Walk into any seminary classroom or open a high-end study Bible, and you’ll hit a wall of tension almost immediately. It’s weird. On one hand, you have the traditional view that’s been around for literally thousands of years, and on the other, you have modern historians who think the whole thing was written much later. If you’re asking who wrote book of Daniel in the Bible, the answer isn't a single name on a dusty cover. It’s a detective story involving a high-ranking Babylonian official, anonymous Jewish scribes in the second century BCE, and a whole lot of linguistic puzzles.
Most people just assume Daniel wrote it.
The book says so, right? In several chapters, the narrator switches to the first person, saying things like "I, Daniel, saw." But history is rarely that clean. To really get it, you have to look at why scholars are so split and why the "when" of the writing matters just as much as the "who."
The Traditional Case for Daniel the Prophet
For centuries, the standard answer was simple. Daniel wrote it. Daniel was a Judean teenager taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar II around 605 BCE. He was smart, resilient, and supposedly rose to the top of the Babylonian and Persian governments. If you take the text at face value, he’s the guy behind the pen.
Conservative scholars point to a few big reasons for this. First, Jesus mentions "Daniel the prophet" in the Gospel of Matthew ($24:15$). For many believers, that settles it. If Jesus said Daniel was the prophet behind the words, then Daniel wrote it. End of story.
But there's more internal evidence too. The author seems to have an intimate, if sometimes slightly fuzzy, knowledge of Babylonian court life. There are specific details about royal decrees and Babylonian names that feel authentic to someone living in the sixth century BCE. You've got the descriptions of the palace and the specific types of punishment—like being thrown into a furnace or a lion's den—which were actually things that happened in those ancient Near Eastern empires.
Also, let's talk about the language. The book is written in two different languages: Hebrew and Aramaic. It’s a bilingual sandwich. It starts in Hebrew, switches to Aramaic in chapter 2, and goes back to Hebrew in chapter 8. Traditionalists argue this reflects a transition period in Jewish history where both languages were in use among the elite.
Why Modern Scholars Think Someone Else Stepped In
Here is where it gets spicy. If you talk to a secular historian or a liberal theologian, they’ll tell you Daniel almost certainly didn't write the book in its final form. They point to the "Maccabean Thesis."
Basically, the theory is that an anonymous author living around 167–164 BCE wrote the book to encourage Jews who were being persecuted by the Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. This king was a piece of work. He tried to outlaw Judaism, sacrificed a pig on the altar in the Temple, and was generally a nightmare for the Jewish people.
The argument goes like this: the "prophecies" in Daniel are incredibly accurate right up until the mid-second century BCE, and then they suddenly get vague.
👉 See also: Finding the University of Arizona Address: It Is Not as Simple as You Think
Historians like Porphyry (a third-century philosopher who hated Christianity) were the first to really hammer this point. He noticed that the descriptions of the wars between the "King of the North" and the "King of the South" in chapter 11 match the history of the Ptolemies and Seleucids perfectly. It looks like "prophecy after the fact," or vaticinium ex eventu.
To these scholars, the who wrote book of Daniel in the Bible question is answered by looking at the Greek influence. The book contains three Greek words for musical instruments: kitharis, psalterion, and symphonia. Critics argue it’s unlikely these Greek loanwords would be floating around a Babylonian court in 550 BCE before the Greek empire had even expanded that far.
The Language Puzzle: Hebrew vs. Aramaic
The linguistic shift in Daniel is one of the strangest things in the whole Bible. It’s not just that it’s two languages; it’s the type of Aramaic used.
Some linguists argue the Aramaic in Daniel is "Imperial Aramaic," which was the lingua franca of the Persian Empire. This would support an earlier date. However, others argue it looks more like the Aramaic used in Palestine centuries later.
Honestly, the bilingual nature of the book suggests it might have been a compilation. Think of it like a "best of" album. Maybe there were ancient stories about a guy named Daniel that were passed down orally or in shorter written forms, and then a final editor—let's call him the "Danielic Scribe"—stitched them together with new visions to help people during a crisis.
Was Daniel Even a Real Person?
This is a tough one for some to swallow, but it’s a fair question in historical circles. There is a "Dan'el" mentioned in the ancient Ugaritic texts from the 14th century BCE—long before the biblical Daniel. That Dan'el was a legendary righteous judge.
Even the prophet Ezekiel, a contemporary of the biblical Daniel, mentions a "Daniel" alongside Noah and Job as examples of righteousness. Some think it’s weird that Ezekiel would mention Daniel if Daniel was just a young guy living down the street in Babylon at the time. It’s like a modern writer putting a teenager in the same category as Abraham Lincoln and Moses.
