Introduction

A couple of weeks ago I was preparing to teach a children’s class at my church about the prophecies recorded in the book of Daniel. As I was reading, I became curious about the history surrounding the book and I just have to share what I learned about how scholars have dated its authorship.

I found that there are two main views known as the “Early-Date View” and the “Late-Date View.” The Early-Date View claims that the Book of Daniel was written during the Babylonian captivity, sometime around the year 600 BC, by Daniel himself. The Late-Date View claims that the book was written during the 2nd Century BC, sometime close to 167-164 BC.

Both views are held by Bible believing Christians, but there is a bit of controversy between them.

While the average believer in the pews at church is likely to hold to the Early-Date View of the dating of Daniel, many scholars argue for the Late-Date View. Some even claim that the prophetic aspects of the book were written for political purposes and contain errors surrounding the life events of Antiochus IV.

Despite some concerning aspects of the Late-Date View, there are solutions to the text which can provide comfort to Christians in either camp, and both options provide acceptable reasons to trust the genuine prophetic ability of the book as the word of God.

The Early-Date View (Traditional/Common View)

The average Christian probably doesn’t even think about it.

After reading the book, simple intuition will likely lead to the idea that Daniel wrote it during the Babylonian exile. The beginning of the book reads like a narrative account of the events from a 3^rd person perspective which could have been written after the fact, but the latter half, starting in chapter 7, contains clear references to an author who is writing from his own perspective.

The Early-Date View holds that the Book of Daniel was written mostly during the 6^th Century BC, covering events that happened during the Babylonian exile and early Persian period. This view is mostly held by conservative and evangelical scholars who argue that it rests on several factors similar to the Late-Date View.

It’s important to note that Early-Date advocates don’t necessarily deny that Daniel is addressing events from the 2^nd Century BC. Instead, they argue that the book reflects 6^th Century origins which were preserved and transmitted through time, and that its predictive elements should not be dismissed based on materialistic presuppositions.

Linguistic Evidence

Early-Date proponents argue that an analysis of the original languages used in the Hebrew and Aramaic sections is best explained by a 6^th Century BC context rather than a later one.

The Hebrew sections of Daniel can be compared with works such as Ezekiel and Ezra, which are contemporary to the 6^th Century and early 5^th Century BC. Scholars note that the Hebrew in Daniel lacks many features you would expect to find in late Mishnaic Hebrew from the 2^nd Century BC.

The Aramaic sections are argued to align closely with Imperial Aramaic, which was the administrative language used by the Babylonian and Persian empires. Specifically, the Imperial Aramaic dialect used matches closely with the Eastern dialects found in Babylonian and Persian documents, rather than the Western Aramaic found in the region around Judea during the Hellenistic period. Scholars argue that this would be difficult for a later Judean author to reproduce accurately.

Early-Date scholars also address the loanwords from other languages found in the text. They point out that the Greek and Persian terms could easily fit into the 6^th Century context given the authors insight into international trade and imperial administration. They say these words also reflect their earlier linguistic forms.

Historical Accuracy and Cultural Detail

Advocates of the Early-Date argue that the Book of Daniel contains detailed and accurate knowledge of 6^th Century Babylonian and Persian customs better than we would expect a 2^nd Century author to include.

For example, some Greek historians from the Hellenistic period show uncertainty or confusion about Neo-Babylonian rulers, whereas Daniel accurately depicts Nebuchadnezzar as the dominant ruler from the period. On top of that, Daniel accurately shows Belshazzar as the royal authority in Babylon, which aligns with modern discoveries showing that he served as a co-regent under his father Nabonidus– a fact which wouldn’t be confirmed until the discovery of the Nabonidus Cylinder in the 19th Century AD.

Other cultural details, such as the irrevocability of Medo-Persian law, the use of a fiery furnace for execution, and court procedures described throughout the book closely align with what we now know about Near-Eastern practices of the time period. These kinds of details are not typically reconstructed several centuries after the fact.

One last major point is the fact that Daniel chooses to reference the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem as during Jehoiakim’s third year, which shows that the author was using a Babylonian method of dating rather than a Jewish system.

