AN EVANGELICAL RESPONSE TO VATICINIUM EX EVENTU

AND THE DATING OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL

Tomasz Krazek

OT 796: Old Testament Introduction

August 13, 2016

 1

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION OF THE ISSUE .................................................................................................. 2

HISTORY OF THE ISSUE ............................................................................................................. 3

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ISSUE ..................................................................................................... 4

LINGUISTIC CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................. 5

PERSIAN ......................................................................................................................................... 6

GREEK ........................................................................................................................................... 7

HEBREW ........................................................................................................................................ 8

ARAMAIC ....................................................................................................................................... 9

CHALDEANS .................................................................................................................................. 10

APOCALYPTIC GENRE ...................................................................................................................... 10

HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................... 11

DANIEL 1:1 .................................................................................................................................. 11

BELSHAZZAR ................................................................................................................................. 12

DARIUS THE MEDE ......................................................................................................................... 13

ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES .............................................................................................................. 15

CANONICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................... 17

CANONICAL PLACEMENT ................................................................................................................. 17

BEZ SIRACH .................................................................................................................................. 17

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 18
 2

Introduction of the Issue

The Christian Church throughout ages has always believed that Scripture is God’s very

word, and therefore inerrant and infallible. One of the evidences of the uniqueness of Scripture is

its many instances of fulfilled prophecy, both in the Old and the New Testaments. Fulfilled

prophecy has always been an important evidence for the truthfulness of the Bible. Eugene

Merrill pointed out in one of his works that,

One of the most ancient and potent weapons in the armory of biblical polemics is that of
fulfilled prophecy. If it can be demonstrated conclusively that a biblical prediction has
come to pass in the time and manner intended by its author, such a correspondence
carries ipso facto evidence of something beyond natural happenstance; indeed, it is an
argument for Divine revelation, inspiration, and inerrancy1

The book of the Bible that is probably the most unique in this regard is the book of Daniel. The

events predicted in the book have been fulfilled with detail and accuracy. As Pentecost points

out, “The book unfolds details concerning the history of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and

Rome. Details recorded in Daniel 11:5–35 were fulfilled in the fourth to the second centuries

B.C.”2 Because of this, the book became a favorite not only of Christians, who see God’s

supernatural hand moving through the author, but also a favorite of sceptic critics, who deny the

supernatural, reject predictive prophecy, and therefore attack the traditional dating of Daniel

(around 536 B.C.), arguing that it was written in the second century B.C., during the Maccabean

period (175-163 B.C.). The critics’ explanation then, for the fulfilled prophecy in Daniel, is that

the prophecy is actually vaticinum ex eventu.

1
Eugene Merrill, “Internal Evidence for the Inerrancy of the Pentateuch,” The Conservative Theological
Journal 2 (June 1998): 119 cited in Mike Stallard, “Inerrancy in the Major Prophets,” The Conservative Theological
Journal Volume 3 3, no. 9 (1999): 175.
2
J. Dwight Pentecost, “Daniel,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed.
J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1324.
 3

Vaticinum ex eventu is a Latin phrase which literally means “prophesying from an

outcome.”3 In other words, the phrase is used as a technical term to designate written words that

are considered to be not a real prediction made in the past, but rather a recollection of what had

already taken place in the past, but is articulated in such a way as to look as if it was originally

composed before the events took place. Vaticinum ex eventu is a prophecy after the event; a

prophecy made after the fact; it is a prophecy that in fact is not a prophecy at all.

The traditional position of conservative Christians is that the book of Daniel was written

by Daniel in the sixth century B.C. it portrays his true experience in exile (Daniel 1-6), and

reports the visions of the future, which God has revealed to him (Daniel 7-12).4

The book of Daniel contains several difficulties that critics use in defense of their view.

This paper will address some of them and defend the conservative evangelical view of an early

date of Daniel and predictive prophecy.

