Q: In Dan, when was this book written?
A: Daniel was most likely written down shortly after the events occurred, in the 6th century B.C., according to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1324. Many Jewish youths were taken to Babylon in 805 B.C, and some commentators guess that Daniel was about 16 years old. This would make Daniel about 85 years old when the Persians captured Babylon.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.596 claims it could have been written as late as 165 B.C. However, the Jewish historian Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.5 (c.93-94 A.D.) records that when Alexander the Great approached Jerusalem, the High Priest Jaddua met him and showed Alexander part of the Book of Daniel where the Greeks would overcome the Persians. Alexander apparently was impressed, and left the Jews alone. See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.367 for more info on this, When Critics Ask p.291, and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.282-284 for more info in general on the date of the Book of Daniel.
Q: Was Dan written down in the second century (after Alexander's conquest), because of the Greek words found in Daniel?
A: No. While the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.597 claims "other subtle facets of the language used bespeak the Greek period rather than the time of Exile", there are only three Greek words in Daniel, which is less than the seven Persian words found. Here is more on these two points.
Only 3 Greek words are in Daniel (Daniel 3:5,10,15), and all three of them refer to musical instruments. 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.193 says that this does not show 2nd century authorship, as Assyrian inscriptions say Greek captives were in Mesopotamia in the 8th century B.C. In addition, in the 7th century, the Greek Alcaeus of Lebos mentions that his brother was serving in the Babylonian army. Likewise The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 1 p.247 also says that these formerly were thought to indicate a late date. However, "There is little doubt that the names of the instruments in Daniel were Old Persian in character, and were assimilated by the Greeks into their own culture with some orthographic modifications. Consequently this particular argument is no longer important for the literary criticism of Daniel"
7 Persian words are in Daniel referring to administration (Daniel 6:1-4,6-7). As 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.193 says, "…Daniel's correct use of these words simply cannot be explained if the author were an unknown second -century writer unfamiliar with the details of Persian government three hundred years before his time."
Q: Was Dan written after Sirach, since Sirach 47-49 contains a fairly exhaustive list of the Old Testament, omitting Daniel, as Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.623 says?
A: The time of the Maccabees was until about 165 B.C. However, four pieces of evidence are against this second century theory.
1. In the Apocrypha, 1 Maccabees 2:49-60 mentions Daniel and the three young men in such a way to imply that the book was already written by then. Otherwise, how would the readers of 1 Maccabees be expected to understand Daniel and the three young men? See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.367 for more info on this.
2. Archaeologists have dated a copy of the manuscript of Daniel at 120 B.C. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.436-438 mentions this, saying that this "brings into question the alleged Maccabean date of its composition."
3. Babylonian excavations show that the details of Daniel are correct. M. Lenormant says, "The more the knowledge of cuneiform texts advances, the more is felt the necessity to revise (correct) the too hasty condemnation of the book of Daniel by the German exegetical school" (La Magie p.14) (quoted from 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.367)
4. Also the reference in Josephus already mentioned in the previous question.
Q: In Dan, what is an outline of this book?
A: Here is a simple outline
Dan 1 Daniel’s Situation
Dan 2 Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream of the Statue
Dan 3 Nebuchadnezzar Makes his Own Statue
Dan 4 Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream of His Insanity
Dan 5 Belshazzar’s Feast and Writing on the Wall
Dan 6 Darius’ 30-Day Decree
Dan 7 Vision of the Four Beasts
Dan 8 Vision of the Ram and the Goat
Dan 9 Vision of the Seventy Sevens
Dan 10-12 Vision of the Macedonians
Q: In Dan 1:1, what do we know about Nebuchadnezzar II apart from the Bible?
A: His name is written in English both as Nebuchadnezzar and Nebuchadrezzar, but the latter is more similar to the way the Babylonians pronounced it. It means Nabo [a god] protect my frontier.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica (1972) Nebuchadnezzar II was the oldest son of Nabopolassar. He defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish in 605 B.C. When Nabopolassar died, Nebuchadnezzar II returned to Babylon and ruled from 605 B.C. to August/September 562 B.C. The Babylonian Chronicle gives details of his fighting Egypt, besieging Tyre, and defeating Judah in 597 B.C. He fought Elam in 596 B.C. and put down a revolt in 595 B.C.. After that the Babylonian Chronicle is missing here.
The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.696 has a photograph of a Babylonian decree listing the events from the last year of Nabopolassar to Nebuchadnezzar II’s 11th year. It mentions the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem.
Nebuchadnezzar built the hanging gardens of Babylon, which have been called one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. He built them for his wife Amytis, the daughter of king Astyages of Media.
Q: In Dan 1:1, did Nebuchadnezzar invade Judah in the third year of Jehoiakim, or in the fourth year as Jer 46:2 says?
A: Both, and this was only one invasion, because the dating system used in Judah in the fifth century B.C. was different than the one used in Babylon.
There is an interesting side note here. As 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.192 points out, no Jew writing centuries later would use a Babylonian calendar system that gave a year different from what Jeremiah wrote. Rather than being an error in the Book of Daniel, this confirms that Daniel was written in the fifth century rather than later.
When Critics Ask p.291-293 explains the details of the two calendar systems. The "Nisan" calendar system Jeremiah (and the Assyrians) used started in Nisan (April). Jehoiakim because of Judah a few days after the new year, so the first [full] year would start the first day of the following year. Daniel used the "Tishri" calendar where the new year started in "Tishri" around October. The first [full] year of Jehoiakim's reign started on that the first day of Tishri. The Babylonian invasion took place in the summer of 605 B.C.
See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.284-285 for more info.
Q: In Dan 1:2, where is Shinar?
A: Shinar is a synonym for the land of Babylonia. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.599 claims this is anachronistic. However, literary writers often used synonyms for the same word, and Daniel is doing so here.
Q: In Dan 1:6, how do you pronounce Belteshazzar?
A: The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.216 pronounces it as bel-te-SHAZ-er. The first and third syllables have short vowels, the "te" has a long e with a dot over it, and the "er" has an e with a tilde over it.
Q: In Dan 1:6, what did these names mean?
A: Here is what they meant according to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1330.
Belteshazzar was the Akkadian word Belet-sar-usur, which meant, "Lady, protect the King".
Shadrach was probably the Akkadian verb Saduraku, which meant "I am fearful [of a god]". Alternately, it might come from Aku, the Sumerian moon god.
Meshach possibly was the Akkadian verb mesaku, which meant "I despised, contemptible, humbled [before my god].
Abednego meant servant of [the god named] Nebo. Nebo was the Babylonian god of writing and vegetables. He was the son of Bel.
The names seemed to serve the purpose of reminding them that they were a conquered people, and exalting the Babylonian gods.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.600 gives totally different meanings. It says Belteshazar means "Bel protect his life", Shadrach means "Aku commands", Meshach was a word of doubtful meaning. He agrees that Abednego means "servant of Nebo".
Q: In Dan 1:7; 4:8, why did Daniel and the three other Jewish teenagers consent to have their names changed to be names that included pagan gods?
A: They probably did not have any choice in the matter. The Bible does not have a prohibition on someone having a name with a pagan idol, though a believer would normally not want to do so.
Q: In Dan 1:9 (KJV), what is "tender love" here?
A: The NKJV translates this as "favor and goodwill". The NIV translates this as "favor and sympathy". The NRSV and NASB translate this as "favor and compassion".
Q: In Dan 1:10, why could the Jews not eat this food?
A: Since these Jewish youths took the Old Testament dietary commands seriously, there were at least three reasons.
1. Some of this undoubtedly included pork, camel meat, and other animals they were prohibited to eat. In addition, even the clean animals probably were cooked in the same pots as the unclean ones.
2. For even the clean animals, the Jews could not eat the blood. We do not hear of ancient cultures draining the blood before cooking the animals.
3. There were other laws, such as one could not cook a young animal in its mother’s milk.
Q: In Dan 1:10-15, why did these Jewish boys look healthier than the others?
A: While scripture does not say, it could be a combination of at least five reasons.
