When was the Book of Daniel written?

Timing, not canonization. Wrote the history of, not, were accepted as being comparable to the Torah by the priesthood and/or rabbinical authorities during.We tend to believe that the Prophets (Nephibim) were canonized by around 200BC because that's about the time they started being read as haftarah, citations helping to interpret the reading from the Torah. This provoked a huge new fight with the Samaritans, who never accepted them, because the readings, not only from Isaiah and Jeremiah and so on but also from Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, tended to often focus on how corrupt the northern kingdom had been and how treacherous the behavior of the current "inhabitants of the land" was.This internal strife was what led Antiochus Epiphanes to come down and start trying to restore order, and the Samaritans were generally supportive of his move. The Maccabees fought back and history started being made again, with a huge upsurge in religous writings of every kind.We know that the status of the Ketubim (Writings) wasn't settled in full until at least the 2nd century AD. We know beyond any doubt that during the first half of the 1st century, there were plenty of very authoritative rabbis who did not give any of the Ketubim with the exception of the Psalms the same status as the Torah and Nephibim.As for example We believe, based on Josephus and on the account of the debated texts given in the Mishnah and the attribution of the decision that they do in fact require hand-washing when dealing with, like the Torah and Nephibim, that as many as 9 of them were already accepted in some sense by around AD 70. Esther and Daniel required significantly further debate, because they are political texts from the Maccabean period, though they pretend to be something else.Esther, for example, sets the origin of the feast of Purim in the 5th century. It is actually a celebration of the Maccabees victory over Nicanor! She makes no mention of God for the same reason the dreidl was developed as a game to disguise the sacred texts: there was a death sentence on religious activity at the time it was written. The author of the Greek version of Esther, written after the war was won, urges his recipients to celebrate the new feast and adds many prayers and prophecies to the text. He is also the author of the Second book of Maccabees, in which he gives a similar sell to the new feast of Hanukkah at the beginning, and ends his account with the battle against Nicanor.The history of Daniel is almost exactly parallel. It speaks of the real events of the Maccabean period in riddles attributed to a 6th-century court astrologer and has the same focus on dietary law while capitulating to the religious practices of the conquerors. After the war is over it is re-released in Greek, with added material including a long and explicit prayer in the fiery furnace. In addition, the First book of Maccabees is provided, detailing the exact events hidden in the symbols of the apocalypse in plain historical language.Edited by Iblis, : sense

Hi Iblis, that cannot be correct for the reason that in the first century the entire hebrew scriptures made up the septuagint....the septuagint is the version that Apostles and Jesus used when readings were held in synagugues. Jesus quoted almost word for word from parts of Daniel.there is also an account in Acts about the Ethiopian noble who was reading the scroll of Isaiah. It was a copy of Isaiah from the greek septuagint that he was reading.But the greatest evidence that the septuagint contained more then just the torah, comes from the dead sea scrolls. Fragments of the septuagint from all 12 books of the prophets have been found in them dating back to 50BCE.

quote:

---

that cannot be correct for the reason that in the first century the entire hebrew scriptures made up the septuagint....the septuagint is the version that Apostles and Jesus used when readings were held in synagugues. Jesus quoted almost word for word from parts of Daniel.

---

So what you are arguing is:1) Since the Gospels were written in Greek Jesus must have spoken in Greek.2) If Daniel was not translated in the 3rd Century BC, nobody could use a Greek translation in the 1st Century ADWant to explain how either of these even makes sense ?

in my opinion, timing is more important because its the theme of this discussion.
There is strong evidence to show that Daniel was written back in the 5th century BCE and that is what we are trying to pinpoint. Canonization is really a side point in this discussion. some critics may claim that Daniel is from the Maccabean period, but they cant explain how the writer could have known of Neb's construction projects long before archaeologists brought them to light. Or how he knew of the various laws of the babylonians and medes and persians.remember that both empires had gone into decline long before the second centuryBCE and archeology wasnt a practice among the Jews. You would need to show that the festival was not celebrated by Jews before the maccabee period. Is there evidence that shows this to be the case?
The book of 2 Maccabees 15:36 actually calls the festival Mordecai’s day, because it was Mordecai who played an important part in the events pertaining to the festival. Why would the maccabees not call it by the name of Judas who led the army the defeated Nicanor????

Nowhat i am pointing out is that the septuagint did include the entire hebrew scriptures. This is evidenced by the fact that the 1st century synagogues contained passages of Isaiah which were the Greek Septuagint version.Iblis seems to think that the Greek Septuagint only contained the first 5 books of moses. This is not correct.

quote:

---

what i am pointing out is that the septuagint did include the entire hebrew scriptures.

---

If you are referring to the original translation in the 3rd Century BC then you have to be making the arguments I suggested. (In fact you can't use the words attributed to Jesus AT ALL unless you assume that he must have preached in Greek just because the Gospels use Greek).

quote:

---

Iblis seems to think that the Greek Septuagint only contained the first 5 books of moses. This is not correct.

---

No, he argues that the original translation effort in the 3rd Century BC only covered the Torah. He does NOT argue against later additions as other books were translated. This is the scholarly view and is not contradicted by ANY of your evidence

and there is no evidence for that assumption

quote:

---

and there is no evidence for that assumption

---

Even if that were true (and you simply are not in a position to know) it does not change the fact that your arguments utterly failed to address the point. To use the Septuagint as evidence against a late date for Daniel you need to establish that the translation of Daniel was done too early. And YOU have produced no evidence for that.It is your assumption - without evidence - that the original translation in the 3rd Century BC included Daniel.If you want to succeed in debate you need to think less like a low-grade apologist, trying to invent excuses, and accepting anything that looks good to you, no matter how foolish it might happen to be - and more like a scholar, interested in investigating and learning the facts.

Ever heard of symbolism? The Jews in the period from the 2d century BCE to the 2d century CE quite commonly wrote in symbolic language ie the Apocryphal book of Judith.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

You have produced 0 evidence that this is the case. It sounds nice, but you are essentially taking the word of a 5th century writer for even the connection to Nitocris to begin with and just your say-so that Nebo needed to marry a blood relative.Even IF it was true it does not refute my point that at best Bel would have been a step-son of Nitocris. He was the murder of what would have been Nitocris's own son who was already heir and had taken rule from his father.So in order to get your story right, we have to have Bel killing Nitocris' son who is CURRENTLY king, have her marry Nebo who plotted her sons murder in order to give her son's murders legitimacy on the throne. All so Bel can be kind-of related to Neb and not even by blood. All just to make sure that poor Daniel would not be wrong on this point. And you have no evidence that that is what Daniel was doing. Bel and Nebo were not pious successors of Neb. They were ursurpers who KILLED the bloodline of Neb and yet you have Bel calling Neb "daddy".Or there is the much simpler explanation which is that Daniel was wrong. Oh but Peg why are you ignoring Daniel 5? And that just brings up another innaccuracy, the REAL Darius was not the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes)! The REAL Darius was his father! (at least)

​

Here is the lineage of Persian kings:
Cyrus
Cambyses (son of Cyrus)
Smerdis (son of Cyrus)
Darius I (brother-in-law of Smerdis)
Xerxes I (son of Darius I)
Artaxerxes I (son of Xerxes I)
Xerxes II (son of Artaxerxes)
Sogdianus (half-brother of Xerxes II)
Darius II (half-brother of Xerxes II)
Artaxerxes II (son of Darius II)
List of kings of Babylon - Wikipedia

​

Now Ahusuerus translates directly into Xerxes but there is evidence from Esther of translating Ahuseurus into Artaxerxes. (Ahasuerus - Wikipedia).

​

Either way and for ANY translation of Ahasuerus with various Darious, Xerxes, or Artaxerxes; Darius (I or II) was a father of Xerxes (I or II) or a grandpa of Artaxerxes (I or II). Oh yea AND none of those guys were Medes!!!!

​

Could you please also respond to Message 22 regarding Daniel getting the exile wrong.

​

---

Lets add the chapter 9:1 problems in...

​

Summary of 6th century inaccuracies so far:

​

Chapter 1

• Daniel is unaware of the dating of the events culminating in his own exile. Message 22
  

​

...

​

Chapter 5

• Daniel incorrectly identifies Bel as Neb's son. Message 5
  
• Similarly, he misidentifies Neb as Bel's father. Message 5
  
• Daniel incorrectly refers to the conqueror of Babylon as "Darius the Mede". Darius was a successor to the REAL conqueror Cyrus and came into power likely after Daniel's death. He also was a Persian, not a Mede. Message 18
  

​

...

​

Chapter 9

• Darius was not the son of Ahasuerus, he was either his dad or grandpa.
• Ahasuerus (Xerxes) was once again Persian, not a Mede.
  

​

Edited by Jazzns, : Clarified Darius I as in-law of Cyrus

​

Edited by Jazzns, : The formatting of my posts keeps getting screwed up. ANyone else seeing this?

