Most scholars date Daniel to the 160s BC
ContestedSerious philosophers argue this both ways. Say so before your friend does.
Say the consensus first
Most critical scholars date the final form of Daniel to the 160s BC. The case for that is serious.
State it before anyone else does.
Why they date it late
Daniel 11 tracks the wars of the Greek successor kingdoms with uncanny precision, right up to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Then verses 40-45 predict his end, and it does not match how he actually died in 163 BC.
The pagan critic Porphyry noticed that first. It is the classic signature of prophecy written during the events, failing only where it goes past its author's own day.
Add Greek loanwords, Daniel's place outside the Prophets in the Hebrew canon, and Sirach's silence about him around 180 BC.
The minority answer
K. A.
Kitchen argues that Daniel's Aramaic fits an earlier Imperial profile. Daniel also knows that Belshazzar ruled as coregent while Nabonidus was away.
Later Greek historians lost that detail, and it was recovered only from cuneiform. That is hard for a writer in the 160s to know.
Qumran holds several Daniel manuscripts from about 125 BC. Sixty years from writing to copies, plus fast standing as scripture, is tight for a fresh forgery.
Their answer, at full strength
John J. Collins wrote the standard critical commentary.
Chapter 11's accuracy, then failure at verse 40, is as close to a dating fingerprint as ancient writing offers. The genre, apocalyptic work under a borrowed name, was common, and the first readers likely knew the convention.
The Belshazzar detail could survive in Babylonian-Jewish memory. The Prayer of Nabonidus at Qumran shows such traditions circulating.
Few Aramaic specialists find the language argument decisive. And 1 Enoch won acceptance fast too.
On headcount, this is not close.
How strong is this argument?
Contested, and be candid. The early date is the minority position.
So do not lead with Daniel against an informed skeptic. You will spend the whole evening on Aramaic.
The durable point is the fallback. Even at 165 BC, Daniel 7's "son of man" and Daniel 9's timetable are older than Jesus.
They shaped the hope he walked into.
What to say
"Grant the late date. Daniel's son of man is still older than Jesus, and that's the part I care about."
How they answer this — at its strongest
On the head count this is not close: the late date holds the field.
John J. Collins wrote the standard critical commentary, and he makes the consensus case. Chapter 11 is accurate, then fails at verse 40. That is about as close to a dating fingerprint as ancient writing gives us.
The genre was common: apocalyptic pseudepigraphy, prophecy written after the event. Its first readers likely knew the convention. The Belshazzar coregency could well survive in Babylonian-Jewish memory, and the Prayer of Nabonidus at Qumran shows such stories going round. The language arguments cut both ways, and few Aramaicists find them decisive.
Sixty years from writing in about 165 BC to our oldest copies in about 125 BC is tight. But such books won acceptance fast in that era, as 1 Enoch did. On head count this is not close. The late date holds the field.
The verdict
Contested, and the early date is the minority view, so do not lead with Daniel.
Contested — and the rationale must be candid that the traditional early date is the minority position. So do not lead with Daniel in a conversation with an informed skeptic. You will spend the whole evening on Aramaic.
The durable point is the fallback. Even granting 165 BC, the son-of-man figure and the messianic timetable are pre-Christian. That feeds the logic of the Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 entry. Deploy that, not the dating fight.
Sources
- Wikipedia, 'Book of Daniel' (consensus dating case laid out)
- John J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia) — the standard critical commentary
- K. A. Kitchen and conservative responses (overview)
- Wikipedia, 'Belshazzar' (Nabonidus Cylinder coregency)