Evidence-An Argument for the Traditional Date of Daniel While critical theories concerning the unity and composition of Daniel
dominate modern scholarship on the book, conservative and evangelical
scholars have continued to defend the traditional date of the book.
Several lines of reasoning converge to suggest that the matter is not
as settled as critical commentaries and essays on Daniel would lead
one to believe. Some of these lines of reasoning undermine assertions
made by critical scholars, while others bring unnoticed evidence to
bear on the question.
Hebrew Language Characteristics in Daniel When Driver wrote his much-quoted dictum about the language characteristics of Daniel
(quoted above), he could not have possibly foreseen the effect of
later research and discoveries on the study of ancient Hebrew. His
assertion that "the Hebrew supports... a date after the conquest of
Palestine by Alexander the Great" has been called into question on
several grounds. Driver supported his assertion with a list of
expressions that he claimed never or very rarely occurred in earlier
Hebrew literature. After examining these, Martin concludes:
To make out a plausible case for the lateness of Daniel on lexical grounds, one would have to show not only that the words or idioms did
not occur earlier, but that there was prima facie evidence against the
possibility of their appearing. There is no intrinsic probability that
any of the terms listed could not have been used much earlier. In
fact, one must proceed with the utmost caution in making
pronouncements on the extent of a given vocabulary. It is well known
that words that are not recorded in the literary language are to be
found in the dialects. All that one is justified in saying is that a
certain word occurs in the extant documents for the first time. There
is nothing about the Hebrew of Daniel that could be considered
extraordinary for a bilingual or perhaps in this case, a trilingual
speaker of the language in the sixth century BC. 14 Moreover,
Daniel's Hebrew can now be compared to the Hebrew of the sectarian
scrolls discover ed at Qumran. These sectarian documents from the
second century BC onward show a number of characteristics of the
Hebrew language as it was written in the Hasmonean (165-37 BC) and
Herodian (after 36 BC) periods. The differences between the Hebrew
portions of Daniel and the Hebrew of these documents is striking.
Already as early as 1974, before all of the Qumran scrolls (or Dead
Sea Scrolls) were published, Archer came to the following conclusion
when comparing Daniel to these sectarian writings:
It seems abundantly clear that a second-century date for the Hebrew chapters of Daniel is no longer tenable on linguistic grounds. In view
of the markedly later development exhibited by these second-century
documents in the areas of syntax, word order, morphology, vocabulary,
spelling, and word-usage, there is absolutely no possibility of
regarding Daniel as contemporary. ... Otherwise we must surrender
linguistic evidence altogether and assert that it is completely devoid
of value in the face of subjective theories derived from
antisupernaturalistic bias. ... This verdict carries with it some
far-reaching consequences. The possibility of explaining the
predictive portions of this work as mere prophecy after the event is
completely excluded. 15
Subsequent research into the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls has not
added any information to challenge Archer's conclusion. 16 Thus with
the discovery of the Qumran sectarian documents it is possible to
contradict Driver's statement: the Hebrew of Daniel does not support a
date of composition after 332 BC.
Moreover, recent studies of the history of Hebrew during the OT period
demonstrate that it is difficult, if not impossible, to date any
Hebrew text solely on the basis of linguistic evidence.17 Young notes
a number of unresolved questions in regard to attempts to date Hebrew
texts linguistically:
Given the attestation of LBH [Late Biblical Hebrew] features in pre-exilic inscriptions, my article also raised another question, less
important for the current debate: Why couldn't a work with a
concentration of LBH elements be written before the exile?...
If SBH [Standard Biblical Hebrew] could be used after the exile, and
LBH before the exile, is it at all possible, given the current state
of our knowledge of ancient Hebrew, to date the language of any part
of biblical literature?... Without chronological presuppositions, does
LBH really exist as a distinct entity within BH [Biblical Hebrew]? The
LBH books were grouped together first of all on the basis that they
were the ones known to be post-exilic (as opposed to other clearly
earlier books). However, purely on linguistic grounds, are the links
between Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles and Daniel strong enough to
single this group of books out from BH in general? Or does every book
of the Hebrew Bible simply have its own linguistic profile?
If LBH really is a distinct entity, do the linguistic variations reflect social realities? If the differences between SBH and LBH are
not to be explained chronologically, what sociolinguistic factors lead
to the co-existence of these varieties of Hebrew? If LBH is not in
fact "late" BH, is there a need to invent a new term to describe
it?18
Given our fragmentary state of knowledge about the history of
linguistic developments in Biblical Hebrew, use of linguistic evidence
to argue for a late date of Daniel's Hebrew is unwarranted since the
linguistic evidence is, at best, mixed. The most that can be said is
that Daniel's Hebrew is much more like the Hebrew of other
acknowledged exilic books of the OT than like the Hebrew of the Qumran
documents, making Daniel unlikely to be a composition from the
Hellenistic era as higher critics contend.
