DANNY BOY
According to Bible tradition, the book of Daniel was written during the sixth century B.C. by a historical figure with the same name as the book.
The book of Daniel contains a number of beloved children’s stories, such as the story of Daniel in the lion’s den, and the attempted incineration of the three faithful Hebrew boys. But, some people consider the book of Daniel to be far more significant than this.
For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses use a section of Daniel to prove that the “time of the end” began in 1914. In fact, their numerology relies heavily on the book of Daniel to prove that Armageddon is nigh. This doctrine is one of the few unique cornerstones of Jehovah’s Witness doctrine.
Unfortunately for them, of all of the books included the Bible, Daniel’s presence in the accepted canon is probably more suspect than any other. Bible scholars have placed the writing of the book much later than its traditional date of origin, likely in the second or third century, B.C. This means that the uncanny accuracy of Daniel’s prophesies was not quite such a great feat. It’s not hard to predict the future after it has already happened.
There is a great amount of internal evidence that Daniel was not written by Daniel, nor was it written in the sixth century B.C. I would like to take one chapter, and devote it to highlighting the difficulty of accepting Daniel as inspired.
When did Jehoiakim reign?
The writer of the book of Daniel wasted no time in getting himself into historical trouble. Consider the first verse of the first chapter:
“In the third year of the reign of Jehoi'akim king of Judah, Nebuchadnez'zar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.” – Daniel 1:1
History tells us that Jehoiakim began reigning in 609 B.C. This would mean that the third year of his rule was 606 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar did not become king until 605 B.C. So, the intersection of their reigns is not in the correct place. As well, Nebuchadnezzar’s first attack on Jerusalem did not take place until 597 B.C., nine years later than the account in Daniel.
So, the writer of Daniel quickly establishes himself as a poor historian. But, it gets even worse for him. In order to add credibility to his tale, he apparently picked a legendary ancient worthy to credit with the writing of the book.
Who was Daniel?
According to the book of Daniel, Daniel himself was a Hebrew who rose to prominence during the Israelite captivity in Babylon (586 – 537 B.C.) By the time of their release, he was an old man and did not make the trip back to his homeland. He may have been born in Israel, prior to its destruction.
The earliest mention of him is in the following scriptures:
“… even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, says the Lord GOD” – Ezekiel 14:14
“as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD , even if Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they could save neither son nor daughter.” – Ezekiel 14:20
“The word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre… you are indeed wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you;” - Ezekiel 28:1-3
Now, we need to remember that Ezekiel was older than the Daniel character. Ezekiel was in full swing as a prophet around the year 600 B.C., which is about fifty years prior to Daniel’s activity. The first two of the references to Daniel mentioned above, were both spoken prior to 589 B.C.
So, how is it that a senior prophet like Ezekiel would make reference to Daniel, comparing him to the giants of Hebrew legend – Noah and Job? If anything, Daniel would be merely a child at this time. He could not possibly have achieved that kind of status and reputation for wisdom. In fact, he may not even have been born yet.
Clearly, the character of Daniel had already achieved legendary status, long before the events of his supposed lifetime. In all likelihood, a second century B.C. writer attributed his work to the name “Daniel” to increase its stature.
Placing the ancient Daniel character in the sixth century B.C. does not make sense.
Who was Belshazzar?
According to the book of Daniel, Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezar. This is mentioned at least five times. Yet, history shows that Belshazzar was actually the son of Nabonidus, who ruled four kings after Nebuchadnezar, and was no relation to him.
You would think that Daniel, who was the Prime Minister of Babylon would have known this. On the other had, this is precisely the type of mistake that could be made by a writer four hundred years in the future.
Who ran the country?
At one point, King Nebuchadnezzar was pretty impressed with Daniel. In fact, he appointed Daniel as the ruler of the whole province of Babylon. Daniel decided to stay in the king’s court, and appointed his three buddies over the province:
“Then the king gave Daniel high honors and many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon. Daniel made request of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego over the affairs of the province of Babylon; but Daniel remained at the king's court..” – Daniel 2:48, 49
Well, before long, Daniel and his friends had made another good impression on Nebuchadnezzar. So, how were they rewarded?
“Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego in the province of Babylon.” – Daniel 4:30
Now, if these boys already ruled “over the whole province of Babylon”, how could they be promoted? It sounds like the writer forgot that he had already done this.
