Biblical references
Text: World English Bible (public domain). The ESV and NKJV are the preferred study translations and are referenced, not reproduced.
1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and visions of his head while on his bed. Then he wrote the dream and told the sum of the matters.
"Then he wrote the dream and told the sum of the matters."
4 But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, even to the time of the end. Many will run back and forth, and knowledge will be increased.”
"Shut up the words and seal the book."
15 “When, therefore, you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
"Spoken of through Daniel the prophet."
Connection: Jesus refers to "Daniel the prophet" — cited by traditional interpreters as a theological argument for authorship. (confidence: high)
Connection: Mark's parallel: "spoken of by Daniel the prophet". (confidence: high)
Biblical account
Layer: Biblical text
The book names no author in a heading. Chapters 1–6 tell of Daniel and his companions in the third person; chapters 7–12 report Daniel's visions largely in the first person; 7:1 says he wrote the dream down, and 8:26 and 12:4, 9 speak of sealing the vision or book until the time of the end. 2:4b–7:28 is in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew.
Historical overview
Layer: Historical reconstruction · Period: Narrative setting 605–536 BC; proposed composition dates range from the late sixth century to c. 164 BC
The question was already argued in antiquity: Porphyry (3rd century AD) held the book was written under Antiochus Epiphanes and narrated past events, and Eusebius, Apollinaris and Methodius replied (Jerome). Modern critical scholarship (Driver; Montgomery) dates the final composition, at least of chs. 7–12, to 168–164 BC; conservative scholarship (Wilson; Pusey, Hengstenberg and others not read here) defends composition by Daniel in the sixth century. A Qumran copy, 4QDanᶜ (4Q114), has a radiocarbon range of 230–160 BCE (Popović et al. 2025).[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Kingdoms: Neo-Babylonian Empire, Achaemenid Persian Empire, Seleucid empire
Date and chronology derivation
Ranges are computed by the project's deterministic chronology engine from the biblical statements and each model's reign anchors. They are reconstructions, not independent dates.
Not datable yet
Claims, evidence and classifications
Each claim is classified on its own. A classification describes the evidence for that specific claim, not for the event as a whole.
A manuscript containing Daniel 8–11 (4QDanᶜ, 4Q114) was copied between about 230 and 160 BC.
Radiocarbon dating of the cleaned specimen (2σ, 230–160 BCE) in a peer-reviewed study. The calibrated range is not the complete range reported, and radiocarbon dates the parchment, not the composition.
Supporting
- Accepted 2σ calibrated range 230–160 BCE; overlaps the period in which the final part of Daniel was "presumably authored".[5]Strength: direct·4Q114 entry·Claim checked
Limitations of this classification: A single specimen; calibration ranges are probabilistic.
Research date 2026-10-13
The book of Daniel was composed in the sixth century BC by Daniel.
Scholarly arguments on both sides are recorded separately from theological commitments. For an early date: the historical objections are arguments from silence or from reckoning conventions (Wilson); Josephus's Alexander tradition presupposes the book in the fourth century; 4Q114's radiocarbon range begins before the persecution. For a late date: language (Greek instrument names, Persian words), the book's place among the Writings, Ben Sira's silence, and the precision of ch. 11 up to the persecution with divergence at 11:40–45 (Driver; Montgomery; Porphyry). Montgomery dates the stories earlier than the visions. The radiocarbon range overlaps both views and does not decide them. Theological positions (Jesus' reference to "Daniel the prophet"; the possibility of predictive prophecy) are noted on the dossier and not weighed as historical evidence. The linguistic argument is itself contested: Kitchen (1965) concludes that the Aramaic permits any date from the late sixth century onward and cannot decide the question, and Mitchell & Joyce (1965) that the instrument names do not exclude the sixth century.
