Here is a chronology showing how the question of the has evolved throughout history.
Chronology of the debate on the composition of Daniel
VIᵉ century BC (the book’s internal tradition)
The book presents itself as written by Daniel, an exile in Babylon.
The narratives (Daniel 1–6) describe the Babylonian and Persian court.
The prophecies are received as authentic and inspired.
IIᵉ century BC (proposed critical composition)
According to modern scholarship, the final composition would have taken place under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC).
The visions (Daniel 7–12) correspond to the events of that period.
The apocalyptic style is typical of the Maccabean period.
First century AD (in the time of Jesus)
Daniel is recognized as a prophet in Second Temple Judaism.
Jesus the Messiah quotes “the prophet Daniel” (Matthew 24.15 and Mark 13.14).
No debate over the date of composition: Daniel is received as an inspired text.
XVIIIᵉ century (Age of Enlightenment)
The first rationalist thinkers begin to apply historical criticism to the Bible.
They call into question the idea of prophecies announcing the future with precision.
A hypothesis of late composition (second century BC) is formulated.
XIXᵉ century (rise of modern exegesis)
The linguistic, literary and historical arguments are systematized.
Dating to the second century becomes the dominant position in academic research.
The debate settles in between the confessional reading and the critical reading.
XXᵉ–XXIᵉ centuries (today)
Critical scholarship continues to favor a composition in the second century.
Religious traditions maintain a prophetic and ancient reading (sixth century).
The debate remains open between the historical-critical approach and the confessional approach.
Synthesis
Ancient tradition: Daniel, prophet of the exile (sixth century).
Modern scholarship: final composition in the second century.
Time of Jesus: no tension, Daniel is received as an inspired prophet.
Since the eighteenth century: birth of the debate, still alive today.
The origin of this debate clearly appears to be a lack of faith in the prophetic words.
The origin of this debate lies mainly in a divergence of perspectives concerning the nature and interpretation of prophetic words. For some, this debate is explained by a questioning of, or a lack of trust in, the prophetic words as they are transmitted in the Bible. Whereas the confessional reading considers these words as authentically inspired and prophetic. The question here is therefore mainly that of the inerrancy of the Bible.