Who Wrote Daniel?
Quick Summary
The book of Daniel is traditionally associated with Daniel, a Jewish exile in Babylon, but modern scholarship recognizes the book as a composite work shaped over time. While some sections preserve older court tales rooted in the exile, the final form of Daniel most likely emerged during the second century BCE, amid persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Daniel stands as inspired Scripture that combines historical memory, wisdom storytelling, and apocalyptic vision to speak hope into crisis.
Introduction
Daniel is one of the most distinctive books in the Old Testament. It moves seamlessly between court narratives and apocalyptic visions, between storytelling and symbolic revelation. Lions’ dens and fiery furnaces give way to beasts rising from the sea and visions of cosmic judgment.
Because of this blend of genres, Daniel has long raised questions about authorship. The book presents itself as the experiences and visions of Daniel, yet its historical perspective, language, and literary form suggest a longer process of composition and preservation. Daniel invites readers to consider how God’s word speaks through tradition, memory, and imagination shaped by suffering.
Daniel in the Court Tales
The first half of the book (Daniel 1–6) consists of court stories set in Babylon and Persia. These narratives portray Daniel and his companions navigating imperial power with faithfulness and courage. Many scholars regard these stories as older traditions, possibly circulating independently before being gathered into the book.
John J. Collins argues that these court tales reflect wisdom literature rather than direct prophecy, emphasizing faithful living under foreign rule (Daniel, Hermeneia). Their relatively stable historical setting contrasts with the more symbolic and visionary material that follows.
The consistent portrayal of Daniel as wise, loyal, and divinely protected suggests a traditional figure whose memory shaped these narratives, even if the stories were later written down.
Apocalyptic Visions and Historical Horizon
The second half of Daniel (chapters 7–12) shifts dramatically in tone and genre. These chapters contain symbolic visions, angelic interpreters, and precise references to historical events leading up to the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
Scholars widely agree that these visions reflect the crisis of the Maccabean period. The detailed correspondence between Daniel 11 and known events of the second century BCE strongly suggests composition during or shortly before that time. As Collins notes, apocalyptic literature often speaks of contemporary events through symbolic retelling of the past.
This does not imply deception. Rather, the genre assumes that God’s purposes are revealed through symbolic reimagining of history in moments of extreme threat.
Language and Composition
Daniel is written in both Hebrew and Aramaic, with a notable shift beginning in Daniel 2:4b and ending in 7:28. This bilingual structure reflects the book’s complex development and audience.
Lester L. Grabbe observes that the Aramaic sections align closely with court narratives and imperial settings, while the Hebrew sections frame the book’s theological vision (An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism). The language distribution supports the view that Daniel developed in stages rather than being composed at once.
Unity and Final Form
Despite its layered composition, Daniel exhibits strong literary unity. Chapter 7 functions as a hinge between narrative and vision, linking the two halves thematically and structurally. This coherence suggests careful editorial work rather than accidental compilation.
Brevard Childs emphasizes that the final form of Daniel intentionally integrates wisdom storytelling with apocalyptic hope, allowing the book to speak across generations (Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture).
The final editors shaped Daniel into a book that interprets suffering through divine sovereignty and promised vindication.
Inspiration and Apocalyptic Hope
Daniel challenges narrow definitions of inspiration. God’s word in Daniel does not come primarily through direct prophetic speech but through symbolic visions interpreted within community memory.
As Collins notes, apocalyptic literature emerges when ordinary theological language can no longer sustain hope. Daniel affirms that God remains sovereign even when history appears dominated by violence and injustice.
The book’s authority lies in its truthful witness to faith under persecution rather than in modern expectations of historical reporting.
Conclusion
The book of Daniel reflects a faithful tradition shaped over time, drawing on older court narratives and later apocalyptic visions to address a moment of severe crisis. While associated with the figure of Daniel, the book reached its final form during the second century BCE.
Daniel stands as inspired Scripture that bears witness to God’s sovereignty, the endurance of faith, and the hope of ultimate justice.
FAQ
Did Daniel write the entire book himself?
The book is associated with Daniel, but most scholars agree it developed over time, reaching its final form during the Maccabean period.
Why does Daniel use apocalyptic imagery?
Apocalyptic symbolism allows the book to speak hopefully into persecution when direct political critique would be dangerous.
Does later composition undermine inspiration?
No. Daniel shows that God’s word can be faithfully expressed through tradition, symbolism, and communal memory.
