If Daniel 7 was written in the 6th century BCE, how can we be sure the alleged prophecies about later empires weren’t recorded after those events had already occurred?

Historical and Literary Context

Daniel 7 describes a vivid vision of four beasts, followed by an eternal kingdom led by “One like the Son of Man” (Daniel 7:13). Traditional dating places these events and their recording in the 6th century BCE during the Babylonian captivity. Critics often allege a 2nd century BCE authorship (during the Maccabean period) to explain the accurate foretelling of subsequent empires. Yet a cumulative body of evidence—ranging from manuscript data to the historical, linguistic, and theological details of the text—strongly supports an original 6th-century BCE context.

Manuscript Evidence and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Among the most compelling supports for an early date are the manuscript fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly those labeled 4QDan. These demonstrate that the Book of Daniel circulated widely and was held as authoritative well before the 2nd century BCE ended. It is difficult to imagine a later author forging a text and having it so quickly accepted as Scripture, copied, and preserved in multiple manuscripts at Qumran.

The Scrolls also exhibit multiple copies of Daniel, indicating that these communities recognized it as part of the sacred writings. Such recognition typically took considerable time to settle in Judaism, which adds weight to the conclusion that Daniel was not a hastily composed work of the Maccabean era.

Language Considerations

The Book of Daniel is written partly in Hebrew (Daniel 1:1–2:4a; 8:1–12:13) and partly in Aramaic (Daniel 2:4b–7:28). Critics sometimes point to Aramaic usage or certain Persian and Greek loanwords, suggesting a later date. However, Aramaic was used extensively in international diplomacy and administration throughout the Babylonian and early Persian periods, and contact with Greek culture did not magically begin in the 2nd century BCE. Trade and warfare had seeded Greek cultural terms well before Alexander’s conquests, making the presence of occasional Greek loanwords plausible in a 6th-century BCE context. Early Persian loanwords fit equally well in the period immediately following the Babylonian empire.

Prophetic Accuracy and Extrabiblical Corroboration

The prophecies in Daniel 7 about a succession of kingdoms align with the known progression of world empires—Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Skeptics argue that Daniel’s alignment is too precise and must be post-event. However, if a later writer were retroactively inserting new material, we might expect more explicit historical references or a clearer naming of empires. Instead, the text remains symbolic and requires some interpretation. Additionally, ancient historians (such as Josephus in “Antiquities of the Jews,” Book 10, Chapter 11) reference Daniel’s prophecies as already established prior to the Greek conquests and treat them as predictive rather than retrospective.

Addressing the Maccabean Thesis

A key challenge to the 6th-century BCE date is the “Maccabean thesis,” suggesting Daniel was actually moral encouragement literature for Jews during the Antiochene oppression (2nd century BCE). Not only does early manuscript evidence from Qumran counter the idea of a rushed, late acceptance as Scripture, but the text of Daniel itself exhibits knowledge of Babylonian courts and cultural practices. Scholars note that Daniel’s portrayal of Belshazzar as co-regent (Daniel 5) was once doubted, then confirmed through Babylonian records recovered in the 19th century. This historical detail would have been obscure or lost by the 2nd century BCE, making an accurate “after the fact” composition unlikely.

Furthermore, references to customs and official titles in Babylonian and Persian courts fit neatly within the 6th-century milieu. A 2nd-century writer would have had difficulty accurately reconstructing many of these details without modern archaeological findings.

Confirmations from Archaeology

Numerous archaeological finds confirm the existence of individuals and practices mentioned in Daniel:

• Clay cylinders and inscriptions attest to Belshazzar’s status as son of Nabonidus and co-regent in Babylon, corroborating Daniel 5:1.

• Persian administrative terms embedded in the text reflect an early Achaemenid-era bureaucracy rather than a Hellenistic or later environment.

• Babylonian chronicles and other ancient records match up with Daniel’s setting, reinforcing a historical backdrop accessible to someone in the 6th century BCE.

These points have led many scholars and historians to acknowledge Daniel preserves older source material, accurately reflecting 6th-century realities.

Consistency with Other Scriptures

Daniel’s prophecies and visions interlock with other biblical texts describing the sovereignty of the Creator. When Daniel sees “One like the Son of Man” receiving “dominion, glory, and kingship” (Daniel 7:14), it echoes the broader biblical narrative that the Almighty raises up and disposes of earthly kingdoms according to His will (cf. Jeremiah 27:5–6, Isaiah 46:9–10). The internal unity with other scriptural writings, recognized centuries before the Maccabean era, further signals its established place within the sacred tradition.

Final Observations

The textual transmission history, early acceptance into Jewish Scripture, linguistic details consistent with the 6th-century cultural environment, and archaeological evidence all converge to affirm that Daniel 7 was indeed composed in the 6th century BCE. The accurate depiction of subsequent empires does not automatically require a post-event authorship. Rather, the data indicates genuine prophecy preserved in a document already revered centuries before the events they foretold came to pass.