. . . 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)