Daniel in Many Parts

Perhaps it is just me, but the last time I saw anything like the visions described in Daniel starting in Chapter 7, I was on hallucinogens.  [Ah, yes, back in the day.]  Perhaps the extreme and seemingly disjointed nature of these images can be ascribed to the influence of devine prophecy as opposed to REM or LSD. In the movie Donnie Darko (2001), similarly extreme visions appear before the protagonist as part of his ability to foresee the future.

I was disappointed in the way Bible Knowledge Commentary (BKC) by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck handled the book of Daniel. As a product of Dallas Seminary Faculty, I hoped to find a healthy and academic alternative to Coogan as a vehicle for bringing alternative perspectives to our classroom discussion on the Old Testament. Unfortunately, judging from the conclusions this book draws regarding Daniel, I don't believe I can use it as a resource. My take-away message from this experience was: Many people to whom we look for guidance (ministers, parents, teachers) are willing to spin facts to meet their own pre-conceived notions, and that their authoritative and beautiful words pose a genuine threat to true understanding.

In particular, BKC argues that the entire book of Daniel was written by one person, namely Daniel himself. It also argues that the book was written in the sixth century, around the time of some events in Daniel, as opposed to the second century, when other events in Daniel are addressed in the form of prophecy.

BKC accurately observes that the book of Daniel was originally written in two languages, Hebrew and Aramaic. This fact alone does not substantiate the notion Daniel was written by multiple authors. Many people living in this part of the world spoke both Hebrew and Aramaic throughout the time the book of Daniel may have been written. Occasional words in Greek and Latin can be attributed to the influence of commerce in the sixth century, BKC says. BKC contends the author, Daniel, used different languages to target different audiences: the part dealing with God's prophecy for the Gentiles in Aramaic and the part dealing with the effect of the Gentiles on Israel in Hebrew.

BKC also accurately observes that, regarding literary style, part of Daniel involves aspects of his life while another part deals with his revelations. The fact two literary styles are employed does not in itself argue for multiple authors, BKC contends. They note that the book of Job was written in two entirely different styles: prose and poetry. This observation ignores the fact part is written in first person and part in third person.

Stepping a bit out on a limb, BKC argues that both halves of Daniel contain extremely similar references to the same items, including references to dreams and visions, God's eternal kingdom, God's eternal dominion and God as the most high. The fact is, similar turns of phrase are found throughout the Bible in both new and old Testaments, and yet we do not suppose the entire Bible was written by one person.

The arguments put forth in BKC really break down when the authors say Daniel must have been written in the sixth century BCE as opposed to the third century BCE. BKC notes that Daniel is referred to many times as the recipient of God's revelation and that he, himself, participated in many of the historical events recorded in the book. Unfortunately, BKC references the book of Matthew from the New Testament to substantiate Daniel's credentials. As we know, the New Testament was written several centuries later and I do not believe can be used as a reliable reference regarding the Old Testament. BKC contends that Daniel's familiarity with the individuals spoken of in the book, and with the historical events and customs mentioned, necessitates sixth century date for the book. The “minute details included in the book could hardly have been retained accurately by oral tradition for some 400 years, as suggested by those who postulate a late date for the book,” BKC says. The fact is, many of the sixth century "facts" referenced in Daniel are inaccurate. Some of these inaccuracies include who was king of Judah during the fall of Jerusalem, when did Jerusalem fall to Nebuchadnezzar, how many kings reigned in Babylon during the Exile, who was the last king of Babylon, and who conquered Babylon. (Daniel in the Debunker's Den" by Frank R. Zindler.

BKC goes on to make an interesting variety of other arguments regarding the date and authorship of the book of Daniel but their compilation of evidence simply doesn’t hold up against facts to the contrary.