Introduction to the Book of Daniel

Introduction to the Book of Daniel 

Assignment: Discuss fully the authorship, intended audience, date and historical/sociological setting, and major themes of the Book of Daniel. Discuss the historicity of the events described in the Book of Daniel. 

Authorship 

We do not know the author of the Book of Daniel as it now exists. The first half of the book consists of stories told about a man named Daniel, and about people associated with him. The second half of the book consists of purported first-person reports of vision experiences attributed to Daniel. But there are many considerations that suggest that the book is not “historical,” and that we are not dealing with the work of a sixth-century prophet. 

I myself hold the view that was first suggested by the British Baptist scholar Harold H. Rowley. 

(1) Rowley suggested that the third person narratives, which were either created by the author, or re-formulated by him, based on various older traditions, were published first, and achieved great popularity. There is no suggestion in those stories that Daniel was himself the author. 

(2) Rowley further suggested that after the collection of stories had become well known, the compiler/author either experienced visions himself, or perhaps more likely, decided to cast some of his ideas in the form of vision-reports. Rowley concludes that the author wrote in the name of “Daniel,” not in an attempt to deceive anyone, but rather, to indicate to his readers that these vision-reports came from the same source as the collection of stories, perhaps with the hope that the popularity of the stories would then give some weight of authority to the vision-accounts as well. 

Intended audience 

The intended audience would be people who lived in the time of the author, and who shared some of the same concerns of the author. The nature of both the stories and the vision-reports suggests that the intended audience included people who were experiencing oppression, and who were perhaps in danger even of death if they continued to hold to the tenets of their Jewish faith in the face of oppressors who wanted to crush that faith. Both the stories and the visions seem designed to encourage loyal Jews to be faithful in the face of potential or actual persecution, and to suggest that there is hope for deliverance, either in this life, or in the next, for those who are found faithful. Just which group of readers this might be will depend, in large part, on the date and historical situation out of which the book arose, and to which it was addressed (see below).

 

Date 

We begin seeking the date of writing with a few assumptions: 

1. If Daniel himself, or some contemporary of his, wrote the Book of Daniel in whole or in part, we might expect that it would display an accurate knowledge of the history of Daniel’s own time (the period of the Exile and shortly after, c. 605-515 BCE). (It might even serve as an important source of knowledge for the history of that period.) This does not mean, however, that if the historical details in the book are found to be reliable, we may then conclude that Daniel himself, or someone contemporary with him, actually wrote the book. Certainly, it might indicate that someone who actually lived at that time wrote it, but it could also suggest only that someone who simply had good knowledge of that period, but who lived in a later age, was the author. If this were the case we would then still have to find some other means of locating the writer in time. 

2. On the other hand, if the historical data in the book do not reflect an accurate knowledge of 6th century BCE Babylonian affairs—if it is found to be quite wrong about such matters, and not just having slight divergences from the known facts—then it would follow that probably neither Daniel nor any contemporary of his wrote it. And again, we would have to pursue our quest for knowledge of the author and of his time in other ways. 

3. By “historical data” we mean data that we may reasonably expect to find in contemporary sources from the same period. Several details in Daniel would not qualify as historical data in this sense. Daniel’s private visions (chapters 7-12), for example, would not have been recorded in any official records, nor would the dream of Nebuchadrezzar (chapter 2), or an account of his “madness” (chapter 4). And certainly, Belshazzar’s annalists would have had no time to record the account of the writing on the wall (chapter 5). On the other hand, we might expect to find accounts of Nebuchadrezzar’s public erection of a statue, the worship of which was imposed on the entire population of the Babylonian Empire. We might expect to find accounts of Darius’ administrative reorganization of the Persian Empire into 120 satrapies under the jurisdiction of three presidents, one of whom was thrown to the lions and survived. But the contemporary records are, in fact, silent on these matters. 

A. There are two elements in Daniel that might possibly satisfy our requirements and qualify as “historical data” that we may attempt to verify. One element is the statement in Daniel 1:1 that Nabu-kudurri-usr (Nebudchadrezzar), King of Babylon, besieged Jerusalem during the third year of the reign of King Jehoiachim of Judah. The other element is the names and sequence of the ancient Near Eastern powers and of the individual rulers with whom Daniel is said to have come into contact. 

