One of the more difficult questions for studying the book of Daniel is when the book was written. The answer to this question touches on the genre of Daniel and the clear prediction of historical events leading up to the Maccabean Revolt and possibly the Roman Empire in the first century. For some readers Daniel is predictive prophecy made by a historical figure. For many others Daniel is an apocalyptic re-casting of current events from the perspective of the middle of the second century B.C. This is a highly contentious debate because conservatives tend to make the date of Daniel a litmus test for conservative orthodoxy. But the later date for the book is a similar test of one’s scholarly credentials. For most in the academy, “no serious commentator” would consider an earlier date.
The traditional view is that Daniel was written at the end of the sixth century or early in the fifth century, soon after Daniel’s death. The book would have been completed after 537 BC, the last date recorded in the Daniel. Although Daniel 7-12 is in the first person, there is no clear claim that Daniel himself is the author. The first six chapters of the book are stories about Daniel and make no claim to be written by Daniel himself.
One compelling factor is the presence fragments of nearly every chapter of Daniel among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Although some of these fragments are very small, there are more” copies of Daniel than any other book in the Hebrew Bible” (Goldingay, Daniel2, 99). Goldingay seems to overstate his case here, including allusions to Daniel in other manuscripts such as 4QFlorilegium or the Prayer of Nabonidus. (Thanks to James R. for pointing this out, see the response below!)
One of the manuscripts can be dated to about 120 B.C., only a generation or so after the events recorded in the latter chapters of the book. For conservatives, this argues for an earlier date since it seems unlikely Daniel would be considered canonical only 40 years after it was written. As Goldingay points out, however, we have almost no information on what was or was not canonical in the first century BC and it is anachronistic to impose later canonical guidelines on the Dead Sea Scrolls. This argument may be part of an inductive argument pointing toward the possibility of an earlier date, but it is not certain proof.
For Stephen Miller, the three references to Daniel in Ezekiel (14:14, 20; 28:3) is the strongest argument for the early date of Daniel (Daniel, NAC 18, 42–43). He rejects claims that Ezekiel refers to a mythological Danel in the Ugaritic epic “The Tale of Aqhat.” Miller arguing it is unlikely for Ezekiel to cite an Ugaritic wise man favorably while condemning idolatry in Judah. The reference to Daniel in Ezekiel is also a highly contentious debate, but it does seem that Ezekiel is referring to three wise people from three distinct periods of history, Noah at the flood, Job at the time of Abraham, and a contemporary Daniel.
The consensus opinion of modern scholarship is that Daniel is an apocalyptic book written in the mid-second century B.C. Because the book contains very detailed prophecies of the Persian and Greek period, some scholars argue the book was written as late as 164 B.C., after the events described precisely in Daniel 11. Rather than prophecy, the book is a commentary on the relationship of the Jews and the nations, focusing on the (present) difficulties under the Greek Seleucid rule. This is the nature of apocalyptic prophecy such as the Animal Apocalypse which is in some ways similar to Daniel 11.
A date no later than 164 B.C. is commonly accepted because Daniel 11 describes Antiochus IV Epiphanes, his desecration of the Temple, and his persecution of the Jews. But Daniel 11 is clear on his death and does not seem to know about the Maccabean Revolt. For this reason, S. R. Driver and others date the book late enough to know Antiochus as the persecutor of Judea and to encourage Jews in facing persecution. The book presents God as sovereign over the nations. He has ordained the events leading up to the crisis of 164 B.C. But Daniel 11 does not know about the success of the Maccabean revolt or the re-dedication of the temple. Michael does not fight on behalf of Israel nor does God empower a son of man who will judge the nations and establish a kingdom that will never end (7:17).
Does it matter if the book of Daniel is written in the sixth or second century? Both of these two positions have good arguments and both answer objections to their view satisfactory (at least from their own perspective). What is the interpretive pay-off if Daniel is written earlier and predicts the general flow of history, or later and interprets that history?
If Daniel claims to be prophecy, re-dating of the book to the second century means Daniel is not really prophecy. For most conservatives, this would be a denial of inspiration of Daniel. By claiming something that is not true, then the book is a lie. If Daniel is not predictive prophecy outlining events leading up to God’s Kingdom, then one might wonder if God really has a plan in the first place.
But is Daniel actually a prophet? In the book itself, Daniel does not claim to be a prophet and he does not function as a prophet in way Isaiah or Jeremiah did. He either interprets the dreams of others or has a vision himself that must be interpreted. His visions are described as giving the sense of “what will be,” but Daniel himself is not prophesying “thus says the Lord.”
If one defines Daniel as “apocalyptic” as giving a veiled commentary on the history and social conditions of the present of the writer using a pseudonym, then there is nothing in Daniel that might be construed as “errant.” Within the genre of apocalyptic, Daniel as a second century document is perfectly acceptable to conservative descriptions of inspiration and inerrancy.
In the second edition of John Goldingay’s Daniel commentary (WBC 30, 2019), he observes Daniel scholarship in the twentieth century came to an impasse with respect to the date of Daniel. Both critical and conservative scholars approach the text with assumptions with respect to the date and reliability of the stories found in Daniel. For Goldingay, “it makes surprisingly little difference to the book’s exegesis whether the stories are history of fiction” (Daniel2, 134). What the book says about God is true regardless of when the book was written.
But is Goldingay correct? Does the date of the composition of Daniel make “makes surprisingly little difference”? What would it matter if Daniel was written in the second century? Does this destroy Christian faith? How would this challenge conservative approaches to Daniel? On the other hand, how would the interpretation of the book be different if Daniel is in fact predictive prophecy?
Some Bibliography: Robert Vasholz, “Qumran And The Dating Of Daniel” JETS 21 (1978): 315-321. This article is based on his dissertation, “A Philological Comparison of the Qumran Job Targum and Its Implications for the Dating of Daniel” (Ph. D. dissertation, University of Stellenbosch, 1976). T. Muraoka, “The Aramaic of the Old Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI,” JJS 25 (1974) 425-433. K. A. Kitchen, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel (London: Tyndale, 1965) 31-79.
Thanks so much for your research, thoughts , and comments with all your recent posts!! Wahoo Keep em coming and praise our great God from whom all blessings flow!
The main question that I drew from this, and have drawn before, is this: Does Daniel claim to be prophetic? As said, Daniel does not claim to be; however, obviously, we can see that there is some sort of prophecy going on. Instead of a cut-and-dry “yes” or “no,” I see more of a “both, and.” Daniel very well could have been interpreting current events with the power of the Holy Spirit, while also prophesying about future events. It is not necessarily a one-or-the-other answer. Now, the question is, does the date of the text change the power of the testimony of Daniel, or whoever wrote the book? In theory, yes it does. In actuality, we know that God is sovereign over all, and he would not have allowed an uninspired book to become a canonical work. If we question the authority of the prophecy, or the other elements of Daniel, we question the authority of God. I believe that is what it really boils down to. It’s not that Daniel is not a prophetic work; it very plainly seems to be. It’s a matter of where the line of prophecy begins and ends, and where the other elements begin and end.
Because Daniel never claims to be prophesying himself, it could be that the supposed later writer of Daniel (in sixth century BC) could simply have been relaying the events that happened, after they happened. Perhaps the writer was inspired by the Lord to know the visions and dreams that Daniel had, and the writer relayed those within the book, even though they had already happened.
Whichever way you paint it, it can be perceived as deception on the writers part, or a crazy, un-real prophetic work of God inspiring the writer to know all the ins and outs of Daniel’s encounters with the Lord.
Your post states, “… Although some of these fragments are very small, there are more copies of Daniel than any other book in the Hebrew Bible (Goldingay, Daniel2, 99).” This is plain incorrect.
Consulting just one DSS scholarly source, “The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance For Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity” by James VanderKam, Peter Flint 2002 reprinted 2013 states, “… Isaiah was one of the three most popular books at Qumran, with twenty-one manuscripts recovered. The only books represented more often are the Psalms, with thirty-six scrolls, and Deuteronomy, with thirty…. (p131)” and Table 6.5 (p150) ranks books according to the number of manuscripts, Daniel is tied for 7th with eight (as your post notes) fragmantary manuscripts.
