Paul Christianson
Paul Christianson has a graduate degree in Ancient History.
Modernism, or theological liberalism, has had a tremendous impact on twentieth century Christianity, and often in such a subtle manner, that even evangelical Christians often fall prey to its influences. So pervasive is this apostasy and so attractive is its call, that even the bastions of conservative Christian thought have been touched, oftentimes falling into an insipid neutrality, refusing to take the offensive against this form of unbelief. Several quarters view such unbelief as the twentieth century’s main contribution to the history of heresy!
We who are often disturbed by modernism can take hope in the solid research of conservative scholars whom God is raising up to meet this crisis. God’s Word remains, as always, inspired and infallible in the truth it conveys to mankind, past, present, and future. No scholar, whether liberal or evangelical, can add or detract from the Word of God. “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” (Is. 40:8). Scholarship remains only a tool to facilitate a better understanding of God’s Word, not an entity unto itself. Like any human work or invention it can be used for the glory of God, and as a help to fellow believers, or become a hindrance to understanding, and as such an instrument of Satan.
The Book of Daniel has received a vast amount of this liberal scholarly attention. The modernist arguments against the integrity of Daniel generally focus on authorship and date, existence of the personages described, and the historicity of the events narrated. If the modernist liberal assertions were proved correct, then Daniel’s inclusion in the Bible could be called into question. Early attacks against the Book of Daniel came from outside the church. Near the end of the third century a neoplatonic rationalist, the Tyrian, Porphyry (b.232), wrote against the Christians and their holy books in 15 works. Several attacks were aimed at the prophecies of Daniel, citing them as counterfeits, or vaticinia post eventum, essentially, prophecies after the fact! This is still the main avenue of attack today. Joyce Baldwin, an Old Testament scholar, and dean of women at Trinity College, Bristol, states poignantly:
Secularism denies the supernatural. All the more reason, then, why the church needs to be counting on the certainties proclaimed in Daniel, namely that God is constantly overruling and judging in the affairs of men, putting down the mighty from their seats, over-throwing unjust regimes and effectively bringing in His kingdom, which is to embrace all nations.
The book of Daniel provides a field of battle on which the forces of unbelief and literalism struggle, and to all appearances, the skeptics seem to be winning the day if popularity is any measure.
Human reason, elevated and deified by man, attempts to call for obeisance those who stubbornly maintain that God’s sovereignty is manifest in His glorious Word. We assert that any denial of the canonicity of Daniel, its authorship, its unity, the date of its prophecies, is tantamount to a denial of God’s sovereignty and purpose.
One can look about the church today, observing the inroads of the liberal “critical-historical-literary” methodology. We find it benignly placed in introductions and footnotes of various Bible translations. For example, examine the popular Jerusalem Bible, found in most evangelical bookstores, and note the introduction to Daniel. It states “the book of Daniel was written between 167 and 164 B.C…” to “sustain faith and hope among the Jews” during the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes. In other words, Daniel does not have an exilic date of composition, but rather, was composed more than three centuries later by an unnamed Jew who assigned the authorship to a semi-mythical Daniel. The introduction also asserts Daniel “disregards known facts, persons, and dates…” In addition, the footnotes to chapters five, six and seven clearly illustrate the results of modernist scholarship, which in most instances undermines faith.
What are, in the main, the modernist-liberal criticisms of the Book of Daniel, and conversely, what do evangelical scholars assert? Essentially, the attack targets three major areas: the time of composition; many subscribing to a second century B.C., or Maccabean date based on the accurate description of the second campaign of Antiochus IV (175-164), against Egypt. Secondly, alleged historical inaccuracies concerning the sixth century B.C., for example, the question of Belshazzar (Da. 5:1) being listed as the king of Babylon, or the question of the existence of Darius the Mede (Da. 5:31). And finally, many liberal scholars claim that the Book of Daniel is a composite work, written by two or more individuals.