B. Daniel 1:1, the very first statement in the book, is apparently inaccurate, however. We know nothing from contemporary records about a siege of Jerusalem as early as the third year of Jehoiakim from any other source. Nebuchadrezzar’s own records do not mention such a siege. Jehoiakim came to the throne of Judah about September of 609 BCE, having been installed following the death of his father Josiah and the deposing of his brother Jehoahaz by Pharaoh Necho of Egypt. Jehoiakim remained subservient to Egypt for the first four years of his reign. Egyptian dominance in Palestine was broken only when Nebuchadrezzar defeated the Egyptians at the battle of Carchemish in Syria about May or June of 605. Nebuchadrezzar did not succeed his father Nabopolassar on the throne of Babylon until August of 605, but his reign was officially reckoned, following usual Babylonian practice, to have begun at the New Year (autumn) in 604. Thus, the earliest time Nebuchadrezzar could have invaded Judah was later in the summer of 605. But Nebuchadrezzar was not yet king of Babylon, while Jehoiachim was already in the fourth year of his reign. Thus, the statement of Daniel 1:1 is at odds with the known history of the period with which it purports to deal. 

C. Turning to the wider history of the period in which Daniel is represented as living, we notice that the Book of Daniel mentions four successive rulers: (1) Nebuchadrezzar (who is called Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel), and (2) Belshazzar his “son,” both of whom were Babylonians, (3) Darius, who is referred to as “the Mede,” and (4) Cyrus “the Great,” a Persian. No indication is given of the length of any of their reigns. The succession of rulers that actually took place was: (1) Nebuchadrezzar (604-562), who was succeeded by his son (2) Amel-Marduk (561-560), who appears in the Hebrew Bible as Evil-Merodach. Amel-Marduk was killed in a revolution and succeeded by his brother-in-law (3) Neriglissar (559-556), whose son (4) Labashi-Marduk followed him but was very shortly removed by a rebellion, which resulted in (5) Nabonidus, a noble from Harran, coming to the throne. Nabonidus’ reign lasted from 555 until 539, when Cyrus of Persia conquered the kingdom. So we are presented with two very different listings. 

It has been known since about 1850 that Nabonidus did have a son named Belshazzar, who acted as regent in place of his father in the city of Babylon while Nabonidus spent some ten years at Teima in Arabia. But Belshazzar was never King in the Babylonian documents, and he was by no means a son, or even a descendant of Nebuchadrezzar. Thus, the discrepancies between the portrayal of events in the Book of Daniel and the actual course of events are striking. 

Furthermore, according to the Book of Daniel, “Darius the Mede” reigned in Babylon for an unspecified period between Belshazzar and Cyrus. But history allows no room for such a person. Cyrus of Persia himself conquered Babylon, ruled by Nabonidus (for whom Belshazzar acted only as regent). The closest counterpart in history to someone like “Darius the Mede” is to a Persian (not a Median) successor of Cyrus, Darius I “Hystaspes,” who also attacked Babylon, in about 622 BCE, to put down a revolt there. The writer of Daniel clearly thought there was a Median king Darius, who ruled Babylon between Belshazzar and Cyrus. Since history allows no room for such a person, we must conclude that these stories and visions are not genuine accounts recorded in the sixth century BCE by the man said to have experienced them. 

D. But are there other clues in the book that might help us to determine just when the Book of Daniel actually was written? The answer is yes. In chapters 2, 7, 8, and 11 there are reports of a dream and of visions purporting to predict the course of history in Mesopotamia and Palestine after the time of Daniel, culminating in a time of crisis and persecution that the writer understood would be “the time of the End.” It is clear that the writer’s knowledge of the period close to the time when Daniel himself would have lived is somewhat inaccurate and confused. It is certainly possible that he did know the correct sequence of rulers, and that he might have “revised” the sequence of historical events for his less-knowledgeable readers in the interest of getting across the points he wanted to make, but that is not very likely. 

In fact, an examination of the same passages makes it clear that the writer’s description of events is extremely accurate the closer he comes to the second century BCE—the time when a tyrant named Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” ruled Syria and Palestine. At this point the writer is so accurate that chapter 11 is recognized as a first class historical source for this period! The writer comes down with great accuracy to a time about the year 168/7 BCE in which Antiochus forbids the practice of the Jewish religion in Palestine in June and sacrifices a pig on the altar of the Temple in Jerusalem on December 7 (Daniel 8:13; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). These events are described in some detail in the Apocryphal books of 1 Maccabees (1:11-15, 29-35, and 41-64; note 1:54) and 2 Maccabees (6:1-17). 

But then, immediately following the references to these events in Daniel 11:29-39, the writer attempts to predict the manner in which Antiochus will be killed. He says that Antiochus will engage in a military campaign in Egypt, and will win a victory, but that on his return to Syria he will be killed “not by human hand.” In fact, he did die by 164/3 BCE in a campaign in Persia (not Egypt), as reported in the history by Josephus and in 1 Maccabees 6:1-16 and 2 Maccabees 9, not in the place or manner indicated by the Book of Daniel. In the meantime revolt had taken place in Judah, led by Judas Maccabeus, who cleansed and rededicated the Temple in December 165/4 BCE. It is therefore clear that this is the time period when the book was written—sometime after the desecration of the altar in December 168/7 but before the death of Antiochus in October of 164/3. 

