However, most people have overlooked the fact that these same scholars have made several admissions which are damaging to their Maccabean thesis. The first admission concerns the conservative's view that Rome is the fourth kingdom identified in Daniel's prophecy. Clearly this indicates that the Persian reign came immediately after the Babylonian reign. The second admission concerns the madness of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel chapter four. This is the position held by many modern critical scholars today.
Conservatives prefer a different explanation.
Nevertheless, the critics insist there is no hint in the historical record that indicates it was Nebuchadnezzar with this strange case of madness that resulted in a seven-year absence. However, later on the same page Porteous admits that fellow Bible critics Bevan, Montgomery, Bentzen, and Jeffrey have recorded such a story. The third and fourth admissions concern linguistic arguments. B.C. Few reputable Bible scholars, however, would fix the date that early, because the book exhibits signs of a much later authorship. Dr. Samuel Driver also made much of the Aramaic of the Book of Daniel.