1. It might be a miracle, outside of nature.
2. Perhaps the Jewish youths’ simple food, with no pork or delicacies, did not have any parasites and the other food did.
3. There were no preservatives, refrigerators, and few spices back then. (Food poisoning was probably more common then.)
4. Perhaps many in the royal court drank wine excessively. Besides being bad for your liver, I have been told that extensive drinking can make a light-complected person have a redder-appearing face. This is because small capillaries burst and give the reddish appearance.
5. A very simple possibility is that cutting down on food that is very fatty and sweet reduces the pimples on a person’s face.
Q: In Dan 1:11 (KJV), who was "Melzar"?
A: This might have been a proper name. On the other hand, this might have been a title, such as "chief official" (NIV), "steward" (NKJV and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1099-1100), "overseer" (NASB), or "guard" (NRSV).
Q: In Dan 1:12 (KJV), what is "pulse" to eat?
A: This King James Version word means vegetables or non-meat food.
Q: In Dan 1:12, what kind of vegetables did they eat?
A: The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1331 says this Hebrew word zeroa' was rather generic, and included grains and any food that was sown too.
Q: In Dan 1:20, were magicians and astrologers prominent in ancient Babylon?
A: Yes. In particular, western astrology traces its origins back to Babylon. Another, later source of astrology was Pergamum, but that was 400 years later, and that too came from Babylon.
Q: In Dan 1:21, did Daniel continue until the first year of Cyrus, or the third year as Dan 10:1 says?
A: Both, since Daniel continued even beyond the third year. Daniel 1:21 stresses that Daniel served as an official not only through the end of the Babylonian empire, but even into the Persian Empire. It does not say Daniel died or retired in the first year of Cyrus. Indeed, Daniel 10:1, perhaps written down slightly later, says even through the third year.
See When Critics Ask p.295 for more info.
Q: In Dan 2:1, why did God communicate directly to Nebuchadnezzar, an ungodly man, in a dream, instead of just speaking to Daniel?
A: A person’s wickedness does nothing to restrict God from communicating with them or using them for His ends.
Q: In Dan 2:2-10; 4:7; 5:7,11, who were the Chaldeans here?
A: While the Amorite Babylonian people were called Chaldeans, that is not what is meant here. Within Babylonian culture, the Chaldeans were a class of priests. The Amorites came from the northwest. The Chaldeans did not emerge from the Arabian desert, despite what Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.387 states.
Q: In Dan 2:2-10; 4:7; 5:7,11, does calling the priests Chaldeans show a later authorship, as some the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.601 maintains?
A: No. Gleason Archer has an extensive article in Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.285-286 discussing this.
1. Daniel uses the Hebrew term, Kasdim, not only to refer to priests, but also the Chaldean (Babylonian) people in Daniel 5:30. If using it to refer to priests showed a late authorship, then Daniel 5:30 would show an early authorship.
2. However, using this in two ways shows this was written around Daniel's time. The Akkadian language, which Babylonians in Daniel's time spoke, used the same word Kal-du (from the Sumerian Gal-du to refer to both the priests and the nation. A table dated in the 14th year of Shamash-shumukin (668-648 B.C.) uses Gal-du for the priests. Archer says the Babylonians prior to the fall of Assyria used Gas'du for the Chaldean people. After the fall of Assyria, they changed the consonant "s" in many words to the consonant "l".
3. The Greeks, who knew of the Babylonians long before Daniel was born, called the nation Chaldaioi.
See also When Critics Ask p.293 for more info.
Q: In Dan 2:2, how could Daniel be a Babylonian "wise man", since the wise men were trained in occultic arts?
A: The Jewish youths were trained in the language and literature of the Babylonians. It does not necessarily mean they were trained in religious or occultic arts, and even if they were, there was no evidence they practiced those. Notice in Daniel 2:2 that when Nebuchadnezzar summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, and astrologers, Daniel was not among them. Only later did Daniel hear about this. See 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.194 for more info.
Q: In Dan 2:4 (KJV), what is "Syriack"?
A: This is another name for the "Syriac" or the Aramaic language.
Q: Why was Dan 2:4b-7:28 written in Aramaic, while Dan 8:1-12:13 were written in Hebrew?
A: Daniel or his one or more secretaries could write in whatever language they deemed best; there is nothing more sacred about Hebrew. We do not know why the human authors chose to write it this way. One reason might be that the first chapters related to nations in the Mideast, while the last chapters relate specifically to the Jews.
Ezra 4:8-6:18 and Ezra 7:12-26 also were written in Aramaic. Also note that in Daniel chapters 1-6 are written in third person, while verse 7:2 starts in first person.
The Aramaic portion starts immediately after "answered the king in Aramaic". It does not go back to Hebrew until Daniel 8:1.
Q: In Dan 2:4b-7:28, what else do we know about Aramaic?
A: Aramaic was an extremely long-lived language, closely related to Hebrew. It was spoken by Laban and people of Syria back in Abraham's time (Genesis 31:47); it was spoken here, and in Jesus' time, and it was spoken for a few more centuries by Nestorians and other Christians in Syria and eastward. The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 1 p.247 says that linguistic research has shown there were four principal groups of Aramaic: Old Aramaic, Official Aramaic, Levantine Aramaic, and Eastern Aramaic. The Assyrians from c.1100-605 B.C. spoke Official Aramaic.
Outside of the Bible, "Aramaisms", including some found in the book of Daniel, have been seen in writings from Ugarit during the Amarna period, around 1400 B.C. the Expositor's Bible Commentary also says the Aramaic of Daniel was used from the 7th century and on, and used in the fifth century by Jews in the papyrii in Elephantine, Egypt and in Ezra. The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 1 p.403 says that this Aramaic is considerably different from the Aramaic written at Qumran near the time of Christ.
See The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.74-75 for a photograph of Aramaic written on pottery addressed to Eliashib, the probable commander of the fortress of Arad. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.123 says that abundant examples have been found of the Babylonians (605-538 B.C.) and the Persians using Aramaic in their official letters. The Borchardt collection has 13 Persian letters, written in Aramaic, from Egypt.
Q: In Dan 2:24, why did Daniel not let the pagan wise men of Babylon be killed?
A: Daniel had no hatred or ill-will toward them. One of God’s chosen people being involved in the occult or magic was punishable by death in the Old Testament. However, the Babylonian wise men were not all sorcerers, and even those that were probably did not know of the prohibitions in the Bible.
Q: In Dan 2:24-25, why did Arioch say he found Daniel, rather than Daniel came to him?
A: Perhaps Arioch wanted to get credit for something he did not do. Unfortunately, sometimes people today in business also want to get credit for things they did not do.
Q: In Dan 2:30, why was Daniel so careful to make it clear this wisdom was not from him, but straight from God?
A: In a society where people and lifeless images were worshipped for the slightest of reasons, Daniel wanted to make sure to communicate that it was God who should be praised here, and not Daniel.
Today, even when there is no chance of us being worshipped, it is important to give God the glory, rather than letting others give us the glory when they should be focused on God.
Q: In Dan 2:37-44, what were these four kingdoms and the mountain?
A: They are the Babylonian, Medeo-Persian, and Greek/Macedonian, and Roman Empires. Here are three clues to help us arrive at the answer.
1. These were not just any four Empires, but four Empires that superseded each other. Thus, Indian, Chinese, Mongol, and New World empires are not under consideration here.
2. Daniel 2:36-39 shows that the Neo-Babylonian Empire of Nebuchadnezzar is the first one. Thus, the Egyptian Empire cannot be one of the four, as it preceded the Babylonian Empire, yet existed in some form until Persian times. Likewise, the Assyrian Empire is not one of the four as it was destroyed forever prior to Nebuchadnezzar.
3. Jesus Christ, the Kings of Kings, will set up His kingdom during the time of the fourth empire.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.603 claims the Median and Persian Empire were counted as two empires, and the fourth empire was Alexander's Macedonian Empire. Asimov probably says this because he believes Daniel was written after Alexander came to power (perhaps as late as 165 B.C. he claims).
