Jeffro
t 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.
---
There is no maybe about it. Scholars agree that the Maccabean Thesis or the idea that Daniel was a 2nd century BC historical composition is traced back to Porphyry. The fact was that he was a critic of Christianity so his motives are suspect especially when the book claims to be a literary work of prophecy.
Further, there is nothing in Daniel that provides any historical support for a later composition for the only reference applicable to the Seleucid Period is confined to a few verses in Dan. 11:5-19.which of course confirms that the book is prophecy as it contains a reference to a future period along with other fulfillments.
---
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
--
The Roman Empire came into existence long after Daniel was written with the advent of Augustus Caesar in 27 BCE which was foretold and described in Dan.11:20 thus proving that Rome existed long after Daniel's time of writing in the 6th century BC.
---
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'.
--
Critics of Bible prophecy abound even to the present originating with Porphyry and present with Jeffro thus are highly susceptible to imaginative theories or dreams!!!!
---
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'.
---
Nonsense, it is entirely appropriate to refer to God's Kingdom or Sovereignty as being established as it it is only in this case that it can be realized historically as an identifiable event that is fully developed theologically in Daniel as something 'breaking through' climatically onto the World stage.
Daniel does not mention Jesus by name but describes the Messiah and His future coming as a dramatic event in history and we know for a fact that God's Kingdom was established in October, 1914 CE based on Daniel's prophecy. The' kingdom' is thematic in Daniel and is generally recognized by scholarship.
Rather than just considering the chiastic structure limited to chapters 2-7 as you have done, Why not consider the chiastic structure of the whole book which begins with the Exile as a story and concludes with an Exile in the form of a vision?
--
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'.
--
Nonsense, the Jews were interested in Apocalypticism as shown by the many books of the Pseudepigrapha and other writings. You need to learn more about the role of Daniel as a tremendous influence on Jewish and Christian thought.
scholar JW
