Ascertaining the Date of Daniel: A First Look

college papers

Discussion concerning the date for the composition of Daniel is controversial. The traditional view is that it is of 6th century B.C. origin, while the critical view argues for a late 2nd century B.C. time frame of completion. On the surface, it seems that critical scholars have removed any thought of retaining a traditional view towards the composition of the book of Daniel. Supporters of the traditional view, however, have responded in numerous scholarly ways. Yet, it appears to be the case that the majority of biblical scholars, i.e. the critics, agree that the traditional view is saturated with egregious errors (interpretive and historical) and consequently is not a feasible alternative. Traditionalists have combated further by exploiting the weaknesses of critical approaches to date the composition of Daniel. The controversy, though, still wages and the effects of the implications of each model are felt in biblical academia.

The Points of View

The roots of each model run deep into certain presuppositions relative to supernaturalism. While each view will be given consideration below, here it seems necessary to make mention of this because it plays such a vital role in evaluating the available evidence. Generally speaking, the critical approach brings to the evaluation of the evidence the supposition that the production of Biblical books is solely the product of human enterprise to the exclusion of Divine guidance and revelatory intervention. This view is in practical terms, deistic. Meanwhile, traditionalists usually believe that Divine guidance and revelatory intervention coupled with the utility of man are possible and the means by which God makes his will known to humanity.

Issues such as predictive prophecy and inspiration are therefore readily accepted by traditionalists, but this is denied by the critics, for they take a naturalistic (or rationalistic) approach because they view supernatural intervention as incapable of occurring. The two approaches are diametrically opposed. Ultimately, one is false and the other is the correct approach. The proposition under discussion here is that although the critical position of a late Maccabean period for the date of composition of the book of Daniel is predominately accepted by biblical scholars, the traditional position that the book of Daniel is of an early 6th century B.C. composition is adequately supported by the linguistic and historical evidence.

The approaches for dating the composition of the book of Daniel are composed of numerous methods of argumentation, with varying degrees of complexity. In general, though, the two basic approaches can be condensed with some generalizations. The traditional approach for ascertaining the date of composition for the book of Daniel argues that the book is a literary product of the 6th century B.C., composed by Daniel (the book’s hero) by the inspiration and guidance of the God of Israel. According to this approach, the story is both a historical and a prophetic document; consequently, it is not a mythological book of imagery. The historical setting of the book and its composition, then, is in Babylonian captivity and subsequently into the early years of Medo-Persian imperial rule (c. 603-536 BC).[1]

This view is the earliest extant view held between Hebrew and Christian writings to date. Harold Ginsberg, who is in favor the critical approach, concedes in the Encyclopaedia Judaica that the traditional view is the earliest position concerning the date of composition for Daniel. He writes:

Both the rabbis of the Talmudic Age and the Christian Church Fathers accepted the book’s own statements that the four apocalypses of Daniel B [chapters 7-12] were written by a man named Daniel in the last years of the Babylonian Age and in the first ones of the Persian Age, […] and they did not question the historicity of any part of Daniel A [chapters 1-6].[2]

Even though no other position is known earlier than the Hebrew tradition, it has not remained unchallenged by critical scholars. Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman, however, observe that it was not until the 1900s that things changed, because up until the 20th century the book of Daniel was viewed as being composed by the historical Daniel (statesman and prophet of God) who ministered prominently in the 500s B.C. and who revealed the future political progression of four kingdoms and the implementation of God’s kingdom.[3]

In contradistinction to the traditional approach stands the critical approach for ascertaining the date for the composition of Daniel. As the antagonist to the traditional view the critical position affirms that the book of Daniel is a rather late production by some unknown author or editor of the 2nd century B.C. Critical scholars view the book of Daniel as a pseudepigraph (a false writing)[4] and consequently cannot have been written by Daniel nor capable to predict the future, because the critical approach does not believe that predictive prophecy can occur. Instead of relating history and future events, Daniel was written to inflame the patriotic muscles of the Israelites in order to confront Antiochus IV Epiphanes (a Seleucid) and his people from Syria for Antiochus’ desecration of the temple in Jerusalem. The prophecies are said to be written “after the event” (vaticinium ex eventu).