Q: In Dan 2:37-44, could the Empire of the Medes and Persians be two Empires instead of one?
A: No, because as Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.293 reminds us, Daniel 5:28 could not be any more plain. The writer believed imperial control passed directly from the Babylonian to the Medo-Persian Empire, not first to the Medes (whom the Persians had defeated prior to this time) and later to the Persians.
Q: In Dan 2:38, why did Daniel say Nebuchadnezzar was the ruler over all?
A: Other Empires adjacent to Nebuchadnezzar’s were the Medeo-Persian and Lydian Empires, as everyone well knew. However, the Babylonian Empire was the strongest empire in the Mideast.
As far as size is concerned, the Chou Empire in China and the Indian Empire were larger. However, remember, Daniel did not know about these other Empires, Daniel is speaking based on what he knows, and the Bible is merely recording what Daniel said.
Q: In Dan 2:44, how would Christ’s kingdom break and destroy the other kingdoms?
A: It would break the other kingdoms in at least four ways.
Spiritually, demons have influence over kingdoms, as Daniel 10:13 shows.
Politically, kingdoms that claimed to be Christian, or at least pretended to be Christian, would rule much of the world, starting with the Roman Empire in Constantine’s time (324 A.D.)
Culturally, A Christian worldview would dominate western thought for over fifteen hundred years.
Ultimately, (and this is most important) God the Son will come on the earth, set up His rule, every knee will bow to Jesus (Philippians 2:9-11), and all will be under His dominion (1 Corinthians 15:24-25)
Q: In Dan 2:46 (KJV), why did Daniel appear to accept oblation, incense, and worship from Nebuchadnezzar?
A: A better translation than "worship" is "praise". One issue is whether or not Daniel was wise to accept this praise. However, even assuming Daniel acted properly, this was praise and definitely not worship, as no king would want to compromise his authority by worshipping one of his subjects.
Q: In Dan 3:1, why did Nebuchadnezzar set up a golden image, since he recognized the true God in Dan 2:46-47?
A: While the book of Daniel does not imply either a short or long time interval between the vision and the statue, the two were likely related. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.831-832, points out that perhaps Nebuchadnezzar was trying to defy God’s message in his dream, that his kingdom would fall.
Q: In Dan 3:1, why make such a narrow image of a man 90 feet tall by 9 feet wide?
A: These were not necessarily the dimensions of the figure but of the statue. The sculpture probably was on a tall pedestal.
Q: In Dan 3:2-3 (KJV), who were the sheriffs?
A: The NASB, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV all translate the title of these Persian officials as magistrates.
Q: In Dan 3:12, since Daniel obeyed God, did Daniel refuse to bow to this idol as the three young men did?
A: Nothing indicates that Daniel bowed to the idol, because nothing indicates that Daniel was even there. When Critics Ask p.294 adds that government officials frequently traveled, and we can assume that since Daniel refused to worship any other god in Daniel 6, he was not worshipping the idol here.
Q: In Dan 3:25, who was the fourth man here?
A: This is generally believed to be a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ Himself. While it could simply have been an angel, Nebuchadnezzar’s comment that the fourth "is like a son of God" opens that possibility that it could be Christ.
Q: In Dan 3:12, since only three Jewish boys refused to bow to this idol, does that mean Daniel bowed to the idol?
A: No, because Daniel showed that he would not do things disobedient to God. Daniel and other godly Jews were not caught, because they were not present there. When Critics Ask p.294 also mentions that since Daniel was a government official, he could have been out of town at the time on business.
Q: In Dan 4:13,23, what is a "watcher"?
A: This would be a type of angel. Jewish apocryphal literature also mentions angelic watchers, but they might have been written after Daniel. At the very least, the apocryphal literature shows that the Jews were familiar with the concept of a watcher class of angels.
Q: In Dan 4:33-37, when did Nebuchadnezzar temporarily leave the throne because he went insane?
A: Daniel 4 says that twelve months after this dream, God finally dealt with Nebuchadnezzar's pride and fulfilled this prophecy.
The Aramaic word here can mean "time or season" as well as "year". Thus, 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.195 points out that this might be less than two years rather than seven years.
The Believer's Bible Commentary p.1080-1081,1092 adds that this mental condition is called boanthropy (meaning ox-man.) Dr. R. K. Harrison discusses a man he met with this condition in his Introduction to the Old Testament p.1114-1117.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1343 and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1190 for more info.
Q: In Dan 4:33-37, is there any extra-Biblical evidence that Nebuchadnezzar temporarily went insane?
A: Perhaps. While the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.605 says there is none, but The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 7 p.63 mentions an interesting Aramaic Dead Sea scroll fragment found at Qumran in cave 4. It is a prayer attributed to Nabonidus that says, "The words of the prayer which Nabunai(d), King of Assyria and Babylon, the great king, prayed when he was smitten with an unpleasant skin-disease by the ordinance of God Most High in the city of Teima: ' I was smitten with an unpleasant skin-disease for seven years … to the name of God Most High'" (This conjectural translation, dependent on several restorations of missing letters, was published by J.T. Milik in Revue Biblique, 63 (1956): 408; cf. Saggs, Babylon, p.154 for the English version above.) The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 7 p.63 says this might be a late, partially legendary fragment, that either could contain a true account either of a skin disease of Nabonidus. But, it says, "… a careful examination of the Nabonidus fragment shows that it is far more likely to have been a late, garbled tradition of the illness of Nebuchadnezzar himself, if indeed it does not represent a later illness that actually befell Nabonidus personally (whose ten years of confinement to the North Arabian city of Teima [Teman] may have been partly occasioned by the illness.)".
The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 1 p.246-247 says that the Prayer of Nabonidus is too mythical to be helpful, but adds that we still know of the madness of Nebuchadnezzar through Berossus, a third century Babylonians priest and historian, and the second century writer Abydenus, who said that Nebuchadnezzar was "possessed by some god or other", where he made a prophecy and disappeared from Babylon.
So, this evidence is certainly not conclusive, but it illustrates that the official Babylonian records and Greek history do not give all the details.
Q: In Dan 4:33-37, could the idea of Nebuchadnezzar acting like an animal have from Assyrian statues of bulls with human heads and bird's wings, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.605 says is an attractive guess?
A: Not likely. First of all, humans with heads of bulls were known in ancient Egypt and Crete from the time of Moses. Second, these were Assyrian statues, not Babylonian. Daniel would have less reason to write something about an "animal-man", than Moses who lived in Egypt.
Q: In Dan 5:1 and Dan 5:30, who was Belshazzar?
A: The Greek historian Herodotus, writing only about 90 years after the fall of Babylon, never mentioned Belshazzar and explicitly said the last king was Nabonidus. Until the 20th century, that was the final word on the subject apart from the Bible. This would be one of the things Christians would have to accept that there would be an explanation someday, without knowing the explanation.
However, in the 20th century archaeologists have found a cuneiform table, called the "Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus". Belshazzar was the firstborn son of Nabonidus, and after his first three years of rule (553 B.C.), Nabonidus went into voluntary exile for ten years in Tema in Arabia, and Nabonidus appointed Belshazzar as the rule. Significantly, when the Persians conquered Babylon, Nabonidus was not even there; he was in Tema in the northern part of Saudi Arabia. When Critics Ask p.209 concludes on this, "Since Belshazzar was the subordinate of Nabonidus, his name was forgotten, because the ancient Babylonian and Greek historians were primarily interested in the reigns of the official kings. Daniel’s record has proven to be amazingly accurate."
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.286 mentions an "inscription of Nabunaid" uncovered at Ur. This is likely the same as the "Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus". Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.286 also adds that other cuneiform documents say how Belshazzar presented sheep and oxen offerings at the temples of Sippar as "an offering of the king."
Now Herodotus is considered generally to be very accurate. If Belshazzar's co-regency (under Nabonidus) was so insignificant that Herodotus, writing 90 years later, overlooked it, how could anyone expect the book of Daniel to naturally get this correct, unless Daniel were written at this time. Since Daniel knew more about this than Herodotus, is it simply amazing that some liberal scholars in the late Twentieth century still considered Daniel as a second century book. See 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.193 for more on this.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.606 does not mention these details, except it says that Belshazzar (Bel-shar-utsur meaning "Bel, protect the king") was the firstborn son of Nabonidus.
