From the Wikipedia Entry on the Book of Daniel:



Obviously, the dating of the Book of Daniel is significant - An early date would indicate that the book of Daniel is prophetic in nature. A later date would indicate that the Book of Daniel was more of a Historic narrative.

Discuss.

Fullywired quoted an article in another thread that I think addresses this point:

PROPHECY OR HISTORY?

The second argument against the book of Daniel claims that it was written about 167 B.C. in order to encourage the Jews during the Syrian occupation of their country, when Antiochus Epiphanes sought to institute idol worship and pagan sacrifices in the temple at Jerusalem. (The celebration of Hanukkah relates to the Jews’ overcoming of Antiochus’s pagan practices.)

Many of the most specific prophecies in Daniel are believed to relate to the period before and including this time. If someone could prove that such descriptions were written after the event—making them, in effect, historical accounts rather than prophecies—it would negate any claim to divine inspiration.

One such passage is found in Daniel 11:31–32, which mentions events that parallel the activities of Antiochus Epiphanes: “Forces sent by him shall occupy and profane the temple fortress. They shall abolish the regular burnt offering and set up the abomination that makes desolate. He shall seduce with intrigue those who violate the covenant; but the people who are loyal to their God shall stand firm and take action” (New Revised Standard Version).

The Jewish historical works titled 1 and 2 Maccabees provide a record of what happened at this time. The Maccabees were Jewish resistance fighters who refused to abandon God’s law and convert to the Syrians’ religion. Critics identify the Maccabees as “the people who are loyal to their God” in order to support their classification of the book as history.

The historical accuracy of the account in Daniel 11 is indeed borne out by 1 and 2 Maccabees. But was it written after the fact, or before? One of the Maccabees, Mattathias, gave a speech in 166 B.C. to rally the Jews to the Maccabean cause. In it he included a list of ancestral figures of the Bible from Abraham down to Daniel (1 Maccabees 2:51–60). If Daniel was a contemporary of Mattathias, or the book of Daniel had been written the year before, would Daniel have been described as one of the ancestors?

...... *snip for brevity*......

.....The latest studies indicate that much of the messianic Qumran literature that depends on Daniel can be dated to before 150 B.C. In other words, by the time of the Maccabees, Daniel had clearly already been accepted as Scripture. On that basis the writer of Daniel could not have been contemporaneous with the Maccabees and the writers of the Qumran material. This adds credence to the Jewish Talmudic teaching that the book was written and included in the canon of Scripture by the Great Synagogue before it ceased to operate during the time of Simon the Just (circa 300 B.C.). Jews believed that the canon of Scripture was closed at that point—nothing more could be added. This would also suggest that, contrary to critics, Josephus’s claim about Alexander the Great and the high priest cannot simply be dismissed as patriotic propaganda.

Source

I boldened the last couple of paragraphs for effect. If Daniel was accepted as an ancestor at the time of the Maccabean revolt, then how could it be a contemporary writing? The snipped section deals with the possibility of a second Daniel, if you want to check the article, but it concludes that it is just not feasible for this to be so.

Just a thought to consider,

Excellent Topic - My first point would be that two of the most important prophecies (the end times/antichrist/abomination and Christ enters Jerusalem) ones, all happed at least 310 years after even the accepted skeptical dates.

Secondly, without even picking up the Josh McDowell Book we have the Aleppo Codex version of the Masoretic Text that goes back to the 9th Century bc. That being said, I think it can be shown that we have the accepted protestant versions of Daniel in scripts going back before 280 bc which if I'm not mistaken is the earliest known version of the Septuagint.