The earliest denial of the traditional view is found in the writings of a Neoplatonic philosopher named Porphyry. About 2 centuries after Jesus Christ had described Daniel as “the prophet” (Matt 23:15), Porphyry put his stylus to the maximum level of labor and produced a 15 volume work entitled, Against the Christians.[5] According to Jerome’s commentary on Daniel, which is the only source which reproduces Porphyry’s arguments, in his 12th volume Porphyry attacks “the prophecy of Daniel” and affirms that there are characteristics of the book which betray a late 2nd century B.C. period for composition.[6] Prominent critical scholar J.J. Collins observes that while Porphyry’s argument was resisted for about a millennium, modern critics from the 18th century to today acknowledge their “validity” and his “insight.”[7] Yet those who still resist Porphyry’s work do so principally on the grounds that his reasoning is based upon the a priori supposition that predictive prophecy is impossible.[8]

The Present Approach

With these two approaches being considered, a working knowledge of both the approach to the book and the evaluation of evidence are acquired. The burden to provide adequate evidence to substantiate the claims made above falls upon the shoulders of each approach. Majority consensus is not to be confused with absolute certainty, and the term “conservative approach” need not blind one’s eye of discernment in the evaluation of the data. The case must stand based upon the evidence available and proper critique of what it means and substantiates. This shall presently be done.

There are numerous avenues of approaches to dating the materials in the book of Daniel. For example, the earliest extant tradition of the date of composition can greatly aid in approaching the problem, however, there are more issues to deal with than just tradition. As is typical with the critical approach, various issues are raised dealing with the history of both the text and its composition, linguistic analysis, theological development, and any possible discrepant exegetical material. Edwin Yamauchi has discussed some on these issues in 1980.[9] The scope of this discussion is large, so attention will be given to the issues relative to linguistics and history.

Linguistic Concerns

Linguistic analysis is a broad field of analysis that looks at the languages employed, the grammar used, the literary genre implemented to carry out the production of the document. As in practically every book placed under the scalpel of criticism one of the areas of discussion and controversy is the literary characteristics of the given book. Daniel is no exception.

Critics argue that the language and stylistic materials in Daniel betray a late date. In staunch disagreement stand scholars taking the traditional approach, asserting that the literary content of Daniel is best explained by an early date. The last century and a half (roughly) reflect this debate. It seems evident, however, that the growing data relative to the literary content of Daniel weighs in strongly for an early date. In 1976, Bruce K. Waltke observed:

From [S.R.] Driver’s classic statement of the linguistic evidence in 1897 to the commentary by [Norman W.] Porteous in 1965, there has been no reappraisal of the evidence by the literary critics of Daniel in spite of the increasing mass of evidence that the language of Daniel can no longer be regarded as belonging to the second century B.C.[10]

It is, therefore, important to analyze this line of reasoning to observe the nature of the evidence and make a conclusion as to what the details suggest in order to make an educated assertion. Two major areas of contention are the mixture of Hebrew (Dan 1:1-2:4a; 8:1-12) and Aramaic (2:4b-7:28) languages in the book of Daniel and the loan words from the Persian and Greek languages.

The book of Daniel is the product of two languages; Hebrew and Aramaic. This book does not stand alone in having this admixture of languages, however, for the book of Ezra is of similar composition (Aramaic sections Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26).[11]

Critical scholars allege that the book was originally composed in Aramaic and later the present transitions (1:1-2:4a and 8:1-12) were translated into Hebrew.[12] Neil R. Lightfoot remarks that the Hebrew to Aramaic and Aramaic to Hebrew sections in Daniel has been confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS).[13] While Lightfoot does not identify the specific fragments, Gerhard Hasel identifies them in his work as 4QDan1QDana (Dan 2:2-6), 4QDana (7:25-8:5), 4QDanb (Dan 7:26-8:1-8).[14] Overall, “we have at our disposal from the Dead Sea scrolls parts of all chapters, except Daniel 9 and 12.”[15] This is striking information because when the scrolls were discovered one of the main questions was concerning what precise sections were preserved. Moreover, the earliest extant text before the DSS was the Masoretic Text (MT c. A.D. 980), the accuracy of which was seriously challenged by critical scholars because of the great gap between the MT and the autographs. The transitions in Daniel received equal criticism; however, there is no reason to argue against, except if one is biased toward the critical view, that the Hebrew and Aramaic sections are authentic. The authenticity of the composition of Daniel argues strongly that the book is one whole unit.[16]

