Date of Writing of the Book of Daniel

The date of the writing of the book of Daniel is one of the most contested in the Bible. Daniel contains some of the clearest prophecies in Scripture, many of which have been historically fulfilled to the letter and in sequence. For people who reject God, that presents a problem. It is therefore easy to see why the date of its writing is so heavily disputed.

The competing dates are approximately 605–536 BC and around 165 BC. The dates 605–536 BC correspond with the Babylonian exile. The ~165 BC date places the book hundreds of years later, after many of the events foretold in Daniel had already occurred.

If it can be shown that the book of Daniel was written after the events it describes, then the prophecies could be dismissed as after-the-fact recording rather than genuine revelations from God. However, if it can be shown that the book was written before those events took place, then rejecting its prophetic nature becomes far more difficult.

For that reason, I will present the evidence on both sides, beginning with the evidence for a date during the Babylonian exile.

References to Daniel

In my opinion, one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the book of Daniel was written during the Babylonian exile—aside from the book itself explicitly placing its events in that period—is that Daniel was already recognized and referenced long before the second century BC. If Daniel had been written in the second century BC, it would not have been possible for earlier sources to reference it or treat it as an established and authoritative text.

It is referenced by the following sources:

Ezekiel — In Ezekiel 14:14, Daniel is listed as one of the righteous men alongside Noah and Job. By placing Daniel in the company of these figures, Ezekiel treats him as a well-known and respected individual, not a relatively obscure or recent figure.

Ezekiel is dated to approximately 593–571 BC, which falls squarely within the Babylonian exile. This is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that Daniel was known during the exile and not written centuries later.

Naturally, those who seek to discredit an early date for Daniel have argued that the Daniel mentioned in Ezekiel 14:14 is not the same Daniel who authored the book of Daniel. However, this objection is extremely weak.

They claim Ezekiel’s Daniel was a different person, not the biblical Daniel. This argument is based on the Ugaritic legend of Danel, a righteous figure known from ancient Ugaritic texts. There are several reasons why this cannot be the case.

The Daniel mentioned in Ezekiel is spelled דָּנִיֵּאל (Daniyyel), which is the same spelling used elsewhere in the Bible for Daniel. The Ugaritic figure is named Danel (דָּנֵאל), which is spelled differently and never appears in the Bible.

The extra yod (י) in Daniyyel not only changes the pronunciation but also marks it as the Hebrew name associated with the biblical Daniel. This difference in spelling alone strongly indicates that Ezekiel is referring to the Daniel of Scripture, not a legendary Ugaritic figure.

It would also be highly unusual for Ezekiel to include a relatively unknown individual—never mentioned elsewhere in Scripture—alongside Noah and Job. There is no compelling reason to make such a comparison unless Ezekiel is referring to a figure already recognized as righteous and well known.

Furthermore, no Jewish historian or ancient interpreter ever understood Ezekiel’s Daniel to be anyone other than the Daniel of the biblical book. This alternative identification is a modern proposal introduced specifically to cast doubt on the early dating of Daniel.

1 Maccabees — While not part of the Bible, 1 Maccabees 2:59–60 explicitly mentions Daniel. This book was written around 100–90 BC, in the late second century BC. Some have cited this as evidence that Daniel was written around that time, but it actually supports the opposite conclusion.

For Daniel to be referenced in a second-century BC work, it must have been written earlier—much earlier. The book would have needed time to circulate, become widely known, and be recognized as authoritative before it could be cited in this way.

Anyone familiar with the process of canon recognition understands that it unfolds over centuries, not decades. The fact that Daniel is already referenced in the second century BC strongly suggests it was written long before that time.

1 Maccabees refers to Daniel as living in exile and serving in a foreign court, treating the Babylonian exile and Daniel’s role within it as historical context rather than as a recent or fictional narrative.

The Dead Sea Scrolls (c. 3rd–1st century BC) — Portions of Daniel were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, once again demonstrating that the book was considered authoritative and well established, not a recent addition to Jewish literature.

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews — Josephus was a first-century Jewish historian who wrote extensively about Jewish history, culture, and religion. He is one of the most important sources for understanding how Jews in the first century viewed their past. In Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus refers to Daniel as a real historical figure and recounts events from his life, including his service in the Babylonian court and his prophetic visions.

Josephus did not invent these accounts. He relied on earlier Jewish sources, including written records preserved by priests and scribes, oral traditions handed down through generations, and the Hebrew Scriptures themselves. These sources extend back centuries, well before Josephus’ lifetime.

Because Josephus presents Daniel as a known and respected historical figure, this demonstrates that Daniel was already regarded as authoritative long before the first century AD. This strongly supports the conclusion that the book of Daniel was written much earlier—during the Babylonian exile in the sixth century BC.