Thirdly, Jesus quoted from Daniel and Jesus is Just Alright Oh Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Prior to the Second Century BC, there is no mention of Daniel. Not even in Babylonian, Median, or Persian monuments and inscriptions.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that the principle arguments for a later date are

* As it is now found in the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Daniel contains historical references which tend to prove that its author is not an eyewitness of the events alluded to, as would be the case if he were the Prophet Daniel. Had this author lived during the Exile, it is argued, he would not have stated that "in the third year of the reign of Joakim, king of Juda, Nebuchadnezzer, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem and besieged it" (Dan., i, 1), since this conflicts with Jeremiah, ***vi, 9, 29.
* He would not have repeatedly used the word "Chaldeans" as the name of a learned caste, this sense being foreign to the Assyro-Babylonian language, and of an origin later than the Exile; he would not have spoken of Balthasar as "king" (v, 1, 2 3, 5, etc., viii, 1), as the "son of Nebuchadnezzer" (v, 2, 18, etc.), since Balthasar was never king, and neither he nor his father had any blood-relationship to Nebuchadnezzer;
* he would have avoided the statement that "Darius the Mede succeeded to the kingdom" of Balthasar (v. 31), since there is no room for such a ruler between Nabonahid, Balthasar's father, and Cyrus, the conqueror of Babylon;
* he could not have spoken of "the Books" (Daniel 9:2-Heb. text), an expression which implies that the prophecies of Jeremiah formed part of a well-known collection of sacred books, which assuredly was not the case in the time of Nebuchadnezzer and Cyrus, etc.
* The linguistic features of the book, as it exists in the Hebrew Bible, point also, it is said, to a date later than that of Daniel: its Hebrew is of the distinctly late type which followed Nehemias' time; in both its Hebrew and its Aramaic portions there are Persian words and at least three Greek words, which of course should be referred to a period later than the Babylonian Exile.

Close, Yeti. The Aleppo Codex was written in the 9th Century AD. I'm somewhat skeptical of claims of fragments of the Book of Daniel having existed in 280 bc, as then there would be no argument between scholars, whatsoever.

920 ad and 920 bc are a little different, don't you think. That type of mistake is unacceptable. Now, I'm taking off my jacket, rolling up my sleeves, and GETTING SERIOUS

I'll be looking at Josh McDowell book now cause he's smarter than me and doesn't make stupid mistakes.

I see where I made my mistake. The Aleppo Codex is the oldest "complete" version of the Masoretic. I misread my own notes. We do have fragmentary versions of the Masoretic going back to the 9th century bc. My mistake. Sorry.

Once again - it looks like I'm hogging up a thread! I have a couple of comments on the controversy. First, your arguments against Daniel are in the form of literary crtiticism. Also, there is the Catholic/Protestant apocrypha issue.

I think the reason that Daniel has been attacked by critics and skeptics so vehemenently is because of his radically outrageous prophecies. I mean, Daniel made a prophecy so specific (70 weeks prophecy) that he actually calculated the year that Christ would come to Jerusalem. That is just sick!!!!! In a good way of course. Since anyone who believes that there is no such thing as God would not be able to deal with this, they have to find a way to nullify it. There's no way you can go with a prophecy and not acknowledge divine inspiriation. If there's no God, there's no divine inspiration and prophecy is a mathematical impossibility.

I am working on a way to prove Daniel right now. If we can prove Daniel, then we can prove bible prophecy, if we prove bible prophecy then we prove divine inspiriation, if we prove divine inspiration then we prove God. If we prove God, then everyone has to get saved, stop fighting, look for alternative energy sources, love each other, plant trees, and in general just make the world a better place. Alright?/????/????

PS. And no more teaching evolution to Fifth Graders!

* Grins *

I think you'll have a job on your hands, Yeti. The 70 weeks prophecy, in particular, has room for more than just a little reasonable doubt.

Even if Daniel was written in the 6th Century BC, I doubt it'd make very little difference to the numbers believing in Christianity. You can't save them all, Yeti. Not even Jesus could do that.

Yes, the criticisms are literary. It is a book, after all. The Historical evidence, is fairly clear - there's no evidence of him being mentioned prior to the Second Century BC - not a single quote by any of the Jewish writers and rabbi's of the time either. He is, indeed, conspicuous by his absence.

Tiggs was definitely right about the fire-storm over the Book of Daniel. I've run into a wall trying to prove the book of Daniel and causing a world-wide revolution for peace, harmony, and the betterment of mankind. The Dead Sea Scrolls have a maximum date of 200 B.C. So, even if the book of Daniel was complete in the scroll, which I haven't been able to show that it is, it wouldn't give us the sixth century B.C. date that we need for the proof. I've read an entire book on the subject so far, and it basically comes down textual analysis, writing style, historical facts to try to prove it. It's very boring research. The skeptics make claims that the book was written somewhere in the vicinity of 180 B.C. - and/or onward.

