When was the book of Daniel written?

This dream, couched in symbolic language, is one of the very great outstanding prophecies of Scripture. So damaging is this prophecy and its fulfilment to the theories of the Modernists, that the assertion has been made that the Book of Daniel was a pious forgery composed by some Jew in Palestine in the second century B.C. The Book of Daniel was written close about the sixth century B.C. In that case four centuries would have rolled by, and two world-empires—the Medo-Persian and the Grecian—had arisen and passed into history, and would have to be explained away. Long before that time, amid the ruins of Babylon the very name of Nebuchadnezzar was forgotten by the natives in those parts. Was ever a lie more stupidly concocted and more easily exposed? As we shall see, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream had only one possible explanation. It was God-given, first to the King, and then to Daniel. It served to bring the youthful Daniel to the front. The dream was so manifestly of God that Nebuchadnezzar himself, heathen as he was, was constrained to acknowledge the hand of God.

The Authenticity of Daniel

Perhaps no other book of the Bible has been so much attacked as the book of Daniel. It is a veritable battlefield between faith and unbelief. For about 2,000 years, wicked men, heathen philosophers and infidels have hammered away against it; but the book has proved to be the anvil upon which the critics' hammers have been broken into pieces. The book has survived all attacks, and we need not fear that the weak and puerile critics, the most subtle infidels of Christendom in our day, can harm the book. It has been denied that Daniel wrote the book during the Babylonian captivity. Kuenen and Wellhausen and their imitating disciples like Canon Farrar, Driver and others of inferior calibre, claim that the work was not written in the Exile, but centuries later. Daniel had nothing to do with the book at all; a holy and gifted Jew wrote it instead, and it is avowed fiction. Such are a few of the infidel statements made against this sublime book. These critics follow the wicked assailant of Christianity of the third century, Porphyr, who contended that the book of Daniel is a forgery, that it was written during the time of the Maccabees, after Antiochus Epiphanes, so clearly foretold in this book, had appeared. The whole reasoning method of the destructive Bible-criticism may be reduced to the following. Prophecy is an impossibility, there is no such thing as foretelling events to come. Therefore a book which contains predictions must have been written after the events which are predicted. But how could the man who committed such a forgery be a pious Jew? No, the book of Daniel is either divine or it is the most colossal forgery and fraud. No middle ground is possible. We give a few of the evidences which answer the infidel attacks upon this great fundamental prophetic book. It should be enough for every Christian that our Lord, the infallible Son of God, mentions Daniel by name in His great prophetic discourse delivered on Olivet (Matthew 24:15). There can be no question that our Lord at least twice more referred to the book of Daniel. When He speaks of Himself and His coming again in the clouds of heaven as the Son of Man, He confirms Daniel's vision in chapter 7:13, and when He speaks of the stone to fall in Matthew 21:44, He confirms Daniel 2:44-45. How does the critic meet this argument? He tells us that our Lord accommodated Himself to the Jewish views current in His day. They say, perhaps He knew better, and some say that He did not know. In other words, they deny the infallibility of our Lord, and with this invention that He accommodated Himself against His better knowledge, they accuse our Lord of something worse. When the Lord uttered the words, "Daniel the prophet" He put at once His unimpeachable seal on both the person and the book of Daniel. But there are other evidences. The heathen Porphyr declared that the book was written during the days of the Maccabees; as stated above the modern critics have echoed the opinion of that lost heathen soul. But the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was made before the time of the Maccabees, contains the book of Daniel. It was in the hands of the learned Hebrews, who translated in the third century before Christ the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek. The book therefore antedates the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Furthermore during the days of the Maccabees a book was written, the first book of the Maccabees, a historical account of those eventful days. This Maccabean work not only presupposes the existence of the book of Daniel, but shows actual acquaintance with it, and therefore gives proof that the book must have been written long before that period (1 Macc. 1:54, compare with Daniel 9:27; 2:49 and Daniel 3). The reliable Jewish historian Josephus also furnisheth historically an evidence for Daniel. He tells us that when Alexander the Great, who is mentioned in Daniel's prophecy (chapter 8), came to Jerusalem in the year 332 B.C., Jaddua the high priest, showed him the prophecies of Daniel, and Alexander was greatly impressed with them. Then we have the testimony of another prophet of the exile, the prophet Ezekiel. He speaks twice in the highest terms of Daniel, whose contemporary he was. (See Ezekiel 14:14- 20 and 28:3.) Daniel also betrays such an intimate acquaintance with Chaldean customs and history, as well as their religion, such as none but one who lived there and was an eye-witness could have possessed. For instance, the description of the Chaldean magicians perfectly agrees with the accounts found in other sources. The account of the insanity of Nebuchadnezzar is confirmed by the ancient historian Berosus. Then there has been a most striking vindication of this book through the Babylonian excavations, tablets, cylinders and monuments. Into this we cannot fully enter, but we cite but one of the most striking. The name of Belshazzar furnished for a long time material to the infidels to reject the historical accuracy of the book.

