When was the book of Daniel written?
Most academic scholars date Daniel's final form to about 165 BC, during the Maccabean revolt, because chapter 11 reads as accurate history through 167 BC and then becomes wrong about Antiochus IV's death. Traditional and conservative readers hold a 6th-century date with the precision read as genuine predictive prophecy.
What the text actually says
Daniel claims a 6th-century BC setting (the Babylonian and early Persian courts) but contains a long, detailed prophecy in chapter 11 that walks through the wars of the Diadochi and the reign of Antiochus IV with striking precision. The dating debate turns on how to read that precision.
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.Daniel 1:1 (KJV)
And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.Daniel 11:31 (KJV)
And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.Daniel 11:45 (KJV)
What the primary sources say
Two primary-source bodies dominate the dating discussion: the 3rd-century pagan philosopher Porphyry, whose attack on Daniel survives only in fragments inside Jerome's commentary, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which carry the earliest manuscript evidence for Daniel itself.
Porphyry, writing around AD 270, argued that the book of Daniel was composed in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (c. 167 BC) rather than the 6th century. His argument was historical: the prophecies in chapter 11 are accurate up to Antiochus's persecution and then go wrong about his death (Daniel 11:45 has him die in Israel; he actually died in Persia). Porphyry concluded the book is a contemporary report dressed as prophecy. Jerome preserves the argument while disagreeing with it.
Eight Daniel manuscripts have been recovered from Qumran (1QDan-a, 1QDan-b, 4QDan-a through 4QDan-e, 6QDan, and pap6QDan). The earliest, 4QDan-c, is paleographically dated to the late 2nd century BC, very close to the Maccabean composition window itself. The number of copies and their textual diversity suggest Daniel was already well-established at Qumran by the mid-2nd century. This is consistent with both dating schools but constrains the very-late composition theories.
Jerome wrote his commentary explicitly in response to Porphyry. He preserves Porphyry's historical argument honestly and answers it on theological grounds: if the prophecy is too precise, that is not evidence the book is late but evidence the prophet really knew the future. Jerome's commentary is the main reason we know what Porphyry said.
The author of 1 Maccabees, writing in the late 2nd century BC, refers to Daniel and his three companions as established figures whose stories the Maccabean martyrs are meant to emulate. This puts Daniel's narrative in circulation as a known text by the late 2nd century at the latest.
The reconciliation attempts
Three positions structure the modern debate. The Maccabean dating dominates academic scholarship; the 6th-century dating remains the traditional Jewish and Christian view; the composite position tries to honor both.
Maccabean dating (c. 167-164 BC)
Daniel's final form was composed during the persecution under Antiochus IV, between his desecration of the temple in 167 BC and his death in 164 BC. The argument: chapter 11 is precise through 167 BC and then becomes inaccurate about Antiochus's death and a Jewish military victory, which is exactly the pattern of a contemporary author writing prophecy ex eventu (after the event) and then projecting forward. This is the standard academic position, descending from Porphyry through 18th and 19th-century critical scholarship to today.
6th-century traditional dating
Daniel was composed by the prophet Daniel in the 6th century BC during and after the Babylonian exile, with chapter 11 as genuine predictive prophecy. The argument: the book's setting is internally consistent, Aramaic linguistic features can be 6th-century, and the doctrinal stakes of predictive prophecy run deep in both Jewish and Christian tradition. This is the position of most conservative Protestant, traditional Catholic, and Orthodox scholarship.
Composite dating (6th-century core, 2nd-century final form)
Some readers split the difference: the court tales of chapters 1-6 may have an older Babylonian or Persian-period core, while the apocalyptic visions of chapters 7-12 were composed or substantially revised in the Maccabean period. The literary distinction between the two halves of the book (one Aramaic, one Hebrew, with a partial overlap) and the different genres (court tale vs. apocalyptic vision) lend some support to this reading.
Late Persian or Hellenistic but pre-Maccabean dating
A smaller group argues for a date in the 4th or 3rd century BC, before Antiochus's persecution. On this view, Daniel is genuinely apocalyptic and predictive but is not necessarily 6th-century. This position is held by a small minority and is more common in some Jewish scholarship than in Christian.
Where the consensus is and isn't
Where there is consensus: Daniel 11 contains a remarkably accurate account of the wars of the Diadochi and Antiochus IV's persecution through 167 BC; the predictions about Antiochus's death and the immediate aftermath are inaccurate; the Qumran evidence puts the text in wide circulation by the late 2nd century BC. These facts are not disputed.
Where there is not consensus: how to interpret the chapter 11 pattern. The Maccabean reading treats it as evidence of a 2nd-century composition that was accurate about its own past and wrong about its near future. The traditional reading treats it as evidence of a 6th-century prophet who saw centuries ahead and whose closing visions point past Antiochus to a wider eschatological horizon. The textual evidence does not force either reading; the choice is driven by prior commitments about the possibility of predictive prophecy and by judgments about literary genre.
Where to read it in Deep Bible
Read Daniel 11 with the historical timeline of Antiochus IV surfaced verse-by-verse, and the wider book introduction:
Related questions
Other contested-passage treatments that touch on the same primary sources or interpretive issues:
Frequently asked
Who was Porphyry and what did he say about Daniel?
Porphyry was a 3rd-century pagan philosopher who wrote a 15-volume work titled Against the Christians (now mostly lost). In his treatment of Daniel, preserved in Jerome's commentary, he argued the book was composed during the Maccabean crisis in the 2nd century BC because chapter 11 is accurate through 167 BC and then becomes wrong about Antiochus IV's death.
How many Daniel manuscripts are at Qumran?
Eight Daniel manuscripts have been recovered from the Qumran caves. The earliest, 4QDan-c, is paleographically dated to the late 2nd century BC, very close to the Maccabean composition window itself.
Does Jerome accept Porphyry's argument?
No. Jerome preserves Porphyry's historical argument in his Commentary on Daniel and then answers it on theological grounds: the precision of the prophecy is, for Jerome, evidence that the prophet really knew the future, not evidence the book is late.