A look at the historical context and how that might effect the dating of the Old Testament book.

In order to correctly understand the historical backdrop of the book of Daniel, it is critical that the highly debated issue concerning the date of its composition be addressed. The majority of scholars today believe the book was written sometime in the 2nd century BC, approximately 400 years after the time period of which the book speaks. Many scholars who hold to the late date propose that the purpose of the book was to comfort and inspire those Jews who were suffering under the vicious persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who was a Greek ruler from Syria during the 2nd century.¹ The minority position holds that it was written, as stated in the text, during the lifetime of Daniel himself. Based on the text, this would place the period of the writing between 605 BC and 537 BC. This position would not see the persecution of the 2nd century as the historical backdrop, but the events discussed in the text itself as the historical context surrounding the book.

James A. Montgomery sums up this conflict around the dating of the book this way,

“There is a gap of 400 years between the two parties, an extent of time so vast that it is impossible for either to understand the other, or for either to make impression upon the other’s argumentative bulwarks.”²

To say that these two positions are at odds with each other would be an understatement. Modern liberal scholarship sees the events that are spoken of in the book of Daniel, specifically those events of chapter 11, that are presented as predictive prophecy, to be easiest explained as written after the fact.³ There is even the claim that “dating Daniel in the sixth century, indeed, brings not more glory to God but less. It makes it a less impressive and helpful document.”⁴ Miller responds to this form of thinking with a very logical response: “A writer guilty of fabricating the truth would not appear qualified to offer spiritual guidance to believers in ancient Israel any more than he or she would be qualified today.”⁵

The attack upon the 6th-century BC dating of the book of Daniel can be traced back to the 3rd century after Christ. Portions of Porphyry’s writings have survived through Jerome’s commentary on Daniel.⁶ Jerome states,

“Porphyry saw that all these things had been fulfilled and could not deny that they had taken place, he overcame this evidence of historical accuracy by taking refuge in this evasion, contending that whatever is foretold concerning Antichrist at the end of the world was actually fulfilled in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, because of certain similarities to things which took place at his time. But this very attack testifies to Daniel’s accuracy. For so striking was the reliability of what the prophet foretold, that he could not appear to unbelievers as a predicter of the future, but rather a narrator of things already past.”⁷

It should be noted that at this early stage of the battle over the dating of Daniel, those who proposed a later date did so because of their opposition to the Christian Church. Porphyry’s writings were titled, “Against the Christians.”⁸ That is not to say that those scholars currently holding to the late date of Daniel are not Christian, but knowing this may cause some to reexamine the evidence.


In addition to the rejection of supernatural prediction, another objection to the early dating of Daniel, which is actually related to the supernatural objection, is the fact that the book is listed with the “Writings” and not listed among the “Prophets” of the Old Testament (OT). The conclusion is that Daniel was not viewed as an OT prophet when the book was added to the Jewish Bible. Driver argues that Daniel not being added to the collection of the “Prophets” speaks to the fact that it probably didn’t exist at that time, prior to the 3rd century BC.⁹ Geisler does note that Daniel was originally listed among the OT prophets by Josephus and was only moved to the section of the Writings around AD 400.¹⁰ Collins also references Josephus’s opinion about Daniel not merely being a prophet, but one of the greatest.¹¹ Based on this early declaration of Daniel’s status, the case for this objection would seem to be greatly undermined.¹²
The time of the closing of the Jewish canon is relevant to the dating debate and has been used by both sides. According to Wenham, studies have put forth the conclusion that it was closed during the Maccabean period and not at the end of the 1st century AD, which has been argued in the past.¹³ A late date for the completion of Daniel would position it within 50 years of its apparent acceptance as sacred by the Qumran community, a fact that those who advocate for an earlier date believe is compelling evidence against a 2nd-century BC authorship.¹⁴ These facts indicate that Daniel was brought into the canon of Jewish Scriptures and seen as sacred much earlier than some first thought. Wenham sums up this issue well,

“Should this view win scholarly acceptance, it will become the more difficult to explain how Daniel was ever accepted into the canon if it was written in the second century BC. It is a surprise to find an allegedly pseudonymous work being accepted as holy Scripture at all; it would be startling if it were accepted as Scripture as soon as it appeared, when everybody would at least have realized its novelty.”¹⁵

8 Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1110.
9 S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel with Introduction and Notes. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), xlviii.
10 Norman L. Geisler, “Daniel, Dating Of.” In Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 179.

Finally, one of the strongest arguments for the early date for authorship is the fact that early Christian and Jewish readers looked at the book of Daniel as a historical document. Jesus spoke of Daniel as being a prophet, and the people who first began to write about the book of Daniel took it at face value.¹⁶ The complex issues concerning the dating of the book of Daniel are too many to address in this paper, but this brief discussion does give support to the early date and to the fact that the contents of the book can be viewed as historical.<sup>17

1</sup> Gordon D. Fee, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., The Eerdmans Companion to the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011), 443.
² James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. International Critical Commentary (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927), 58.
³ John Joseph Collins, and Adela Yarbro Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Edited by Frank Moore Cross. Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 25.
⁴ John E. Goldingay, “The Book of Daniel: Three Issues.” Themelios: Volume 2, No. 2, (The Gospel Coalition, 1977), 49.
⁵ Stephen R. Miller, Vol. 18. The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 37.
⁶ R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969), 1110.
⁷ Gleason L. Archer, trans., Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1958), 15-16.

⁸ Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1110.
⁹ S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel with Introduction and Notes. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), xlviii.
¹⁰ Norman L. Geisler, “Daniel, Dating Of.” In Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 179.

¹¹ Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 85.
¹² Geisler, “Daniel, Dating of.” 179.
¹³ Gordon J. Wenham, “The Book of Daniel: Three Issues.” Themelios: Volume 2, No. 2, (The Gospel Coalition, 1977), 51.
¹⁴ Wendy L. Widder, “Daniel, Book Of, Critical Issues.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry, David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, Lazarus Wentz, Elliot Ritzema, and Wendy Widder (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016)
¹⁵ Wenham, “Daniel: The Basic Issues,” 51.
¹⁶ Joe M. Sprinkle, Daniel, Edited by T. Desmond Alexander, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Andreas J. Köstenberger. Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 14.
¹⁷ Historical section from paper titled, JESUS HAS OVERCOME THE WORLD AN EXEGESIS OF DANIEL 7:15-28, by Richard Shirah