Aramaic Language Characteristics in Daniel
Driver was less certain about the Aramaic evidence and so stated only
that he thought it permitted a date after 332 BC. Subsequent studies
have confirmed that the Aramaic of Daniel is Imperial Aramaic, which
was current from about the seventh century BC to about 300 BC. Already
in 1965 Kitchen concluded:
The word-order of the Aramaic of Daniel (and Ezra) places it squarely in fullblooded Imperial Aramaic—and in striking contrast with real
Palestinian post-Imperial Aramaic of the second and first centuries BC
as illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls. ...
There is nothing to decide the date of composition of the Aramaic of Daniel on the grounds of Aramaic anywhere between the late sixth and
the second century BC. Some points hint at an early (especially
pre-300), not late, date. ... The date of the book of Daniel, in
short, cannot be decided upon linguistic grounds alone. It is equally
obscurantist to exclude dogmatically a sixth-fifth (or fourth) century
date on the one hand, or to hold such a date as mechanically proved on
the other, as far as the Aramaic is concerned. 19
Later studies have supported Kitchen's conclusion. Coxon, who accepts
a second-century date for the final editing of Daniel, nevertheless
concludes:
While it would be unwise to conclude that as far as syntax is concerned the Aramaic of Daniel has great antiquity it would be
equally amiss to insist that it is a late regional dialect. The
language shares a high proportion of features which bear the stamp of
Official Aramaic but this may reflect nothing more than the literary
facility of a later writer. The treatment of the accusative
preposition and the verb ["be able to," e.g., 2:10, 27, 47] supports
this view. On the other hand an intriguing feature is the apparent
"eastern" word order which distinguished the Aramaic of Daniel from
Official Aramaic and the later dialects. A fundamental change of this
kind in sentence structure may be highly significant and would
certainly point to a date [for Daniel] before the second century
B.C.20 Coxon's further study of synonyms in Aramaic from both
Official Aramaic and the Aramaic Qumran documents found only one
connection between Daniel's Aramaic and the Qumran documents, and that
one connection he considers to be indeterminate of date.21 Otherwise,
he concludes:
Accepting the validity of the method [used by Coxon in his study] can only conclude that Biblical Aramaic is a brand of Official Aramaic and
bears the marks of the antiquity of that language. 22 Studies by
Archer and Vasholz have confirmed that the second-century Aramaic
documents from Qumran demonstrate that Daniel's Aramaic is older. 23
Therefore, the Aramaic of Daniel may permit a date as late as 300 BC,
but the evidence favors an earlier date and does not rule out the date
indicated in the book itself-sometime shortly after 536 BC.
Persian and Greek Loanwords Daniel's Hebrew and Aramaic use a relatively high proportion of loanwords from two languages: Akkadian
and Old Persian. In addition, three Greek loanwords are used in Daniel
3. The Akkadian loanwords are of little significance in dating the composition of the book.24 However, the Old Persian and Greek
loanwords have been used in arguments concerning the date of Daniel.
That Daniel contains loanwords from Old Persian is acknowledged by
nearly all scholars, though some caution should be exercised in
identifying them since little actual evidence of Old Persian survives,
and a number of words are said to be derived from reconstructed
theoretical Old Persian forms.25 Kitchen recognizes the significance
of these Old Persian words in Daniel:
The Persian words in Daniel are specifically Old Persian words. The recognized divisions of Persian language-history within Iranian are:
Old down to c. 300 BC, Middle observable during c. 300 BC to c. AD
900, and New from C. AD 900 to the present. Now, the fact that the
Iranian element in Daniel is from Old Persian and not Middle indicates
that the Aramaic of Daniel is in this respect pre-Hellenistic, drew on
no Persian from after the fall of that empire--and not on any Middle
Persian words and forms that might have penetrated Aramaic in Arsacid
times (c. 250 BC, ff.).26 A contention of critical scholars is that
Daniel could not have used any Persian loanwords in his Aramaic since
it would have taken a considerable time for such words to be adopted
into Aramaic. However, that contention is false. As Kitchen notes:
If a putative Daniel in Babylon under the Persians (and who had
briefly served them) were to write a book some time after the third
year of Cyrus (Dn. 10:1), then a series of Persian words is no
surprise. Such a person in the position of close contact with Persian
administration that is accorded to him in the book would have to
acquire—and use in his Aramaic—many terms and words from his new
Persian colleagues (just like the Elamite scribes of Persepolis), from
the conquest by Cyrus onwards.27*
We could add that Daniel's initial audience may well have been fellow
Judeans living in Babylon, and probably more than a few of them served
the new Persian administration. They would have readily understood
such Persian words, which had recently become current in their
environment. Therefore, the presence of Persian words in Daniel does
not present an argument for a date of composition later than about 560
BC.
