a miraculous relationship
The book of Daniel can be broken into two primary sections: chapters 1-6 and chapters 7-12. The first section, Daniel 1-6, is the historical narrative portion of the work. This is the part that most people feel comfortable reading and discussing; nearly all of the content are go to stories for children’s Sunday school: the lion’s den, the fiery furnace, the writing on the wall. Ultimately, these beloved stories are side notes to a much greater narrative. Daniel 1-4 is specifically the account of Nebuchadnezzar: his arrogance, his humility, and his redemption. The remaining chapters from this section (Daniel 5-6) show the impact and legacy of Nebuchadnezzar and his relationship with Daniel. The stories are great, but we cannot lose focus of the primary theme: the amazing redemption of Nebuchadnezzar. In fact, it is likely a problem of misplaced attention and bias to call Daniel the hero of the book. Daniel serves Nebuchadnezzar with dignity, faithfulness, and humility, but the accounts all have a particular focal point: the heart of Nebuchadnezzar.
The second major section is Daniel 7-12; this section contains a collection of Daniel’s visions and the interpretations angelically offered to him. The visions are not random, and this section is not presented in chronological order. It may be more accurate to state that the book of Daniel only contains one apocalyptic vision that increases in detail with further interpretation graciously provided (for our sake as well as Daniel’s). It is also important to note that this apocalyptic vision does not it start with Daniel; rather, it is first offered to Nebuchadnezzar. Attempting to read these visions as being separate and unrelated to each other will lead to confusion and attempts toward overly complex interpretations. Generally speaking, healthy Biblical interpretations implement the basic principle of Occam’s razor: “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”—the simplest approach is likely the best one.
The discussion of authorship is a debated issue among scholars with a tremendously wide range of perspectives. Normally, knowledge of authorship is irrelevant to the understanding of the narrative. The authors of the historical writings (1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ruth, and Judges) are completely unknown—some guess that Samuel wrote Judges, but it’s nothing more than a good guess; likewise, scholars debate and describe several potential authors of Genesis. Regardless, we read through these portions of Scripture unconcerned with authorship. Again, the book of Daniel appears to stand apart. An understanding of authorship can reveal much to us if we let it.
The first perspective of authorship is that the narrative was written by the prophet Daniel himself. To show how drastic the argument of authorship is in the scholarly lecture halls, the second perspective is that the book of Daniel was not written by Daniel at all but was instead written by an unknown individual. A third perspective states that there are potentially four authors with Daniel being one and the others being unknown.
It’s time to be bold and controversial.
First, to speak boldly, there are definitely two known authors of Daniel and potentially two unknown contributors. Let’s go through it in reverse order:
- Daniel 8-12 was written by the prophet Daniel, and it can be stated with confidence; Daniel spoke in the first person and included his name: “I, Daniel…” Stating that Daniel was a named contributor should not be controversial. To know this, all we have to do is read Scripture carefully and believe what it says. The prophet Daniel wrote chapters 8-12 and likely did so with his own hand (as opposed to using a scribe).
- Prior to those chapters, there is room for debate. It is possible that chapters 5-7 were written by multiple unknown authors. For simplicity sake, Daniel 5-6 may have been written by one or two unknown contributors with Daniel 7 being written by another individual particularly close relationally to Daniel. An overlap of authorship is also possible through Daniel 5-7, but, ultimately, everything about authorship for this section is conjecture—which is to say that it is not specified in the text.