Manuscript and Canonical Evidence

The earliest known manuscript of Daniel is known as 4QDan, and is commonly dated to 125-100 BC. By this time, the Book of Daniel appears in multiple copies at Qumran and is treated as authoritative scripture.

Early-date proponents argue that this poses a difficult challenge for an authorship date of only a few decades earlier. Other 2^nd Century BC writings, such as Maccabees, struggled for canonical recognition and are inconsistently included in manuscript traditions. This shows that Daniel seems to have achieved very rapid and widespread acceptance.

Additionally, the Book of Daniel was included in the Septuagint, which is dated to roughly 100 BC, and it shows signs of textual variation. Early-date proponents argue this shows a history of transmission and implies the existence of an earlier Hebrew and Aramaic original.

Intertextual and Historical References

Some scholars argue that intertextual references suggest that Daniel was known prior to the 2^nd Century BC.

Specifically, they point to the Book of Ezekiel, written during the Babylonian exile, which mentions Daniel on three occasions (Ezek. 14:14, 14:20, and 28:3). Ezekiel portrays Daniel as a figure of wisdom known beyond Israel’s borders, as far away as Phoenicia. While some might argue that Ezekiel is speaking of a legendary figure known by the name Daniel, proponents of the Early-Date View point out that this description matches the biblical Daniel very well as an official in the imperial courts of Babylon and Persia, rather than a fictional character.

The Jewish historian Josephus also records that Alexander the Great was allegedly shown prophesies concerning himself from the book when he invaded the Levant during the 4^th Century BC. Modern historians debate the details of the account, but Early-Date proponents argue that it reflects a tradition of an earlier date of authorship known to Jews of the time.

Prophetic and Theological Considerations

Finally, Early-Date proponents point out that Daniel’s prophesies extend beyond the events of the 2^nd Century BC, and this challenges the idea that it was written solely as a response to the Maccabean crisis. The author seems to have believed that much more was going on than simple political turmoil.

In particular, the prophecy of the 70 weeks, found in Daniel 9, is usually interpreted as spanning events from the Persian period all the way through to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It’s also worth noting that, while Antiochus IV is certainly a very good candidate for the subject of some of Daniel’s visions, he is never explicitly mentioned in the text. Instead, we are left trying to fit him in using our own historical understanding.

From a theological standpoint, Early-Date advocates also note that Jesus refers to Daniel as a prophet, and New Testament authors adopt Danielic language. Even Jesus himself adopts the title of “Son of Man” when asked by the Pharisees to tell them who He is. Within Christianity, this reception in the New Testament is seen as affirmation of Daniel’s authenticity.

The Late-Date View (Majority View Among Scholars)

The Late-Date View asserts that the dating of the Book of Daniel is more likely to be closer to the 2nd Century BC. The 2nd Century BC is the time-period of the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV. Specifically, critical scholars zone in on the years 167-164 BC as the time-frame when the book was most likely written.

Their conclusion is based on several factors: Linguistics, Historical difficulties, Genre analysis, and Prophetic Accuracy. Using all of these observations, they conclude that the Book of Daniel must have been written at a time later than the Babylonian Exile.

Linguistic Considerations

One of the main considerations of the Late-Date argument is the language Daniel is written in. Specifically, scholars note that the Aramaic sections, found in Daniel 2:4-7:28 resembles what is called “Imperial Aramaic,” which was the administrative language used throughout the Persian Empire. However, they point out that it also shows linguistic features and characteristics of later periods, including grammar and vocabulary that are found in later, post-exilic books such as Chronicles and Esther.

Additionally, critical scholars bring up a number of Greek loanwords, usually musical terms, as evidence that there must have been Hellenistic influence on the author. These words are typically understood to indicate cultural contact with Greece that would more naturally occur after Alexander the Great’s conquests in the 300s BC.

Taken together, these points are used to argue that the text was more than likely written in the 2nd Century BC, rather than the 6th.

Alleged Historical Inaccuracies

Another major argument is what are often called historical difficulties.
One common example is the inclusion of “Darius the Mede,” in the story. As far as history can tell, no figure by that name has ever existed. There are no references to or about him other than what is found within scripture. While most scholars tend to agree that the absence of evidence is not proof of his nonexistence, they argue that the Book of Daniel’s presentation of him doesn’t align very neatly with the known historical accounts of the period.