265 Not only does Josephus present the number of the books of scripture as composing a whole, divided into three parts, and Daniel as one of the most admirable among them, thus assuring us the Old Testament such as we have it was a known volume, but the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach, refers to this volume, though not distinguishing the books, in the same threefold division — the law, the prophets, and the other books. That is, he shews the body of scripture complete. Not only so, but he refers to these being translated, declaring that the law, the prophets, and the other books had not the same force in the Greek tongue. That Daniel lived in the time of the captivity, we have proof from Ezekiel, who names him by name, and who wrote at that period. The book of Daniel, moreover, had its place in the Septuagint translation. It is not, indeed, the one we have, which is Theodotian's; but there was one, of which fragments are now extant in the Chisian MS. Now this translation was probably as early as the beginning of Antiochus's reign, that is, B.C. 175, Mattathias's revolt being in B.C. 167. The book of Maccabees, probably from the contents dating about B.C. 130, refers to Daniel. In sum, if we receive the New Testament, we have the authority of the Lord Himself for Daniel's being a prophet. Further, we have (for the historical truth of his existence as a remarkably well-known man at the period the book of Daniel refers to) the testimony of his contemporary, Ezekiel. We have Josephus, thoroughly versed in Jewish lore, bearing witness that Daniel was of special eminence among the prophets, and the complete volume of the books of scripture specifically noticed, saying that they had not a multitude of books, but twenty-two (now made twenty-four by the separation of Ruth from Judges, and Lamentations from Jeremiah); that they were all completed by the reign of Artaxerxes, thus letting in Malachi and Esther, and no more; that there were indeed other books among them, but that they had not the same authority because there were no prophets to authenticate them.

266 Nothing can be simpler than this. Without entering into details which change nothing of the substance, we have, on dear and intelligible grounds, the canonical scriptures and the Apocrypha. The canonical books are divided into three parts: the law, prophets, and hymns; or, as the Lord says in Luke, the law, prophets, and psalms. But this is not all. The first book of Maccabees refers to Daniel, and no doubt to the LXX translation. This book was written some hundred and thirty years before Christ. Jesus, the son of Sirach, refers to the canonical books, by their well-known tripartite division, and to a translation of them; that is, Daniel existed then, and was translated into Greek. The lowest date for this is B.C. 130. Some place the son of Sirach B.C. 200. The Septuagint translation, of which Daniel formed a part, was made from B.C. 280 by degrees. The revolt of Mattathias was more than a hundred and ten years after it commenced to be made. It is supposed by some that Esther was translated in the reign of Ptolemy Philometer, and this would tend to shew that the translation was complete earlier. Now we have no authorities whatever to refer to during the interval between Malachi and the Septuagint translation. But we have the concurrent voice of all the authority we possess that Daniel is authentic; and the fact of its being part of the Septuagint makes it to the last degree improbable that its date could be any later one; while the Jews, who certainly knew their own canon, most undoubtedly received it as the book of the prophet (Josephus also, who was thoroughly versed in the question, giving, not his opinion, but clearly and elaborately the Jews' judgment upon it, and the very intelligible grounds of it). All other authorities agree, not merely as authorities, but refer to these very books as the books known (settled by authority) and received of the nation. We have not an earlier testimony than the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, for none exists; but we have a testimony to the earlier and universal reception of these books as scripture. Hence, it can be proved to have existed earlier, for it was then fully received by all as an authentic book, and translated as a part of scripture, probably some time before the period referred to, certainly then as being fully acknowledged, which is exactly the same thing as to our present question (that is, that it was not written for the occasion, for it was then translated as a well-known book).