Critics typically argue that Daniel is the result of a long process of composition. They argue that Daniel A, that is Daniel 1-6, is the first and oldest unit of the book, and Daniel B, that is Daniel 7-12, is principally of late authorship or redaction.[17] The critical scholar John G. Gammie has argued that there have been three stages in the growth of the book.[18] Hasel observes that the oldest scroll published before 1992 is 4QDanc dating to the late 2nd century B.C. The manuscript evidence for Daniel is 50 years closer to the supposed Maccabean date of composition than anything extant.[19] Moreover, “there is great harmony between the MT and the Cave 4 finds of the book of Daniel” and Hasel notes 4 powerful lines of supporting material.[20] The unity and early date for the DSS is far more problematic to the critic than the traditionalist because:

Is there enough time for the supposed tradition-historical and redaction-critical developments [as mentioned above] allegedly needed for the growth of the book? […] The verdict seems negative, and an earlier date for Daniel than the second century is unavoidable.[21]

The rather simple observation is that the language transitions are original and a mark of an authentic production, and consequently of an earlier date than is supposed by critics. Yet the critic is not content with this conception; instead, it appears that the critic must contrive another hypothesis.

The book of Daniel has Persian and Greek loanwords along with one Egyptian loanword. This has served as a source of contention between both approaches. The only agreement as of yet is that they exist; the evidence that they provide is interpreted distinctively. Critics argue that these words reflect a late period. In fact, it has been argued that their placement in Daniel is the result of a deliberate desire to give the impression of being really from the 6th century B.C. but not done consistently.[22] According to S.R. Driver’s classical arguments, critics argue that Greek loanwords objectively support the case; moreover, as Peter W. Coxon argues, it is the “strongest evidence in favor of the second century B.C.” position.[23] Traditional scholars are not impressed with such assertions on the grounds that there is no need to limit the utility of the each respective language to the 2nd century B.C.; therefore, the argument (based upon a precise but faulty linguistic chronology) falls by the wayside as compelling “proof.”

The Egyptian word is hartummin (Dan 2:10, 27; 4:4), another formation is rab hartummayya (Dan 4:6, 5:11), which is the Egyptian word for “magician.”[24] L. F. Hartman, in “The Great Tree and Nobuchodonosor’s Madness,” argues that this loanword should “strictly” only apply to “Egyptian magicians” who would are not to be found in the Babylonian court of Nebuchadnezzar.[25] In response, Yamauchi suggests two lines of evidence to demonstrate how frail the argument is. First, the Jehoiachin ration tablets illuminate the setting by noting that among other nations “Egyptians were given provision by the royal court.” Second, I. Eph’al demonstrates that there were Mesopotamian Egyptians professionally serving as lubare (“diviners”) and luhartibi (“dream interpreters”) in the 5th and 6th centuries B.C. Luhartibi is a cognate of the word in question. While Yamauchi argues that the word does not necessarily have to be a reference to Egyptian nationals, “the idea that there were Egyptian magicians and soothsayers in Mesopotamia is not so far fetched as Harman believes.”[26]

The Persian and Greek loanwords are said, respectively, to “presuppose a period after the Persian empire had been well established” and “demand […] a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (B.C. 332).”[27] Yet, Montgomery is said to point out that allowance must be made for the influence of cultures to be more widespread than earlier presumed.[28] In other words, the classical linguistic argument is not as strong as it used to be. In fact, Driver’s famous linguistic conclusion abbreviated above included Aramaic that is now known to be difficult to distinguish between early and late periods.[29] Nevertheless, some would still use this argument in support of a late date, but to this there is an answer. Yamauchi has completely crippled this notion by chronicling the channels of transmissions (i.e. musical notation, merchant exchange, and that of foreign captives).[30] Moreover, he has demonstrably chronicled there has been Grecian contact with Mesopotamia from even before 1000 B.C. to at least the 400s B.C.,[31] and any appearance of these Greek words “is not proof of Hellenistic date, in view of the abundant opportunities for contact between the Aegean and the Near East.”[32]

The Persians words fare no better as evidence of a late date. Waltke gleans three observations from Kenneth Kitchen’s 1965 work “The Aramaic of Daniel” published in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel.[33] First, by way of objectivity, it must be noted that the Persian words are “old Persian words” which typically are found in the 300s B.C. Second, it is egregious to assume that it would take an absorbent amount of time for Persian words to be borrowed into Aramaic, because if Daniel did exist he would have become acclimated to the Persian vocabulary sooner rather than later. Third, four of nineteen Persian words the old Greek translations are mere guesswork which bears this implication: “if Daniel were wholly a product of 165 B.C., then just a century or so in a continuous tradition is surely embarrassingly inadequate as a sufficient interval for that loss (or change) of meaning to occur by Near Eastern standards.”[34] In 1976, Millard, citing this work, notes that these loanwords are “quite at home in a sixth century context” and that Kitchen’s observations “have been accepted by leading linguists.”[35]

Based upon the placement of Daniel among the Ketubim (Writings) of the Hebrew Bible and not among the Nebhim (Prophets), critics dismiss Daniel because it is mere wisdom literature with no true prophetic import instead it is a pseudepigraphic work utilizing vaticinium ex eventu prophecy (i.e. utterances appearing prophetic but were composed post-event). Klaus Koch notes that by “presupposing” an early date for the completion of the canon around c.200 A.D., “scholars made the incorporation of Daniel among the writings a cornerstone of the so-called Maccabean Theory.”[36] First, the placement of the book does not illegitimate it from being both wisdom and prophetic. David Malick argues that Daniel is historical literature along the lines of Ezra (an accepted book by the critics) and therefore “applies because the prophetic visions are also a record (in advance) of the sovereign work of God in history.”[37] Second, after evaluating the positive and negative evidence of the placement of Daniel, Kloch argues that there is the negative evidence is inconclusive,[38] while the positive evidence suggests an earlier “Jewish diaspora canon”[39] and “at some point the rabbis transferred the book from the prophetic corpus to the last third of their collection of Holy Scripture. That probably happened long before the fifth century” A.D.[40] In other words, there appears to be a strong case that Daniel was initially in the Nebhim and was later transferred to the Ketubim, which is in total disagreement with the critical attack.

Historical Concerns

Since the historical issues is directly related to the issue of the date of composition, it is important to evaluate the faulty view that archaeology has revealed everything relative to historical studies of the biblical narratives. It must be understood that not all of the desired archaeological data is available to the Bible student. However, what is available impressively agrees with the biblical narrative. In discussing the fragmentary nature of the archaeological evidence, Yamauchi briefly and candidly lays out the situation. In summary, he lists 4 factors.[41] First, artifact remains (written or manufactured) are minute. Second, a small fraction of the possible sites were surveyed or excavated. Third, generally speaking only a small fraction of these sites are even excavated. Fourth, a small percentage of what has been found has been written upon, and even when they are there is typically a great delay of time between excavation and publication. This is important to recognize because it is typically the case that the critics argue that “since we do not have certain corroborative evidence for something mentioned in the textual tradition, the reference must be anachronistic.”[42]

For example, Daniel 5:30 mentions Belshazzar, a person whom for years was a personage relegated to myth by critics, therefore being a serious divergence in the biblical account from historical veracity. However, as Gonzalo Baez-Carmargo writes “the problem continued until new archaeological evidence showed that the two reports [from history and the Bible] could be reconciled.”[43] It is not being foolish to suggest, therefore (when there is a lack of evidence on a given point of contention) that one must wait for new evidence to arrive. Sadly, that is not what typically occurs, and instead as H. C. Leupold observes whenever the Bibles is the sole source for reporting history, the “prevailing tendency is to discredit the biblical statement” never mind that in other situations single statements from other sources are received without much alarm.[44]

Robert A. Anderson, taking the critical approach, comments upon Daniel 1:1 and writes that “reference is often made to a historical inaccuracy within these opening verses.”[45] Anderson refers to the alleged contradiction between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1. Anderson also represents the naturalistic critical mindset when he writes that “historical inexactitudes are not infrequent in” Daniel.

