Yes, I believe in an early date for the writing of Daniel. There is a case to be made here.

1. The central theme of the book seems more Babylonian than Maccabean.
2. The author shows remarkable knowledge of Babylonian and Persian history and culture.
3. The author doesn't mention Hellenistic reform, common in the Maccabean era following Alexander and the Greek Empire.
4. The author presents a view of persecution more fitted to Babylon than the era of the Maccabees
5. The issues in Daniel are more the issues of conflict between God's kingdom and Babylon than between Judaism and Hellenism.

Obviously there is a case to be made for a Maccabean era book as well, but a case can reasonably made for the 6th century BC.

Can a Christian reasonably believe in an early dating of Daniel?

I've done some light research on the topic of the dating of the book of Daniel. I've watched some videos, read Wikipedia and some other secular articles about it...etc. People seem very adamant that Daniel absolutely must have been written very late - perhaps around 200 BC or later.

I'm confused why they date it at that point. I get that the presupposition of naturalism means that it is not possible to tell the future, and therefore any written text that does so "obviously" must have been written after the fact. However, even if the book of Daniel were written in 200 BC (or a bit later), it _still_ contains prophecy about the Jewish messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. In fact, it seems to me this book contains the only reference to exactly _when_ the messiah would appear.

Yet, if it were written after the events, I would find it strange that Jesus would refer to the book as authoritative. If Jesus is referring to the tribulation as an actual future event as told by the prophet Daniel, then the credibility of the tribulation happening some time in the future would be undermined if the book of Daniel turned out to be only partially prophetic and partially historical, while claiming to be thoroughly prophetic.

Am I mostly paying attention to bluster? Are there good reasons, as a Christian, to honestly/sincerely/reasonably believe that Daniel was written before the major events described in the book?