Disillusioned JW:
I realize that someone before Porphyry might have said that f'irst person to introduce the idea that Daniel
was not a work of the 6th century but was written much later in the
time of the Seleucids in the 2nd century', but Porphyry is the earliest
known person to mention that claim.
It may be the case that Porphyry is the earliest known extant source (or possibly just the most well known early source) for recognising the time Daniel was actually written, but that fact is less important than 'scholar' tries to make out. 'scholar' attempted the fallacious argument that Porphyry is invalidated because he was a 'critic of Christianity'. Outside of pandering to religious superstitions, texts that identify specific events that actually happened (such as references in Daniel that are widely acknowledged to refer to specific events in the Seleucid period) are routinely recognised as being written after the events. It is fallacious to pretend that 'maybe it really is prophecy' when there is actually no evidence to believe that such is even possible let alone likely.
But the Roman kingdom was in existence prior to 180
B.C.E. Not only that, but Rome defeated Antiochus III the Great (the
Seleucid king) in the Roman–Seleucid War of 192 B.C.E. – 188 B.C.E. Furthermore, Antiochus III was the father of Antiochus IV Epiphanes!
I had responded to your earlier suggestion that "the Roman Empire and its dissolution seem to well fit the Daniel chapter 2". The fact that Rome existed prior to the writing of Daniel does not justify that claim.
I
even think it is possible that the biblical prophets might have used a
meditative practice which enhanced the power of their subconscious mind
to detect patterns world events, and then present the conclusions to
heir conscious mind - even in visions. Because I think such might be
possible I have even tried do such myself.
Sometimes people imagine things, and sometimes things they imagine might even turn out to be correct to varying degrees. Some people are futurists as a profession. It isn't evidence of anything 'mystical', and whilst introspection might help people to focus their thoughts, it isn't some 'special subconscious awareness of the universe'.
Even if only two verses in Daniel specifically say they are about a future kingdom of God, that doesn't mean the story they are about isn't also about a proclaimed future kingdom of God.
Most of the parts of Daniel that mention God's kingdom (or sovereignty) at all express that God is sovereign without any need for it to be 'established' in the future. 'scholar' echoes the Watch Tower Society's claim that "Time and again, the Bible book of Daniel develops a central theme. It keeps pointing forward to the establishment of God’s Kingdom under the rulership of his Son, Jesus." (The Watchtower, 1 October 2014, page 11). That claim is expressly false, not only because of the obvious fact that Daniel never mentions Jesus, but also because Daniel does not 'keep pointing' to a future establishment of God's kingdom. The two verses of Daniel (2:44 and 7:14) that refer to a future kingdom are from paired sections of the chiastic structure of chapters 2 to 7, and it would be surprising if that idea was not expressed twice in that structure. But it is not the book's 'main theme'.
I tried to see if there were Jewish commentaries which say such, but Jewish commentaries are far less numerous in the USA than Christian commentaries are.
Jews consider Daniel to be part of the Writings, not the Prophets, which explains why they are less concerned about providing esoteric interpretations, especially involving 'our day'. The fact that there are relatively few Jewish analyses of Daniel is actually another clue that Jews closer to the time, just as now, did not consider its content 'prophetic'.
