Since Porphyry introduced his supposition in the third century that there is no predictive element in Daniel’s prophecy, majority of scholars appealing to higher criticism have denied its historicity and authentic unity. Treating it as vaticinia ex eventu (prophecy after the event), they have argued that the book was completed by a pseudonymous writer or pseudepigraphic rendering of an anonymous writer in the second century BC posing himself as Daniel presenting the book as if it took place in the sixth century BC. If they believed in any unity in the book, it was a pseudepigraphic unity lacking historical reality and thereof, authenticity of the writing. Literary critical approach to the book showed limitations in upholding the book’s historicity and its authentic unity.
This study examines a few tell-tale signs in support of the historicity of Daniel’s account and its authentic unity.
First, history is one of major concerns of biblical writers. The writer of Daniel is not an exception. The book is full of historical details. History is closely knit together with two other concerns of the book, i.e., theology and rhetoric. The Daniel narrative is a stylistic or rhetorical medium of historical events which unfold in a linear fashion, and it is this historical element which distinguishes the account of Daniel from fiction. If Daniel is a fictional tale, the specific description of both the temporal and spatial settings, and the use of the names of historical characters throughout the book are not necessary. Various textual examples signal the historicity of the book.
Second, the book’s intertextual relationship is evident. Daniel is inextricably related to other books of the Bible such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Revelation to name a few. Historicity serves as critical foundation to understand the whole context of the Bible. Daniel provides ample historical information for the life of the Babylonian exiles. The thematic connection between Daniel and other books of the Bible extends all the way to the Book of Revelation.
Third, Daniel had gone through a strict test of canonization. The Hebrew canon’s placement of Daniel in the third division (Writings) rather than the second division (Prophets) has led some to argue against the book’s historicity. However, biblical, and historical evidence suggest that Daniel should not only be recognized as a prophet but also be placed among the prophetic books from the beginning; thus, the Hebrew canon’s placement of Daniel among the Writings does not necessarily indicate its lack of historicity as hinted in Qumran manuscripts.
Finally, theology is one of the most important aspects of biblical writers like Daniel. Theology belongs to the central core of the narrative, which makes the historical elements meaningful. History inexplicably intertwines with theology as God speaks in a certain historical situation. Some argue that pseudepigraphy need not be regarded as a calculated deception, but rather because of the intense and emotional experience of the visionary. The claim of the unintentional deception and the writing of the historical events as if they are prophecy contradicts the very nature of God which the pseudonymous writer repeatedly depicts in the book.