History of the Issue

The first person recorded to question the dating of Daniel was a Neo-Platonist

philosopher Porphyry, in the third century B.C. (232-303). In his polemic Against the Christians,

he attempted to provide a rationalistic explanation of Daniel. 5 Porphyry argued that “he who

wrote the book under the name of Daniel lied for the sake of reviving their hope.”6

3
Arthur G. Patzia and Anthony J. Petrotta, “vaticinum ex eventu,” Pocket Dictionary of Biblical
Studies (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 121.
4
Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Hermeneutical Issues in the Book of Daniel,” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 23, no. 1 (March 1980): 13.
5
Gleason L. Archer Jr., “Modern Rationalism and the Book of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 136, no. 542
(Apr 1979): 129.
6
Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel, trans. Gleason L. Archer, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1958), 140–
44, quoted in Archer, “Modern Rationalism”, 129.
 4

Porphyry refers here to the Jewish rebels who desired to be freed from the oppression of

Antiochus IV. And as Miller notes, Porphyry’s “polemic Against the Christians has been lost….

Porphyry reasoned ‘from the a priori assumption that there could be no predictive element in

prophecy.’”7 The Church condemned Porphyry and his views remained unchallenged until the

Enlightenment era and the rise of the higher criticism in Europe. Again, Archer summarizes it

well,

Revealed prediction by a supernatural God was completely out of the question so far as
these rationalists were concerned. All apparently successful prediction had to be
explained as vaticinium ex eventu (“prophecy after the event”). According to this view,
no attention should be given to the arguments of Bible-believing scholars, no matter how
learned they might be, for genuine predictive prophecy was a sheer impossibility. Ever
since 1806 the rationalist school of biblical criticism has been content to restrict their
reading to the works of one another. They have felt no need of working out any serious
refutation of evidence advanced by conservative scholarship. They only mention such
authors in order to scoff them away.8

As Yamauchi points out, many of the scholars today, who claim to be Christian, actually prefer

the anti-Christian views of Porphyry.9 But does it really matter? Is it really such a big issue? Yes

it is.

Significance of the Issue

Objections to predictive prophecy are founded in the objections to the historicity of

biblical records. And the historicity of biblical records, such as Daniel, is of utmost importance.

Waltke provides at least three reasons why. First, God’s sovereignty is at stake. If the God of the

Bible is able to predict the future with detail and accuracy, it means that He is completely

7
Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman,
1994), 23–24.
8
Archer, “Modern Rationalism”, 130.
9
Yamauchi, “Hermeneutical Issues”, 17.
 5

sovereign over history. On the other hand, if the predictions are fabricated, then one must wonder

about the type of god, God is. Second, the inspiration of Scripture is at stake. If the given

predictions are not true, but false and spurious, then the reliability of the rest of the Bible can be

questioned. However, if the predictions are true and correct, then the people of God may be

strengthened in their trust and affirmation of the divine origin of the Bible. Third, the nature of

Christ is at stake. Jesus considered Daniel as a historic prophetic figure, the book as a prophetic

insight into the future events, and the whole future as an unfolding of God’s divine program

(Matt 24:15-16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20). If Christ was wrong in his understanding of the book,

then He must be less then God incarnate.10

The author will now turn to list, explain and refute some of the most common arguments

sceptics use to undermine the historicity of Daniel and thus argue for it being vaticinum ex

eventu. The discussion will be divided into three main categories: linguistic considerations,

historical considerations, and canonical considerations.

Linguistic Considerations

The book of Daniel contains words from at least four different languages: Hebrew,

Aramaic, Persian, and Greek. Chapters 1:1-2:4a and 8:1-12:13 are written in Hebrew, while

2:4b-7:28 in Aramaic. Plus, throughout the book, there are several loanwords of Persian and

Greek origin. Critics often refer to the literary and linguistic characteristics of Daniel in support

of a late date of the book, being of Palestinian—not Babylonian—origin. Driver, for example,

based on his interpretation of the literary data of the books of Daniel, states with confidence:

“The verdict of the language of Daniel is thus clear. The Persian words presuppose a period after

10
Bruce K. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 133, no. 532 (Oct 1976): 320.
 6

the Persian empire had been well established: the Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports;

and the Aramaic permits, a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (B.C.

332).”11 Soggin notes with certainty that the language of Daniel is surely postexilic.12 Reid

states, “Although the linguistic evidence is meager, the presence of Greek and Persian loanwords

would seem to indicate a Hellenistic context.”13 Are the critics correct?