Supporting
- Objections to the historical statements rest on silence and unexamined assumptions; a date "say 535 B.C." is weighed against 164 B.C.[3]Strength: indirect·pp. iii–vi; p. 179·Claim checked
- Alexander was shown the Book of Daniel at Jerusalem (a tradition known only from Josephus).[6]Strength: indirect·Ant. 11.8.5·Claim checked
Challenging
- Persian words presuppose an established Persian empire; Greek words (kitharis, psalterion, symphonia) "demand" a date after Alexander; placement among the Writings; Ben Sira's silence; historical difficulties.[1]Strength: indirect·Introduction pp. xlvii–lxiii·Claim checked
- Chs. 1–6 pre-Maccabean (3rd century); chs. 7–12 from 168–165 BC.[2]Strength: indirect·§21 d·Claim checked
- Porphyry argued the book was composed in Judaea under Antiochus Epiphanes.[4]Strength: indirect·Prologue·Claim checked
Context
- Mattathias's speech cites the three in the furnace and Daniel among the lions — the stories were known when 1 Maccabees was written (c. 100 BC).[7]Strength: direct·1 Macc 2:59–60·Claim checked
- A copy of chs. 8–11 dated 230–160 BCE; the range reaches both before and into the Maccabean period.[5]Strength: direct·4Q114 entry·Claim checked
- Ben Sira's list names Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve, Zerubbabel, Jeshua and Nehemiah but not Daniel — nor Ezra, which limits the weight of the silence.[8]Strength: direct·Sir 49:6–13·Claim checked
- The Aramaic allows any date from the late sixth to the second century; a second-century date cannot rest on three Greek words; the date "cannot be decided upon linguistic grounds alone".[9]Strength: indirect·pp. 31–79 (summary, p. 79)·Claim checked
- The instrument names are not decisive; a sixth-century date for the orchestra "cannot be categorically denied".[10]Strength: indirect·pp. 19–27·Claim checked
Limitations of this classification: Only one radiocarbon date read. Pusey, Hengstenberg, Collins and Goldingay not read directly.
Research date 2026-10-13
Daniel's visions were divinely revealed predictions of events still future when given.
A theological claim about revelation; historical method cannot test it. Recorded so that the theological commitment is kept apart from the dating evidence. This is not a theological verdict.
Research date 2026-10-13
Evidence by type
The same evidence regrouped by kind of source. Each item names the claims it bears on.
Archaeological evidence
None recorded for this event.
Scientific findings
- Accepted 2σ calibrated range 230–160 BCE; overlaps the period in which the final part of Daniel was "presumably authored".[5]Bears on: supporting — “A manuscript containing Daniel 8–11 (4QDanᶜ, 4Q114) was copied between…”
- A copy of chs. 8–11 dated 230–160 BCE; the range reaches both before and into the Maccabean period.[5]Bears on: context — “The book of Daniel was composed in the sixth century BC by Daniel.”
Ancient documents
- Alexander was shown the Book of Daniel at Jerusalem (a tradition known only from Josephus).[6]Bears on: supporting — “The book of Daniel was composed in the sixth century BC by Daniel.”
- Mattathias's speech cites the three in the furnace and Daniel among the lions — the stories were known when 1 Maccabees was written (c. 100 BC).[7]Bears on: context — “The book of Daniel was composed in the sixth century BC by Daniel.”
- Porphyry argued the book was composed in Judaea under Antiochus Epiphanes.[4]Bears on: challenging — “The book of Daniel was composed in the sixth century BC by Daniel.”
- Ben Sira's list names Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve, Zerubbabel, Jeshua and Nehemiah but not Daniel — nor Ezra, which limits the weight of the silence.[8]Bears on: context — “The book of Daniel was composed in the sixth century BC by Daniel.”
Modern news and announcements
None recorded for this event.
Reference works and summaries
- Objections to the historical statements rest on silence and unexamined assumptions; a date "say 535 B.C." is weighed against 164 B.C.[3]Bears on: supporting — “The book of Daniel was composed in the sixth century BC by Daniel.”