Because of this, some think "Daniel" was a legendary figure from Israel's deep past, and the author of the book used his name to give the stories authority. This was a common practice back then called pseudepigrapha. It wasn't considered "lying" or "forgery" in the ancient world; it was a way of honoring a tradition by writing in a great person's name.
The Court Tales vs. The Visions
When you read Daniel, you’ll notice it’s split right down the middle.
✨ Don't miss: The Recipe With Boiled Eggs That Actually Makes Breakfast Interesting Again
The first six chapters are stories. The fiery furnace. The lion's den. The writing on the wall. These are "court tales." They feel like folk stories designed to show that you can stay true to your faith even while working for a pagan government.
The last six chapters are wild. They are apocalyptic. They involve beasts with iron teeth, flying goats, and terrifying angels.
This massive shift in style is one reason why many believe different people wrote different parts. It’s possible the stories in the first half were older—maybe dating back to the Persian period—and the visions in the second half were added later during the Greek persecution. This makes the question of who wrote book of Daniel in the Bible even more complicated because it might be a "them" rather than a "him."
Historical Hiccups That Raise Eyebrows
If Daniel wrote the book in the 6th century BCE, he made a couple of weird historical "mistakes" that are hard to explain.
- Belshazzar’s Identity: The book calls Belshazzar the "son" of Nebuchadnezzar. We know from the Nabonidus Cylinder and other archaeological finds that he was actually the son of Nabonidus. To be fair, "son" could mean "successor" in ancient terms, but it's a point of contention.
- Darius the Mede: This is the big one. The book says a guy named Darius the Mede took over Babylon after Belshazzar. History says it was Cyrus the Great of Persia. No secular record of a "Darius the Mede" exists in that specific timeframe.
Apologists have worked hard to find workarounds—maybe Darius was another name for a general named Gubaru. But for critics, these inaccuracies are "smoking guns" that the author was writing hundreds of years later and got some of the ancient details mixed up.
Does it Actually Matter Who Wrote It?
You’ve got two camps here.
For the "Theological Camp," authorship is everything. If Daniel didn't write it, they feel the book loses its status as divine prophecy. If it's just a guy in 165 BCE looking back at history and pretending it's the future, they feel the message is hollow.
For the "Literary Camp," the message stays the same regardless. Whether it was Daniel in a Babylonian palace or a scribe in a Jerusalem basement, the point of the book is that God is in control of history. It’s a book of hope for people whose world is falling apart.
The Dead Sea Scrolls Connection
One of the coolest pieces of evidence comes from the caves of Qumran. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments of Daniel. These scrolls date back to the 2nd century BCE.
🔗 Read more: Finding the Right Words: Quotes About Sons That Actually Mean Something
What’s wild is that Daniel was already being treated as "scripture" by the Qumran community. This is a fast turnaround if it was only written in 164 BCE. Usually, it takes a long time for a book to be accepted as holy. This leads some to believe that even if the final version was edited late, the core material has to be much older.
Real Talk: The Most Likely Scenario
If you want the most nuanced view, it’s probably a middle ground.
Most modern scholarship leans toward the idea that there was a real person (or a very strong tradition of a person) named Daniel who lived during the exile. He probably left behind records or stories. Over time, these were curated, translated, and eventually expanded upon by a circle of "wise" people (called the Maskilim in the text) during the Greek crisis.
This group didn't see themselves as making things up. They were applying Daniel's ancient wisdom to their current nightmare. They were saying, "Just like Daniel survived the lions, we will survive Antiochus."
How to Navigate the Daniel Debate
If you're researching this for a project or just because you’re curious about the Bible’s history, don't get bogged down in the "all or nothing" trap. The Bible is a library, not just a book.
Here is what you can do next to get a better handle on this:
- Compare Chapter 11 with a History of the Seleucid Empire. If you read them side-by-side, the similarities are staggering. It’ll give you a clear view of why the 2nd-century date is so popular.
- Look up the "Nabonidus Cylinder." It’s a real archaeological artifact that sheds light on the Belshazzar situation. It’s fascinating to see where the Bible and archaeology meet (and where they clash).
- Read the Book of 1 Maccabees. It’s not in the standard Protestant Bible, but it’s a historical account of the time when many scholars think Daniel was finished. It provides the "vibe" of the era perfectly.
Ultimately, whether you see the book as a 6th-century miracle or a 2nd-century masterpiece of resistance literature, it remains one of the most influential texts in history. It shaped how people think about the end of the world, the "Son of Man," and the idea that no empire lasts forever.
Whatever your take on the author, the message is pretty loud and clear: stay the course, even when the lions are circling.