“Daniel was there until the first year of King Cyrus”: chronological and literary scope of Daniel 1.21

The chapter ends with this declaration:

“So Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.” (Daniel 1.21)

This statement comes immediately after Nebuchadnezzar's examination of Daniel and his companions.

The reader has just learned that the four young men are recognized as particularly wise and intelligent (Daniel 1.19-20).

Daniel 1.21 suddenly widens the chronological horizon.

The account no longer looks only at Daniel's first years in Babylon: it projects his presence down to the time of Cyrus.

Daniel 1 begins under Nebuchadnezzar:

“In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon marched against Jerusalem.” (Daniel 1.1)

It ends under Cyrus (Daniel 1.21).

These two sovereigns thus frame the chapter literarily.

Nebuchadnezzar represents the beginning of Daniel's exile.

Cyrus represents the time when Babylonian domination now belongs to the past and the possibility of returning to Jerusalem opens up.

If Daniel is taken to Babylon around 605 BC and is still present in the first year of Cyrus, his career spans several decades.

He knows the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

He then lives through the period leading to the last Babylonian sovereigns.

He is still present at the time of the fall of Babylon in 539 BC.

He then appears in the context of Darius the Mede and of Cyrus.

Daniel 1.21 thus presents, from the first chapter, a figure whose faithfulness will be tested over the long term.

Daniel 5 recounts the last night of Belshazzar's reign.

After the interpretation of the mysterious inscription, the chapter ends:

“That same night Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, was killed. And Darius the Mede seized the kingdom.” (Daniel 5.30-31)

Babylonian domination comes to an end in 539 BC.

Daniel, who had arrived in Babylon several decades earlier, thus witnesses, within the narrative framework of the book, the disappearance of the empire that had deported him.

This datum has strong literary significance.

At the beginning of the book, Babylon seems all-powerful.

Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem.

Vessels of the Temple are carried off.

Young Judeans are integrated into the imperial court.

Yet at the end of the Babylonian period, Daniel is still present while the empire of his conquerors disappears.

Daniel 1.21 already anticipates this reversal.

The “first year of Cyrus” has particular importance in biblical history.

The second book of Chronicles declares:

“In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Eternal — show definition INF038 spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Eternal — show definition INF038 stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia.” (2 Chronicles 36.22)

The book of Ezra takes up this same indication (Ezra 1.1).

Cyrus then authorizes the return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 1.2-4).

The first year of Cyrus therefore constitutes, in the biblical presentation, a major turning point in the history of the exile.

Within the framework of Cyrus's rule over Babylon, his first year is generally placed around 538/537 BC.

This “first year” must be distinguished from the whole of Cyrus's reign, which had begun earlier over other territories.

The biblical landmark here concerns Cyrus in the context of his authority over Babylon and of the events linked to the return of the Judeans.

Daniel 1.21 must therefore not be understood as asserting that Cyrus begins his whole royal career on this date.

The wording “Daniel was there until the first year of King Cyrus” could, in isolation, be understood as marking the end of his life or of his activity.

But this interpretation is ruled out by a later datum of the book.

Daniel 10 begins thus:

“In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar.” (Daniel 10.1)

Daniel is therefore still alive and receives a revelation after the first year of Cyrus.

The two passages must be held together.

Daniel 1.21: Daniel is present until the first year of Cyrus.

Daniel 10.1: Daniel still receives a revelation in the third year of Cyrus.

The first statement therefore cannot mean:

“Daniel died in the first year of Cyrus.”

Nor does it necessarily mean:

“Daniel ceased all activity at that date.”

The verse has another function.

In a chronological indication, the preposition “until” can designate the point that the author wants to reach without asserting that the situation ends immediately after that point.

Daniel 1.21 emphasizes that Daniel reaches the time of Cyrus.

The point of the verse is to show the exceptional length of his presence.

Daniel 10.1 then specifies that this presence continues even beyond the landmark chosen at the end of the first chapter.

If Daniel is still alive during the third year of Cyrus, why does Daniel 1 stop at his first year?

The most natural answer is found in the historical importance of this date.

