Were Daniel and Jeremiah contemporaries?

by shotgun 13 Replies latest watchtower bible

shotgun

I've recently read Who Wrote the Gospels, it mentioned on a side note from the Gospels that Daniel was probably written around 200 bce not during Nebuchadnezzars reign.
In Daniel Chapter 9 he mentions reading the phophetic words of Jeremiah about the 70 years of servitude. Jeremiah lived in a different land (Judah) while Daniel was in Babylon. How would Daniel have been able to get Jeremiahs scrolls seeing they had just been written and also the position Daniel was in as chief of Nebuchadnezzars magic practising priests would not have bode well for real Jewish worshippers to think about making any Saturday morning placements with him.
The book I read states that Jeremiah, Daniel and most of the other books seperate from the Talmud were not canonized until around 200 bce.
Any thoughts on this or have you done or read anything on this subject.
RunningMan

There is substantial evidence that Daniel dates to around 200 BC. Here is some stuff that was put together by the great Biblical scholar - me:
When did Jehoiakim reign?
The writer of the book of Daniel wasted no time in getting himself into historical trouble. Consider the first verse of the first chapter:
?In the third year of the reign of Jehoi'akim king of Judah, Nebuchadnez'zar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.? ? Daniel 1:1
History tells us that Jehoiakim began reigning in 609 B.C. This would mean that the third year of his rule was 606 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar did not become king until 605 B.C. So, the intersection of their reigns is not in the correct place. As well, Nebuchadnezzar?s first attack on Jerusalem did not take place until 597 B.C., nine years later than the account in Daniel.
So, the writer of Daniel quickly establishes himself as a poor historian. But, it gets even worse for him. In order to add credibility to his tale, he apparently picked a legendary ancient worthy to credit with the writing of the book.
Who was Daniel?
According to the book of Daniel, Daniel himself was a Hebrew who rose to prominence during the Israelite captivity in Babylon (586 ? 537 B.C.) By the time of their release, he was an old man and did not make the trip back to his homeland. He may have been born in Israel, prior to its destruction.
The earliest mention of him is in the following scriptures:
?? even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, says the Lord GOD? ? Ezekiel 14:14
? as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD , even if Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they could save neither son nor daughter.? ? Ezekiel 14:20
?The word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre? you are indeed wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you;? - Ezekiel 28:1-3
Now, we need to remember that Ezekiel was older than the Daniel character. Ezekiel was in full swing as a prophet around the year 600 B.C., which is about fifty years prior to Daniel?s activity. The first two of the references to Daniel mentioned above, were both spoken prior to 589 B.C.
So, how is it that a senior prophet like Ezekiel would make reference to Daniel, comparing him to the giants of Hebrew legend ? Noah and Job? If anything, Daniel would be merely a child at this time. He could not possibly have achieved that kind of status and reputation for wisdom. In fact, he may not even have been born yet.
Clearly, the character of Daniel had already achieved legendary status, long before the events of his supposed lifetime. In all likelihood, a second century B.C. writer attributed his work to the name ?Daniel? to increase its stature.
Placing the ancient Daniel character in the sixth century B.C. does not make sense.
Who was Belshazzar?
According to the book of Daniel, Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezar. This is mentioned at least five times. Yet, history shows that Belshazzar was actually the son of Nabonidus, who ruled four kings after Nebuchadnezar, and was no relation to him.
You would think that Daniel, who was the Prime Minister of Babylon would have known this. On the other had, this is precisely the type of mistake that could be made by a writer four hundred years in the future.
Who ran the country?
At one point, King Nebuchadnezzar was pretty impressed with Daniel. In fact, he appointed Daniel as the ruler of the whole province of Babylon. Daniel decided to stay in the king?s court, and appointed his three buddies over the province:
?Then the king gave Daniel high honors and many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon. Daniel made request of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego over the affairs of the province of Babylon; but Daniel remained at the king's court..? ? Daniel 2:48, 49
Well, before long, Daniel and his friends had made another good impression on Nebuchadnezzar. So, how were they rewarded?
?Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego in the province of Babylon.? ? Daniel 4:30