W. But the other proofs of the epoch of Daniel's prophesying?

H. There are Greek words used for instruments of music. As to this, De Wette himself admits that it is possible that Greek instruments with these names may have been known to the Babylonians at this time. But a fuller enquiry into and deeper knowledge of languages, of which recent study has made almost a new science, has shewn that, not only does this attempt to impeach the genuineness of Daniel, from the use of Greek words, wholly fail, but the facts go to prove the genuineness. At the utmost, two names of instruments (which, if they came from Greece, would naturally keep their names) can be traced to Greek words. The others belong to that class of languages from which Greek proceeds — the Aryan, or Indo-European, known now through Sanscrit and Zend. These words belonged to the East, and, save one, are not found where Greek and Aramaean were thrown together in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. The foreign words are, many of them, inexplicable from Greek, but are explicable from the sacred language of the Aryans, who were the priestly caste in Babylon, and under Cyrus. As I have said, when Aramaean was Hellenized, these words disappeared. The force of this is evident.

212 It is alleged, too, that the Chaldee and Hebrew are corrupt — so say De Wette and Dr. Williams. I consult other authorities, and find the character of the Hebrew bears the closest affinity to that of Ezekiel and Habakkuk, who lived near his time; but it is less marked by peculiar corruptions than that of Ezra. The Aramaean also, like that of Ezra, is also of an earlier form than exists in any other Chaldaic document. Michaelis declares that the language proves it was no late compilation. Other words betray a source which renders it inexplicable how it could have been composed in Palestine. And the peculiarities urged as proofs of the late composition of Daniel are, by Havernick, on very strong grounds, shewn to be Babylonish peculiarities. Thus, like the alleged Greek, they too prove the genuineness of Daniel, which they were produced to impeach.

But this is not all. It was clearly received into the canon when the LXX translation was made; so that it was then a known book. Now, the whole of this was known as complete, at the latest supposition, in 130 before Christ, as it is mentioned by Sirach — how long before cannot be said; but it was a well-known generally received version at that time. That is, Daniel certainly existed, was received, had been translated, not thirty years after Antiochus Epiphanes' death — not in Palestine, but in Egypt. Within thirty years after his death it had been translated, and circulated, and added to, in Egypt. Esther was translated certainly — some think only apocryphal additions and the book long before — in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Pentateuch is supposed to have been translated 285 or 286 years before Christ, 100 years before Antiochus, and we have a known public translation of Daniel noticed 30 years after him. Now, it is not, after all, very likely that they took 150 years to translate all; and when I say 30 years, I speak only of when the translation is first spoken of as a whole well-known. There is historical proof that the Old Testament began to be translated 1110 years before Antiochus began to reign; so that Daniel was translated probably long before the time he is made to live — certainly at latest at-the time they say he lived — as a part of scripture. Josephus treats him as the greatest of prophets.

As to Daniel 7, Mr. N. informs us that "the four monarchies in chapters 2 and 7 are the Babylonian, the Median, the Persian, the Macedonian. Interpreters, however, blend the Medes and Persians into one, and then pretend that the Roman empire is still in existence." "Chapter 7 also is confuted by the event; for the great day of judgment has not followed upon the fourth monarchy." (Phases, p. 171.) There is nothing like being bold enough: somebody will believe it, or at least, somebody will doubt; and nothing will be certain. "Interpreters, however, blend the Medes and Persians into one." Indeed! It is not very extraordinary; because, though distinct nations, they are blended in history, though "the highest came up last.*" But is it only interpreters who do this? What does Daniel do? He says, in interpreting Upharsin, "Thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians." That is, he brings them in on the scene together. It may be said, "But Darius, who was of the seed of the Medes, was set over the realm of the Chaldeans." One "interpreter" has used this to prove that it was still the Babylonish empire. Where was this distinct empire of the Medes to which the Persians succeeded as another? Cyrus, king of Persia, takes Babylon, and the temple is built by his orders. Darius may have ruled in Babylon till Cyrus had finished his conquests and had settled the empire; but the Persians were, at the epoch of the fall of the Babylonish empire, joint possessors with the Medes of the imperial power as a people.