Persian

The use of Persian words in the Aramaic part of Daniel does not make a strong case for a

late date but rather for an earlier date of the composition of the book.14 First, since Daniel

completed his book after the Persian conquest of Babylon and also served in the new Persian

administration, it would be natural for him to adopt the new language wherever fitting.15 Miller

points out that about half of the approximately twenty Persian words used in Daniel “are in the

class of governmental terminology, names of officials and so forth. Just the kind of words one

would expect to find updated to avoid confusion for persons living under the new regime.”16

Kitchen concludes that the type of Persian used in Daniel is more coherent with an early

date of composition. He explains several lines of evidence. He points out that the that it would

have been natural for the Aramaic to borrow vocabulary from the Persian language and that “the

11
S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1950), 508.
12
Alberto J. Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1989), 477.
13
Stephen Breck Reid, “Daniel, Book of,” ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck,
Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2000), 315.
14
R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (1969; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1979), 1125.
15
Miller, 28.
16
Ibid, cf. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (1949; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969), 23.
 7

almost unconscious assumption that Persian words would take time to penetrate into Aramaic

(i.e., well after 539 BC) is erroneous.”17 Kitchen then continues to point out that it would be

quite obvious for Daniel, writing the book after the third year of Cyrus (Dn 10:1), to utilize at

least some of the Persian words, especially being in close contact with the administration of the

Empire.18

Another significant fact that Kitchen notes, is that “the Persian words in Daniel are

specifically, Old Persian words,”19 that is, they occur within the language up until 300 B.C.20

Greek

There are three words of Greek origin used in the book of Daniel. Is Driver correct to

state that the presence of these words demands a date of composition after 332 B.C? Not at all.

The three Greek words used in Daniel are: ‫קיתרס‬, ‫שׂבך‬, and ‫ ְפּ ַסנְט ִֵרין‬. All three nouns appear in

Daniel 3:5, 7, 10, 15, and all three refer to musical instruments.21 New American Standard Bible

translates these as lyre, trigon, and psaltery. If Daniel was in fact written in the second century

B.C., it is very striking that there are not more Greek words employed in the text. As an example,

the government officials are referred to in Daniel with Persian terms rather than Greek ones, as

noted earlier.22 Yamauchi observes, “In light of the many contacts of Greeks with the Near East

17
K. A. Kitchen, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel (Eugene, OR:
Wipf and Stock Publishers, n.d.), 41.
18
Ibid, 41-42.
19
Robert I. Vasholtz, “Qumran and the dating of Daniel,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
21, no. 4 (1978): 315-16.
20
Harrison, 1125.
21
Waltke, 324.
22
Kitchen, 50.
 8

before the fifth century, it should not be surprising to find Greek words in an Aramaic document

of that date. The only element of surprise to this writer is that there are not more Greek words in

such documents.”23

Furthermore, as Keil points out, “there was extensive intercourse between the inhabitants

of Upper Asia and Greece, extending to a period long before the time of Daniel, so that the

importation of Greek instruments into Nineveh was no by means a strange thing, much less could

it be so during the time of the Chaldean supremacy in Babylon, the merchant-city, as Ezekiel.”24

Archeological evidence appears to be in favor of such a view. The discovery of the Aramaic

documents of Elephantine which are dated to the fifth century B.C., confirms that Greek words

were used in Aramaic literature that early.25

Hebrew

When it comes to the Hebrew of Daniel, it is similar to the Hebrew of “Ezekiel, Haggai,

Ezra, and Chronicles, and not the later Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus, as some writers have

maintained, arguing from Hebrew fragments preserved in rabbinic quotations and also from the

Syriac of the Peshita version.”26 Miller points the readers to the work of Archer in his

commentary on Daniel, where Archer, based on the examination of sample Hebrew texts from

23
Edwin M. Yamauchi, Greece and Babylon: Early Contacts Between the Aegean and the Near
East (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1967), 94.
24
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 9 (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1996), 507–508. For a more detailed discussion of early contacts between Greece and the Near East,
see Kitchen, 44–48, and Yamauchi, Greece and Babylon.
25
Miller, 29. Cf. E. G. Kraeling, ed., The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1953), 40.
26
Harrison, 1125.
 9

Qumran (1QS and 1QM), establishes that the Hebrew of Daniel came from an early period.27

Miller then concludes that, “to insist that the Book of Daniel is late on the basis of the Hebrew is

not in accordance with the available data,” and points readers to resources for further study of the

topic.28

Aramaic

The Aramaic of Daniel does not pose any problems for an early dating of the book.

