The Book of Daniel is a fascinating book found in the Old Testament of the Bible. It is a book that has come under much scrutiny through the years due to its prophetical precision. There is the liberal group of scholars who say that the book could not have been written until after the events had actually occurred. This group denies the miraculous -- especially when it concerns the God of the Bible. On the other side of the debate is the group that holds to the historical accuracy of Daniel. This group accepts the theory that says the historical Daniel wrote the book, and he did it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This view gives credence to the prophecies that have come true down through the centuries which were spoken by Daniel hundreds of years before they actually came true.

Though there may be other theories regarding the date of Daniel, this paper will focus primarily on each of the aforementioned views, and give evidence for both as well as a conclusion to each matter. Knowing the date of Daniel's prophecy is of utmost importance. If the conservative view is correct, then Daniel's prophecy is a miraculous work and gives clout to Daniel's outstanding moral character. On the other hand, if the liberal view is to be desired, then the entire book of Daniel, his character, and the rest of the Bible, can be considered less than trustworthy and certainly not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Dealing with this one issue can either strengthen or weaken the faith of any scholar seeking truth. The evidence for a conservative view is quite astounding, but nevertheless, many have chosen to ignore the apologetic arguments in favor of an early date. One can clearly see the ramifications for the correct date regarding Daniel's book.

The prophet Daniel was born during a time when political unrest was prevalent in Palestine. Approximately 100 years prior to his birth the northern nation of Israel had gone into captivity at the hands of the Assyrians in 722 BC. The southern kingdom of Judah remained intact and was led by a good and zealous king -- King Josiah.

The geographical position of Judah, which remained somewhat independent, had fallen into a state of utter vassalage. With Egypt in the south and the up-and-coming Babylonian empire in the north, under the leadership of Nabopolassar, Judah was in the middle of two separate empires who were both sovereign and powerful.

As already noted, Daniel was born during the year in which the second Babylonian empire came into existence (circa 625 BC). While he was a boy Pharaoh Neco of Egypt went to war in opposition to the Babylonians. In that struggle his kinsman and sovereign, King Josiah, took sides with Babylon, and not only lost his life, but compromised even further the lost fortunes of his house and the freedom of his country (Cf. 2 Kings 23:29; 2 Chronicles 35:20).

While Pharaoh headed home he stopped off in Judah and proclaimed his sovereignty over the nation by claiming a heavy tribute from the land. The younger son of Josiah, Jehoahaz, had taken the throne by then following the death of his father, but Pharaoh deposed him and placed Josiah's other son, Eliakim, on the throne. Pharaoh changed Eliakim's name to Jehoiakim and established him in the kingdom as a vassal of Egypt.

Three years later Pharaoh Neco was able to count himself master of the whole country. It was now his purpose to move eastward to the Euphrates and cross the great valley to seize what might fall into his power when the Assyrian Empire met its end. He reached Carchemish, on the Euphrates in 605 and there was confronted by Nebuchadnezzar, who was now the king of Babylon following the death of his father Nabopolassar. The battle that ensued was one of the greatest in all history, judged simply by its immediate historic results. Neco was utterly and disastrously defeated and fled homeward closely pursued by the victor. That one blow made Nebuchadnezzar the presumptive holder of all the valuable territory of Syria and Palestine. He entered Judea demanding the submission of the king of Judah, captured the city, and forced Jehoiakim turn his allegiance to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar departed and went back to Babylon after taking some of the sacred Temple items and a few youths who belonged to the city's royalty. Daniel was one such youth, and he was selected, along with three of his friends (and a handful of other youths), Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael (later Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego) to adorn the king's court as vassal princes in Babylon. This is where the Book of Daniel begins.

Beginning in chapter one, verses 1-5 it appears that Daniel was taken captive, along with some other youths of the "kings seed" and the most distinguished families of Israel. It is unknown as to whether or not Daniel was actual royalty or if he was just a boy from one of the distinguished families in Judah. He was taken during the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia to be educated in the king's court in order that he might serve the king the remainder of his days. His name was changed from Daniel to Belteshazzar. It is probable that Nebuchadnezzar took some of the seeds of royalty in order to educate them and hold them as ransom. Nebuchadnezzar returned at least two more times following his first invasion. By this time the king's court was filled with Babylonian-educated Jewish youths who, in Nebuchadnezzar's mind, would most likely influence the subsequent captives due to their Jewish heritage and influence as royalty.