The Greek words in Daniel are often considered the strongest
indication that Daniel was written, or at least received its final
editing, in the second century BC. Coxon observes:
Of all the linguistic arguments which have been used in the debate concerning the age of the Aramaic sections of Daniel and the date of
the composition of the book, the Greek loans seem to provide the
strongest evidence in favor of the second century B.C.28
Yet Coxon also presents evidence that this is not the case. For
instance, he points out that the form of the word in, "lyre" (Dan 3:5,
7, 10, 15), indicates that it was borrowed from Ionic ⲕⲓⲑⲁⲣⲓⲥ rather
than Attic ⲕⲓⲑⲁⲣⲁ, indicating that it was an early (pre-332 BC)
loanword.2 29
In fact, there are only three Greek loanwords in Daniel, all of them
musical instruments mentioned in Daniel 3.30 Yamauchi has amassed much
evidence of contacts between the ancient Near East and the Aegean long
before Alexander, even providing instances of early Semitic influence
on the Greek language and Greek culture.31 This led him to conclude:
"We may safely say that the presence of Greek words in an Old
Testament book is not a proof of Hellenistic date, in view of the
abundant opportunities for contacts between the Aegean and the Near
East before Alexander.”32 Such evidence has even led critical
scholars to admit that "the evidence for Greek influence on Daniel is
too slight to prove anything.' 933 Therefore, neither the Persian
nor the Greek loanwords offer any proof that Daniel is a late
composition. Of themselves, they also do not provide any conclusive
evidence that the book is an early Persian composition. The same is
true of the other linguistic evidence, both Hebrew and Aramaic. The
best that can be said about the linguistic evidence is that it
suggests that Daniel was not written before about 560 BC and not later
than 300 BC.
Historical Data in the Book Itself As discussed earlier, critical scholars label much of the historical data found in the text
of Daniel as inaccurate or erroneous. There are three primary reasons
for such claims.
Lack of Extrabiblical Evidence: This is clearly the case for the person called "Darius the Mede" (e.g., 6:1 [ET 5:31]), for whom no
confirming ancient Near Eastern evidence has yet been uncovered. This
was also once true for Belshazzar, but confirming extrabiblical
evidence has now been found for him.34 Several other cases in Daniel
could be added here. However, "absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence."35 When we simply do not have any extrabiblical evidence that
confirms that an event or person in Daniel is historical, this does
not mean that these events and persons are fictional. It only means
that we have no surviving evidence from outside the Scriptures to
confirm them.
Nevertheless, we do have the historical evidence provided by the book
of Daniel itself, which is at least as reliable as other historical
sources.36 Moreover, as the discussion of various historical notices
in Daniel in the commentary below demonstrates, the events related in
Daniel fit well into what is known about ancient Near Eastern
chronology of this period. That they fit well does not prove that the
events happened, but provides a compelling reason not to assume that
they did not happen. For example, Nebuchadnezzar's convocation at the
dedication of the gold statue (Daniel 3) is not recorded in the extant
Babylonian annals. However, the information given by Daniel fits well
with what we know about the chronology of Nebuchadnezzar's reign and
can be convincingly given a probable date (see "Introduction to Daniel
3").
Apparent Contradictions: If there is an apparent contradiction between Daniel and some other data, critics automatically understand
Daniel to be in error. This assumption of Daniel's lack of
trustworthiness means that critics do not bother to consider possible
solutions that may show that what at first blush appears to be a
contradiction is not actually contradictory. In this category belongs
the contention that Dan 1:1-2 is contradicted by Jer 25:1 (see the
commentary on Dan 1:1–2). We could also add the contention that the
portrayal of Belshazzar in Daniel 5 is inaccurate because he is called
"king" while Nebuchadnezzar is called his "father" and he is called
Nebuchadnezzar's "son." (See the discussion of the person and office
of Belshazzar in "Introduction to Daniel 5.") These apparent
contradictions are resolved if one pays attention to the ways that
information was reported in ancient sources and understands them
according to their own conventions, rather than imposing modern
conventions upon them.
Antisupernaturalistic Bias: An often unstated bias held by critics is the bias against accepting reports of miraculous, divine
intervention among human affairs, such as God revealing to Daniel the
content of Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Daniel 2), the survival of the men
in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3), or the rescue of Daniel from the
lions' den (Daniel 6). Critics consider these events unhistorical on
their face since they involve God's direct involvement in history. The
assumption that the visions of Daniel are ex eventu (“after the
event") prophecies involves the same antisupernaturalistic bias since
critics reject out of hand the possibility of predictive prophecy.
None of these reasons for the "unhistorical" nature of Daniel is
sufficient to prove that Daniel contains historical errors, or even to
demonstrate that may be in error. As the commentary demonstrates, a
close examination of the historical references in Daniel reveals no
reason to label the events as erroneous.
This is just a sampling of from his commentary. He goes on with even further detail making his case for the unity of Daniel. Only in a few instances would I make some small reservations with his commentary. It is a commentary worthy of buying and having on your shelf.
At any rate, this will give you a synopsis of the sorts of arguments you will find for the unity of Daniel (and his responses to some who argue against its unity).