Waltke notes: “The studies of Rosenthal have shown that the kind of Aramaic employed in

Daniel was that which grew up in the courts and chancelleries from the seventh century B.C. on

and subsequently became widespread in the Near East.”29 Merrill points out that most linguists

today consider the Aramaic of Daniel “to be in the Imperial dialect like that of Ezra and the

Elephantine papyri, neither of which is later than the fifth century.”30

Merrill also notes that certain characteristics of even the Qumran text of Daniel, such as

internal vowel-change passives (hophal rather than prefix hit) evidence an early composition of

the book.31

27
G. L. Archer, Jr., “Daniel,” The Expositor's Bible Commentary with the New International Version:
Daniel and the Minor Prophets,” ed. F.E. Gaebelien, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 23–24 cited in Miller, 32.
28
Ibid.

29
Franz Rosenthal, Die Aramaistische Forschung (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1939), 66ff, cited in Waltke, 322–
23.
30
Franz Rosenhal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramiac (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1963), 5-6, cited in
Eugene H. Merrill, “The Book of Daniel,” The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old
Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2011), 407. See also G. F. Hasel, “The Book of Daniel and
Matters of Language: Evidence Relating to Names, Words, and the Aramaic Language,” AUSS 19 (1981): 211-25.
31
Ibid. See also Gleason Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd. ed. (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1994), 433.
 10

Chaldeans

The term Kasdɩ̂ m (Chaldeans) was widely thought to be used only in an ethnic sense in

the sixth century B.C.—designating Nebuchadnezzar’s race. However, in the book of Daniel, the

term is used mainly in the technical sense (Dan 2:5,10; 4:7; 5:7,11,30), that is, as designating a

class of wise men—sorcerers. Based on this fact, critics argue that Daniel must have been written

much later. Are they right? Not at all, because it was discovered that Herodotus, in his Persian

Wars dating to the fifth century, used the term “Chaldeans” in both senses32, “and accepted the

fact that certain of their religious procedures went back to at least the time of Cyrus.”33 It should

also be pointed out that the term does also appear in an ethnic sense in Daniel 5:30.

Apocalyptic Genre

Another objection to an early date of Daniel is founded on the presence of apocalyptic

literature in the book. Since the apocalyptic genre became most common and abounding in the

apocryphal and pseudo-epigraphical literature in Israel in the later times of Maccabees (2nd

century B.C.), therefore many critics conclude that Daniel must have been written in that

period.34 However, as Pentecost points out, “apocalyptic literature is found in the Book of

Ezekiel and he, like Daniel, was a sixth-century prophet.”35 Merrill also notes that Joel,

32
Herodotus, The Histories (I. 181), trans. Aubrey de Selincourt (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1954),
114.
33
Harrison, 1113.
34
Pentecost, 1325.
35
Ibid.
 11

Zechariah, and Isaiah 24-27, demonstrate apocalyptic forms and motifs, “all of which are

conceded to be exilic or even earlier.”36

All that being said, neither Hebrew nor the Aramaic of Daniel, and neither Persian nor

Greek loanwords, demand a late date for the writing of Daniel. Neither does the use of the term

“Chaldeans” nor the apocalyptic nature of some portions of the book. Rather contrary to that, the

linguistic features stand in favor of an early composition of the book.

Historical Considerations

The book of Daniel is accused of containing several historical inaccuracies or errors.

Based on that assumption, critics regard that the author of the book could not be an eyewitness to

the events he described.

Daniel 1:1

The very first verse of Daniel is accused by critics to be historically inaccurate. Daniel

1:1 states, “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of

Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.” However, Jeremiah 25:1 and 46:2 state that the

fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign—not the third—was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. Was

Daniel or Jeremiah wrong? Actually, they both were correct. The error lies with the critics, not

with the biblical authors. The apparent contradiction results from the fact that Jeremiah wrote

from the Jewish perspective, while Daniel wrote from the Babylonian one. The Babylonians did

not count the year of the king’s accession to the throne as the first year of his reign. The first year

of the king’s reign began on the first day of the new year. However, in Palestine, where Jeremiah

36
Merrill, The World and the Word, 406.
 12

functioned as a prophet, the year in which the king acceded to the throne was regarded as the

first year of his reign.37 Thus, the contradiction in Dan 1:1 is only an apparent one.

