LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel

A paper submitted to

Dr. Michael Heiser

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

For completion of the course

OBST 520

Old Testament Orientation II

Lynchburg, Virginia

March 2, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION………………….……………………………………………………………..3

BACKGROUND AND MESSAGE….…….……………….…...……………………………….3

PROBLEM #1……………………………………………………..……………………………...4

PROBLEM #2……...…………………………………………………..………………………...5

PROBLEM #3………………………………………………………………….…...……………5

PROBLEM #4…………...…………………………………………..……………...……………6

PROBLEM #5……………………………………………………………..………..……………7

APPLICATION……………………………………………………………………..……………9

CONCLUSION………………..………….………………………………………...…………..10

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………..……….………………………………………...……………

INTRODUCTION: The book of Daniel has been questioned based on some perceived historical problems that would make the current dating of the book inaccurate. Such historical problems would challenge the validity of the message of Daniel. Throughout this research paper, we will take a look at the five historical problems in the book of Daniel. We will carefully examine each of these problems in hopes of uncovering the truth. There are two major questions to be answered in this paper. Are the historical problems actually problems or just misunderstandings and do these affect the message we received from the book of Daniel?
BACKGROUND AND MESSAGE: It is important to know the background and message of the book of Daniel, or any book of the Bible, before attempting to interpret or understand a specific situation. The book of Daniel is broken up into two sections. The first section is composed of chapters one through six. These are historical narratives of Daniel’s life. The second section is chapters seven through twelve and this section contains prophecy and apocalyptic literature. In the first two chapters of Daniel, there is a heavy emphasis on the sovereignty of God. It is classified as apocalyptic literature because it contains prophecy regarding the end times.
This is what we have gathered from Daniel’s life. Nebuchadnezzar took Daniel from Jerusalem to Babylon when he was a youth. There is no information given about Daniel’s life and lineage except those found in the book of Daniel. Daniel is believed to be a youth around 603 BC. This was the time it was estimated that he was taken to Babylon by King Nebuchadnezzar. From that we gathered that he was around seventy-five years old in 536 BC. Therefore, the dating on the book of Daniel is placed at the end of the sixth century BC. Some scholars have argued that this dating cannot be correct based on the materials in the book of Daniel. These issues with dating are mainly in the apocalyptic prophecy sections of the book. Scholars claim that Daniel could not have predicted the events he did. Therefore, they claim a later dating than what has been commonly accepted. We will be looking at these historical problem during our study of Daniel.
PROBLEM #1: The first historical problem we see in the book of Daniel can be found in the first verse of the first chapter. Daniel 1:1 says, “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.” At first glance, it seems pretty straightforward. Critical scholars, however, have a problem with this verse. They contend that the problem lie with the dating of the reign of King Jehoiakim. That is because Jeremiah chapters 25 and 46 tell of this event happening in the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign. This appears to be a very blatant contradiction of scriptures. On the contrary, it is simply a difference in dating methods. Daniel appears to be using the Babylonian method. This method does not count the partial of the king’s accession to the throne. That would make it appear to have happened a year earlier than it actually did. The text then should read, “In the third full year of the reign of Jehoiakim.” Jeremiah uses the Judahite method, which does count the accession year. This essentially follows true to the dates of the event. We know from looking at other historical documents and comparing the dating to other events that the dating here is correct. The Babylonian Chronicle tells us that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem after his victory at Carchemish. Daniel and the first set of exiles were taken into captivity in this year. From all this information we can gather that this is no error, but simply a cultural difference.
In addition to the issue with the dating, there is another issue within this verse. The Babylonia Chronicle precludes any action by Nebuchadnezzar in Judah in 606 BC. It also does not mention the siege of Jerusalem anytime before 597 BC, which was Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh year and Jehoiakim’s eleventh year. Many believe this verse was a bad interpretation by of 2 Kings 24:4 and 2 Chronicles 36:6-7. It is also possible that the Babylonian Chronicle was more focused on recording major defeats of the Egyptians during that time so this event did not get recorded.
PROBLEM #2: The second historical problem in Daniel can be found in Daniel chapter four. This problem surrounds the account of Nebuchadnezzar’s illness. Daniel tells of a time when Nebuchadnezzar was on the roof of his palace admiring the city he had built. As a result of his pride, God cursed him with an illness. This illness caused him to become like an animal. He lived outside, ate grass, grew his hair long, and had nails like bird claws. There is an actual psychological disease called Lycanthropy in which a person would display these same symptoms. When scholars discovered the text at Qumran, they found it naming the Prayer of Nabonidus. This text described Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon. The text claims that a Jewish diviner healed Nabonidus from a disease. Scholars believe that Daniel confused Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus. It is very possible that these two texts are referring to two different events, because there is no reason to assume Daniel made a mistake here.
PROBLEM #3: The third historical problem can be found in Daniel 5:1. This verse says, “King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords and drank wine in front of the thousand.” Daniel portrays Belshazzar as the last king of Babylon. Belshazzar drinks out the vessel taken from the temple, blasphemes God, and sees handwriting on the wall telling him his city will be destroyed. The Babylonian Chronicle lists Nabonidus as the final king of the Babylonian Empire. The solution to this problem is simple. Nabonidus and Belshazzar were co-regents. Nabonidus held the official title of king, but he spent the last ten years of his reign in Tema. Belshazzar was not officially the king, but he ruled in Babylon in the place of Nabonidus. Daniel does not make a mistake here, but instead show the reader what is really happening in the kingdom at the time it was destroyed.