Evaluating who the author is becomes quite important when one seeks to know the date of composition. If Daniel were the author, and his life can be traced back to the seventh century BC, then one can know with great certainty that the book is authentic.

According to its own testimony the Book of Daniel is the account of a series of prophetic revelations given to a man named Daniel -- a captive Jew taken away into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon in 606/605 BC. Daniel was between the ages of 13-17 when he was taken captive, and he lived until the time of Cyrus, king of Persia. It is conceivable that Daniel lived to about 530 BC, and it is most likely that his book was completed during his lifetime.

The internal evidence of the book leads scholars to believe that Daniel was the author -- at least the author of chapters 7-12. Daniel does not speak of himself in the first person until the seventh chapter, but conservatives universally agree that he is the author of the previous six. This has, however, left open the possibility that Daniel was not the final editor due to the fact that chapters 1-6 make use of the third person. The latter portion of the book contains many clues as to why Daniel is the author (7:2, 15, 28; 8:1, 15, 27; 9:2, 22; 10:2, 7, 11, 12; 12:5), but chapter twelve, verse four is very explicit. As most expositors, whether liberal or conservative, consider the book a unit, the claim of Daniel to have written the book is recognized even by those who reject it.

Until the rise of higher criticism in the seventeenth century the Book of Daniel was virtually accepted by all as authentic. There was one man (Porphyry) who had attacked Daniel's authorship dating back to the third century AD, but other than that there was no question as to whether or not Daniel's book was authored by the Jewish captive dating back to the sixth century BC. Following the rise of higher criticism, however, Daniel became the target of a great deal of debate. The arguments are based primarily on false presuppositions regarding the possibility of the miraculous and whether or not a true prophet who predicts the future under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit can exist at all.

Conservative scholars who believe that the Book of Daniel was written by Daniel obviously agree that it was written between 606 and 530 BC (for this was the large part of Daniel's life and when the events themselves took place). Important confirmation of the historicity of Daniel himself is found in various places within the Bible itself. For instance, the prophet Ezekiel lists Daniel in his own book of prophecy (14:14, 20; 28:3), and he was deported in Nebuchadnezzar's second conquest of Jerusalem in 597 BC. In fact, Ezekiel lists Daniel right along with Noah and Job who were most certainly historical people. If Ezekiel lists Daniel as a historic person living as one of his contemporaries, then the evidence is in favor of the conservative view. Going further, even Jesus made mention of "Daniel the prophet" in His Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14). Furthermore, Daniel's familiarity with the individuals spoken of in the book and with the historical events and customs mentioned in the book necessitates a sixth-century date.

The apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees (written around 135 BC) speaks of the Book of Daniel as a legitimate book. The LXX (Septuagint), which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, also contains the Book of Daniel, and its composition dates between 280 and 180 BC -- much earlier than the proposed Maccabean date by skeptics. Further, the Jewish historian, Josephus, tells of the fact that the Jews of Christ's day recognized Daniel as the author, and that his book was authentic in their minds. Even Jesus Christ Himself attests to this (Matthew 24:15). Josephus gives further credibility to Daniel when he speaks of the fact that Alexander the Great (333-300 BC) marched on Jerusalem to punish the Jews for their loyalty to the Persian king Darius. His account is an interesting and fascinating one because he says that Jaddua, the high priest (Nehemiah 12:11, 22), met him (Alexander) at the head of a procession and turned away his wrath by showing him the prophecy of Daniel, which foretold that a Grecian king would overthrow Persia (Daniel 8:1-7, 20-21). All this happened in 322 BC. Following this, Alexander was unusually kind and tolerant to the Jews, and Josephus' account seems to give a clue as to the reason.

As in any historical situation, the burden of proof is to be put on the one attempting to disprove what history records. Daniel's authorship and date of composition have been accepted as authentic for literally two and half millennia. Liberal scholars who attempt to discredit the book must convincingly prove that Daniel could not have written his account in the sixth century BC. Each argument they raise should be tested and considered open mindedly -- and answered with the utmost care. Their arguments are as follows.

The majority of commentators today have an entirely different opinion as to the date of Daniel's composition. The attacks upon the genuineness of the book have been based upon the predictions, the miracles, the text, the language, and the historical statements. Critics reject the historicity of Daniel mainly due to the predictive prophecy with permeates throughout the book however. The Book of Daniel prophesies concerning four world empires (and a fifth yet to come). These empires foreseen by Daniel were Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Commentators across the board generally agree that these four empires are the ones Daniel predicted. Their problem with them are that their existence could not have been foretold with as much accuracy as Daniel gives.