Historical/sociological situation 

The writer of Daniel believes that he is living during the last 3½ years of a time of trial that must precede the End of the present age. Over and over in apocalyptic literature that will follow Daniel, and especially in the Revelation to John in the New Testament, there will occur in varying forms these phrases from the Book of Daniel: “three and a half years,” “a half week (of years),” “1260 days” (or “1290 days”), “forty-two months,” and “a time, times, and half a time” (= a year + two years + a half year). Near the end of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the writer of the Book of Daniel concluded that the End was near. He thought in terms of the End of his present age, and perhaps even of the End of all history. In fact it was the end of the dynasty of Antiochus, so in a sense perhaps, he was somewhat correct. 

Antiochus was ruler of Syria, which included Palestine. He loved all things Greek, and regarded himself as a missionary of Greek culture. He had decided to intensify the promotion of Greek culture—not only the language, but also its worship practices—among the Jews. Many responded to his efforts with violent and stubborn resistance by many. A few others accepted them. The matter was complicated by the fact that Palestine was exactly halfway between Syria and Egypt, and had been under the control of Egypt from about 300-200 BCE. Syria and Egypt were deadly rivals at this time. Antiochus was afraid the Jews might side with the Egyptians against him. After a foray into Egypt in 169/8 BCE the Jews had openly revolted. He crushed the rebellion. But again, after going down to Egypt in 168/7 and being forced to retreat by a Roman force, and being informed of further troubles in Palestine, he sent his army into Jerusalem, and 80,000 Jews were either killed or sold into slavery. 

In June 168/7 BCE he published an edict that made it a capitol offense to possess a copy of the Torah, and houses were searched. Circumcision of children also became an offense punishable by death, and so did observance of the Sabbath. These were the very things that made a Jew a Jew. Then in December of the same year the Jerusalem Temple was desecrated. A great altar to Olympian Zeus, the god of heaven, was erected in the Temple, and sacrifices of pigs were offered on its altar. The Temple chambers were made into official brothels where sacred prostitution was practiced. All of this constituted what the writer of Daniel calls “the abomination of desolation” (literally, “the abomination that makes desolate” or “the desolating sacrilege”) (8:13; 9:17-18, 27; 11:31; cf. 1 Maccabees 1:41-64, esp. verse 54, and 2 Maccabees 6:1-6, esp. verses 4-5). 

Shortly after these events the Jews revolted. Judas Maccabeus and his brothers led the people in guerilla warfare. Antiochus and his forces were driven out, and in December 165/4, three and a half years after the edict, and three years exactly after the Temple sacrilege, the Temple was cleansed, restored, and rededicated. To this day the Jews observe that event annually as the Feast of Hanukkah (Re-dedication). It appears that Antiochus himself died in Persia in October following the re-dedication. The writer of Daniel was aware of the beginning of his period of tribulation, but apparently did not know how it would come out, because he predicts a different end for Antiochus (Daniel 11:40 ff.). 

The Book of Daniel was written, then, with a message for such a time as that. Daniel, ridiculing idolatry, encouraging faithfulness, promising the end of this world’s empires, would have been supremely relevant to its time (note 1 Maccabees 2:60 (written about 100 BCE), where Mattathias, father of the Maccabee brothers, is actually portrayed as encouraging them by citing Daniel as an example to be followed!). Daniel was a book produced out of the struggle between two rival ways of life, one seeking to impose itself on the other in order to destroy the independent spirit and religious faith of a small nation. 

Major Themes/Content 

Chapter 1 encourages Jews to keep their food laws, showing Daniel and his friends on a restricted (“kosher”) diet to be wiser than the well-fed youths of the king’s court. 

Chapter 2 describes Nebuchadrezzar’s dream about a mountain boulder crushing an image of gold, silver, brass, iron, and clay. Originally the image may have been an assessment of the Babylonian rulers prior to their conquest by Cyrus: (1) Nebuchadrezzar, the golden head, (2) his son, Amel-Marduk, the silver breast and arms, (3) Neriglissar, the belly and thighs of bronze, (4) Labashi-Marduk, the legs of iron, and (5) finally, Nabonidus, the feet, partly of iron but mixed with clay, destroyed by Cyrus the Persian as the great boulder. 

