I'm not saying its not there, but I can't find the reference you are referring to regarding "sons and daughters" of Daniel.
How credible is the dating of Daniel?
by itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat 52 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
kepler
Christalone,
Re: "I did not notice in the text, that Daniel is noted for saving his own sons and daughters..."
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jewish Nation, chapter 10
18) That Daniel was made one of these eunuchs of which Isaiah prophesied, Isaiah 39:7, and the three children his companions also, seems to me plain, both here in Josephus, and in our copies of Daniel, Daniel 1:3, 6-11, 18, although it must be granted that some married persons, that had children, were sometimes called eunuchs, in a general acceptation for courtiers, on account that so many of the ancient courtiers were real eunuchs.
Regarding Daniel as a book of prophecy, here is another quote from a later book of Josephus, a "first clear conception of the [OT] canon" is presented. In his Contra Apionem (I. 38-43), written to establish the antiquity of the Jews and the trustworthiness of their history, he writes,
‘We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another; but only 22 books, which contain the records of all past times and which are rightly believed in. And of these, five belong to Moses, which contain the laws and the tradition of the origin of mankind till his death for a period of 3,000 years. From the death of Moses until the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes ( or Ahasuerus), the prophets who came after Moses wrote down the things that were done in their times in 13 books. The remaining books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.’ …
Since Daniel in Chapter 9, verses 1 to 2 seems to claim that he was active after Ahasuerus, by the words of Josephus Daniel has already disqualified himself as a prophet.
---
Admittedly, you provided on the first page of this thread a number of arguments in defense of the antiquity of Daniel, or arguments that Daniel wrote the document himself. However, several of the arguments that I presented, such as Thucydides and mention of satraps in Nebuchadnezzar's reign were not addressed. At least one of these observations (Thucydides - and perhaps the satraps), I have never heard anything about either. They are simply my observations from considering this book of the Bible. So when you find things on your own when investigating a controversy, admittedly it causes you to tilt in that direction of argument.
The first time I read Daniel was at a summer camp between 3rd and 4th grade. I was also reading Legends of King Arthur which made just as plausible claims clothed in Judaeo-Christian traditions. These days, my New Jerusalem Bible with the deutero-canonical books mentioned earlier as well the additional chapters of Daniel excluded elsewhere also includes comments of that presumed minority of biblical scholars that believe Daniel was largely written in the 2nd century BC. It also describes the Danel in Ezekiel much as Leolaia did above.
In the midst of all the discussion about which century this material was written in, I guess I should go back and examine what you said at the beginning:
The majority of textual scholars say that Daniel was written ca. 536-530 BC. The book predicts much of middle eastern history from 605BC to 165BC. Many skeptics reject the dates of 536-530 because the predictions are so detailed that it could not have been written so early.
"Historians don't dispute the 4 kingdoms predicted in Daniel 11 because archaeology and ancient history confirms their existence exactly as predicted (i.e Herodotus in ca 200 BC). ... I believe the general view of skeptics is that Daniel was an evolving book. Portions were written early, others later. "
On the remainder, I would like to point out that Herodotus lived from about 484-425 BC and wrote of the Greek and Persian wars which Thucydides spoke of in his introduction to the Peloponnesian Wars. I can't make heads or tails of what your point about Herodotus is; but I would suggest that you actually do a little reading of pertinent parts of both Herodotus and Thucydides writing, especially when it comes to Medes.
Your final point about an evolving book, considering all the patching within it, I would concede that you are basically right. However, the seams are much more obvious in Daniel than most of the other highly edited books.
-
itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat
Thank you all for your time and efforts.
-
John Kesler
Christ Alone wrote: Regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, eight copies of Daniel were found at the Qumran community with one copy dated to 125 BCE using carbon dating techniques. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Daniel was written in 165 BCE. Would people living in 165 BCE accept Daniel as a prophet if Daniel was written at that time? Would Daniel be renowned as a prophet if it were known that he had lived a mere 40 years earlier? In that event, he would have been a contemporary person writing fiction. Refer to "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible" translated and with commentary by Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich, 1999, page 484.
I'm not sure why you refer to this work to help your cause. I quote from The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible pages 484-485 below, with my emphasis:
Was the book of Daniel quoted or referred to in other writings of Qumran? Since Daniel was not written until about 165 BCE, it would be surprising to find it used in this way—yet this is precisely the case. 11QMelchizedek, for example refers to the "Anointed of the Spirit, of whom Daniel spoke" (Dan 9:25-26). The quotation of Daniel 12:10 as from the "book of Daniel the Prophet" in the Florilegium, referred to above, is significant for three reasons:
· "It proves that by 25 BCE Daniel was already being quoted as scripture.
· "It shows that the author(s) of the Florilegium knew Daniel as a complete book. They were not simply using traditions about Daniel that may have been circulating before the book was written.
· "It suggests that Qumran Daniel was included among the Prophets and not among the writings (see above).
...It is not difficult to understand why this late book had achieved such prominence in so short a time if we consider its contents and the outlook of the Qumran community. An apocalyptic community such as they were, waiting in the desert for the end of the age, would have found such a book very appealing and significant. With its focus on the end of history, the triumph of good over evil, God's coming kingdom, and the vindication of those who remain righteous and faithful, Daniel was no doubt essential reading for many of the Qumran covenanters.
-
Larsinger58
Fascinating, but this is an academic non-brainer here folks.
