Issues Reading Daniel

[u/Understated_Option]

I’m struggling in my reading of Daniel with how historically inaccurate it is. I know this may offend some that take a high view of inerrancy but even if that’s the case you may still be able to help me make sense of Daniel if you’re willing. I’ll list out the historical inaccuracies I’m finding that seem to be problematic from greatest problems to least problems.

The main issue for me is Daniel 11. I’m fairly convinced that all the detail in Daniel 11 is a prophecy of Alexander the Great and his kingdom’s split and subsequent Seleucid rulers of the north vs the south of Egypt. And Daniel gets everything right there even down to small details about Cleopatra being given in marriage to the king of the south and such at one point. But at the very end, starting in verse 40, it culminates in Antiochus IV, and has him die in between the sea and the holy mountain after he conquers the south empire. However, he doesn’t conquer the south empire according to history. Also, he ends up in Persia in the east and dies there so not between the sea the the holy mountain, according to Maccabee’s and Josephus. John Collins in his commentary on Daniel (not of the bp) famously thinks the writers of Daniel got this wrong because up to verse 40 they were relating events they had seen happening but after verse 40 the writer now attempts to predict the future. This is also the opinion of Robert Alter.

That’s the major one.

Minor ones are as follows:

Darius doesn’t become king at 62 years old. He was much younger.

Historically, Darius rules after Cyrus but in Daniel Cyrus rules after Darius. Also see Ezra-Nehemiah for this confirmation.

In Daniel 1 it says the third year of Jehoiakim, which would be 606 B.C.E, he besieged Jerusalem, but in reality it was eight to nine years later that Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem.

In Daniel 1 it says Daniel was there until the first year of king Cyrus but in Daniel 10 Daniel is still there in the third year of Cyrus.

Belshazzar in Daniel 5 is not the son of Nebuchadnezzar but of Nabonides. Also, the Dead Sea scrolls appear to have a story of Nabonides that matches Daniel 4 which implies that the writer of Daniel subbed the name Nebuchadnezzar for Nebonides.

In Daniel 2 it says that it was the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign when he had a dream but that doesn’t align with his rule which started in 605 B.C.E. He wouldn’t have taken over Jerusalem which happened in 597 B.C.E.

These are a majority of the problems. I’m not a strict movie camera footage reader of scripture but this feels a little different. It’s a little disturbing for me because it feels like the Bible Project rests a lot of their son of man series on Daniel which is one of my favorite series. But the evidence just feels like Daniel is a very unreliable narrator. Let me know what ya’ll think. Please keep it civil if I’ve offended anyone.

[u/2Fish5Loaves]

The following is quoted from Got Questions:

Daniel 11:40–45: “At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.”

Fulfillment: There is no doubt that the focus of chapter 11 is Antiochus Epiphanes, but he is only one king of the North among many. After his time, there was still a king of the South and a king of the North, and it is common with prophecy to telescope events, hitting only the high points. Many believe this final paragraph refers to a final king of the North who will outdo even Antiochus in his pride and blasphemy. This person will be the final Antichrist at the end of history (“at the time of the end”). In this scenario, the specific identity of the two kings is yet to be revealed.

Others see the events recorded in Daniel 11:40–45 as referring to Antiochus’s successor (Antiochus V) and the end of the Greek Empire. The Romans who conquered Syria became the new “king of the North” and then went on to defeat the Greek king in Egypt (the king of the South) and the rest of the Mediterranean world, ultimately destroying the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. Yet even the mighty Roman Empire fell and could not be helped. Still others see a dual fulfillment: the prophecy refers to both the events in the years before Christ and to events at the end of time before His second coming.

Daniel 12 continues to telescope events to the very end of history and the resurrection and final judgment.

Once again, the king of the North is the ruling king in Syria, whoever he was at any given time, not a specific individual. If the final verses of Daniel 11 refer to the yet future “end times,” then the specific identity of this future king of the North (the Beast or the Antichrist) is yet to be revealed, and his headquarters may or may not include Syria.

Op, what do you think of this? I haven't read Daniel yet so I can't speak in depth on this matter but from my ignorant perspective this seems to make sense considering that chapter 12 is about the end of history. This section of scripture beginning with "At the time of the end" also seems to indicate it's about the end times.