Tag: Critical scholars

Posted on

According to the Dead Sea Scrolls, when was Daniel written?

SUMMARY 

Critical Scholars reject Daniel.

The Book of Daniel claims to have been written in the sixth century BC, foretelling history until Christ’s return. However, over the past 300 years, theological faculties of major universities have submitted to the anti-supernatural culture of modern intellectualism. Since they do not accept that it is possible to foretell the future, they claim that the Book of Daniel was written AFTER the events it describes. In other words, it is a history book presented as a prophecy.

Specifically, they claim that Daniel was written during the reign of the Greek king Antiochus IV; around the year 165 BC because (they say) Daniel accurately describes history up to the Maccabean Revolt against Antiochus, but is confused about later history.

The Dead Sea Evidence

The Dead Sea Scrolls were collected by an ancient Jewish sect and discovered around 1950 in caves at Qumran near the Dead Sea. Many of the scrolls and fragments were copies of books of the Old Testament, including the Book of Daniel. These scrolls confirm that the Bible and, specifically, the Book of Daniel, are reliable:

The Bible

The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Old Testament is reliable:

The Old Testament in our Bibles is translated from the Masoretic Text (MT) which dates to about a thousand years AFTER Christ. But the Dead Sea Scrolls are a full thousand years older.

Comparisons of the MT to the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrated the unusual transmission accuracy over those thousand years. The chief differences have to do with the spelling of words.

That means we now have proof that the Old Testament, and by implication, our Bibles, has been accurately transmitted (copied) for more than 2000 years. It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that the Old Testament has also been accurately copied before the time of the Qumran community.

The Book of Daniel

Secondly, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Book of Daniel is accurate. Before these scrolls were discovered, scholars had little confidence in the reliability of Daniel due to the differences between the ancient Greek translations and the Hebrew and Aramaic of Daniel in the MT.

However, the eight Daniel manuscripts discovered at the Dead Sea confirmed the accuracy of the Book of Daniel in our Bibles because they conform closely to the MT.

Daniel is part of the Scriptures.

A third conclusion from the Dead Sea Scrolls is that Daniel was regarded as “Scripture” at Qumran. This is indicated by the large number of copies of Daniel discovered and by how Daniel was used. For instance, the Florilegium (4Q174) quotes Daniel 12:10 as ‘written in the book of Daniel, the Prophet‘ (frgs. 1-3 ii 3-4a). This formula is typical of quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran.

While critical scholars claim that Daniel was written in 165 BC by an unknown writer, the reference to “the book of Daniel, the Prophet” means that the Qumran community regarded Daniel both as a real historical person and a prophet.

The canonical status of Daniel at Qumran can be confirmed by comparing it to the Book of Jubilees, which is not in our Bibles. Both books were regarded as authoritative by the Qumran sect but with different levels of authority:

Daniel was regarded as a primary authority, namely as the word of God spoken through the prophet. In fact, nobody regarded Daniel as describing past events as a prophecy during the centuries before and immediately after Christ. All of Judaism regarded Daniel as a primary authority.

In contrast, Jubilees was regarded as a secondary authority, meaning it was an authoritative INTERPRETATION of Scripture. Jubilees was similar to a creed of a Christian denomination today, namely, regarded as authoritative by a subgroup but not by all.

Daniel is true prophecy.

These scrolls also show that Daniel was written BEFORE the time of Antiochus IV:

The Qumran community was formed around 150 BC; about 15 years after the time of Antiochus. Their earliest copies of Daniel are dated to about 50 years after Antiochus.

But it takes at least 100 years for new documents to become accepted as Scripture. It must undergo a slow process of distribution and copying until it wins the people’s hearts.

Therefore, since the Qumran community regarded the Book of Daniel as Scripture, it must have existed long before the Qumran community was formed. For example:

Two of the Daniel manuscripts discovered at the Dead Sea (4QDan(c) and 4QDan(e)) have been dated to the late 2nd BC. This was only about 50 years after critical scholars say Daniel’s prophecies were composed. That does not leave enough time. It is improbable, if not impossible, that the book was composed during the Maccabean revolt in 165 BC, as the critical scholars claim, and gained acceptance as an inspired Scripture within 50 years.

It follows that Daniel was written before the time of Antiochus. If that is so, then Daniel accurately predicts future events.

Scholars treat Daniel differently.

In the case of Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Chronicles, after copies of these books had been found at Qumran, critical scholars were willing to push the date of composition for these books back a century or more. They say, for example:

“Each song had to win its way in the esteem of the people before it could be included in the sacred compilation of the Psalter. Immediate entrée for any of them is highly improbable.

“The discovery of a fragment of Chronicles at Qumran renders a Maccabean date virtually impossible for any part of Chronicles.”

But, although the evidence is identical, they refuse to draw the same conclusion for Daniel because it would mean that Daniel is a true prophecy.

Was Daniel a Known Forgery?

If the critical scholars are right, namely that Daniel was written under a false name during the Maccabean revolt, pretending to be an old book but really describing history in the form of a prophecy, then everybody who lived through the Maccabean revolt would have known that. That includes the first members of the Qumran sect. They would have known that the book failed to correctly predict the success of the Maccabean revolt a year or two after it was written.

No book of the Bible would be accepted as “Scripture” within 50 years after it was written. But that is even more true for Daniel if it was a known forgery.

Conclusion: Daniel is inspired.

Therefore, Daniel’s prophecies must have been written before the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus IV. Consequently, the detailed prophecies in Daniel 11, pointing to Antiochus, really were written before those events. 

This does not prove that Daniel’s prophecies were written in the sixth century BC. But this does prove that Daniel is divinely inspired and contains true prophecy. That forces us to conclude that Daniel is what it itself claims to be, namely that it was written in the sixth century BC.

– END OF SUMMARY – 

THE ACADEMIC CONSENSUS

Modern science presupposes that everything has ‘natural’ causes. The theological faculties of universities operate in that intellectual climate and, over the past 300 years, unfortunately, have submitted to that culture. In other words, the theological faculties of universities no longer presuppose that the Bible is the Word of God. In fact, the reverse is true today, namely that they presume that the Bible is NOT the word of God. This means that they assume that everything in the Bible, including the miracles and prophecies, has natural causes.

Consequently, in academic circles, historical criticism (critical scholarship) has become the standard approach to Bible study. That means that they ‘criticize’ the Bible against secular history. Whenever they find a difference, they assume the Bible is wrong.

For example, the book of Daniel mentions two kings that were previously unknown, namely Darius the Mede and Belshazzar. Archeology has since revealed that a king named Belshazzar did exist but, before that, critical scholarship concluded that neither of these kings ever existed.

Due to its anti-supernatural presupposition, to avoid the strong evidence for the divine authorship of Scripture from the detailed prophecies in Daniel that ultimately came to pass, historical criticism takes the position that Daniel’s prophecies were written after the events it so accurately ‘predicts’:

“We need to assume that the vision as a whole is a prophecy after the fact. Why? Because human beings are unable accurately to predict future events centuries in advance … So what we have here (in Daniel) is in fact not a road map of the future laid down in the sixth century B.C. but an interpretation of the events of the author’s own time, 167-164 B.C.”1Towner, Daniel, Interpeter’s Bible, John Knox:1984, p. 115

They claim that the prophecies were written exactly in 167-164 BC because they are able to align the prophecies of Daniel 11 with the history of the Greek kings up until that date, but after that date, they say, Daniel’s prophecies no longer agree with actual history.

167-164 BC was during the Jewish Maccabean revolt against the armies of the Greek king Antiochus Epiphanes. Critics claim that Daniel’s prophecies were written at that time to inspire the Jewish revolt.

For the same reasons, critical scholars also claim that the events predicted in Daniel 11 after that point in time were the uninspired attempts by an unknown author, but he (she?) failed miserably because the ‘prophecies’ did not foresee the success of that revolt.

It is a bit of a contradiction to say that Daniel was written to inspire the revolt but that its prophecies did not foresee the success of the revolt. Nevertheless, this view is the academic consensus today. One can see that in encyclopedias such as Britannica. In other words, it is the consensus of the theological faculties of universities.

For a further discussion, see historical criticism.