263 Mr. N. says, consequently, on his Median scheme, that the last empire is the Grecian. The ten horns have no kind of analogy with the Grecian kingdom, which Mr. N. supposes the prophet to be describing as a thing past. But not only so: Daniel himself most positively describes (for, unhappily, he is, as to this point, one of the "interpreters," or, at least, the angel who explained the vision is) the Medo-Persian empire as one beast, and by the well-known Persian emblem: "The ram which thou sawest, having two horns, are the kings of Media and Persia. And the rough goat is the king of Grecia." That is, it is absolutely certain (for he says so) that Daniel considers the Medo-Persian as one empire, or beast; and that, consequently, the whole of Mr. N.'s argument is not worth a straw, unless it be to shew that the prophet does really give ampler details of what was future, and is so yet, on to the day of judgment, than he does of what Mr. N. would make historical. For, if the Medo-Persian empire be one empire (that is, the second), then the Roman is confessedly the last — that with the ten horns. Now, even supposing the unfounded assertion to be true, that the author of the book ascribed to Daniel wrote in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, yet still the Roman empire (that which is given with far the greatest detail, and whose division into divers kingdoms is a matter of history) was future. That is, he acts, wherever you put him as w date, as a prophet, and commits himself fully to the details of future events, such as the subdivision of the Roman empire into ten kingdoms, its final blasphemous character, and judgment. Not only so; but the fact of the declaration of the writer, that the Medo-Persian kingdom is one only, considered as a beast destroys the whole foundation of Mr. N.'s reasonings. He states that "he [Daniel] gives the Grecian kingdom, under which he lived, as the last, and then passes to the general judgment," "the great day of judgment has not followed upon the fourth monarchy. * Now, if the Medo-Persian be one only, then he gives a beast or empire after the Grecian, and that with very much greater detail than as to those which preceded; and the allegation is so far from having any foundation, that we have historical proof that he is right; for another kingdom has succeeded the Grecian, divided into many horns — that is, he is a prophet. I need not say, that I agree with all existing testimony, that it was Daniel the prophet, the captive in Babylon, who wrote it.

264 In fine, Mr. N. says the book of Daniel cannot be proved to have existed earlier than the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, that is, than the last events it describes. The reader will remember that this is casting off the New Testament altogether — that is, really, Christianity — because the Lord there cites his book as that of a prophet. But, as to other proofs, it is beyond all controversy that, at all times of which we have any evidence, this book has been received by the Jews as Daniel's, written during the captivity. The Talmud has put it among the Cherubim, or Hagiographa, with Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, &c. But none has called its inspiration in question. Josephus is very particular he gives the number of the books of the Old Testament, and refers to Daniel as the most renowned of prophets. He moreover declares, that the Jewish canon was closed in the reign of Artaxerxes, that is, with Malachi; so that he bears the strongest possible testimony to the date of Daniel as an authentic book.

It may be asked, "On what are the assertions founded of the recent date of the composition of the book?" The answer is, "On nothing. The objectors think there cannot be prophecy: hence, they argue, there is not. Hence, when an era is spoken of, the book must have been written after it. In this case, indeed the book of Daniel must have been written after the division of the Roman empire; for he speaks of that; and the history of Josephus must have been also written subsequent to that division into two kingdoms, for he speaks of the book of Daniel which refers to it. But Mr. N. cuts this all short by saying nothing about the passages which speak of the end; and by making (contrary to history and the positive assertion of the book itself) the Median and Persian two consecutive empires, and maintaining a profound silence on the ten horns.

