No discussion of Daniel 9 can ignore the critical question of when the book of Daniel itself was written. If Daniel was written during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BC, then its visions are truly predictive, foretelling the rise and fall of empires centuries in advance. But if, as many modern scholars argue, the book was composed in the 2nd century BC during the crisis under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, then the prophecy is not predictive but retrospective.

Objection To Daniel's Prophecy: The Case for a 2nd-Century (Maccabean) Date

Many scholars argue that Daniel is a pseudonymous work composed in the 160s BC, during the Maccabean revolt (John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia; A. J. Ferch, “The Book of Daniel and the ‘Maccabean Thesis,’” Andrews University Seminary Studies 21 [1983]). It is generally accepted in critical scholarship that Daniel originated as a collection of Aramaic court tales, later expanded by Hebrew revelations. This last phase of composition is usually dated to the period between the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 BC and his death in 164 BC (Collins, Hermeneia; Lester L. Grabbe, “The Book of Daniel and the Day of Antiochus Epiphanes,” in Jewish Historiography and Scripture Interpretation, 2005).

The strongest evidence for this view comes from the book’s extraordinary accuracy in describing events up to the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, coupled with its vagueness about what follows. Daniel 11 is said to give minute detail about Antiochus’s campaigns, the desecration of the Temple, and the persecution of faithful Jews—leading critics to conclude that it must have been written after these events occurred (Collins, Hermeneia; “Critical Biblical Scholarship Part 4 – The Historicity of the Book of Daniel,” Cantus-Firmus blog, 2018). Linguistic evidence is also cited: Daniel contains Greek and Persian loanwords, which are thought to reflect a later cultural context (Collins, Hermeneia). The book’s apocalyptic style, which closely resembles other Jewish writings from the Hellenistic period, also fits better in the 2nd century than the 6th. Finally, skeptics note that Daniel was slow to be included in the Jewish canon and is absent from earlier writings like Ben Sira, which may suggest it had not yet achieved scriptural status in his day (Collins, Hermeneia; Ferch, AUSS 21). Taken together, these arguments form the backbone of the case that Daniel’s “prophecies” are in fact history written in advance, with no expectation of predicting distant future events.

Response

Historical Evidence & Canonical Evidence

Critics point to Daniel 11’s detailed accuracy about Antiochus IV Epiphanes as proof of post-event writing. Yet the same chapter grows less precise at the end of Antiochus’s reign.

Linguistic Evidence

Another problem is that contemporary texts know nothing of Darius the Mede ruling as king in Babylon (5:31; 9:1; 11:1). Various suggestions have been made: two have some plausibility. One is that Darius is an alternative name of Gubaru, the governor of Babylon appointed by Cyrus.6 The other is that Darius is an alternative name of Cyrus himself (cf. 6:28).7 Neither seems wholly satisfactory, and this is one of the weaker points in the conservative view.

Contextual Evidence

Claim to Prophecy: This prophetic method was designed to demonstrate to skeptical audiences that God spoke through the prophet; later verification of the fulfilled prophecy would confirm divine inspiration (Is. 8:16; 29:11; 30:8; Je. 30:2; 32:14; 36; Hab. 2:2ff; Dt. 18:22). Daniel explicitly compares his work to Jeremiah (9:2ff.) and presents visions sealed for future verification (8:26; 12:4, 9), following older prophetic customs (Isa. 8:16; Jer. 30:2; Hab. 2:2 The theological themes (resurrection, angelology) align with earlier OT writings, not 2nd-century innovations (McLatchie).

The Prophecy of the 70 Weeks: The 490 years of Daniel 9:24–27 is likely solar years (See The Weeks In Daniel. It is chronologically impossible to fit these 490 years between Cyrus’s decree (538 BC) and the Maccabean crisis (~170 BC), which challenges a late dating.

Early Christian Consensus: From the early Church Fathers onward, Daniels 70 weeks was universally read as messianic prophecy fulfilled in Christ. The only major dissent came from Porphyry (3rd century AD), who denied predictive prophecy altogether.

Knowledge of Babylonian History: Knowledge of Babylonian History: Daniel shows details only a contemporary could know. R. P. Dougherty (Nabonidus and Belshazzar) noted that Daniel 5 ranks next to cuneiform records in accuracy. McLatchie adds the example of Belshazzar, the co-regent of Babylon mentioned in Daniel 5. For centuries historical records only documented Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon. However, later archaeological discoveries—especially cuneiform inscriptions and the Babylonian Chronicle—confirmed that Belshazzar was indeed Nabonidus’s son and served as regent while his father was absent from the capital. This demonstrates that Daniel preserves accurate historical information that would have been extremely difficult for a 2nd-century BCE author to invent, lending strong support to a 6th-century BCE composition. As Dougherty further explains, “The total information found in all available chronologically-fixed documents later than the sixth century BC … could not have provided the necessary material for the historical framework of the fifth chapter of Daniel.” A 2nd-century Jew could not have reconstructed this.

Historical Fit of Antiochus: Antiochus IV was a ruthless persecutor, yet the Daniel narratives depict Nebuchadnezzar and Darius as corrigible and even repentant—behavior very unlike Antiochus. A 2nd-century author would likely have modeled these kings on Antiochus if writing during the Hellenistic crisis.

