Daniel Radcliffe

Biblical scholars say that the Book of Daniel, although set in the time of the Babylonian Exile, was a novel actually written around 167 BCE. It is not possible to say from sources outside the Book of Daniel when Daniel died.

It is known with certainty who wrote Daniel: Jesus Christ Himself said that the Book of Daniel was written by Daniel himself, and that he was a prophet:-

Mat 24:15 Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet,stand in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand).

The verses Christ was referring to are:-

Dan 9:26-27 MKJV And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war. [v. 27] And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and on a corner of the altar desolating abominations, even until the end. And that which was decreed shall be poured on the desolator.

Dan 11:31 And forces will stand from him, and they will profane the sanctuary, the fortress, and shall remove the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the desolating abomination.

Dan 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrificeshall be taken away, and the desolating abomination set up, a thousand two hundred and ninety days shall occur.

John MacArthur, in "The MacArthur Study Bible, says that Daniel was written between 536 BC and 530 BC. Some scholars and commentators disagree with this early dating and instead put it much later between 167 and 164 BCE, soon after the desecration of the sanctuary by Antiochus Epiphanes, and notbefore it, as that would mean Daniel's prophecy was written after the event and not before it. However, this seems impossible because the Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek about 285BC in the Bible translation now known as the Septuagint (see J. Sidlow Baxter, "Explore the Book" Lesson 104, p. 16, Marshall, Morgan & Scott, London, 1966.)

Who the author of the Book of Daniel and when it was written is still being debated.

One of the main reasons why Daniel is regarded as being itten late is the presupposition that predictive prophecy is impossible. If this is so then Daniel, or the author of Daniel is allegedly a contemporary and is issuing his prophecies after the event. If this is so then it is indeed surprising that he doens't get his facts straight about the contemporary events about which he is allegedly writing. Thus this theory breaks down on the very thesis upon which it is based.

One of the problems with the Maccabean Hypothesis (the alleged fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel by Antiochus Epiphanes) is that Antiochus does not fulfill all the prophecies he is alleged to fulfill and also his character does not approach the extent of blasphemy attributed to the 'King of the North' in the prophecies of Daniel allegedly fulfilled by him. Nor do his military conquests get anywhere near those of the other king.

The prophecy of Daniel 11:31 was regarded even by Jesus as not yet having been fulfilled in His time. Many commentators agree with this (as if they matter compared to Jesus). This includes Larry Taylor on the infidel web site who states that these events described in 11:31 do not correspond to known historical events.

Another of the many problems with the 'late date for Daniel hypothesis' is the name Belshazzar the King. He is referred to in Daniel 5:1,2, 9, 22, 29 and 30 as well as 7:1 and 8:1. Scholars have shown that the name Belshazzar was lost to contemporary historians such as Herodotus and Xenophon when they described the fall of Babylon but failed to mention the relevant king. This situation goes right down to Josephus in the first century AD and so the fifth chapter of Daniel is demonstrated to be historically accurate to a high degree and also most unlikely to have been written later than the events it so accurately describes.

"Of all the non Babylonian records dealing with the situation at the close of the Neo-Babylonian empire the fifth chapter of Daniel ranks next to cuneiform literature in accuracy so far as outstanding events are concerned. The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom. Babylonian cuneiform documents of the sixth century B.C. furnish clear-cut evidence of the correctness of these three basic historical nuclei contained in the Biblical narrative dealing with the fall of Babylon. Cuneiform texts written under Persian influence in the sixth century B.C. have not preserved the name Belshazzar, but his role as a crown prince entrusted with royal power during Nabonidus's stay in Arabia is depicted convincingly. Two famous Greek historians of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. do not mention Belshazzar by name and hint only vaguely at the actual political situation which existed in the time of Nabonidus. Annals in the Greek language ranging from about the beginning of the third century to the first century B.C. are absolutely silent concerning Belshazzar and the prominence he had during the last reign of the Neo-Babylonian empire. The total information found in all available chronologically-fixed documents later than the cuneiform texts of the sixth century B.C. and prior to the writings of Josephus of the first century A.D. could not have provided the necessary material for the historical framework of the fifth chapter of Daniel." [Nabonidus and Belshazzar. (Yale, 1929): 199-200]

Summary:

Thus in the light of the evidence it is more reasonable to assert that the author was the prophet Daniel.