The Book of Daniel

We have language of his prayer used in Nehemiah; reference to his visions in Zechariah; and, at the times in which the writer must have lived [on the anti-supernaturalist presupposition], had he not been the [6^th century] prophet, viz. the Maccabee times, we have quotations not of the book only, but of its Greek translation, in the 3rd (the Jewish) Sibylline book. It is quoted in the 1st book of Maccabees, and at some time, at the least not later, in the book of Baruch; and, men allow too now, in the book of Enoch. (E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, with Copious Notes [Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1864], 353)

62^ On this topic, see Roger T. Beckwith, “Early Traces of the Book of Daniel,” Tyndale Bulletin 53:1 (2002) 75-82 & and Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985), 355-358.

63^ See W. O. E. Oesterley, An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1935), 169; Robert Henry Charles, ed., Apocrypha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), Tobit.

64^ Tobit 14:4-5; Daniel 2:21; 7:24; 8:14; 9:24; 12:7, 11-12. Beckwith notes:

Tobit is a work of primitive character, giving signs of belonging to the Persian period . . . and in the earlier text of it (that found in Codex Sinaiticus) it speaks of “the prophets of Israel” as predicting times and seasons, in the manner of Daniel, “until the time when the time of the seasons is fulfilled” (Tobit 14:4f.; cp. Dan. 2, 7–9, 11–12). Similarly, it has become a commonplace in Tobit and in other intertestamental works to assume that pious Jews of the exilic period would have avoided eating the unclean food of the Gentiles (Tobit 1:10–13; Judith 10:5; 12:2; Rest of Esther 14:17, addition C); but these incidental references all seem likely to go back to the extended narrative of Dan. 1:5–16. (Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism [London: SPCK, 1985])

65^ Beckwith notes:

There are close links between Daniel and the first book of 1 Enoch, the Book of Watchers (1 En. 1–36), showing dependence . . . on the side of the Book of Watchers. The links are the designation “watchers” for angels (Dan. 4:13, 17, 23; cp. 1 En. 10.9, 15; 12.2–4; 13.10 etc.), the names Michael and Gabriel for two of the angels (Dan. 8:16; 9:21; 10:13, 21; 12:1; cp. 1 En. 9.1; 10.9, 11 etc.) and the striking parallel between the vision of God in Dan. 7:9f. and that in 1 En. 14.18–22. But the age of the MSS of the Book of Watchers from Qumran indicates that its composition goes back to the latter half of the third century B. C., so the composition of Daniel must go back to a still earlier date. (Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism [London: SPCK, 1985], 357)

66^ See Timothy H. Lim et al., The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 104.

67^ Roger T. Beckwith, “Daniel 9 and the Date of Messiah’s Coming in Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Zealot and Early Christian Computation,” Revue de Qumran 40 [1981], 523, 528.

68^ See the discussion in Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella O.F.M., The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes, Introduction and Commentary, Vol. 39, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 8-10; Robert Henry Charles, ed., Apocrypha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), Sirach, sec. 6; W. O. E. Oesterley, The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus in the Revised Version with Introduction and Notes, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912), xx-xxiii. The early date for Ecclesiasticus is defended in E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, with Copious Notes (Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1864), Lecture 6, and in J. H. A. Hart, Ecclesiasticus: The Greek Text of Codex 248 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909) 249-266.

69^ Ecclesiasticus 36:10 is a prayer for the coming of the “end” and “appointed time” referred to in Daniel 8:19; 11:27, 29, 35; 12:4, 9. In the LXX a slightly different numbering system is employed, and Ecclesiasticus 36:10 is 36:7. Note the discussion in Roger T. Beckwith, “Early Traces of the Book of Daniel,” Tyndale Bulletin 53:1 (2002) 80-81. Beckwith concludes that Ben Sirach’s prayer “was made with full knowledge of the prophecies contained in Daniel 8 or 11-12, and asks explicitly that they may soon be fulfilled. . . . Ben Sira evidently knew the Book of Daniel” (pg. 81).

70^ See Daniel 9:4-19; Baruch 1:15-2:19 & E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, with Copious Notes (Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1864), 359–362.

71^ 1 Maccabees 2:59-60; see Daniel 3, 6. 1 Maccabees 2:49 also alludes to Daniel 8:19.

72^ See 1 Maccabees 1:54, where “abomination of desolation” alludes to the same Greek words in Daniel 9:27 & 11:31.

73^ William Heaford Daubney, The Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church (London: C. J. Clay and Sons; Cambridge University Press, 1900), 85.

74^ R. K. Harrison, “Daniel, Book of,” ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979–1988), 861–862.

75^ For an introduction to and translation of the Letter to Aristeas, see Robert Henry Charles, ed., Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 83-122. While the letter of Aristeas provides useful historical information, no affirmation is made here that the work is free of legendary or unhistorical statements.

76^ See H. St. J. Thackeray, “Septuagint,” ed. James Orr et al., The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 2723ff.

