Why does the Book of Daniel describe events from the 6th century BCE inaccurately, suggesting it was written later?

Historical Setting and the Nature of the Question

Some interpreters claim that the Book of Daniel treats the events of the 6th century BCE inaccurately, implying it was composed during the 2nd century BCE. This question often arises from perceived historical difficulties—such as the identification of certain rulers, the political structure of the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires, and the remarkable precision of Daniel’s prophetic visions. Critics suggest that no 6th-century author could have provided such detailed foreknowledge of later empires, so they date the text after those events. However, a closer look at textual, historical, and archaeological evidence offers strong reasons to affirm Daniel’s 6th-century origins and consistent accuracy.

Daniel’s Own Claims to 6th-Century Authorship

Daniel explicitly locates his activity in the 6th century BCE, during the Babylonian exile under Nebuchadnezzar and into the reign of Cyrus. For instance, “In the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it” (Daniel 1:1). Later, the text states, “In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent) … I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures …” (Daniel 9:1–2). These chronological markers show the author’s own claim to be living in exile and receiving visions during major transitions from Babylonian to Medo-Persian control.

The Issue of Belshazzar

One key objection claims that Daniel wrongly identifies Belshazzar as “king” of Babylon, when older scholarship believed Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king before the empire fell to the Medes and Persians in 539 BCE. However, profound archaeological discoveries have shown that Belshazzar acted as co-regent with his father Nabonidus. Cuneiform tablets unearthed in Babylon refer to Belshazzar in a capacity mirroring that of a king, especially during periods when Nabonidus was away. Indeed, Daniel 5:1 reads, “Later, King Belshazzar held a great feast for a thousand of his nobles,” reflecting Belshazzar’s regal, functional role. Far from an historical error, this detail is now recognized as compelling evidence of Daniel’s familiarity with 6th-century realities that were forgotten for many centuries.

Identifying “Darius the Mede”

Another frequently cited objection centers on “Darius the Mede,” mentioned in Daniel 5:30–31, where it says, “That very night Belshazzar king of the Chaldeans was slain, and Darius the Mede received the kingdom at the age of sixty-two.” Critics argue that the only known Darius of Persian history lived much later. Several conservative proposals reconcile this identification:

1. Some suggest “Darius the Mede” refers to Gubaru (or Gobryas), whom Cyrus appointed as governor over Babylon immediately after its fall.

2. Others identify Darius as another throne name or title for Cyrus himself in his capacity over the Mede branch of the empire.

These possible explanations align with ancient royal practices where rulers bore multiple names or titles.

Language and Linguistic Evidence

The Book of Daniel is written partly in Hebrew (Daniel 1:1–2:4a; 8–12) and partly in Aramaic (Daniel 2:4b–7:28). Critics once argued that Daniel’s Aramaic contained “late” linguistic features, indicative of the 2nd century BCE. Yet subsequent research into Imperial Aramaic (widespread from the 7th to 4th centuries BCE) demonstrates that Daniel’s Aramaic is consistent with a form of the language used in official documents of that earlier era.

Additionally, the presence of a few Greek loanwords (primarily musical instruments in Daniel 3:5, 10, 15) was formerly taken as evidence of a Hellenistic background. More recent studies, however, indicate that such terms could have been assimilated earlier through trade, travel, and cultural exchange, particularly since the Greek world was not isolated from the Near East even before Alexander’s conquests.

Dead Sea Scrolls and Manuscript Witness

Fragments of the Book of Daniel discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (notably 4QDan) are dated to roughly the late 2nd century or early 1st century BCE. This challenges the notion that Daniel was composed in 165 BCE (the date some scholars propose, linked to the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes). If Daniel were truly penned around 165 BCE, it would be extraordinary for it to circulate so widely, achieve revered status, and become copied in multiple manuscripts—some found at Qumran—within only a few decades. The Scrolls thus indicate that Daniel was accepted as sacred Scripture and reproduced much earlier than the late-date theory comfortably permits.

Historical Confirmations and Josephus’s Account

The historian Josephus (1st century CE) recounted a legendary meeting between Alexander the Great and the high priest in Jerusalem, stating that Alexander recognized prophecies in the Book of Daniel referring to himself as the Greek conqueror (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI.8.5). While this account is debated, it demonstrates that by Josephus’s day Daniel was widely regarded as an ancient text containing prophecies about well-known historical figures.