See also Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions p.65-66, the New Geneva Study Bible p.1339-1340, and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1170-1171 for more info.
Q: In Dan 5:1-5, what promise or prophesy did God fulfill by having the writing on the wall?
A: In Jeremiah 27:21-22, God said the holy vessels would be stored (not used) in Babylon, until the day He visited them (the vessels), and then they will be returned to Jerusalem.
Q: In Dan 5:25-28, what is the meaning of Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin?
A: Scholars are unsure of the meaning of these Aramaic words. They mean either:
a) They are words that referred to money. The mina, shekel, and half-mina were common coins.
b) They meant numbered, numbered, weighted, and divisions.
"u" in upharsin can mean "and". "pharsin" is the plural of peres, which would sound like their word for Persian.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.607 gives essentially the same answer. See the New International Dictionary of the Bible p.640 for more info.
Q: In Dan 5:25-28, how did the writing on the wall help Daniel?
A: Many people would certainly hear that Daniel predicted the Persians would defeat the Babylonians. A speculation is that if the Persians heard of this, they would be favorably impressed with Daniel, and they would be more likely to retain Daniel as a high official.
Q: In Dan 5:28, why was Daniel made the third highest ruler?
A: Belshazzar could not offer Daniel anything higher, as Nabonidus was the highest ruler, and Belshazzar himself was the second.
Q: In Dan 5:30, what is a list of Babylonian kings?
A: Historians actually call this empire the Neo-Babylonian Empire, to distinguish it from the past Empire under Hammurapi. Here are the kings
627-605 B.C. Nabopolassar (Nabu-apal-usur)
605-Aug/Sept./562 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar II (Nabu-kudurri-usur)
562-560 B.C. Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk)
Nebuchadnezzar’s son
560-556 B.C. Neriglissar (Nergal-Sharezer)
Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law
556 B.C (2 months) Labashi-Marduk
556-539 B.C. Nabonidus (Nabu-na’ia)
553-10/12/539 B.C. Belshazzar (Bel-shar-usur) (co-regent)
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1326 for more info.
Q: In Dan 5:30-51 and Dan 9:1, what is the difference between a Mede and a Persian?
A: This question is more complicated than it first appears. Three points to consider in the answer.
1. The Medes and Persians were two distinct but related peoples. The Medes were very closely related to the Scythians and lived in central Iran, while the Persians lived in ancient Elam in southwestern Iran. The two peoples were always closely allied together, with the Medes being the dominant partner. This changed under Cyrus (a Persian who was one-fourth Mede), when he defeated his Median grandfather Astyges in 625 B.C.. From then on, the Persians had the dominant role, and Herodotus 3.91-96 says the Medes had to pay the annual tax to the Persian Empire.
2. However, Herodotus 1.135 also says the Persians adopted Median dress. "As Widengren notes, 'both Medes and Persians were often called simply Medes by the Greeks, and this usage evidently dates from the first contact between Greeks in Ionia and Iranians of the west." The Persians were known as Medes down to the age of Demosthenes (fourth century B.C.)." (Persia and the Bible p.56-57)
3. In the Bible, they were considered collectively as one people, "Medes and Persians", in Daniel 6:8,12,15, and "Persians and Medes" in Esther 1:3,14. Persia and the Bible p.57 also says that both were termed just "Medes" in Isaiah 13:17ff and Jeremiah 51:11,28).
Q: In Dan 5:30-6:1 and Dan 9:1 very briefly, who was Darius the Mede?
A: Most think he was the first governor of Babylon, named Gubaru, though some think it was Cyrus himself. The reason it says Darius is either:
a) a manuscript copyist error,
b) a throne name for Cyrus, or
c) the Jews did not have a good transliteration for "Gubaru".
See the next question for a more extensive answer.
Q: In Dan 5:30-6:1; Dan 9:1 who was this Darius the Mede?
A: First are some historical facts, then some Biblical observations, and finally the three views.
1. Historical Facts
1.1 The Medes’ history is reconstructed exclusively from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Greek sources, since no Medean writing has been found. The careful Greek historian Herodotus noted that he had heard four different accounts of the childhood of Cyrus. Ctesias was another Greek historian, but he was not very reliable.
1.2 In 625 B.C., the Medes conquered the Persians, and the Medes ruled over them until 553 B.C.
1.3 From 553 to 550 B.C., the Persian Cyrus the Great revolted, and succeeded with the help (in 550 B.C.) of the Medean chief Harpagus. The Medes still had the highest position after the Persians, and as the 1956 and 1972 editions of Encyclopedia Britannica say, "many noble Medes were employed as officials, satraps and generals."
1.4 Astyages was the Medean King Cyrus overthrew in 550 B.C.. The historian Ctesias says that Cyrus treated Astyages well, and made him a satrap of Barcania or Hyrcania, but Oebares (Babylonian Ugbaru) killed Astyages.
1.5 In the Persian Empire, Medea was one of the 20 (not 120) satrapies of the Persian Empire, but it was divided into two parts for taxation purposes.
1.6 Ugbaru, the Babylonian governor of Gutium (according to the Nabonidus Chronicle), defected to the Persians and became general of the Persian army that overthrew Babylon on 10/11 or 10/12 539 B.C. He died 11/6/539 B.C., almost a month later. While we do not know his ancestry, the liberal Anchor Bible Dictionary vol.2 p.39 points out that Babylonians used the word Gutium to refer to the Northeast, and the Medes were in the northeast part of the Persian Empire. It also mentions that the historian Berossus lists Gutium with the tyrants of the Medes.
1.7 Cyrus himself was with other troops at Opis, and Cyrus did not enter Babylon until 10/29/539 B.C. Cyrus was said to be the grandson of Astyages, through Astyages’ daughter Mandane. However, the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.424 point out that this was not the Persian Emperor, because Darius here was "made king". Of course Daniel was called a "king" too in Daniel 5:29, and he was not an emperor.
1.8 Gubaru/Gaubaruwa (whom Xenophon the Greek confused with Ugbaru), was appointed the governor of Babylonia for a year or two by Cyrus.
1.9 Darius I, the son of Hystaspes/Vishtaspa, was a Persian (not a Mede) who became King in 522 B.C., after Cyrus and the false Bardiya reigned. Darius I was involved in putting down a revolt in Babylon in 520 B.C., 19 years after Persia conquered Babylon. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.287 points out that he was in his twenties when he began his rule, not 62 years old. The liberal Anchor Bible Dictionary vol.2 p.39 says that his inscriptions say "I am a Persian, son of a Persian"
1.10 In the ancient world, Pharaohs and kings often had their birth-given name, and a second name given when they ascended the throne.
1.11 The Persian word Darius "Darayawush/Dareyawaes" is related to the Persian word dara which means king. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.288 says this might be title as well as just a proper name. The liberal Anchor Bible Dictionary p.39 also points out that darayarahu means "He who holds firm the good". This is the reason for the theory that Darius was a throne name.
1.12 Within a year or two of the capture, Cyrus replaced Gubaru as governor of Babylon, making his son Cambyses governor.
1.13 In the Old Testament, there are a number of copyist errors, especially on numbers and names. For example, the Greek version of Proto-Theodotion says "Artaxerxes", and not "Darius" in Daniel 6:1. In particular, there are a number of additions to the Greek translation (Septuagint) in the Book of Daniel. Jerome mentions that while the early church generally used the Septuagint, they did not use the Septuagint of the Book of Daniel, but rather the Greek version of Theodotion. Apparently, they saw too many problems with the Septuagint in Daniel.
1.14 All our "Hebrew" copies of Daniel have the middle section of Daniel, 2:4b-7:28, written in Aramaic, not Hebrew. Either it was originally written in Aramaic, or it was translated from an earlier Hebrew manuscript.
