Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When was the Book of Daniel written?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 16 of 83 (536159)
11-20-2009 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
11-20-2009 6:08 AM


Re: Clearning a few things up about Bel
quote:
there are two nebuchudnezzars
Neb I & Neb II
Neb II is the one i'm refering, but i apologize, i dont think i made that clear at all
So where is the evidence that Nitocris was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar II ?
And how does that explain why your first response to my request for that evidence was to refer me to sites which suggest that she was his wife or even the wife of his predecessor ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 11-20-2009 6:08 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Iblis, posted 11-20-2009 6:04 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 24 by Peg, posted 11-22-2009 6:12 AM PaulK has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 17 of 83 (536163)
11-20-2009 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
11-20-2009 5:59 AM


Re: Bring out the scales!
the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings ... arranged differently ... together as one such as Ezra and Nehemiah for instance ... long continuous scrolls
Yeah I'm familiar with the composition of the 24 Books That Make The Hands Unclean. Sorry if I gave you the impression I wasn't somehow. What I am asking you is, why do you think Josephus only has 22 of them?
You don't seem to understand that he was writing before the Council of Jamnia, which is where the status of Esther and Daniel was finally settled. Esther was let in because she was one of the 6 megilloth ("booklets"), which are small scrolls which are kept separate from the long ones and tied together in a kind of "tract bouquet" because they are traditionally recited at home for Jewish holidays, similar to for example "The Night Before Christmas".
Esther was the last of these to be let in, because she doesn't contain any reference to God and is purely a "racial pride" story, for a festival not prescribed by the Torah but rather simply made up, of recent innovation.
Daniel was let in after Esther. He is even more doubtful than her.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 11-20-2009 5:59 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 11-22-2009 6:33 AM Iblis has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 18 of 83 (536185)
11-20-2009 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Peg
11-19-2009 10:24 PM


Re: Clearning a few things up about Bel
So there is external evidence that Nitocris married Nabo & that she was the daughter of Neb.
From a 5th century writer, not contemporaneous, and at BEST would make Bel the step-son of Nitocris, the step-grandson of Neb.
Still not related to Neb. Sorry
The prophecies show that Babylon was to be taken by one named Cyrus.
Which brings us to our next inaccuracy in Daniel. Daniel says it was Darius!
The point about the violent overthrow of babylon was to point out that even though there was some outlying battles, the city itself was taken with out a fight as claimed by both the Cyrus Cylinder and the Nabonidus Chronicle.
You say that the takeover was bloodless. This means you are saying that no one died when Cyrus overthrew Babylon. Are you able to provide some evidence that no one died in the takeover?
Yea! I did in the very post you are replying too. I gave links. You can read them for yourself as they have been translated. They claim that the takeover of the city was bloodless. What do you take that to mean?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 10:24 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 11-22-2009 7:31 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 19 of 83 (536186)
11-20-2009 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Peg
11-19-2009 10:46 PM


Re: Bring out the scales!
perhaps you can explain what books you are refering to as the canonized torah of 400bce
I did peg. Please, are you reading my posts?
The Torah is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Thats it. That is what was canonized in 400BC.
Development of the Hebrew Bible canon - Wikipedia
Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic Text, commonly called the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible. Evidence suggests that the process of canonization occurred between 200 BCE and 200 CE. A popular position is that the Torah was canonized circa 400 BCE, the Prophets circa 200 BCE, and the Writings circa 100 CE[1] perhaps at a hypothetical Council of Jamniathis position, however, is increasingly criticised by modern scholars.
Admittedly there is some room to wiggle. But most of the argument is about if the canon was closed or not, not that the Hebrews regarded different books at different times.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 10:46 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 11-20-2009 10:47 AM Jazzns has replied
 Message 29 by Peg, posted 11-22-2009 7:50 AM Jazzns has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 20 of 83 (536188)
11-20-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jazzns
11-20-2009 10:31 AM


Re: Bring out the scales!
A couple of extra notes from the wikipedia page:
The scholars that dispute Jamnia argue that the canon was not closed even then, thus a 400 BC closure for the entire Tanakh is out of the question.
Sirach's failure to mention Daniel in 180 BC is also evidence against the early date, and is firmly against the idea that Daniel was considered canon at that time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 11-20-2009 10:31 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Jazzns, posted 11-20-2009 4:34 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 21 of 83 (536238)
11-20-2009 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
11-20-2009 10:47 AM