My only other recourse is to search for an early version of the Masoretic that has a verified date of around 500 b.c. We know that the oldest manuscripts are tattered, torn, weathered, and not complete. A significant aspect of this mystery should be considered. There have been many persecutions both of the Jews and Christians. Some of these persecutions involved not only killing people for their faith, but destroying and burning All of the written works that could be found. Thus the existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as the faithful hid their works in the caves to protect them.

I think there are still two valid points to make with respect to the issue.

1. Jesus Christ (the Superstar) quoted from the Book of Daniel and confirmed it's prophetic nature. He never mentioned the apocryphal writings associated with ch. 13.

2. Even if the book of Daniel could be shown to have been written, rewritten, or assembled by someone other than Daniel in 180 B.C., that still gives 210 years between the time of the prophecy and its fullfillment by Jesus Christ. That alone should make everyone pause, and consider.

I will continue my research and if I have a "Eureka" moment - I'll be happy to share it.

Regards.

Yeti,

That Jesus had access to a copy of the book of Daniel and was able to quote from it in no way validates the prophetic nature of the writings. If Daniel was written sometime around 180BCE then the earlier 'prophecy' of the events related by the historical Daniel around 600BCE is redacted and the later prophecies would be self-fulfilled by anyone who had access to the writings and the will to enact what was written.

That Jesus never mentioned the apocryphal writing could (at a stretch) be considered evidence that this part of Daniel (at least) might have been added at a post-Christ date, or that perhaps they weren't important to his agenda of fulfilling the prophecies contained within.

Does no one have anything to add to the post I made at the beginning?

PROPHECY OR HISTORY?

....The Jewish historical works titled 1 and 2 Maccabees provide a record of what happened at this time. The Maccabees were Jewish resistance fighters who refused to abandon God’s law and convert to the Syrians’ religion. Critics identify the Maccabees as “the people who are loyal to their God” in order to support their classification of the book as history.

The historical accuracy of the account in Daniel 11 is indeed borne out by 1 and 2 Maccabees. But was it written after the fact, or before? One of the Maccabees, Mattathias, gave a speech in 166 B.C. to rally the Jews to the Maccabean cause. In it he included a list of ancestral figures of the Bible from Abraham down to Daniel (1 Maccabees 2:51–60). If Daniel was a contemporary of Mattathias, or the book of Daniel had been written the year before, would Daniel have been described as one of the ancestors?

...... *snip for brevity*......

.....The latest studies indicate that much of the messianic Qumran literature that depends on Daniel can be dated to before 150 B.C. In other words, by the time of the Maccabees, Daniel had clearly already been accepted as Scripture. On that basis the writer of Daniel could not have been contemporaneous with the Maccabees and the writers of the Qumran material. This adds credence to the Jewish Talmudic teaching that the book was written and included in the canon of Scripture by the Great Synagogue before it ceased to operate during the time of Simon the Just (circa 300 B.C.). Jews believed that the canon of Scripture was closed at that point—nothing more could be added. This would also suggest that, contrary to critics, Josephus’s claim about Alexander the Great and the high priest cannot simply be dismissed as patriotic propaganda.

Source

If Daniel was accepted as an ancestor at the time of the Maccabean revolt, then how could it be a contemporary writing? The snipped section deals with the possibility of the Maccabees referring to a second Daniel, if you want to check the article, but it concludes that it is just not feasible for this to be so. Any thoughts on this?

On the face of it, isn't all prophecy based upon retrospective occurrences? I mean some people are just really wise. They can see how past and current events and social movements might tend to evolve toward a certain direction.

Isaac Asimov's book Foundation featured just such a character. Asimov called the Hari Seldon character a psycho-historian. This guy could read the events, model the social movements, and predict with a high level of accuracy what would come about in 100, 200, even 10,000 years.

I think "prophecy" is a gift - a gift that the "wisest" of us are given. The issue is whether we can communicate the prophecy to the world.

Nowadays, the best prophets are at work predicting technological change and how culture will evolve. Today we call them "Futurists."