​

---

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

Explain to me why we should regard as evidence the words of a Jewish apologist who was writing 500 years later?And he doesn't even list the books! You have to assume that he is combining them in order to get your correct count!

---

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

Which doesn't help you because that is long after the proposed late origination and even later than when you are proposing that these books were canon.Can you not see exactly why this does not help you support an early date?

---

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

Right! I was thinking that I was pointing out something too obvious and that I might have missed something. But, no, this just a totally rediculous hail mary here by Peg.Isn't it true that we have exactly zero copies of the prophets pre-DSS? I am trying to search around but can't quite pin the answer to that question down.Update:Just needed to use the word 'manuscript' in my search. Wiki has an entry:Biblical manuscript - WikipediaEdited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

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

Hi Peg Don't let it get to you, I know it can't be easy being jumped by several dudes at once. But you don't want to get stampeded into saying things that might confound the brethren, or end up doing your argument more harm than good. Nebuchadnezzar's rebuilding of Babylon after his father Nabopolasser's overthrow of the Assyrian empire and the sacking of Nineveh is not a big archaeological mystery, it's a commonly reported fact. His construction of the famous Hanging Gardens for his Median wife Amytis (to remind her of the steppes of her homeland) is a great romance of legendary history. It's one of the 7 Wonders of the World! These were a teaching tool in the gymnasia of the Hellenic Empires, which Jewish nationals were being required to attend during the reign of Antiochus.Which is all just an interesting detour, seeing how as at no point in the story does Daniel show Nebuchadnezzar actually rebuilding Babylon or constructing any towers or palaces or gardens or walls. Don't you think he would have? Which laws of the Babylonians would those be? The ones that say slaves may have a bit of trouble if they try to tell the Master of Eunuchs they don't want to eat his dirty unclean pork? But he may let them get away with it if they make a bet out of it?I think I know where you are reaching with this one, though. The main (only?) law we hear about in the Nebuchadnezzar part of Daniel is in the deliciously outre story where he is apparently credited with building the Colossus, another of the 7 Wonders (actually located in Rhodes, though) and requiring that whenever his fellas play a charming list of Greek instruments unknown in Babylon in the 6th century, they all have to bow down to it.So fine, link me a translation or copy or picture of this law that shows any such thing has ever been dug up in Babylon. Or the Colossus itself. Or whatever you got.We first hear about this giant in the dream Nebuchadnezzar has Daniel interpret for him, in which it is used to give a new interpretation of the 4 Ages of the World, a Greek concept dating back to Hesiod and still in partial use to this day (though Gold and Silver have been replaced with Paleolithic and Neolithic, the fact of which metals they had advanced to working remains characteristic of the cultures involved.) Another teaching tool, from the gymnasia, totally unrepresented in real Babylonian literature. If you mean the fact that the laws of the Persian Empire couldn't be changed once passed, that's another extremely common teaching point in Greek academics. It's mentioned over and over again, as an example of how democracies like Athens and even military republics like Sparta are still superior to their barbaric enemies like Xerxes.If you mean the specific law that "Darius" supposedly passed that no one could bow down to anybody or anything but him, there's no such law. There couldn't possibly be such a law, as the first thing Cyrus did after breaking the siege was to issue a decree that everyone could return to worshipping their own gods in their own way without interference from the government. And such a law, once made, would have been, what? If we keep chasing after Esther she will lead us further and further off topic. You could probably start another thread about her after this one is finished? But if you do, go ahead and cut yourself a break and bone up on the subject by reading these links about the Day of the Victory of Marduk
Akitu - Wikipedia
Zagmuk - Wikipedia
and the related dramatic festivals leading up to it, involving the king choosing a courtesan out of a selection provided by the temple for a public display, the descent of Ishtar into the underworld, and one slave being clad in the king's discarded clothes and given his honors while another is executed in his place. So anyway, have you managed to redo your math yet with the Weeks or Years? I know you were pretty excited about that and it seemed like you were getting stifled. Whereas I am all ears (and calculator, of course.)

The 36 CE date for the baptism is problematic for another reason. Pilate was recalled to Rome by the start of 37 CE, so the 36 CE Passover is the latest possible date for the crucifixion that could possibly fit the Gospels. Which means that if Jesus was baptised even at the very start of 36 AD, his entire ministry - and the 40 days in the wilderness - would have to be fitted into a few months.Nobody knows the exact year, but 36 CE isn't plausible without some serious errors in the Gospels. (Either Pilate is gone or the crucifixion didn't happen at Passover - or Jesus' ministry is shorter than even the synoptics suggest).