Now, if these boys already ruled ?over the whole province of Babylon?, how could they be promoted? It sounds like the writer forgot that he had already done this.
By the way, did you notice that Daniel ran the province of Babylon during the reigns of five different kings? In fact, after Babylon was destroyed, Daniel was appointed to a position in the new government of Cyrus. This seems highly unlikely, especially since two of the Babylonian successions were by force. In a peaceful succession, it is possible for the Prime Minister to remain, but it is unlikely that Nergal-ashur-usur or Nabonidus would have retained the king?s right hand man, especially after killing the king himself. So, we have yet another difficulty with this story.
Who was Darius?
The writer of the book of Daniel was not very well versed in history. Consider this reference:
? In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasu-e'rus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chalde'ans? ? Daniel 9:1
This sentence contains more holes than Swiss cheese. I?m not even sure where to begin.
First of all, history shows that Ahasuerus ruled Persia between 486 B.C. and 465 B.C. So, the son of Ahasuerus could not possibly be in power in 537 B.C. The chronology is out by at least 72 years.
Secondly, the writer appears to be rather confused about Darius. There were actually three Darius? that ruled Persia, none of whom were Medes. The first Darius ruled between 521 and 486 B.C. However, Darius I was not the son of Ahasuerus. He was the father of Ahasuerus. Darius II doesn?t show up until 424 B.C., which is 42 years after the death of Ahasuerus. He wasn?t Ahauerus? son, either.
The reference ?who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans? appears to refer to Darius I (Darius the Great). But, even if we overlook the incorrect father/son relationship, our dates are still wrong. Darius I did not rise to power until 521 B.C. ? 16 years too late.
So, the writer of Daniel did not know when Darius ruled, and he did not understand the relationship between him and Ahasuerus. He also seems to think that the Medes defeated Babylon, prior to the accension of Persia. In actual fact, the Medes existed alongside Babylon, and fell to Persia at the same time.
Once again, the writer of Daniel reveals that he was not present during these events, and in fact, is not even a particularly well informed resident of the second century, B.C.
Where are the historical records?
At the outset, I would like to clarify that I understand that absence of evidence does not necessarily indicate evidence of absence. In other words, the fact that the Bible events recorded in Babylon did not get into any other secular records, does not prove that the Bible account is fiction. Although, it does make one wonder?
For example, Daniel served as Prime Minister to Nebuchadnezzar, and apparently held this post right up to the destruction of Babylon ? a period between 23 and 47 years in length. Yet, he is not mentioned in any of the Babylonian records from that time period.
As well, the Bible tells us that Nebuchadnezzar experienced a seven year bout of madness, where he roamed in the fields and ate grass like a bull. Well, not only does the secular record not record such a thing, but there are not even any gaps in his reign. There are no seven year periods in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar that do not have references to his actions as king.
In the third chapter of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar built an image of gold that was 87.5 feet tall, and 8.75 feet wide. This project, which would surely have bankrupted the royal treasury, was not mentioned in the secular record.
So, it appears that whenever the book of Daniel intersects with history, history either contradicts the Bible, or is strangely silent.
Where is Daniel traditionally placed?
The presence of the book of Daniel in the official Bible canon has been the subject of debate. Even the contents of the book are disputable. For example, the Catholic Bible carries an extended version of the book which includes the story of ?Bel and the Dragon?.
Jewish tradition places the book of Daniel in a strange place. Based on the supposed date of authorship, it should be squarely in the prophetic section, along with Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah. The last book in the prophetic section is Jonah, which was apparently written around 300 B.C. Yet, the Jewish canon places Daniel in the writings, indicating a later authorship.
In fact, if the book of Daniel had been written any later, it would not have even made it into the writings, but would have been relegated to the apocrypha, where many people would argue that it belongs, anyway.
In what language was the book written?
Parts of the book of Daniel were written in Aramaic. This would indicate that the book was written around the second or third century, B.C. The Aramaic language was not in common use among the Hebrews during the Babylonian exile.
Narkissos

In my opinion, the book of Daniel cannot have been written in the third century or in 200 BC either. The second part of the book, and especially chapter 11, is a direct reflection (in the apocalyptical style) of the political situation in Palestine between 167 and 164 BC, that is during Antiochos' attempt at hellenizing judaism (which is described in detail) and before the Maccabean victory (which is not described).
As for the "Daniel" (with different spelling in Hebrew) of Ezekiel 14:14, it reflects an ancient non-Israelite legendary character (as Noah and Job) which is now well known by the Ugarit (Ras Shamra) texts of the 2nd millenium BC.
peacefulpete

Did Freidman really say Daniel was written 200 bc? It's been a while since reading the book.
City Fan

Runningman
? In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasu-e'rus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chalde'ans? ? Daniel 9:1
I think this 'Darius the Mede' was different than the 'Darius the Persian' mentioned elsewhere in the bible. In my view 'Darius the Mede' was Astyages the last king of the Medes. Other Jewish writings show that the Ahasu-erus of Daniel 9:1 was also the Median king Cyaxares who captured Nineveh with Nebuchadnezzar (Tobit 14:15). His son Astyages was the last Median king before Cyrus the Persian (Bel 1:1).
Although Daniel's view that the Medes conquered Babylon is wrong, it helps with understanding the rest of the book. Daniel is following the traditional Persian line of powers, that is Assyria, Media, Persia then Greece. All the visions of beasts then become more obvious, and all point to Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the persecution of the Jews under his rule.
Daniel also includes other legends such as the seven year illness of Nabonidus, but assigns this story to the better known Nebuchadnezzar.
JCanon

