[Serious] The Story

[John 6IX Breezy]

Okay, state your evidence, please.

We have to start with an understanding of the book’s own claims, and several things are evident: The time period the book claims to have been authored (Daniel 2:1), the first-person authorship of Daniel (Daniel 10:2), and the book's claim to be about future events (Daniel 2:29). A Bayesian approach means any further information has to be used to modify this position.

1. The linguistics of the book—its vocabulary, grammar, and syntax—are consistent with, even slightly hinting towards, the period mentioned in the book. Similar consistency regarding the Babylonian names has also been found. This information increases our confidence in the date.

2. Other studies suggest that the Old Testament canon was closed by the second century BC. And the presence and popularity of Daniel at Qumran, as observed in fragments in the Dead Sea Scrolls, likewise suggest that its date of composition predated the second century. The book of Ezekiel, a contemporary of Daniel (and likewise found in the dead sea scrolls) has a less contested authorship and appears to mention Daniel. Again, this information is consistent with the initial date.

3. My own personal contribution comes from studies of narrative in cognitive science. There's consistency between the first-person accounts in Daniel, and the way people narrate personal experience. Even if someone wishes to argue that fiction can emulate such experience, they are still constrained by the fact this is how it needs to be emulated. In other words, the narration is consistent with a genuine first-person experience, and as such is likewise consistent with the initial date.

Finally, much of the critiques I'm coming across are argumentative rather than empirical. For example, a later period is argued because its contents are ideal for that period (referring the Maccabean age). But readers from every age have found it ideal for their time—even early Christians saw it as referencing their own struggle. Other objections seem inconclusive, such as the unknown or hypothesized identity of Darius the Mede. The best argument that I've found so far, has to do with the absence of any mention of Daniel by Ben Sira, a Jewish Scribe, which mentions around 28 other OT figures. But even here the significance of the absence and possible motives are debated by scholars, and anything drawn from it has to be assumptive. In conclusion, most of the critical arguments are either inconclusive, or not inconsistent with the original date. So far, nothing empirical and decisive appears to exist that ought to lower the probability of the original date.

[Anomalocaris]

The level and extent of persecution of Christians by Rome has been exaggerated, but it was far from nonexistent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution

I think almost any arbitrary grouping that can be meaningfully singled out over substantially length of time can point to some persecution against them some time some where.

[Jehanne]

@John 6IX Breezy

Just so that we are clear, what is stated in the Wikipedia article on the Book of Daniel is wrong:

The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC biblical apocalypse with a 6th century BC setting.[1] Ostensibly "an account of the activities and visions of Daniel, a noble Jew exiled at Babylon",[2] it combines a prophecy of history with an eschatology (a portrayal of end times) both cosmic in scope and political in focus,[1] and its message is that just as the God of Israel saves Daniel from his enemies, so he would save all Israel in their present oppression.[3]

Wikipedia -- Book of Daniel

And, so, come clean -- when was Daniel written?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Just so that we are clear, what is stated in the Wikipedia article on the Book of Daniel is wrong:

The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC biblical apocalypse with a 6th century BC setting.[1]

Yes, I see no empirical data on that. And even the author they are referencing, who agrees with a later date, doesn't put it in such indisputable words: "The most probable time of composition of these stories is the third or early second century B.C" (Collins, 1984, p. 34). Probable and Third are not trivial words that can be omitted from that sentence.

ps. Even though the author offers no evidence for his position, he makes an interesting argument in his book. The author writes:

"The main point at issue in this debate is not so much the date [emphasis added] of the tales but the authenticity of the predictions in chs. 7-12. Here it must be said that the evidence of the genre [epmhasis added] creates a great balance of probability in favor of the critical viewpoint... The burden of proof must fall on those who wish to argue that Daniel is different from the other examples of the genre [emphasis added]."

This sounds like a literary version of the ecological fallacy—in which inferences about individuals are deduced from inferences about the group.

[Jehanne]

I find it incomprehensible that a document could be composed in the 6th-century BCE and all of a sudden get a plethora of references come mid-2nd century BCE with not so much as a peep prior to that!

[John 6IX Breezy]

I find it incomprehensible that a document could be composed in the 6th-century BCE and all of a sudden get a plethora of references come mid-2nd century BCE with not so much as a peep prior to that!

References usually appear after something is written. So even with your exaggerated description the most you can conclude is that it was written before the earliest reference not after.

[The Grand Nudger]

The lane just gets narrower and narrower I suppose.

What would you consider the most metaphoric piece of work in the entire thing John? Some, if any, narrative where strict factual accuracy as told is inconsequential to the message?

[Jehanne]

I find it incomprehensible that a document could be composed in the 6th-century BCE and all of a sudden get a plethora of references come mid-2nd century BCE with not so much as a peep prior to that!

References usually appear after something is written. So even with your exaggerated description the most you can conclude is that it was written before the earliest reference not after.

I think it more likely that it was just another ancient forgery.

[The Grand Nudger]

Forgery and deception both miss the target, I think. This wasn't an uncommon way to narrate politics at the time or in the culture of origin. There's no reason to think that the author of daniel was trying to fool anybody, about anything.

[John 6IX Breezy]

This wasn't an uncommon way to narrate politics at the time or in the culture of origin.

Aside from the fact that you're putting the cart before the horse when you say at the time. In order to avoid base rate neglect, you not only have to show that it was common to write in such a style, but also that it was uncommon to write in a regular, more direct manner.

ps. As to forgery, every reference to Daniel in the second century and thereafter is treating him like a real person that underwent real events. Unless the conspiracy runs much deeper and everyone that references Daniel is playing along, you are committed to the fraud narrative. Because it doesn't sound like anyone knew he was a fictional character created to narrate the politics of the time.