But in any case our writer interprets the image as representing kingdoms: (1) Babylon, under Nebuchadrezzar and his successors; (2) the Medes, whom he apparently believes conquered Babylon, led by “Darius the Mede”; (3) the Persians, under Cyrus “the Great”: and (4) the Greek empire under Alexander, which upon his death was split up into (5) the successor states, especially Egypt under the Ptolemies and Syria under the Seleucids. The writer’s interpretation by the mouth of Daniel is that a great boulder, representing the kingdom and the people of God, will crush all these empires. 

Chapter 3 is a story about Daniel’s three friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and their experience in the fiery furnace. It ridicules image-worship and shows the ultimate triumph of persons tortured for their faith by rulers like Antiochus. 

Chapter 4 recounts a story in the first-person, by Nebuchadrezzar, in which he has a vision about a temporary loss of his sovereignty, and banishment in madness. This is followed by an account of his actual madness, and of how he returned to his senses and praised “the King of Heaven.” In the Dead Sea Scrolls there is a prayer said to have been spoken by the last ruler of Babylon, Nabonidus, which is similar to this chapter in Daniel. In actual fact, Babylonian records do not record a period of madness and exile by Nebuchadrezzar, but they do tell of a ten-year period in the reign of Nabonidus when he was absent from Babylon, leaving his son Belshazzar in charge as regent, and the reason for the absence is not explained in the records. The story in Daniel 4 may be a story that originally was told of Nabonidus. The writer of our book uses it to remind the Jews that even men in great power, like Antiochus and Nebuchadrezzar and Nabonidus are subject to the rule of God. 

Chapter 5 tells the story of the famous banquet of Belshazzar the night before the conquest of Babylon by “Darius the Mede.” While the king and his court are engaging in revelry, incidentally utilizing the drinking vessels that were removed from the Jerusalem Temple in 587 BCE by Nebuchadrezzar, a hand appears and writes mysterious words on the wall. Again, the writer of Daniel has Daniel provide an interpretation that the kingdom is about to be handed over to the Medes and the Persians. Belshazzar is punished for his idolatry and for his profaning of the Temple treasures, with the implication that the same thing will happen to Antiochus for his desecration of the Temple. 

Chapter 6 praises Daniel’s obedience to the Torah in defiance of an edict reminiscent of the edict of Antiochus. Daniel’s deliverance and his accusers’ fate in the lions’ jaws conveyed an obvious message. 

Chapter 7 is a vision showing how four beasts, symbolizing the kingdoms of the world lose their authority, while the “son of man,” symbolizing God’s people, the “saints of the Most High,” is invested with an eternal Kingdom. The four beasts are: (1) a lion with eagle’s wings: Babylon; (2) a bear: the Medes; (3) a four-headed leopard with a bird’s wings: the Persians; (4) An indescribably terrible beast, with ten horns, three of which are supplanted by an eleventh, a “little horn.” This fourth beast represents the Greek Empire under Alexander, which broke up into several states after his death. The “little horn” is Antiochus Epiphanes. Daniel is told that the beasts represent future history (from Daniel’s time). The message is again clear: God controls history, and God’s people will triumph in the end. 

Chapter 8 contains a second vision of future history. There is a ram with two horns, representing the Medes and the Persians whom he believed succeeded the Babylonian empire. This beast is followed by a he-goat, representing the Greek empire, with a great horn, representing Alexander; then four smaller horns appear in place of the great horn, representing the division of Alexander’s empire after his death. Then from the four there arises a “little horn” representing Antiochus Epiphanes, who shall be destroyed “by no human hand.” Note the interpretation in Daniel 8:19-26. 

Chapter 9 contains a long general confession put into Daniel’s mouth, followed by assurance to Daniel that in these final years the persecuting ruler (Antiochus Epiphanes) will suffer the wrath of God. 

Chapters 10-12 contain Daniel’s last vision, which describes the events in the Seleucid empire of Syria, and their relations with the Ptolemaic empire of Egypt, culminating in the career of Antiochus and his persecution of the Jews. Antiochus’ death is predicted. There is encouragement here for the faithful Jews who have suffered persecution, and there is a promise of deliverance for God’s people and a resurrection of the righteous to glory and of the unrighteous to shame. 

The Book of Daniel often evokes mixed feelings in today’s readers. The doctrine of Divine pre-destination is so pervasive that we may first be tempted to conclude that human initiative would be severely undercut by such thinking. Yet such a message would have been one of great encouragement to people experiencing what those people were experiencing. The writer of Daniel asserted that he knew God’s plan, and in claiming to know it so well, he actually exposed his own deficiencies, for not everything the writer predicted came to pass. History did not confirm all of his expectations. Nevertheless, this writer kept hope alive among a people who were forced to live in an extremely trying environment. Thus, for many of his countrymen, the daily living out of their faith must have remained for them a compelling and wholly worthwhile option.