The Book of Daniel stands as a primary target for critics because its detailed predictions regarding the rise and fall of empires are so accurate that they challenge the boundaries of naturalistic history. The central controversy revolves around the date of authorship: whether it was written in the 6th century B.C. by the historical Daniel, or in the 2nd century B.C. by an anonymous author after many of the events had already occurred. For those who hold to a supernatural worldview, the timing is critical because it serves as the ultimate proof that the Creator knows the end from the beginning, thereby establishing that He is the source of absolute truth.
Skeptics and those who oppose the biblical narrative are often deeply committed to a “late date” (the Maccabean hypothesis) because their philosophical framework does not allow for the possibility of predictive prophecy. If the book was written in the 160s B.C., the detailed descriptions of the transition from the Medo-Persian Empire to the Greek Empire, and the specific actions of Antiochus Epiphanes, are merely history written in the guise of prophecy. By insisting on a late date, critics attempt to strip the text of its divine authority, reducing it to a work of political propaganda intended to encourage Jews during a time of persecution.
However, the claim that God is truth is directly tied to the book’s ability to predict the future with 100% accuracy. If Daniel truly recorded these visions while in Babylon and Persia centuries before they happened, it proves that the Bible is not a human product but a revelation from a Being who exists outside of time. This is why the debate is not merely academic; it is a battle over the very nature of reality and the reliability of the Word of God. If the prophecies are genuine, then the promises regarding the future of the Jews and the coming Messianic kingdom must also be accepted as absolute truth.
There is significant evidence supporting an early date of authorship that predates the events described. Linguistically, the presence of Persian loanwords and the specific style of Aramaic used in the book are consistent with the 6th and 5th centuries B.C., rather than the later Hellenistic period. Furthermore, the Book of Ezekiel, which is contemporary with the Babylonian exile, mentions Daniel as a figure of renowned righteousness and wisdom. This indicates that Daniel was a well-known historical personage during the exile, not a fictional character created centuries later.
Internal evidence also suggests the author had an intimate knowledge of 6th-century Babylonian customs that would have been forgotten by the 2nd century. For instance, the descriptions of King Belshazzar were once cited by critics as a historical error until archeological discoveries, such as the Nabonidus Cylinder, proved that Belshazzar was indeed the co-regent of Babylon. A 2nd-century writer would likely not have known about this specific arrangement, as Belshazzar had vanished from later historical records until modern archeology rediscovered him.
Finally, the inclusion of Daniel in the Septuagint and the discovery of Daniel manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls provide further evidence of its antiquity. The scrolls show that the book was already regarded as sacred Scripture and was widely circulated long before the period critics claim it was written. For the believer, these evidences confirm that the book is a miraculous record of divine foreknowledge, providing a firm foundation for the hope that every remaining prophecy concerning the Jews and the end of the age will be fulfilled exactly as written.
See Related Posts: Introduction to Daniel and About Daniel