The twelve new rules of dating
Although it does not actually claim to have been written in the sixth century BCE, the Book of Daniel gives clear internal dates such as "the third year of the reign of king Jehoiakim," (1:1), that is, 606 BCE); "the second year of the reign of king Nebuchadnezzar, " (2:1), that is, 603 BCE); "the first year of Darius," (9:1), that is 522 BCE); "in the third year of Cyrus," (10:1), that is 547 or perhaps 536).
Daniel and his associates are portrayed as Jewish Exiles in Babylon during that period.
These general prediction become much more detailed and specific when he predicts the conquest of the king of the south by a king of the north who "shall do as neither his fathers nor his father's fathers have done, scattering among them plunder, spoil, and goods" (). This king is "predicted" to cause the sacrifices of the Temple to cease ()and to set up a "desolating sacrilege" in the Temple () This can be non other than Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid ruler of Babylon who profaned the Jerusalem Temple in 167 BCE and set up a statue of Zeus with whom he identified himself.
Unfortunately, after these remarkably accurate "predictions" Daniel goes awry at () when he predicts that this king will be attacked by the king of the south etc. Finally, and of considerable significance, is the fact that the Book of Daniel was never grouped with the Hebrew Nevi'im (the Prophets) but has always belonged to the Ketuvim (the writings).
How could the author of the Book of Daniel make such an error if he lived and wrote at the time indicated?
The author of the Book of Daniel seems to place the rule of Cyrus after that of Darius, again an inexplicable error for an author contemporary with these events.
is the way we understand the name of Jesus to be pronounced in Hebrew.
Third it does not seem to be consistent with the facts that the Babylonians are presented as actively persecuting the Jews and attempting to destroy their religion.However, several internal inconsistencies give rise to certain questions and we are forced to ask whether these dates can be taken as the date of composition. The book of Daniel portrays him as the Babylonian king in the first year of whose reign Daniel has his dream of the four great beasts which come up out of the sea.(7:1-14) Belshazzar was said to have been slain after he saw the writing on the wall, at which time Darius the Mede supposedly took over the Babylonian kingdom () Actually Belshazzar was the son of the Babylonian king, Nabonidus, and he ruled in place of his father when Nabonidus went to live in Teima in the Arabian desert for eight years (c.What other evidence is there to support such a conclusion, apart from the fact that it answers our questions so neatly?First, stories about Daniel had circulated before the time of Antiochus and had long been used to encourage faithful obedience to and observance of Jewish law.