Re: Bring out the scales!
Yuppers.
I didn't have time to do a lengthy reply but the basic idea is that a 400BC dating for a closed jewish canon is just plain wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 11-20-2009 10:47 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 22 of 83 (536243)
11-20-2009 5:25 PM


List of basic innaccuracies
So part of the evidence for a late date of Daniel are the historical inaccuracies of the 6th century COMBINED with surprising accuracy of the 2nd century. So I want to start collecting a list of 6th century inaccuracies.
We sort of jumped ahead into into chapter 5 with a discussion of Bel. But lets go back to the beginning of chapter 1. We don't have to go any farther than the first verse.
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia [a] and put in the treasure house of his god.
Here is the history of that time.
Jehoiakim (Jeho) was put into power by the Egyptians in 608 BC. What would have been 3 years later, Neb was a very busy man fighting and winning the battle of Carchemish. No time to deal with puny little Judah which was merely a vassal state of Egypt who was his real concern. After that battle Neb, still a prince at the time not a king, goes back to Babylon to take the throne after his fathers death. The first attack on Jerusalem is in 597 during Jeho's 11th year when Jeho tries to rebel against Neb. At that time all Neb does is knock off Jeho and take a bit of booty. Neb comes back in 586 to finish the job, destroy the temple, and begin the exilic period of the Jews.
So here is the thing, this means that Daniel, supposedly writing in the 6th century, has the facts concerning his own exile and enslavement wrong!
Jehoiakim - Wikipedia
NEBUCHADNEZZAR - JewishEncyclopedia.com
Jehoiakim - New World Encyclopedia

Summary of 6th century inaccuracies so far:
Chapter 1
  • Daniel is unaware of the dating of the events culminating in his own exile.
...
Chapter 5
  • Daniel incorrectly identifies Bel as Neb's son.
  • Similarly, he misidentifies Neb as Bel's father
  • 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.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.
Edited by Jazzns, : formatting
Edited by Jazzns, : Added some more of Daniel 1 for context.

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 23 of 83 (536246)
11-20-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
11-20-2009 6:35 AM


Re: Clearning a few things up about Bel
Back in the day, when I was beginning to read up on these things, this whole line of apologetics particularly troubled me. Sure, it makes sense to call somebody a "son of David" hundreds of years later when you are making a dynastic point and no one is is going to be the least bit confused about what you are saying. For example.
But it doesn't make the same kind of sense at all, for your Mom to be referring to her father as your father. Wouldn't she have said MY dad? Or else YOUR grandpaw .... I was beginning to feel my wild oats by then, so I kept asking questions.
Finally one of the church elders took me off to one side, and said "Listen kid, have you ever seen a movie with Jack Nicholson in it called Chinatown? ..."
...
Inside a palace, long shot, slowly zooming in. Darius the Mede is interrogating Prince Belshazzar.
Belshazzar: "She's my mother."
Darius slaps him.
Belshazzar: "She's my sister!"
Darius continues slapping him as the zoom proceeds.
Belshazzar: "She's my mother .... She's my sister ... mother! ... sister ... "
Extreme close-up on Belshazzar's face, bruised and crying, as he sobs:
Belshazzar: "She's ... my mother ... and my sister!"
Later, outside the palace.
Daniel: "Darius, man ... forget about it. It's Babylon ..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 11-20-2009 6:35 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 24 of 83 (536351)
11-22-2009 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
11-20-2009 6:35 AM


Re: Clearning a few things up about Bel
PaulK writes:
So where is the evidence that Nitocris was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar II ?
And how does that explain why your first response to my request for that evidence was to refer me to sites which suggest that she was his wife or even the wife of his predecessor ?
in the book 'Nabonidus and Belshazzar' by P Dougherty on page 79 his research suggests that Nabonidus was the husband of Nitocris, Nebuchadnezzar's (II) daughter by his wife of the same name. He is probably using Herodotus as a reference (I, 188) where heredotus refers to Cyrus the Persian as fighting against the son of Labynetus and Nitocris. If that is true, then Nabonidus was married to a woman named Nitocris... my link shows that a woman named after her mother as many were.
You know as well as I do that the evidence for ancient babylon is very fragmented and there are only dribs and drabs of information. Until something gets unearthed, like Belshazzar was, we are only going by what is currently available via ancient writers.
from where i'm sitting, Daniel was correct about Belshazzar, so he could also be right about Belshazzar being in the family line of Neb (II) if one of Nebs daughters was the one married to Nabo
And for Nabo to take the throne legally, then he must have had a fairly strong claim. Marring the princess could certainly put him in line for the throne.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 11-20-2009 6:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2009 6:55 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 25 of 83 (536353)
11-22-2009 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Iblis
11-20-2009 7:03 AM