Per Jeremiah 44:14 and 28, some of those who ran down to Egypt who were not killed by Nebuchadnezzar were then deported to Babylon. According to Josephus in Antiquities X, the last deportation in year 23 was of those Jews from Egypt. That would have included for sure Jeremiah and Baruch. Thus Jeremiah's writings would have been available to Daniel who likewise was in Babylon at the time.
Not so mysterious.
As far as WHEN the writings of Daniel took place, please note there is no academic criticism invovled with when this ORIGINATED. Just because something is copied at a later period doesn't mean it originated at that time. Thus whether or not you can date "Daniel" to 200BCE doesn't mean a more original work from Daniel from the early Persian Period did not exist. The claim that some of it was written, say, in the 1st year of Darius the Mede cannot be challenged as far as dating goes.
I will note this, though, because of the conspiracy during the Persian Period to claim that Xerxes was Artaxerxes when,in fact, they were the same king, some of the Jewish chronology writings had to be suppressed and that would have included Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah. Thus you have an ADAPTED, "safe copy" of "Esdras" (Ezra/Nehemiah) showing up in the apocryphal writings. You need only to compare the apocryphal "Esdras" to the canonical Ezra/Nehemiah to see where the changes had to be made. Thus Daniel might have been suppressed for a while until 200 BCE and this is why it is assigned to originating at that late period perhaps.
For those who continue to refuse to believe there was not a comprehensive revision by the Persians of both the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods, there will continue to be error. That's the way it goes. Some people "love the darkness" and mystery and refuse to come into the light.
Here's the true critical chronology per the Bible, final and non-negotiable.
=======
THE STRICT BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN TIMELINE
The following represents an outline of the timeline some Christians believe represents to true coordinated chronology of the Bible and the astronomical evidence used to support this particular chronology.
70 WEEKS PROPHECY: This prophecy dates the first and second coming during the 70 th week of two periods of 490 years. The first coming occurs during the 70 th week of the third day of a week (7 days) of 70 weeks (3430 years). The second coming occurs at mid-week of the 70 th week during the 7 th day of the Covenant with the Jews of 3430 years. Each day is 490 years; 7 days are 3430 years. This week celebrates the JUBILEES which is the first week of every 49 years, but also the 50 th of the preceding 49 years. Based upon this, key events are dated during the jubilees (see below). But getting back to the 70 weeks prophecy, this entire week can be dated based upon the baptism of the Messiah in 29CE meaning the 70 th week ended in 36CE. This anchors the entire week upon which we can place other important events. The second coming is dated to mid-week of the last 70 th week which occurs between 1989-1996 at Passover. Thus Passover of 1993 represents the 7 th 70 th week and the all-important arrival of the second coming to fulfill that 7 th 70 week.
IMPORTANT JUBILEE DATING: Important dates in the jubilee cycles would include
1) 455BCE as the jubilee for the return of the Jews from Babylon. We arrive at 455BCE since the 490 years begins 490 years prior to 36CE when the ?word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem? which occurred in the 1 st of Cyrus.
2) The EXODUS is another important Jubilee, the first in this week of 3430 years. We simply count down to the first day which is 980 years from 455BCE to arrive at 1435BCE. Since you can?t begin the first week with a jubilee, the Exodus is considered the first jubilee which we count down 49 years from 1435 which gives us 1386BCE for the Exodus.
3) The third most significant Jubilee is the 50 th from 455BCE, making it especially significant. That jubilee falls in 1947, the final jubilee for the Jews to return to their homeland. Thus 1947 becomes a pivotal date for other coordinated chronology in the Bible.
1947 JUBILEE ENDS 1290 DAYS: Per Daniel 12, a ?great tribulation? would occur against the Jews in which the ?holy ones would be dashed to pieces? and then after that, their tribulation would ?end? and the trampling of Jerusalem by the gentiles would end. Thus the end of the gentile times and the end of the Jewish exile occur at the same time which was 1947. The Bible assigns a symbolic 1290 days to that event. It dates the second coming 45 years later to fulfill 1335 days. 1947 plus 45, of course is 1992, the same year of the 1993 Passover occurring to fulfil the 7 th 70 th week.
THE FALL OF JERUSALEM, 529BCE: The Fall of Jerusalem is calculated two ways via the 70 th week prophecy, one from 29CE and one from 1992. For dating the fall of Jerusalem via the first coming, we simply establish 455BCE as the beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy dated to the 1 st of Cyrus. Josephus is used to introduce 70 years here to establish the date of the last deportation (Ant. 11.1.1) in 525BCE but which is also year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar (525BCE). The fall of Jerusalem in year 19 thus falls in 529BCE.
7-TIMES PROPHECY: The second method for determining the fall of Jerusalem is via the dating of the second coming which is ?7 times? a period of 2520 years from the second coming to the fall of Jerusalem. Based upon either the 70 th week prophecy based upon 36 CE or the 1335 days prophecy based upon 1947, we arrive at 1992 as the mid-week year for the second coming. If we subtract 1992 from 2520 years (7 times) we get the date of 529BCE for the fall of Jerusalem. The interval between the fall of Jerusalem and the second coming is describes as ?7 time? in the Bible and by applying ?a day for a year? formula (Eze. 4) this is expanded to 2520 years. The Messiah was to arrive secretly first ?as a thief? in the clouds and then later be revealed to the world after his secret followers have all been sealed, thus the initial second coming event was not to be very observable by the world at large. At any rate, you can see how COORDINATED the Biblical chronology is with at least four ways now coordinated to date the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE.