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

In 1947, a young shepherd boy made the discovery of the century: In one of the Qumran Caves near the Dead Sea, he found a scroll. From that year on to 1956, eleven caves were discovered. They brought back to light hundreds of ancient Old Testament manuscripts, along with a large number of other writings.

The manuscripts include thousands of fragments, larger manuscripts, and fewer than a dozen well-preserved, almost intact manuscripts.

Dating of Manuscripts

Historians use various techniques to date these manuscripts. However, the date of a document does not mean that the contents were first created at that time. For example, take the following two Dead Sea manuscripts:

They overlap in terms of text covered but are dated a century apart. Ulrich studied the orthography (the spelling of words) and wrote that the later manuscript may have been copied from the earlier one “by a scribe who was intent upon reproducing the text in the more contemporary, more full and clear and interpretative orthography of the late Second Temple period.” 2[The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Eugene Ulrich. Eerdmans/Brill:1999:162]

In other words, the later manuscript may appear to be written a century later because of changes in the spelling of words and writing style, but the contents are exactly the same as the earlier one.

But this means that the earlier manuscript, dated 50 BC, could well be a copy of an original document created centuries earlier. See Thinktank for a further discussion.

Daniel was not written at Qumran.

It is generally accepted that Daniel was not written at Qumran:

“There is no clear case of an apocalypse actually authored within the Qumran community.” (Collins Thinktank)

In the view of critical scholars, the prophecies of Daniel were created in 165 BC but the stories in the first half of Daniel were already in circulation by that time.

In the conservative view, Daniel was compiled in the 6th century BC, as the book itself also claims.

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SCROLLS

The Bible is reliable.

The Old Testament in our Bibles is translated from a major manuscript of the Masoretic Text (MT). Up until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest MT manuscripts were dating to about a thousand years AFTER Christ. This allowed some scholars to question the faithfulness of the text of the Old Testament. Consequently, they took great freedom in amending, changing, and adjusting the Hebrew text. (Hasel)

But the Dead Sea Scrolls are much older. They date to between the 3rd century BC and the 1st century AD. Bronze coins found at the same sites are dated from 135 BC until 73 AD. This supports the radiocarbon and paleographic dating of the scrolls. (Wikipedia)

Therefore, the Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest surviving manuscripts of books of the Bible and reveal how the Old Testament, including the book of Daniel, read a full thousand years before the oldest copy of the MT. They would either affirm or repudiate the reliability of textual transmission from the original texts to the oldest Masoretic texts at hand.

The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrated the unusual accuracy of transmission over a thousand-year period, rendering it reasonable to believe that current Old Testament texts are reliable copies of the original works. For example, comparisons of the MT to the Dead Sea Scrolls show the following:

Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word “light,” which is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly.3The Dead Sea Scrolls by Hebrew scholar Millar Burrow

“The chief differences … have to do with the spelling of words.”4G. Ernest Wright, Biblical Archeologist, (No. XII, 1949)

As proof of the accuracy of the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls are considered one of the most important finds in the history of archaeology.

We have, therefore, proof that our Bibles have been accurately transmitted (copied) for more than 2000 years. It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that the Old Testament has been accurately copied during the centuries before the time of the Qumran community; at least from the time of Ezra the Scribe.

Daniel is reliable.

Modern scholars question its reliability.

The official Greek translation of Daniel used in ancient times was that of Theodotion (ca. 180 AD). His translation has a close affinity with the MT. But the oldest Greek translation of Daniel, namely in the Septuagint, contains considerably added material and reads differently from the MT. Around 400 AD, Jerome ventured the opinion that the Septuagint “differs widely from the original [Hebrew], and is rightly rejected.” (Hasel)

Nevertheless, these differences and some other considerations have caused leading modern scholars to have little confidence in the text of Daniel. For example, Professor Klaus Koch suggested that, while we have a Hebrew/Aramaic text and two Greek versions, none of these three is original.5Koch et al. 1980:22, 23; Koch 1986:16–21

The Scrolls confirm its reliability.

However, the eight Daniel manuscripts discovered at the Dead Sea confirmed the accuracy of the book of Daniel in our Bibles today because they:

(1) Are very close to each other and conform closely to Masoretic tradition (Cross 1956:86).

(2) Do not contain any of the additions that are in the ancient Greek translation (the LXX, also called the Septuagint) but not retained in the Protestant Bibles, namely the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, and the Story of Susanna.

(3) Preserve the Hebrew and Aramaic sections of the book.

In the MT, Daniel is written partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic. Hartman and Di Lella (1978:75) assumed that the book of Daniel in its entirety was written originally in the Aramaic language and that the Hebrew parts of the book are translations from Aramaic into Hebrew. (Hasel) However:

Two different manuscripts (4QDan(a) and 1QDan(a)) confirm the change from Hebrew into Aramaic for Daniel 2:4b.

Both 4QDan(a) and 4QDan(b) show the change from Aramaic into Hebrew in Daniel 8:1, just as in the MT. (Hasel)

Consequently, scholars conclude:

“The Daniel fragments … reveal, on the whole, that the later Masoretic text is preserved in a good, hardly changed form. They are thus a valuable witness to the great faithfulness with which the sacred text has been transmitted.”6Mertens 1971:31

“Despite the fragmentary state of most of Daniel scrolls, they reveal no major disagreements against the Masoretic Text, although individual readings differ on occasion.”7Peter W. Flint, The Daniel Tradition at Qumran in Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan.

“The chief differences (w.r.t. Daniel) … have to do with the spelling of words.”8G. Ernest Wright, Biblical Archeologist, (No. XII, 1949).

The overwhelming conformity of these Qumran Daniel manuscripts with the MT is evidence that the MT preserved the text of the book of Daniel well. It is incredible that a book should be copied for a thousand years and remain virtually intact.

Daniel is Inspired Scripture.

To date, eight manuscripts of the biblical book of Daniel have been discovered at the Dead Sea. This is more than as for much larger books such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel. (Wikipedia) It is evident from the number of manuscripts that the book of Daniel was a favorite book in the Qumran community.

The Dead Sea Scrolls also include discussions of and references to Daniel in other works. Flint observes:

“Every chapter of Daniel is represented in these manuscripts, except for Daniel 12. However, this does not mean that the book lacked the final chapter at Qumran, since Dan 12:10 is quoted in the Florilegium (4Q174), which explicitly tells us that it is written in ‘the book of Daniel, the Prophet.'” (Thinktank)9Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Craig Evans and Peter Flint (eds). Eerdmans:1997. 43)

Flint (p44) continued:

“We may conclude that Daniel was regarded as a scriptural book at Qumran for two reasons:

(1) The large number of preserved copies is a clear indication of Daniel’s importance among the Qumran covenanters.

(2) The way in which Daniel was used at Qumran is indicative of its authoritative status; for instance, the Florilegium (4Q174) quotes Dan 12:10 as ‘written in the book of Daniel, the Prophet’ (frgs. 1-3 ii 3-4a). This reference has two implications:
– That Daniel was regarded by the writer as Scripture and
– That it may have belonged among the ‘Prophets’.” (Flint:44) (Thinktank)

The formula “which written in the book of Daniel the prophet” is typical of quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran. (Hasel) It is similar also to Matthew 24:15, where Jesus refers to “Daniel the prophet.”

Another example of a Qumran document that refers to Daniel as a scriptural book is 11QMelch. Quoting Isaiah, it refers to “the messenger who announces peace” and interprets this as “the anointed of the spirit about whom Daniel spoke.” (Thinktank) This probably refers to “the Anointed One” (Dan 9:25; NIV), whom we interpret as Jesus Christ (See Daniel Nine).

In other words, while critical scholars claim that Daniel was written in 165 BC by an unknown writer, the Qumran community regarded Daniel as a real historical person and as a prophet.

These are clear, objective evidence of Daniel’s rightful place among the inspired Jewish Scriptures. (Hasel) As Professor Ulrich says:

“However one uses in relation to Qumran the category of what is later explicitly termed ‘canonical,’ the book of Daniel was certainly in that category.” (Hasel)10Ulrich 1987:19

JUBILEES WAS ACCEPTED SOON.

A possible objection to the arguments above is that the Book of Jubilees was written 160-150 BC, and was accepted at Qumran as an authoritative book, even being used in prooftexts. Does this mean that Daniel could have been accepted as inspired within 15 years?

