assumed never to have been wrought (Pusey, 75). The prophecy would therefore be fraudulent, possessing error, and containing falsity and lies.Critical to those who esteem Christ as being divine and without sin are the words of Jesus; if Jesus has made a statement on the authorship of Daniel, then one must decide if Jesus is trustworthy, if He is the faithful and true witness, and if He is the amen, or if Jesus was in error, speaking falsehood,and guilty of deception. In Matthew 24:15 Jesus stated, “So when you see standing in the Holy Place‘the abomination that causes desolation’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel…” and thereby affirmsHis belief that Daniel was a real historical person who, as a prophet, was inspired by God to foretell thefuture. Because the only view during the time of Christ was that Daniel was written in the sixth centuryB.C., Christ’s affirmation of the historicity of the individual Daniel also assumes the sixth century date(Miller, 35). Jesus also exhibited belief that the prophecies of Daniel, which He quoted from (Matt.24:15, 21, 30; 26:64; Mark 13:14, 14:62, Luke 22:69), came from Daniel himself, not a later author writing fraudulently. It is also helpful to note that the writers of the New Testament also affirmed thehistorical person of Daniel in the same measure as they affirmed the historicity of Gideon, Barak,Samson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel (Heb. 11:33). One is left with two mutually exclusive positions,the first is that Daniel was written by an anonymous author in the second century B.C.; therefore thecanonical text itself, the testimony of Jesus, and of the New Testament writers are false, the scripture isnot inerrant nor inspired, and Jesus was not divine nor truthful. The second and only acceptable viewwithin Christianity is that Daniel was written by Daniel in the sixth century in accordance with thetestimony of the inerrant word of God and Jesus’ own words.
Ezekiel and Other Pre-Maccabean References
Very important to verification of the historicity of Daniel is the references to Daniel that Ezekielmakes on three occasions (Ezek. 14:14,20; 28:3). These were written during the sixth century exilic period in which Daniel was written, after Daniel had ascended to a high rank in the Babylonian king’scourt (Leupold, 5-7), over twelve years after Daniel’s deportation (Miller, 42). These references statethat if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in Jerusalem they would save only themselves bytheir righteousness (Ezek 14:14, 20), and the king of Tyre is mockingly asked “are you wiser thanDaniel” (Ezek. 28:3). Liberal scholarship, which dates Daniel to a date later than the sixth century,completely disregard these three references in Ezekiel saying, “The Bible contains no reference to a prophet by this name outside the book of Daniel” (Collins, 86), or they suggest that the Daniel Ezekielwas referring to was a different Daniel than the author of the book bearing that name. The only figurethat has been suggested (to my knowledge) is a figure named Daniel (Dânêl) from the Ugaritic (about1400 B.C.) story of Aqhat (Collins, 87). This “traditional saint” is portrayed as being sympathetic toorphans and widows and thus is asserted to qualify as a righteous man on par with Noah and Job(Montgomery, 2-4). A little investigation will reveal, however, that the suggestion that this is the Danielof Ezekiel is highly improbable (in not outright absurd). This ancient Canaanite, Daniel, was a devoutworshipper of Baal and partook of food in the house of Baal. He was a pagan idolater who was knownfor cursing enemies and lived without any hope or belief in Yahweh (Pritchard, 149-155). Furthermore,the context in which these figures of righteousness are found is Ezekiel’s rebuke of Israel, specifically,those whose idolatry brought God’s Judgment upon the nation. The heavy rebuke against idolatry andexposure of Israel’s unfaithfulness in Ezekiel 14:1-13 is sharply contrasted with the righteousness of -3-