One of the most pressing issues for the critics is found in Daniel's eleventh chapter. Chapter 11 contains details concerning Israel's history that are so precise that most scholars are forced to conclude that it had to be written as history was unfolding or long after the fact. But, as Leupold has said, because after a given point the exact pattern of history is left behind, the conclusion is drawn that at that point the author was beginning to deal with things that lay in the future and could, therefore, no longer write accurately. This given point is claimed to be somewhere around 166-165 BC by common agreement between liberal scholars.

There are even some scholars who claim to be able to give the exact date of the writing down to the very day during the Maccabean uprising. According to Eissfeldt, "It can be clearly proved that the book derives from the period between the return of Antiochus IV from his second campaign against Egypt (167) and his death in April 163." He draws this conclusion from a careful reading of chapter 11 saying that this chapter describes Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) right down to the letter (which is exactly what God's predictive prophecy does). Of course there are others who have developed much more elaborate schemes and ideas regarding Daniel's accuracy in prophecy and why they give it such a late date.

One such man has gone to the trouble to inform his audience that Daniel has two entirely different halves which could not have been written by the same author. This is the typical argument used with other books in the Hebrew Bible (Cf. Book of Isaiah). This man says that the first half of the book was pre-Maccabean, dating to the third century BC (still long after the fact), and the second half being composed sometime during the actual Maccabean uprising. This kind of scholarship reflects the views of Towner with regard to Daniel chapter 8:

A second objection to Daniel's early date is that some commentators feel that the miraculous dominates the book -- almost to the point of incredibility. They say that Daniel would have greater credence if there were not so many miracles within his writings, if in fact he did write it at all. These more moderate critics who give the impression of granting the benefit of the doubt to Daniel fail to see the Scriptures as a whole. In many eras throughout the Bible miracles pervade. These scholars fail to recall the dominance of miracles in the time of Moses and Aaron, Elijah and Elisha, and during the time of Christ and His apostles. The miracles found in Daniel are not, however, what is being attacked by liberal scholars. These people simply fail to grant God limitless power, and by doing so they conclude that Daniel could not have been under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

A third objection regards the apocalyptic nature of the book. The kind of apocalyptic prediction found here is said to have arisen first in the 2nd century BC, when parts of the Book of Enoch and of the Sibylline Oracles were written. The main characteristic of an apocalypse is said to be that it records past events as if they were still future, throwing the speaker back into some distant past time, for the purpose of producing on the reader the impression that the book contains real predictions, thus gaining credence for the statements of the writer and giving consolation to those who are thus led to believe in the providential foresight of God for those who trust in Him. Since apocalyptic literature was prevalent during the time of the Maccabees many scholars find it very convenient to place Daniel there as well. Given Towner's presupposition that Daniel was written after the fact and not during his own lifetime, others have also concluded that this book fits right in with the other literature of that day (168-134 BC). These scholars also have to deal with the presence of apocalyptic words used in the Book of Ezekiel, who like Daniel, was a sixth century prophet -- and also one who admired Daniel as being a righteous man in the same category with Noah and Job (Ezekiel 14:14, 20).

A fourth argument is based upon the usage of language. Many argue that several Persian and Greek words in the book indicate that it must have been written far later than the sixth century BC -- after these two empires had come and gone. The Greek words which are used for musical instruments in chapter three seem to cry out for clarification. With the rise of archaeology and all its findings, however, it has been shown that commerce existed between Greece and Babylon long before Daniel was ever born. In addition, it is now known that there were Greek captives in Nineveh as early as 700 BC, and such a king as Nebuchadnezzar could easily have procured Greek musical instruments. This being the case, the presence of these words can be easily explained. Many of the words thought to have been Persian have now proved to be Babylonian in origin, but they also have a literary form of the Persian language which was in wide use throughout the Near East. And this would make perfect sense anyway because Daniel was still recording the events that transpired right up until the time of the Persian empire's takeover of Babylon in 539 BC.

A fifth and further objection is made for Daniel's early date due to the accelerated type of theology -- a theology of angels, demons, and resurrection -- contained in the book. Even though angels are spoken of frequently throughout Israel's long history, and resurrection is mentioned in passages like Psalm 16:10 and Isaiah 26:19, many reject the early date because Daniel speaks so often about angels and once about resurrection (12:2). The passages cited above came long before Daniel's lifetime, yet the critics say he goes too far in his theology and ushers in new ideas. They claim that this type of theology, which did not exist in Daniel's time, necessitates a late post-exilic date for the book.