Different Levels of Authority

The difference lies in the level of authority:

Primary (Bible) – In traditional Protestantism, we begin with sacrosanct Scripture as “primary” or “ultimate” authority.

Secondary (Creeds) – Every denomination, however, has somewhat different interpretations of the Scripture, and these interpretations are set forth in Creeds. For that denomination, those Creeds are ‘authoritative’. To disagree with the Creed is to relinquish membership in that sub-group. The authority of the Creed, however, is “secondary” to the “primary” authority of the Bible. The secondary character of the Creed’s authority can be seen in its usage of the primary authority: It will use the Scriptures to support arguments.

Teachers – But typically, the authority structure doesn’t stop at just these two levels, but additional levels can appear. Certain ‘teachers’ can assert their authority to interpret both Scripture and Creeds.

Primary Documents require more time.

It takes a very long time for a document to be accepted as a primary document. For example, if someone came forth with a book and said that it was a ‘lost’ book of the Sacred Scriptures, how long do you think it would take for Protestantism to accept it (if ever)? Right—forever!

But secondary documents are ‘instantly’ accepted by the group that produced them. If, for example, a group of theologians decided they didn’t like the current dominant creed and decided to craft a NEW ‘sub-creed’, how long would it take the membership of that sub-group to accept that new sub-creed? Right, very little time at all.

Daniel is Primary, Jubilees Secondary.

For the following reasons, while the book Daniel was considered primary authority at Qumran, Jubilees enjoyed only secondary authority:

Is it part of the Bible?

Daniel is part of the Bibles we have today but the Book of Jubilees is not. It was not considered ‘Scripture’ by Formative Judaism of the first century.

Is it accepted by all?

During the centuries before and after Christ, all of Judaism accepted Daniel as authoritative. None of those closest to the data – including eyewitnesses – considered Daniel to be describing the past events as if it describes the future:

“The book of Daniel … was considered prophetic at Qumran, in the New Testament, by Josephus, by Melito, and indeed, to judge by the evidence, by all.”11The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Eugene Ulrich. Eerdmans/Brill:1999.:91

Prof. Menahem Kister, Bible Department, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote:

“The last chapters of Daniel were thus accepted as sacred and worthy of interpretation and midrash in all streams of Judaism relatively shortly after they were composed.”

To come to this conclusion, he argued as follows12Biblical Perspectives: Early Use & Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Michael Stone and Esther Chazon (eds.). Brill:1998.102:

“Explicit and implicit citations of Daniel 12 are found elsewhere in the sect’s literature.

Outside the sect, an allusion to Dan. 11:31 is found in 1 Macc. 1:54;

The rabbis cite and interpret these chapters as part of their Bible, probably reflecting the Pharisaic acceptance of these visions as authoritative.

Matt 24:15, Mark 13:14 and Josephus, Ant. 10:269-276, treat Dan. 8, which is from the same period, as an authoritative text.”

Josephus was a Romano-Jewish historian who lived and wrote at the same time as when the books of the New Testament were composed. He wrote:

“If … there is anyone who … wishes to learn about the hidden things that are to come, let him … read the Book of Daniel, which he will find among the sacred writings” (Ant. 10.210).

“We are convinced … that Daniel spoke with God, for he was not only wont to prophesy future things, as did the other prophets, but he also fixed the time at which these would come to pass” (Ant. 10.266-67).

“Events under Antiochus Epiphanes … had been predicted many years in advance by Daniel, on the basis of his visions” (Ant. 10.276).

In contrast, Jubilees was very popular at Qumran but was not accepted as authoritative for all of Judaism.

Is the author regarded as a prophet?

As mentioned, Daniel is cited “as is written in the book of Daniel, the prophet.” There is no evidence that the unknown author of Jubilees was considered a prophet.

Did it generate pseudo works?

The book of Daniel has generated additional, transitory works associated with his name (i.e., the Pseudo-Danielic mss). Jubilees did not generate any “pseudo-” types of works or expansions on itself that we can find.

Do other documents interpret it?

Daniel was interpreted by other Qumran documents. It doesn’t present itself as something that interprets other scripture.

In comparison, the Book of Jubilees is a rewriting of the Bible “which include implicit exegesis and longer additions to the biblical narrative.”13Biblical Perspectives: Early Use & Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Michael Stone and Esther Chazon (eds.). Brill:1998.:101-2 In other words, it did not have primary authority.

“The Book of Jubilees is a rewritten version of Genesis 1 – Exodus 14 … The largest group of additions to the biblical text are halakhic (an interpretation of the laws of the Scriptures).”14Nickelsburg, in [Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Michael E. Stone (ed.), Fortress:1984.:97ff

The book of Jubilees, therefore, is a ‘re-telling of the bible’ document, and that genre added an ‘interpretative layer’ on top of the biblical narrative. It has interpretative or secondary authority rather than primary authority or ‘scriptural authority’.

For a further discussion, see Thinktank.

DANIEL IS PRE-MACCABEAN.

The Qumran community, therefore, regarded the book of Daniel as inspired Scripture and referred to the author of the book as “Daniel the prophet.”

Before a document can be accepted as such, it has to go through a slow process of copying and distribution and more copying and distribution until it wins the hearts of the people.

Dated to the Late 2nd Century BC

Already in 1961, Professor Cross dated 4QDan(c) to the “late second century BC.” (Hasel)15Professor Frank M. Cross, Harvard University, The Ancient Library of Qumran 43

To date, two of the manuscripts are dated to the late 2nd BC, namely 4QDan(c) and 4QDan(e). (Thinktank)16The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years (vol 2). Peter W. Flint and James C. Vanderkam (eds). Brill: 1999: 53 Both these manuscripts are from the last half of the Book of Daniel (10:5 to 11:29 and 9:12-17). ) This is significant because the academic consensus is that the stories in the first six chapters of Daniel may be older, but they claim that the prophecies were added in 165 BC, during the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes. For example:

“Daniel 11:40-45 … is a vaticinium ex eventu, that is a record of the events of the recent past in the form of a prophecy for the future.”17‘Time and Times and Half a Time’: Historical Consciousness in the Jewish Literature of the Persian and Hellenistic Eras, Ida Frohlich (trans. Bea Vidacs), Sheffield:1996. 80

50 years are too few.

But that would mean that the oldest copies of the book of Daniel are dated only about 50 years after its composition in 165 BC. That does not leave enough time (Hasel). It is quite improbable, if not impossible, that the book was composed during the Maccabees revolt, as the critics claim, and gained acceptance as an inspired book within 50 years. (Thinktank) In 1969, based on the evidence available at that time regarding the Qumran Daniel texts, Roland K. Harrison had already concluded that:

The second-century dating of the book of Daniel was “absolutely precluded by the evidence from Qumran, partly because there are no indications whatever that the sectaries compiled any of the Biblical manuscripts recovered from the site, and partly because there would, in the latter event, have been insufficient time for Maccabean compositions to be circulated, venerated, and accepted as canonical Scripture by a Maccabean sect.”18Harrison, R.K. 1969 Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans):1127 (Gerhard Hasel)

After this, he stated, based on the Qumran manuscripts, that:

“There can no longer be any possible reason for considering the book as a Maccabean product.” (Hasel)19Harrison, R.K. 1979 Daniel, Book of. Pp. 859–66 in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). P. 862

Waltke wrote:

The “discovery of manuscripts of Daniel at Qumran dating from the Maccabean period renders it highly improbable that the book was composed during the time of the Maccabees.”20Bruce K. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 133, no. 532 (October 1976): 321.

15 years are too few.

The Qumran community was an ascetic sect of Jews who lived in the Judean Desert near the Wadi Qumran, along the northwest shore of the Dead Sea roughly between 150 BC and AD 68 (Encyclopedia). As discussed, they regarded Daniel as a prophet and the book of Daniel as the word of God. Since interaction with the outside religious community would have been very limited, and largely polemical, their views would have remained fairly constant for the 200 years of its existence. This implies that Daniel was already accepted as FULLY INSPIRED Scripture when that community was formed – in 150 BC.

But this was only 15 years after the prophecies in the book of Daniel were composed (according to critical scholars) in 165 BC. This is completely too little time. You just cannot, within only 15 years, get from a known forgery to full acceptance as inspired Scripture. Remember, many of the first members of that sect lived through the Maccabean struggle. They saw all of this with their own eyes. And, being a sect, they would have been rigorous in accessing documents.

