I recognize that Daniel exists in two primary versions: the Hebrew/Aramaic text found in the Masoretic tradition, and the expanded Greek versions (Septuagint and Theodotion) containing four significant Additions. These Additions—the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men (both inserted within Daniel 3), Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon—represent what I consider a small Danielic library that demonstrates the living, evolving nature of ancient Jewish literature.

These materials appear to have been composed originally in Hebrew or Aramaic but were preserved only in Greek translation, suggesting they were added during the book’s Greek transmission rather than being deleted from an original Hebrew text. The canonical status remains divided: Roman Catholic and Orthodox communities accept them as Scripture, while Protestant traditions classify them as deuterocanonical or apocryphal.

On Authorship and Composition

I hold the scholarly consensus that Daniel represents a pseudonymous apocalyptic work completed in the second century BCE, rather than a sixth-century composition by the historical Daniel. This position rests on several converging lines of evidence:

First, the comparative analysis with other ancient apocalyptic literature reveals that pseudonymity was a conventional literary practice in this genre. Works like 1 Enoch, 2 Esdras, and numerous other apocalypses consistently employed the names of ancient worthies to frame contemporary revelations.

Second, the internal evidence is compelling—particularly the remarkable historical precision regarding Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ persecution (175-164 BCE), contrasted with the demonstrable error regarding his death circumstances. The author shows intimate knowledge of events through 164 BCE, but incorrectly predicts Antiochus would die in Palestine rather than in Persia.

Third, I recognize Daniel as a composite work drawing from multiple sources and time periods. The court tales in chapters 1-6 appear to derive from earlier diaspora traditions, while the apocalyptic visions in chapters 7-12 address the immediate crisis of the Maccabean period.

On Literary Structure and Genre

I understand Daniel as a sophisticated literary work employing dual temporal settings: the literary setting in sixth-century Babylon/Persia and the historical setting of second-century Seleucid oppression. This creates what I would call a historical novel effect, where ancient stories provide frameworks for addressing contemporary crises.

The book functions as a historical apocalypse—a revelatory literature that uses symbolic imagery to reveal transcendent reality and divine sovereignty throughout history. The apocalyptic visions employ coded language comprehensible to original audiences familiar with the political and religious events of Antiochus’s persecution.

On Hermeneutical Approach

I advocate for a historical-critical approach that prioritizes understanding Daniel within its original second-century BCE Palestinian context. While acknowledging the text’s capacity for reinterpretation across history, I maintain that responsible interpretation must begin with the author’s original intent and the ancient audience’s understanding.

This means reading the apocalyptic imagery symbolically rather than literally, understanding the numerical calculations as theological rather than chronological precision, and recognizing that the “prophecies” function primarily as retrospective interpretation of recent events rather than distant-future prediction.

On Theological Message

I see Daniel’s enduring theological contribution in its affirmation of divine sovereignty amid persecution and crisis. The book provides models of faithfulness under foreign domination while proclaiming that God ultimately controls the rise and fall of empires. The eschatological hope points not to specific chronological predictions but to the confidence that divine justice will ultimately prevail over human oppression.

These positions, I believe, enhance rather than diminish our appreciation for Daniel’s literary artistry and theological power, revealing it as a masterpiece of crisis literature that has offered hope to persecuted communities across the centuries.

Embrace Historical-Critical Humility

I would challenge the reader to approach the interpretation of Daniel with the hermeneutic of retrieval—seeking first to understand what the text meant to its original audience before applying it to contemporary situations. This requires acknowledging that we can never fully enter the minds of Daniel’s author or its first readers. Yet, we must still strive to approximate the original meaning through careful exegetical work.

Recognize the Genre and Literary Context

Daniel is sophisticated apocalyptic literature that must be read as such.