There is one very noticeable feature in all attacks on the Christian faith, and that of Unitarianism is no exception. The prophecies of Scripture are either altogether ignored, or an attempt is made to explain them away, as for instance, when they tell us that the very striking prophecies of the Book of Daniel were written after the events had happened, and were merely history, and not prophecies at all. But there is one very definite and helpful fixing of dates. In B.C. 277 Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, gathered seventy-two learned Jews, six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel, to Alexandria in order to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. This translation is commonly called the Septuagint, because it was the work of seventy translators. It is reputed that the King gave a million sterling for a single copy of the Old Testament, and half a million sterling to the translators for their translation. There can be no fixing of Old Testament prophecies after that date. Of course the books of the Old Testament were much older than B.C. 277, as the Jews, the custodians of the Old Testament, could testify.

The book of the prophet Daniel ( hebr. = my God is judge) owes its name to the main character. Daniel, as many other authors of the antiquity and the Bible, writes of himself in the third person throughout the first part of the book. From chapter 7:28 onwards (in the second part) he writes of himself in the first person. In chap. 7:1 Daniel tells us how he wrote down the dream that was revealed to him. In chap. 12:4 he is asked to shut up the words and seal the book. This can only relate to the entire book written by him.

Daniel belonged to those Jews who had been led away captive to Babylon at the first siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the year 605 BC (compare Dan. 1:1-2 with 2 Kings 24:1 and 2 Chron. 36:6-7). By this Isaiah’s prophecy to king Hezekiah was fulfilled which was spoken of around 100 years before Daniel’s time. This prophecy said that the descendants of Judah’s king would become servants of the king of Babylon (compare Dan. 1:3 with Is. 39:5-7). Daniel was one of these nobles und descendants of the Jewish royalty who were destined to serve at the Babylonian court after profound training. He was probably not more than 15 to 20 years old at his imprisonment.

Different reasons are assigned for the Talmudic Jews having placed the Book of Daniel amongst the Hagiographa. A Jewish explanation is that the Book begins in a different way from other prophetical Books, which is quite true: compare J. N. Darby's 'Synopsis of the Books of the Bible.' But of the essentially prophetical character of the Book, Matt. 24:15 should satisfy every Christian, even of the Arnold school; the testimony of Josephus (Ant. x. 11) every Jew. This Jewish annalist is indeed explicit as to the doctrine that the succession of prophets ceased with the reign of Artaxerxes, or roughly, 450 years B.C. hence, if the Book of Daniel had been composed in the Maccabean period, as neologians contend, it is certain that the Palestinian Jews would have assigned it no place at all in the Canon; but this will be better understood when we unfold that part of our subject.

The book of Daniel is written in two languages, in the Hebrew and in the Aramaic, the language of Chaldea. The first chapter is written in Hebrew, in style closely allied to the Hebrew used in the book of Ezekiel. Chapters 8-12 are likewise written in the Hebrew language. But chapters 2:4-7:28 are written in the Aramaic language. This gives an additional argument for the authenticity of the book. The author was conversant with both languages, an attainment exactly suited to a Hebrew living in exile, but not in the least so to an author in the Maccabean age, when the Hebrew had long since ceased to be a living language, and had been supplanted by the Aramaic vernacular dialect. Daniel was led to employ both languages for a specific reason. What concerned these great monarchies, Babylonia and Medo-Persia, was written in the language with which they were familiar. What concerned the Jewish people was written for them in Hebrew. We shall not follow the linguistic division of the book. We find in the book two main sections:

The book of Daniel has been the object of unbelieving criticism for ages. The first attacks go back to the heathen New Platonist Porphyrius of Tyre (3rd century AC). Porphyrius designates the book of Daniel as the work of a Jew of the 2nd century BC. The modern critics hold similar opinions. The reasons mentioned against Daniel’s authorship are pretended historical inaccuracies, linguistic details and the “theology” of Daniel. The main reason for criticism however is no doubt the fact that Daniel prophesied historical events with absolute precision (as did Isaiah). For Daniel has in detail described the Syro-Egyptian fights of the time of the Maccabees among other events (Dan. 11:1-35). This is simply impossible – say the critics. They say a book with such details must have been written only after these events. But Daniel has also prophesied precisely of the coming of Christ (Dan. 9:25). Finally he writes on the still future events of the time of the end before the second coming of Christ. In all this the words of Amos the prophet are clearly affirmed: “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealed his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).