The Book of Daniel, the first of the apocalyptic writings, did not

represent an entirely new type of literature. Apocalypse had its

beginnings in passages in the works of the prophets. In fact, it has
been said that the apocalyptic was really an attempt to rationalize and
systematize the predictive side of prophecy. There were significant
differences, however. The prophet, for the most part, declared his
message by word of mouth, which might subsequently be recorded in
writing. The apocalyptist, on the other hand, remained completely
hidden behind his message, which he wrote down for the faithful to
read. The prophets normally spoke in their own name a message for
their own day. The apocalyptists normally wrote in the name of some
notable man of the past a message for the time of the age to come.

Like the prophets before them, the apocalyptists saw in the working
out of history, which they divided into well-defined periods, a purpose
and a goal. The evil in the world might lead men to despair, but God’s
predetermined purpose could not be frustrated. A future age of
righteousness would replace the present age of ungodliness, fulfilling
God’s purpose. This literature, then, is a mixture of pessimism—times
would become worse and worse, and God would destroy this present
evil world—and of optimism—out of turmoil and confusion God would
bring in his kingdom, the goal of history.

For many centuries the apocalyptic character of the Book of Daniel

was overlooked, and it was generally considered to be true history,
containing genuine prophecy. In fact, the book was included among
the prophetic books in the Greek canon. It is now recognized, however,
that the writer’s knowledge of the exilic times was sketchy and
inaccurate. His date for the fall of Jerusalem, for example, is
wrong; Belshazzar is represented as the son of Nebuchadrezzar and
the last king of Babylon, whereas he was actually the son
of Nabonidus and, though a powerful figure, was never king; Darius
the Mede, a fictitious character perhaps confused with Darius I of
Persia, is made the successor of Belshazzar instead of Cyrus. By
contrast, the book is a not inconsiderable historical source for the
Greek period. It refers to the desecration of the Temple in 167 and
possibly to the beginning of the Maccabean revolt. Only when the
narrative reaches the latter part of the reign of Antiochus do notable
inaccuracies appear—an indication of a transition from history to
prediction. The book is thus dated between 167 and 164 BCE.