77^ Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament: English Translation (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1870), “Introduction.”; Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 345. In addition to the “historical plausibility” of Aristeas, and the “historical nucleus” to his work, despite some questionable accretions, there is further evidence for the existence of the LXX in the 3rd century: “Biblical quotations or allusions supposing knowledge of the LXX occur in Hellenistic Jewish writers from the end of the third century BCE onwards. . . . [Also,] [t]he Greek of the Pentateuch reflects an identifiable stage in the development of Koine (the ‘common’ language of the Hellenistic period) consonant with the early-third century. This is probably the strongest argument” (Jennifer M. Dines and Michael A. Knibb, The Septuagint [London: New York: T&T Clark, 2004], 40–42).

78^ The view that only the Pentateuch was originally translated, with the rest of the Old Testament being translated later, is common, especially among those who reject the inerrancy of Scripture. However, no external data support such a contention, and its advocates confess that the fact that books such as Daniel speak of events in the Maccabean period—that is, they contain predictive prophecy if their traditional date is accepted—supply the core reason for the attribution of a later date to the translation of these books: “The prophetic books . . . are mostly assigned to the mid-second century bce and later, largely from their supposed reflection of, and, in some cases, allusions to, contemporary events (Maccabean, Hasmonean, Roman, etc.)” (Jennifer M. Dines and Michael A. Knibb, The Septuagint [London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004], 46). That is, late dates are assigned to the translation of these books because of an anti-supernatural faith that predictive prophecy is impossible, not on facts.

Furthermore, the translation of Deuteronomy 32:8 and Isaiah 30:4 in the LXX presupposes the existence of the book of Daniel (cf. E. W. Hengstenberg, Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1848], 234-235 & E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, with Copious Notes [Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1864], 362), so even an admission that the Pentateuch was translated into Greek in the third century B. C. supports the existence of the book of Daniel at that time.

79^ Aristeas 1-11; Robert Henry Charles, ed., Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 95.

80^ Aristeas 30; Robert Henry Charles, ed., Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 98. Note that Aristeas 30 actually refers to the Hebrew Scriptures already existing in translation before the origination of the LXX—the LXX was to be an improvement upon even earlier translation work, not the first translation of the Old Testament into Greek.

81^ Aristeas 309-311; Robert Henry Charles, ed., Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 95

82^ Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), Antiquities 12:2:1.

83^ Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), Antiquities 12:2:4; cf. 12:2:11.

84^ Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), Antiquities 12:2:4.

85^ In addition to the sources mentioned below, see E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, with Copious Notes (Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1864), 560, 571-593 & 598-605 for detailed proof that “the character of [the book of Daniel’s] Hebrew exactly fits with the period of Daniel, that of its Chaldee excludes any later period” (560).

86^ Gleason Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 435.

87^ K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 78.

88^ “The Hebrew of Daniel Compared With the Qumran Sectarian Documents,” Gleason L. Archer, in John H. Skilton, ed., The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974), 470-471, 474-481. See this article for an examination of the many technical linguistic details of the Hebrew language proving Archer’s assertions.

89^ Gleason Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 435.

90^ That is, Daniel was composed around Babylon in the East, not around Judea in the West.

91^ Robert D. Wilson, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” in Biblical and Theological Studies, by the faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary (New York, NY: Scribener’s, 1912) 261-306.

92^ Gleason L. Archer Jr., Daniel (Expositor’s Bible Commentary 7; ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), n.p.

93^ Gleason L. Archer Jr., Daniel (Expositor’s Bible Commentary 7; ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), n.p.

94^ Joseph J. Lampe, “The Authenticity and Genuineness of Daniel,” The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 6, no. 21–24 (1895): 449–450.

95^ Raymond Philip Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar (Yale Oriental Series. Researches, Vol. 15. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1929), 199, 200.

96^ Joseph P. Free, rev. Howard F. Vos, Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992) 201-202.

97^ Gleason L. Archer Jr., Daniel (Expositor’s Bible Commentary 7; ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), n.p., referencing R.H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Harper, 1941), 758-59. See Joseph P. Free, rev. Howard F. Vos, Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992) 196 for a description of Nebuchadnezzar’s building activities.

98^ Gleason L. Archer Jr., Daniel (Expositor’s Bible Commentary 7; ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), n.p. Archer also notes:

Critics who assume that nothing ever happens uniquely in history but that all true occurrences must be repetitive in nature—so that scientists may properly observe them—find great difficulty in accepting the historicity of the account in Daniel 4 of Nebuchadnezzar’s seven years of madness (boanthropy). During this period he roamed the fields as a beast, imagining that he was an ox (4:33)—till finally his sanity returned to him, and he thanked the God of Daniel for his deliverance. As a matter of fact, we have no Babylonian record of any governmental activity at all on Nebuchadnezzar’s part between 582 and 575; so it may well be that this was the approximate period of his madness.

99^ Bruce Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976) 328.

100^ Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary on Chapters 1-9, Vol. 23, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 160.

101^ John E. Goldingay, Daniel (Word Biblical Commentary 30; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 108.

102^ Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Daniel, Vol. 1 (London: Blackie & Son, 1853), 61.

103^ R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969), 1120-1121.

104^ See http://faithsaves.net/Daniel-325-Son-God/ for a justification of the translation “the Son of God” in Daniel 3:25.