I don’t have Goldingay’s WBC on Daniel (which I take is the source quoted? no footnote on post) so I can’t check where the confusion on the Goldingay claim.
I wondered about that as well when I wrote it, but apparently not long enough! I would think by sheer bulk, the Great Isaiah scroll itself would be longer than all of the Daniel fragments combined. Here is what he said:
“The Qumran scrolls are a key resource for our knowledge of the varied Daniel literature from late Second Temple times. It seems plausible that the Qumran community’s interest in Daniel links with the sense of a need for deliverance and of the prospect of the end of the age, which it shares with the visions. Among the scrolls there are eight fragmentary copies of the collection of stories and Visions that appears in the version of Daniel in the Hebrew Scriptures, which were copied over a period beginning only two or three decades after the deliverance in the 160s. There are thus more copies of Daniel from Qumran than of any other book within the Hebrew Scriptures which in itself suggests that this Daniel scroll had a special importance for the community.” John Goldingay, Daniel (Second Edition; WBC 30; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019), 99.
The last line is the main point I used above, the paragraph is context. In the list that follows, he has eight documents listed, but then includes 4QFlorilegium plus a section on Danielic Material. I think what he has done is included all of the allusions to Daniel in other non-scrolls of Daniel to pad out that number. I will edit the post to avoid what seems to be an exaggeration from Goldingay. Thanks for pointing this out.
Thanks Dr. Long for the “in-blog” credit! You run a great blog, I’ve followed for some time. Choice of books you review is excellent and interesting (not always the same thing), your series on assorted, especially 2nd temple texts, superb. That series particularly was tremendously helpful. I’ve spent considerable time in 1 Enoch, 4 Ezras, Jubilees, Ben Sira, etc… the “biggies” that overlap NPP related, free will vs sovereignty discussions, for example… attempting to understand the evidence we have for Judaism at the time and so the New Testament in its contexts. But how you introduced a text, one-by-one, balanced and reliable, was appreciated. Thanks for your site and God bless.
Thanks for your kind words. That’s exactly the sort of thing that goes to my head. I appreciate it!
The historical and prophetic contexts are two distinct ways of seeing Daniel when two things are happening at the same time but within different time frames. I strongly believe revelations or visions the are prophetic is a foretelling information that is yet to be revealed. I think it takes the right season, time, and place to accumulate an action being form in the present time. the historical timeline is like a science evaluating the predestined words of an individual used by God and evidence is the actual events taking place. I’m not sure if I’m explaining myself to the those questions above, but this is what I was able to interpret my thoughts from the blog.
When was the Book of Daniel Written?
“The traditional view is that Daniel was written at the end of the sixth century or early in the fifth century, soon after Daniel’s death”. Personally, I find it very interesting that there is no right date of when the book was written. We can only put our trust in those who are experts in the topic and have studied because it is obvious that it is very difficult to come up with the exact date of when it was written. Also, when it comes to the prophecies, I strongly believe that if the book itself does not consider Daniel a prophet, then he was just a very special person that God Himself appointed in order to be able to reveal dreams. It is obvious that God was the one helping Daniel foreshadow and predict the future as well interpreting dreams.
Lots to consider here and much of it is way over my head and far beyond me. But, none the less blame it on “conservatism” or “tradition”, but I think there is value in sticking to our “guns” so to speak, I apologize for the conservative pun, I could not help myself; in believing that Daniel is indeed a prophetic book speaking of things to come. If Daniel really did say, I had a vision, usually people are not having visions of things that have already happened. Many people will argue that Daniels “prophecy” is too detailed and much too accurate to be true prophecy. I think this is a way of trying to rationalize things that cannot be rationalized. Many prophets in the old testament spoke of things that were yet to come and many of those things happened as described in almost perfect detail. I think we would be walking on thin ice to say that Daniel is not a prophetic book, claiming to say that God would be leading us on to believe something about his word that really is not true in the first place.