4 TH OF SOLOMON, 906BCE: This is arrived at simply by moving forward 480 years from the Exodus in 1386BCE to 906BCE. Solomon?s reign thus ends 36 years later in 870BCE per the CBTL (Coordinated Biblical Timeline)
ASTRONMICAL EVIDENCE FOR ABOVE DATING:
Astronomical dating is the only way that we can have ?absolute dating? since they align specific astronomical dates to historical dates thus they are very important. The following texts have been adjusted to reflect the above chronology:
VAT4956: Double dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 568BCE and 511BCE. The 511BCE reference is encrypted and thus represents the original dating in a revised chronology, thus dismissing the 568BCE dating as frauduilent. 511BCE year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar matches 529BCE for year 19.
SK400 (STRM. KAMBYSES 400): This astro text also has cryptic double dating in it, dating ?year 7? to 541BCE by the eclipse interval between two eclipses, precisely measured at 2:46 which is the interval for 541BCE. The rest of the text which is dated for year 7 of Kambyses in 523BCE lists the two eclipses and their specific times but the interval in 523BCE is 2 hours too great at 4:46. This mis-match to 523BCE and match to 541BCE establishes the encrypted reference along with the signficance of 541BCE as ?year 7? since year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar falling in 541BCE would date year 19 to 529BCE.
NABON 18, ET AL: The Nabon. 18 text records a rare eclipse event where the Moon sets while eclipsed in the 2 nd year of Nabonidus. This eclipse event survives because in the revised chronology which dates year 2 in 554BCE a lunar eclipse occurs in the same month. The original date for year 2 was 479BCE. But in order to establish this double-reference the eclipse times had to be adjusted so that the lunar eclipse of 554BCE would set while eclipsed. This is the same circumstance needed so that the first eclipse in the double-eclipses in the SK400 would occur ?one hour before Midnight?. But it turns out, since an eclipse is about 3 hours long that the same adjustment needed to have the first eclipse in 523BCE occur one hour before Midnight was within the range of the partial eclipse occurring in 554BCE when retimed that would allow it to set while eclipsed. Likewise, the original timing of the first eclipse in the SK400 which actually occurred one hour before midnight in 541BCE causes the 479BCE eclipse, which is a total eclipse, to set while eclipsed at the end of the Total Phase. This is particularly significant since a partial eclipse which was nearly over when the Moon set would not cause the same panic and reaction as a total eclipse that set while eclipsed in the total phase would, which is precisely what happens when you retime the 479BCE eclipse to the SK400 time of one hour before midnight. Thus we have a very strong second confirmation of not only manipulation but a good reference for year 2 of Nabonidus in 479BCE. This dates his 1 st year in 480BCE and the 1 st year of Cyrus? rule from Persia to 475BCE. Cyrus rule is currently dated from 559BCE to 539BCE, a 20-year period from the time he became king in Persia and the time he began to rule in Babylon. This same 20 years is applied thus from 475BCE to 455BCE, dating the 1 st of Cyrus in 455BCE which is consistent with the other astronomical texts noted above.
REDATING THE ASSYRIAN PERIOD: Finally, the last trick is redating the Assyrian Period which is critically dated to a single eclipse event found in the Assyrian eponym list in the 10 th of Bar Sagale. Usually dated to 763BCE, this eclipse is part of a series of solar eclipses that occur every 54 years and 1 month apart. This eclipse likely survived in the records because of the option of beginning the year before the spring equinox as long as the equinox occurs before the full moon. Usually it?s simply the first month (new moon) after the equinox. This is pertinent to the 763BCE eclipse and the 709BCE eclipse which follows 54 years and 1 month later. That?s because based upon later Babylonian routine the 763BCE eclipse would have been dated in month 2 and not month 3 as the text claims, and the 709BCE eclipse would have occurred in month 3, as it does. Thus it is not at all difficult to simply redate the 763BCE eclipse event to 709BCE. Another reason supporting this was the original date is the fact that it appears in the epononym list in the first place which is rare. Since this was the third eclipse in this special series though, it made it PREDICTABLE based upon the first two eclipses as far as date and location. This would have been a major social event if a solar eclipse would have been predicted and thus would have been reflected as part of the major event for that year. Thus combined with the standard dating for month 3 and the fact that this eclipse was predictable, 709BCE becomes a critical reference for dating the Assyrian Period. This coordinates quite well with the rest of the dating. It dates the Battle of Qarqar to 799BCE, the 20 th of Ahab and the end of the 5 th of Rehoboam to 871BCE. As noted above, Solomon?s rule ends in 870BCE which means there was a 6-year co-rulership between Rehoboam and Solomon. This is confirmed by the context of scripture which shows at the time of the invasion by Shishak in the 5 th year of Rehoboam he was still in charge of ?all of Israel? and later met with all the ?princes of Israel? after they repented from their folly of idolatry (Compare 2 Chronicles 12:1 and 6). Of course, the dating for the invasion by Shishak in 925BCE now gets redated 54 years later to 871BCE per the redating of the eponym eclipse from 763BCE to 709BCE. Thus the invasion occurs in the 39 th year of Solomon?s rule when Rehoboam was still in charge of the cities in the north which is where the cities recorded by Shishak were conquered, only at this time, they were still under the rule of Judah. Jeroboam did not come and begin ruling until after Solomon?s death. Of course, dating the end of Solomon?s reign in 870BCE is more consistent with the pottery dating for that period and the buildings as well, so there will be no academic objection to redating Solomon 54 years later than he presently is dated.
SUMMARY: Based upon the above coordinated Bible Timeline and supporting astronomical text adjustments, the above dates are considered to be absolute and final with no further necessity to debate any other dating options for these key dates since at this point no evidence, new or old, will be in a position to preempt the above, only contradict or support it.
Gary
City Fan