Any serious scholar of historical and social/cultural trends could 'prophesize' in broad terms events of the future. While it is not entirely accurate to say the past is doomed to be repeated in the future there is an element of repitition, simply because we are all the same, with the same drives and motivations yet an imperfect knowledge of how actions in the past affected the course of history.

I'm skeptical there could ever be the accuracy of prediction as written in Asimov's 'Foundation' books, and the appearance of accuracy in many biblcal predictions is either

1) erroneously read into the prediction by a reader with knowledge of later events.
2) evidence of the writings being later than supposed and the 'prophecy' being therefore a history told in terms of a lesson.

PA,



There is plenty of time between a possible date for the writing of Daniel at approx 180-160BCE and the Qumran literature at approx 150BCE for the former to be used as a reference without that fact [that Daniel predated the messaniac writings] being evidence of it being contemporary of the historical Daniel figure of 600BCE. There is no need for a link to a second Daniel figure, nor is this evidence of the Talmudic date of 300BCE. The Jews may believe canon was concluded at this point, but belief is not evidence and it is quite possible for groups to have continued writing scripture beyond 300BCE and up to the later time for Daniel at 160BCE. I find the article to be speculative and led by a wanting to justify an earlier date for the writing simply to validate religious/personal belief.

OK. I'm going to prophesize now on record: 20 years from now, the U.S. will still be in Iraq. The Iraqi children of today will have become more militant and cause serious social disruption. China will either have ascended as the dominant world power, or will be well on her way to that end. South Korea and North Korea will have merged (or in the process of merger). There will be direct railroad traffic between Busan South Korea and Moscow and then on to Europe. Russia will be the economic land bridge between Europe and Korea (and points in between). China (probably shortly after this summer's Olympic Games) will solidify its hold on Tibet. China will also move (either diplomatically or in force) toward Mongolia. U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Latin American nations will move toward an American Union. Multinationals will tend toward coordination at manipulating governments throughout the world. Israel and the Arab world, may ultimately find that they need unity to gain strength in the world increasingly dominated by Asia (not sure about that one). etc. [I can't see the European Union because I have never lived there and I cannot feel its pulse. But Asia (including India and China), as the juggernaut, tends to overshadow the EU (in my limited perspective).

Geographically, New Orleans will find that it is a lost cause as rising seas and increasingly more intense storms will inundate the city; Florida will find it more and more expensive to fight more frequent and more severe hurricanes. Food shortages will erupt and ebb as climate changes. Ukraine and Siberia will tend toward an increasingly long growing season.

I'm not prophesizing by implying that history repeats. I'm taking social trends from today and extrapolating them forward. That is what I am trying to say.

1 Maccabees wasn't written until somewhere between 105 BC and 63 BC.

I can't say I disagree with your final statement. The article certainly does have its bias. But then, I this every article ever written has its own bias. Those who do not believe even the possibility that this could be a prophecy are just as biased in their reporting, I have found.

I see what you are trying to say, Tiggs, but I do not think that this then by extension means that Maccabees was wrong, nor denies the possibility (possibly even probability) that this speech took place.

thoughts? Comments? From both Tiggs and Leo, of course

Of course I cannot disagree. However, that Jesus did quote from Daniel's prophecy and used it in his analysis (prophecy) of end time events makes it authenticated by THE SOURCE. Of course you have to believe in Jesus to agree with me on that one.

If loving the Lord is wrong, I don't want to be right!!!!!!!

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 brilliant 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. 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. "


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."
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3x.html

Daniel predicted the coming of the messiah Jesus 400 years before he came

It is (very) debatable that Jesus, if he ever lived, could be termed the 'messiah'. The Christ most certainly, but he did not, to the best of my knowledge, fulfill the conditions under Judaism to qualify as their Messiah.

It s interesting reading this debate.I dont have the historical knowledge to take sides. I know that the oldest variants of the torah and other jewish records do not go back far enough in written form to provide evidence, but i would have thought that there was some acceptance that these had existed for some considerable time , going back far enough to cover this period. and that the story of daniel did make up part of those records even though they no longer exist. To me it is irrelevant anyway.

Prophecy is a another physical reality to me. I have seen and heard enough of it; with accuracy varying from photographic through to clear symbolism to know it exists.

