Daniel In the Critics’ Den

Many Christians consider the prophecies in the book of Daniel as inspired. Their fulfillment gives them confidence in the Bible and its divine Author. Conservative biblical scholars date the writing of the book to the sixth century BC, when Daniel lived first as a Jewish captive and then as a high official in the Babylonian and Persian courts. On the other hand, critical scholars reject the possibility of genuine prophecy and therefore attribute Daniel’s book to an anonymous author, possibly from Jerusalem, writing in the Hellenistic period (c. 168–165 BC). The prophecies that were “fulfilled” between the sixth and second centuries bc, the critics say, are simply history parading as prophecy. (Prophecies that go beyond that time are simply discounted.) However, there are solid arguments to believe in the sixth century authorship, showing that Daniel’s prophecies are just that—prophecies. Let’s look at the evidence:

The Dead Sea Scrolls. In 1947, ancient writings came to light at Qumran in the Judean desert in a series of caves. Among them were eight scrolls with fragments from the book of Daniel, containing parts of all chapters of the book, except the last. The great number of copies puts it on par with other biblical books that were found (fourteen copies of Deuteronomy, twelve of Isaiah, and ten of Psalms). Moreover, a scroll called 4QFlorilegium, which is a commentary on Scripture, quotes from Daniel and mentions “Daniel the prophet” in the same way it refers to Isaiah or Ezekiel. This means that the community who created and preserved these writings considered the book of Daniel as inspired and part of the biblical canon. The oldest of these manuscripts has been dated to the late second century BC.¹ If Daniel had been written only fifty years earlier, by a person other than the historical prophet Daniel, there would not have been enough time for the book to be recognized as part of the Bible (canonization).

Historical Knowledge: Nebuchadnezzar II. The great Babylonian king was not known in the Greek sources as the builder of Babylon, as Daniel describes him (4:30). Instead, scholars wrongly cast Semiramis as the visionary builder; she was an Assyrian queen-mother, who had nothing to do with Babylon. However, archaeologists at the turn of the twentieth century found hard evidence of Nebuchadnezzar’s work: Thousands of mud bricks used in the building of Babylon had been stamped with his name, and the splendid Ishtar Gate bore his inscription.

Historical Knowledge: Belshazzar. The name of King Nabonidus’ son, who reigned in Babylon in the place of his father, was absent in Greek literature. But in modern times, his name has resurfaced in cuneiform sources. Belshazzar takes center stage in one of Daniel’s stories (ch. 5).

Correct Use of Local Details. When comparing with elements from other Near Eastern documents, Daniel is correct in many details that could only have been known at the earlier date and would have been lost by the second century. Here are some examples:²       

• From letters to the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, we know that the chiefs of sages were clad in purple garments—Daniel received just such a garment in 5:29.
• A disgraced Assyrian court scholar called Urad-Gula writes in a letter that he deserved a necklace (kisadu) from the hands of the king—Daniel was rewarded with a necklace by King Belshazzar (5:29).
• An old Babylonian letter from Mari in Mesopotamia talks of the pit as a device for capturing lions. The lion’s den “evokes the idea of famished animals, fighting one another for the slightest morsel of food.”³ Daniel famously escaped becoming dinner for the captive lions in a pit (ch. 6).
• The climate at the Assyrian court seems to have been one of bitter rivalry on the part of the scholars, and one of suspicion on the part of the king. The same kind of situations are described in chapter 2 (Nebuchadnezzar’s dream) and chapter 6 (the lion’s den) of Daniel.

Correct Use of Local Language. Daniel uses characteristic expressions that were used in Mesopotamian documents, such as “O king, live forever,” “speak against their God” (3:29), “changed countenance” (5:6), “the joints of his loins were loosened” (5:6), and “to make strong” (9:27).⁴

Intimate Knowledge of Regional Customs. A letter from Mari sent to the wife of King Zimrilim gives a detailed description of how trainees (in this case, female candidates) were inducted into court service. The methods were uncannily close to what Daniel mentions in Daniel 1:

• They were selected from among captives of war.
• They already possessed unique skills (Mari: weaving; Daniel: wisdom, knowledge, and science).
• They had to be without blemish (Mari: “beautiful women who, from the tip of their toe to the hair on their head, have no blemish”; Daniel: “youths without blemish and handsome.” Dan. 1:4).
• Names of supervising official mentioned (Mari: Waradilisum & Mukannisum; Daniel: Ashpenaz. 1:3).
• The candidates were to be instructed in a new profession (Mari: “singing Subarean music”; Daniel: Chaldean language and writings. 1:3-4).
• Explicit instructions were given regarding their food portions during their training period. 1:5.
• The special food is prescribed to promote healthy appearance (Mari: “so that their countenance does not change”; Daniel: The supervisor feared that “their face would be less healthy.” 1:10. In the end, they “looked better and healthier.” 1:15).⁵