JCanon -
because of the conspiracy during the Persian Period to claim that Xerxes was Artaxerxes when,in fact, they were the same king,
The bible itself states that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were different people with different reigns:
Here are several translations of Ezra 4:5-7: (with some footnotes)
New Living Translation:
5 They bribed agents to work against them and to frustrate their aims. This went on during the entire reign of King Cyrus of Persia and lasted until King Darius of Persia took the throne.
6 Years later when Xerxes began his reign, the enemies of wrote him a letter of accusation against the people of and . 7 And even later, during the reign of King Artaxerxes of Persia, the enemies of Judah, led by Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel, sent a letter to Artaxerxes
Good News Translation:
5 They also bribed Persian government officials to work against them. They kept on doing this throughout the reign of Emperor Cyrus and into the reign of Emperor Darius.
6 At the beginning of the reign of Emperor Xerxes, the enemies of the people living in and brought written charges against them. R13 7 Again in the reign of Emperor Artaxerxes of Persia, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and their associates wrote a letter to the emperor.
Cross Reference R13: 4.6 Es 1.1.
New English Translation:
4:5 They were hiring advisors to oppose them, so as to frustrate their plans, throughout the time of King Cyrus of Persia until the reign of King Darius of Persia.
4:6 At the beginning of the reign of Ahasuerus they filed an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. 4:7 And in the reign of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their colleagues wrote to King Artaxerxes of Persia.
[Reference to 4:6 - sn Ahasuerus, otherwise known as Xerxes I, ruled ca. 485-464 b.c. ]
New International Version (NIV):
5 They hired counselors to work against them and frustrate their plans during the entire reign of Cyrus king of Persia and down to the reign of Darius king of Persia.
6 At the beginning of the reign of Xerxes, [2] they lodged an accusation against the people of Judah and Jerusalem.
7 And in the days of Artaxerxes king of , Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his associates wrote a letter to Artaxerxes.
[2] 4:6 Hebrew Ahasuerus , a variant of Xerxes' Persian name
New American Standard Version:
5 and hired counselors against them to frustrate their counsel all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.
6 Now in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of and . [see translator?s notes]
7 And in the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his colleagues wrote to Artaxerxes king of ;
Translator?s notes:
Or Xerxes; Heb Ahash-verosh
Achashverosh (31c); of for. or.; king of :--Ahasuerus(31).
Cross reference: AMPLIFIED Esther 1:1 IT WAS in the days of Ahasuerus [Xerxes], the Ahasuerus who reigned from to over 127 provinces.
City Fan