PROBLEM #4: The fourth problem surrounds Darius the Mede. Daniel tells of this in Daniel 5:30, “That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty- two years old.” The problem here is with the identity of Darius the Mede. Cyrus was the Persian king who conquered Babylon. Critical scholars believe Daniel confused Darius and Cyrus.
We see no information about Darius the Mede outside of the Bible. Knowing this makes it very possible that Darius was a throne name for Cyrus. Darius could also be the name of the general who conquered Babylon under the rule of King Cyrus. It is hard to place a definitive answer on this because we do not have the information. Scholars are certain that there is an answer out there; we just do not have it yet.
Another possibility can be explained using Daniel 6:28 which says, “So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” It is possible that Darius the Mede was succeeded by Cyrus. Further research follows the acquisition of the throne to find that before Cyrus became king, there wasn’t sufficient time for Darius to have ruled.
There is a theory surrounding this called the Gubaru Theory. Many attempts have been made to figure out the identity of Darius, but they failed with the discovery of cuneiform texts, which give detail descriptions of the events surrounding this historical event. Scholar H.H. Rowley has determined that Darius was a title of Gubaru, the governor of Babylon. However, Gubaru is not found anywhere in the cuneiform texts as having any association with Darius. J.C. Whitcomb says that it is highly probably that Gubaru assumed royal dignity with the name Darius while Cyrus was in Tema. This supports the double title theory. Other scholars say that there are no known instances of a governor of Babylon nor is there evidence that Gubaru ever claimed the title of king. The strongest argument in the identity of Darius is that he was a provincial governor with subordinate officials under him.
PROBLEM #5:
The fifth problem is about the prophecy in Daniel 11. Daniel gives an extensive prophecy about the Greek Empire and the Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanies. Critical scholars believe this prophecy is the reason the book should be dated in the second century instead of the sixth century. Antiochus is well known for his reign of terror against the Jewish people. In 169 BC he killed over eighty thousand Jews and plundered the temple. He tried to Hellenize the Jews and remove their religious practices and their commitment to the Torah. In 167 BC he even went so far as to place an alter to Zeus in the temple. Daniel predicts this event in Daniel 11:31.
There is a problem for critical scholars who do not believe the Bible to be a supernatural book. However, it is not a problem for Christians who believe that God reveals the future to those he grants it. Prophets were able to predict the death and resurrection of the Messiah over seven hundred years before it happened. Daniel’s prophecy about Antiochus happened only three hundred and fifty years in advance.
Daniel had two reasons for focusing on this event. The first is because the reign of Antiochus was going to be a time of persecution for the Jews and they needed to be prepared for it. The Jews needed to be reassured that God was not going to be blindsided by it. God knew it was coming and wanted his people to know that he would take care of the enemy. Second, this persecution foreshadows the final rebellion against God. It also foreshadows the persecution that will come from the antichrist in the end times.
In Daniel 11:40 the details begin to change. Daniel begins to give details that do not match what we know now about the reign of Antiochus. Instead, Daniel is talking about the reign of the antichrist. This event is a prophetically significant event.
The main argument here is that Daniel could not have predicted the reign of Antiochus Epiphanies. When looking at the rest of the Old Testament and seeing the prophecies of Christ’s death, it is very clear that Daniel could have predicted this event. The prophecy of Christ’s death happened seven hundred years in advance whereas Daniel’s prediction is only three hundred and fifty years in advance.
APPLICATION:
These historical problems that these critical scholars have issues with are mainly just due to a lack of research. In each instance, a little bit of research solved the problem or gave a convincing argument in rebuttal to the question. The two questions we asked at the beginning of this paper are whether these problems are really problems or just misunderstandings and how do these historical problems affect our understanding of the message from Daniel?
Each of the historical problems in Daniel had pieces of misunderstandings. Through a little bit of researching, answers can be found. That is the case in most of these situations throughout the Bible. In other cases, there may not be explicit evidence to give an answer, but there is also no reason to show that the Bible was wrong either.
So then how does understanding these historical problems affect the message we receive from the book of Daniel? It really should not. Regardless of the problems presented, the events still happened. The arguments pertained mostly to a mix up of names. It does not really matter who did what, as long as someone did it. We can still look at the thinks Daniel is trying to tell us and know that we can take them as truth.
CONCLUSION:
There are five main historical problems in the book of Daniel. They range from issues with dating, issues with names, and issues with the prophecy. Each of these historical problems has some kind of answer or an attempt at an answer. Most are just misunderstandings that can be easily resolve with a tiny bit of research. Other historical problems we do not have the answer to and may never have the answer to them. We can only make our best attempt at trying to solve the problem.
Even though there are problems with the book of Daniel, we should not allow it to affect our understanding of the message of Daniel. There is very important information for us in this book that we cannot discount based on a few minor issues we find. The people we surround ourselves with are certainly not perfect, but we take their word and believe things that have imperfections. We shouldn’t treat the word of God like that. The Bible is one hundred percent accurate and will not contradict itself. Looking at other passages of scripture for help can solve these historical problems. There will always be someone who doesn’t agree with something. It does not matter if it is about the Bible or not. It is impossible to please every single person at the same time. As Christians we should follow what we believe to be true, the word of God, and not allow the world to influence our beliefs.
There is a lot of detail within historical events that we do not have complete information for. These historical problems that we looked at are examples of that. There are obviously gaps in our information otherwise we would know the connection between Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian. The truth is that we do not have that information.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