In similar fashion, Daniel describes Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar, whereas Babylonian records, such as the Nabonidus Cylinder, identify him as the son of Nabonidus. Critical scholars see this as a historical error, suggesting that the author must have been removed from the political realities of the period.

Late-Date scholarship also argues that Daniel himself is not clearly attested in other Jewish literature prior to the 2nd Century BC. While they acknowledge that the book of Ezra, a book thought to have been written between 460 and 440 BC, mentions a figure named Daniel, there is still debate over whether it refers to the same Daniel or a legendary figure without a real historical basis. This silence is taken to be further evidence that the Book of Daniel emerged relatively late. 

Manuscript and Canonical Evidence

The earliest physical copies of Daniel come from the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated to approximately 125 BC. Scholars note that Daniel appears in multiple copies at Qumran, which suggests that it was already held in high esteem as authoritative Scripture by the time.

However, instead of seeing this as evidence for a early authorship, critical scholars argue that this reflects very rapid dissemination and acceptance of a recently composed work. They say this is likely due to the fact that it directly addresses the current political crisis under Antiochus IV and offered hope to the oppressed community. 

Genre and Theological Development

The Book of Daniel is classified as apocalyptic literature by many scholars, a genre which most scholars believe came about during the Hellenistic period, especially in contexts concerning political oppression and persecution. Apocalyptic texts are typically known for using symbolic visions, angelic messengers, cosmic battles and dualism, and prophetic/deterministic views of history in order to provide reassurance of divine justice to their audiences.
According to Late-Date critical scholars, this genre wasn’t used much before the 2nd Century BC. The books focus being heavenly visions, symbolism, and angelic interpretations are seen as being a part of the literary developments of the time.

Closely related are the theological themes which are typically associated with Second Temple Judaism. The naming of archangels, details of angelic warfare, and resurrection are all aspects of Jewish literature which developed between the 3rd and 2nd Centuries BC. A fact which proponents of the Late-Date View say points to Daniel’s dating being late rather than early. 

The Accuracy of the Prophecies

Perhaps the strongest argument for the late dating of Daniel is about the precision of the prophecies detailed in the book. Scholars observe that Daniel’s prophetic dreams are shockingly accurate up to the reign of Antiochus IV.

Daniel’s dream accurately depicts the rise of the Greek empire under Alexander the Great, the division of his empire into 4 separate kingdoms, the conflicts between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic rulers, and Antiochus IV’s desecration of the temple in Jerusalem.

Some scholars say that this level of detail suggests that the author had firsthand knowledge of these events. Prophecy written in this way, during or after the fact, is called “vaticinium ex eventu,” and is not considered genuine prediction.

Critics of the book argue that Daniel’s accuracy declines after 164 BC. They point out that while it seems that Daniel predicts Antiochus IV to die in Judea, he actually dies in Persia. Moreover, the book does not indicate any knowledge of the future re-dedication of the temple, which would be expected to have been included if the author were writing afterwards.

Given his accuracy up to 164 BC, and lack of accuracy after, many scholars conclude that Daniel must have been written sometime between 167 and 164 BC, during the height of the Maccabean crisis, but before its outcome was known.

Comparing the two views

As you read through those points above, you may have noticed that several of the arguments appear on both sides of the debate. This suggests that the views of different scholars might depend on their underlying presuppositions.

If a scholar is predisposed to accept the prophetic, then they might be more likely to accept the early view. If a scholar is predisposed to deny prophecy or they tend to hold to more materialistic positions, then they might be more likely to accept the Late-Date View.

Evidence is subject to interpretation

Each piece of evidence is subject to interpretation, and a person’s interpretation of evidence is heavily influenced by their personal beliefs surrounding the subject.

It can be incredibly difficult to separate yourself from your own presuppositions.

One point stands out from the rest

There is one point made by critical scholars that stands out to me more than the rest, and I think its one that can lead some to have some serious doubts in the trustworthiness of Scripture.

Critical scholars claim that the prophecies found in the Book of Daniel are TOO accurate.

This is strange at first glance, since normally a high degree of accuracy would be something that proved the legitimacy of the prophet. But scholars point out that the prophecies are only accurate until it comes to the death of Antiochus IV. This sudden drop in accuracy, they say, is a sign that it was being written down during the life of Antiochus IV, hence the accuracy of events, but it represents the authors wishful thinking when it comes to future events, such as his death.

This is a problem for Biblical Inerrancy

Obviously, this poses a significant problem for Biblical Inerrancy.

These prophecies that the Book of Daniel records make it seem like this is something God is claiming will happen in the future. If its the case that these prophecies are not true, that would make Daniel, or the author of this book, a false prophet and would clearly mean that Scripture contains errors.

The Late-Date View’s main argument is convincing

Given the fact most of the other pieces of evidence can be used for either side of the argument, it seems that the Late-Date View hinges on this one point:

This is true. These prophecies give details that fall almost right in line with the downfall of Greece, the dividing of the Greek Empire, and the rise of Antiochus IV.

When I found out how accurate the prophecies were, I jumped on the bandwagon thinking this was another great example of prophetic accuracy found in the Bible. However, I was met with confusion upon learning that the Book of Daniel gets Antiochus’s death wrong.

I found that there were many on the internet, denying prophecy, who used this to prove that the Bible got something wrong. They claimed this was written solely to rally the people against their political enemies and inspire confidence since their God was on their side.

Two problems for the Late-Date View’s best argument

There are two things I’d like to point out about the Late-Date Views argument regarding the accuracy of prophecy.

Again, since most of the other pieces of evidence can be used to support either side of the argument, this one seems to be the strongest thing Late-Daters have to support their view.

This position relies on two main points: First, that these prophecies are speaking about Antiochus IV; and second, that they get his death wrong.

Lets look at the first point.

Critical Scholars insist that the author of Daniel is predicting the rise and fall of Antiochus IV. But there’s just one big problem: Antiochus is never directly affirmed by the scriptures.

To conclude that Antiochus IV is the subject of these prophecies, one must deduce his involvement by aligning the scriptures along side history to find the most likely candidate. But this assumes that the subject of the prophecies already exists within history, something which is never concluded within scripture.

As for the second point: Critical scholars, and others denying the accuracy of Scripture, assert that the Book of Daniel gets the death of Antiochus IV wrong.

After assuming that Antiochus IV is the actual subject of the prophecies, they claim that Daniel states his death will occur within the territory of Judea. However this isn’t exactly what the scriptures say.

Daniel 11:45 says “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.”

Notice what this verse doesn’t say. It doesn’t say where he’ll die. It simply says “Yet he will come to his end.” That’s a far cry from “He’ll die in Judea.”

Conclusion – My personal thoughts

There’s the two dominant views among scholars as to the dating of the Book of Daniel.

Early-Date proponents say that it was likely written closer to the 6th Century BC, while Late-Date proponents say that it was written closer to the 2nd Century BC. However, both sides tend simply to view the same pieces of evidence through different lenses.

The one main exception to this is the point that Late-Date Scholars make concerning the accuracy of the prophecies surrounding Antiochus IV. At first, this point seems like a slam dunk for the Late-Date View, but once you realize that it relies on going further than the text does, it becomes pretty obsolete.

Personally, I lean toward the Early-Date View. It just seems like it would be disingenuous of the author to write at several points as though he were speaking as or for Daniel without making it clear that he is actually a 3rd party.

Regardless of the view, Christians don’t have to accept that this is speaking about Antiochus IV as the main subject of the prophecies. It’s entirely possible that Antiochus is merely a foreshadowing figure of what the true fulfillment might look like.

Tell me your thoughts!

Overall, this was a very interesting topic for me to spend my time on. Like most Christians, I didn’t even know that scholars debated about this, and now that I’ve taken the time to learn about it, I feel more confident in my knowledge surrounding the historical context of the Book of Daniel.

If you want to learn more, check out my sources below for more information!

Please let me know if you enjoyed learning about this, or if you have anything to add to the conversation below!

Sources & Further Reading