How Skeptics Answer Daniel

When you look at all of these parallels, it becomes hard to argue that a sixth century writer could do this. So how does a skeptic counter? The main answer is that Daniel was written around 167 to 164 BC, after the events. They give five reasons:

1. Prophecy is impossible.
2. Greek loan words.
3. Persian loan words.
4. Alleged historical flaws.
5. The Aramaic is too late, and early Jewish scholars did not treat Daniel as Scripture.

The first reason is really where everything they have lies. They come to the conclusion that prophecy is impossible before anything else is on the table. I would call that a blind faith position, and I think it is indefensible. As you study their arguments, all of them come back to it. They have already concluded prophecy is impossible. They are just trying to figure out how Daniel did it, not whether he was actually a prophet.

Greek loan words

This sounds like a valid argument until you actually look at the words. There are only three, and every single one of them is a musical instrument. "As soon as you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipes, and all kinds of music, you must fall down and worship the golden statue." Daniel 3:5

If you know anything about musical instruments, think of the ukulele or the didgeridoo. Instruments keep the names of the places that made them. You do not rename them when you get a new one. And Greek traders were absolutely in Babylon at that time. It makes sense they would trade musical instruments and bring the names along.

The three are usually given as the words behind "zither," "harp," and "pipes" in Daniel 3:5 (in Aramaic, qayteros, pesanterin, and sumponyah, compare Greek kitharis, psalterion, and symphonia). Daniel 3:5 Greek mercenaries and traders are attested in the Near East before Nebuchadnezzar; Babylonian ration tablets from his reign list Ionians among those receiving supplies. Ernst F. Weidner, Jojachin, König von Juda, in babylonischen Keilschrifttexten (1939); Edwin M. Yamauchi, Greece and Babylon (1967)

Persian loan words

It is the same exact thing. There are about fifteen of them, and every single one is a Persian government term, a high government term. Daniel served in the Persian government. "So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian." Daniel 6:28 It is actually more logical for Daniel to use those words than for some second century scribe. It sounds reasonable on the surface, but dig in even a little and it falls apart.

"Satraps" is one example. Daniel 3:2 Daniel 6:1

Belshazzar was not a king

For the longest time, everyone said Belshazzar was not a king. Every historian said so, including Herodotus, the fifth century historian, and the others around his time. Everyone we looked to for history said Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon. There was no debate about it.

Then we found the Nabonidus Cylinder, and found out Daniel was right all along. He knew it better than all the other historians, and I would argue that is because he lived it.

It also explains a detail in Daniel. Belshazzar promised the reader of the writing on the wall that he would "be made the third highest ruler in the kingdom." Daniel 5:7 Why third? Because Belshazzar was second. Nabonidus was first. Belshazzar gave Daniel the highest honor he could.

The Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur, found in 1854, has Nabonidus praying for ‘Belshazzar, my firstborn son.’ Another text, the Verse Account of Nabonidus, says Nabonidus ‘entrusted the kingship’ to his eldest son while he stayed for years at Tayma in Arabia. Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur (BM 91128); Verse Account of Nabonidus ii.18-20; Raymond P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar (1929)

Darius the Mede does not exist

Darius was a title. It means something like ‘lord.’ In that time, and even now, people used titles. We do not always say the president's name; we say ‘the president.’ In ancient times they said Caesar or Pharaoh. Those were titles passed along, and you would just refer to the man as Pharaoh. So ‘Darius the Mede’ can quite literally mean a lord who is a Mede.

There are two possible people. Ugbaru was a Median general in charge of taking Babylon. He was given authority for a very short time and died soon after. Notice Daniel says Darius "received the kingdom." Daniel 5:31 He did not take it. Then Gubaru was governor after Ugbaru. Darius the Mede could refer to one or both.

The Nabonidus Chronicle says Ugbaru took Babylon for Cyrus and died within weeks, and that a Gubaru appointed governors in Babylon. Nabonidus Chronicle (ABC 7) iii.15-22 Other scholars identify Darius the Mede with Cyrus himself, reading Daniel 6:28 as ‘the reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus.’ D. J. Wiseman, Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel (1965)

The Aramaic is too new

You have to get into the scholarship to see this one. Daniel's Aramaic is what scholars call Imperial (or Official) Aramaic, used from about the eighth century to the early third century BC. Notice the second century is not on that list. So it makes a lot more sense that a sixth century writer used it than a second century writer.

For the scholarly comparison of Daniel's Aramaic with the Elephantine papyri and later Aramaic, see K. A. Kitchen, ‘The Aramaic of Daniel,’ in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel (1965), and Gleason Archer's comparison with the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran. K. A. Kitchen, The Aramaic of Daniel (1965); Gleason L. Archer, in Expositor's Bible Commentary vol. 7 (1985) Scholars still debate how precisely Aramaic can be dated.

Early Jewish scholars

Here they are talking about Ben Sira. He is commonly called the earliest known person to give us the books of the Jewish Bible. That simply is not true. He was a famous Jewish teacher who used the Scriptures to teach lessons. He did not have a list of canonical books. We look at his work and say, ‘He is referring to this Scripture, and to this one.’ For whatever reason, he did not reference Daniel. As a side note, he never referenced Chronicles either, and no one has an issue with that one. He is not making a list. He is a teacher, a pastor teaching a lesson, and he uses the references he uses. We do not know why he did not use Daniel. Maybe he was not looking into prophecy.

Ben Sira (Sirach, also called Ecclesiasticus) wrote about 180 BC. His ‘Praise of the Fathers’ in chapters 44 to 49 skips Daniel, and also skips Ezra. Sirach 44-49

It gets worse

If Daniel was written in 167 BC, it became Scripture astonishingly fast. The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, started much earlier, but it is generally accepted as complete by about 130 BC, and Daniel was in it. That is under forty years.

It gets even worse. You might know of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The community there loved Daniel. They had eight copies. The earliest known copy is from about 125 BC, and that is a conservative date. It very likely could be earlier. Again, about forty years. And that community was not on good terms with the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem. They were very skeptical of them. They would not have accepted Daniel if it was something the leadership was pushing.

Eight manuscripts of Daniel were found at Qumran (1QDan a-b, 4QDan a-e, 6QDan). The oldest, 4QDan c, is usually dated to the late second century BC. Eugene Ulrich, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert vol. 16 (2000) A Qumran text also quotes ‘Daniel the prophet.’ 4Q174 (Florilegium) 2.3 First Maccabees, written about 100 BC, has Mattathias in 166 BC remind his sons of Daniel in the lions' den and the three men in the fire. 1 Maccabees 2:59-60 The grandson of Ben Sira, about 132 BC, already speaks of ‘the Law and the Prophets and the other books.’ Sirach, Prologue

Jesus called him "the prophet Daniel." Matthew 24:15 Every argument really comes back to that first one. Prophecy is impossible, so nothing else gets considered.

Next: The Sixty-Nine Weeks.