Our next argument cannot fail to appeal as conclusive to every true Christian believer. We must reject the ” avowed fiction ” or ” religious romance ” assumption as well as the more subtle pseudonymity theory (as far as the latter applies to Daniel), and face the question as Professor Pusey does : ” The writer, were he not Daniel, must have lied on a most frightful scale, ascribing to God prophecies which were never uttered and miracles which are assumed never to have been wrought. In a word, the whole book would be one lie in the name of God.”

Now let us turn to our New Testament and read the words in Matthew xxiv. 15 : ” When therefore you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel….” These are the words of Jesus Christ the Son of God; can any follower of His permit himself to believe that Christ would have set His seal on a lie or a forgery? Note that this is not even an ordinary quotation, as if He had repeated a line of the Psalms, nor is it a passing quotation from a prophecy; He stamps Daniel as an authority ” When therefore ye see “; and observe He calls him a prophet this writer under a fictitious name who wrote 400 years after the prophets had ceased.

The teaching of Daniel is so interwoven into the entire fabric of the New Testament, both through the Gospels and in the utterances of Paul and Peter, and more especially in the book of Revelation, that to reject Daniel would shatter belief in it.

Thus the main question amongst the critics regarding the genuineness of the book of Daniel is its date. This we must carefully consider as time will permit. All the German Higher Critics, and alas most of our own Biblical teachers, following blindly their lead, place the book in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, and at about the years 168-164 B.C.