Belshazzar

Daniel mentions Belshazzar in chapter 5 and there two issues that arise from this fact.

First, is Belshazzar a historical person or a product of literary imagination? Second, was the

author wrong to refer to Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar’s son?

For many years, critics considered Nabonidus to have been the last king of Babylon. The

book of Daniel used to be the only ancient source to mention Belshazzar in that role. However,

as Alfred Hoerth put it: “Belshazzar represents a classic case of critical scholarship’s premature

denial of Bible history.”38 “Premature”, because we now possess ample archeological evidence

that Belshazzar indeed existed and was Nabonidus’ son.39 Hoerth then explains in more detail:

Since ancient Greek historians identified Nabonidus as the last ruler of the Babylonian
Empire and made no mention of Belshazzar, nineteenth-century scholarship concluded
that Belshazzar was a fictitious biblical invention. Subsequently, inscriptions were found
that made reference to Belshazzar as Nabonidus’s eldest son and crown prince. It is true
that Belshazzar is never referred to as king in any of the documents, but there are
indications that he held a special status, and one document has him entrusted with both
the kingship and the army. Therefore, the Bible’s reference is to Belshazzar’s functional
governmental role.40

37
Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and
Problems of Chronology in the Bible, Revised ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 202; D. J.
Wiseman, “Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel” in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, 16-
18; Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Corporation, 1983),
182-86.
38
Alfred J. Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 379.
39
Miller points out that, “According to P.-A. Beaulieu, thirty-seven archival texts dated from the first to the
fourteenth year of Nabonidus now attest to Belshazzar’s historicity” P.-A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King
of Babylon 556–539 B.C. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 90; cf. 156–57, footnoted in Miller, 147.
40
Miller, 147.
 13

Furthermore, comparing cruciform evidence that has been discovered with Daniel 5, not only

allows for an early date of composition, but actually testifies that the author of the book of

Daniel “possessed a more accurate knowledge of Neo-Babylonia and early Achaemenid Persian

history than any other known historian since the sixth century B.C.”41

The questions sometimes raised about Belshazzar’s designation as a son of

Nebuchadnezzar has been dealt with thoroughly by Dougherty, who points out that Belshazzar

was a son of Nabonidus’ marriage with Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, Nitrocris, most likely as

early as 585 B.C.42 Archer explains: “a grandfather in Hebrew usage is often referred to as a

‘father’ (Heb. ‫ אב‬and Aram. ‫)אבּא‬, as, for example, in Genesis 28:13 and 32:10. Indeed, there is

no other term for ‘grandfather’ besides this in the Old Testament.”43

Darius the Mede

Rowley points out that the references to Darius the Mede in Daniel 5:30-6:1 “have long

been recognized as providing the most serious historical problem in the book.”44 Critics believe

that the author of Daniel is confusing historical facts when he gives credit to Darius for capturing

Babylon instead of Cyrus the Persian, and that he confuses Darius the Mede with the third

successor after Cyrus, namely Darius the son of Hystapses who was actually Persian, not Mede.

41
Waltke, 328. Waltke further elaborates: “Even Pfeiffer, who was one of the more radical critics of
Daniel, was compelled to concede that it will presumably never be known how the author learned that the new
Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar, as the excavations have proved, and that Belshazzar, mentioned only
in Babylonian records, in Daniel, and in (1:1), which is based on Daniel, was functioning as king when Cyrus took
Babylon in 539 B.C. There is no mystery, however, for as Albright and Dougherty admit, the chapter is from the
hand of a person contemporary with the events,” 328-29.
42
Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, 60–68, cited in Archer, “Modern Rationalism”, 135.
43
Archer., “Modern Rationalism”, 135.
44
H. H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel (Cardiff, 1959), 9,
cited in Wiseman, 9.
 14

In regard to the latter accusation, Archer points out that the internal evidence of the text

of Daniel shows no indication that the author is calling Darius the son of Hystaspes a Mede.

