Jim Larmore

Bernard ,
If you re-call the web-site was talking about the original LXX, that is what I typed in on the google search. Within that web-site it said Daniel ( expanded) was included in the LXX and even listed it. It did say some of the minor prophets MAY have been translated later , it did NOT say they were. Now by just plain common sense, if the original LXX "alexandrian" translators did their work around 285 B.C. and they are saying Daniel MAY have been there since it is listed then we can say it MAY have been translated prior to 170B.C. , 285 is prior to 170 in the B.C. time!!

Also Bernard you have said I misrepresent you big time , if I truely have then I apologize but what about the misrepresentation of my statement above?. What I was saying is I didn't know why Daniel was not include in the "Jesus Sirach" writings. I don't know this for sure I'm taking your word on that, but that was all I was saying. I didn't say I didn't know about the date of Daniel's translation. I spoke to Dr. Mike Muller a Biblical scholar par excellence from a local university. What he said was all conservative scholars that he knew of believed Daniel was part of the original LXX. He was not aware of Jesus Sirach or that Daniel wasn't part of his writings. Hes going to fax me some references to look at to show evidence of Daniel being there prior to 170 B.C. . As soon as he does this I will try to cut and paste them onto a post here, ( I'm still learning how to do this stuff ).

Steven Carr

Don't forget to post the names of these skeptics who, until 1961, denied that Pontius Pilate expected.

(You will find their names in works before BC 170, which referred to a Book of Daniel)

Celsus

He can't be that great a Biblical scholar if he doesn't even recognise one of the most interesting books of the Apocrypha. Is this really the state of Christian scholarship?

Joel

DrJim

Jim Larmore wrote:
I think at issue is not possibility but PROBABILITY. As far as an early Daniel, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN is a heck of a lot more likely than MAY.

Daniel can be read without any difficulty as "history" written up as an ancient "prophecy" up to the start of the Maccabean rebellion. Of course, its all so vague it can be re-interrpeted as later empires: Roman, or whatever. It is hard to make sense of the book as being completed substantially earlier. Of couse bits of Daniel (esp. some of ch. 1-6) may be 3rd century, but in what form is hard to determine and there is no textual evidence of it. I think it rather unlikely that Daniel, in either the MT or LXX version predated 167-164 bce. The additions in the LXX are probably later yet.

The name Daniel appears to be a traditional name of Jewish hero. There is no reason to believe that refernces to a fellow named Daneil in the Hebrew Bible indicates awareness of the kinds of stories one finds in the book bearing the guy's name. It is all pretty easy to interpret as a stock character who had numerous stories told about him in the 3rd and 2nd centuries bce. There is, however, no evidence that the present canonical assortment of Daniel stories was completed before 170 bce, and some good reasons to suspect it came to be a little later than that.

Daniel is not part of the "Prophets" in the Jewish canonical list, but the "Writings". Ben Sirach, if I remember correctly, knows of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and "12 Prophets", but those 12 can be accounted for without Daniel i.e., the purported authors of the "Book of the Twelve": Hosea, Joel Amos... to Malachi".

JRL

Bernard Muller

Jim wrote:
Daniel MAY have been there since it is listed then

According to the website, the "then" is 1st to 4th century AD.

Jim wrote:
I spoke to Dr. Mike Muller a Biblical scholar par excellence from a local university. What he said was all conservative scholars that he knew of believed Daniel was part of the original LXX. He was not aware of Jesus Sirach or that Daniel wasn't part of his writings.

Of course, conservative scholars believe 'Daniel' was part of the original LXX (& ignore the evidence which is against that)!

But what does that prove?

Best regards, Bernard

Jim Larmore

Guys until I get further evidence from Dr. Muller ( Bernard , do you have any relatives in Barlesville, Oklahoma? )I can't refute or uphold your posts. I do appreciate your responses. I need to do a lot more study on this issue of the dating of Daniel . This is critical as Daniel is used in conjunction with Revelation to show end time prophecies. The post I made concerning the little horn power being the papacy is taken from a conservative christian book. I think it is valid and fits the prophecy time line clear down to almost modern times. I found out later that this view of the papacy was wide spread in the 19th century includging the pope being the "anti-christ", but protestanism is preferring not to teach that anymore. This of course falls in line with the prophecy if you think about it. In the last days the beast power will have the entire world "wondering" after it. That word wondering in the greek means to blindly follow. Our churches are preferring to be "politically correct" rather than following the word of God. The "mark of the beast" will be over religious worship issues. Most people think its something about the luminati , the tri-lateral commission or some computer in Holland. If the beast power is the papacy like the studying I've done says it is then in the next few years you will see that power take prominence in world affairs and especially over worship issues. We'll see.

I admire your scholarship guys and in the long run I have learned much by this debate, however I will continue to have faith in the word of God as the inspired message it is. Is it perfect? Not only no but heck no, but is it valid and authentic? I think I must say it is. Many of the criticisms leveled at it are unwarranted and would not be used on any other historical or ancient literature. This being the case I'm sure this debate or a form of it will continue as we move on thru to the future.

God Bless you guys, I'll be back when I have something worth while to contribute.

KnightWhoSaysNi

Jim Larmore,

Perhaps you and someone else here should consider a Formal Debate on these issues. I figured that it might be a nice change for you, dealing with a debate opponent in a controlled environment one on one as opposed to dealing with several people at once.

If you were interested, feel free to declare (or answer) a challenge any time.

- Nightshade, FD Moderator

Jim Larmore

I surely do appreciate the offer of that. I don't mind the multiple person debate as long as it all stays civil and I must say it has for the most part. A debate is adversarial and I know sometimes we can get a little emotional or as Bernard put it once, about taking off the white gloves i.e. plain up front speaking.

Well , see you guys, fall break starts tomorrow so I'll be out of the office till next monday.

Have a great week

Jim Larmore