That changes one's stance, and attitude to prophecy. Knowing that it physically occurs in this day and age, means there is no reason to disbelieve the claims of those who say they experienced it 2 centuries or several millenia ago.

The hardest part about prophecy is recognising it when it occurs, and indeed unless a message comes with it, explaining what it refers to, it may be difficult to either know that what you are experiencing is phrophesy, or to what future it refers.

Religious people often think that all prophecies come from god, and so they may, but many are so prosaic and non religious that you cannot identify any religious component in them, even methaphorically or allegoricaly. They are simple visual or aural presentations of something that is going to happen in the future. In my case they have occured from less than a minute, in the future through a few days out to several years. If i have seen predictions of far future events , i do not recognise their context and so cannot identify them. (they would just seem like one of the many lucid dreams i experience)

This makes it diffficult to get independent verification. Only by writing down and having notarised every dream/ ive had could i offer evidence for those occasions when they turned out to be absolutely prophetic. Only occassionaly are they so emotionally charged and significant that i feel the need to tell others about them . When these come true, at least a few other people can confirm them.

It is interesting that all these prophetic events in my experience appear able to be changed, by taking action to avoid them, thus imputing a possible purpose to the prophesies in the first place. However some seem to be pure entertainment, and there is no need to do anything but sit back and watch them come true.

As Fullywired's explained in full - the skeptical position is that the book was written sometime during the Maccabean revolution, as propaganda. As such, it's no real surprise that he would be mentioned in Maccabees - especially on the basis that the book was not written until 70 years or so after the book of Daniel was purportedly written.

If you're referring to the 70 weeks prophecy - then I disagree.

The "skeptical position"? What does it mean by "skeptical position? Is this synonymous with "the right position"? Granted, with something like this, chances are we'll never know for certain. Which is why there is the "skeptical position" (written as propaganda) and there is the "believer perspective" (it was prophecy).

I don't want to sound too much like a broken record, but after reading everything on this thread (including fullywired's dissertation), I have yet to come across an argument against Daniel that does not ultimately boil down to, "Daniel was so accurate about the events, that it must have been written after-the-fact", which is sort of a circular argument, and rests entirely on sketpcisim of the Book, which is obviously why it is the "skeptical position". Of course, the same can be said for the other point of view, but I still maintain that I have not seen any convincing argument to say that it was anything but an actual event..... but then again, I am on the believers side of this argument.

What really ticks me off, is when the same people insist that the earth was created in 6 literal days, say that "weeks" means "70 years".

[quote name='Paranoid Android' date='May 9 2008, 04:24 PM' post='2290492']
, "Daniel was so accurate about the events, that it must have been written after-the-fact", which is sort of a circular argument,

The Book of Daniel is not a work of the sixth century B. C. The case against the traditional date to which the composition of the book has been assigned rests on a variety of considerations, but the single one we have examined in the first part of our study would alone be sufficient to establish it. For a sixth-century person, who not only lived through the events of the period, but took a leading part in them, could not have made so gross an error as our author made in introducing Darius the Mede between Belshazzar and Cyrus. Nor could he have supposed that a Median empire stood between the Babylonian and the Persian.... As certainly can we say that the book of Daniel is a work of the second century B. C. If the work is loosed from the sixth century by the inaccuracy of its knowledge of that age, it is anchored in the second century by the accuracy of the knowledge of that age which appears in its pages.... So long as the work was believed to be written in the sixth century B. C., the accuracy of its descriptions of the second century but served to establish the wonderful certainty of prophecy. But when the link with the sixth century is broken by the proved historical errors in the part of the book that relates to that age, the whole case is altered. It is impossible to believe that the mind of Daniel was illumined with accurate knowledge of future times, while, at the same time, thoroughly befogged as to the events in which he himself had played no mean part, and we can only find in the limited range of the accurate knowledge the indication of the author's period (University of Wales Press, 1935, pp. 175-176).

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/985good.html

Question: Ever stop to think about what might have been burned in the Library of Alexandria? Alexander like the Jews.

Food for thought!

There are other factors than just accuracy. Several discrepancies with the language used within the Book of Daniel also point to a Second Century origin.

Probably the best breakdown of this is given here - a brief excerpt: