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. - **Lack of Antiochus’s Death and Hanukkah Cleansing**: If Daniel were written in 164 BC, during Antiochus’s persecution, it is strange that the book never mentions his death (164 BC) or the Temple’s cleansing (165 BC)—events celebrated by Jews through Hanukkah. This silence suggests the book predates those events. - **Canon Closure Problem**: If Daniel were a late pseudonymous text, how did it enter the Jewish canon so quickly when the canon was already closed in the Maccabean era (Leiman, _Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures_)? Accepting it would have discredited its own central claim—that God reveals genuine future prophecy. - **Use in Jewish Literature**: Critics argue Ben Sira (c. 180 BC) omits Daniel, proving it didn’t exist yet. But Ben Sira also omits other significant books (Esther, Ezekiel, some of the Twelve). Silence is not proof of absence. - **Qumran Evidence**: Critics also argue that since Daniel is included among the _Writings_ (Ketuvim), not the Prophets this reflects late acceptance. Fragments of Daniel (1QDana, 4QDana–c, etc.) were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, copied in the early 2nd century BC. Daniel is one of the most frequently preserved books at Qumran—hard to explain if it had just been written a few years earlier. - **Improbability of a Maccabean Historical Survey**: If Daniel 11 were composed after the events of Antiochus IV, it is inexplicable that the chapter virtually ignores world-shaping episodes such as Xerxes’ massive invasion of Greece and the celebrated Maccabean revolt—reducing the latter to merely “a little help” (Dan 11:34). As Coffman notes, “It is simply impossible to suppose that any person whatever could have written such a thing after those stirring events of the Maccabean rebellion” (Coffman, _Commentaries on the Bible_, quoting Keil and Dummelow). ## Linguistic Evidence - **Aramaic & Hebrew**: The Aramaic in Daniel reflects _Imperial Aramaic_ (6th–5th century), not the later Western dialects of the 2nd century BC (Kutscher, Rosenthal). This indicates Daniel’s linguistic base aligns with the Babylonian and early Persian period, not the Hellenistic era. - **Persian Loanwords**: The Persian terms in Daniel match **Old Persian**, not later **Middle Persian**, suggesting an earlier origin. If Daniel were written in the 2nd century, Middle Persian forms should naturally appear. - **Greek Loanwords**: The few Greek words are are limited to musical instruments, which could have entered Near Eastern vocabulary long before Alexander. Form alone is insufficient to assign Daniel to the 2nd century. - **Counterexamples**: Apocalyptic style isn’t proof of a late date—books like Isaiah 24–27 and Zechariah 9 show similar features, yet are securely pre-Hellenistic. - **Driver’s Admission**: Even the critical scholar S. R. Driver admitted linguistic evidence doesn’t _compel_ a late date (_Introduction to the Literature of the OT_, 509). - **Millard’s Contribution**: The Hebrew names Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego appear in Daniel as Babylonian court names assigned to Jewish exiles, and for centuries scholars found them puzzling because they did not resemble standard Hebrew or previously known Babylonian names. Millard has now shown that these are authentic Babylonian theophoric names, reflecting the names of Babylonian deities (Millard, _Evangelical Quarterly_). 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 Prophecy of the 70 Weeks**: The 490 years of Daniel 9:24–27 are solar years. 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. 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. **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](https://dornsife.usc.edu/wsrp/wp-content/uploads/sites/155/2023/05/Dead-Sea-Scrolls.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com). They were first published by **D. Barthélemy** and **J. Milik** in 1955 - **1QDana** (Barthélemy & Milik, 1955:150–52): Contains parts of Daniel 1:10–17 and 2:2–6. - **1QDanb** (Barthélemy & Milik, 1955:150–52): Contains parts of Daniel 3:22–30. - **1QDan (1Q71/72)**: Additional complete or near-complete manuscripts of Daniel [USC Dornsife](https://dornsife.usc.edu/wsrp/wp-content/uploads/sites/155/2023/05/Dead-Sea-Scrolls.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com). #### Cave 4 (4Q) Cave 4 fragments are the most extensive and preserve large portions of Daniel 1–11. - **4QDana / 4Q112** (Ulrich, 1987:18): Large portions of Daniel, including 1:16–20; 2:9–11,19–49; 3:1–2; 4:29–30; 5:5–7,12–14,16–19; 7:5–7,25–28; 8:1–5; 10:16–20; 11:13–16 (**D. J. Wiseman, _Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel_, 1965:9–18**). - **4QDanb / 4Q113** (Ulrich, 1987:18): Daniel 5:10–12,14–16,19–22; 6:8–22,27–29; 7:1–6,11(?),26–28; 8:1–8,13–16. - **4QDanc / 4Q114** (Ulrich, 1987:18): Daniel 10:5–9,11–16,21; 11:1–2,13–17,25–29. - **4QDane / 4Q115**: Some unpublished fragments of Daniel 9, overlapping minor portions of other chapters. - **4QDanf / 4Q116**: Fragments of Daniel 2:31–45. #### Cave 6 (6Q) Cave 6 provides additional papyrus evidence overlapping with Daniel 8–11. - **6Qpapyrus** (Baillet & Milik, 1962:114–15, pl. 23, [biblearchaeology.org](https://biblearchaeology.org/c60gd/3193?utm_source=chatgpt.com)): Possibly Daniel 8:16,17,21,22; clearly Daniel 10:8–16; 11:33–36,38 (**R. P. Dougherty, _Nabonidus and Belshazzar_, 1929:199f**).. 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](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0323185&utm_source=chatgpt.com) , 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls?utm_source=chatgpt.com) (**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**).