105^ For the text on the prism, see James Bennett Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. with Supplement. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 307–308. For a discussion of the text, see William H. Shea, “Daniel 3: Extra-Biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of Dura,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 20:1 (Spring 1982) 29-52.

106^ Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985), 356–358.

107^ K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 390–393. The footnotes in the quotation, providing many sources for Kitchen’s affirmation, have been removed in the quotation above; see the source for extensive documentation.

108^ For an analysis and refutation of the general arguments against miracles made by skeptics such as David Hume, see “The Argument Against Miracles” at http://faithsaves.net/argument-against-miracles/, reproduced by permission from Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 457-468.

109^ John E. Goldingay, “The Book of Daniel: Three Issues,” Themelios: Volume 2, No. 2, 1977 (1977): 48.

110^ W. Sibley Towner, Daniel, Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984), p. 115, cited in Mark Mangano, Esther & Daniel, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub., 2001), 130–131.

111^ “Jesus of Nazareth: Lord or Legend?” Dan Barker vs. Dr. Justin Bass, June 6, 2015; elec. acc. at “Fact Checking Dan Barker: From Our Recent Debate June 6, 2015,” http://danielbwallace.com/2015/08/01/fact-checking-dan-barker-from-our-recent-debate-june-6-2015/.

112^ S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel with Introduction and Notes, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), lxiii. Italics in original.

113^ John G. Gammie, book review of Daniel: Introduction and Commentary, by Joyce G. Baldwin. Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980) 453.

0¹⁰ J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC Series; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1972 reprint), p. 22.

1¹¹ For detailed discussion of this point, see Edwin M. Yamauchi, ‘The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East’, in J. Barton Payne, ed., New Perspectives on the Old Testament (Waco: Word, 1970), pp. 170–200.

2¹² Ibid, p. 192. The same conclusion is reached by T. C. Mitchell and R. Joyce, “The Musical Instruments in Nebuchadnezzar’s Orchestra,” in Wiseman et al., Notes on Some Problems in Daniel, p. 27.

114^ Allan M. Harman, A Study Commentary on Daniel, EP Study Commentary (Darlington, England; Webster, New York: Evangelical Press, 2007), 23.

115^ The “harp” (qat◊roœs), “sackbut” (sab≈k≈aœ}), and “psaltery” (p≈§sant◊eœrˆîn).

116^ Gleason Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 431.

117^ R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969), 1124–1127.

118^ Gleason Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 430–432.

119^ For further discussion of the Greek terms for these musical instruments and the absolute reasonableness of finding them in sixth-century Babylon, see E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, with Copious Notes (Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1864), 23–36.

120^ See D. J. A. Clines, “Darius,” ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979–1988), 867-868 on Darius I Hystaspes.

121^ J. Dyneley Prince, A Critical Commentary on the Book of Daniel: Designed Especially for Students of the English Bible (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung; Williams and Norgate; Lemcke & Buechner, 1899), 55–56.

122^ Concerning the change of the name Gubaru to Darius, see Robert Dick Wilson, “Darius the Mede,” The Princeton Theological Review XX, no. 1–4 (1922): 185–186 & George C. M. Douglas, “The Book of Daniel,” The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 13, no. 49–52 (1902): 237–238.

123^ R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969), 1122. Compare W. F. Albright, Journal of Biblical Literature, XL (1921), 112f.

124^ “Darius did not overthrow the Chaldean kingdom, but received it (Dan. 6:1), and was made king (haœm§lak≈, Dan. 9:1), namely, by Cyrus” (Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 9 [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996], 621.) That he enacted a decree suggested by his nobles without knowing its cause, and was unable to retract it despite his passionate desire to do so (Daniel 6) and even despite laboring until the going down of the sun to reverse it (Daniel 6:14), likewise provides significant support for the fact that Darius the Mede was a subordinate ruler, not the absolute monarch of the Medo-Persian empire.

125^ The Aramaic verb qabbeœl, translated “took” in Daniel 5:31, is translated “receive” in Daniel 2:6. In all three instances where the verb appears in the Old Testament it has the sense of receiving something from another who is superior. In Daniel 2:6 wise men will receive gifts from Nebuchadnezzar if they meet his conditions; in Daniel 7:18 the saints will receive the kingdom from God; and in Daniel 5:31 Darius receives the kingdom from his Persian overlord, Cyrus. In each of these instances qabbeœl is in the Pael, the passive Aramaic equivalent to the Hebrew Pual (see, e. g., Frederick E. Greenspahn, An Introduction to Aramaic, 2nd ed., Vol. 46, Resources for Biblical Study [Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003], 33).

126^ Compare the uses of this expression for a subordinate ruler given authority by an overlord in 2 Kings 23:34 & 2 Chronicles 36:4 (Pharaoh Necho making Eliakim a vassal king); 2 Kings 24:17; 2 Chronicles 36:10; Jeremiah 37:1 & Ezekiel 17:16 (Nebuchadnezzar making Zedekiah a vassal king); Isaiah 7:6 (a plan to set up the son of Tabeal as a vassal king), etc.