Daniel 1

a— Wasn’t the Book of Daniel actually written after about 170 b.c.?

PROBLEM: Daniel contains an incredible amount of detail concerning the kingdoms of the Gentiles from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, from about 605 b.c., down to the Roman empire which began to exercise dominance as early as 241 b.c. and, under the Roman general Pompey, took over the Promised Land in 63 b.c. However, conservative scholars have maintained that Daniel wrote in the 6th century b.c. How could Daniel have given such historically accurate details of events in the future?

SOLUTION: The Book of Daniel contains supernatural prophecies that, from Daniel’s time, extended hundreds of years into the future (Daniel 2:7). Daniel 11 presents a sweeping display of detailed prophecy that stretches from the reign of Cyrus the Great to the reign of antichrist, to the millennial kingdom, to the end of the age and into eternity. The record of the movement of nations and events is so accurate, it reads as the historical account of an eyewitness. However, conservative scholarship places the date of the Book of Daniel at a time before any of these events took place. The book itself claims to be predictive prophecy (cf. 9:24ff). To avoid the conclusion that Daniel’s prophecy was a supernatural act of God, modern scholars have proposed a number of explanations including a late date of writing. However, the historical accuracy of Daniel’s record confirms a 6th century composition, and the best conclusion is that the Book of Daniel is a revelation from God about historical events that were future to Daniel, many of which are still future to us today.

Daniel 1:1 b— Is the date given here of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion in contradiction to the date given in Jeremiah 46:2?

PROBLEM: The Book of Daniel begins with the dating of the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim of Judah. However, in Jeremiah 46:2, the date of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion is given as during the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim of Judah. Which is correct?

SOLUTION: Both statements are correct. The difference is a result of two different calendar systems used by the two prophets. Daniel employed the Tishri (around October) calendar system which was the first month of the new year on the Hebrew calendar. Jeremiah, whose prophecy concerned the coming invasion of the Assyrian armies, employed the calendar of the Assyrians that marked Nisan (around April) as the first month of the new year. Jehoiakim came to the throne in the month of Tishri in 609 b.c. The official reckoning of a king’s first year starts on the first day of the new year, Tishri

1. Since Jehoiakim became king of Judah several days after the first day of the new year, his first official year as king did not begin until the first day of the following year. For Daniel, this meant that Jehoiakim’s first official year began on the first day of Tishri, almost a whole year later. For Jeremiah, this meant that Jehoiakim’s first official year began about six months later on the first day of Nisan. Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion took place in the summer of 605 b.c., between the months of Nisan and Tishri. This means that according to Daniel’s reckoning, it was only the third official year of Jehoiakim’s reign, but according to Jeremiah’s reckoning it was Jehoiakim’s fourth official year as king of Judah.