2. Biblical Observations
The Darius in Daniel was a Mede, 62 years old, who had 120 administration districts (not necessarily satrapies) under him. He was the son of Ahasuerus. He could make decrees, and he was worshipped. In Daniel 6:6, he was called a king. From Daniel 9:1, this Darius, was emphasized to be a Mede, not the Persian Darius. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.287 mentions that the usual work malak means became king, but the word here homlak, which is a passive and means made king. The liberal Anchor Bible Dictionary vol. 2 p.39 also points this out. Thus a higher ruler made him ruler. Also, the phrase "all the earth" could be translated as "all the land".
3. Identity of Darius the Mede
Since Darius was the one who took over Babylon, there are three choices.
3.1 Cyrus: This was really Cyrus, and the incorrect name was transcribed, similar to how in Jeremiah 27:1 Jehoiakim was incorrectly transcribed in a majority of Hebrew manuscripts when both the context and other manuscripts show it was Zedekiah. While Cyrus was a Persian, his mother was a Mede and the daughter of Astyages, and Cyrus. Either he really was half-Mede and a grandson of the previous king, or else he just claimed to be to keep the support of the Medes.
3.1.1 Since many kings had throne names, Cyrus might have had a throne name of Darius the Mede. Daniel 6:28 could be translated as "reign of Darius, "even the" reign of Cyrus the Persian" This view is advocated by D.J. Wiseman, and John F. Walvoord speaks well of this view in Daniel : The Key to Prophetic Interpretation p.134. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1347 also mentions this view but prefers the Gubaru view that follows. Other examples of synonyms or throne names being used in the Bible are:
Joram for Jehoram (2 Kings 8:23)
Jehoash for Joash (2 Kings 12:1)
Coniah for Jeconiah (Jeremiah 22:9)
Shallum for Jehoahaz (Jeremiah 22:11, 2 Kings 23:30-34)
3.1.2 Cyrus did not have the throne name of Darius. The name Darius got in here as a copyist error, confusing Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon in 539 B.C. with Darius’ conquest of Babylon in 522 B.C.
3.2 Gubaru is mentioned here, since Cyrus appointed him the governor of Babylon, as When Critics Ask p.295 espouses. However, we have no historical record saying whether or not Gubaru was a Mede. Either Darius was how the Hebrews would refer to Gubaru, or else a confused Hebrew scribe put in the name Darius. While Gubaru was replaced by Cambyses after a year or two, Daniel never mentions anything beyond the first year. Governors could be called "kings", because the Behistun Rock says that Hystaspes was "made king" by Cyrus, as Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.287-288 says.
3.3 (not an answer) Darius here some might think might really be Darius I, and there would be a 19-year gap between the Babylonians being overthrown in Daniel 5:30, and Darius mentioned at the end. However, this is highly unlikely because the book especially notes that this Darius was a Mede. Furthermore, no verse says this Darius was over all the Medes and Persians, but rather that he was made king over just the Babylonians.
In summary: Since the third view is unlikely, the person intended here is either
S1. Gubaru, the first governor of Babylon under Cyrus, or
S2. Cyrus. Either Darius was a throne name for Cyrus, or the scribes had a manuscript error, where it should have said Cyrus.
Copyist errors and changes are not unknown in the Old Testament, and the Septuagint of the Book of Daniel has a number of known changes.
Q: In Dan 6:1, when did Babylon fall?
A: Archaeologists believe it was the night of October 11 or 12, 539 B.C.
Q: In Dan 6:1, 9:1, how do you pronounce "Darius"?
A: The Cruden's Concordance and The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.254 have da-RI-us, with the a and u short, the i long, and the accept on the second syllable. Hebrews would pronounce it daryawesh, and Greeks pronounced it Darious. Now a Mede or Persian would pronounce Darius’ name similar to "Darayawush / Dareyawaes".
Q: In Dan 6:1, who were the 120 princes?
A: The were not necessarily sons of Darius, but rather 120 administrators, called "satraps".
Q: In Dan 6:1-5, why were the princes out to get Daniel?
A: Perhaps for two reasons.
Jealousy: Daniel was an outsider, a Jew, who was suddenly promoted above them.
Cold-hearted Practicality: Even if they did not have any hatred or ill-feelings toward Daniel, some unscrupulous people have no qualms about eliminating rivals in order to get ahead.
Q: In Dan 6:1,6,7 (KJV), who were the presidents?
A: These were the three people set over the 120 satraps. Daniel was one of these three officials.
Q: In Dan 6:6-9, how did they get all these officials throughout the empire to agree to this?
A: Perhaps they knew the other officials would acquiesce to this demand. Alternately, perhaps they never would have got agreement at all. The falsely claimed to have agreement.
Q: In Dan 6:6-9, why would Darius make this decree that they could not pray to any god or man for thirty days?
A: While scripture does not say, we can speculate on a few reasons.
Rubber stamp: Darius was told (perhaps falsely) that all the other administrators agreed with this. (They certainly did not all agree, as Daniel did not.) Since Darius trusted his people, he merely signed what they said.
Vain pride: Darius would be honored, not only that people were worshipping and praying to him, but they would not be praying to anyone else for thirty days.
Inattention: Early in his career, Darius was focused on invading Greece. After his defeat, historians say he retreated into his harem. Thus, he might not have thought about it too much.
Q: In Dan 6:6-9, is there any archaeological evidence for this thirty-day decree?
A: No, but this is something King Darius probably would not desire to have remembered either.
Q: In Dan 6:12, what were these lions like?
A: Until people hunted them to extinction, lions roamed the Mideast. Many people, especially the Assyrians and Persians, were fond of hunting them. Samson killed a lion in Israel in Judges 14:5. An interesting article titled Asia’s Last Lions is in The National Geographic Magazine June 2001 p.46-61. Asiatic lions were somewhat smaller than African lions, have shorter manes, and have a fold of skin on their undersides that African lions lack. Their range was from north central India through Iraq, all the way to Greece, Bulgaria, and Albania.
Q: In Dan 6:24, was it not cruel to cast the men’s wives and children to the lions too?
A: The Bible does not say the Persians were never cruel, or that they always did the correct thing. However, compared to the Assyrians, who gloried in torture, the Persians appeared kind.
Q: In Dan 7:3-7,17-19, what are the four beasts?
A: Daniel 7:17 says these are four kings or kingdoms. They are Babylon, Medeo-Persia, Greece / Macedonia, and the Roman Empire. Here is how they fit the imagery.
Lion with eagle wings: Creatures appearing like winged lions covered the magnificent-looking Ishtar Gate in Babylon. Babylon was referred to as a lion Jeremiah 4:7. Babylon's horses were swifter than eagles in Jeremiah 4:13. Babylon and Egypt were both referred to as eagles in Ezekiel 17:3,7. Later, the Babylonians treated the Jews well, when Daniel was in the court. Habakkuk 1:8-9 is not relevant here, as the Babylonian horses are compared to leopards and wolves, as well as eagles.
Bear raised on one side: The Medeo-Persian Empire had two parts, with the Persian side being dominant.
Leopard with four wings and four heads: Though a leopard is the fastest large land animal, reaching speeds of 60 miles per hour, a leopard with four wings would be even faster. Alexander the Macedonian conquered the entire Persian Empire and parts of even India in a breathtaking thirteen years. After his death, the empire was divided up among his four generals. While a leopard was not a typical symbol of the Greeks, no other animal could represent the speed of Alexander's conquests any better.
Iron-toothed beast: The fourth beast was different, had horns, and was arrogant. The Roman Emperors had themselves declared as gods, and even had annual sacrifices made to them.
In addition, many see a dual fulfillment of this prophecy, with the Antichrist coming from a revived Roman Empire.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.610 claims the leopard was the Persian Empire, its four heads were four kings known to Daniel, and the fourth beast was Alexander's Empire. Asimov says this because he separates the Median Empire from the Persian Empire. However, the Medes, aside from assisting the Babylonians in destroying Assyria, fighting the Scythians, and merging with the Persians, had no other effect on world history.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1350-1351 and the Believer's Bible Commentary p.1082-1083 for more info.