First, regardless of when the extant texts are dated based on language, Daniel records specific dates and events in his own life, such as his own deportation in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar and later having visions in various years and being freed by the third year of Cyrus. So the actual "dated" references which are not prophetic tell you when the original book was written.
As far as the language of the most extant versions, note that the Persians with the help of the Jews revised their timeline during the time of Xerxes who was the same king as Artaxerxes. The Book of Daniel and that of Ezra/Nehemiah ("Esdras') clearly showed that Nehemiah returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and then lived down into the reign of Darius II. As a result, the Book of Daniel and Ezra/Nehemiah were suppressed! To cover the missing history the apocryphal book of "Esdras" (replacing canonical Ezra/Nehemiah) was created. You need only compare the information in that book with the history in the Bible and Josephus for some insights, Thus what likely happened, after the revisions were made during the Persian period and the original "Esdras" and "Daniel" resurfaced, copies were made reflecting language changes from the later period.
So again, fine someone dates the extant works based on the language, but that's not always an absolute reference. That is no different than someone dating the NWT based on its modern language and determining it was not written before say 1950, or dating the KJV based on the popular language in use at that time. That doesn't mean the Bible originated in those periods, only "copied" or translated during those periods.
Now, again, if the book was entirely prophetic then maybe you could make a claim otherwise, but since specific events during the life of Daniel are recorded, you have to use those dates to date when the original work was done.
Now, just in passing, the Greeks called the Persians the "Medes." The Bible makes a distinction between those who were Medes and Persians but the Greeks don't. For them, the "Medes" were synonymous with the Persians.
Of wonderful note though, Thucydides does link the Battle of Marathon with the death of Darius because they know that Darius died at Marathon! So this is a reference to the original history! It's just a passing remark but it confirms that Darius must die the same year as the Battle of Marathon.
In the corrected timeline, an eclipse that occurs in early 402 BCE is matched to the 1st year of the PPW (Peloponnesian War) which dates the beginning of the War in 403 BCE. The Persian Period, remember, was expanded by some 82 years. So the reference of a 30-year peace agreement expiring in year 10 of the War, 394 BCE, would be the original 30-year agreement enacted at the time of Xerxes' invasion, which would fall in 424 BCE. An eclipse by Herodotus in the early Spring is recorded for this year which is confirmed on March 21, 424 BCE! The Battle of Marathon is 10 years earlier and thus in 434 BCE. This is the year Darius died. Per the Bible this would be his 6th year. His rule was expanded later by 30 years. But that being the case, the temple was completed that same year after 21years of building beginning when they first returned in the 1st of Cyrus. So if you add 21 years to 434 BCE you get the true original date for the 1st of Cyrus:
434 + 21 = 455 BCE!!!
The reference in Thucydides to Darius dying at Marathon is an important reference to recovering the original timeline and timeline events!
Finally, Daniel was written by Daniel during the NB and early Persian Periods. PERIOD. The language of later copies is not relevant in this case.
-
kepler
I think I got that...
Daniel must have dictated the introduction to the Peloponnesian Wars to Thucydides, if Thucydides wasn't his pseudonym.
And, since he foresaw how Marshall Petain fared in post WWII France for similar services to the nation late in life (vs. those earlier), he never bothered to return to Judea.
All doctrines can be explained by obscure idioms of Hebtrew, Aramaic and Greek when referring to cousins through the matriarchal lineage several tribes removed.
-
Wasanelder Once
I've never talked with anyone who dated him but I'm sure he would be a good date.
-
brokethechain
Once I started looking at archeological and scientific evidence, there was so little left to base any belief that the bible could have any superhuman origin. I did cling to the book of Daniel for a while.
But I couldn't find ANY evidence that any of the prophecies were written before they happened. The prophecies that refer to the Roman empire & the Messianic prophecies (which would not have happened yet for those scrolls dated B.C.) were not in the Dead Sea Scrolls (chapter 9, the last part of chapter 11 and chapter 12 are all missing from the dead sea scrolls that date BC).
If I ever find one miniscule shred of evidence that the bible could have some sort of superhuman origin, I would look at it. For the believers, I wonder why god, in all his superpowers, would not have caused at least one solid piece of evidence that this book wasn't written by some nutcases and policians.
-
kepler
Brokethechain,
That's a very interesting observation you just made above:
"...But I couldn't find ANY evidence that any of the prophecies were written before they happened. The prophecies that refer to the Roman empire & the Messianic prophecies (which would not have happened yet for those scrolls dated B.C.) were not in the Dead Sea Scrolls (chapter 9, the last part of chapter 11 and chapter 12 are all missing from the dead sea scrolls that date BC). "
------------------
I hope you will have some time to devote to elaborating on this.
Some of the discussion above among several of us seemed to reach agreement on the idea that Daniel was an "evolving" book. But how a book like this might have evolved over time is a slippery matter. If you ( or anyone else) could further illustrate the situation with the Dead Sea Scrolls, we might all come to a better understanding.
I don't know what to expect from such myself. But it is my understanding that chapter and verse in Biblical documents are additions contributed several centuries later in the Christian era. So, when you say that the chapters are missing, are you saying that a scroll skips text that would be in 9, moves on to ten - or that these segments of the scroll are illegible or missing?
Very interesting!
- Kepler
-
brokethechain
The scrolls skip text that would be in 9 and move on to 10. I'll try to find the sources (they were scholarly) and will elaborate on my hypotheses later...