- Persian words presuppose an established Persian empire; Greek words (kitharis, psalterion, symphonia) "demand" a date after Alexander; placement among the Writings; Ben Sira's silence; historical difficulties.[1]Bears on: challenging — “The book of Daniel was composed in the sixth century BC by Daniel.”
- Chs. 1–6 pre-Maccabean (3rd century); chs. 7–12 from 168–165 BC.[2]Bears on: challenging — “The book of Daniel was composed in the sixth century BC by Daniel.”
- The Aramaic allows any date from the late sixth to the second century; a second-century date cannot rest on three Greek words; the date "cannot be decided upon linguistic grounds alone".[9]Bears on: context — “The book of Daniel was composed in the sixth century BC by Daniel.”
- The instrument names are not decisive; a sixth-century date for the orchestra "cannot be categorically denied".[10]Bears on: context — “The book of Daniel was composed in the sixth century BC by Daniel.”
Historical disputes and competing reconstructions
Disputed claims: The book of Daniel was composed in the sixth century BC by Daniel.
Sixth century BC, by Daniel (traditional)
R. D. Wilson (1917): a date "say 535 B.C." remains tenable; Jerome (against Porphyry); D. Guzik (quoting Baldwin); K. A. Kitchen (1965), T. C. Mitchell & R. Joyce (1965): the language does not exclude an early date
Scholarly arguments: the linguistic evidence cannot decide the date (Kitchen; Mitchell & Joyce); alleged historical errors rest on silence and on mistaken assumptions about regnal reckoning (Wilson); Babylonian details such as Belshazzar's kingship fit a writer close to events (Wilson); Josephus reports the book shown to Alexander (Ant. 11.8.5); the radiocarbon range of 4Q114 begins before the Maccabean crisis. Theological commitments (stated separately): Jesus calls Daniel a prophet (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14); predictive prophecy is possible; Baldwin (via Guzik) argues that a late date would make the visions fiction.[3, 4, 9, 10, 11]
Final composition c. 167–164 BC (critical)
Porphyry (per Jerome); S. R. Driver (1900); J. A. Montgomery (1927, for chs. 7–12)
Scholarly arguments: Greek instrument names (3:5) and Persian loanwords; the book stands among the Writings, not the Prophets; Ben Sira (c. 200 BC) omits Daniel; detailed accuracy in ch. 11 to the persecution of Antiochus, then divergence at 11:40–45; developed angelology and resurrection; historical difficulties (Dan 1:1, Belshazzar as king, Darius the Mede). Theological stance (stated separately): Driver held that a late date does not deny the book's religious value.[1, 2, 4]
Two stages: tales of chs. 1–6 in the 3rd century (Babylonia); visions of chs. 7–12 in 168–165 BC
J. A. Montgomery (1927)
The stories are pre-Maccabean, compiled from Jewish and Babylonian traditions after the Diadochi; the four visions were written seriatim in the first years of the Maccabean revolt. Montgomery notes he broke with the view that the whole book is Maccabean.[2]
Related passages and events
| From | Relationship | To | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| this event | Direct referencehigh · Biblical text | Matthew 24:15 | Jesus refers to "Daniel the prophet" — cited by traditional interpreters as a theological argument for authorship. |
| this event | Direct referencehigh · Biblical text | Mark 13:14 | Mark's parallel: "spoken of by Daniel the prophet". |
| this event | Thematic parallelhigh · Biblical text | Daniel's night vision of the four beasts and its interpretation (Dan 7) | "He wrote the dream" (7:1); the Dan 7 claim about writing in Belshazzar's first year depends on the dating question. |
| Daniel | Thematic parallelmedium · Biblical text | Ezekiel 14:20 | Second mention of Noah, Daniel and Job (name search); the identity question is under review on the Dan 1 event. |
Prophetic relationships
No prophecy or proposed-fulfillment relationships have been recorded for this event.