Daniel, therefore, must have existed LONG before the Qumran community was formed. But that would mean that Daniel was written before at least some of the events it predicts.

For a further discussion, see Thinktank.

SCHOLARS TREAT DANIEL DIFFERENTLY.

For books of the Bible that do not claim to predict the future, critical scholars, when they date a manuscript copy of that book to the second century BC, are willing to push the date of the original a century or more back, but not for the book of Daniel. For example:

Psalms

It was previously proposed that some of the Psalms in the Bible were composed during the Maccabean struggle. But after Frank Cross found that one manuscript of one of these psalms is dated more or less to the same time as their supposed composition, critical scholars were willing to abandon the idea that any of the psalms were written during the Maccabean struggle:

“The fragmentary copy of the Psalter from Qumran (4QPsaa) … shows quite clearly … that the collection of canonical psalms had already been fixed by the Maccabean period.”21F.M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Study (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961), p. 165.

This is based on the following argument:

“Each song had to win its way in the esteem of the people before it could be included in the sacred compilation of the Psalter. Immediate entrée for any of them is highly improbable.”22Brownlee, professor of religion, Claremont Graduate School

As a result, scholars have pushed those compositions formerly regarded as “Maccabean psalms” to the Persian period. (Thinktank)

Ecclesiastes

Similarly, two scrolls of Ecclesiastes found at Qumran were dated to the middle of the second century BC. This is not much later than the time at which many scholars have thought the book was originally written. From this, critical scholars conclude that this “somewhat enhanced” “the probability of its composition in the third century, if not earlier.”23M. Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking, 1955), p. 118

Chronicles

Likewise, “the discovery of a fragment of Chronicles at Qumran renders a Maccabean date virtually impossible for any part of Chronicles.”24Myers, professor of Old Testament at the Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

The same principle should apply to Daniel.

Harrison concluded:

“It is now evident from the findings at Qumran that no canonical writing can be dated later than the end of the Persian period, i.e., much beyond 350 B.C.”25R.K. Harrison, “Historical and Literary Criticism of the New Testament”, in EBC, vol. 1

This conclusion should apply to all canonical writings (books of the Bible), but critical scholars refuse to apply this principle to the Book of Daniel. Waltke complains about this inconsistency:

“Equivalent manuscript finds at Qumran of other books where the issue of predictive prophecy is not in question have led scholars to repudiate a Maccabean date for their compositions. … But critical scholars have refused to draw the same conclusion in the case of Daniel even though the evidence is identical.”26BibSac—V133 #532,Oct 1976,p.322

For a further discussion, see Thinktank.

WAS DANIEL A KNOWN FORGERY?

No book of the Bible would be accepted as “Scripture” only 50 years after it was written but, for the following reasons, it is even more true for Daniel for, if the critical scholars are right, during the Maccabean struggle, everybody would have known that:

      • Daniel was written under a false name,
      • Pretending to be an old book making long term predictions, but really describing past history, and that
      • It failed to correctly predict the success of the Maccabean revolt a year or two after it was written.

Would Daniel be renowned as a prophet if it were known that he had lived a mere 50 years earlier? In that event, he would have been a contemporary person writing fiction.

This is almost a death blow to the Maccabean theory of the composition of Daniel.

CONCLUSION

The high regard that this community had for Daniel can be much better explained if one accepts an earlier origin of Daniel than proposed by the Maccabean hypothesis of historical-critical scholarship. (Hasel)

Notice that all the historical and linguistic ‘problems’ in the Book of Daniel are irrelevant to a discussion of this “Maccabean or Pre-Maccabean” question. These kinds of problems could be used to argue for a 3rd century BC date versus a 6th century BC date, or for an uninformed writer versus an eyewitness writer, or for a fictional versus historical genre, perhaps, but NEVER for a Maccabean or Pre-Maccabean dating.

For a further discussion, see Thinktank.

OTHER ARTICLES

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    Towner, Daniel, Interpeter’s Bible, John Knox:1984, p. 115
  • 2
    [The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Eugene Ulrich. Eerdmans/Brill:1999:162]
  • 3
    The Dead Sea Scrolls by Hebrew scholar Millar Burrow
  • 4
    G. Ernest Wright, Biblical Archeologist, (No. XII, 1949)
  • 5
    Koch et al. 1980:22, 23; Koch 1986:16–21
  • 6
    Mertens 1971:31
  • 7
    Peter W. Flint, The Daniel Tradition at Qumran in Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan.
  • 8
    G. Ernest Wright, Biblical Archeologist, (No. XII, 1949).
  • 9
    Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Craig Evans and Peter Flint (eds). Eerdmans:1997. 43)
  • 10
    Ulrich 1987:19
  • 11
    The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Eugene Ulrich. Eerdmans/Brill:1999.:91
  • 12
    Biblical Perspectives: Early Use & Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Michael Stone and Esther Chazon (eds.). Brill:1998.102
  • 13
    Biblical Perspectives: Early Use & Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Michael Stone and Esther Chazon (eds.). Brill:1998.:101-2
  • 14
    Nickelsburg, in [Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Michael E. Stone (ed.), Fortress:1984.:97ff
  • 15
    Professor Frank M. Cross, Harvard University, The Ancient Library of Qumran 43
  • 16
    The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years (vol 2). Peter W. Flint and James C. Vanderkam (eds). Brill: 1999: 53
  • 17
    ‘Time and Times and Half a Time’: Historical Consciousness in the Jewish Literature of the Persian and Hellenistic Eras, Ida Frohlich (trans. Bea Vidacs), Sheffield:1996. 80
  • 18
    Harrison, R.K. 1969 Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans):1127
  • 19
    Harrison, R.K. 1979 Daniel, Book of. Pp. 859–66 in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). P. 862
  • 20
    Bruce K. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 133, no. 532 (October 1976): 321.
  • 21
    F.M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Study (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961), p. 165.
  • 22
    Brownlee, professor of religion, Claremont Graduate School
  • 23
    M. Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking, 1955), p. 118
  • 24
    Myers, professor of Old Testament at the Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
  • 25
    R.K. Harrison, “Historical and Literary Criticism of the New Testament”, in EBC, vol. 1
  • 26
    BibSac—V133 #532,Oct 1976,p.322
  • 27
    The Antichrist in Daniel, which is the same as the beast in Revelation, arises out of the Roman Empire; it is not Antiochus Epiphanes.
  • 28
    Discussion of the prophecy and the four main interpretations
  • 29
    Critical scholars teach that Daniel was written after the events it claims to predict.
  • 30
    The ultimate purpose of this website is to explain the mark of the beast.
  • 31
    Does Revelation describe events chronologically? Must it be interpreted literally? The temple in heaven, Christ’s Return, Hear/See Combinations, and the Numbers in Revelation
  • 32
    There was a book in heaven that not even Christ was able to read because it was sealed up with seven seals. But, by overcoming, He became worthy to break the seven seals and open the book.
  • 33
    This is the apex of Revelation, providing an overview of history from before Christ until the end-time, with emphasis on the end-time persecution.
  • 34
    These plagues will follow after the end-time Christian persecution and will be followed by Christ’s return. What is the purpose of these?
  • 35
    Revelation has three beasts with seven heads and ten horns each; a great red dragon, the beast from the sea, and a scarlet beast.
  • 36
    Babylon is mentioned only once in the first 15 chapters but the seventh and final plague targets her specifically. Then Revelation 17 and 18 explain who and what she is.
  • 37
    The conclusion that Jesus is ‘God’ forms the basis of the Trinity Doctrine.
  • 38
    The decision to adopt the Trinity doctrine was not taken by the church.
  • 39
    Including Modalism, Eastern Orthodoxy view of the Trinity, Elohim, and Eternal Generation
  • 40
    Discussions of the Atonement – How does God do away with sin?
  • 41
    How people are put right with God
  • 42
    Must Christians observe the Law of Moses?
  • 43
    Must Christians observe the Sabbath?
  • 44
    Are the dead still alive and aware?
  • 45
    Will the lost be tormented in hell for all eternity?
  • 46
    And why does God not make an end to all evil?
  • 47
    Key events that transformed the church into an independent religion
  • 48
    When? How? Has His return been delayed?
  • 49
    I do not have any formal theological qualifications and I am not part of any religious organization. These articles are the result of my studies over many years.
Posted on

Historical criticism implies that the book of Daniel is a forgery.