Rather, “The author asserts that Darius the Mede was sixty-two years old when he assumed the

rule in Babylonia, yet it was well known to the ancients that Darius the Great was a relatively

young man when he commenced his reign in 522.”45

When it comes to identification of Darius the Mede, there is no solid evidence as to who

he was. However, scholars must remember that “absence of evidence does not signify evidence

of absence.”46 Critics, for many years had been wrong about Belshazzar. They might be wrong

about Darius the Mede when they accuse the author of fictitious information. In fact, the studies

of Robert Wilson and John Whitcomb provide a very good solution to the problem of

identification of Darius.47 In their work they explain that “Darius” was a royal title given to

Gubaru, a governor appointed by Cyrus and mentioned in tablets dated from 535-525 B.C.48

Wiseman offers a different possible solution to the problem of identification of Darius the

Mede, namely that the name “Darius” was applied to Cyrus himself.49 According to Whitcomb,

such interpretation would accord well with the prophecies of Isaiah 13:17 and Jeremiah

51:11,28, and with the fact that there was a close connection of Medes and Persians during the

reign of Cyrus, because of his marriage, conquest, inheritance, and language.50

45
Archer, Survey, 427.
46
Michael A. Grisanti, “Old Testament Introduction Class Notes” (The Master’s Seminary, Sun Valley,
CA, Summer 2016).
47
Robert D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel (1917; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1972); John
C. Whitcomb, Jr., Darius the Mede (1959; repr., Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company,
1973).
48
Whitcomb, 21.
49
Wiseman, 12-16
50
Ibid, 14.
 15

Another solution of the problem is proposed by William Shea, who notes that it is

possible that “Darius” was a name for a Gautian general named Ugbaru, who seized Babylon for

Cyrus and died within a short time.51

Antiochus IV Epiphanes

Archer summarizes that critics point out that the predictions of Daniel in chapter 11:1-35

agree to such a degree with the events of the Seleucid period and specifically with the reign of

Antiochus IV Epiphanes, that it necessary to understand these predictions not as predictions but

as a historical fiction being written by someone who lived in the reign of Antiochus IV (175-164

B.C.) in order to encourage the Jews in that generation to join Maccabees in their fight against

the Syrian oppression.52 This point is difficult to argue based on any evidence, because it is

simply rooted in a presupposition of disbelief that God could have spoken through the prophet

and predict future event in detail.

Still, it might be worth noting that there are several internal proofs in the text itself that

support an early date of composition rather the a later one. First, as Miller points out, one must

wonder why are there so few and imprecise allusions to the Maccabean crisis, especially since,

supposedly the material was written only a short time after the events took place.53 Ferch

comments, “Even if the author was a member of the Hasidim or was a pacifist, it is unlikely that

51
William H. Shea, “The Search for Darius the Mede (Concluded), or, The Time of the Answer to Daniel’s
Prayer and the Date of the Death of Darius the Mede,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12, no. 1 (Spring
2001): 97-105.
52
Archer, Survey, 438.
53
Miller, 27.
 16

he would not warm up more to the successes of his countrymen and that he would leave

unnamed such heroes as Mattathias and Judas Maccabeus.”54

Another point that Miller brings up against the Maccabean view of composition is that

“the pagan governments in the historical accounts in Daniel do not exhibit a hostile attitude

toward the Jews, contrary to conditions under Antiochus IV.”55 Even if one accepts the idea that

Nebuchadnezzar and Darius served as types of Antiochus, “ one must explain why Daniel is not

presented as an enemy of these rulers, but more as a friend, greatly respected by the king himself.

“Such a scenario certainly does not correspond to the time of Antiochus, when the godly
Jews were being persecuted and murdered by that pagan despot. These Jews did not
admire Antiochus but despised his evil ways. Even if the stories were written earlier than
the second century B.C. and adapted by a Maccabean author, it seems logical to expect
that he would have changed elements of the stories to fit his present situation.”56

One more issue should be mentioned regarding Antiochus IV, and that is his death. It is told that

Daniel 11:36-45 does not correspond with the historical events of Epiphanes’ death, who died in

Persia and not in Palestine like the author of Daniel predicts. However, as Yamauchi points out,

