Yes, you MUST claim that Daniel's author is a fraud, writing history and claiming it as (hindsight) prophecy, however, the very Daniel passages you are likely thinking of claim to have been spoken by angels in Daniel's presence and etc. Liberal scholars have to use late dating as a prop to avoid belief (at all costs).
You might therefore find it fascinating, for example, to review "early and late dating at Jericho", where you can read about massive amounts of pottery and relics there in the ruins (I'll be there again in person in about a week, in Israel!), and then a sudden "unknown catastrophism" where there is no pottery in the record (almost like a Cambrian explosion/great extinction of shards and relics) and how the first archaeologists dated Jericho early and BOOM--Joshua was there THEN when the walls fell, and then, I bet you can guess what more recent scholars have done...?
I didn't accuse you or any scholar of fraud, rather, I wrote:
Yes, you MUST claim that Daniel's author is a fraud, writing history and claiming it as (hindsight) prophecy, however, the very Daniel passages you are likely thinking of claim to have been spoken by angels in Daniel's presence and etc. SOME scholars have to use late dating as a prop to avoid belief (at all costs).
The book of Daniel contains numerous prophecies, where angelic beings/God reveals to Daniel future events. Any scholar claiming a late date for Daniel is saying the prophecies are fraudulent, like me "predicting" Lincoln will be the 16th President. The Dead Sea scrolls and other things show us the early dates for the Bible.
I wrote: "The book of Daniel contains numerous prophecies, where angelic beings/God reveals to Daniel future events. Any scholar claiming a late date for Daniel is saying the prophecies are fraudulent, like me "predicting" Lincoln will be the 16th President. The Dead Sea scrolls and other things show us the early dates for the Bible."
I recently wrote, "Stop trimming my answers, so people can see your cherry picking."
And I AM a Jew! I know how Jews interpret Daniel! You are absolutely wrong.
Daniel constantly, constantly says, "Word of the Lord revealed... angel told me X..." etc. I've known since I was a (Jewish) child, for one example, that Daniel prophesied Alexander the Great, and grew up with the (alleged) tale that Alexander was delighted to learn he was prophesied in Daniel and made obeisance and offerings at the Temple.
Restating: Daniel is either an early book showing prescience or a later book showing a liar who claims God and angels are revealing future events, that were rather in the past.
There is MUCH evidence that Daniel is early, and not only is it the prescient word of God, even skeptics who give it the latest possible dating know it comes before Jesus, who fulfilled Daniel's prophecies of Messiah, in timing and nature. JESUS IS GOD!
That cannot be proven or supported. Basically it is slander and deliberate bias.
Since I have not responded to the posts regarding to Daniel, I would address them all.
Other than what the Old Testament say in the books of Daniel and Ezekiel (mentioned only), and from the Apocrypha and Abrahamic traditions, no outside sources (historical records) can confirm Daniel ever existing as a real person.
What I mean by outside sources, like those texts from the Babylonians, and from the Persians, which don't say anything about Daniel, texts that were written during the time of Nabonius and Cyrus.
And it isn't just the external sources don't say anything about Daniel, it is the Book of Daniel itself.
Whoever wrote Daniel, wasn't very good at keep Babylonian and Persian histories accurate, including who rule which kingdom, when.
Sure, Daniel (book) got Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, both are historical figures, but just because the book can name names, even then the Book of Daniel got everything mixed up, and muddled.
There are no relationship between Nebuchadnezzar II (reign 605 - 562 BCE) and Belshazzar. Belshazzar is no offspring or descendant of Nebuchadnezzar.
Belshazzar's father was Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar. Nabonidus was an outsider, who started a new dynasty (556 - 539 BCE) after murdering Labashi-Marduk, a son of Neriglissar (also known as Nergal-sharezer).
Belshazzar wasn't even a king; Nabonidus appointed his son as governor of Babylon, but it was Nabonidus who ruled the Neo-Babylonian Empire, not Belshazzar.
The only family to rule after Nebuchadnezzar, was his son Amel-Marduk (562 - 560 BCE), and Amel-Marduk was overthrown and murdered by his brother-in-law, Neriglissar (reign 560 - 556 BCE).
So the Book of Daniel left out Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus, left out the part where Belshazzar wasn't a king, and Belshazzar was not even part of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty.
Then there is a matter of the Book of Daniel making up fictional character Darius the Mede, who supposed captured Babylon in 539 BCE.
There are no king by that name, ever ruling the Medes, no one by name, until Darius I (reign 522 - 486 BCE, also known as Darius the Great). The real Darius started the new dynasty in 522 BCE, after Bardiya, and appeared in Ezra.
It was Persian king Cyrus II (reign 559 - 530 BCE) who captured Babylon, not this non-existent Darius the Mede.
There was a Median king, named Astyages (reign 585 - 550 BCE), who was a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus and Cyrus. And Astyages was brother-in-law to Nebuchadnezzar. And Astyages lost his empire to Cyrus, c 550 BCE.
Cyrus had two sons, who ruled after him: Cambyses II (reign 530 - 522 BCE) and Bardiya (reign 522 BCE).
No other books in the OT, mentioning this Darius the Medes. 2 Chronicles and Ezra only talk of Cyrus being the conqueror of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and capturing Babylon, so Daniel conflicted with these 2 books.
The Book of Daniel was clearly not written in the 6th century BCE. It got so many details of history wrong, leaving out large parts of it. Most like it was written in the mid-2nd century BCE.