Commentary references
Layer: Interpretation. This is commentary, not historical evidence.
Guzik describes the critical view of ch. 11 as history written after the fact and quotes Baldwin that on that view the vision of ch. 10 would also be fiction.[11]
Unanswered questions and research gaps
- Wilson's philological volume (promised) and Pusey not read.
- Collins (Hermeneia, 1993) not accessible.
- Other Qumran Daniel manuscripts (1QDan, 4QDana–e, 6QDan) not dated individually here.
- Wilson's promised philological volume and Pusey (1864) not read.
- The relation of Ezekiel's "Daniel" (Ezek 14:14; 28:3) to the book's hero (review open).
Research process
4 logged searches
| Date | Query | Where | Useful |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-13 | Driver 1900 Introduction (Authorship and Date); Montgomery §21; Wilson 1917 (local texts) | local text | 3 |
| 2026-10-13 | Jerome prologue (Porphyry) | local text | 1 |
| 2026-10-13 | 4Q114 4QDanc radiocarbon datePrimary article (PLOS ONE 2025) read; magazine reports not used. | web search | 1 |
| 2026-10-13 | Sirach 49; 1 Maccabees 2 (WEB USFM) | local text | 2 |
Sources
- 1.Driver, S. R.. The Book of Daniel (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges). Cambridge University Press. archive.orgClaim checkedScholarly commentaryRead through the Internet Archive OCR text (Google scan).Verification log
- 2.Montgomery, James A.. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC). T. & T. Clark. archive.orgClaim checkedScholarly commentaryRead through the Internet Archive OCR text (University of Toronto copy).Verification log
- 3.Wilson, Robert Dick. Studies in the Book of Daniel: A Discussion of the Historical Questions. G. P. Putnam's Sons. archive.orgClaim checkedAcademic monographRead through the Internet Archive OCR text (Cornell copy).Verification log
- 4.Jerome, Archer, Gleason L. (trans.). Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (trans. Gleason L. Archer, 1958) — prologue. tertullian.org (transcribed by Roger Pearse). www.tertullian.orgClaim checkedAncient primary textVerification log
- 5.Popović, Mladen, Dhali, Maruf A., Schomaker, Lambert, van der Plicht, Johannes, Rasmussen, Kaare Lund, La Nasa, Jacopo, Degano, Ilaria, Colombini, Maria Perla, Tigchelaar, Eibert. Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI-based writing style analysis. PLOS ONE 20(6): e0323185 (2025). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0323185Claim checkedScientific paperOpen-access article read online.Verification log
- 6.Josephus, Whiston, William (trans.). Josephus, Antiquities 11.8.5 (trans. W. Whiston). Project Gutenberg #2848. www.gutenberg.orgClaim checkedAncient primary textVerification log
- 7.World English Bible contributors. World English Bible — Apocrypha/Deuterocanon (1 Maccabees 2). eBible.org (eng-web USFM). ebible.orgClaim checkedAncient primary textVerification log
- 8.World English Bible contributors. World English Bible — Apocrypha/Deuterocanon (Sirach 44–49). eBible.org (eng-web USFM). ebible.orgClaim checkedAncient primary textVerification log
- 9.Kitchen, K. A.. The Aramaic of Daniel. In D. J. Wiseman (ed.), Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, Tyndale Press, 1965, pp. 31–79. biblicalstudies.org.ukClaim checkedAcademic monographVerification log
- 10.Mitchell, T. C., Joyce, R.. The Musical Instruments in Nebuchadnezzar's Orchestra. In D. J. Wiseman (ed.), Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, Tyndale Press, 1965, pp. 19–27. biblicalstudies.org.ukClaim checkedAcademic monographVerification log
- 11.Guzik, David. Daniel 11 — Enduring Word Bible Commentary. Enduring Word. enduringword.comClaim checkedTheological commentaryInterpretive resource — not historical corroboration.Verification log