[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.