First among the supposed historical blunders to be considered is the invasion into Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. Bruce K. Waltke asks the following question:

How can one square the statement in Daniel 1:1 that Nebuchadnezzar in his first year as king besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim with the statement in Jeremiah 25:1, 9; 46:1[-2] that Nebuchadnezzar defeated Pharaoh Necho in the fourth year of Jehoiakim?[46]

After all, if they cannot be harmonized then this is an occasion of a “historical inexactitude” which would underscore a purely human enterprise in the composition of either Daniel or Jeremiah which implicitly affirms that there was not a supernatural guidance in their production as the dogma of inspiration necessitates.

Waltke suggests that the superficial discrepancy between Daniel and Jeremiah is the result of comparing the use of two distinct systems of dating, citing Edwin Thiele’s work The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Waltke further writes:

In Babylonia the year in which the king ascended the throne was designated specifically as “the year of accession to the kingdom,” and this was followed by the first, second, and subsequent years of rule. In Palestine, on the other hand, there was no accession year as such, so that the length of rule was computed differently, with the year of accession being regarded as the first year of the king’s reign.[47]

Likewise, based upon R. K Harrison’s 1973 work on Jeremiah and Lamentations (Tyndale Old Testament commentary) Wayne Jackson notes that critics “once alleged that this passage was in conflict with Daniel 1:1, but archaeological discoveries have demonstrated that Jeremiah used the Jewish method of computing reigns, while Daniel employed the Babylonian system.”[48] If this harmonization is correct then it becomes a line of argumentation for the early 6th century B.C. date of composition because the dating is not in conflict.[49]

System 1st Sovereign 2nd Sovereign 3rd Sovereign 4th Sovereign
Babylonian Year of Ascension 1st Year of Reign 2nd Year of Reign 3rd Year of Reign
Palestinian 1st Year of Reign 2nd Year of Reign 3rd Year of Reign 4th Year of Reign

The next issue under consideration encircles the identity of the illusive personage of Darius the Mede. Critics basically assert that “no such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history,”[50] or as Frost words it, Darius the Mede “never existed.”[51] Collins argues that it is the confusion by the Maccabean author for Darius I of Persia (522-486 B.C.).[52] Frost notes two options that are: this illusive one does not exist or he “is known to history by some other name.”[53] Frost lucidly summarizes Rowley’s work on ascertaining the Mede’s identity and notes that it could not be Astyages (too early), Cambyses (not a Mede), Gobryas (either Babylonian or Persian), nor Cyaxares (a fictional person).[54] Since no one fits that description, coupled with the discovery of two dated overlapping Babylonian tablets by two months depicting that after Nabonidus reigned, succeeded only by Belshazzar, Cyrus ruled; consequently, Frost’s either-or scenario seems to imply that the illusive Mede is fictitious.

However, Dillard and Longman present the work of Shea conducted from 1971-1982 which affirms that there was a unique situation in the 1st year of the reign of Cyrus noting that he did not take on the title “king of Babylon” only until as late as the end of his 1st year. This has led Shea to conclude that there is space to put in a possible vassal, biblically identified as Darius the Mede.[55] Moreover, there is room for debate, however, Shea’s second option is that consistent with the Babylonian dating system, the Cambyses-Cyrus co-regency is “dated to the latter’s second year,” which is consistent with “Cambyses’ participation in the Babylonian New Year’s festival” placed at the beginning of Cyrus’ second year of reign. This is, as Shea writes, “tantamount to designating him as king.”[56] The point is, the issue can be given a soluble response enmeshed in historical facts. This answers Frosts either-or position, leaving another possible persona Rowley’s work perhaps had not considered.

The last historical evidence is the testimony of Jesus, the founder of the Christian religion. Jesus regards exilic Daniel as a prophet (Matt 24:15), and many have seized upon this as proof that Daniel is prophetic, thereby arguing for a 6th century B.C. date of composition. Samuel A. Cartledge, observing this, affirms that this is not definite proof that Daniel is the author of the book which bears his name. “Jesus may have known that the book was written by someone else and still have spoken of it in a popular way.”[57] For Cartledge it may conceivably be this or another occasion where the Lord has limited his knowledge as in the case of the time of his return.[58]

However, the grammar of the passage is rather vivid. It is observed that dia with the genitive (as is the case in verse 15) “is common for the intermediate agent in contrast with” hupo with genitive (“the immediate agent”) as in hupo kurioo dia too profetoo “by the Lord through the prophet.”[59] This intermediate agency of Daniel in the predicting of the “abomination of desolation” (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) has made Gleason Archer observe the following:

