RunningMan:
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.
Actually, using Nisan-based accession-year dating (as would be used in Babylon), Jehoiakim's third year was indeed 605 BCE. Additionally, 2 Kings 24:1-12 indicates Nebuchadnezzar coming against Jerusalem prior to the siege in 597 BCE. The context of those statements is in fact accurate (and it is not unremarkable that records of the events could be available to the author of Daniel), but there is no evidence that the 'Daniel' character actually existed.
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 Leolaia has already expertly pointed out, the 'Dan[i]el' mentioned in Ezekiel is not associated with the character in the book of Daniel.
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.
It is possible that the author of Daniel got the history mixed up, but it's also possible that the father of 'Darius the Mede' (most likely this 'Darius' was actually Cyrus' general, Gobryas) was also called Ahasuerus.
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.
That indeed is a significant problem with the claim that Daniel was in Babylon.
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.
Yes, that is another significant problem with the literal interpretation.
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.
Chapters 3 and 6 of Daniel (parallel parts of a chiasm) both present stories about restrictions of Jewish worship. They are both almost certainly allusions to the ban of Jewish worship by Antiochus IV in the second century BCE.