The Book of Daniel is one of the most thrilling and debated books in the entire Bible. For centuries, readers have been amazed by its accurate predictions of the rise and fall of world empires. However, because the text contains such precise details about future events, it has also become a primary target for skeptical critics.
Mainstream academic critics claim that the Book of Daniel was not written by a real 6th-century BC prophet named Daniel. Instead, they argue it was written by an unknown author in the 2nd century BC, around 165 BC. They believe the author was simply looking back at history and writing it down as if it were a future prediction. This view is called “vaticinium ex eventu,” which means “prophecy after the fact.”
When we look closely at these skeptical arguments, we find a web of historical gaps, logical contradictions, and biased assumptions. By examining the critics’ weaknesses, pointing out the flaws in their interpretation of Daniel 9, and tracing their arguments back to their root—the ancient philosopher Porphyry—we can see that the traditional, prophetic view of Daniel stands on firm ground.
The Underlying Flaw: Beginning with a Biased Conclusion
The biggest issue with modern critics of Daniel is not a lack of data but a starting bias. Most skeptical scholars approach the text with a philosophical principle: true miracles and real predictions of the future are impossible.
|
The biggest issue with modern critics of Daniel is not a lack of data but a starting bias. Most skeptical scholars approach the text with a philosophical principle: true miracles and real predictions of the future are impossible.
Because they assume that Yahuwah cannot reveal the future to humans, they are forced to find another explanation for the book’s accuracy. If Daniel chapter 11 perfectly describes the wars between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires hundreds of years in advance, the critic cannot accept this as a miracle. They must conclude that the book was written after those wars.
This is circular reasoning. The critics assume that predictive prophecy is impossible, use that assumption to declare that Daniel must be a late fake, and then cite their own conclusion as proof that predictive prophecy does not exist. This is not objective historical science. It is a philosophy imposed on the ancient text.
Historical Blunders or Scribal Accuracy?
For many years, critics claimed that the author of Daniel made major historical errors that a 6th-century eyewitness would never make. They cited two main examples: King Belshazzar and Darius the Mede.
The Case of King Belshazzar
In Daniel 5, we read about King Belshazzar throwing a feast before Babylon’s fall. For a long time, historians found no mention of Belshazzar in ancient Greek histories. They claimed the author of Daniel simply invented this king.
However, archaeology proved the critics wrong. In the 19th century, archaeologists discovered the Nabonidus Cylinder and other Babylonian tablets. These records showed that King Nabonidus was the supreme ruler, but he spent years away from Babylon. Before he left, he co-ruled with his oldest son, Belshazzar, granting him royal authority. This explains why Belshazzar offered to make Daniel the “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Daniel 5:29)—Nabonidus was first, and Belshazzar was second. An author writing centuries later, in 165 BC, would likely not have known this obscure historical detail.
The Identity of Darius the Mede
Critics also argue that “Darius the Mede” in Daniel 6 is a work of historical fiction because secular history records that Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon directly. While historians still debate his exact identity, several strong historical candidates remain. Darius may be another name for Cyaxares II (mentioned by the ancient writer Xenophon), or he could be Gubaru, the governor whom Cyrus placed over Babylon.
The critics’ claim that the author was completely ignorant of history is deeply contradictory. If the author was smart enough to write a complex, highly accurate account of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC in Daniel 11, why would he suddenly become completely foolish about the fall of Babylon? It makes much more sense that the author had access to accurate, early information.
The Flawed Interpretation of Daniel 9 and Onias III
One of the most famous prophecies in the book is the “Seventy Weeks” prophecy in Daniel 9:24–27. This passage outlines a timeline of 70 weeks of years (490 years) leading to the arrival and death of an “Anointed One” (or Messiah) and the destruction of Jerusalem.
Conservative scholars have long pointed out how the Daniel 9 timeline fits the life, ministry, and crucifixion of Yahushua Christ perfectly, followed by the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
|
Conservative scholars have long pointed out how this timeline fits the life, ministry, and crucifixion of Yahushua Christ perfectly, followed by the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. To avoid this supernatural timeline, critics have to twist the text to make it fit events in the 2nd century BC.
To make their theory work, critics argue that the “Anointed One who is cut off” in Daniel 9:26 is not Yahushua, but an ancient Jewish High Priest named Onias III, who was murdered around 171 BC. This interpretation breaks down under basic math and historical facts.
The Math Simply Does Not Work
Daniel 9 says that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until the Anointed One, there would be 7 weeks and 62 weeks (a total of 69 weeks, equaling 483 years).
If the command was given during Jeremiah’s or Cyrus’s time (around 538 BC), counting forward 483 years brings us deep into the 1st century AD—right to the time of Yahushua. If critics want Onias III (171 BC) to be the endpoint, they have to manipulate the numbers. The time from Cyrus to Onias III is only about 367 years, leaving a massive error of over 115 years. Critics are forced to claim that the author of Daniel was terrible at math. It is highly convenient for critics to blame the author for bad arithmetic rather than admit that their own theory is flawed.
The Nature of the Death
Daniel 9:26 states that the Anointed One will be cut off, “but not for himself” (or “will have nothing”). This points to a sacrificial death that benefits others. Onias III was a good man, but he was assassinated because of political plotting by his rivals. His death was a political murder, not a redemptive sacrifice for the people’s sins.
The Destruction of the City
The prophecy says that after the Anointed One is cut off, the people of a future ruler will destroy the city and the sanctuary. When Onias III died in 171 BC, Jerusalem and its temple were not destroyed. Antiochus Epiphanes polluted the temple later on, but he did not tear it down. The complete leveling of the city and temple happened centuries later under the Romans in 70 AD, perfectly matching the timeline following the death of Yahushua.
A Critique of Porphyry: The Root of Modern Skepticism
To truly understand why critics attack Daniel, we have to look back to the original source of their arguments. Almost all modern critical arguments against Daniel do not come from modern science or advanced research. They come from a Greek philosopher named Porphyry of Tyre, who lived in the 3rd century AD (around 233–305 AD).
