DO EXTERNAL FACTORS PROVE DANIEL A FORGERY?

One of the most common arguments against the book of Daniel involves its place in the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures. The  ancient rabbis arranged the  books of the Hebrew Scriptures in three groups: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.  They listed Daniel, not among the prophets, but among the Writings.  This means, the critics argue, that the book must have been unknown at the time when the works of the other prophets were collected.  It is grouped among the Writings supposedly because they were collected later. 

Nevertheless, not all Bible researchers agree that the ancient rabbis divided the canon in such a rigid manner or that they excluded Daniel from the Prophets.  But even if the rabbis did list Daniel among the Writings, would this prove that  it was written at a later date?  No. Reputable scholars have suggested a number of reasons why the rabbis might have excluded Daniel from the Prophets.  For instance, they may done so because the book offended them or because they viewed  Daniel himself as distinct from prophets in that he held secular office in a foreign land.  In any case, what really matters is this:  The ancient Jews had deep regard for the book of Daniel and held it to be canonical.  Moreover, the evidence suggests that the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was closed long before the second century B.C.E. Later additions were simply not allowed, including some books written during the second century B.C.E.

Ironically, one of these rejected later works has been used as an argument against the book of Daniel.  The apocryphal book Ecclesiastes, by Jesus Ben Sirach was evidently composed about 180 B.C.E. Critics like to point out that Daniel is omitted  from the book's long list of righteous men.  They reason that Daniel must have been unknown at the time.  This argument is widely accepted   among scholars.  But consider this:  The same list omits Ezra and Mordecai.  (both of whom were great heroes in the eyes of postexilloic Jews), good king Jehoshaphat, and the upright man Job; of all the judges, it names only Samuel.  Because such men were omitted from a list that makes no claim to be exhaustive, occurring in a non-canonical book, must we dismiss all of them as fictitious? The very notion is preposterous. 

Next time: OUTSIDE TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF DANIEL

From the book: PAY ATTENTION TO DANIEL'S PROPHECY! 1999