Summary

When was Daniel written?

The book of Daniel itself claims to have been written in the 6th century B.C. by a person named Daniel and explicitly predicts the rise of Medo-Persia and Greece as dominant powers centuries later.

In contrast, the academic consensus today is that the prophetic visions in Daniel were written by an unknown writer in the second century B.C. – after Medo-Persia and Greece rose to power. For example:

“The Book of Daniel … was written … when the Jews were suffering severe persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned 175–164/163 BCE).” (Britannica)

In other words, the academic consensus is that Daniel was written after the events it pretends to predict.

Implications

For Christians, the implications of this view would be devastating:

Firstly, it would mean that one of the books of the Bible (Daniel) is a forgery. Could the same apply to the other books?

Secondly, Jesus regarded Daniel as a real person and as a prophet (Matt 24:15). If Jesus was mistaken, what other mistakes did He make?

Thirdly, Revelation is built on the foundation of the Book of Daniel. For example, the Beast of Revelation is the same as the evil king-horn in Daniel. Therefore, if Daniel is a forgery, then Revelation is fiction.

In fact, the academic consensus with respect to the rest of the Bible is similar to that of Daniel. For example, the consensus is that the five books of Moses were not really written by Moses but by people who lived long after Moses. Some even claim that the entire Hebrew Bible is propaganda for a Judaism that arose in the Persian period or later.

However, there are good reasons to reject the academic consensus:

Naturalism

The main reason is to understand that the ‘intellectual culture’ of our day is anti-theistic. In other words, it does not accept the existence of the supernatural. Science wants natural answers to all questions.

Unfortunately, over the last 300 years, the theological faculties of large universities have bought into this ‘intellectual culture’. In other words, these theological faculties also reject the supernatural. For example, they:

Regard as fiction the idea that God created all things and the miracles that are recorded in the Bible.

Do not accept that God supernaturally guided the production of the Bible. In other words, they do not regard the Bible as the word of God.

Do not believe that accurate long-term predictions are possible. It is for that reason that they argue that Daniel was written after the events it seems to predict.

Once we understand that the academic consensus is driven by naturalism (the belief that everything arises from natural causes) then the academic consensus should not be a problem for Christians.

It remains a mystery how the theology in the academic centers of the world could have moved so far from the simple faith of the Bible. But we must remember that Satan is the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). Christianity is marching through largely alien territory. The devil has come down to this world (Rev 12:12).

Furthermore, the letters to the seven churches (Rev 2-3) show that the Antichrist is inside the church. Babylon, the mother of harlots is a woman, implying that she claims to be the bride of Christ. One of the articles on this website shows that the Antichrist in Daniel (the evil king-horn) is the same as the beast of Revelation, namely, the mainstream church of Christianity.

In Jesus’ day, the scribes and Pharisees were the academic elite but, actually, they were controlled by Satan (Matt 23:27-36). Why should we expect anything different today?

Critical Scholarship

The Wikipedia article on Daniel 9 also says that Daniel was written in the second century B.C. but describes it as “the consensus among critical scholars.”

The consensus among critical scholars is that … the visionary chapters 7–12 were added during the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV in 167–163 BCE. (Wikipedia)

This “consensus among critical scholars” is the same as the academic consensus discussed above because Biblical criticism and historical criticism have become the standard approach to the study of the Bible in the theological ivory towers of the world.

The Wikipedia article on Biblical Criticism calls Johann Semler (1725–1791) the father of historical criticism because he argued for an end to all doctrinal assumptions. This is the main principle of historical criticism. An end to all doctrinal assumptions includes an end to the assumption that the Bible is God’s word. This has changed the nature of the study of the Bible at these academic centers over the last 300 years:

Traditionally, theology accepted the Bible as the word of God and studied it to understand what God is saying to us.

Claiming neutrality, from “all doctrinal assumptions,” historical criticism treats the Bible as a work of literature with human authors. It does not seek for ‘truth’ in the Bible. One indication of this is that, generally, “critical scholars do not ‘waste’ their time on … writing commentaries” (Quora).

As the word “historic” indicates, historical criticism evaluates the Bible against secular history, including ancient languages, documents, and artifacts. Historical criticism, therefore, is really a specialized form of Historical Studies. This is what the theological faculties have evolved into over the last 300 years due to the shift in the intellectual culture towards an anti-theistic position.

Reasons to trust the Bible

BibleIn spite of the explanation above, it remains difficult for the average Christian, who is quite far removed from the academic centers of the world, to understand how their approach to theology could be so far removed from the simple faith of the Bible. To help Christians, we can mention several good reasons to trust the Bible and to reject the academic consensus.

(1) Christians do not trust the Bible because it has been proven to agree with secular history. They trust the Bible because of the beauty and synergy and meaning that they find in it, revealing its supernatural Source.

(2) Daniel contains spiritual truths that were unknown in the second century B.C., such as the resurrection of the dead with consequent rewards and punishments (Dan 12:2-3, 13).

(3) Even if Daniel was written in the time of Antiochus IV, it still contains true prophecy. For example, it predicts:

        • The rise of the Roman Empire in the century after Antiochus (see here),
        • Jesus Christ in the first century A.D. (see Daniel Nine), and
        • The fall of Rome in the fifth century A.D. (see here) – eight centuries after Antiochus.

(4) Jesus and all Bible writers accepted Daniel as true prophecy (Matt 24:15). Therefore, we could safely do the same.

(5) To support their view, critical scholars point to several historical ‘errors’ in the book of Daniel. Over decades, numerous commentators have provided well-researched answers to these so-called ‘errors’.

(6) Good counterarguments exist for all the arguments of historical criticism (see here). For example, there are many differences between the historical Antiochus IV and the Antichrist that Daniel predicts. (See here.) As another example, the book of Maccabees was written to record the Maccabean struggle but it refers in the plainest terms to the Daniel of the captivity.

(7) Historical criticism is only possible if one presupposes that the Bible is NOT the word of God. Therefore, although it claims to be neutral, it is not: “Nothing in the Biblical text is accepted without support from an independent source” (Alan Millard). The presupposition that the Bible is NOT the word of God predetermines research outcomes.

(8) The documents and knowledge on which historical criticism relies are very old and limited. The certainty of the conclusions, therefore, is low. Alvin Plantinga has said: “There is no compelling or even reasonably decent argument for supposing that the procedures and assumptions of [historical Biblical criticism] are to be preferred to those of traditional Biblical commentary.”

Jesus warned that “many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.” “But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved” (Matt 24:9-13). Therefore, “if anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me” (Matt 16:24).

– END OF SUMMARY –

When was Daniel written?

I have posted a number of articles on the book of Daniel on this website. In these articles, I have assumed that Daniel is what it claims to be, namely, that it was written in the sixth century B.C. by a person named Daniel (e.g., Dan 9:1) who received visions from God.

However, the Wikipedia article on Daniel 9 states:

The consensus among critical scholars is that chapters 1–6 of the Book of Daniel originated as a collection of folktales … in the Persian/Hellenistic periods, to which the visionary chapters 7–12 were added during the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV in 167–163 BCE.

If Daniel’s prophecies, which symbolize empires by means of beasts and other symbols, were added in 167–163 BCE, then Daniel was written after the events it pretends to predict. That would mean that Daniel is a forgery.

The quote above attributes the view, that the prophecies were added in the second century, to “critical scholars.” The article in Britannica on Daniel contains a similar statement, but simply states this as a matter of fact; not as the opinion of a specific group of people:

“The Book of Daniel presents a collection of popular stories about Daniel, a loyal Jew, and the record of visions granted to him, with the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BCE as their background. The book, however, was written in a later time of national crisis—when the Jews were suffering severe persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned 175–164/163 BCE).” (Britannica)

Many Christians are not even aware of the view that Daniel was written in the second century B.C. It is not taught in churches. Those who share that view, simply avoid the topic. Those who believe that Daniel is true prophecy, written in the 6th century B.C., use Daniel as the cornerstone of their eschatology.

