The Biblical Book of Daniel was supposedly written by the prophet Daniel in Babylon during an era in which the city was conquered by the Persians. While many scholars do still hold to this traditional view, others now believe it is a forgery from the era of Alexander the Great or even later. But what does the evidence actually show?
According to the Book of Daniel itself, the author was Daniel the prophet. He was a member of the royal class of Jerusalem. A decade before the destruction of Jerusalem, the Babylonians took Daniel and many others into exile in Babylon.
There, Daniel served as a prophet of the God of the Israelites. He also began to write the book bearing his name. Daniel’s career continued for many decades thereafter. The Book of Daniel documents events involving his career up until just after Cyrus‘ conquest of Babylon in 539 BC.
Therefore, according to the Bible itself, the Book of Daniel was written throughout the first half of the sixth century BC.
However, this traditional view has come under fire in the modern era. Many scholars today believe the Book of Daniel is actually a forgery written in Alexander the Great’s empire, or potentially even later. What is the basis for this?
Essentially, there are two main reasons. The first is that many scholars have argued that the Book of Daniel contains various historical errors. These supposedly show that it cannot be a contemporary account.
The primary example of this is the identity of the king of Babylon at the time of the fall. According to historians, the king of Babylon, when conquered by Cyrus, was King Nabonidus. However, in the Book of Daniel, Nabonidus does not appear. Instead, the king of Babylon is a certain Belshazzar.
The second major reason is that there are certain features in the book which supposedly fit the Hellenistic Era better than the era in which Daniel would have lived. Examples include the vocabulary. Notably, the Book of Daniel contains some Greek words, which seems highly unusual for a book written in Babylon centuries prior to the conquests of Alexander the Great.
Despite the fact that this is a fairly popular viewpoint in modern times, not all scholars agree. Many still hold to the traditional view that the Book of Daniel was not a forgery but was written by Daniel in the sixth century BC.
Archaeology has a large bearing on this issue. As previously mentioned, one of the main reasons the Book of Daniel could have been forged is the inclusion of a seemingly-fictional king named Belshazzar in place of the historical King Nabonidus.
However, archaeology has now revealed that Belshazzar did exist. He was the son of King Nabonidus. Contemporary tablets show Nabonidus spent a considerable amount of time outside of Babylon. This includes, specifically, the period in which Cyrus of Persia conquered the city.
These tablets reveal that while Nabonidus was away, his son Belshazzar acted as king. In fact, one passage includes the statement that Nabonidus “entrusted the kingship” to Belshazzar. Therefore, the depiction of Belshazzar as king in the Book of Daniel is not inaccurate.
Furthermore, although Nabonidus does not directly appear in the Book of Daniel, Belshazzar offers to reward Daniel by making him the third most powerful individual in the kingdom. Why did he not pronounce him the second most influential? Evidently, it was because Belshazzar himself was only the second, not the first, most powerful, he being subject to his father Nabonidus.
What about the argument that the Greek in the Book of Daniel proves it was a forgery written in the Hellenistic Era? In the past, scholars argued that the Book of Daniel contained numerous Greek words. Now, linguists have determined that most of them are actually Persian words and not Greek at all.
Given the close connections between Babylon and Persia in Daniel’s era, this is not surprising. Nevertheless, there also are some genuine Greek words in the Bible’s account. However, it appears that these are limited to the names of three musical instruments.
Does this show that the Book of Daniel must have been a forgery from the Hellenistic Era? Surely, if it was really the product of Alexander the Great’s empire, then we would expect far more than the mere three technical Greek words in the entire book.
Rather than suggesting that the Book of Daniel was written in the Hellenistic Era, this points towards the opposite conclusion.
In terms of how any number of Greek words could have found their way into the biblical account, we need to remember that the Greeks already had interactions with the Middle Eastern empires long before Alexander the Great’s time.
For example, as early as the eighth century BC, the Assyrians fought against the Greeks on the coasts of Anatolia. Greeks also composed part of the army that fought against Nebuchadnezzar in Egypt shortly after Jerusalem was destroyed. Very plausibly, Greeks could have been brought back to Babylon as slaves during such conflicts.
This is perfectly compatible with the small number of Greek words found in the text.
There is at least one strong piece of evidence that argues against the conclusion that the Book of Daniel was a forgery from the Hellenistic Era. As noted above, the account accurately presents Belshazzar as the reigning king of Babylon at the time of its conquest by the Persians.
Significantly, Belshazzar is not mentioned in any surviving non-Biblical source. It appears that later historians, even those from Babylon itself, such as Berossus, simply forgot about him. The conquest of Babylon is described by ancient historians, but these accounts never make mention of Belshazzar.
The closest example that we find is Herodotus‘ account of this event. He does mention that Nabonidus had a son who was in Babylon, but he does not refer to him as Belshazzar. In fact, he calls him by the same name as his father. Xenophon appears to make reference of Belshazzar without providing any name at all.
Later accounts simply omit mention of this historical figure entirely. Therefore, if the Book of Daniel was a forgery written in the Hellenistic Era, how would the writer have known about King Belshazzar?
This is one of the main reasons why many scholars today accept the traditional view that the Book of Daniel was indeed written in the sixth century BC as claimed.