The first year of Cyrus corresponds, in the books of Chronicles and Ezra, to the decree permitting the Judeans to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple (2 Chronicles 36.22-23; Ezra 1.1-4).

Daniel 1.21 therefore does not necessarily aim to give the last date in Daniel's life.

It reaches a significant landmark in the history of the exile.

Daniel 1.1-2 recounts the Babylonian intervention against Jerusalem.

Vessels from the house of God are carried to Babylonia.

Daniel and other young Judeans then find themselves at the king's court.

The movement of the chapter thus begins with an uprooting.

Jerusalem loses part of its inhabitants and of its sacred possessions to the benefit of Babylon.

The first year of Cyrus symbolically reverses this direction.

Ezra 1 now recounts a movement from Babylon toward Jerusalem.

Cyrus authorizes the exiles to go up to Judah (Ezra 1.3).

The Temple vessels carried off by Nebuchadnezzar are also handed over to those in charge of the return (Ezra 1.7-11).

This correspondence with Daniel 1 is particularly remarkable.

Daniel 1.2 recounts that Nebuchadnezzar carries off part of the vessels of the house of God.

Ezra 1.7 declares:

“King Cyrus brought out the vessels of the house of the Eternal — show definition INF038 that Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem and placed in the house of his god.” (Ezra 1.7)

The two texts thus describe the two ends of a single historical movement.

Under Nebuchadnezzar:

Jerusalem → Babylon.

Under Cyrus:

Babylon → Jerusalem.

Daniel 1.21 leads the reader precisely to this second moment.

A distinction is nevertheless indispensable.

The fact that Daniel reaches the time of the return does not mean that the book asserts that he himself returns to Jerusalem.

No passage in Daniel recounts his return to Judah.

Daniel 10 still situates him in the eastern context during the third year of Cyrus (Daniel 10.1-4).

It is therefore preferable not to write categorically that Daniel took part in the return of the exiles.

Caution must work in both directions.

The book recounts no return of Daniel to Jerusalem.

But it does not contain, either, a statement explicitly affirming:

“Daniel never returned to Jerusalem.”

The most rigorous formulation is therefore:

no return of Daniel to Jerusalem is reported in the book.

This distinction avoids turning the silence of the text into an absolute historical assertion.

The absence of an account of a return in no way means that Jerusalem would have lost its importance for Daniel.

In Daniel 6, he prays with his windows open toward Jerusalem (Daniel 6.9).

In Daniel 9, his prayer is centered on Jerusalem, the sanctuary and the people (Daniel 9.2; Daniel 9.16-19).

Geographical exile therefore did not remove his spiritual orientation toward the city and the sanctuary.

Daniel declares that he understood “from the books” the number of years announced by Jeremiah concerning the ruins of Jerusalem (Daniel 9.2).

The book thus presents Daniel as aware of the prophetic length of the exile.

This datum reinforces the importance of the time of Cyrus.

The first year of this sovereign represents the moment when restoration begins concretely to become possible.

The book never gives Daniel's age.

If we accept only as a working hypothesis that he was about fourteen when he arrived in Babylon around 605 BC, he would be about 81 to 82 years old around 538/537 BC.

In the third year of Cyrus, around 536/535 BC, he would then be approximately 83 to 84 years old.

These figures are estimates that depend entirely on the initial hypothesis about his age.

They must not be presented as biblical data.

This long chronology changes our perception of the figure.

Daniel 1 first presents a young man confronted with the pressure of Babylonian integration.

Daniel 6 presents a much older man confronted with a new religious prohibition.

The continuity is remarkable.

The Daniel who refuses to defile himself in his youth is the same figure who continues to pray despite the royal prohibition several decades later (Daniel 1.8; Daniel 6.9).

Daniel's faithfulness is therefore not a one-time act.

It characterizes an entire life.

Daniel serves under several authorities.

Nebuchadnezzar dominates the beginning of the book.

Belshazzar appears in the last days of Babylon.

Darius the Mede comes after the fall of the city.

Cyrus then represents the new Persian horizon.

This succession highlights the fragility of political powers.

