Jan
You said on a recent post that the book of Daniel is meant to be dated a lot later then thought. Have you any info on this please?
UO
jan H and Daniel
by uncle_onion 39 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
outnfree
Uncle_onion,
FYI: This is the "Introduction to the Book of Daniel" in The Jerusalem Bible, Reader's Edition published by Doubleday, 1968.
"The book of Daniel was written between 167 and 164 B.C., during the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes and before the Maccabean revolt. The first six chapters relate the trials and perils of Daniel's life in the service of Nebuchadnezzar. The last six describe visions granted to Daniel under successors to Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon.
"The aim of the book was to sustain faith and hop among the Jews in their persecutions by showing them the triumph of Daniel over his own severe ordeals and temptations of the same kind; and to hold before them the vision of a time to come when the wrath of God would be satisfied; and the kingdom of the saints would begin under a 'Son of Man' whose reign would endure for ever.
"The historical setting of the story undoubtedly disregards known facts, persons and dates and contains anachronisms in detail; the meaning of the book for its first readers was to be found in its insight into the present and the future in the purposes of God. It is the last expression of messianic prophecy in the Old Testament."
--------
The QUEST Study Bible, New International Version, Zondervan, 1994, in answer to the Question "When was it written?" has this to say:
"Critics contend it was written after many of the predicted events it describes had occurred. But others, who believe God can supernaturally reveal future events, place it between 536 and 530 B.C. -- soon after Cyrus captured Babylon in 539 B.C."
I am sure our friend JanH will have more to say on the subject.
outnfree
Par dessus toutes choses, soyez bons. La bonte est ce qui ressemble le plus a Dieu et ce qui desarme le plus les hommes -- Lacordaire
-
uncle_onion
""The historical setting of the story undoubtedly disregards known facts, persons and dates and contains anachronisms in detail"
This is what I want to know about.
UO
-
bj
Hi UO,
In my notes I have the following books that you can check which provide the needed information, also they show that it was writen in the times of Antiochus IV (167 - 164 BC)as contrary to what the WBTS say (536 BC):
* Le Livre de Daniel Commentaire Philologique du Texte Araméen - Jean Margain, (1994), p. 7
* Manuel du Traducteur Pour le Livre de Daniel - René Peter-Contesse, (1986), p. 8.
* Le Livre de Daniel - André Lacocque, (1976), p. 18.
* Le Livre de Daniel - Gilles Gaide, (1969), pp. 14-17.
* Daniel - Jean Steinmann, (1961), p. 30.
* Le Livre de Daniel - Pierre Oschwald, (1957), pp. 10-12.
* Commentary on Daniel - R.H.Charles, (1929), p. xlix-l.
* The Book of Daniel - J.A.Montgomery, (1927), p. 96.
* Daniel - R. Saadia, Aben-Ezra, Raschi, (1900), p. 1.
* Visions of the End - Adam C. Welch, (?), p. 64.Porphyry (232-305 AD), was among the first to seed dubts in the book of Daniel.
send my regards to your family,
Joe
-
JanH
UO,
This is what I want to know about.
I can really recommend you obtaining a good one-volume Bible Commentary, and the NJBC (an offical Roman Catholic publication) is one of the best I have seen. Special commentaries on Daniel no doubt will provide much more details. To a person only used to the "commentaries" from the WTS or (only a bit better) conservative evangelicals, it is a real eye opener to the complexities of the Bible's origin.
I will only summarize the arguments for an early dating of Daniel here.
1) The historical and chronological errors about the neobabylonian and persian kings. If Daniel was at the royal court, he would not made such blunders.
a) Nebuchadrezzar was not that father of Belshazzar, as Daniel 5:11 claims.
b) The reign of Neo-Babylonian kings was longer than the author seems to believe. If Daniel was an young adult (say, 20ish) at the time when Nebuchadrezzar allegedly took prisoners to Babylon in 605 BC, he would be close to 90 when Cyrus conquered the city. Yet, he continues to serve for years to come. Not impossible, just extremely unlikely at a time when the average life expectancy was 20. And it is notable that no king after Nebuchadrezzar is mentioned (not even Nabonidus, who was the king in the period Daniel attributes to his son Belshazzar.)
c) Daniel confuses the kings Cyrus and Darius, and Darius was Persian not a Mede. Conservatives have made many fancyfull theories about who "Darius the Mede" was. Daniel also says that Darius placed 120 satraps over the kingdom; Darius' own writings says he had 20-30 (6:2; comp Esther 1:1). See also Ezra 7:14 for contemprary, more correct information about the Persian administration.
d) Daniel 11:2, purporting to be written in Cyrus reign, says "Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others." There were nine real kings over Persia all in all, excluding usurpers and those who only reigned for a few months. The claim about the greater riches of the last king as no foundation in fact.