Q: In Dan 7:3-7,17-19, instead of the Roman Empire, does the fourth beast represent the ideal Jewish state, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.610-611 says seems more likely?
A: Unless Asimov thinks the Jews thought an ideal Jewish state was a terrible, evil thing, Asimov is confused here. Daniel 7:7 says, "…before me was a fourth beast - terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crush and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left… it had ten horns." In Daniel 7:11 (NIV) says, "…I kept looking until the [fourth] beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire." It is God who kills the fourth beast, so this is not a godly state.
Q: In Dan 7:5, what do the three ribs represent?
A: There are three different views.
Preceding Persia were three kingdoms: Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon.
Conquered by Persia were three Empires: Egyptian, Babylonian, and Lydian. Most Empires up to this time conquered only one preceding Empire. However, Persia conquered three.
None of the above: the NRSV translates this as "tusks" instead of "ribs".
Conclusion: Since the ribs were in the bear's mouth, it had to be three kingdoms "eaten" by the bear. Thus, Egypt, Babylon, and Lydia are the correct interpretation.
Q: In Dan 7:7-9, 20,24, what are the horns?
A: Daniel 10:24 tells us these are kings. The last king may be the Antichrist in the revived Roman Empire.
Q: In Dan 8:2, where is Shushan?
A: This used to be the capital city of the ancient kingdom of Elam, which is in the southwest part of modern Iran.
Q: In Dan 8:2,16, where is the Ulai River?
A: Today we would call it a canal instead of a natural river. It ran north-south just west of the city of Susa (Shushan), according to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1124.
Q: In Dan 8:3-4, what is the ram?
A: This represent the Empire of Medeo-Persia. The longer horn that came up later was Persia, the dominant part of the Empire. See the Believer's Bible Commentary p.1084 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1355-1356 say the same.
Q: Why would Dan 8:5 refer to the Empire of Alexander of Macedon as a goat?
A: Scripture does not say. However, a myth in Alexander’s time was that Alexander had two horns growing out of his head to show his semi-divine status.
Q: In Dan 8:16 and Dan 12:1, what is interesting about the names Gabriel and Michael?
A: The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.612 observes that Daniel is the only book in the Old Testament where angels are named. Of course, both Gabriel and Michael appear in the New Testament too.
Q: In Dan 9:1, who was Darius the Mede?
A: See the discussion on Daniel 5:30-6:1 for the answer.
Q: In Dan 9:2, what was the 70 years of the destruction of Jerusalem?
A: The seventy years, would be 360-day years. This is almost exactly 69 of our years. This was from 605/604 B.C. to 538/537 B.C. See the discussion on Jeremiah 29:10. For more info.
Q: In Dan 9:4-19, how does Daniel’s prayer of corporate confession compare with Neh 1:5-11?
A: Here are seven common elements.
1. Both prayed in regards to what they saw should have been happening but was not. In Nehemiah's case it was the external event of the city not being built, and in Daniel's case it was the internal event of the 70 years of Jeremiah being almost over.
2. Both fasted and mourned - Daniel in sackcloth and ashes, and Nehemiah not, presumably because he was the cupbearer to the king.
3. Both start out mentioning God's greatness and his covenant of mercy.
4. Both intermix the sins of the people with God's just punishment.
5. Both mention not obeying the law of Moses.
6. All Christians know that we should pray prayers of confession, but there are different types of prayers of confession. These were both confession for the people as a whole. These were from a "historical confession" as opposed to an "emotional confession" as in Jeremiah. Their historical confession stresses what they did, God's just punishment, what they did next, etc.
7. Both conclude with asking God to do something. Daniel asks that God turn His anger away from Jerusalem, while Nehemiah merely asked that God make the king favorable toward his request.
Q: In Dan 9:23, how did this vision answer Daniel’s question?
A: Daniel prayed that the people would return and Jerusalem would be rebuilt as God promised in Jeremiah 25:11-14. God not only repeated to Daniel that this would happen, God told him some of the details of then, and the how the exact timing of that would lay the groundwork for a future time when the Messiah would come.
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, how does this refer to the Messiah?
A: In Daniel 9:25,26, the word "anointed one" is recognized by both Jews and Christians as the Messiah. See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.318-320 for more info.
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, what are the seventy weeks?
A: Here is what they are, when they started, and when they were fulfilled.
1. These are seventy weeks of years. If the "weeks/sevens" were weeks of days, it would be incredible to say that people would rebuild the entire city in 42 workdays. A Christian work, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.318-320 says that since the whole sabbatical cycle was laid out in terms of sevens, equating the "sevens" with years was not a major problem for Jewish listeners." Here is what Jews themselves said about the "sevens", when this prophecy should come to pass, and how it relates to the Messiah.
1a. Maimonides (Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon): "Daniel has elucidated to us the knowledge of the end times. However, since they are secret, the wise [rabbis] have barred the calculation of the days of Messiah’s coming so that the untutored populace will not be led astray when they see that the End Times have already come but there is no sign of the Messiah" (Igeret Teiman, Chapter 3 p.24.)
1b. Rabbi Moses Abraham Levi: "I have examined and searched all the Holy Scriptures and have not found the time for the coming of Messiah clearly fixed, except in the words of Gabriel to the prophet Daniel, which are written in the 9th chapter of the prophecy of Daniel (The Messiah of the Targums, Talmuds and Rabbinical Writers, 1971) p.141-142
(These two quotes were taken from The Creator Beyond Time and Space by Mark Eastman, M.D. and Chuck Missler (The Word for Today, 1996)).
2. The starting point is March/April 444 B.C. Daniel 9:25 explicitly states the starting point was the decree to restore and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. This decree is given in Nehemiah 2, and this is 444 B.C. Note that it is not Cyrus' 538/537 B.C. decree to allow the Jews to return home, and it is not Artaxerxes's decree in 458 B.C. (Ezra 7:11-26) allowing the Jews to take back the gold and silver that the Babylonians looted from Solomon's Temple. The early Christian writer Julius Africanus, writing 232-245 A.D.) also mentions the command during Nehemiah's time as being the starting point. (Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 6 p.135)
3. 360-days years are used. The Jewish religious year was 12 months of 30 days each. Thus 7 sevens is 49*360 = 17,640 days. 7+62=69 sevens is 173,880 days. 1 seven is 2,520 days. Skipping the details of converting 360-day years to 265.25 day years (and 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. is 1 year, not 2), this gives dates of:
3a. 396/395 B.C. (June/July) the city will be rebuilt.
3b. 32/33 A.D. (March/April + 5 days) The Messiah will be killed. The Believer's Bible Commentary p.1092 says that Anderson computed this to April 6, 32 A.D. Dr. Harold Hoehner comes up with 33 A.D.
3c. Skipping a period of time (for reasons given in the next answer), the end times will be a period of 6.9 of our years.
God wanted to point out to people when His Messiah would come, and for those who cared to look, it is very clear.
See the Believer's Bible Commentary p.1085-1087, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.289-292, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1361-1365 The Complete Book of Bible Answers p.256-257 for more info.
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, could a week here be seven days instead of seven years?
A: No. Daniel was praying about the prophecy of Jeremiah, which is in years. Also in Daniel 9:25, it would be hard to rebuild the city in just 7 days. Hard Sayings of the Bible p.318-320 says that since the whole sabbatical year was laid out in terms of sevens, equating the "sevens" with years was not a problem for Jewish listeners, especially since the Jubilee was once every seven years in Leviticus 25.
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, how do we know which is the correct decree?
A: There were in fact three decrees: For the Jews to return in 538/7 B.C., Artaxerxes' decree in 458 B.C. for the Jews to get back the gold and silver from their Temple, and Artaxerxes' decree in 444 B.C. However Daniel 9:25 explicitly says the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (not the Temple). Artaxerxes' decree of 444 B.C. is the only decree that fits this description.
The early Christian writer Julius Africanus, writing 232-245 A.D.) also mentions the command during Nehemiah's time as being the starting point. (Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 6 p.135)
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, how do we know the decree in the 20th year of Artaxerxes I was 444 B.C., and how do we know it was not Artaxerxes II?