Implications

The implications of these conclusions by critical scholars are quite devastating to the Christian faith:

Firstly, if the book of Daniel was written in the time of Antiochus IV, then it is uninspired fraud, for then it was written after the events it pretends to predict. And its prophecies that go beyond the time of Antiochus IV are pure fiction. Then, any study of Daniel is a waste of time.

Secondly, Jesus regarded Daniel as a real person and as a prophet (Matt 24:15). But the academic consensus implies that Jesus was misinformed. In other words, we are no longer able to trust what Jesus said.

Thirdly, Revelation is built on the foundation of the Book of Daniel. There is just no way to understand Revelation without the Book of Daniel. For example:

        • The Beast of Revelation is the same as the Antichrist in Daniel; a continuation of the beasts of Daniel 7 (Dan 7:4-8; Rev 13:2).
        • Revelation uses the “time, times, and half a time” from Daniel 7:25 in various places and forms (Rev 11:2, 3; 12:6, 14).
        • The oath in Daniel is concluded in Revelation (Dan 12:7; Rev 10:6).

Therefore, if Daniel is a forgery, then Revelation is fiction.

In fact, all the writers of the New Testament assumed that the Old Testament is God’s word. Therefore, if the Old Testament is a forgery, then the New Testament also does not reflect truth.

Given these implications, the Biblical Research Institute claims that “the historical-critical method has emptied churches in Europe.”

Similar conclusions for the Bible

Historical criticism has not only concluded that Daniel is a forgery; it has come to similar conclusions for most of the Bible. For example

Little, if any, of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) comes from the hand of Moses (Alan Millard).

Rather than accepting the traditional view that Moses wrote the Pentateuch in the middle of the second millennium B.C., source criticism, which is part of historical criticism, claims that scribes living after the Babylonian exile (after 539 BC) created the Pentateuch out of various pre-existent “sources” (Pete Enns).

“It is thus clearer than the sun at noonday that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by someone who lived long after Moses.” (Wikipedia staff)

David and Solomon, assuming they existed, were minor rulers of a small area around Jerusalem (Alan Millard).

Any oracles prophets may have uttered were adapted, expanded, and edited centuries after they were spoken (Alan Millard).

The Hebrew Bible is propaganda for a Judaism that arose in the Persian period or later; it has lost its claim to be an authoritative divine revelation (Alan Millard).

Overview of the History

Britannica provides a very useful overview of Jewish history from the exile to Babylon in the 6th century B.C. until Antiochus IV. This overview helps to explain the quotes above:

The exiled Jews had been permitted to return to their homeland by Cyrus II the Great, master of the Medes and Persians, who captured Babylon in 539 BCE from its last king, Nabonidus, and his son Belshazzar. The ancient Near East was then ruled by the Persians until Alexander the Great brought it under his control in 331. After Alexander’s death in 323, his empire was divided among his generals, with Palestine coming under the dominion of the Ptolemies until 198, when the Seleucids won control. Under the Persian and Ptolemaic rulers, the Jews seem to have enjoyed some political autonomy and complete religious liberty. But under Antiochus IV, Jewish fortunes changed dramatically. In his effort to Hellenize the Jews of Palestine, Antiochus attempted to force them to abandon their religion and practice the common pagan worship of his realm. Increasingly sterner restrictions were imposed upon the Jews, the city of Jerusalem was pillaged, and, finally, in December 167 the Temple was desecrated. The outcome of this persecution was the open rebellion among the Jews, as described in the books of Maccabees.

Mainstream Academic Consensus

After I attempted to add criticism in the Wikipedia article to the second-century authorship, Wikipedia responded to me as follows:

Unfortunately, the content you added to Prophecy of Seventy Weeks appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint.

So far, it looks as if the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus.

The idea that the Book of Daniel has historicity does not fly with mainstream academia. As a historical view, it is not even remotely tenable.

The dating in the 6th century BC is simply untrue. It’s pseudohistory. A dating of 6th century BC is not history, it is fundamentalist superstition.

Mainstream academic consensus owns Wikipedia articles, nobody else does: not Christianity. Scholars following a non-mainstream, fundamentalist view are regularly removed from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia, therefore, distinguishes between “mainstream academia” and fundamentalists. By implication, “mainstream academia” refers to large universities and mainstream academic outlets. It excludes scholars and journals associated with specific denominations or interest groups. Encyclopedias such as Wikipedia and Britannica only accept the views of “mainstream academia” as ‘truth’. For example, the Wikipedia staff further wrote:

The paper on Daniel that you want us to use was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. The folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don’t publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in the Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism.

The question I’d like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars.

In other words, Wikipedia will only reflect a view as ‘truth’ when “a significant number of scholars” support it in the “mainstream outlets.”

Critical Scholars

As quoted above, the Wikipedia article attributes the view of second-century authorship to “the consensus among critical scholars.” It is, therefore, important to understand who they are.

A Modern Development

The Wikipedia page on Biblical Criticism comments as follows on the origin of Historical Criticism:

Most scholars believe the German Enlightenment (c. 1650 – c. 1800) led to the creation of biblical criticism. Biblical criticism reached “full flower” in the nineteenth century.

The view that Daniel was written in the 2nd century, therefore, was not the ‘scholarly consensus’ during the reformation. Luther and Calvin, for example, still believed that Daniel is true prophecy.

Historical Criticism

While Wikipedia staff referred to “mainstream academia,” the Wikipedia article itself (quoted above) refers to “critical scholars.” By implication, these terms refer to the same group of people, as confirmed by Pete Enns:

Historical Criticism has its roots in Europe and has governed the academic study of the Bible for about 300 years.

You’d be hard-pressed to find academic programs in Bible that don’t take as their axiomatic starting point a historical-critical approach to the Bible.

The Wikipedia article on Biblical Criticism states:

Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, is often called the “Father of Biblical criticism” because he was the first person to apply textual criticism (used to investigate Greek and Roman texts) to the Bible.

Johann Salomo Semler (1725–1791) argued for an end to all doctrinal assumptions, giving historical criticism its nonsectarian character. As a result, Semler is often called the father of historical-critical research.

In the quotes above, Astruc is called the “father of Biblical criticism” and Semler is called the “father of historical-critical research.” The word “criticism” refers to the process of interrogation and evaluation of the text of the Bible (Biblical Research Institute). When the word “historical” is added, it means that the Bible is evaluated against secular history, including ancient languages and writing styles. As Wikipedia says, it is called the “historical-critical method” because it is mostly an analysis of history, as opposed to theology:

The Wikipedia article refers to people applying biblical criticism and historical criticism as “critical scholars.”

The Bible is not God’s Word.

The end to all doctrinal assumptions, as Semler argued for (see above), includes an end to the assumption that the Bible is God’s word. Quora states:

The biggest difference between evangelical/conservative biblical scholarship and liberal/critical biblical scholarship is their a priori theological and methodological commitments. Conservatives have prior commitments to the Bible being the Word of God or being divinely inspired. Critical scholars have prior commitments to a humanistic understanding of religion and the Bible.

Conservative Christians accept that the content and production of Scripture resulted from the will of God, namely, that the prophet operated within a historical situation and within a particular language, culture, and thought-form, but that he was nonetheless guided by the Holy Spirit in such a way that the result was the Word of God. Therefore, although there is a distinctive human component in it, the Bible has authority. And because God inspired the entire Bible, one part of the Bible explains another.

Critical scholars, on the other hand, as Bible Odyssey states:

Do not accept that “the Bible is the ‘word of God’ because … faith claims … are inherently unprovable.”

“Most scholars treat the Bible as a work of literature with human authors.”

They assume that the Bible has come about in the same manner as has any other piece of literature. Consequently, in their view, the Bible has evolved over many centuries as it was rewritten, extended, and amended by different layers of people – without divine guidance – and, therefore, is subject to error.

And, since the Bible claims to be God’s word, by implication, historical criticism presupposes that the Bible is a forgery.

Reject the Supernatural

It is also important to understand why Semler called for an end to all doctrinal assumptions and why critical scholars reject the Bible as the word of God. Plantinga stated:

“The intellectual culture of our day is for the most part profoundly non-theistic and hence non-Christian … More than that, it is antitheistic.”

