Because the book of Daniel contains detailed prophecy and remarkable historical detail that point to divine authorship, it has come under sustained, critical scrutiny in recent years. Many scholars shrug off the prophecies in the book by claiming the book was written in the 2nd century around the time of the Maccabean revolt rather than in the 6th century as a plain reading of the text indicates. This claim, if true, would convert the prophecy in the book to history and extinguish or at least lessen the book’s prophetic nature. This claim is now so common that the first result for a Google search of “When was Daniel written?” turns up a wikipedia article claiming a 2nd century date (“The most probable conclusion is that the account must have been completed near the end of the reign of Antiochus but before his death in December 164 BC, or at least before news of it reached Jerusalem, and the consensus of modern scholarship is accordingly that the book dates to the period 167–163 BC.”)

Due to the importance of the book of Daniel (as we have studied this year), it is critical that we have a response to these claims. Earlier this year, I had a conversation with Professor Sean O’ Neill, a Professor of Classical Studies and ancient linguist at Hanover College in Hanover, Indiana, about the date and reliability of Daniel. I was greatly encouraged by that conversation, and I wanted to reproduce that conversation for the podcast audience.

Here are some of Professor O’Neill’s credentials:

Key Takeaways: