Jim Larmore

This is simply not true. There are very few ancient historians to choose from anyway. Josephus is used by anyone who is seeking a written historical record of what happened back then.

Jim Larmore

Canonization wasn't a term they used back then. The fact that it was included with the writings and is part of the scrolls found in the caves at Qumran gives it canon status,

Heres some narrative that explains why Daniel is a "canonized book"
www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.html#canon

Canon Fire: A Fair Prophet?
Our first set of arguments relates to the placement of Daniel in the OT canon.

First, a technical objection is sometimes made that Daniel was placed in the "Writings" and not the "Prophets." Hamner [Hamn.Dan, 1; see also DilHart.BDan, 25] writes:

The Hebrew canon consists of three divisions, the 'Law', the 'Prophets', and the 'writings', and Daniel is included in the third and last division. This suggests that the book was not known by 200 B.C. , about the time when the collection of prophetic writings was assembled.
And Driver [Driv.BD, xivii-xiviii] said earlier:

...there are strong reasons for thinking that the threefold division represents three stages in the collection and canonization of the sacred books of the O.T.,--the Pent. being canonized first, then the 'Prophets' (in the Jewish sense of the expression), and lastly the Kethubim. The collection of the 'Prophets' could hardly have been completed before the third century B.C.; and had the Book of Daniel existed at the time, and been believed to be the work of a prophet, it is difficult not to think that it would have ranked accordingly, and been included with the writings of the other prophets.
In response to this objection, Archer [Arch.DEx, 7-8] writes:

As for the placement of Daniel in the Masoretic arrangement of the canon, this is completely without evidential force. Writing in the east first century A.D. Josephus made the following statement concerning the Hebrew canon (Contra Apion I, 38-39 [8]): 'We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time.' He then broke these twenty-two books down into three categories: five books of Moses (ie., the Pentateuch), thirteen books of the Prophets, and the remaining four books that 'embrace hymns to God and counsels for men for the conduct of life.' The four books of poetry and wisdom were unquestionably Psalms, Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. These four constituted the entire third division of the canon---the Writings---in Josephus's day, rather than the thirteen assigned to it by the Masoretes of the late first millennium A.D.
As for the thirteen books of the Prophets, as recognized in the first century A.D., they were apparently the Former Prophets, including Joshua, Judges-Ruth, the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, the two books of Chronicles, Isaiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel (which were classified by the second century B.C. LXXs Major Prophets), the Twelve Minor Prophets as one volume (since they could all be included in one large scroll), Song of Solomon, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Esther. There is no possibility that Josephus could have regarded Daniel as belonging to the Writings. Very clearly he included it among the Prophets, along with Solomon's prophetic parable of love (S of Songs) and the exilic and postexilic books of history, all of which were composed from a prophetic perspective. Therefore, we are forced to conclude that the Masoretic division of the canon, coming as it did six or seven centuries after Flavius Josephus, has no bearing whatever on the date of Daniel's composition or on its status as a truly prophetic work.

Devine or not the fact that Jesus mentions him at all indicates Daniel was considered by the jews and other scholars of the day as authentic.
Absolutely nothing is wrong with this argument. We are talking about the canonization of the books of the Bible are we not. The book of Genesis is found in the canon of the O.T.

The Assenes (ms) were a group of scribes/scholars who copied and protected the sacred writings of the Bible as they knew it back then. They are more than likely the one who hid the dead sea scrolls in the caves at Qumran.

Joel[/QUOTE]

Evil Sentient Duck

I know this wasn’t directed at me, but the Evil Duck can’t help but stick his bill in here.

Jim said:
This statement and you’re also sorry for your condescension? How about some threats with your condescension sir? Oh, and do you want to super-size that?

More:
Yes, and as most apologists demonstrate, there are a myriad of ways to make the most contradictory of statements work regardless of how unlikely they are.

More:
And as his name implies, ex-preacher used to be a believer and is not now one… So what? The Bible is not now a myth because Jim, an ex-agnostic, now believes in it?

One wonders at your extensive pre-faith investigations seeing that you identified a hitherto unknown Jewish sect known as the Assenes. Are they a branch off the Satucees?
…Okay, bad joke.

More:
Actually, as has already been pointed out, abiogenesis has a number of supporting theories that are backed up by physical observations. The Bible has relatively few….

More:
Who said anything about a mistake? The term mistake implies an intelligent yet fallible initiator… Atheism posits no such being. A non-god origin of the universe does not logically imply that a mistake has happened.

Jeepers Jim, you’re on a forum that is situated around metaphysical naturalism and you’re posting the things like you have in this thread… well, here’s a hanky.

Jim Larmore

You know some of us around here have jobs we have to attend to so we can make a living. I wish I could spend all of my time on this but I can't. Why can't you be a little more understanding and loose the invective?

Jack the Bodiless

Jim:

Isn't your summary a rather long-winded way of saying "No, actually I have no evidence that Daniel was considered a genuine prophetic work in the 2nd century BC"?

Of course, Daniel COULD have been presented by its author in the 2nd century BC as a "recent discovery of an old book" (in a time before modern forensics) and been accepted immediately.

spin

Why are you so selective aboout what you respond to and defensive in your responses?


spin

post tenebras lux

Or - even better I think - as 'the book we had to keep secret as it is so powerful', 'Look! See how it's prophesies are still coming true, that's why we didn't tell you about it: we didn't want our enemies learning of their doom too soon' etc. etc. yadda yadda.

The same tactic is still used today, as is yours (of the 'recent discovery of an old book' type), and they are both still successfully parting the marks from their money.

Luxie

spin

In fact for its direct value for those doing the fighting, it had to be "found" quickly before it was yesterday's news. If Antiochus were already dead and the temple had been rededicated, then Daniel would havebeen old hat.


spin

Evil Sentient Duck

Hey,
For arguments sake here, lets suppose that Daniel’s prophecy was given before the events. Lets say that it was written as a prophecy and was received as such. Lets say that it doesn’t apply to Antiochus’ desecration and is expectant of a Messiah. Now, I don’t know about the Assenes, but didn’t the Essenes have an expectation, in their War Scroll, of a suffering Messiah? Isn’t there some speculation that Jesus was an Essene? Weren’t the Essene leaders called ‘messiahs?’ Didn’t the Essenes expect many things consistent with Christian eschatology?

So, lets say Daniel was ‘Prophetic’ and an up and coming Essene Messiah sets about to preach the end and the arrival of the kingdom per Daniel’s -for the sake of argument- ‘sincere’ weeks/years calculations.

But doph!
He (The Messiah) was wrong!
And Daniel was wrong…
They were sincere, but wrong.

No kingdom came. :huh:

For argument’s sake….

spin

Ummm,

1) what makes you think the Essenes had a fig to do with the War Scroll?

2) what makes you think any of the dead sea scrolls has anything about a suffering messiah?

3) the dead sea scrolls mention messiahs, but what makes you think any of the scrolls have to do with the Essenes?

4) do you think the Essenes expected a dead messiah? did they expect any messiah?

Our only 1st c. records of the Essenes can be found in Josephus, Philo and Pliny.


spin