D. J. Wiseman, “Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel,” D. J. Wiseman, ed., Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. London: The Tyndale Press, 1965.

Ferch, Arthur J. "Daniel 7 and Ugarit: A Reconsideration." Journal of Biblical Literature
99 (1980), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3265701 (accessed February 18, 2014).

Gammie, John G. "The Classification, Stages of Growth, and Changing Intentions in the
Book of Daniel." Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3265236 (accessed February 18, 2014).

Greidanus, Sidney. "Applying Daniel's messages to the church today." Calvin Theological
Journal 47, no. 2 (November 1, 2012): 257-274. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 2, 2014).

Hartman, Louis Francis, and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Book of Daniel. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1978.

Lacocque, André. The Book of Daniel. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979.

Lucas, E.C. "Daniel: Resolving the Enigma." Vetus Testamentum 50 (2000), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1585535 (accessed February 18, 2014).

LaSor, William Sanford, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush. Old Testament
Survey: the Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.

Segal, Michael. "From Joseph to Daniel: The Literary Development of the Narrative in
Daniel." Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009), http://www.jstor.org/stable/20699921
(accessed February 18, 2014).

Yates, Gary. “The Historicity of Daniel” (Video). Lecture, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA,
January 28, 2014.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Gary Yates, “The Message of Daniel” (Video of lecture, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, January 28, 2014).
[ 2 ]. William Sanford LaSor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush, Old Testament Survey: the Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 570.
[ 3 ]. Gary Yates, “The Historicity of Daniel” (Video of lecture, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, January 28, 2014).
[ 4 ]. D. J. Wiseman, “Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel,” D. J. Wiseman, ed., Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. London: The Tyndale Press, 1965. pp. 16-17.
[ 5 ]. Ibid.
[ 6 ]. Ibid.
[ 7 ]. Ibid.
[ 8 ]. D. J. Wiseman, 9-10.
[ 9 ]. Ibid., 10-11.
[ 10 ]. Ibid., 12.
[ 11 ]. Yates, Historicity.