This “intellectual culture of our day,” therefore, does not accept the supernatural. The world of science seeks to find natural explanations for all things. This “culture” has taken root also in the theological faculties at large, independent universities. As Plantinga also stated:

“A good bit of allegedly Christian theology is animated by a spirit wholly foreign to that of Christian theism.”

Critical scholars, therefore, reject the existence of the supernatural, including the idea that God created the universe, and the miracles recorded in the Bible, and they reject the possibility of God-given accurate long-term predictions.

But this assumption is challenged by Daniel, for it contains explicitly refers to “Media and Persia” and “Greece” (Dan 8:20-21; 11:2-3), which became ‘world empires’ after Daniel was written in the sixth century B.C., as the book Daniel itself claims. In defense, critical scholars propose that Daniel’s prophecies were written after these empires had already come to power.

To support this view, they point to several historical ‘errors’ in the book of Daniel. Over decades, numerous commentators have provided well-researched answers to these so-called ‘errors’. Critical scholars, largely, ignored this evidence because the critic must give up his “faith” in naturalism and, in humility, admit that the supernatural God has the ability and desire to foretell the future. This the critic cannot afford to do without suffering a great loss of credibility within academia.

What motivates Historical Criticism?

People believe what they want to believe.

The Pharisees – the intellectual elite of that day – did not believe Jesus in spite of all His miracles. Why? Because people believe what they WANT to believe. The Pharisees did not WANT to believe. Therefore, they found evidence that He is NOT the Christ. They said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons” (Matt 9:15) and, after He healed a man that was born blind on a Sabbath day, they said, “this man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath” (John 9:16).

People prefer to be honored by people rather than by God.

Jesus said to the Pharisees, “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?” (John 5:44) and, “Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the chief seats in the synagogues and the respectful greetings in the market places” (Luke 11:43; cf. Luke 20:46).

A Different Discipline

Consequently, historical criticism and theology, in practice, are two distinct disciplines:

Theology, as practiced by conservative scholars, takes the text of the Bible seriously as the word of God and strives to learn FROM it.

Historical criticism does not seek for ‘truth’ in the Bible. It does not seek to learn FROM the Bible. It wants to learn ABOUT the Bible. One indication of this is that, generally, “critical scholars do not ‘waste’ their time on … writing commentaries” (Quora).

As stated, historical criticism evaluates the Bible against secular history, including ancient languages, documents, and artifacts. It is mostly the study of history, as opposed to theology (Wikipedia). Historical criticism, therefore, is really a specialized subset of historical studies. “Their concern was not about the text per se but the history behind the text” (Biblical Theology).

Since historical criticism requires detailed knowledge of secular history and of ancient languages and documents (see, for instance, When was the Book of Daniel Written?), a person with a standard training in theology is not equipped to do historical criticism. For that reason, it is unfair to expect ‘theologians’ to refute the claims of Historical Criticism.

Theology Evolved

Over the last 300 years, as the intellectual culture shifted towards an anti-theistic position, the theological faculties at large independent universities have evolved into faculties of historical criticism.

Arguments

The following are examples of the arguments used by critical scholars:

Old Testament Generally

Firstly, with respect to the Old Testament in general:

Excavations at the site of Jericho, which according to Joshua 6 had walls in the period of the Israelite conquest, have revealed no walls for the historical period in which the conquest is supposed to have happened, thus indicating that the biblical account cannot be entirely historical. (Bible Odyssey)

If Abraham really existed 2000 years before Christ, Genesis, in its description of Abraham, would have mentioned tents more often (Alan Millard).

The description of Goliath’s armor (1 Samuel 17) does not fit the time in which the Bible says David lived (Alan Millard).

Moses could not have written the preface to Deuteronomy because he never crossed the Jordan River into the Promised Land. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 31:9 references Moses in the third person.

Egyptian historical records do not mention the Passover, in which the firstborn son in every household was killed.

The purpose here is not to discuss or refute such arguments; simply to show the type of arguments used. There are counter-arguments for all such arguments. For example, with respect to the Passover, we would not expect the proud Egyptians to document their own humiliating defeat. And the Passover was a very long time ago. Perhaps it was recorded in some documents that have since been destroyed.

Daniel

Secondly, with respect to Daniel specifically, Britannica gives some of the reasons why scholars do not accept that Daniel was written in the sixth century B.C.:

The writer’s knowledge of the exilic times was sketchy and inaccurate. His date for the fall of Jerusalem, for example, is wrong; Belshazzar is represented as the son of Nebuchadnezzar and the last king of Babylon, whereas he was actually the son of Nabonidus and, though a powerful figure, was never king; Darius the Mede, a fictitious character perhaps confused with Darius I of Persia, is made the successor of Belshazzar instead of Cyrus.

I have addressed these and other arguments in my article on this subject.

Purpose

One thing that we must realize is that it will require a miracle for conservative scholars to change the consensus any time soon. Since we do believe in miracles, that is possible. However, it has taken more than 200 years for the current consensus to develop. Since historical criticism is a very specialized field, in which conservative Christians typically have very little interest, to refute the consensus by using the same methods as used by critical scholars will be very difficult.

This is the challenge that faces Christians. If they want to believe that the Bible is true and proclaim it as God’s word, they need a sensible response to the academic consensus. They would need good reasons to reject the conclusion of historical criticism. It is the purpose of this article to propose such reasons.

Arguments against Historical Criticism

I propose that conservative Christians have sufficient reasons to trust the Bible and distrust historical criticism:

Reasons to trust the Bible

Firstly, conservative Christians do not trust the Bible because it has been proven to agree with secular history. They trust the Bible because of the beauty and synergy and meaning that they find in it, revealing its supernatural Source. Therefore, while Biblical criticism ‘criticizes’ the Bible against external documents and sources, I propose that conservative Christians defend the Bible from the Bible itself. For example:

(1) Daniel contains theological truths that were not available in the time of Antiochus IV.

For instance, the resurrection of the dead with consequent rewards and punishments (Dan 12:2-3, 13) is a truth that was only clearly revealed for the first time by Jesus Christ (e.g., John 5:25, 28-29). 

(2) Even if Daniel was written in the time of Antiochus IV, it still contains true prophecy. For example:

(2a) Daniel 9 points to Jesus Christ in the first century A.D.

Daniel 9:24-27 Daniel says that a Messiah will appear within 500 years after the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, therefore before the destruction of AD 70. But it also says that the Messiah will be killed, that reconciliation will be made for iniquity, and that sacrifices will be stopped. In the light of the New Testament, this describes Jesus Christ and His death on the Cross in the first century A.D. (See here for a further discussion.)

(2b) Daniel predicted the rise of the Roman Empire.

Daniel 8 explicitly identifies the two beasts in that chapter as Medo-Persia and Greece (Dan 8:20-21). Daniel 7 uses four beasts as symbols for four sequential empires. Both Daniel 7 and 8 describe the physical appearances of their beasts (heads, horns, wings, etc. – Dan 7:4-7; 8:3-8). One of the articles on the website compares the beasts of Daniel 7 to the beasts in Daniel 8 and concludes that the two beasts of Daniel 8 (Medo-Persia and Greece) are equivalent to the second and third beasts in Daniel 7. This means that the dragon-like fourth beast of Daniel 7 is the next empire, namely the Roman Empire.

But, at the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (c. 165 B.C.), the Roman Empire did not yet dominate Palestine. Pompey the Great took over that part of the Near East only in 63 B.C. It is true that Antiochus III had been crushed by the Romans at Magnesia in 190, but the Romans had still not advanced beyond the limits of Europe by 165, except to establish a vassal kingdom in Asia Minor and a protectorate over Egypt.

Therefore, as things stood in 165 BC, no human being could have predicted with any assurance that this Italian republic would become more ruthless and widespread than any empire that had ever preceded it.

Therefore, even if the book has been written c. 165 BC., it still contains accurate long-term predictions.

To avoid the interpretation of the fourth beast as the Roman Empire, and to identify it as Greece, critical scholars interpret the second and third empires of Daniel 7 as the Medes and Persians. But this divides the Medo-Persian Empire into two separate kingdoms and ignores the fact that, in Daniel, the Medo-Persian Empire is always a single kingdom (Dan 5:28; 6:8, 12, 15; 7:5; 8:20; cf. Esther 1:3, 14, 18-19; 10:2).  