2) Linguistic arguments. The language of Daniel is late Arameic and Hebrew, not the language written in the 6th century BC.
a) In 2:2, the word "caldean" is used for a magician. At the time and place when the caldeans was a real, powerful people, such usage is extremely unlikely.
b) There are at least 3 words from Greek, which strongly indictates it was written after some time of Greek influence over the region.(3:5)
c) There are at least 18 words from Persian. It takes a long time under Persian rule (or strong influence) before so many words are taken into the Hebrew, which again is quite conclusive evidence it was written after the Persian empire had ruled Israel. These words are only found in other late Hebrew texts, like Sirach and some Qumran documents. Also worth noting is that in Dan 3:2ff, babylonian officials are given Persian titles, an obvious anachronism.
3) Other references to Daniel are all very late
a) Sirach does list up a large number of heroes and prophets from the canonic texts. The absence of Daniel is very notable. He wrote in 190 BC).
b) First mention of Daniel is in Cybyl III 388ff (c. 140 BC) and 1 Macc 2:39ff (c. 110 BC). This is consistent with all the other evidence above, concluding that Daniel was written in 167-163 BC.
4) Daniel clearly identifies future events
It is a very obvious rule for textual criticism that a book writing about certain events are written after the events took place. Conservative Christians wants the Bible excepted from this self-evident rule. While agreeing that it can't be ruled out a priori that a real prophetic document can exist, the burden of evidence for this extraordinary claim rests on the believers. Given the solid evidence outlined above, showing that Daniel cannot have been written in the 6th century BC, the supernaturalist theory must be firmly rejected.
- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets -
bj
UO,
For your records:
The New English Bible (Study helps by Dr William Barclay) p.27:
"The Book of Daniel was , in fact written during the persecution unleashed by Antiochus."Joe
-
Rex B13
Hi Unc,
Jan pays much credence to the typical "higher critic" rendering of all scripture, which assumes that "no real prophecy or miracles can happen" from the very start. I see that as bias that ignores important evidence.
That's Jan and he believes it for good reasons in his mind. I urge you to see what he has but then also to see the other side.....Mere Christianity.........C.S. Lewis
Christianity: a Witness of History......J.N. Anderson
the New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?......F.F. Bruce
Evidence That Demands a Verdict........Josh McDowell
History and Christianity........John Montgomery
Basic Christianity..........John Stott
Bible Explorer's Guide......John Phillips
Born Again.........Chuck ColsonRex
-
Rex B13
Here it is, Unc:
>It is a very obvious rule for textual criticism that a book writing about certain events are written after the events took place.
Just like 'science' they ignore evidence in order to prove their point. That statement proves the bias towards the skeptical view and the 'evidence' above can make no claim to being the Final Result Conclusive. Citing Catholic or Anglican (Bishop Spong comes to mind) literature does not make it any more valid as far as being trustworthy.
Some of the best ammo for Satan is the apostasy that has developed in 'alleged' churches that claim to follow the teachings of Christ.What am I saying? I urge you and others to get that second opinion from those who can tell why they believe the Bible is literally the Word of God.
Rex -
Rex B13
The evidence about the book of Daniel has two sides to it.
When was the book written?
Most modern non-conservative scholars believe that Daniel (or at least the second half of Daniel, the section containing the passages in question) was written by someone other than Daniel either DURING these events or shortly thereafter. This view was first developed by the anti-Christian Porphyry in the 3rd century AD. The history of this view is given by Archer in EBC:
"The Maccabean date hypothesis, a widely held theory of the origin and date of the Book of Daniel, was originally advanced by the third-century A.D. Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyrius of Tyre. According to the relation of his opinions by Jerome (who spent much of his commentary on Daniel refuting Porphyry's arguments), Porphyry contended that the remarkably accurate "predictions" contained in Daniel (esp. ch. 11) were the result of a pious fraud, perpetrated by some zealous propagandist of the Maccabean movement, who wished to encourage a spirit of heroism among the Jewish patriots resisting Antiochus IV. The discomfiture of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar as related in Daniel were intended to be prophetic of the defeats and downfall of the hated Epiphanes.
