The Neoplatonist Porphyry based his position for a late date on Daniel 11. It should be stated that the major argument to the
present, among all the arguments for a Maccabean date, is based upon chapter 11. It may be appropriate to cite J. J. Collins, a recent commentator, on this point (1981): “… the neo-Platonist philosopher Porphyry (late second century B.C.E.) … maintained that the book was written in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. [He argued that] Daniel’s prophecies of events down to the time of Antiochus were written after the fact, and were accurate, whereas the predictions beyond that time were unfulfilled. The cogency of Porphyry’s admittedly anti-Christian argument is widely recognized to-day.”
He continues, “First, there is the point noted by Porphyry, that beyond a certain point in history the predictions are not fulfilled.
The events in Daniel 11:40–45, leading up to the death of Antiochus, are the most significant examples.”
Evidently the major argument is the so-called “internal evidence,” as is suggested by S. R. Driver, namely the accuracy of the “prediction” of chapter 11 which is too exact to be given ahead of the events. In other words, “This question of one’s world view, namely whether God gives to a prophet such an exact view of the future, separates the scholars and decides in the final analysis also the date of the book of Daniel.” For scholars who take chapter 11 to be an exact prediction about the events leading up to (11:1–20) and including the struggles of Antiochus IV with the Jews (11:21–39) the decision is to be made: what is and what is not genuine prediction?
Some historical-critical scholars take it as axiomatic that “the realm of the supernatural” is invoked if Daniel provides a
“correct prediction in the sixth century of the course of history down to the second century.” But, insists R. H. Pfeiffer, who wrote in 1948 as a supporter of this view, “historical research can deal only with authenticated facts which are within the sphere of natural possibilities and must refrain from vouching for the truth of supernatural events.”
The issue over the date of the book of Daniel is then in the final analysis an issue over a philosophical presupposition:
whether the supernatural can function in historical-critical research. Since in this view chapter 11 cannot be true prophecy of the future, a socio-political setting other than the sixth century must be found. The crisis of Antiochus Epiphanes seems to present itself as the convenient setting.
A somewhat different historical-critical approach, used more recently, allows for the supernatural but puts the accent on another aspect. It was effectively stated in 1981 by John J.
Collins: “The issue is not whether a divinely inspired prophet could have foretold the events which took place under Antiochus Epiphanes four hundred years before they occurred.
The question is whether this possibility carries any probability:
is it the most satisfactory way to explain what we find in Daniel?
Modern critical scholarship has held that it is not.”
What is the reason for this negative verdict on the
“probability” of long-range future prediction? Two are provided by Collins: (1) “… beyond a certain point in history the predictions [of Dan 11] are not fulfilled. The events in Daniel 11:40–45, leading up to the end of Antiochus, are the most significant examples.” (2) The genre of “apocalyptic” in extra-canonical writings manifests the phenomenon of pseudonymity.
This means that writers of apocalyptic works regularly ascribe authorship to a hero of the past—Enoch, Moses, Ezra, Baruch.
This device of pseudonymity was used by the author of Daniel to lend authority to his work.68
Let us turn our attention briefly to the first of these two reasons why the book of Daniel does not present “any probability” of genuine prediction of future events. It is granted that the predictions of Daniel 11:40–45 were not fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes and his demise (to my knowledge this is universally admitted by both liberal and conservative scholars).
Could this then be an indication that much more of Daniel 11, if not essentially the whole chapter or actually all of it, has something in view other than Antiochus Epiphanes?
Again, it has been noted quite correctly that “the abomination of desolation” referred to by Jesus Christ (Matt 24:15) was drawn from Daniel 11:31. The fact that its desolating activity was still future for Jesus would indicate that something other than Antiochus Epiphanes was being described.
G. H. Wenham argues, “The idea that God declares his future purposes to his servants is at the heart of the book’s theology. If, however, Daniel is a second century work, one of its central themes is discredited, and it could be argued that Daniel ought to be relegated to the Apocrypha [or Pseudepigrapha] and not retain full canonical status as part of OT Scripture.” There is no historical or theological reason for not regarding Daniel 11 as genuine prophecy.
It is a fact of historical research that there is sparse and even conflicting information in the primary sources relating to Antiochus Epiphanes. The sources depicting the events of Antiochus Epiphanes for the period from about 170–164 B.C.
are limited primarily to 1 and 2 Maccabees and Polybius.
Indeed, they are so limited that scholars turn to Daniel 11 to fill in historical information!
For example, the recent study by Professor Klaus Bringmann on the Hellenistic reform and the religious persecution in Judaea (175–163 B.C.) is forced to take Daniel 11:28–31, 1 Maccabees 1:16–59, and 2 Maccabees 5:1–6:7 as “sources … for historical events” to understand the crisis brought about by Antiochus Epiphanes and his Judaean supporters. The fact that these three
“sources” are in disagreement on many points of detail casts a shadow of doubt on the resultant correlation of events.