Furthermore, if the fourth beast is the Roman Empire, the Antichrist (the evil 11th horn-king that comes out of that beast) comes out of the Roman Empire and cannot be a Greek king. (See here for a further discussion.)

(2c) Daniel predicted HOW the Rome Empire would fall in the fifth century A.D.

Both Daniel 2 and 7 symbolize four sequential empires. The first three come to their end when the next one conquers them. But the fourth breaks apart into many kingdoms (the divided kingdom in Daniel 2:41 and the eleven horns of Daniel 7:7-8). Another article shows that that was a remarkably accurate prophecy of HOW the Roman Empire was subdivided into many kingdoms in the fifth century A.D. In other words, Daniel predicted events eight centuries after Antiochus!

(3) Jesus and all Bible writers accepted Daniel as true prophecy.

Jesus’ teachings are filled with supernatural wisdom and miracles. Since He accepted the book of Daniel as true prophecy (Matt 24:15), we could safely do the same.

Conclusion

These are only examples of reasons that we may trust the Scriptures. Many more may be added.

Reasons to distrust Historical Criticism

Secondly, there are good reasons to distrust historical criticism:

(1) Good counterarguments exist for all the arguments of historical criticism.

I have done such a study with respect to the book of Daniel and came away from that study satisfied that abundant evidence exists to reject the critical consensus and to maintain the view that Daniel was written in the sixth century B.C. (See here.) For example:

(1a) Antiochus IV does not fit the description of the Antichrist.

There are many similarities between the historical Antiochus IV and the Antichrist predicted in Daniel but another article shows that there are also many differences. Antiochus IV by no means exhausts the passage. For example, Antiochus IV did not:

        • Exalt himself above every god (Dan 11:36),
        • Serve a “strange god” unknown to his fathers (Dan 11:38),
        • Seize the kingdom by intrigue (Dan 11:21),
        • Cause deceit to succeed (Dan 8:25),
        • Distribute plunder (Dan 11:24),
        • Begin small (Dan 7:8; 8:9; 11:23),
        • Become greater than all of his predecessors (Dan 7:20), or
        • Expand his kingdom “toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land (Judea)” (Dan 8:9).

Therefore, Antiochus IV was only a type of a later and much more powerful Antichrist. See here for a further discussion.

(1b) Fiction does not motivate people to fight to the death.

According to critical scholars, the Book of Daniel was composed during the crisis under Antiochus to encourage the beleaguered Jews to be faithful to death in their fight against Antiochus. However, if the book was written at that time, the Jews would have known that Daniel was fiction. It would not have encouraged Judas Maccabeus and his heroic rebels for their deadly conflict. People do not die for fiction.

(1c) The heathen kings are different from Antiochus.

If Daniel was written during the Maccabean era, it would have presented the kings of Babylon and Persia as similar to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who persecuted the Jews and sought to destroy Judaism. But Daniel presents them as very tolerant of the Jewish religion. 

(1d) Maccabees does not mention a book written in the time of Antiochus.

The book of Maccabees was written to record the Maccabean struggle. If Daniel was written during that time, the book of Maccabees would have mentioned the book and its author. But it makes no such mention. In contrast, it refers in the plainest terms to the Daniel of the captivity.

While critical scholars deny the existence of the person of Daniel as presented by the book of Daniel because he is not mentioned outside the Bible, they pronounce a person that is not mentioned either by the Bible or by other literature as the real author!

(2) Historical criticism is not neutral.

Historical criticism claims to be neutral (Wikipedia) but it is important to understand that it is not:

“Nothing in the Biblical text is accepted without support from an independent source” (Alan Millard).

In other words, as also argued above, historical criticism presupposes that the Bible is NOT the Word of God. And, since the Bible claims to be God’s word, historical criticism presupposes that the Bible is a forgery. To say it differently, critical scholars assume that the Bible is guilty until proven innocent.

Integrated into the Method

If the Bible is the word of God, then historical criticism is inappropriate. The very fact that historical criticism feels that it is appropriate to verify the Bible against secular sources confirms their assumption that it is not the word of God.

Some argue that the methods of historical criticism are fine and that the problem is the presuppositions. However, the presuppositions are part of the method. They make the method possible. For example, one of the three principles of biblical criticism that Ernst Troeltsch listed is “searching for certainty by doubting everything” (Wikipedia). When the presupposition that the Bible is not the word of God is removed from the historical-critical method, one no longer has the method. Critical scholarship, therefore, cannot be unbiased.

Presuppositions predetermine Outcomes

All human cognitive activity is heavily influenced by presuppositions that are firmly settled in our subconsciousness, mostly completely out of sight. When we search for truth, any input we receive will invariably be sifted through these subconscious ideas and biases. People with different presuppositions will recognize and emphasize different things.

For example, given that we read in Daniel 9 of a Messiah that will be killed while atonement will be made of iniquity, that chapter, for somebody who comes to it with the presupposition that the Bible is God’s word, is a clear prediction of Jesus Christ. But if you come to the chapter with the presupposition that the Bible is NOT God’s word, you will want to find a different explanation.

In other words, to a large extent, presuppositions predetermine the outcome of research.

(3) Historical criticism works with a low level of certainty.

The documents and knowledge on which historical criticism relies are very old and limited. Relative to current languages, documents, and events, our understanding of ancient languages, documents, and history is very limited. Conclusions may change as new data becomes available. Consequently, similar to any field where the data is distant from us in terms of space, time, or culture, critical scholars are accustomed to working with low levels of certainty. Therefore, the certainty of the conclusions from this data is low. For that reason, I would accept what Alvin Plantinga – probably the best-known Christian philosopher today – has said:

“There is no compelling or even reasonably decent argument for supposing that the procedures and assumptions of [historical Biblical criticism] are to be preferred to those of traditional Biblical commentary.”

Plantinga believes that interpreting the Bible by means of historical Biblical criticism is like “trying to mow your lawn with nail scissors or paint your house with a toothbrush.” In other words, it’s basically a waste of time and effort. (BAS Library)

(4) This world is Satan’s territory.

Satan actively opposes God’s work. As Alvin Plantinga stated, “Christianity … is marching through largely alien territory.” Satan brought sin to the earth when he led Adam and Eve into sin (Gen 3). After Satan was defeated in heaven, he was thrown down to earth and we are warned:

“Woe to the earth and the sea,
because the devil has come down to you,
having great wrath,
knowing that he has only a short time” (Rev 12:7-9, 12).

The letters to the seven churches (Rev 2-3) show that the Antichrist is inside the church. Babylon, the mother of harlots is a woman, implying that she is a church. One of the articles on this website shows that the Antichrist in Daniel (the evil king-horn) is the same as the beast of Revelation, namely, the mainstream church of Christianity.

In Jesus’ day, the scribes and Pharisees were the academic elite but, actually, they were controlled by Satan (Matt 23:27-36). It was not the people of Israel that rejected Christ—it was their scribes and Pharisees. Why should we expect anything different today? Where in history, as recorded in the Bible, was the academic elite ever ‘right’?

A Call to End-Time Christians

Daniel is the key to Revelation.

The reason for this massive attack on the Book of Daniel, I believe, is to keep God’s people in the dark concerning what God revealed about the end-time in the Book of Revelation.

We need to take up our cross and follow Jesus.

The historical-critical method not only is based on an aversion to the supernatural and the prior commitment that the Bible is not God’s word; it also highly damaging to confidence in the reliability of the Bible. This is often the snare of bright young people who, in furthering their preparation to serve Christ, wind up chasing academic recognition, often shipwrecking their faith. The thorns choke the seeds that God has planted (Mark 4:7).

The Savior had to die. Similarly, He warned:

“You will be hated by all nations because of My name” (Matt 24:9).

“Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.” “But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved” (Matt 24:9-13).

He advised:

“If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me” (Matt 16:24).

We, therefore, must not expect that this road will be easy. On the contrary, if it becomes easy, we must know that we are on the wrong road. The strategy of the evil one is to gain control of the places of high influence. In this world, where dark scholarship dominates almost every discipline including theology, it is hard to believe in God. But God, in His immeasurable wisdom, allows the thorns to grow. We may not be able to understand today, but we have to trust and we have to choose.

Other Articles

Proudly powered by WordPress