Let us analyze, briefly, each of the three areas of liberal onslaught as to the veracity and accuracy of the Book of Daniel. The unity of the book has been called into question because like the book of Ezra, Daniel is, in the original languages, written in Hebrew (1:1-2:4a; 8:1-12:13), and in Aramaic (2:4b-7:28). In addition, the first six chapters of the book portray humanness and clarity. The last half of the Book of Daniel is apocalyptic, and as such, there is a certain amount of obscurity which tends to make the book enigmatic. Nonetheless, in accordance with conservative scholars and certain of the modernist persuasion, (S.R. Driver and H.H. Rowley), to dissect Daniel is to cause more problems than to solve them. Alternating views by liberals on several “authors” for the book cannot be harmonized with the overall aim and purpose of Daniel. There is little, if any consensus, on how the book should be divided. A careful reading of Daniel will demonstrate the relationship between the diverse and various chapters that modernists would like to attribute to different writers at varying intervals of time.
The Aramaic section of Daniel gives no support to liberal criticisms of interpolation by an unknown writer or writers. In the ancient Near East it was common practice to employ a different style for the central part of a work, for example, the Law Code of Hammurabi (17th century B.C.). This well-known law code’s prologue and epilogue are written in semi-poetic Akkadian, while the central portion of the work is in prose. In regards to the Book of Daniel we entertain the possibility that the original work was written in Aramaic, and later, for purposes of literary style, parts of the work were transcribed into Hebrew. Whatever the reasons for the Hebrew-Aramaic composition, a simple reading of the text will show, contrary to modernist criticisms, an absence of discontinuity.
Daniel 1:1, (NASB), reads: “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.” Modernists assert this passage is erroneous in stating that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem at so early a date (605 B.C.). S.R. Driver argues that even though the statement in verse one cannot openly be disproved, nonetheless, it is “highly improbable.” Other liberals maintain that a late Hebrew author, (second or third century B.C.), while composing the book, misdated the siege of 597 B.C., placing it during the reign of Jehoiakim. Much of their evidence is based on the silence of II Kings. II Kings 24 tells us that Jerusalem was threatened, but nothing is mentioned of a siege. However, King Nebuchadnezzar was in, or near Jerusalem before the attack on the city in 597 B.C. How do we know this? Supporting evidence comes from the Babylonian Chronicles which are in the British Museum. Information from this ancient document substantiates, to a large measure, the biblical account: that Nebuchadnezzar asserted power on Jerusalem, as king of Babylon, after 7 September 605 B.C., following the death of his father Nabopolassar, the previous month. The biblical account suggests, and extra-biblical evidence supports, that indeed, Nebuchadnezzar did bring force to bear on Jerusalem shortly after he ascended the throne on 7 September.
Belshazzar, being called the king in Daniel 5:1, has been the object of much critical comment. Some have disregarded this verse, stating that, again, the Book of Daniel and its author are in error. It is true Belshazzar’s father, Nabonidus, was the great king of Babylon. So is Daniel 5:1 erroneous in describing Belshazzar as king? Conservative scholars say “no”! Why? In the cuneiform Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus it clearly states that Belshazzar’s “hand was freed.” In other words Belshazzar was to act as king in the absence of his father, Nabonidus, who was campaigning in Arabia. Does this not make Belshazzar, in fact, king? He could perform all the prerogatives of his father with the exception of the rites of the New Year’s Festival. Modernists counter by asserting, according to Daniel 5:22, that Nebuchadnezzar is listed as the father of Belshazzar. Indeed, we know on the basis of extra-biblical historical texts, as previously mentioned, that Nabonidus was Belshazzar’s father. However, in Old Testament times throughout the Near East, it was customary to use the terms “father” and “son” in a figurative sense, as well as in a way that would give a reader a sense of the closeness between two individuals. See II Kings 2:12, does not Elisha call Elijah “my father”? It is likely, based on the research of R.P. Dougherty and A.R. Millard, that Belshazzar’s mother was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, if so, then Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar’s grandfather!
The Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary states, “it is the identity of Darius the Mede” that is the crucial problem in the Book of Daniel. Many liberals would agree wholeheartedly with the above assertion. They claim that the author of Daniel, writing very late (second century B.C.), had such a vague and uncertain knowledge of the exile and the fall of Babylon, that he confused the reign of Darius I Hystaspes with the reign of Cyrus (539-530 B.C.), so much so, that he lists Darius’ reign (522-486 B.C.), ahead of Cyrus, thus making a very apparent error. First we must consider that the Book of Daniel describes Darius the Mede in more detail than Belshazzar or Nebuchadnezzar. It is not generous, to say the least, to assert as some do, that Darius the Mede never existed when so many facts are recorded about him. Professor D.J. Wiseman reasons that the name Darius the Mede is a synonym for Cyrus the Great. What evidence supports this view? First, it is a known fact of history that Cyrus was called “king of the Medes.” In the second place, the Greek Bible, and the writings of Theodotion on Daniel 11:1 have “Cyrus” listed instead of Darius. Perhaps the early translators were aware of this “double name.” Other evidences for this possible explanation comes from apocryphal works like 1 Esdras, the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah, especially Nehemiah 12:22, where a later Darius the Persian is identified, thus deliberately distinguishing him from Darius the Mede.
Does the eleventh chapter of Daniel support a second century date of composition, in essence, denying the predictive prophecy of the Book of Daniel? Evangelical scholars, once again, say “no!” One must assume, if he or she does not believe in Old Testament prophecy, that the writings of the eleventh chapter were written immediately following the events they describe, so accurate is the account. E.J. Young writes in his book, The Prophecy of Daniel: “Anyone who claims that the Book of Daniel is a product of the Maccabean age thereby denies that it is a work of true predictive prophecy as it purports to be…if it comes from the Maccabean age then it is a forgery.” The heathen Porphyry, mentioned earlier, attacks specifically the eleventh chapter of the book. He sees it as history, not prophecy, and written in the Maccabean age. There are many “Porphyrys” in the church today who assert essentially the same thing.
If we read Daniel carefully we can discern that chapter eleven is tied into chapters two, seven and eight. This, in itself, is a case for continuity, and likewise, a case against interpolation. In the second place, pre-Christian manuscripts of Daniel have been found at Qumran, the oldest being 4QDnC. This being so, one scholar, R.K. Harrison states, “a Maccabean dating of Daniel is absolutely precluded.” Why? Because there “would have been insufficient time for Maccabean compositions to be circulated, venerated, and accepted as canonical Scripture by a Maccabean sect.” This sect probably flourished at Qumran hundreds of years before any writing would be accepted as canonical, and as such, there is no reason to believe Daniel could be accepted in only a generation. In addition, the whole work, including chapter 11, is homogenous. This is decisive, in my opinion, for supporting a late sixth, or early fifth century date of composition. As more and more evidence becomes available concerning the Book of Daniel, it becomes increasingly obvious that modernist-liberal scholarship is being left without plausible arguments. Wolfhart Pannenberg, faculty member of the University of Mainz, has said, “history as reality is accessible through the biblical revelation.” In other words, our faith does not depend on “suprahistorical” events or documentation to be “fully appreciated.” The acts of God, are by themselves, in a genre beyond the scrutiny of the human mind. Anselm (1033-1109 A.D.) declared that “faith must precede all effort to understand.” To enthrone the human mind, as one commentator has remarked, is to do violence to God’s aims and purposes. What benefit is there to raise up the Molock of human intellect? H.C. Leupold, in his book, An Exposition of Daniel, makes a germane point worthy of repeating:
The matter boils down to this: the critical objections have been answered time and again in such a manner as to satisfy those that still believe in the veracity of God’s Word, who also are fully convinced that, on the basis of sound logic, no valid objection against the historical truth of the bible can be pointed out. They who raise the claim that ‘the historicity of the Book of Daniel is an article of faith’ are correct only when they accept the equally valid claim: The correctness of the critical position is an article of faith.
The most significant thing we can say in defense of the Book of Daniel, and in so doing affirm it as God’s Word, is to remind those who have doubts that Jesus Himself quoted from Daniel, the Markan passages being the most prominent (Ma. 13:24-26; see also Mt. 24:15,29; Lu. 21:27). Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away.” Nothing, then, can extinguish the “lamp” that guides us out of the sin of this world, no, not even the human mind (1 Cor. 3:19-21).
Each of us should be encouraged by and trusting in God, for His promises are faithful, and the Book of Daniel is God’s Word, placed in the Bible “as a Lamp unto our feet” (Ps. 119:105).
This article is posted in Closer Look with the author’s permission. All rights reserved.