“Conservative scholars believe that the final verses of Daniel 11 refer to future events involving

the Antichrist. They also believe that the prophecy of “seventy weeks” in Daniel 9 can be shown

to have predicted the precise date of Christ’s ministry.”57

54
A. J. Ferch, “The Book of Daniel and the ‘Maccabean Thesis’,” AUSS 21 (1983): 134–36, cited in Miller,
27.
55
Miller, 27.
56
Ibid.
57
Yamauchi, “Hermeneutical Issues,” 17. See also, Miller, 305ff.
 17

Canonical Considerations

Canonical Placement

In the Jewish canon, the book of Daniel is placed within the Kethubim (the Writings)

rather than the Prophets. Thus, Driver argues that the book must have been composed after the

prophetic canon was closed, and based on that, Driver argues for a late date of writing.58

However, as Merrill notes, “much of the wisdom literature is earlier than or

contemporary with Daniel as are Lamentations, many of the Psalms, Ezra-Nehemiah, and

Chronicles, all of which are in the Kethubim.”59 Archer, after discussing some historical aspects,

concludes, “the later assignments of Daniel to the third division of the canon is totally irrelevant

to the question of when the book was written.”60 Miller suggests that the best explanation for

inserting Daniel in the Writing rather than the Prophets was his role primarily as an

administrative and government official.61

Bez Sirach

Ben Sirach’s (Ecclesiasticus) failure to mention Daniel as a historical figure, in his list of

Israelite worthies (ca. 180 B.C.), is another argument which late-date proponents use in defense

of their view. However, it must be noted that Sirach fails to mention other figures, such as Ezra,

58
Driver, 497-98.
59
Merrill, The World and the Word, 406.
60
Archer, “Modern Rationalism,” 132.
61
Miller, 25.
 18

Isaiah, Jeremiah, all of the judges, Mordecai, and other persons of unquestionable historicity.62

Harrison’s words in this matter are adequate, too:

A proper assessment of the evidence provided by Ecclesiasticus should include

recognition of the possibility that Ben Sira deliberately excluded Daniel from his list of
notables for unknown reasons, as he did also with Job and all the Judges except Samuel,
as well as Kings Asa and Jehoshaphat, Mordecai, and even Ezra himself. Ecclesiasticus is
clearly limited in its usefulness as a ground of appeal for establishing the historicity of
certain well-known Hebrew personages, if, indeed, it should ever be employed at all in
this manner. It can be remarked, however, that there are illusions to Daniel and his book
in Maccabees (1 Macc. 2:59ff.) Baruch (1:15–3:3), and the Sibylline Oracles (III, 397ff.),
all of which are at least second-century B.C. compositions, and these works attest to the
familiarity of the Daniel tradition at that time.63

Conclusion

The evidence stands in favor of an early date of Daniel, and thus, viewing Daniel’s

predictions as Vaticina Ex Eventu has no solid basis, except for the presupposition of the critics

and their rejection of the supernatural. Merrill puts it well,

“The issue is thus fundamentally not one about the language, Weltanschauung, or
historical reliability of Daniel but its extensive incorporation of predictive prophecy. If
such a phenomenon has no basis in reality, then clearly no case can be made for
authorship by Daniel in the sixth century. However, if allowance can be made for a
prophet of God to see in advance his outworkings in history. There remains no reason to
challenge the ancient tradition of Daniel’s setting and its early composition.”64

The evidence of the sixth century composition of Daniel is solid. The reason why most scholars

today embrace the Maccabean view is their “liberal, naturalistic, and rationalistic philosophy.

Naturalism and rationalism are ultimately based on faith rather than on evidence; therefore, this

faith will not allow them to accept the supernatural predictions.”65

62
Miller, 25; Merrill, The World and the Word, 406.
63
Harrison, 1123-24
64
Merrill, The World and the Word, 407.
65
Watlke, 329.
 19

Is the view that Daniel’s preditions vaticina ex eventu valid? Not at all. Will the critics

admit it and recognize the supernatural divine authorship of Scripture? Most likely not. Archer

puts it well, “The committed antisupernaturalist, who can only explain the successful predictions

of Daniel as prophecies after the fulfillment, … is not likely to be swayed by any amount of

objective evidence whatever.”66

66
Gleason L. Archer, Jr., “Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from the Exile to Malachi,”
Bibliotheca Sacra 127 (October–December 1970): 297, cited in Waltke, 329.
 20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achtemeier, Paul J. and Harper & Row and Society of Biblical Literature, “Daniel, the Book of.”
Harper’s Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 205

Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. 3rd edition. Chicago, IL: Moody
Publishers, 1994.