It is also interesting to observe that Bringmann engages in a significant redating of events. The three-year desecration of the
Jerusalem temple is now to be dated from 168–165 B.C. and no longer from 167–164 B.C. High priest Onias III was murdered in 170 B.C. These new chronological conclusions, aside from others, give rise to serious interpretational problems regarding various parts of the book of Daniel in which scholars have customarily seen Antiochus Epiphanes.
In short, the correlation of the chronological information and the events surrounding Antiochus Epiphanes and Daniel 11 is by no means smooth. The difficulties encountered by this approach suggest that the events in Palestine in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes really do not provide the true setting for Daniel 11.3
Apocalyptic and Pseudonymity
A few remarks are in order regarding the “apocalyptic” genre and the alledged pseudonymity of the book of Daniel. Is apocalyptic material in the OT by nature pseudonymous? In Isaiah 24–27 there is a composition which has been recognized by scholars, including John J. Collins,79 as the “Apocalypse of Isaiah.” It is part of the book of Isaiah and does not need to be considered anonymous or pseudonymous. In fact, Professor J. G.
Baldwin has pointed out that “there is no clear proof of pseudonymity in the Old Testament and much evidence is against it.”81
There is no reason to believe that because parts of the book of Daniel are apocalyptic in form and nature, it must be late.
Professor F. M. Cross suggested that the origin of apocalyptic must be searched for as early as the sixth century B.C. Inasmuch
3 Hasel, G. F. (1986). Chapter II: Establishing a Date for the Book of Daniel. In F. B. Holbrook (Ed.), Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical Studies (Vol. 2, pp. 124–161). Washington, DC:
Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
as there is still no clear definition of apocalyptic, it would be totally inappropriate to assume that, whatever apocalyptic is, the book of Daniel must be late. Nor is it appropriate to assume that Daniel is to be identified with the extra-canonical apocalyptic works, and therefore must be pseudonymous. The burden of proof that the book of Daniel is a pseudonym, because parts of it are apocalyptic, rests upon those who make the claim.
Conclusions
The Maccabean date hypothesis with its second century date for the final form of the book of Daniel has most popularity today in historical-critical scholarship. Nevertheless there remain many unresolved problems. The major arguments for this hypothesis, investigated in this and the preceding two sections on the basis of new evidence, have been examined and found wanting.
The alleged historical “errors” and problems relating to Nebuchadnezzar, his building achievements, his insanity, calling Belshazzar his son, are resolved on the basis of new information.
Available information puts the respective parts of Daniel dealing with him into the sound historical context of the late seventh and early sixth century B.C. The idea of Belshazzar as “king” of Babylon corresponds to the events of the time as cuneiform evidence proves. There is so much new light on Darius the Mede and his co-regency with Cyrus after the fall of Babylon that any conclusion other than that he was a real person now seems incredible. The canny corroboration of Daniel functioning as the
“third” in Babylon also points to a contemporary account of chapter 5.
Attention was given also to the chronological information of the datelines and various dates in the book of Daniel. There is incontrovertible proof for the correlation of the third/fourth year
of Jehoiakim with Nebuchadnezzar’s attack on Jerusalem in 605 B.C. The dates of 7:1; 8:1; 9:1; etc., can be fixed now with new exactness.
Along the lines of linguistic studies, it is evident that the Babylonian name “Chaldean,” the names Shadrach, Meshah, and Abednego are reflective of Babylonian customs. The issue of the Persian and Greek terms no longer poses difficulties for a sixth century date of Daniel. The use of the Aramaic language as it appears in the book makes a date in the second century B.C.
impossible. The Hebrew language of the book fits the sixth century B.C. The change of languages (Hebrew-Aramaic-Hebrew) poses no difficulties.
The discoveries from Qumran have a significant bearing on the Maccabean date hypothesis. Daniel is called a “prophet.”
There is support for the change of languages in two of the eight different manuscripts. A late date is made impossible. There is not enough time for a mid-second-century-B.C. date and the acceptance of the book as canonical.
The theology of the book of Daniel fits neatly into a sixth century B.C. setting. The resurrection thought, for example, stands in contrast with resurrection, immortality, and other related ideas in intertestamental literature. The contrast makes it clear that the book of Daniel belongs to an earlier period. The four-world empire schema can now be seen against a Babylonian background. It does not belong to Persian or Greek thought. The four-world empire sequence covers a period longer than from the sixth century to the second century B.C.
Daniel 11 does not provide the kind of “history” it was thought to have. The chapter contains genuine prophecy. The problem of pseudonymity remains an unexplained phenomenon for those holding a Maccabean date hypothesis.
In the light of recent archaeological, linguistic, and historical evidence, and the internal evidence in the book itself, a date in
the sixth century B.C. best fits the writing of the book of Daniel in its present form. This is supported, of course, by the pronounced “I” form of style in which Daniel writes when it comes to his own visions in Daniel 7–12.
Without overstating the case, it can be said that wherever new evidence has come to light from discoveries in the last hundred years, it has supported the early sixth century B.C. dating for the book of Daniel rather than a late one in the second century.
CHAPTER III