Daniel uses the Aramaic equivalent of this expression in chap. Jeremiah 25 is dated as belonging to the fourth year of jehoiakim (605 B. Kutscher, "Aramaic," Encyclopaedialudaica, (1972); "Daniel," encyclopaedia Britannica, (1946 ed.). C.) but its burden is the impending ruin of Jerusalem, not its restoration. Kitchen, "The Aramaic of Daniel," Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, p. However, because recent years have demonstrated the widespread Greek influences in the Near East before Nebuchadnezzar's time, and thus have shown that the Greek terms in Daniel could well be traced to that influence, we append a recent comment from an authority in this second area. 1965 there has been no reappraisal of the Maccabean date for Daniel, in spite of the increasing mass of evidence for early contacts between the Aegean and the Near East.In reading commentaries on Daniel the writer has been struck by the complete sclerosis of critical thought regarding the date of its composition, and the implications of the Creek words in Daniel for that date. The late date of Daniel has come to be one of those "assumptions tidily packaged and put away as being no longer open to question." James A. Archeological evidence is accumulating at such a rate that any position particularly one based on arguments from silence or very limited data that is not carefully reappraised within a decade is in danger of obsolescence.
It is absolutely certain that the Aramaic of Daniel is identical with the Imperial Aramaic of the eighth to third centuries B. For example, scholars have pointed to the presence of the three Creek terms in Daniel as evidence of the second century source. This emphasis on the unity of theme and authorship of the book is closely allied to the traditional position, though all claim that this single author lived and wrote in the Maccabean era. It points to the abolition of sin and guilt, the establishment of everlasting righteousness, and the ultimate dwelling of God with His people. On the other hand, until the conviction of the authenticity of the book is established in the mind of the inquirer, further study is useless, unless we apply the device of "re-interpretation" as a hermeneutic. Let it be emphasized the latter is all that re mains to Seventh-day Adventists if we reject the traditional dating of the Old Testament apocalypse. Angelology, for example, seems similarly well-developed in Ezekiel and in Zechariah, and angels in the latter assume the same function as in Daniel namely the interpretation of visions.
The angelology of Daniel is not akin to late apocalyptic works such as I Enoch.
If the book of Daniel was written in the second century B. and its horizon is bounded by the exploits of Antiochus Epiphanes, then the ninth chapter has for its "prophetic" theme not the Messiah but the Syrian tyrant. It is commonly said that the liberal critical position is purely the result of the presupposition that long-range prediction is impossible.