Christ was not simply referring to some book in the Old Testament named “Daniel” but rather to the agency of Daniel personally, since dia with the genitive always implies personal human agency [emphasis added]. If these words of Christ are reliably reported […] we can only conclude that Christ personally believed that the historic personage Daniel was the author of the book that contained this eschatological phrase.[60]

It must be conceded that the context must determine that human participation is in view; however if Archer’s argument is sound in general (and it appears that it is) then this is a strong case for Daniel to be regarded as a prophet. Also, it underscores what the Apostle Matthew and the church under his leadership believed concerning Daniel’s prophetic office. Daniel would consequently satisfy the prophetic criteria of Deuteronomy 18:22. It seems appropriate to suggest that Cartledge assumes far too much when he provides his fanciful options. He also explains away what would be obvious to the 1st century reader of the Greek text.

Initial Conclusions

In brief, the major linguistic issues are not demonstrably in favor of the late 2nd century B.C. view. The evaluation of such data is not easy and is meticulous; however, the linguistic transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic and Aramaic to Hebrew are only separated (if taking the critical approach) from the autographs by 50 years; thus, the earliest extant testimony to their authenticity and the early unity of Daniel. The Egyptian, Persian, and Greek loanwords do not demonstrably prove that the composition is of a late date. Instead, there are vast amounts of opportunities for these terms to be used throughout the captivity, exploding the small window of opportunity for usage provided by the critical position. The evidence does not prove or substantially support the critical approach, meanwhile the traditional view in light of the data the foregoing research does, however, stand in a stronger position.

Likewise, the controverted historical data, while at times difficult to sort through, can be harmonized to the point that it does not contradict history. It must be recognized that everything available from archaeology is not uncovered, and that even that which is recovered is a small fraction of a bygone world. Consequently, patience and watchfulness must be given in affirming a conclusion based upon that evidence. Be that as it may, the historical data relative to Daniel better supports for the traditional literal approach to Daniel. The relegation of Daniel to a mere wisdom literature with no true prophetic import is fallacious at best and a biased interpretation at worst. Attacks upon the biblical account of the invasion of Jerusalem can be harmonized satisfactorily. The great difficulty of identifying Darius the Mede is not insoluble, but critical scholars have no demonstrable right to affirm that this character must be relegated to mythology as a historical confusion. Finally, the testimony of Jesus affirms that Daniel is considered a prophet by the 1st century Jews which, at least for the Lord, had unfinished prophecy to be fulfilled. At worst this is the testimony of a Rabbi living earlier than the Christian antagonist Porphyry and a little under two millennia earlier than the modern critics, and at best the testimony of the God in the flesh.

One might conclude with the “Danielic” words “MENE, MENE, TEKEL” (Dan 5:25), but instead consider some observations by Robert D. Wilson and Harry Rimmer. Rimmer writes that a scientific approach to the Bible inquiry is to adopt a hypothesis and then to test it and see if there is supportive data that establishes it.  Rimmer writes:

If the hypothesis cannot be established and if the facts will not fit in with its framework, we reject that hypothesis and proceed along the line of another theory. If facts sustain the hypothesis, it then ceases to be theory and becomes an established truth.[61]

Wilson makes a similar argument and ties an ethical demand to it. After ably refuting a critical argument against Daniel, Wilson remarks that when prominent critical scholars make egregious affirmations adequately shown to be so, “what dependence will you place on him when he steps beyond the bounds of knowledge into the dim regions of conjecture and fancy?”[62]

This important to consider when the Bible is supported by abundant evidence of its authenticity (as is the case for Daniel), for “upon what ground of common sense or law of evidence are we to be induced to believe that these documents are false or forged when charges absolutely unsupported by evidence are made against them?”[63] There is no reason to. Yet many will be subdued by critical scholarship spouting that it holds the majority view of the date of composition. For those who look at the evidence, there really is no cause to accept the critical view of a late date of Daniel.