By the way, did you notice that Daniel ran the province of Babylon during the reigns of five different kings? In fact, after Babylon was destroyed, Daniel was appointed to a position in the new government of Cyrus. This seems highly unlikely, especially since two of the Babylonian successions were by force. In a peaceful succession, it is possible for the Prime Minister to remain, but it is unlikely that Nergal-ashur-usur or Nabonidus would have retained the king’s right hand man, especially after killing the king himself. So, we have yet another difficulty with this story.
Who was Darius?
The writer of the book of Daniel was not very well versed in history. Consider this reference:
“In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasu-e'rus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chalde'ans” – Daniel 9:1
This sentence contains more holes than Swiss cheese. I’m not even sure where to begin.
First of all, history shows that Ahasuerus ruled Persia between 486 B.C. and 465 B.C. So, the son of Ahasuerus could not possibly be in power in 537 B.C. The chronology is out by at least 72 years.
Secondly, the writer appears to be rather confused about Darius. There were actually three Darius’ that ruled Persia, none of whom were Medes. The first Darius ruled between 521 and 486 B.C. However, Darius I was not the son of Ahasuerus. He was the father of Ahasuerus. Darius II doesn’t show up until 424 B.C., which is 42 years after the death of Ahasuerus. He wasn’t Ahauerus’ son, either.
The reference “who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans” appears to refer to Darius I (Darius the Great). But, even if we overlook the incorrect father/son relationship, our dates are still wrong. Darius I did not rise to power until 521 B.C. – 16 years too late.
So, the writer of Daniel did not know when Darius ruled, and he did not understand the relationship between him and Ahasuerus. He also seems to think that the Medes defeated Babylon, prior to the accension of Persia. In actual fact, the Medes existed alongside Babylon, and fell to Persia at the same time.
Once again, the writer of Daniel reveals that he was not present during these events, and in fact, is not even a particularly well informed resident of the second century, B.C.
Where are the historical records?
At the outset, I would like to clarify that I understand that absence of evidence does not necessarily indicate evidence of absence. In other words, the fact that the Bible events recorded in Babylon did not get into any other secular records, does not prove that the Bible account is fiction. Although, it does make one wonder…
For example, Daniel served as Prime Minister to Nebuchadnezzar, and apparently held this post right up to the destruction of Babylon – a period between 23 and 47 years in length. Yet, he is not mentioned in any of the Babylonian records from that time period.
As well, the Bible tells us that Nebuchadnezzar experienced a seven year bout of madness, where he roamed in the fields and ate grass like a bull. Well, not only does the secular record not record such a thing, but there are not even any gaps in his reign. There are no seven year periods in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar that do not have references to his actions as king.
In the third chapter of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar built an image of gold that was 87.5 feet tall, and 8.75 feet wide. This project, which would surely have bankrupted the royal treasury, was not mentioned in the secular record.
So, it appears that whenever the book of Daniel intersects with history, history either contradicts the Bible, or is strangely silent.
Where is Daniel traditionally placed?
The presence of the book of Daniel in the official Bible canon has been the subject of debate. Even the contents of the book are disputable. For example, the Catholic Bible carries an extended version of the book which includes the story of “Bel and the Dragon”.
Jewish tradition places the book of Daniel in a strange place. Based on the supposed date of authorship, it should be squarely in the prophetic section, along with Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah. The last book in the prophetic section is Jonah, which was apparently written around 300 B.C. Yet, the Jewish canon places Daniel in the “writings”, indicating a later authorship.
In fact, if the book of Daniel had been written any later, it would not have even made it into the writings, but would have been relegated to the apocrypha, where many people would argue that it belongs, anyway.
In what language was the book written?
Parts of the book of Daniel were written in Aramaic. This would indicate that the book was written around the second or third century, B.C. The Aramaic language was not in common use among the Hebrews during the Babylonian exile.
Conclusion
The book of Daniel appears to be completely correct whenever it refers to the the Greek period, but is filled with anacronysms whenever it deals with the period of the exile. Doesn’t it seem strange that Daniel could predict the future more accurately than he could record the present?
Imagine finding a manuscript that claimed to be written by William Shakespeare. Yet, the text is written in modern English, it makes reference to skateboards and airplanes, and it makes numerous mistakes regarding the events of the sixteenth century. Which would be more likely - that Shakespeare was a prophet who knew the future, or that the manuscript is a fake? Obviously, one would have to be a spectacular fool to believe that the manuscript was authentic. Yet, that is exactly what religious people today believe.
There is only one appropriate way to end this chapter:
Daniel, you are THE WEAKEST LINK! Please leave the Bible.