It think we I first posted on here, I did a quick scan at the blog to be honest. Even, going back and reading it again some things are making a bit more sense. Now, if reading the book of Daniel may be the key to unlocking the mysteries of the book Revelation, how can we comprehend? That our faith will not be conflicted to things that are to be unraveled? Perhaps, if I can stand from the point of the attitude Daniel had throughout his interpretations, dreams, or visions and the information of truth in regards to nations and future end times, he had to still stand in faith and trust that God was the only Judge and comfort throughout trials and tribulations during his time and now our time of what we are facing todays world news. The bottom line is God sovereign control of history he assures his people are not left unaware and unalarmed, that somehow some way he will gives us a heads up of what’s to come and prepare us. Daniel, is a great example of someone who was able to stand firm, though may of been shaken up of so much questions in mind and not enough to answer the “what ifs,” questions. In 1 Corinthians 14:33 says, “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.” this Scripture reassured me that though things may be complicated with what’s going on with prophecies, but one thing for sure, the Lord is in total control and aware of what’s going on in our human history.
The actual date of the book of Daniel has always been a sort of itch at the back of my mind ever since taking Old Testament my sophomore year. Perhaps not absolutely life-shattering, but a subtle, forgettable annoyance that turns up every now and then. Personally, I would choose to believe that the book of Daniel is indeed a prediction of future events, written in the farther past of 586 BC rather than the second century BC. I was especially curious at the mention of Daniel along with Noah and Job in the book of Ezekiel, chapter 14. A closer examination of the notes in the ESV Study Bible reveals that it doesn’t have that much more to say than what is mentioned already by the post. However, it does say that chapter fourteen covers the destruction of an idolatrous group, with a remnant of a righteous few; comparing these righteous to Noah, Job, and Daniel. It is no secret throughout the book of Daniel that God provides for Daniel, as this provision is the reason that he and his fellow Jewish initiates are given their status in the king’s palace (Daniel 1:9, 17 ESVSB). The last reference of Daniel in Ezekiel is his prophecy against Tyre in Chapter 28; calling the prince of Tyre “wiser than Daniel.” (Ezekiel 28:3, ESVSB). Daniel was certainly known in Babylon as wise, The Queen mother of king Belteshazzar saying that “wisdom like the wisdom of the gods [was] found in him” (Daniel 5:11, ESVSB). If the book of Daniel was indeed written contemporary to Daniel, each of these passages make great sense.
” chapter fourteen” – maybe chapter 12?
If you do not believe inthe power of God do not try to explain what Daniel wrote or didn’t write. God is the breather of every word of the Bible! Point being Daniel did write all of this book of the Bible
In Matthew 24:15 Christ says – “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), ESV. It appears to me that our Lord and Savior Jesus referred to Daniel as a prophet. To me the implication would be that the book is prophetic and written by Daniel. I’ll go with what He said…
The translators of the 4 most popular versions of the NT i the world all reference Jesus’ words regarding Daniel as a true prophet of God. Furthermore, the entire 51 verses of the Olivet DIscourse are all inclusive as speaking as one series of events occurring at a specific time interval at a future time AfTER Jesus. We know the Second Coming will occur immediately after the Great Tribulation and these events have yet to occur. The Antiochus IV attachment to Daniel is just a convenient way to falsify the truth. God allowed this Seleucid king’s exploits to mirror Daniel’s(or rather Gabriel’s words of futuristic events ) to happen intentionally, so it would serve as a filter of truth to the skeptical and truth-seeking human mindset of humanity past, present and future.. Remember this: it was not Daniel who uttered these words – it was an angel to Daniel. cr
15“Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), Matthew 24:15 (NASB)
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Matthew 24:15 (KJV)
15“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— Matthew 24:15 (NIV)
15“So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), Matthew 24:15 (RSV)
The fact that Jesus even Jesus referenced to the book of Daniel, its about discerning who the 70 weeks belong to Daniel 9:24 and the meaning of the 70 weeks, The people,Holy city,put and end to sin, atonement for lawlessness, establish everlasting righteousness,conclude vision and prophecy, anoint the Most Holy Place, and the anointed commander which I believe to be Jesus, and says he will be cut down (not for himself), and if you think about it the Jews did not accept him, but the gentiles did and it says God will bless the world through the descendents of Abraham. So I believe as of right now Jews and Christians should love and worship God together regardless of the circumstances. We should also discern who the bible is talking about when talking about about Grecian Kingdoms, and Persian Kingdoms. God bless.