Porphyry was a Neoplatonic philosopher and a fierce enemy of Christianity. He wrote a 15-volume work titled Against the Christians. The entire 12th volume was dedicated to attacking the Book of Daniel. Porphyry was the first to argue that Daniel was written by a pseudonymous author during the Maccabean period (the 160s BC).
When we analyze Porphyry’s work, several major weaknesses come to light:
Motive Over Evidence
Porphyry did not write his critique because he found new historical tablets or discovered linguistic flaws. He wrote it because Christianity was rapidly spreading across the Roman Empire, and Daniel’s prophecies were among the strongest tools Christians used to prove that Yahushua was the Messiah.
|
Porphyry did not write his critique because he found new historical tablets or discovered linguistic flaws. He wrote it because Christianity was rapidly spreading across the Roman Empire, and Daniel’s prophecies were among the strongest tools Christians used to prove that Yahushua was the Messiah. Porphyry realized that if Daniel were a true prophet, Christianity would be true. His goal was political and religious damage control, not objective historical research.
Total Rejection of the Supernatural
Like modern critics, Porphyry adhered to a strict philosophical rule: the divine cannot enter human history, and true prediction is impossible. Because he rejected the possibility of divine inspiration, he had no choice but to invent the Maccabean thesis. His conclusion was settled before he even opened the text.
The Logical Contradiction of the “Holy Fake”
Porphyry’s theory poses a serious moral and logical problem. If the Book of Daniel was written in 165 BC by an imposter, the book is a deliberate lie. The author would be lying about his name, his location (Babylon), his visions, and his conversations with angels.
Yet, the Book of Daniel constantly encourages its readers to be deeply honest, to worship the true God, and to die rather than commit idolatry or compromise their integrity. Why would an author write a book full of lies about his identity to convince people to die for the truth? A forged book built on deception would never have been accepted by the devout, god-fearing Jews of the Maccabean era, who risked their lives to protect the purity of Yahuwah’s Word.
Internal and External Proofs the Critics Ignore
Skeptical scholars who follow Porphyry often overlook key evidence pointing to an early date for Daniel.
The Dead Sea Scrolls: Discovered in the mid-20th century, these ancient manuscripts include copies of the Book of Daniel dating to the 2nd century BC. Some of these copies were written just a few decades after critics claim the book was forged. The scrolls show that Daniel was already regarded as sacred Scripture, copied on expensive parchment, and preserved alongside other ancient books such as Genesis and Isaiah. A brand-new forgery would not be accepted as holy Scripture by a conservative community like the Essenes overnight.
Linguistic Evidence: The Book of Daniel is written in both Hebrew and Aramaic. The Aramaic used in Daniel matches the official “Imperial Aramaic” of the Persian Empire in the 5th and 6th centuries BC, rather than the later Western Aramaic used in Judea in the 2nd century BC.
The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, begun in the 3rd century BC. Daniel’s presence in the early layers of Jewish scriptural tradition makes a late Maccabean origin highly unlikely.
Conclusion: Standing Strong Against Skepticism
The Book of Daniel is a genuine book of prophecy, written by a faithful servant of Yahuwah, showing that the Almighty knows the future and rules over the world’s empires.
|
The attacks on the Book of Daniel are not as solid as critics claim. When we pull back the curtain, we find that modern critical theories are simply recycled versions of Porphyry’s 1,700-year-old anti-Christian polemic.
The critics’ attempt to force Onias III into Daniel 9 fails basic math, ignores the historical details of his death, and fails to account for the actual destruction of Jerusalem. Their arguments rely on circular reasoning—assuming miracles cannot happen to prove that a prophetic book must be a forgery.
When we assess the historical accuracy of details such as King Belshazzar, the text’s language, and the evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the traditional view remains robust. The Book of Daniel is not a clever political forgery from the 2nd century BC. It is a genuine book of prophecy, written by a faithful servant of Yahuwah, showing that the Almighty knows the future and rules over the world’s empires.
Yahushua or Onias III? Correcting the Critical Blunder of Daniel 9
[Verse 1]
Let the skeptics arise with their venom and spite,
But the Book of Daniel shines clear in the night.
For Yahuwah has spoken, His word will endure,
And the truth of Yahushua stands steady and sure.
Ancient Porphyry raged at the things he was told,
But the power of heaven can never be sold.
[Chorus]
Sing a song of the victory won by the King,
As the praises of holy Yahuwah we ring!
For Yahushua has broken the chains of the grave,
And the Book of Daniel proclaims He will save!
Every empire will fall at the sound of His voice,
In the strength of the Father, His people rejoice!
[Verse 2]
Though the critics may lean on a Maccabean date,
They are blinded by bias and driven by hate.
But Yahuwah reveals what the future will bring,
And Yahushua reigns as our ultimate King.
For the math of the text leaves the skeptic behind,
And the wisdom of heaven enlightens the mind.
[Chorus]
Sing a song of the victory won by the King,
As the praises of holy Yahuwah we ring!
For Yahushua has broken the chains of the grave,
And the Book of Daniel proclaims He will save!
Every empire will fall at the sound of His voice,
In the strength of the Father, His people rejoice!
[Bridge]
See the 70 weeks prophecy perfectly align,
As a testament carved by a master design!
In the text of Daniel 9, glory appears,
As it counts out the timeline of destiny’s years.
It was not poor Onias who paid for our sin,
As Daniel 9 showed how the King would win then!
For Yahuwah ordained that the Savior would bleed,
And Yahushua fulfilled every heavenly need.
[Outro]
Now the critics are silent, their arguments dead,
While the crown of all glory is placed on His head.
To Yahuwah be honor and power and might,
As Yahushua leads us from darkness to light.
Yes, the truth of the Scripture will always prevail,
For the promise of heaven can nevermore fail!
This article is disingenuous, it claims
“If the command was given during Jeremiah’s or Cyrus’s time (around 538 BC), counting forward 483 years brings us deep into the 1st century AD—right to the time of Yahushua. If critics want Onias III (171 BC) to be the endpoint, they have to manipulate the numbers. The time from Cyrus to Onias III is only about 367 years, leaving a massive error of over 115 years. Critics are forced to claim that the author of Daniel was terrible at math. It is highly convenient for critics to blame the author for bad arithmetic rather than admit that their own theory is flawed.”