Historical Accuracy

Daniel accurately describes the Babylonian and Medo-Persian courts, including the names of kings, their titles, and administrative practices.

The book records Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, his decree, and court customs in ways that align with what modern archaeology and Babylonian records have confirmed. Daniel 5 refers to Belshazzar as king, which puzzled scholars for centuries. Archaeological discoveries later revealed that Belshazzar was indeed a co-regent in Babylon, the son of Nabonidus, which matches Daniel’s account.

These details, among many others, would not likely have been known centuries later in the second century BC. If the book had been written after the events it describes, the author would have had to guess or reconstruct specific historical information—some of which was not even known until modern archaeology confirmed it. The precise historical knowledge recorded in Daniel strongly indicates that the book was written during the Babylonian exile.

Linguistic Evidence

Hebrew portions — The sections written in Hebrew show the classical form of the language used during the exile. The vocabulary, grammar, and style are consistent with sixth-century BC Hebrew, not with the later developments seen in second-century BC texts.

Aramaic portions (Daniel 2:4–7:28) — These sections reflect Imperial Aramaic of the Neo-Babylonian and early Persian periods. This was the official administrative language across both empires, which aligns perfectly with Daniel’s setting in the royal court.

Absence of later linguistic features — If Daniel had been composed in the second century BC, we would expect to see clear Greek influence or later Aramaic forms. The text shows neither, further supporting an early date.

The combination of Hebrew and contemporary Aramaic in Daniel demonstrates that the author was writing in the languages in active use during the Babylonian exile. This linguistic evidence reinforces the historical accuracy of the book and makes it highly unlikely that Daniel was composed centuries later.

Taken together, there is a very strong case for the book of Daniel having been written during the Babylonian exile.

Reasons Some Scholars Date Daniel to the Second Century BC

The evidence offered in favor of a second-century BC date for Daniel is considerably weaker. In reality, there is only one foundational reason for this position, even though several secondary arguments are often presented. I will address the primary reason first.

Historical knowledge of later events — In a word: prophecy. The accuracy of Daniel’s predictions is difficult to dismiss. There is no purely human explanation for the precision with which future events are described. Because some scholars—including some who claim to be believers—reject divine inspiration, they conclude that the book must have been written after the events occurred.

In essence, the argument is: prophecy cannot be genuine; therefore, if the predictions are accurate, they cannot be prophecy. This reasoning overlooks the very purpose of prophecy in Scripture.

This is the underlying motivation for dating Daniel late. The remaining arguments function largely as attempts to support this prior conclusion.

Language and Style

Some scholars point to certain Aramaic forms, vocabulary, and syntactical features in Daniel that they claim reflect linguistic developments more common in the late Persian or Hellenistic period. However, detailed linguistic studies have shown that these forms were already in use during the sixth and fifth centuries BC. Aramaic was well established as the administrative language of Babylon long before the second century.

The Hebrew portions of Daniel also contain some words that are rare in earlier Biblical Hebrew and appear more frequently in later texts. However, the overall Hebrew of Daniel remains consistent with the language of the Babylonian exile. Rare vocabulary can be explained by literary style, Aramaic influence, subject matter, and normal linguistic variation. Even within the Old Testament, Hebrew shows noticeable differences in style and vocabulary depending on author, period, and context.

As a result, arguments based on language and style fail to demonstrate a second-century date. They show nothing that would be unexpected from a sixth-century Hebrew author serving in the Babylonian court.

The argument creates the appearance of significance without providing real evidence. It is similar to saying that cars were more common in 2025 than in 1990; that fact does not prove that cars did not exist in 1990.

Apocalyptic Genre

Daniel employs symbolic and apocalyptic imagery more extensively than earlier biblical writings. While this literary style became more common in later periods, its presence in Daniel does not require a late date. It simply indicates that Daniel was among the earliest users of this genre.

Of all the arguments offered for a later date of composition, the only one with any real force is the accuracy of Daniel’s prophecies—and that argument only holds if prophecy is assumed to be impossible. Yet the evidence shows that the book presents itself as divinely inspired from the beginning.

The conclusion is straightforward: the book of Daniel was written during the time period it claims. The only reason to reject this conclusion is a prior commitment to denying its prophetic nature.

This matters because the book of Daniel predicts future events with a level of accuracy that cannot reasonably be explained apart from divine revelation.

Having established the date of composition, we can now turn to the prophecies of the Bible themselves and examine their fulfillments in the studies that follow.

Continue To Unit 7:5 – The Foundation of Prophecy: Jesus the Messiah OR

Return To Christianity 101 Unit 7 – The Latter Days – A Detailed Look