"Following Jerome's refutation of Porphyry, he was more or less dismissed by Christian scholarship as a mere pagan detractor who had allowed a naturalistic bias to warp his judgment. But during the time of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, all supernatural elements in Scripture came under suspicion, and Porphyry's theory received increasing support from J.D. Michaelis (1771), J.G. Eichhorn (1780), L. Berthold (1806), F. Bleek (1822), and many others after them.
(Bias before evidence rears it's ugly head here.) They all agreed that every accurate prediction in Daniel was written after it had already been fulfilled (a vaticinium ex eventu) and therefore in the period of the Maccabean revolt (168-165 B.C.). Also some of them were inclined to question the unity of the book on the ground of internal evidence and language differences; certain portions of the book--particularly the narratives in chapters 2-6--were thought to come from third-century authors or even earlier. Essentially the same position is maintained even to this day by liberal scholars throughout Christendom. " (Jan's favorite, 'reputable' scholars!)Collins [ABD, "Daniel, Book of"] cites Jerome's description:
"Quite apart from the historicity of the figure of Daniel, the authenticity of the book had already been questioned by the 3d century Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry. We are informed by Jerome that: "Porphyry wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel, denying that it was composed by the person to whom it is ascribed in its title, but rather by some individual living in Judaea at the time of that Antiochus who was surnamed Epiphanes; he further alleged that 'Daniel' did not foretell the future so much as he related the past, and lastly that whatever he spoke of up till the time of Antiochus contained authentic history, whereas anything he may have conjectured beyond that point was false, inasmuch as he would not have foreknown the future."The alternative view, of conservative evangelicals, is that Daniel was written in the late 6th century BC, long before these events. EBC gives a summary:
"As to the date of the composition of Daniel, the narrative of the prophet's earliest experiences begins with his capture as a hostage by Nebuchadnezzar back in 605-604 B.C. and according to 1:21 continues certainly till the first year of Cyrus (c. 537 B.C.), in relation to his public service, and to the third year of Cyrus (535 B.C.), in relation to his prophetic ministry (Dan 10:1). Daniel seems to have revised and completed his memoirs during his retirement sometime about 532 or 530 B.C. when he would have been close to ninety years old (assuming his birth c. 620 B.C.). The appearance of Persian-derived governmental terms, even in the earlier chapters composed in Aramaic, strongly suggests that these chapters were given their final form after Persian had become the official language of government."The issue--was it written BEFORE the events or NOT?
Notice carefully that our task is much more simple than would first appear. We do NOT have to demonstrate that the Book of Daniel was written according to conservative theories--in the 6th century BC. ALL we have to do (in this first part) is to demonstrate that it was written BEFORE 167 BC! If the prophecies were uttered even ten years before the event, then they constitute 'prophecy proper'.
Strictly speaking, all that is therefore necessary to do is to demonstrate that the material/content in the book of Daniel was in existence by the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. We don't even have to show that the book was in its current form at all-if we can even find references or close/obvious allusions to the images/languages in Daniel, we will have ante-dated the events, and hence, have encountered 'real' prophecy. [If we find data to support a MUCH earlier, perhaps 6th century provenance, then 'so much the better'.]
And this is a much simpler task...1. Do we have any copies of the Book of Daniel that either date BEFORE 167bc, or even somewhat later ones that virtually require the existence of the Danielic material before that time? [The Dead Sea Scrolls data]
Go here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3a.html
2. Do we have any literary references or clear allusions to the Book in other pre-Maccabean extra-biblical literature?
Go here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3b.html
Check it out for yourself. No use in me doing a paraphrase of the info.
Rex -
peacepipe
JanH and Rex13:
Hi, I just want to say the complexity of your posts blows my mind. You both must spend undoubtless hours researching your beliefs. I wish I had that kind of time to do research but since I don't I pull what I can off of other peoples thoughts. I commend you both for your hard work at delving into biblical issues. I can't help but wonder sometimes (and I'm only speaking for myself) whats the point?
I don't mean what's the point like who cares because I find it very interesting reading; however, I will never understand why if there is a God he had to make everything so damn confusing! But that would be a whole other subject.
Anyhow, thanks again for your interesting perspectives.PeacePipe
Lift me up, I've had enough. . .Tom Petty