- Authorship for the beginning of Daniel, chapters 1-4, is known and should also not be considered controversial. Daniel 1-4 was written by Nebuchadnezzar. Again, to know this, all we have to do is read Scripture carefully and believe what it says. Authorship for Daniel 1-4 should be stated with confidence; these chapters are written in both the third and first person with the text stating multiple times “I, Nebuchadnezzar…”
Next, to stir controversy, I am of the opinion that there are only two authors to the book of Daniel. It is also my opinion that these two authors remained in close relationship, confided in each other regularly, and even had at least one moment of collaboration (Daniel 7). I believe this perspective to be a simpler approach with logical consistency. We also do not have any historical clarity to factually refute the claims. I am of the opinion that Daniel 1-7 was written by Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel 8-12 was written by the prophet Daniel. The controversy for this comes particularly from chapters 5-6 which occur outside of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (according to the text). Most of us have a Hollywood perspective of the ancient world from multiple vantage points. Even the harshest of movies clean up much of the filth, poverty, and gruesome violence that were regularly present in the lives of many; but, we also have this notion that kings were always deceased (by either execution or old age) before all transfers of power. This was not always the case; apparently it makes for good entertainment, but it is not historical fact. For example, during the Crusades, a Saracen leader, Saladin, exchanged ruling power with various kings of Europe via successful and unsuccessful conquests, but he also fulfilled his promise to release King Guy from honored captivity and allowed him to return to his throne in the Holy Land. Later, Richard the Lionheart, in his campaign against Saladin, despite vicious tactics against lowly soldiers, showed similar graciousness to those of nobility. Even Nebuchadnezzar in the height of his arrogance and ruthlessness showed mercy to the noble class as he burned Jerusalem and reduced it to ashes; we read in 2 Kings that Jehoiakim was taken prisoner only to later be freed and given a seat at the kings table—Nebuchadnezzar was gracious to him. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that a beloved and respected king, Nebuchadnezzar, would be allowed to live his remaining days of old age in peace—especially considering the tremendous humility with which he possessed in his later years. Historical accounts of Babylonian kings can be at best described as sparse and incomplete; dates and records conflict depending on the historian, and dates are often given in accordance with estimated time ranges. Simply stated and historically speaking, we don’t know exactly what happened and when it took place. It is possible that Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel formed a lifelong relationship made even more beautiful by his conversion to faith and submission to God. Daniel 7 then, if this is true, could be seen as Daniel confiding in his friend, Nebuchadnezzar, regarding a dream that Nebuchadnezzar also had at the beginning of their relationship (Daniel 2). Because this perspective cannot be definitively confirmed in the scriptural text, let me emphasize that I hold it as opinion, and I hold it loosely.
But, because this is not controversial enough, let me continue… I am of the opinion that during the time from Daniel 5 and on, Nebuchadnezzar became the subject of another book. We know that Ecclesiastes was written about a mysterious character, Qoheleth, a great teacher of the assembly; the author of Ecclesiastes adds a final remark at the end but ultimately simply repeated the teaching of this unnamed individual. Some attribute the work to Solomon based on a single line at the beginning—the teacher calls himself a king in Israel and a son of David. However, Qoheleth states that he has seen highs and lows, justice and injustice, and that he pondered what to do in his time after being a king. Here, kingship could be considered metaphorically, but, regardless, none of the descriptions apply to what we know of Solomon. But, they do apply to Nebuchadnezzar—even if we only consider Daniel 1-4 (his years of grandiose reign, crippling humility, and restoration). Is not the message of “nothing matters but fear of the LORD” more fitting to the hard learned life lessons of Nebuchadnezzar than it is to the pampered life of greedy King Solomon? Furthermore, scholars give an extremely wide berth to potential date ranges as to when Ecclesiastes was written. I, then, propose that Nebuchadnezzar (who was a king in Israel by conquest) viewed his restored years of power not as a monument to himself (as he did prior) but as a continuation of the spiritual rule of King David—he claimed to be a son of David as a statement of spiritual adoption—a practice not uncommon in the ancient world.
If none of this can be confirmed, why state it at all? Maybe it’s too much romanticism and wishful thinking on my part, but there is beauty in considering the extravagant expanse of Nebuchadnezzar’s redemption, in pondering the kind of life lived after his restoration, in imagining the relationship with Daniel he may have relied on for new reasons (not to govern, but to seek the LORD). Something that is never said in teachings or sermons on the book of Daniel is the amazing truth that Nebuchadnezzar became a child of God; and, yet, the book of Daniel itself screams it!
The book of Daniel presents a beautiful story that does not need to be over complicated; God humbles the proud, lifts up the lowly, protects those who bear his name, seeks the lost, assures us that He will triumph, and instructs us to keep our eyes on Him come what may.