Sovereigns change.

The empires disappear.

Daniel, for his part, continues to serve while remaining faithful to his God.

This simple chronological indication announces one of the great prophetic themes of the book.

Daniel 2 will show a succession of kingdoms represented by the different parts of the statue (Daniel 2.31-45).

Daniel 7 will again develop the theme of successive powers that appear and then disappear (Daniel 7.1-14).

Daniel 1.21 already expresses this reality in narrative form.

The reign of Nebuchadnezzar is not eternal — show definition INF038.

Babylon itself is not eternal.

Cyrus ends up replacing the political order that seemed invincible at the beginning of the book.

Daniel 1.2 had affirmed:

“The Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand.”

The first chapter therefore refuses to regard Nebuchadnezzar's victory as proof that the God of Israel had lost control of history.

Daniel 1.21 then leads on to Cyrus.

Between these two verses, an entire empire rises, dominates and finally disappears.

The chronological conclusion of the chapter thus confirms its initial theological assertion: human kingdoms exercise real power, but a temporary one.

The replacement of Babylon by Persian power does not mean that the book presents Cyrus or Persia as the definitive kingdom.

The visions of Daniel widen the horizon still further.

Other powers will appear.

They will disappear in their turn.

The movement finally leads toward the sovereignty of God and toward the kingdom that will not be destroyed (Daniel 2.44; Daniel 7.13-14).

Cyrus therefore constitutes a decisive stage in the history of the exile, but not the culmination of the whole theology of Daniel.

The final verse chronologically goes beyond a large part of the accounts that will be recounted afterward.

It announces from the very beginning that Daniel will outlive the first decades of the exile.

The reader thus knows, even before entering Daniel 2, that the young captive of the first chapter will live through the Babylonian period.

Daniel 1.21 therefore functions as a narrative anticipation.

It reveals the temporal breadth of Daniel's career before the book recounts its main episodes.

The verse allows us to establish several elements.

Daniel remains present until the time of Cyrus.

His career therefore spans the period of Babylonian domination.

The first year of Cyrus constitutes a significant historical landmark linked to the end of Babylonian domination and the beginning of the return of the exiles.

Daniel 10.1 shows that Daniel is still alive in the third year of Cyrus.

These elements are directly based on the text.

The verse does not allow us to conclude:

that Daniel dies in the first year of Cyrus;

that he necessarily ceases all function at that date;

that he returns to Jerusalem with the first exiles;

or that this year is the last year of his life.

None of these assertions is given by the text.

Daniel 10.1 even explicitly rules out the first.

The book does not recount the death of Daniel.

The last major section ends with a word addressed to him:

“But go your way till the end. You shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days.” (Daniel 12.13)

This declaration announces Daniel's personal end without providing its date.

Any chronology that assigned a precise year to his death would therefore go beyond the data of the book.

Daniel 1.21 finally allows us to contemplate the whole trajectory of the figure.

In the beginning, Daniel is a young Judean subject to the decisions of Nebuchadnezzar.

By the time of Cyrus, he has become the witness of a succession of reigns and of the disappearance of the empire that had taken him into captivity.

The contrast is particularly strong.

Babylon had changed his place of residence, his cultural environment and his official name.

It had not succeeded in suppressing his faithfulness.

And Daniel outlives Babylon itself.

2 Chronicles 36.22 ; 2 Chronicles 36.22-23 ; Ezra 1.1 ; Ezra 1.1-4 ; Ezra 1.2-4 ; Ezra 1.3 ; Ezra 1.7 ; Ezra 1.7-11 ; Daniel 1.1 ; Daniel 1.1-2 ; Daniel 1.2 ; Daniel 1.8 ; Daniel 1.19-20 ; Daniel 1.21 ; Daniel 2.31-45 ; Daniel 2.44 ; Daniel 5.30-31 ; Daniel 6.9 ; Daniel 7.1-14 ; Daniel 7.13-14 ; Daniel 9.2 ; Daniel 9.16-19 ; Daniel 10.1 ; Daniel 10.1-4 ; Daniel 12.13.