A: When Artaxerxes became king by defeating his brother Hystaspes in Bactria, this was almost immediately known in Egypt by January 2/3, 464 B.C., as the Elephantine Papyrus Cowley #6 proves. This first "reigning year" was counted as starting April 13, 464 B.C. The fired Athenian general Thucydides, who was also a historian, wrote about Artaxerxes I, as did the historians Ctesias and Diodorus Siculus (1st century B.C.).
We know this was Artaxerxes I (not II) because a Papyrus found in Elephantine Island, Egypt (Cowley #30), dated 407 B.C. mentions the sons of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria. (There was a Persian fort made up of Jewish mercenaries at Elephantine).
See Persia and the Bible p.242,247-248 for more info.
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, why use a 360-day year?
A: Why use a 365.25-day year, since the Bible never does? The Jewish religious year was always 12 months of 30 days each. Periodically, the Jews added an extra month to get the calendar back in sync with the seasons. In the Bible, a 60-day month goes back to Noah in Gen 7:11,24; 8:3-4. Besides all the references to religious months in the Old Testament, in the New Testament 30 days is a month in Revelation 11:3,4. The early Christian writer Julius Africanus, writing 232-245 A.D.) also mentions converting from a 365.25 day year to the Jewish year. He said the Jewish year was 29.5 days, with 3 extra months added every 8 years. (Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 6 p.137)
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, what is the rationale for saying there is a gap between the 69th and 70th year?
A: Four points to consider in the answer.
1. Nothing in Daniel indicates that the last seven is immediately after the 69 sevens.
2. In contrast, Daniel 9:25 implies the 7 sevens and 62 sevens are one unit until the Messiah comes. There is no mention of the last seven being combined with any other period.
3. After the Messiah is cut off and has nothing, a number of events are listed that are not associated with either the middle period (62 sevens) or the last seven. Namely, the people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and Temple, the end will come, war will come, and desolations. The last seven is not said to include these events. It only includes the ruler who will come making a covenant, and 3 1/2 years later breaking this covenant.
4. Many theologians call the gap before the last seven by a specific term, to describe a mystery God did not reveal until later. The term they use is "the church age".
In conclusion, treating the 69 sevens as one unit without treating the last seven, and mentioning a number of events between the end of the 69th seven and the start of the last seven, strongly implies a gap before the start of the last seven.
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, how does this square with the view that Jesus was born 4-5 B.C?
A: This prophecy neither supports nor refutes that view. The Bible does not say Jesus was thirty when he began his ministry. Rather, Luke 3:23 says that Jesus was about thirty years old
Q: In Dan 9:24, should this read "most holy one" or "most holy place"?
A: The Hebrew and Septuagint simply say "most holy".
Q: In Dan 9:25, is it reasonable to understand the Messiah the Prince to mean Cyrus of Persia, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.614 says?
A: No, Asimov apparently is confused on this point. According to Daniel 9:25 there will be 69 "sevens" of years, before the Messiah comes. Cyrus already came when Daniel was written. In addition, the Messiah is killed (cut off) in Daniel 9:26.
Q: In Dan 10:2-4, was Daniel right to mourn three full weeks?
A: Mourning does not mean depression, or a psychological problem. There are times for believers to mourn, just as there are times to rejoice.
Q: In Dan 10:4, where is the Hiddekel River?
A: This was another name for the Tigris River.
Q: In Dan 10:5 and Jer 10:9, what is the fine gold of Uphaz?
A: We do not know, but there are two views. Perhaps Uphaz was a place in Africa (Ophir), or another location. Alternately, perhaps Uphaz was not a place at all, but an adjective describing very high-quality gold.
See The New International Bible Dictionary p.1044 and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1758 for more info.
Q: In Dan 10:5-10,13-21, with whom was Daniel speaking?
A: This glorious being was an angel of God. We do not know his name, and it was not necessarily Gabriel, who spoke to Daniel earlier.
Q: In Dan 10:7,8,17, why did Daniel have no strength here?
A: This sometimes occurred when people saw an angel or a vision. Another example of this is in Revelation 1:17.
Q: In Dan 10:16 (KJV), what is similitude of the sons of men?
A: This King James Version expression means he looked like a human male.
Q: In Dan 10:21, how do you pronounce "Michael"?
A: Most people say "MI kel", as in English, though I heard it pronounced "mi KA el", in a Bible Bee. (The seventh-grade contestant mispelled it.)
Q: In Dan 10:21, who is Michael the prince over?
A: Michael was the prince over the Jewish people. In the other two times Michael appears in scripture, he is contending about something. In Jude 9, Michael the archangel said "The Lord rebuke you" to Satan. In Revelation 12:7, it is Michael who is fighting against the dragon in Heaven.
Q: In Dan 10:21, what is the scripture of truth?
A: There are two similar views.
a) The Bible which had been revealed up to that time. This includes the Torah and most of the prophets.
b) "God's record of truth in general, of which the Bible is one expression" (Daniel : The Key to Prophetic Revelation p.250)
Q: In Dan 11:1, why did the angel strengthen Darius?
A: This probably does not refer to physical strength, but rather to strengthening his position to become king and to remain king.
Q: Does Dan 11:1, contradict history, which says the Persian King who conquered Babylonia was Cyrus I, not Darius I?
A: Neither Cyrus nor Darius captured Babylon. The man who captured Babylon was a general under Cyrus, name Gubaru (Gobryas in Greek). The was likely the individual mentioned here under the name Darius. Gubaru was an interesting man. He was actually the Babylonian governor of Gutium, who defected to the Medes and Persians.
For the contrary view that Darius here was Cyrus, see the Concordia Self-Study Commentary p.577, 581-82 for more info. See Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions p.66-67 for more info. In addition, see the two questions on Daniel 5:30-6:1.
Q: In Dan 11:1-33, who were the kings of the Persian Empire?
A: They were:
Cyrus the Great (559 B.C. - Anshan, 550 B.C. Medeo-Persia - 530/529 B.C.
Cambyses II 530/529-523/522 B.C.
Pseudo-Smerdis (Guatama) 523/522-522/521 B.C.
Darius I 550-522/521-486 B.C.
Ahasuerus (Xerxes in Greek) 486-465/464 B.C.
Artaxerxes I 464-423 B.C.
Darius II 423-404 B.C.
Artaxerxes II 404- B.C.
Artaxerxes III -336 B.C.
Darius III 336-331 B.C.
Then Alexander of Macedon conquered Persia.
Q: To what does Dan 11:1-33 refer?
A: Both The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1367 and the New Geneva Study Bible says these refer to the Persian kings: Cambyses II (530-522 B.C.), Pseudo-Smerdis (Guatama) 523/522-522/521 B.C.), Darius I (550-522/521-486 B.C.), and Ahasuerus (Xerxes in Greek) (486-465/464 B.C.) The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.616 says the same.
The fourth king, Xerxes, invaded Greece. It was later, in verse 3, that Alexander the Great (356-336-324 B.C.) conquered the Persian Empire.
Finally, Alexander's empire was split into four parts. Cassander ruled Macedonia
Lysimachus ruled Thrace and Anatolia
Seleucus (312-281 B.C.) ruled Syria, and
Ptolemy (I Soter) (323-285 B.C.) ruled Egypt.
The Believer's Bible Commentary p.1092 points out that Daniel 11:5-33 refer to the leaders of Syria and Egypt, and not to the same two rulers all throughout the text.
Q: In Dan 11:31, what was the abomination that causes desolation?
A: This prophecy had both a foreshadowing under Antiochus Epiphanes and a fulfillment that is future to us.
Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Temple. He entered the Holy of Holies, and according to one account put a pig's head there.
According to Hippolytus' Fragment 2 from his Commentaries (p.184) Daniel’s abomination of desolation occurs during the endtimes when the Antichrist comes.
See 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.198 for more info.
Q: In Dan 11:40-12:3, what does "Epiphanes" mean?