I find this statement to be a normal Christian thought when they fail to have an answer to difficult questions – “For Goldingay, “it makes surprisingly little difference to the book’s exegesis whether the stories are history of fiction” (Daniel2, 134). What the book says about God is true regardless of when the book was written.”
It doesn’t matter I tell you – it can be fiction or an outright lie – id doesn’t matter – it is truth. Say what? And people wonder why the pews of church are getting less full. The problem now is we can see that some of the traditions of theology have been off, admitting it doesn’t make the truth of Yahweh any less valid. It seems that the faith is so afraid that something might be different, what if the flood was only in a large region of the middle east and not the entire world. The concept of flooding that area to do away with some evil is still valid.
Far too many Christians are afraid, almost like their faith hangs by a thread and they worry, worry, worry that someone will cut the thread.
Personally I wouldn’t care if they find a lot of the timing to be off I still have my faith.
One thing I think that many people miss is that Daniel, no matter when it was written, correctly predicts Rome and its fracturing and that it would be during this time that the messiah comes and begins his kingdom.
No serious person dates Daniel after 100 AD, which means that this prediction in the Statue dream is accurate to an event that would happen 800ish years later, the fracturing of Rome into two, one being weak and one being strong.
I agree, thank you for the comment.
But one or two clarifications. First, scholars who date Daniel to the second century BC also deny the fourth kingdom is Rome; the two legs (for them) mean nothing (humans have two legs, the arms don’t really mean anything, do they?), or possibly the legs are the division between the Greek Seleucid /Ptolemy kingdoms.
Second, although Rome is not considered an empire until Augustus (27 BC – AD 14), the Republic was a major military power in the west with increasing influence in the east even in the second century BC. Often overlooked is the fact the Hasmoneans made treaty alliances with the Romans, and Pompey annexed Judea in 63 BC.
No one would date Daniel to AD 100 since Jesus quotes the book, Paul (probably) alludes to it, and Revelation is clearly influenced by the book.
Daniel has had visions with all the signs of a vision, and prophesied about ROME and the church of Rome persecuting “heretics” between 538 to 1798. The 4th beast, as well as the toes of clay and iron are clearly representing Europe.
So even if it had been written in the 1st century before Christ, to be a description of events, scholars should have to claim the 5th century and the end of the Roman empire.
Since there were eight copies of the Book of Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest COPY dating to about 165 B.C.E., definitely not the original. And that errors have crept into the texts, making small variations in the texts, it must have been written well before the oldest copy.
But I have noticed a trend. They say the four Gospels have to be written after 70 A.D. because they talk about the destruction of Jerusalem.
In both these cases we have another prophecy fulfilled. Matt.15: 9 “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” and 2 Tim.3: 5 “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” Doing anything to explain away prophecy and miracles. I pray that they find a segment of Daniel, especially from the interpretation of this dream, that dates to at least 400 B.C.E. I would like to see what they come up with then, to explain away prophecy.
You describe an earlier desecration of the temple than that of Christ. Could the desecration of the temple been by Titus in 70 A.D. I’m no scholar but I believe in the Writ as well as yhe inspiration of the Holy Spirit today.
Daniel’s book points toward events that happen or will happen after his death.
Mark 13:14 KJV — But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by DANIEL THE PROPHET, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
This scripture would explain what happened to Israel AFTER Titus sacked Jerusalem.
Yes Jahn, that is more or less how i understand Mark 13. From Daniel’s perspective, he is looking forward to the desecration by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, then Jesus takes that desecration as a model for a future (to him) desecration in the near future (AD 70), and some might even say that looks forward to a future, ultimate desecration still in the future prior to the Second Coming.
This post reaches out to many different types of readers which makes it so rich and well written. I enjoyed how you applied different scenarios to your writing so that more people can relate to your post rather than just disagreeing with the content. What fascinates me is that there was never any evidence of Daniel writing any of the book. I agree with you of the statement saying that the book was completed in 537 BC. The whole book is a little confusing when you’re reading it because it is hard to determine who the author is. Daniel 7-12 shows that it is written in the first person but other than that, there is no clear evidence of him being the author.