There's little doubt that the later chapters of Daniel i.e. 7 - 12 were written during the Maccabean wars. Why would a sixth century prophet go into such minute detail on events that took place in the second century BC. Chapter 11 is a very precise summary of the Syrian wars right up to the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164BC. It is likely that this chapter was written just before his death as the prophecy about where he died is wrong!
It is difficult to date earlier chapters but it is likely that they were adapted from other older stories. One such is the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 4 and his subsequent 7 'times' of madness. This story was originally about Nabonidus who did spend a number of years away from Babylon in Teima. The Prayer of Nabonidus found at Qumran gives the duration of Nabonidus' affliction as 7 years.
shotgun

Thanks for sharing your research everyone...Good points RM
Leolaia

I have my copy of SR Driver's Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. Here are some main reasons why Daniel dates to the period of Antiochus Epiphanes, 168-167 BC and not the Neo-Babylonian period:
1. The position of the book in the Jewish canon, not among the Prophets but in the miscellaneous collection of late writings called the Hagiographa, and among the latest of these, in proximity to Esther. The division known as the Prophets was formed prior to the Hagiographa and had the Book of Daniel existed at that time, it would have been ranked as a work of a prophet and included among the former.
2. Jesus ben Sirach, writting c. 200 BC, in his enumeration of Israelite-Jewish worthies (ch. 44-50), mentions Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets, but is silent as to Daniel.
3. The "Chaldeans" are synonymous in Dan. 1:4, 2:2, etc. with the caste of wise men. This sense is unknown in Assyrian-Babylonian usage but is characteristic of the Persian and Hellenistic periods.
4. Belshazzar is represented as the "king" of Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzer is spoken throughout ch. 5 as his "father". In point of fact, Nabunidus was the last king of the Babylon; he was a usuper, not related to Nebuchadnezzer and his son was Belshazzar. The mistake Daniel makes is characteristic of a later period when the facts have been forgotten and not of someone personally acquainted with these individuals.
5. Darius, son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), a "Mede," after the death of Belshazzar is made "king over the realm of the Chaldeans" (5:31; 6:1; 9:1; 11:1), who in 6:1 organizes the empire into 120 satrapies and becomes sole ruler of the Babylonian empire (6:25), while in reality, Darius Hystaspis, who organized the Persian empire in satrapies, was the father, not the son, of Xerxes, and he reconquered Babylon in 521 and again in 515 BC, not in 535 BC as Daniel would have it. Again, this is a confusion arising from the passage of time and is hardly what someone witnessing the Fall of Babylon would claim.
6.In 9:2 it is stated that Daniel "understood by the books [bsprym]" the number of years according to Jeremiah that Jerusalem should lie waste. The expression sued implies that the prophesies of Jeremiah formed part of the collection of sacred books which most likely had not formed by 536 BC.
7. The number of Persian words in the book, especially in the Aramaic part, is remarkable. That such words should be found in books written after the Persian empire was organized and when Persian influences prevailed, is not more than would be expected and should not at any rate have been used by Daniel under Babylonian supremacy.
8. Not only does Daniel contain Persian words, but it contains at least three Greek words: kitharos = kitharis (3:5, 7, 10, 15), psanterin = psalterion (3:5, 7, 10, 15), and sumponyah = symphonia (3:5, 15). The use of these three words fixes the date of the historical portions of Daniel after the time of Alexander the Great.
9. The Aramaic of Daniel is a Western Aramaic dialect of the type spoken in Palestine, known from inscriptions dating to 3rd cent. BC to the 2nd cent. AD and also of the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan.
10. The Hebrew of Daniel resembles that of the age subsequent to Nehemiah, containing many words otherwise known from Rabbinical Hebrew (sp. the Mishnah), or common only to the Mishnah and Ezra-Chronicles-Nehemiah-Esther.
11. The theology of the Book of Daniel points to a later age than that of the exile. The doctrines of the Messiah ("the Son of Man"), of angels, of the resurrection, and of a judgment on the world, are taught with greater distinctiveness and in a more developed form than elsewhere in the OT, with features approximating to those met with in the earlier parts of the Book of Enoch, c. 100 BC.
12. The interest of the book manifestly culminates in the relations subsisting between the Jews and Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus is the subject of 8:9-14, 23-25. The survey of Syrian and Egyptian history of the Seleucids in ch. 11 leads up to a detailed description of Antiochus' reign in v. 21-45 and then the persecution which the Jews experienced at his hands. It is incredible for a 6th century prophet living in the Neo-Babylonian period should display no interest in the welfare, or prospects of his contemporaries, that his hopes and Messianic visions should not attach themselves to the imminent return of the exiles to the land of their fathers but to a deliverance in the distant, remote future. It is also remarkable that these prophecies of the remote future in Daniel are so minute in detail with regard to Antiochus' reign, down to the period of his persecution where actual events are decribed with surprising distinctness (unlike prophecies of the remote future in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah), yet suddenly at this point the distinctness ceases and the prophecy shifts into an ideal representation of the Messianic future. Daniel's perspective, then, is of someone writing in the midst of the persecution itself, and views the Messianic Age as following closely on the heels of the Antiochean persecution -- a fulfillment that does not in fact come to pass. This fact fixes the date of the book to c. 168-167 BC.
Leolaia

Were Daniel and Jeremiah contemporaries?

Share this