______, "Modern Rationalism and the Book of Daniel." Bibliotheca Sacra 136, no. 542 (1979):
129–47.

Bandy, Alan S. and Benjamin L. Merkle. Understanding Prophecy: A Biblical-Theological

Approach. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2015.

Collins, J. J. Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. FOTL. Grand Rapids:

Eardmans, 1984.

Constable, Thomas L. “Notes on Daniel.” Online: www.soniclight.com. Accessed 3 July, 2016.

Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1950.

Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Translated by Peter R. Ackroyd. 1965.
Repint, New York: Harper and Row. 1974.

Finegan, Jack. Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient
World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible. Revised ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1998.

Fleming, Daniel E. The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. 1st ed. ed.
Edited by James B. Pritchard. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2010.

Geisler, Norman L. and Thomas Howe. The Big Book of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise
Answers from Genesis to Revelation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2008.

Grisanti, Michael. “Old Testament Introduction Class Notes.” The Master’s Seminary, Sun
Valley, CA, Summer 2016.

Harrison, R K. Introduction to the Old Testament. 1969. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing, 1979.

Hays, Daniel J. and Tremper Longman. The Message of the Prophets: A Survey of the Prophetic
and Apocalyptic Books of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010.

Herodotus, The Histories. Translated by Aubrey de Selincourt. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin,

1954.

Hoerth, Alfred J. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.
 21

Huey F. B. and Bruce Corley, “Vaticinium ex eventu.” In A Student’s Dictionary for Biblical
and Theological Studies. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983.

Keil, Carl F. and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament, volume 9. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1996.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. “The Aramaic of Daniel” in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of
Daniel. 31-79. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, n.d.

Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Daniel. 1949; Rperint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969.

Manton, M. E. A Dictionary of Theological Terms. London: Grace Publication Trust, 1996.

Merrill, Eugene H. “The Book of Daniel.” The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old
Testament. Edited by Eugene H. Merrill, Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti, 405-
413. Nashbille, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2011.

______, Stephen R. “Daniel, Book Of,” Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Edited by Chad
Brand et al. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.

Miller, Stephen R. Daniel: New American Commentary, Volume 18. Nashville, TN: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 1994.

Patzia, Arthur G. and Anthony J. Petrotta. Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010.

Reid, Stephen B. “Daniel” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by David Noel
Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, 314-15. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 2000.

Pentecost, Dwight J. “Daniel.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the

Scriptures. Edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, 1:1323-75. Wheaton, IL: Victor
Books, 1985.

Schatz, Elihu A. Proof of the Accuracy of the Bible: Based on Chronological, Organizational,
Prophetic and legal Analyses. Middle Village, NY: Jonathan David Publishers , 1973.

Shea, William H. “The Search for Darius the Mede (Concluded), or, The Time of the Answer to
Daniel’s Prayer and the Date of the Death of Darius the Mede.” Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society 12, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 97-105.

Soggin, Alberto J. Introduction to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Luisville, KY: Westminster, 1989.

Stallard, Mike. “Inerrancy in the Major Prophets.” Conservative Theological Journal 3, no. 9
(August 1999): 155-81.

Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1994.
 22

Vasholtz, Robert I. “Qumran and the dating of Daniel.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 21, no. 4 (December 1978): 303-321.

Waltke, Bruce. "The Date of the Book of Daniel." Bibliotheca Sacra 133, no. 532 (Oct-Dec
1976): 319–29.

Whitcomb, John C. Darius the Mede. 1959. Reprint, Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Company, 1973.

Wilson, Robert D. Studies in the Book of Daniel. 1917. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1972.

Wiseman, D. J. “Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel” in Notes on Some Problems
in the Book of Daniel. 9-18. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, n.d.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. Greece and Babylon: Early Contacts Between the Aegean and the Near
East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967.

______, “Hermeneutical Issues in the Book of Daniel.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 23, no. 1 (1980): 12-21.