A sixth objection to an early date is Daniel's place in the Hebrew canon, which has brought about more skepticism. In the English Bible Daniel is placed alongside the major prophets as a prophet. In the Hebrew canon, which has three divisions (Law, Prophets, and Writings), Daniel is listed in the Writings, not along with the Prophets. The most likely reason behind this is due to the fact that the Book of Daniel took on a far different character than the other prophetic books. R.D. Wilson said that the reason for this was not because the Jews did not recognize Daniel as a prophet nor because the prophetic section of the canon had already been closed; rather, it is more probable that the book was placed in this part of the Hebrew Canon because Daniel was known more for being a "wise man" and a "seer" -- not a prophet. Further, since Daniel was considered by those who knew him as a leader within the government and not a prophet per se, it would make perfect sense to include him as a statesman in the section of the Writings. No matter what the case may be, it is evident that the Jews did not consider one section of Scripture more inspired than another -- just different in character. As Walvoord has pointed out, "There is no hint anywhere that the Jews regarded Daniel as a pious forgery."

A seventh objection to the book is that there have been some problems with historical inaccuracies in the Book of Daniel. They argue that if Daniel wrote the book then there should be no historical errors, and this is a legitimate argument. For instance, in Daniel chapter five Belshazzar is listed as Nebuchadnezzar's son. It is known, however, that Nebuchadnezzar did not have a son named Belshazzar, but it is also known that descendants are said to be called sons even if they are not blood relatives. The problem with within the Book of Daniel was that there was no record of Belshazzar being king of Babylon, and no evidence, up until a century ago, confirmed this. Archaeology has confirmed in recent years, however, that a man named Nabonidus held the throne during Daniel chapter 5, but he moved off to a distant land. Upon doing this he placed his son, Belshazzar, on the throne. This archaeological discovery sheds great light upon the fact that Belshazzar promised Daniel a position in the kingdom of "third highest ruler" (5:16). If Nabonidus was the true king and Belshazzar was the acting king, then Daniel would be the logical third man in charge just as Belshazzar had promised.

Finally, some skeptics have even argued that Daniel could not have written this account because the book speaks of his death (Cf. Deuteronomy 34). However, as J.D. Pentecost has pointed out, the reference to Daniel's servitude in the Babylonian and Medo-Persian kingdoms in 1:21 only shows that Daniel served during this time period. If he actually served in these two empires then he could easily have recorded it. There is no mention of his death here. It simply states that he "remained there" till Cyrus' first year. Given that Daniel was a youth at around the age of fifteen when he went into Babylonian captivity (606/605 BC), and that in the first year of Cyrus the Jews were allowed to return home (539 BC), it makes perfect sense that he was still alive after the 65-70 year captivity. He may well have been 80-85 years of age at that time, but he was still alive nonetheless to record this history.

The Book of Daniel stands at the very center of biblical prophecy. Furthermore, without Daniel's authenticity Christ's authenticity comes into question. If the book can be proven as a forgery and a fake then the remainder of the Bible becomes suspect because, as Paul told Timothy, "All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). If Paul said this about Old Testament Scripture, of which Daniel was most certainly a part of, and Paul was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then Daniel can be considered trustworthy. If not, and it should be evident that the arguments against Daniel have little weight if any, then the entire Bible becomes useless.

Daniel is the only book that gives the entire view of history right down to the last days of the world. It starts with Babylon and ends with Christ's second coming. As Walvoord has noted, "Daniel is the major element in premillennialism, and is essential to the interpretation of the Book of Revelation. Its revelation of the sovereignty and power of God will fulfill His sovereign purposes in time and eternity."

Anderson, R., 1957. The Coming Prince. Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, pp. 19-40.

Dillard, R.B. & Longman, T., 1994. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, pp. 329-352.

Keil, C.F., 1988. Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament. Eerdman's Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, pp. 1-57.

Leupold, H.C., 1949. Exposition of Daniel. Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, pp. 5-46.

Luck, G.C., 1958. Daniel. Moody Bible Institute: Chicago, pp. 7-14

Pentecost, J.D. 1985. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Victor Books: USA, Canada, and

England, pp. 1323-1327.

Walvoord, J.F. 1971. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation. Moody Press: Chicago, pp. 11-27.