I thought that your evidence surrounding the book of Daniel did a great job of explaining the complexity of the date in ancient texts. I enjoy learning about history, so I like how you engaged in the historical texts and backgrounds, Including the Babylonian exile. The scholarly views that you bring into your blog on when Daniel was written add a higher degree of intelligence to the discussion. There are significant challenges in interpreting ancient events. The one thing that stuck out to me in my reading was how you should consider both historical and literary factors in talking about the date of the book of Daniel. With all this being said, I would agree with the traditional view that the Book of Daniel was written in the late sixth century or early fifth century.
The date of the book of Daniel is quite a contentious issue within the evangelical and broader world of scholarship, with the conservative perspective arguing for an early date of composition, with Daniel being the primary author of the text. This is in contrast with the broader consensus of scholarship, which argues for a later date around the 2nd century. This contention from scholarship for the late date of Daniel is despite its presence in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is significant because some of the Psalms were dated to a similar period before their discovery in this collection, leading many scholars to abandon such positions (Long, 2). Yet, Daniel seems to escape this proclivity, perhaps of its apocalyptic literary features that were common to much Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic literature. Additionally, the prophecies in Dan 7-12 are absurdly accurate, which raises some questions about their validity. Daniel 11 seems to describe Antiochus Epiphanes IV and his desecration of the temple and his persecution, leading to many concluding that the date of the book should be around 164 BC. These considerations can be quite convincing, although the three references to Daniel in Ezekiel 14:14; 20; and 28:3 can also provide a strong reason to maintain an early date of composition.
I tend to lean towards the later date of composition for the book of Daniel, as it fits well with the apocalyptic literature of the Second Temple Period and its features seem to indicate it is written within this genre. While I have no issue with the notion of prophecy, Daniel truly could have predicted the events of history extremely accurately, it is still strange that the vast majority of prophets receive slightly more obscure prophecies and messages while Daniel’s application of these prophecies is strangely clear. In this sense, Daniel could be an exception but given the previous literary considerations, this may contribute to preferring a later date. Ezekiel’s references to Daniel seem to indicate that Daniel was truly a historical figure, or at least functioned as a cultural character that embodied the plight of Jewish exiles, known before the composition of the text itself. Either way, I don’t think this affects the inspiration of the book, whether it is Daniel or a close associate writing the book in the sixth century or a later author suffering under the oppression of the Greeks, utilizing the cultural story of Daniel as an apocalyptic symbol of perseverance in the face of oppression and God’s sovereignty. I understand there remains some tension with the ‘prophecies’ of Daniel if the late date is true, but this may be applying our modern standards and considerations of inspiration to a Second Temple literary context with different concerns and motivations. It may be the case that this later author saw no issue or inconsistency with providing ‘prophecies’ that articulated previous historical events, including future prophecies of events yet to happen, through the lens of Daniel since it fit his thematic and literary context of the Second Temple period, which included Apocalyptic and pseudopigraphal works.
This post does a great job of illustrating the point you have of “When was the Book of Daniel Written”. You provide an easy way to understand the debate in question. You provide Excellent resources to show each point in the discussion. I enjoy this topic of discussion I feel this topic could change how we look at history.
The about the dating of the Book of Daniel, many conservative scholars might suggest a later date going back to the 5th to 6th century. Suggesting that because there is such substantial amounts of evidence at the time, dated to around the 2nd century. That means that there has been a large amount of time for the Book of Daniel to be in circulation and be recorded as cannon. However, there are. However. Modern views of what was Canon, not Canon, cannot be Used to determine what was Canon. At the time. Of the 2nd century since it is possible that. Choose may have adopted the Book of Daniel quickly as Canon (Long, 2020). Determining whether the book Daniel was written earlier or later. Some might suggest that if the book were written closer to a mid 2nd century BC, Then it would be a retelling of history, not necessarily a prophetic Book explaining what is to come in God’s plan in history (long, 2020 para 9). Long (2020) clarifies how Daniel never claims to be prophet but instead has received ability to interpret dreams and visions(para 11).