-1-

The Canonicity of the Book of Daniel

This article is intended as a contribution to the discussion of the canonicity of the Old
Testament Book of Daniel – whether or not it belongs in the recognised writings forming
the Bible – something that is currently severely doubted by Christian scholars, unjus-
tifiably in my opinion.

Systine Chappel: the Prophet Daniel (by Michelangelo)

The Jewish way of thinking in the days of Christ, was bent on the interpretation of Daniel
9:24-26. In “The Expectation of the Jews”, presented in the ArchkoVolume (1), a comment
is given on these verses:
«« There was a time specified in the Book of Daniel of seventy weeks, which was to
intervene between the building of the Second Temple and the ‘times’ (plural) of the
Messiah, which interpreting according to the prophetic style, a day for a year, would
bring the period of his appearance somewhere near the time when John the Baptist
began to preach. Daniel reads: “Seventy weeks are determined for your people to
finish the transgression (from the command to build Jerusalem until Messiah the
Prince shall be seven plus sixty-two [69] weeks).” »»

And thus serious consideration was given at the time to the fact that the appearance of the
precursor (John the Baptist) would be 483 years [69x7] after the beginning of the recon-
struction of the Temple following the decree by King Cyrus. The date of that decree will
probably not have been a complete certainty. In relation to the messianic claims of Jesus’
mission and His sensational miracles, his contemporaries must have considered the start of
John’s mission a moment of great importance. They must have come to the conclusion that
this occurred just after the end of Daniel’s 69 weeks.

We also learn, this time from the writings of the visionary Maria Valtorta (1897-1961), that
when Jesus talked with the scribes during his Temple visit when He was twelve years of
 -2-

age, that the calculations by the scribes pointed at the birth of the Messiah to have happe-
ned ten years earlier (not twelve, but ten). Since, in their view, nothing had happened, they
revised their calculations, and this time the calculations were pointing at the beginning of
the mission of John the Baptist, assuming that both missions belong together.

The above reasoning stands or falls by the assumed canonicity of the Book of Daniel. The
Roman Catholic Church’s position has always been that this book belongs in the Canon,
i.e. is directly inspired by God, an opinion based among other things on Jesus’ reference to
Daniel 9:27 in Mathew 24:15. Those who support a different view, perhaps fail to realise
that the Jews began to contest the canonicity of Daniel only after the Crucifixion, because
it all too clearly shows in the passages in 9:24-26 that the Jesus whom they crucified was
the Messiah. The Book of Daniel gave an argument to say: “Yes indeed, the ‘son of the
carpenter’ arrived exactly at the date prophecised. And thus He must have been the Mes-
siah.” The book was a thorn in the flesh of the enemies of Christ and it therefore had to be
discredited.

The secularisation of Daniel fits into the Jewish policy of wiping the slate clean, and the
man who played a major part in this effort was the great scriptural scholar Jonathan ben
Uziël, a member of the Sanhedrin that condemned our Saviour. The same man also decided
to remove the chapter on the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 53) from the Haftorahs or public
readings of the scriptures, a custom that still prevails. The Talmud tells that an angel appea-
red to Jonathan to warn him that the way in which the prophet speaks of the Messiah here
indicates Jesus of Nazareth too clearly. (2)

In order to demonstrate the secular character of the Book of Daniel reference is usually
made to the Talmud – in this case, therefore, an unreliable source – that suggests that the
book was written by the Men of the Great Synagogue, therefore after the return from exile
up to Alexander the Great (5th and 4th centuries BC), but little if anything is known of
Jewish history in that period and everyone can say of it whatever he wishes. The modern
opinion prevailing amongst Jewish and Christian scholars is that the Book of Daniel was
written in about 165 BC in order to give the Jews courage during the savage persecutions
of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 BC). This latter opinion is based on the consideration
that the section from Chapter 2:4 up to and including 7:28 was written in Aramaic, with the
use of a few terms borrowed from the Greek. But this does not prove that it was first
written in Aramaic: only that this section has come down to us in that form. And then the
same gentlemen state that there are a number of exegetical considerations that are alleged
not to fit in with the generally current religious opinions during the period of exile. How-
ever prophets generally take little notice of current trends; moved by God, they see visions
and write down words of which they themselves understand only the half – if at all –
realising that they are not prophesying just for themselves but also for future generations.
This without doubt applies to the prophet Daniel.

Finally, with regard to the so-called historical incompatibilities, these refer to assumed and
not factual incompatibilities, which soon becomes clear even on a cursory reading of the
history of the Neo-Babylonians and of the subsequent Persian Empire. It turns out that little
is known of this with any certainty, especially with regard to the chronology employed.

Hubert Luns
[Published in “Positief” February 2003 – No. 329]
 -3-

Notes
(1) The trustworthyness of the documents contained in the ArchkoVolume is discussed in
my article: “Proofs of the Life and Death of Jesus”.

(2) See “Valeur de l’Assemblée qui prononça la peine de mort contre Jésus-Christ” (Status
of the Assembly that pronounced the death sentence on Jesus Christ), 1877, by Mgr. Augus-
tin Lémann and Mgr. Joseph Lémann - Fils d’Israël / Prêtres de Jésus Christ # reprinted in
1975 by the Socii Sancti Michaelis, Gent, Belgium (p. 31).