This is not why historical and biblical scholars conclude the text is speaking about Onias III. Critics don’t claim Daniel was terrible at math, in fact he uses math in creative ways to arrive at Onias III.
It is generally agreed by mainstream experts now that the “Messiah” who is “predicted” to be killed (Daniel 9:25-26) was actually meant to be the “rightful” high priest Onias III, illegitimately deposed and replaced by Antiochus but revered as something of a saint at the time (e.g. 2 Maccabees 3-4), who then was assassinated while in exile in Syria before Daniel was written (making this a classic, and indeed altogether typical, example of “prophecy” being written after the fact and then purported to have been written before the fact, a common device in prophecy as a literary genre). That this makes the strange math in Daniel 9 work perfectly only confirms this conclusion. Since Daniel was actually written centuries after the restoration of the Jewish Temple under Cyrus, 59 years after its sack (by Babylonians in 598, who were overthrown by Cyrus in 539), and thus the prophecy of Jeremiah that this would not happen for seventy years was proved false, that “seventy” year timetable had to be “reinterpreted” so Jeremiah could be rescued from the charge of being a false prophet. Accomplishing this by reimagining Jeremiah as “actually” referring to the Maccabean revolt was then propagandistically exactly what its authors needed. So they did some weird math to make it come out that way.
After Daniel’s prophesied end of the world did not come, later interpreters re-thought his math to guess at different intended years (again to rescue another now beloved prophet from the charge of being false)—and one of those formulations was adopted by the Christians to justify their declaration that the end had begun with their “Anointed One’s” death in the 30s A.D. But in the originally intended formulation, the angel Gabriel had come to Daniel to answer his plea to explain how the prophecy could have failed by now explaining Jeremiah did not mean “years” but “weeks of years,” i.e. 70 periods of 7 years (or 490 years in all, which is tantalizingly exactly “ten jubilees”), and that these will not be sequential as expected, but partly concurrent (after Daniel’s prophesy failed, this detail was abandoned and the years reimagined as sequential again). Because Gabriel says, “From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes [the word “ruler” here is actually “leader, noble, prince,” even “chief officer,” hence “Chief Anointed,” thus in standard-cryptic-prophesy-speak alluding to the High Priest, Chief Officer of the Temple; a High Priest was then often referred to as the Anointed], there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens’,” meaning two overlapping periods: one of 49 years and one of 434 plus 7 years (those extra seven years follow Onias), thus completing a “total” of 490 years.
Why do this? Because Jeremiah was prophesying in 605, and that was “the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” Daniel speaks of (because this is how the author of Daniel refers to divine, not royal, proclamations—indeed in the very preceding verses: Daniel 9:21-23 and 1:2), and 605 minus 434 lands exactly in 171 B.C., the very year Onias III, the “true” Anointed High Priest, was assassinated (at the orders of Menelaus shortly after having “bought” the High Priesthood for himself in 172). This coincidence is quite improbable. So that is clearly what the authors intended—and hence why they “broke” the “seventy sevens” into three separate amounts, 49 and 434 followed by another 7; there is no reason to do that if they intended this to be a straight sequence of 490 years. So the author of Daniel is doing a lot of creative accounting here to get the result he wants: first he changes Jeremiah’s “seventy” years into “seventy sevens of years,” then he subtracts 49 years with this convenient new maneuver of saying this meant not a sequence of 490 years but two separate periods of 49 and 441 years and then split the latter into 434 years and 7 years, all to get the math to work out to the death of Onias (with those 7 years to spare, counting down to the apocalypse). No one engages such convoluted efforts who isn’t attempting to create just this kind of specific result. That’s why it’s a dead giveaway. Whoever did this was writing after 171 B.C. and for the current political situation in the 160s.
Then, in the analysis of André Lacocque in The Book of Daniel (John Knox Press, 1979), the “49” year period is set “within” the 434-year period split off from the final 7-year period, and is meant to cover the convenient passage of 49 years between the beginning of the Jewish captivity (after Nebuchadnezzar’s second and final siege of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. after Judea again rebelled against his rule) and their restoration. He suggests this was signified by the ordination of the first High Priest of the Second Temple (who happens to have been named Jesus, i.e. Joshua, an event represented more or less messianically in Zechariah 3 and 6), but he incorrectly identifies that as an event of 538 B.C.; in fact that happened in 516. He footnotes the identification of other scholars for the first “Anointed” involved in restoring Israel as in fact Cyrus, who is literally so identified by Isaiah (45:1); and indeed Cyrus’s decree of liberation dates to 538. So here we have a convenient 49-year period, between the beginning of the exile and its conclusion (587 – 538 = 49), which involves another Anointed One ending the suffering God said he’d inflict on the Jews. Which Jeremiah had falsely predicted would last 70 years. This is the mistake Daniel is trying to fix with his creative math, by having instead two “messianic” events, one inside the other, and using “ten jubilees,” ten periods of 7 x 7, i.e. 49 years, to make it all seem magically prescient. All it required was finding the right dates to focus on to “get” a meaningful 49-year period within a meaningful 434-year period that could thus be “fitted” to the number seventy in Jeremiah, and still point to Onias III’s death as foreboding God’s celestial victory over the heathens 7 more years hence. Thereby inspiring God-fearing Jews to fight with even more fanaticism for the Maccabean regime. Again, no one goes to these absurd, convoluted lengths, unless they are truly struggling to fit Jeremiah’s prophecy to Onias III.
So for all these reasons and more, genuinely critical scholars are convinced Daniel was forged as propaganda for the Maccabees. There is no more probable explanation for its peculiar errors, peculiar math, and peculiar specificity and accuracy to a single ten-year period, the very one the Maccabees were concerned to get the masses roiled up about, and its mysteriously sudden failure of accuracy as soon as events approach the end of 164 B.C. By the time anyone would have noticed that, the revolt was already successful, thus “vindicating” the text in spirit if not to the letter; and as we all know, the response to such turns of events is rarely to abandon an inspiring scripture as false but to deploy any convenient apologetics in its defense—especially a scripture the now-ruling powers had banked their legitimacy and credibility on and thus needed to maintain as scripture for the next hundred plus years. This would explain why, for example, 1 Maccabees 2:51-60 is the first extant text to promote stories first appearing in Daniel as authentic.
Thank you, Brother Marko, for your continued engagement with WLC articles. We have many upcoming pieces that would be greatly enriched by your counterarguments, providing valuable perspective for our undecided readers.
The argument, with all due respect, assumes what it is trying to prove: that Daniel was written in the second century BC. Once that assumption is made, every detail is naturally interpreted through a Maccabean lens. But this is circular reasoning, not independent evidence.
Daniel 9 does not say the countdown begins with Jeremiah’s prophecy in 605 BC. It explicitly begins “from the going forth of the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” (Daniel 9:25), referring to a decree to rebuild, not merely a prophetic word. Replacing the plain wording with Jeremiah’s earlier message is an interpretive move required to reach Onias III.
Likewise, the text does not state that the 7 weeks and 62 weeks overlap rather than run consecutively. The natural reading is a continuous sequence of 69 weeks leading to Messiah. The overlapping chronology is introduced only because the numbers otherwise fail to reach Onias.
Finally, if Daniel were merely second-century Maccabean propaganda, it is remarkable that the prophecy aligns so naturally with the appearance and death of Yahushua centuries later. By contrast, the Onias III interpretation depends on reinterpreting the starting point, treating the time periods as overlapping rather than consecutive, and reconstructing the chronology in ways the text itself never states. The real question is not whether an elaborate chronology can be constructed, but which interpretation follows the plain reading of Daniel 9. We believe the straightforward reading continues to point to Yahushua, not Onias III.
Your objection assumes that Daniel 9:25 introduces a completely new chronological starting point independent of Jeremiah’s prophecy, but the literary context suggests otherwise. The entire chapter is framed around Daniel’s reading of Jeremiah’s seventy-year prophecy (Daniel 9:2), his prayer about the continued desolation of Jerusalem, and Gabriel’s response to that specific concern. Nothing in the narrative indicates that Gabriel has abandoned Jeremiah’s prophecy in favor of an unrelated timetable. Instead, the angel’s message functions as an explanation and expansion of the prophecy Daniel has just been studying. The “word” or “command” (dābār) to restore and rebuild Jerusalem therefore does not have to refer exclusively to a later Persian royal decree. The Hebrew term dābār is broad and frequently means “word,” “matter,” or “decree,” and in the immediate context the only previously mentioned dābār is God’s word through Jeremiah concerning Jerusalem’s restoration. Thus, identifying the starting point with Jeremiah’s prophetic announcement is not an arbitrary substitution but arises naturally from the literary flow of the chapter.
Furthermore, the expression “from the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” does not identify a specific Persian king, nor does it cite any decree recorded in the books of Ezra or Nehemiah. This ambiguity has produced numerous competing interpretations among those who insist on a Persian decree. Some begin with Cyrus the Great in 538 BC, others with Darius I, others with Artaxerxes I in 458 BC, and still others with Artaxerxes in 445/444 BC. The fact that interpreters cannot agree which decree Daniel intended demonstrates that the text itself is not explicit. By contrast, Jeremiah’s prophecy is explicitly identified at the beginning of the chapter and supplies the entire reason for Gabriel’s revelation. From a historical-critical perspective, it is therefore more coherent to understand verse 25 as continuing the discussion of Jeremiah’s promised restoration rather than introducing an otherwise unidentified chronological marker.
Finally, the historical-critical interpretation does not depend solely on making the chronology reach the high priest Onias III. Rather, it begins with the broader observation that Daniel 9 is an interpretation of Jeremiah’s seventy years, that the seventy weeks symbolically expand those seventy years, and that the rest of the book consistently focuses on the events leading to the Maccabean crisis under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The identification of Onias III as the “anointed one” follows from that literary and historical context, not the other way around. Even scholars who disagree over the precise starting point of the seventy weeks generally agree that the passage is rooted in Jeremiah’s prophecy and the circumstances of the second century BC. Consequently, your claim that connecting Daniel 9 to Jeremiah requires an illegitimate reinterpretation overlooks the fact that the chapter itself deliberately begins with Jeremiah’s prophecy and presents Gabriel’s message as its divinely inspired explanation.
A strong historical and literary case can be made that Daniel 9 is fundamentally an interpretation of the seventy years mentioned by the prophet Jeremiah rather than an unrelated prediction of events centuries later. The chapter opens by explicitly stating that Daniel had been reading Jeremiah’s prophecy that Jerusalem would lie desolate for seventy years (Daniel 9:2; cf. Jeremiah 25:11–12 and 29:10). This is not a passing reference but the entire reason for Daniel’s prayer. Daniel realizes that the seventy years are nearing their end, yet Israel remains in exile because of its sins, so he prays for forgiveness and restoration. In direct response to that prayer, the angel Gabriel announces that “seventy weeks” (literally “seventy sevens”) have been decreed. The natural literary connection is that Gabriel is expanding and reinterpreting the seventy years that Daniel has been contemplating. Instead of simply announcing that the exile will soon end, Gabriel explains that God’s complete plan for Israel and Jerusalem extends beyond Jeremiah’s seventy years into a symbolic period of seventy sevens.
The wording itself strongly supports this interpretation. In Hebrew, the phrase translated “seventy weeks” literally means “seventy sevens” (shiv’im shavu’im), and the word shavua simply means a group of seven rather than specifically a seven-day week. Since Daniel’s attention is already fixed on Jeremiah’s seventy years, many scholars conclude that Gabriel intentionally multiplies the number seven to show that Israel’s restoration will require a much greater period because the deeper problem of sin has not yet been resolved. This reflects themes already found in the Hebrew Bible, where periods of punishment can be intensified “sevenfold” if Israel remains unrepentant (especially in Book of Leviticus 26). Thus, the seventy sevens function as an extension of Jeremiah’s seventy years rather than the introduction of an entirely unrelated chronological scheme.
The structure of Daniel 9 also reinforces this conclusion. Daniel’s prayer is entirely concerned with the fate of Jerusalem, the temple, the covenant, and the end of the Babylonian exile exactly as described by Jeremiah. Gabriel’s answer addresses those same concerns: the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the completion of transgression, the atonement of sin, the establishment of righteousness, and the eventual fate of the city and sanctuary. There is no indication that Gabriel has changed the subject. Instead, he answers Daniel’s question by revealing that Jeremiah’s prophecy was only the beginning of God’s larger redemptive timetable. The “seventy sevens” therefore represent a prophetic expansion of the “seventy years,” showing that the physical return from Babylon would not immediately bring Israel’s ultimate restoration.
For these reasons, many modern biblical scholars conclude that Daniel 9 is best understood as an interpretation or reinterpretation of Jeremiah’s seventy-year prophecy. The chapter begins with Jeremiah’s seventy years, Daniel prays specifically about that prophecy, and Gabriel responds by transforming the seventy years into seventy symbolic sevens that explain why God’s full purposes for Jerusalem would take much longer to unfold. Whether one interprets the seventy sevens as culminating in the Maccabean period, the ministry of Jesus, or another historical framework, the literary evidence strongly indicates that Daniel 9 is directly built upon Jeremiah’s prophecy and cannot be understood apart from it.
Brother Marko,
Your argument still depends on reading into the text what it never explicitly says. While Daniel 9 begins with Jeremiah’s seventy years, Gabriel does not tell Daniel that Jeremiah’s prophecy is the starting point of the seventy weeks. Instead, he explicitly states that the countdown begins “from the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.” If Gabriel intended Jeremiah’s prophecy to be that starting point, there would have been no reason to introduce a new chronological marker.
Moreover, appealing to the ambiguity of the Persian decrees does not establish Jeremiah as the correct starting point. It only shows that interpreters debate which decree fulfills Daniel’s description—not whether the prophecy begins with a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. By contrast, making Jeremiah’s prophecy the starting point requires redefining “the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” as Jeremiah’s announcement rather than an actual authorization to restore the city.
Finally, the historical-critical interpretation remains dependent on the prior assumption that Daniel was composed during the Maccabean period. Once that conclusion is assumed, Onias III naturally becomes the “anointed one.” But that is circular reasoning. The better approach is to let Daniel’s own words determine the chronology rather than fitting the chronology to a predetermined date and historical theory.
What the book of Daniel “predicted” didn’t come true. Its just that your interpreting it in such a way to make it seem like it accurately predicted the future.
Your claims about Daniel 9 and Daniel 11 are not the historical/scholarly view on what these chapters are really about. You and other Christians have created alternative explanations to save the book from being in error and preserve your belief in it as God’s word.
The textual and historical evidence doesn’t support the Christian apologist views on these chapters.
One of the defining characteristics of symbolic or apocalyptic prophecy is that it is often much more flexible in interpretation than straightforward prose. That does not automatically mean every interpretation is wrong or arbitrary, but it does mean that interpreters have considerably more room to fit symbols to historical events than they would with a precise prediction. This is one reason historians are generally cautious about claims of fulfilled symbolic prophecy. A prediction written in highly symbolic language is easier to correlate with later events than one that gives specific names, dates, and descriptions. For example, “A great empire from the west will conquer the east” is much easier to apply after the fact than “King X will defeat King Y in 331 BCE at Location Z. That said, this observation cuts both ways. Christians argue that Daniel’s symbols are not infinitely flexible because they are anchored by historical details and because they believe the interpretations fit the broader biblical narrative. Critical scholars respond that those “fits” often depend on interpretive choices that are not demanded by the text itself.
Take Daniel 7–12 as an example. The visions use beasts, horns, kings of the north and south, weeks of years, and symbolic numbers. These images are not self-explanatory, and many are only partially interpreted within the text itself. Daniel 9 is also a particularly good example. The prophecy speaks of “seventy weeks,” “an anointed one,” “the people of the prince who is to come,” and the cessation of sacrifice. None of those phrases explicitly names historical figures or dates.
From a critical historical perspective, when Daniel appears to fit history very well up to the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes but then seems to diverge from what actually happened in Daniel 11:40–45, later Christian interpreters developed alternative explanations to preserve the book’s prophetic accuracy. These interpretations are driven primarily by the desire to reconcile the text with later Christian beliefs and with the doctrine that Scripture cannot contain failed prophecy. The interpretations are ad hoc—that is, they are introduced because they solve an apparent problem rather than because the text itself clearly requires them.
Brother Marko,
The theological debate over the Book of Daniel focuses on how its symbols connect to real history, not whether the symbols exist. The text directly decodes its own imagery into a chronological sequence of actual world empires—traditionally identified as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome—anchoring the prophecy in verifiable history rather than open-ended interpretation.
Historical evidence refutes the claim that Christian defenders simply invented modern explanations to save the book’s credibility. Long before modern historical criticism, ancient Jewish and Christian commentators widely agreed that Daniel’s visions extended far past the second-century BC Maccabean crisis.
Critics who argue that Daniel 11 “fails” after the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes base their view on a false assumption: that this king was the final subject of the prophecy. Following standard biblical patterns, the text naturally transitions from near-future regional events—like Antiochus’s desecration of the Jerusalem Temple—to a much more distant, worldwide horizon.
Ultimately, this structural framework shows that Daniel’s prophetic scope reaches far beyond antiquity. It points directly to the ministry of Master Yahushua and the final end-times events before His sudden return.
The fact that Daniel doesn’t appear in the historical record until the 2nd century BCE and the fact that its never mentioned in Jewish writings before the 2nd Century BCE is one of the main reasons that historians and scholars are confident that its a 2nd century BCE work. While you may believe it existed since the 6th Century BCE, this is a faith based conclusion, not evidence based.
“The consensus of modern critical scholarship is that the stories of Daniel are legendary in character and that the visions were composed in the time of the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167–164 BCE).” (John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel [Hermeneia])
“There is now practically unanimous agreement among scholars that the Book of Daniel was composed during the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, about 167–164 B.C.” (Louis F. Hartman, The Book of Daniel [Anchor Bible])
“The overwhelming consensus of modern scholars is that Daniel comes from the second century B.C.” (John E. Goldingay, Daniel [Word Biblical Commentary])
“The evidence overwhelmingly supports a date in the Maccabean period for the final composition of Daniel.” (Lester L. Grabbe, An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism)
“There is no compelling reason to date the visions earlier than the Maccabean revolt.” (John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible)
“The final form of Daniel is generally agreed to have been written during the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.” (Carol A. Newsom, Daniel: A Commentary [Old Testament Library])
“Daniel reached its present form during the crisis brought about by Antiochus IV.” (Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period)
“Virtually all critical scholars agree that Daniel was written during the Maccabean revolt in the second century BCE.” (Bart D. Ehrman, The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction)
Critics of the scholarly consensus often argue that the primary reason many historians date the Book of Daniel to the second century BCE is not the evidence itself, but a methodological commitment against accepting supernatural predictive prophecy. According to this criticism, historical-critical scholarship operates under methodological naturalism, which assumes that historical explanations should invoke only natural causes. As a result, if Daniel accurately describes events centuries in advance, many historians conclude that those passages must have been written after the events occurred (vaticinium ex eventu, or “prophecy after the fact”) rather than considering the possibility of genuine supernatural prediction. From this perspective, the second-century dating is seen as flowing from the presupposition that predictive prophecy cannot occur, rather than being established solely by the historical evidence.
Critical scholars generally reject this characterization. They argue that their conclusions are based on cumulative historical evidence—including Daniel’s linguistic features, its historical setting, its detailed knowledge of the Maccabean period, and the way its accurate “predictions” appear to end precisely where the historical record diverges in Daniel 11:40–45. They maintain that historians, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, are methodologically limited to explanations that can be evaluated using historical evidence and therefore cannot appeal to supernatural intervention as a historical explanation. Consequently, while critics of the consensus view the dating as driven by philosophical assumptions, proponents of the consensus contend that it follows from the ordinary methods of historical inquiry rather than an a priori rejection of miracles.
No clear references before the Maccabean period. Unlike books such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, Daniel is not explicitly quoted or mentioned in surviving Jewish literature before the second century BCE.
Earliest manuscript evidence. The oldest surviving copies of Daniel come from the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to approximately 125–100 BCE. While this does not prove the book was newly written, it shows that the earliest physical evidence for Daniel appears only a few decades after the proposed Maccabean date.
Vaticinium ex eventu (“prophecy after the event”) was a recognized literary technique in the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman world. In this genre, authors presented past or contemporary events as though they had been predicted by an ancient seer, thereby giving their message greater authority. Because this practice was already well established by the Hellenistic period, many critical scholars argue that it provides a plausible literary context for the Book of Daniel. They contend that Daniel is not unique in presenting detailed historical events in the form of prophecy but instead fits a broader pattern found in ancient apocalyptic literature.
Examples of vaticinium ex eventu include the Egyptian Demotic Chronicle, the Potter’s Oracle, portions of the Sibylline Oracles, and Jewish works such as the Animal Apocalypse and the Apocalypse of Weeks in 1 Enoch. These writings typically recount historical events with remarkable accuracy up to the time of the author’s own lifetime before shifting to genuine predictions about the future. Many critical scholars argue that Daniel follows this same literary pattern. They point out that Daniel 11 accurately describes the succession of Persian kings, the rise of Alexander the Great, the division of his empire, and the conflicts between the Ptolemies and Seleucids, culminating in the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. However, they note that Daniel 11:40–45 appears to describe events that did not actually occur, such as Antiochus’s final military campaign and death in Palestine. For many historians, this transition from historically accurate “predictions” to inaccurate future expectations is characteristic of vaticinium ex eventu.
Brother Marko,
Thank you for explaining the modern view so clearly. We know that most history experts today believe the book was written in the second century. However, just because most experts agree does not mean it is a proven fact. History shows that what most experts believe can change when people find new proof or new ways to look at the facts.
The main question is whether the facts force us to believe the book was written in the second century BC, or if it could have been written much earlier.
The arguments you bring up—including the language used, old copies, the lack of mentions in other old books, and the words in Daniel chapter 11—are all open to debate. None of them prove on their own that Daniel had to be written during the Maccabean period. These points only seem strong if you already start with the belief that true predictions are impossible and must have been written after the facts.
We disagree on a core point. We agree that writing a fake prophecy after an event happened was common in ancient times. We also agree that modern historians who look only at natural facts will choose that easy answer. But you should not call the book of Daniel a fake just because its predictions came true. We must ask what the book itself claims to be. We think the clues inside the book show it is a true prophecy.
This debate is not about choosing between faith and evidence. It is about how two different groups look at the exact same facts.
One group starts by assuming that no one can truly predict the future. Therefore, they believe any prediction must have been written down after the event already happened. The other group believes it is possible that the book is a real message from Father Yahuwah.
Until someone finds direct proof that Daniel was written much later during the Maccabean period, neither side can prove they are right. Both ideas are just opinions about history, not proven facts.
“Moreover, the rapid acceptance of Daniel among the Jews argues against it being a recent Maccabean composition. Within a relatively short period, it was treated as authoritative Scripture, preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and widely circulated. Such recognition is difficult to explain if the book had only just been composed as political propaganda.”
The reason that it was immediately and widely accepted by the Jews was because it was written during the Maccabean crises and the ruling regime promoted it in the aftermath of their successful rebellion because it gave them “confirmation” that the events which just transpired was prophesized by God. Daniel was accepted because it provided a powerful interpretation of Jewish suffering and hope during periods of foreign domination. Its message resonated deeply with later Jewish communities, and that religious value likely contributed to its preservation and canonization.
The phrase “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is true in a narrow logical sense. But historians don’t treat all silences equally. Sometimes a silence is highly significant because we would reasonably expect evidence to exist if the claim were true. The force of the argument comes from the expected importance of the book. If Daniel really explained the Babylonian exile, interpreted Jeremiah, and accurately foretold the succession of world empires, then one might reasonably expect it to leave a larger footprint in the Jewish literature between the Exile and the Maccabean age. Given what Daniel supposedly was, is the silence what we would expect if the book had existed and been regarded as authentic since the 6th century BCE?”
Brother Marko,
That explanation is certainly possible, but it remains a hypothesis rather than evidence. There is no historical record showing that the Maccabean leadership commissioned, promoted, or canonized Daniel as political propaganda. It assumes precisely what it seeks to prove. By contrast, the widespread acceptance of Daniel across diverse Jewish communities—including those represented at Qumran—suggests that it was already regarded as authoritative rather than as a recently produced partisan document.
Likewise, the argument from silence is suggestive but not decisive. Many ancient Jewish writings have left only sparse traces in the historical record, largely because of the limited survival of manuscripts and literature from that period. The absence of explicit references before the second century BC cannot establish that Daniel did not exist; it only shows that no such references have survived. Ultimately, the historical-critical reconstruction remains one possible explanation, but it is not the only explanation that fits the available evidence.
As of the currently available evidence, no manuscript of the Book of Daniel has been conclusively dated to before the 2nd century BCE. If Daniel had unquestionably existed centuries before the Maccabean period, one would expect stronger external evidence. Instead, the earliest physical evidence appears around the same general era in which many scholars place the book’s final composition. That is one reason why the academic consensus continues to favor a 2nd-century BCE date.
While you may believe by faith the book was really written in the 6th century BCE, that conclusion stands on no known evidence. The first records of Daniel first appear in the very timeframe in which it is believed to be first written (2nd century BCE).
In fact not only is there no copies of the book of Daniel before the 2nd century BCE, there is also no mention of it by any other author before the 2nd century BCE. No clear, undisputed reference to the Book of Daniel before the 2nd century BCE has been found.
So a question you may want to ask yourself is why is there no records or mention of the book of Daniel before the 2nd century BCE if it was really written 400 years before then in Babylon?
Brother Marko,
The absence of earlier surviving manuscripts or explicit references does not establish that Daniel did not exist before the second century BC. That is an argument from silence. By the same standard, we would have to date many other Old Testament books centuries later than they are generally believed to have been written, since our earliest surviving manuscripts for most biblical books are also much later than their proposed dates of composition.
Moreover, the rapid acceptance of Daniel among the Jews argues against it being a recent Maccabean composition. Within a relatively short period, it was treated as authoritative Scripture, preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and widely circulated. Such recognition is difficult to explain if the book had only just been composed as political propaganda.
The real question is not whether we possess sixth-century manuscripts—we do not—but whether the absence of such evidence is sufficient to overturn the book’s own claim to an earlier setting. In historical inquiry, absence of evidence is not, by itself, evidence of absence. Until positive evidence demonstrates a second-century composition, the manuscript gap alone cannot bear the weight of that conclusion.
Gabriel’s reference to “the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” does not necessarily introduce an entirely new chronological starting point independent of Jeremiah. The Hebrew term dābār (“word”) can refer to either a prophetic word or a royal decree, and Daniel 9 explicitly opens with Daniel reflecting on Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the seventy years (Daniel 9:2). This literary context strongly suggests that Gabriel’s answer is intentionally framed as an interpretation and expansion of Jeremiah’s prophecy rather than a completely unrelated timeline. The author never identifies a specific Persian decree by name, leaving the expression open to interpretation. Furthermore, the issue of Daniel’s date is not based simply on the absence of sixth-century manuscripts or on a philosophical rejection of predictive prophecy. The scholarly consensus rests on multiple independent lines of evidence: the book’s linguistic features, its historical inaccuracies regarding the sixth century (such as the portrayal of Darius the Mede), its remarkably precise knowledge of events leading up to the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and its abrupt shift from accurate “predictions” to historically incorrect expectations in Daniel 11:40–45. These observations are consistent with a work composed during the Maccabean crisis around 165 BC, employing the well-attested ancient literary practice of vaticinium ex eventu (prophecy after the fact). While an earlier date remains possible for those who accept supernatural predictive prophecy, the historical-critical case for a second-century composition does not depend solely—or even primarily—on denying the possibility of prophecy. Rather, it arises from the cumulative weight of textual, linguistic, and historical evidence.
Brother Marko,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. We agree that the dating of Daniel should be evaluated on the cumulative evidence, but we disagree that the evidence points decisively to a second-century composition. Many of the arguments you mention—including the identification of Darius the Mede, the interpretation of Daniel 11, and the linguistic evidence—are actively debated and do not command unanimous scholarly agreement. They are consistent with a second-century date, but they do not require one.
Likewise, while dābār can indeed refer to a prophetic word, Daniel 9:25 qualifies it as the word “to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.” The most natural reading is that this refers to an authorization that initiates the rebuilding, not simply Jeremiah’s earlier prediction that restoration would someday occur. Gabriel is expanding Jeremiah’s prophecy, but that does not mean every element of his explanation must begin at the same chronological point.
Ultimately, the historical-critical case is not free from interpretive assumptions any more than the traditional view is. The conclusion that Daniel contains vaticinium ex eventu depends in part on first concluding that the detailed prophecies could not have been written before the events they describe. The central question, therefore, is not whether assumptions exist—they do on both sides—but which interpretation best accounts for the text without requiring the chronology to be reshaped to fit a predetermined historical conclusion.
The difficulty with your objection is that it assumes Daniel 9:25 introduces a completely independent chronological marker rather than continuing the interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy that dominates the entire chapter. The question is not whether Gabriel mentions a new marker, but what Gabriel means by “the going forth of the word.” The Hebrew term dābār commonly means “word,” “matter,” or “decree,” and the immediate literary context has already identified a specific dābār: God’s word through Jeremiah concerning the restoration of Jerusalem (Dan. 9:2). The burden of proof therefore falls on the claim that Gabriel has suddenly shifted from Jeremiah’s word to an entirely different royal decree without explicitly identifying it.
Moreover, Gabriel’s answer is framed as an explanation of Daniel’s concern, not a change of subject. Daniel is not asking about Persian decrees; he is praying about Jeremiah’s seventy years and the desolation of Jerusalem. Gabriel responds by giving insight into the fulfillment of that very issue. The literary connection between Jeremiah’s seventy years and Gabriel’s seventy sevens is explicit. Nearly all interpreters acknowledge that the seventy weeks are in some sense an expansion of Jeremiah’s prophecy. The question is whether the expansion remains rooted in Jeremiah’s word or begins from a later decree. The text itself never explicitly names Cyrus, Darius, or Artaxerxes, which means the decree interpretation also relies on inference.
In fact, both views involve interpretation beyond what the text explicitly states. The difference is that the Jeremiah-based reading derives its starting point from the prophecy that Daniel is actually discussing, while the Persian-decree reading requires selecting one of several historical decrees that Daniel never identifies. Pointing out disagreement over which decree is intended is therefore relevant because it demonstrates that the decree is not self-evident from the text itself.
As for the charge of circular reasoning, historical-critical scholars do not begin with Onias III and work backward. Rather, they observe that Daniel 7-12 repeatedly focuses on the sequence of empires culminating in the crisis under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, that Daniel 11 describes second-century BC events in extraordinary detail, and that the accuracy of its predictions appears to diminish once it moves beyond the Maccabean period. On that basis, many conclude that the book was composed during that era and then read Daniel 9 within the same historical framework. One may disagree with that conclusion, but it is not inherently circular because the dating argument is based on evidence drawn from the broader book, not merely from the identification of the “anointed one.”
Also there is no evidence of the book of Daniel existing before the 2nd century BC. Christian claims for a pre-2nd-century Daniel are within a faith-based or conservative framework, but historically speaking the evidence is not there. The earliest hard manuscript evidence is very early, but it does not clearly push Daniel back before the 2nd century BCE, and it certainly does not prove a 6th-century composition.
The only thing that’s certain is that the book of Daniel first appears in history around the 2nd Century BC when it was believed to have been written. Which is exactly what you would expect if it was written during the 2nd century BC. If it actually existed from the 6th century BC onward, then we would expect to find evidence of it existing during that 400 year gap until 2nd century BC.
Brother Marko,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. We agree that Daniel 9 is built upon Jeremiah’s prophecy, but building upon Jeremiah is not the same as making Jeremiah’s prophecy the chronological starting point. Gabriel deliberately introduces a new marker—”from the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem”—rather than simply saying “from Jeremiah’s prophecy.” That distinction should not be overlooked.
Likewise, the absence of manuscripts from the sixth century BC does not demonstrate that Daniel was written in the second century BC. For most Old Testament books, our earliest surviving manuscripts are centuries later than their proposed dates of composition. Arguments from silence cannot establish a late date. Ultimately, the second-century dating of Daniel is driven largely by the assumption that genuine predictive prophecy is impossible. If Daniel accurately foretold events beyond its own time, then an earlier date remains entirely plausible. The question is therefore whether we allow the text to speak for itself or interpret it through prior assumptions about what prophecy can and cannot do.
Yes A day is like a thousand and a thousand like a day. I think it was Peter. Thank you for the clarification. On the third temple I do not see anything in the Bible on “third temple” using those words. I hear a lot of talk and teachings on this. What you say makes sense because I thought I read in revelation the antichrist builds a temple and teaches out of it as if he/she whatever it is, as if it is the true christ. I tried to look it up quickly but couldn’t find anything. A lot of this has come up because the little season camp, and just confusion around this topic has spread far and wide…I will keep praying for understanding and wisdom for the wisdom and understanding of Yahuwa.
You are completely right, Ryan, that the specific phrase “third temple” never appears anywhere in the pages of the Holy Bible, which proves that much of the modern teaching surrounding a future physical building in Jerusalem is a human tradition rather than a clear scriptural fact. Your memory regarding a deceptive power sitting in the temple comes from 2 Thessalonians 2:4, where the Apostle Paul warns that the “man of sin” would oppose Father Yahuwah and exalt himself so that he physically sits in the temple of Yahuwah, showing himself that he is indeed a god. Under our current partial preterist understanding, this warning does not require a future physical third temple to be built because the New Testament explicitly defines the church body as the true temple of Yahuwah, meaning that this specific usurpation of divine authority occurred internally within the historical church structure during the early centuries
.
The confusion and anxiety spreading far and wide through ideas like the “little season camp” simply show how easily hearts can be troubled when prophecy is disconnected from its true, completed context in history. We praise Father Yahuwah for your faithful prayers for wisdom and understanding, because a humble, prayerful mind is exactly what the Creator uses to cut through modern confusion and reveal the beautiful harmony of His Word. Every single milestone in the biblical blueprint is a perfect divine light given to remove our fears, anchor our faith, and get us ready for Christ’s sudden return as a thief in the night.
Not sure I am following the weeks to years correlation. a total of 69 weeks, equaling 483 years? Also the temple destroyed in 70AD, this was the destruction of the 2nd temple. I don’t think a 3rd temple has been built?
Have you ever heard of the “day-year principle” in the Bible? It is basically a prophetic code where one day equals one real year, meaning a prophetic week is actually seven years. If you apply that math to the sixty-nine weeks mentioned in the Book of Daniel, you get exactly four hundred and eighty-three years. What is amazing is that history backs this up perfectly because the countdown started with a royal decree in 458 BC and landed right on 27 AD, the exact year Jesus was baptized and started his ministry. Later on, in 70 AD, the Roman army completely destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem, which changes how we look at things today. Based on the New Testament, Father Yahuwah does not need a physical Third Temple built in the modern world because the true temple is now a spiritual one made up of the worldwide community of believers. This means all those intense prophecies about the temple’s destruction already came true back in the first century. We do not need to look for a future building because the biblical timeline was already fulfilled perfectly in the past, showing us that Father Yahuwah’s plan is right on track and reminding us to always be ready for Christ’s sudden return.
Dearest Galal Doss:
Well said and instructive! Amen! 🥰❤️
Thank you, beloved Tony, for your encouragement. 🥰❤️