Claimed 6th-Century Context: Daniel presents himself as living during the Babylonian exile, contemporaneous with Nebuchadnezzar (605–562 BC), Belshazzar (556–539 BC), and Cyrus (539–530 BC) (2:1; 5:1; 10:1, etc.), reinforcing the early historical context.

Emphasis on the Greek Period: Chapters 8 and 11 describe Alexander and his successors in detail, whereas Rome is barely mentioned unless as the fourth kingdom. Scholars such as Gurney argue that the prominence of Greece fits the historical flow of prophecy toward Christ. This view was also held by conservative Christians like the Westminster divines before it became associated with liberal scholarship.

Mismatch with Maccabean Setting: Daniel advocates patient endurance under foreign kings, not armed revolt. Von Rad (OT Theology II, 315) suggested that the book may even have been written by opponents of the Maccabees. A persecuted Jewish audience would find far greater comfort in a historically grounded prophetic voice than in a newly composed parable. McLatchie notes that the Septuagint translation (3rd century BCE) confirms Daniel’s authority and circulation well before the Maccabean period.

Daniel’s Use of Jeremiah and Awareness of Key Events: Daniel demonstrates awareness of two pivotal events in Israel’s history: the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 587 BCE and the Cyrus decree of 538 BCE allowing the exiles to return (Dan 1:1–2; 9:1–2; Ezra 1:1–4). This may be why Daniel turns to the Hebrew Scriptures, specifically Jeremiah’s seventy-year prophecy (Jer 25:11–12; 29:10) for Daniel chapter 9. Daniel’s awareness of the approaching end of the seventy-year exile prompts his intercessory prayer (Dan 9:3–19). Because Daniel’s vision hinges on precise historical events—destruction of the Temple, exile, and Cyrus’s decree—this internal consistency strongly suggests the book was composed before the Maccabean period. While a 2nd-century BC author could theoretically have invented these details to give the appearance of predictive prophecy, doing so would require an extraordinary knowledge of 6th-century Babylonian history

🏺 The Final Nail For The 2nd Century Dating, The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls preserve multiple manuscripts of Daniel, demonstrating the book’s early circulation and significance within the Qumran community. Cave 1 fragments are among the earliest known copies, dating from the 2nd century BCE, and were first published by D. Barthélemy and J. Milik in 1955 (Barthélemy & Milik, Les Manuscrits de la Mer Morte, 1955:150–152). Cave 4 contains the most extensive preservation of Daniel, while Cave 6 provides additional papyrus evidence overlapping with chapters 8–11. There is also an overlap of a number of passages in Daniel 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11. Reference to Daniel 12 is made in 4QFlorilegium, an anthology of midrashic materials [rabbinical commentaries] on 2 Samuel and Psalms 1, 2 (S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures, 1976).

Cave 1 (1Q):

Cave 1 fragments are among the earliest known copies of Daniel, dating from the 2nd century BCE USC Dornsife. They were first published by D. Barthélemy and J. Milik in 1955

Cave 4 (4Q)

Cave 4 fragments are the most extensive and preserve large portions of Daniel 1–11.

Cave 6 (6Q)

Cave 6 provides additional papyrus evidence overlapping with Daniel 8–11.

The careful copying and circulation of these manuscripts indicate that Daniel was widely read and valued long before the Maccabean period, challenging the view that it was a late pseudonymous work. In fact, Daniel is among the most popular books at Qumran (S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the OT, 1913:509)..

New AI Research

Recent interdisciplinary research led by the University of Groningen has introduced a novel method for dating ancient manuscripts, combining artificial intelligence (AI) with radiocarbon dating. The AI model, named Enoch, analyzes handwriting patterns in digitized scrolls and correlates them with radiocarbon data to predict manuscript dates with an uncertainty of approximately 30 years. This approach has provided more precise dating for many Dead Sea Scrolls than traditional paleographic methods alone. PLOS+1 , these early fragments provide direct physical evidence that the book—or at least significant portions of it—was already in circulation well before the Maccabean period, undercutting the late-date hypothesis (K. A. Kitchen, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, 1965:31–79)

!Pasted image 20250914141849.png

Notably, fragments from the Book of Daniel, such as 4Q114, have been redated to between 230 and 160 BCE, significantly earlier than previous estimates. This finding aligns more closely with the traditional understanding of Daniel's composition during the 6th century BCE, rather than the Maccabean period. Wikipedia (E. Y. Kutscher, Current Trends in Linguistics, 6, 1970:399–403).

!Pasted image 20250914141944.png

The AI and radiocarbon analysis from the University of Groningen assigns certain Daniel fragments to as early as the 3rd century BCE (c. 300 BCE) and multiple fragments to around 200 BCE. If Daniel had been composed during the Maccabean period (c. 165–160 BCE), we would expect all extant fragments to postdate that time, since the text would not have existed earlier. Instead, the existence of multiple fragments dated decades before the Maccabean revolt demonstrates that portions of Daniel were already circulating in written form. One fragment even dates to around 300 BCE, roughly a century before the traditional Maccabean date, making it chronologically impossible for the book to have originated in the 2nd century BCE purely as a pseudonymous prophecy (A. R. Millard, “Daniel 1–6 and History,” Evangelical Quarterly, 1977:67–73).

Enter your search text in the box above

Select a result to preview

Powered by Forestry.md