Sheshonq

WHO has suggested an other-than-chronological dating? Which "other users" are you specifically talking about?

I have not seen any skeptic in this thread propose that Daniel has a chronologically accurate dating. Skeptics proposing a non-chronological order of stories have put forth that conclusion to explain the failed chronology. To wit, that since Daniel is historically inaccurate, it is most appropriately (and charitably) seen as a collection of national myths told to Jews during a time of captivity to help maintain their sense of national identity.

You're too clever by half - or so you think.

The conclusion that Daniel dates to the 2nd century exists precisely because the 5th century dating attempt failed. The 2nd century explanation exists as a way to account for the failed dating. Here you want to utilize those same skeptic arguments to support a 5th century dating that support the 2nd century conclusion, But you are ignoring the failed chronology that invalidated the 5th century dating in the first place. You want the advantages of that explanation, while ignoring the failures that are responsible for the explanation even existing.

This isn't a case of double yardsticks, This is a case of you wanting the skunk, as long as it doesn't stink. It doesn't work that way.

mens_sana

I think you are inferring that title "Darius the Mede." Can you cite any Akkadian or Persian tablet that speaks of Darius the Mede?

The cuneiform tablets list the important dates of the Babylonian year, the first part of which is known as the 17th year of Nabonidus and the last part of which is known as the accession year of Cyrus.

.................................Month... Day
New Year’s Festival observed....1 ....__
Opis attacked by Cyrus.......... 7 .....__
Sippar captured by Cyrus.........7 .... 14
Babylon taken by Gobryas........7 .....16
First Cyrus Tablet...............7 .....__
Babylon entered by Cyrus.........8 .....3
Next to last Nabonidus tablet....... 10
Death of a prominent person....8......11
Second Cyrus tablet....................24
Last Nabonidus tablet.......... 9 ....__
Beginning of period of ...........12 ...28 mourning for Nabonidus' queen

There is no mention of a Darius the Mede, nor is there even room to infer a Darius the Mede.

The article "Daniel" by S.B. Frost in The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible.

spin

Note the following entry for the seventh year in the Nabonidus Chronicle:

The king stayed in Temâ; the crown prince, his officials and his army were in Akkad. The king did not come to Babylon for the [New Year's] ceremonies of the month of Nisannu; the image of the god Nabû did not come to Babylon, the image of the god Bêl did not go out of Esagila in procession, the festival of the New Year was omitted.

The same entry is used for the 9th, 10th and 11th years, almost certainly in the lacuna for the 8th year and probably for some of the following years as well. The king stayed in Teima, ie he wasn't in Babylon and the crown prince remained. Worse, they couldn't perform the New Year's festival because the king wasn't in the city -- and the crown prince could not act in the king's place --, so the gods stayed in their temples. It should be obvious to all (even Blind Freddy and his dog) that Belshazzar was not even an acting pretend surrogate king of the type the inerrantist beeds that he was. This is just one of those many examples of actively not wanting to know:




spin

ynquirer

That talk on Nabonidus and Belshazzar is entertaining though wide of the target. It misses a couple of verses of crucial significance to interpret Daniel:

8:1 In the third year of the reign of King Belshaz'zar…
2 … I was in Susa the capital, which is in the province of Elam;…

The capital of what kingdom - Belshazzar’s?

arnoldo

WRONG ANSWER. Daniel 1-6 was written much earlier before 167-164 and then Daniel 7--12 was written between 167-164 when the Jews at that time thought the end of the world was nigh. Notice what Daniel 12:1 states "....There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then..." When the end of the world did not occur the Jews decided to leave the errors in the book of Daniel anyway. Some theorize that the book of Daniel was originally written in Hebrew, then translated into Aramaic and subsequently into Greek in a relatively short period of time.

arnoldo

Not necessarily, however most skeptics believe that Mark was written after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD and obviously the end of the world did not occur.

arnoldo

Daniel 11:30

sugarhitman

The book of Daniel is attacked largely because of Greeks words and other additions which are found in the LXX. Which is a Greek version of the OT translated from Hebrew. The Jews disregard the LXX because it is a corrupt text. The original Daniel did not have Greek words and a song. So what they are really attacking is the LXX. The LXX is not the Original. And if Daniel says there was a Darius the Mede, then there was.

Amaleq13

If your position is supported by nothing but your faith, it has no place in a substantive discussion of the evidence.

makerowner

You've badly misunderstood the basis for the 2nd century dating. It's not based on finding Greek words in the Greek translation, because that's moronic. Rather, it's finding Greek words in the Aramaic that supports a late date.

This is a perfect example of why this argument is useless. No matter how much evidence is presented, you'll just say dumb shit like this and ignore it.