Works Cited

  1. J. Carl Laney, Concise Bible Atlas: a Geographical Survey of Bible History (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 153. 
  2. Harold Louis Ginsberg, “Daniel, Book of,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Judaica, 1973), 5:1281.
  3. Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman, III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 330.
  4. For a strong critique see Gleason L. Archer, “The Aramaic of the ‘Genesis Apocryphon’ Compared with the Aramaic of Daniel,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament., ed. J. Barton Payne (Waco, TX: Word, 1970), 160-69.
  5. Bruce K. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel” BSac 133 (1976): 319.
  6. J. J. Collins, “Daniel, Book of,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1992. 29-37), 2:30.
  7. Collins, “Daniel, Book of,” ABD 2:30.
  8. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” 319.
  9. Edwin M. Yamauchi, Hermeneutical Issues in the Book of Daniel,” JETS 23 (1980): 13-21.
  10. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” 322.
  11. Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 30.
  12. Robert A. Anderson, Daniel: Signs and Wonders, eds. George A. F. Knight and Fredrick Carlson Holmgren (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), 13.
  13. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 30.
  14. Gerhard Hasel, “New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Archaeology and Biblical Research 5.2 (1992): 45-53.
  15. Hasel, “New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 46.
  16. On this point, see Hasel,“New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 50.
  17. Collins, “Daniel, Book of,” ABD 2:31, 33.
  18. John G. Gammie, “The Classification, Stages of Growth, and Changing Intentions in the Book of Daniel,” JBL 95.2 (1976): 196-202.
  19. Hasel, “New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 47.
  20. Hasel, “New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 50.
  21. Hasel, “New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 48.
  22. Gammie, “The Classification, Stages of Growth, and Changing Intentions in the Book of Daniel,” 199.
  23. Edwin M. Yamauchi, “The Archaeological Background of Daniel.” BSac 137.545 (1980): 11.
  24. Gammie, “The Classification, Stages of Growth, and Changing Intentions in the Book of Daniel,” 199.
  25. Yamauchi, “The Archaeological Background of Daniel,” 10.
  26. Yamauchi, “The Archaeological Background of Daniel,” 10.
  27. Stanley B. Frost, “Daniel,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York, NY: Abingdon, 1962), 1:768.
  28. Frost, “Daniel,” IDB 1:763.
  29. Frost, “Daniel,” IDB 1:763.
  30. Edwin M. Yamauchi, “The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. Barton Payne (Waco, TX: Word, 1970), 176.
  31. Yamauchi, “The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East,” 177-92.
  32. Yamauchi, “The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East,” 192.
  33. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” 323-24.
  34. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” 234.
  35. Allan R. Millard, “Daniel” in The International Bible Commentary, rev. ed., ed. Frederick F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 848.
  36. Klaus Kloch, “Is Daniel also Among the Prophets?” Int 39 (1985): 118.
  37. David Malick, “An Introduction to the Book of Daniel.” 2015.
  38. Kloch, “Is Daniel also Among the Prophets?,” 119-20.
  39. Kloch, “Is Daniel also Among the Prophets?,” 121.
  40. Kloch, “Is Daniel also Among the Prophets?,” 122.
  41. Yamauchi, “The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East,” 171-74.
  42. Yamauchi, “The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East,” 170.
  43. Gonzalo Baez-Carmargo, Archaeological Commentary on the Bible, trans. American Bible Society (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 180.
  44. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis: 1-19 (repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 365-66.
  45. Anderson, Daniel, 1.
  46. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” 325-26.
  47. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” 326.
  48. Wayne Jackson, Jeremiah and Lamentations (Stockton, CA: Courier, 1997), 61.
  49. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” 326.
  50. Collins, “Daniel, Book of,” ABD 2:30.
  51. Frost, “Daniel,” IDB 1:765.
  52. Collins, “Daniel, Book of,” ABD 2:30.
  53. Frost, “Daniel,” IDB 1:765.
  54. Frost, “Daniel,” IDB 1:765.
  55. Dillard and Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 336.
  56. Dillard and Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 337.
  57. Samuel A. Cartledge, A Conservative Introduction to the Old Testament (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1944), 221.
  58. Cartledge, A Conservative Introduction to the Old Testament, 221.
  59. Archibald T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed. (repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 254.
  60. Gleason L. ArcherNew International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), 284.
  61. Harry Rimmer, Internal Evidence of Inspiration, 7th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), 36.
  62. Robert D. Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, rev. ed., ed. Edward J. Young (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1967), 98.
  63. Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, 99.