprising that Greek names for these instruments were borrowed by Aramaic than that "piano" and "viola" were borrowed into our language from Italian.

b) The Aramaic of Daniel

The Maccabean date hypothesis was propounded long before the discovery of the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran Cave 1. Before the publication of this scroll, there was no Palestinian Aramaic document extant from the third or second century B.C.; and it was therefore theoretically possible to date the Aramaic of Daniel as coming from the 160s B.C. But with the publication and linguistic analysis of the Apocryphon (which is a sort of midrash for Genesis), it has become apparent that Daniel is composed in a type of centuries-earlier Aramaic. A full discussion of this evidence appears in my article "The Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon." The Apocryphon was probably composed (according to its editors, N. Avigad and Y. Yadin) in the third century B.C., even though this copy dates from the first century B.C. Yet linguistic analysis indicates that in morphology, vocabulary, and syntax, the Apocryphon shows a considerably later stage of the Aramaic language than do the Aramaic chapters of Daniel. [5]

As for the characteristic word-order, the Apocryphon tends to follow the normal sequence of Northwest Semitic--verb first, followed by subject, then object--in the characteristic structure of the clause. Beyond question this was the normal practice of Western Aramaic used in Palestine during the Maccabean period. But the Aramaic of Daniel shows a marked tendency for the verb to be deferred till a later position in the clause, often even after the noun object--somewhat like the word order of Akkadian (Babylonian and Assyrian) as used in Babylonia from the time of Sargon of Agade (twenty-fourth cent. B.C.) onward. On the basis of the word order alone, it is safe to conclude that Daniel could not have been composed in Palestine (as the Maccabean hypothesis demands) but in the eastern sector of the Fertile Crescent, in all probability in Babylon itself. The above-mentioned article contains several pages that should prove quite conclusively to any scholar that the second-century date and Palestinian provenance of the Book of Daniel cannot be upheld any longer without violence being done to the science of linguistics.

c.) Likewise, the Hewbrew, when compared to 2^nd centurary Text from qumran and other writtings reflect 6^th centurary vocabulary and linquistic styles with Daniels contemporaries.

ARGUMENT 4: Daniel was incorrect when he wrote (1:1) that Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Jerusalem occurred in the “third year of Jehoiakim” because Jeremiah spoke of it as being in the “fourth year” (Jeremiah 25:1, 46:2). Daniel’s error can be explained by the fact that he did not live in those days but wrote at a later time.

RESPONSE: It should first be noted that Daniel did not say Nebuchadnezzar defeated Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, but only that he took certain people captive to Babylon. Secondly, the Palestinian method of reckoning the number of years of a king’s reign from the time of his accession differed from that of the Babylonian method. The Babylonian method did not count the year of a king’s accession; the Palestinian method did. Thus, Daniel (by the Babylonian method) spoke of the event as being in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign, and Jeremiah (by the Palestinian method) as being in the fourth.¹²

Jehoiakim's third year, Babylonian reckoning (fourth year, Hebrew reckoning, Jer 25:1). Babylonians called the first year "the year of accession." Daniel was in the first of three deportations (see Jer 25:11, note). The year was about 605 B.C.

As we get into the text, we will address these and more.