Who wrote the book of Daniel? Who was the author of Daniel?

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.

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.

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).

Your letter, however, is more particularly occupied with Daniel and the book of his prophecy, and your questions deal more with its authenticity. "Was Daniel the author?" You ask, was the book written in the sixth century B.C. or "circa 100 B.C.?" "Are its historical parts all true or mixed up with very much of fable?" "As it is claimed that the so-called prophetic parts were written after the events they describe, what proof have you that they were written before?" The above seem to be the most important of your questions, but as I cannot undertake to answer them all at present, I will confine myself in this letter especially to the prophetic parts of the book. And of the prophecies, that of the Seventy Weeks (Dan. 9) will answer our purpose as well as any other. For if this can be proved to have been written before the events therein mentioned took place, we may reasonably conclude that the remaining prophecies are equally authentic, and that the higher critics have, as usual, made a mistake.

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.

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).

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 judgment that fell upon the people must have placed the sacred books in jeopardy. We cannot however follow Plumptre when he says, 'The great wrench given to the national life in the Babylonian captivity brought with it, we may well believe, the destruction and mutilation of the greater part of this literature.' ('Bible Educator,' iv. p.318.) There is no ground for this notion. The Jews must have carried their sacred books everywhere with them: see Acts 15:21. There would seem to have been no ruthless treatment of the Israelitish archives by Babylonian conquerors, any more than by Assyrian. The record of the conduct of Cyrus in the Book of Ezra indicates consideration, from whatever motives, upon the part of Elamite monarchs — who would be fair samples of eastern rulers — for the religion of a subject race, similar to that which we meet with in the Romans. Whatever the treatment to which at the Captivity they were subjected, it is clear that the Hebrew Scriptures survived in a substantial condition, from the reference in Dan. 9:2 (cf. Ezek. 20:11, 5:6). As to the passage in Daniel, Oehler (art. 'Canon' in Herzog's Encyclopdia.) is surely mistaken in thinking the expression there used lacks precision. Westcott justly says, 'The title here applied to the prophetic writings — "the books" (Dan. 10:2) — shows that when the Book of Daniel was written the collection was definitely marked out and known.'(p.299.) Westcott does not determine the date of the Book. Believing as we do that it was Daniel's own work, and that at least chaps. 1-9 preceded Ezra's reformation, we cannot follow the Cambridge Professor in saying, 'The Law alone seems to have formed the Jewish Bible up to the Captivity.' (Ibid. p.297.) No proof has been afforded of the common assertion that Ezra, the great Synagogue, or elders of the congregation,* and the last prophets, collected and revised the Books which, when completed, made up the Old Testament as we possess it. While it is demonstrable that Ezra, for one, was a man singularly adapted for such a work — at least so far as the 'Law' is concerned — can it be correct to assert as Davidson, following his German guides, that 'The man who first gave public sanction to a portion of the national literature was Ezra, who laid the foundation of a Canon'? ('Canon of the Bible,' p.23.) We believe that, not by any bold stroke of one man, but by a gradual process long at work had the foundation of the Canon been laid. That, as this ready scribe of Rationalism says, Ezra 'edited the Law,' would result from Ezra 7:6, 10, 12, and other passages of the Book called by his name; but to speak of 'making the first canon or collection of books, and giving it an authority which it had not before,' is wide of the mark. Davidson goes on to say, 'As to Ezra's mode of redaction, we are left for the most part to conjecture.' (Ibid, p.25.) But this is indeed the stock in trade of writers of the class to which Davidson belongs. We firmly believe that Ezra revived the reverence of the people for the Law, against which they had so grievously sinned; and that to the absorption of the Jewish mind at this epoch with the Mosaic Code is the fact due that the Samaritans, in setting up a rival religion, contented themselves with acquiring a copy of the Pentateuch as their sacred book. Westcott, on the other hand, is one of those who regard the Samaritan Canon as a proof of the limitation, at the time of the Exile, of the Jewish Bible to the Law.

No book of Holy Scripture has been more seriously assailed in recent years than the book of Daniel. Its antagonists have endeavoured to prove on the one hand that the man never existed, and on the other, that whoever wrote the book must have done so considerably later than the times of Nebuchadnezzar and his immediate successors because of the lucid description in chapter 11 of events that happened in the second century B.C. It is sometimes said that Daniel has suffered more in the critics' den than ever he suffered in the lions' den. The statement is scarcely correct. Neither Daniel nor his book have suffered at all at the hands of the critics. Enemies of the Holy Scriptures may be likened to a man who, with clenched fists, angrily assails a wall. The fists will suffer undoubtedly, but the wall will remain intact, in spite of all the man's rage.

This internal evidence destructive critics try to evade and offset. They claim that the writer was not Simon Peter, but that some unknown author, using Peter's name, wrote this document. It is the same foolish invention advanced by Old Testament critics as to the authorship of the book of Daniel.