Monday, January 22, 2024

Evidence that the Book of Daniel Exhibits Knowledge of the 6th century

  

. . . the author of Daniel exhibited a more extensive knowledge of sixth-century events than would seem possible for a second-century writer. R. H. Pfeiffer (who argued that the work contains errors) acknowledged that Daniel reports some amazing historical details: “We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar (4:30 [Heb 4:27]), as the excavations have proved . . . and that Belshazzar, mentioned only in Babylonian records, in Daniel and in Bar. 1:11, which is based on Daniel, was functioning as king when Cyrus took Babylon in 538 (chap. 5).” (Pfeiffer, Introduction, 758-59) . . . Regarding the historical setting, it is commonly claimed by those who accept the late date that the Book of Daniel was composed (in final form at least) exclusively to address the problem of the Maccabean revolt, and all agree that the prophecy speaks of Antiochus IV and his persecutions of the Jewish people. Yet, as A. Ferch points out concerning Dan 11, one would expect more precise allusions to the Maccabean crisis than actually occur, especially since this material supposedly was written a matter of months after the events transpired. (A. J. Ferch, “The Book of Daniel and the ‘Maccabean Thesis,’” AUSS 21 [1983]: 134-36) Ferch also comments, “Even if the author was a member of the Hasidim or was a pacifist, it is unlikely that he would not warm up more to the successes of his countrymen and that he would leave unnamed such heroes as Matthias and Judas Maccabeus.” (Ibid., 136) An examination of the book also reveals that many of the supposed references to the Maccabean crisis (including those thought to be present in all of the narratives in chaps. 1-6) are unconvincing.

 

Another argument against the Maccabean view is that the pagan governments in the historical accounts in Daniel do not exhibit a hostile attitude toward the Jews, contrary to conditions under Antiochus IV. Even Montgomery asserts: “It must be positively denied, as earlier conservative comm., and now Mein., Holscher, have rightly insisted, that Neb, and Darius are types of the infamous Antiochus, or at the trials of the confessors in the bk. represent the Macc. martyrdoms.” (Montgomery, Daniel, 89) Neither was Daniel an antagonist of Nebuchadnezzar but even seems to have admired him. In almost every instance, Daniel was a friend of the monarch, and the king exhibited great respect and even affection for him. Such a scenario certainly does not correspond to the time of Antiochus, when the godly Jews were being persecuted and murdered by that pagan despot. These Jews did not admire Antiochus but despised his evil ways. Even if the stories were written earlier than the second century B.C., and adapted by a Maccabean author, it seems logical to expect that he would have changed elements of the stories to fit his present situation. (Stephen R. Miller, Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture [The New American Commentary 18; Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994], 26, 27)