Additionally, Babylonian chronicles, cuneiform tablets, and other archaeological data corroborate key elements of Daniel’s narrative, such as the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus, the existence of Belshazzar, and the transition to Persian governance under Cyrus and his appointees.

Precision in Prophecy: Too Accurate to Be Genuine?

A major motivation behind the claim of a late date is Daniel’s remarkable predictive passages. The book outlines the progression of world empires and foreshadows events that reached a culmination during the Seleucid era (2nd century BCE), particularly involving Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Daniel 8, 11). Critics argue that such exact knowledge of the rise and fall of kingdoms must have been recorded after the fact.

The assumption behind this skepticism is that predictive prophecy cannot exist. However, if Scripture is consistent within a theistic worldview, wherein God transcends time and reveals future events, then accurately foretelling historical events is not only conceivable but expected on occasion. The Book of Isaiah similarly foretells the rise of Cyrus by name (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1), a phenomenon critics also once attempted to date later but now see partially corroborated by external records of Cyrus’s benevolent policies toward exiles.

The Testimony of Early Reception

Daniel’s inclusion in the Old Testament canon further signals recognition of its antiquity. Many conservative scholars note that Daniel appears in the Septuagint (a Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures) well before the mid-2nd century BCE. By the time of Jesus, the text of Daniel was widely read and taught. Jesus Himself alludes to Daniel’s prophetic material in Matthew 24:15, referring to “the abomination of desolation” as spoken of by the prophet Daniel. Such usage underscores Daniel’s recognized status centuries before the commonly proposed late date.

Consistency with the Broader Scriptural Narrative

Critics sometimes isolate Daniel without considering its relation to the greater biblical record. Daniel’s allusions to Jeremiah’s prophecies about the 70 years of captivity (Daniel 9:2 echoes Jeremiah 25:11–12), and its alignment with historical books like 2 Chronicles and Ezra, show intricate internal harmony. Furthermore, the message of Daniel—exalting the sovereignty of the Creator who appoints and deposes kings—resembles themes in other prophetic works. Its theological unity with the rest of Scripture supports its earlier, authentic composition rather than a late fabrication inserted to address a short-term crisis in the 2nd century BCE.

Archaeological Discoveries and Extra-Biblical Writings

• Mesopotamian Cuneiform Tablets: These name Belshazzar as the son of Nabonidus, indicating Belshazzar’s significant authority during his father’s absences—aligning with Daniel 5.

• Cyrus Cylinder: While not mentioning Daniel, this artifact records Cyrus’s policy of restoring exiles to their homelands—consistent with the biblical narrative (cf. Ezra 1:1–3).

• Josephus and Hellenistic-era Writings: Though later reflections, they demonstrate that Jewish communities considered Daniel an ancient prophet who confidently predicted imminent world affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Internal Self-Identification: Daniel claims 6th-century BCE dating, with explicit references to events in Babylon and early Persian periods.

2. Belshazzar as Co-Regent: Once thought erroneous, now verified by archaeological data.

3. Darius the Mede: Multiple plausible identifications exist, consistent with known practices of regnal titles.

4. Aramaic Language Analysis: Consistent with earlier forms of Imperial Aramaic, not necessarily late.

5. Dead Sea Scrolls: Manuscript evidence suggests a revered status for Daniel well before 2nd-century BCE composition is plausible.

6. Josephus’s Tradition: Shows Daniel already viewed as ancient prophetic Scripture by the 1st century CE.

7. Theological Presupposition: Critics who deny predictive prophecy naturally date Daniel later, but such conclusions hinge on that worldview assumption.

Inviting Confidence in the Text

Far from being anachronistic or riddled with errors, Daniel fits neatly within known 6th-century geopolitical realities, as demonstrated by evolving archaeological and textual discoveries. The idea that precise prophecy demands a post-event authorship rests on a perspective that disallows the supernatural or foreknowledge consistent with divine revelation. By contrast, taking Daniel at face value harmonizes the evidence: accurate inside knowledge of regal intricacies, records from cuneiform tablets, linguistic forms appropriate for Persian-era Aramaic, and early acceptance in the scriptural canon.

Believers and non-believers alike can explore these findings and weigh anew the historical and textual data. In doing so, one encounters a remarkable biblical text—one that stands affirmed by multiple lines of external and internal evidence rather than being undermined by them.