I previous started a thread to talk about some of the abstract issues regarding prophecy with reference to the Book of Daniel but that didn't go as I had hoped. A few people seem to have an interest in the dating of Daniel so I would like this thread to be all about when this book was written.
As far as I know, there are actually 3 positions on this.
1. Daniel was written sometime in the 6th century B.C. by the prophet Daniel starting in the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon after Daniel and a contingent of Jews were captured during the conquest of Judah. This is supported by claims that the writing describes the times, supposidly describes them accuratly, supposidly uses language from the times, as well as others.
2. Daniel was written sometime in the 2nd century B.C. by a pious person writing under the pseudonym of Daniel to prophesy about events current to the times. This is supported by innaccuracies within the text of Daniel regarding Babylonian history, suprising accuracy about 2nd century events, linguistic artifacts of late origin, the fact that the only copies of Daniel that we have are from the 2nd century, and much more.
3. Daniel was a combination of an early writing adapted and expanded to include references to the current, tumultuous times. Basically a "we don't know" best of both worlds kind of argument.
I think that there is a difficulty in pinning down exactly which is right because like I mentioned to Peg in another thread, I think that there is room for the inadequacies of each argument to hide within the lack of information we have about this book and behind fuzzy definitions and interpretations. That being said, I believe that if you take all the evidence as a whole for each that the weight of the evidence rests with #2. Looking at all there is to know, you come to the conclusion that only with a vast number of explanations, re-definitions, and primarily theological arguments can you even make the claim that ANY part of Daniel MIGHT have been written early rather than late. This I believe is the concensus of modern Biblical scholarship as well as just plainly where the evidence seems to lead.
So for this discussion I would like to set the following ground rules.
1. I would like to avoid the theological argument regarding prophecy. (i.e. Daniel predicted things, therefore other claims of fact in Daniel are beyond reproach) Daniel being accurate prophecy is a seperate argument and has no bearing on weather or not the other statements of fact within the book can be scrutinized.
2. I would in general like to avoid arguments from a purly theological perspective. (i.e. Daniel cannot be wrong because that would make the Bible wrong which would make morality wrong which means the world is gonna end......)
3. In general, I would like to keep the discussion as scholarly as possible, with resepect for both the pious and skeptical positions on this issue.
In my participation in this thread I will be making the following shortcuts for a few names.
Nebuchadnezzar (or various other spellings) will just be called 'Neb'.
Belshazzar will just be called 'Bel'
Nabonidus will be 'Nabo'
Maccabean can be shortened to Mac.
I'll start off where I last left Peg which we were discussing the identification of Bel and how he is evidence for either a late or early dating and we can bring up new arguments from there. I'll do this in my first non-OP post.
This should go into the bible accuracy forum.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
™ Version 4.2