"Since the truce in Palestine it has been possible for an official archaeological inspection to be
made of the cave where the manuscripts were found. Not much was left, as there had been
previous unofficial inspections. But there was some ancient pottery which confirmed the dates
assigned to the scrolls; there were also fragments belonging to the scrolls themselves, which
had been torn off when they were removed from the jars. Other fragments were found
indicating that there had been other scrolls in the cave. These fragments included portions of
Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Judges and the Book of Jubilees, and some of them were
written in a script more archaic than the Isaiah scrolls, approximating to that used for the
Lachish Letters of the 6th century B.C. Among some other fragments from, the cave, which
were acquired by the Syrian Convent early this year, are three portions of the Book of Daniel
from two separate scrolls. In view of current opinions about the date of this book, it will be
interesting to know what the experts think about the date of these fragments."
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bs/palestine_bruce.pdf
I found this, is it helpful? If not, you tell us? Would not having a dated copy of the text matter, since it is dated in the document itself, in relation to known king? No. Not unless you have some reason to doubt the sacred texts!
Then there is this. Any more questions??
"The second main historical argument concerns Belshazzar. The mention of him as the last king of Babylon in Daniel 5:30 seemed to be an unreconcilable error to historians and critics. Secular sources have, since ancient times, stated that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon (p. 328). Then, with the discovery of the Nabonidus Chronicle, Daniel was proven correct. In the verse account of Nabonidus, it is said that Nabonidus "entrusted the 'camp' to his eldest son ['Belshazzar] ...entrusted the kingship to him (Hasel, pg. 155) and himself ...he turned towards Tema in the West." This is fairly strong evidence that Belshazzar was indeed the coregent of Babylon in his father's absence, and was there when Babylon fell in 539 BC The mystery here, if one accepts the second century date of writing, is how the author knew of Nabonidus' leaving Belshazzar in charge, when all knowledge of Belshazzar was lost by at least 450 BC (Archer, pg. 289), until the discovery of the Nabonidus Chronicle. The only conclusion that one can reach, other than some other information which has been lost to us today, is that the author was indeed alive during the events, in 539 BC (Waltke, pg. 328).
The third main historical argument concerns the identity of Darius the Mede, mentioned in chapters five, six, nine, and eleven. The question is who this name refers to, not whether or not he really existed. Again, the Nabonidus Chronicle aids us in that it makes it clear that there was another ruler under Cyrus, over Babylon. It also refers to Ugbaru, the general who conquered Babylon, but who died shortly after his victory Shea, pg. 246). Whether Ugbaru was Darius the Mede is debatable, and other theories have been set forth by many distinguished scholars. The two other, major theories identify him as Cyrus himself (DJ Wiseman, JG Baldwin), or as Gubaru (JC Whitcomb, RK Harrison, and G. Archer).
The fourth and final historical argument is based on whether or not Daniel 11:21-45, and/or the book as a whole are about Antiochus Epiphanes. While most people do indeed believe that at least a part of chapter eleven deals with Antiochus Epiphanes, there are many who don't think that any part of Daniel refers to Antiochus. Of those who adhere to the former, again, the majority of those feel that the whole book is in some way related to Antiochus. That would be the purpose of writing the book if it were indeed written in the second century, to encourage those being persecuted by him. Chapters one through six, to them, refers to Antiochus versus those who faithfully serve the true and living God.
For those who believe the book was written in the second century, and the whole book in some way relates to Antiochus, one would be led to wonder what purpose chapter four could ever serve. SO far as we know, no affliction of the type ascribed here to Nebuchadnezzar ever afflicted Antiochus. Nor would it be very encouraging for the Jews to know that their persecutor, after going mad and apparently dropping out of the scene for awhile would come back to torment them. True, Nebuchadnezzar is seen as having repented in the end, but this in no way parallels reality, or even chapter eleven, which has him desecrating and destroying God's creation until his pitiful death (Gooding, pg. 43-51).
There are many other places in Daniel which seem to have no parallel to, or connections with Antiochus, or any other events surrounding that era. It is the most reasonable assumption to make, that chapters one through six refer to the exilic times alone. Besides the facts that there is such great detail about the exilic period, more than can be found in any other literature since then (Wiseman, pg. 263), there is too little consistent parallel with the Sitz im Leben of the Maccabean Age. Baldwin sums it up this way: "But the Neo-Babylonian or early Persian periods best account for the exact information about the Babylonian empire which we have shown to be preserved in the stories (Baldwin, pg. 37).
Others contend that even chapter eleven does not refer to Antiochus. This debate has gone on since at least the time of the church fathers. Hippolytus and Theodotian felt that verses 21-35 did indeed refer to Antiochus, but that verses 36-45 refer to the Antichrist (this is the view held by the majority of scholars today; Yamauchi, pg. 16-17. ) Jerome has no reference to Antiochus and had verses 21-45 referring to the Antichrist. Then Chrysostom held that all of chapter eleven deals with the Antichrist (Baldwin, pg. 199). This entire issue gets very complex at this point, delving into the various eschatologies and theologies that have been interpreted from (or into) Scripture. The passage itself is difficult, and gives no clear indication of how it is to be interpreted. For example, there is no transition between verses 35-36 to differentiate a change of personage here, but for one, the end that apparently comes to Antiochus in 11:45 is not what secular history says became of him. Secondly, if Antiochus did die as 11:45 implies, then there should also have supposedly been a drastic intervention into history by God, namely, the resurrection (12:1-3; Baldwin, "Is there Pseudonymity in the Bible?" pg. 10.).
This brings us to the second type of evidence, that of the literary styles and qualities, and the actual words used. The three main defenses/arguments focus on the Qumram data, Daniel's canonicity, its genre, and vocabulary.
As for the recent Qumram findings, many manuscripts of Daniel were found, in three different caves at Qumram (Baldwin, pg. 73-74). To determine an "earliest date" for those manuscripts, we need to compare them with manuscripts with dates that are known. Takamitsu Muraoka did a study on the Aramaic of 11QtJob mss, and of 1QapGen, and found that the 11QtJob mss is closer to the Aramaic of the Old Testament than the 1QapGen. His conclusion is that the 11QtJob should be dated between 250-150 BC (Muraoka, pg. 425-443). Next, Robert Vasholz determined that the mss of Daniel are older than the 11QtJob. How much older he can't be certain, but older none-the-less (Vasholz, pg. 320), which probably pushes the date of writing before the date deemed necessary by most Maccabean Theorists (167-165 BC; Baldwin, pg. 35) .
"
Dating of the Book of Daniel
™ Version 4.2