A: It means illustrious, or self-evident. As a side note, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.1092 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1369 say the Jews had another nickname for him, "Epimanes" , which means madman.
Q: In Dan 11:45, how did Antiochus Epiphanes IV "come to his end, with no one to help him" (NKJV)?
A: Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) reigned from 165-163 B.C. He was humiliated when the Roman Senate forbade him to invade Egypt again. The Anchor Bible Dictionary volume 1 p.271 says that Appian Syr. 66 says that Antiochus IV withdrew to Tabae and died of consumption in late 164 B.C.
Q: In Dan 12:1, what time is this?
A: This and Daniel 11 refer to the future time during the Great Tribulation, when the Antichrist reigns. See the Believer's Bible Commentary p.1091, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1372, the NIV Study Bible p.1318, The Nelson Study Bible p.1442-1443, and The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 7 p.149-152.
In the early church, Hippolytus bishop of Rome (225-236 A.D.) in his Commentary on Daniel 12 also says this refers to the time of the Antichrist.
Q: In Dan 12:2, will "many" be raised, or will all be raised as Rev 20:5 says?
A: Both, in at least two events. The righteous will be raised from the dead first, and later all will be raised by the end of the Millennium in Revelation 20:5.
See When Critics Ask p.296 for more info.
Q: In Dan 12:6, who were the two beings here?
A: These are two angels. The river here is the Tigris River (Daniel 10:4), not the Euphrates, which is more to the west. Therefore, these angels probably are not to be identified with the four angels at the Euphrates River in Revelation 9:14-15.
Q: In Dan 12:8-10, why did Daniel himself not understand what he was writing?
A: Daniel understood the individual words, but not the meaning nor the significance. Unlike most writings in the Bible, this part was "mechanically dictated", in that Daniel merely wrote down what he heard from the angel.
Today, sometimes people will give up on understanding anything about something if they cannot understand everything. If you do not understand everything about love, does that mean you should not love anybody else? If you cannot understand everything about God, does that mean you cannot understand anything? - Of course not.
See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.320-321 for more info.
Q: In Dan 12:9 and 1 Pet 1:10-11, since the prophets did not understand everything they were saying, does that somehow support the Jehovah's Witness Watchtower leadership of making false prophecies?
A: No. Though the prophets did not fully understand everything, they truthfully, accurately, and faithfully communicated to us everything the God of truth wanted them to reveal. Likewise Jonah was not a false prophet, because the book of Jonah shows he communicated correctly, and that the prophecy of Ninevah's destruction was conditional on their repentance. (Of course, their destruction was not really taken away, only postponed.)
See Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses p.52-53 for more info.
Q: In Dan 12:11, what is the sign of the 1,290 days and 1,335 days?
A: A religious year was 360 days. 1,290 days is just over 3 years 7 months. 1,335 days is exactly 45 days later.
Q: In Dan, what are some of the earliest manuscripts that still exist today?
A: Dead Sea scrolls: (120 B.C.) 8 separate copies according to the Dead Sea Scrolls Today p.30 and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.436-438. The oldest manuscript is dated at 120 B.C.
Theodotion was a Jew after the time of Christ who made a Greek translation of the Old Testament. We have copies of his translation of Daniel, as well as some other books.
Christian Bible manuscripts, from about 350 A.D., contain the Old Testament, including Daniel. The Chester Beatty Papyrii IX and X (2nd-4th century A.D.) contain Daniel according to The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts p.367 and The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge p.746.
Scheide Papyrii 1 contains Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther. It is dated the early third century A.D. It originally had 118 leaves, of which 109 survive today. For more info and a photograph of it see Manuscripts of the Greek Bible p.70-71.
Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.) has preserved all of Daniel.
There are no parts of Daniel in Sinaiticus (340-350 A.D.)
Alexandrinus (c.450 A.D.) has preserved all of Daniel.
Cyprian was a bishop of Carthage from 248 to his martyrdom in 258 A.D.. He quotes from "Daniel" in Treatise 12 The Third Book 10.
Christian Writings:
Hippolytus (225-236 A.D.) has commentaries on Daniel. Specifically we have quotes of parts of chapters 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, the apocryphal Song of the Three Children and Susannah.
Q: In Dan, what are some of the translation differences between the Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint?
A: Focusing primarily on chapter 9, the first alternative is the Massoretic text, the second is the Septuagint, unless otherwise noted.
Dan 6:1 "Darius" (Massoretic text, Septuagint) vs. "Artaxerxes" (proto-Theodotion)
Dan 8:5 "a horn of vision" vs. "one horn" (Septuagint, Theodotion)
Dan 9:1 "was made king" vs. "who reigned"
Dan 9:2 "which came as the word" vs. "which was the word"
Dan 9:3 "seek by prayer" vs. "seek diligently by prayer"
Dan 9:4 "love Him … His" vs. "love You … Your"
Dan 9:7 "shame of our faces" vs. "confusion of face
Dan 9:8 "shame" vs. "confusion"
Dan 9:10 "by His servants" vs. "by the hands of His servants"
Dan 9:11 "that they might not" vs. "and refused"
Dan 9:13 "make our prayer before Jehovah" vs. "besought the Lord our God"
Dan 9:13 "and understand your truth" vs. "and have understanding in all thy truth"
Dan 9:14 "has looked / watched on the evil, and has made it come on us" vs. "also has watched, and brought them [the evils] upon us."
Dan 9:16 "O Lord, I pray to You, according to all Your righteousness, let" vs. "O Lord thy mercy is over all; let, I pray thee,"
Dan 9:16 "anger … fury" vs. "wrath … anger"
Dan 9:16 "For because of our sins and our father's iniquities" vs. "for we have sinned, and because of our iniquities, and those of our fathers,"
Dan 9:17 "holy desires" vs. "supplications"
Dan 9:17 "for the sake of the Lord" vs. "for your sake, O Lord"
Dan 9:19 "O Lord, forgive" vs. "be propitious, O Lord"
Dan 9:20 "my cry fall before" vs. "bringing my pitiful case before"
Dan 9:21 "setting my prayer in order" vs. "speaking my prayer"
Dan 9:21 "then the man" vs. "behold the man"
Dan 9:22 "touched me in [my] severe exhaustion" vs. "[came] flying, and he touched me"
Dan 9:22 "He made to understand / give you skill in understanding" (Hebrew) vs. "He came / to impart to you understanding" (Septuagint, Syriac) (NRSV footnote does not completely agree with Brenton's translation)
Dan 9:23 "pay attention" vs. "understand"
Dan 9:24 "to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy," vs. "for sin to be ended, and to seal up transgressions, and to blot out the iniquities, and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet,"
Dan 9:25 "62 weeks. The street" vs. "62 weeks, and then [the time] shall return and the street"
Dan 9:25 "even in times of affliction" vs. "and the times shall be exhausted"
Dan 9:26 "Messiah shall be cut off, but not [for] Himself. And the people of a coming prince shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end [shall be] with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end [shall be] war." vs. "anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint [the city] of desolations."
Dan 9:27 "covenant with many [for] one week." vs. "covenant with many"
Dan 9:27 "he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and on a corner [of the altar] desolating abominations. Even until [the] end. And that which was decreed shall pour out on the desolator." vs. "and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away; and on the temple [shall be] the abomination of desolations; and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation."
Dan 10:1 "Persia" vs. "the Persians"
Dan 10:1 "Belteshazzar" vs. "Baltasar"
Dan 10:14 "I was left there with the kings of Persia" vs. "I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia" (Septuagint, Theodotion)
Dan 10:16 "one who looked like a man" vs. "something that looked like a man's hand" (Septuagint, Dead Sea scrolls, one Hebrew Massoretic text)
Dan 10:17 "For as for me henceforth / from now" vs. "For I am shaking" (Septuagint) (NRSV)
Bibliography for this question: the Hebrew translation is from Jay P. Green’s Literal Translation and the Septuagint rendering is from Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton’s translation of The Septuagint : Greek and English. The Expositor's Bible Commentary and the footnotes in the NASB, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV Bibles also were used.
