Lafcadio

I know that a bunch of arguments seem to indicate that book of Daniel was written in the Maccabean period but I have this argument against it:

How would Daniel know of Belshazzar, the regent while Nabonidus was away, as last king of Babylon, since this knowledge is of recent date, since the discovery of some babylonian chronicles. All the ancients knew that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon, only Daniel stated otherwise and the recent findings support him!

Jack the Bodiless

Why should we do anything so weird?

If we simply read what the author wrote, we get somewhat more than a year later. You reject this because you don't like the result.

If you're going to change the units, you might as well follow the Bible's "a thousand years is as a day" guideline and turn those 483 days into 483,000 years...
You didn't, and it wasn't. And how would one example, even if true, demonstrate that the Bible is 100% correct?
The Anglo-Saxons weren't in England when the Romans left. They came from places like, well, Saxony. I'm sure others can point out problems in your "ten kingdoms" scenario too.
Good grief. Surely you're not serious...
It gets worse! Ezekiel 4:6 "And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year." This is plainly a period of penance: one day of penance for each year of iniquity. The same applies to Numbers 14:34. Talk about "out of context"...

Jack the Bodiless

Why couldn't the author of Daniel have had access to records since lost?

Lafcadio

In XIXth century the mentioning of Baltasar (the actual identified Belshazzar) was considered a fiction in Daniel's book and put as a counterargument.
As this guy is not found (or it could be in a lost source, but who can prove it?) in ancient greek literary works, how would someone from hellenistic period know about a co-regent who lived four centuries ago?

Julian

Most of the literature extant in those days is lost to us. Undoubtedly, our greek libraries are pitiful compared to what would have been available at the time if one was willing to travel to a decent metropolitan center. Especially if you happened to be in Alexandria.

Julian

spin

This is merely an argument from silence. You don't know what records were available to the Jews, especially when there were many Jews in Babylon and were there from the time of Nebuchadnezzar, ie before Nabonidus and his regent. Why is it that such an incidental king as Amel-Marduk gets mentioned twice in the Hebrew bible? Are you amazed about that? He reigned for less than two years yet rates a mention. Would you care to present evidence as to when Kings was written based partially on that mention?

Belshazzar, who was never king, was as you say regent of Babylon while Nabonidus worked at finding a southern route to tap into Mediterrannean trade. When Nabonidus returned to Babylon, he resumed his royal prerogative. In fact Nabonidus was in Babylon when it fell, though Belshazzar died several days before in a battle away from the city.

You must be aware of numerous errors in Daniel, if you were to seriously read him as being written in the fifth century. But why should you do that? Why must you attempt to read it as history when the notion of history didn't exist in the fifth century BCE?


spin

Jim Larmore

So what is it about the statement in Daniel 9:25 that says " Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalen "UNTO MESSIAH THE PRINCE" shalk be seven weeks and three score and two weeks:" is excluded by a contextual setting? Surely not verse 26 which is a continuation of the prophecy of when the Messiah shall be cut off. Surely not verse 24 which is a prophecy of the same time period for the favored nation status the jews lost right after Jesus was crucified.

Oh I don't know maybe the "HISTORY OF ISREAL" or the statements of historians like Josephus.
Maybe you should use the context of that prophecy too. Another reason it is taken as such is the gospels say it is a fulfillment of this prophecy in Jeremiah.
I don't see it that way. Seems you critics like to use context when it suits you but not when it doesn't. I've researched much of what that page advances as debunking the critics and I believe they have given a charitable and fair evaluation of the issues.

Julian

Would you not consider Herodotus and Xenophon historians?

I think that Daniel had a political point to make and he wanted to give it weight by pretending it was prophecy. Unfortunately he did not take very good care to get his facts straight. Ah, well...

Julian

spin

Xenophon was hardly a historian. Herodutus was only starting to learn the ropes. Thucydides was a much better candidate and Polybius had a clear understanding of historiography.

And yes, Daniel was political. The writer was trying to edify those people who were trying to survive the Hellenistic Crisis against the greatest power in the eastern world.


spin

spin

You don't mind perverting the book of Daniel, do you? You take a Jewish work written to a Jewish audience with Jewish themes locatable in Jewish history and convince yourself that it refers to Jesus. Jesus was never a nagyd nor literally a messiah in the Jewish sense. It doesn't matter that the Jewish high priest in the 2nd Temple period was both nagyd and anointed. The high priest who was cut off was Onias III and around 3.5 years later the Temple was polluted by Antiochus IV, but you don't care about Jewish history. You want Daniel to bolster your religious commitments.

On Jer 31:15:
Yes, please look at the context of Jer 31:15, you'll see that it has nothing to do with the new one given to it by the gospels. It's ok to fabricate to justiy the faith, isn't it?


spin