As Michael Gorman wisely warns:

“People wreak all kinds of havoc in the interpretation of the books of Daniel and Revelation when they do not realize that these are apocalyptic writings that freely use lavish symbolism and need to be read more like poetry, or even a series of political cartoons, than historical narrative or video footage of the future.”[1]

The book employs coded language that was comprehensible to its original second-century BCE Palestinian audience but requires careful historical reconstruction for us to decode. Like political cartoons, the symbols made perfect sense to contemporary readers but become increasingly opaque as we move further from the original context.

Avoid the Extremes of Interpretation

I plead with you, the reader, to resist the temptation toward what Randolph Tate calls the “depressing results” that often accompany apocalyptic interpretation.

“No other genre of the Bible has been so fervently read with such depressing results as apocalypse, especially the books of Daniel and Revelation. This genre has suffered from a disastrous history of misinterpretation due to a fundamental misunderstanding of its literary forms, structure, and purpose. Because of its very claim to reveal what is shortly to happen, apocalypse has been viewed as a road map into and a blueprint of the future. The tragic flaw in this view is the assumption that the book’s frame of reference is the reader’s contemporary age rather than the author’s.”[2]

Whether you approach Daniel from a futurist, historicist, preterist, or idealist perspective, please maintain scholarly restraint and acknowledge the inherent ambiguities of apocalyptic literature.

The text itself warns against forcing overly specific applications, as Jerry Gladson points out:

“Due to the vagaries in apocalyptic imagery, some of which are probably intentional—it is, after all, coded literature—even the most careful interpretation leaves many unanswered questions”.[3]

Understand the Historical Crisis Context

Daniel emerges from the crucible of the Maccabean crisis under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BCE). This is not abstract theology but crisis literature addressing real persecution, cultural assimilation pressures, and questions of theodicy that arose when faithful Jews faced the choice between compromise and martyrdom.

The court tales (chapters 1-6) provide models of faithful resistance under foreign domination, while the apocalyptic visions (chapters 7-12) offer hope that God’s sovereignty extends over all earthly empires, no matter how oppressive they appear.

Embrace Both Scholarly Rigor and Spiritual Openness

Please don’t create false dichotomies between academic study and spiritual edification. Understanding Daniel’s literary sophistication, pseudonymous composition, and second-century BCE origins enhances rather than diminishes our appreciation for its theological artistry and enduring spiritual power.

The fact that Daniel represents a masterpiece of crisis literature that has provided hope and meaning for persecuted communities across centuries and cultures doesn’t depend on traditional authorship assumptions but on its profound theological insights into God’s sovereignty over history.

Practice Interpretive Charity

When engaging in debates about Daniel, remember that faithful Christians and Jews can hold different views about authorship, dating, and interpretive methods while sharing a common commitment to the text’s spiritual authority and relevance. The goal should be a deeper understanding, not winning theological arguments.

Focus on the Core Message

Ultimately, Daniel’s enduring significance lies in its central affirmation: “God’s purpose, along with God’s people, will eventually prevail over all evil!”[4] Whether facing ancient Seleucid persecution or contemporary challenges to faith, Daniel calls us to faithful resistance and confident hope in God’s ultimate justice.

The book’s inspiring tales of faithfulness under duress and deliverance from mortal trouble strengthen the resolve of the faithful by God’s grace to live faithfully and generously in a world created and finally redeemed by the Lord God Almighty.

A Final Word

Please approach Daniel with both intellectual honesty and spiritual hunger. Let careful scholarship inform your reading, but don’t let academic debates overshadow the text’s profound call to courage, faithfulness, and hope. As one who has spent much time wrestling with this remarkable book, I can attest that Daniel rewards patient, careful study with insights that remain deeply relevant for communities of faith facing the pressures and uncertainties of any age.

Looking for more content like this? Think about joining the Patreon Community!

[1] Michael J. Gorman, Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers, Third Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2020), 92.

[2] W. Randolph Tate, Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach, Third Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 173.

[3] Jerry A. Gladson, Endgame: A New Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2021), 65.

[4] Gladson, Endgame, 77.