Re: Bring out the scales!
Iblis writes:
What I am asking you is, why do you think Josephus only has 22 of them?
the Encyclopaedia Judaica of 1973, Vol.4, cols.826, 827 says that some jewish authorities put Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah, they deliberately counted the number of books as 22 so that they equaled the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet.
Perhpaps Josephus was doing the same.
Iblis writes:
You don't seem to understand that he was writing before the Council of Jamnia, which is where the status of Esther and Daniel was finally settled.
the council of Jamnia did not complete the canon. The canon was already complete as can be easily proved by the fact that the Alexandrian Jewish scholars made the Greek Septuagint translation in 280BCE. Esthter & Danile are both in the greek septuagint. Here is the complete list of the Jewish traditionl canon
The Law (The Pentateuch)
 1. Genesis
 2. Exodus
 3. Leviticus
 4. Numbers
 5. Deuteronomy
The Prophets
 6. Joshua
 7. Judges
 8. Samuel (First and Second together as one book)
 9. Kings (First and Second together as one book)
10. Isaiah
11. Jeremiah
12. Ezekiel
13. The Twelve Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, as one book)
The Writings (Hagiographa)
14. Psalms
15. Proverbs
16. Job
17. The Song of Solomon
18. Ruth
19. Lamentations
20. Ecclesiastes
21. Esther
22. Daniel
23. Ezra (Nehemiah was included with Ezra)
24. Chronicles (First and Second together as one book)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Iblis, posted 11-20-2009 7:03 AM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Iblis, posted 11-22-2009 7:25 AM Peg has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 26 of 83 (536356)
11-22-2009 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Peg
11-22-2009 6:12 AM


Re: Clearning a few things up about Bel
quote:
in the book 'Nabonidus and Belshazzar' by P Dougherty on page 79 his research suggests that Nabonidus was the husband of Nitocris, Nebuchadnezzar's (II) daughter by his wife of the same name.
On what evidence does he base this claim ? Remember you claimed to have evidence,so it is evidence I want to see, not opinions.
quote:
You know as well as I do that the evidence for ancient babylon is very fragmented and there are only dribs and drabs of information. Until something gets unearthed, like Belshazzar was, we are only going by what is currently available via ancient writers.
Which is no excuse for not producing evidence you claimed to have. If you don't have it you shouldn't claim that you do.
quote:
from where i'm sitting, Daniel was correct about Belshazzar, so he could also be right about Belshazzar being in the family line of Neb (II) if one of Nebs daughters was the one married to Nabo
From where I'm sitting the author of Daniel didn't know of Nabonidus, and simply assumed that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar. The book of Daniel contains no mention of Nabonidus at all - a strange omission if the early dating were correct - and the only reason for assuming that it does not mean that Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar's father is that WE know that that is not true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Peg, posted 11-22-2009 6:12 AM Peg has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 27 of 83 (536358)
11-22-2009 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Peg
11-22-2009 6:33 AM


Re: Bring out the scales!
The canon was already complete as can be easily proved by the fact that the Alexandrian Jewish scholars made the Greek Septuagint translation in 280BCE.
You are misunderstanding something you have been told. The translation into Greek attributed in legend to the time of King Ptolemy Philadelphus (281-240BC) was never asserted to have encompassed anything beyond the Law (Torah).
Here's Josephus again
Josephus writes:
But in the morning they came to the court and saluted Ptolemy, and then went away to their former place, where, when they had washed their hands, (10) and purified themselves, they betook themselves to the interpretation of the laws. Now when the law was transcribed, and the labor of interpretation was over, which came to its conclusion in seventy-two days, Demetrius gathered all the Jews together to the place where the laws were translated, and where the interpreters were, and read them over. The multitude did also approve of those elders that were the interpreters of the law. They withal commended Demetrius for his proposal, as the inventor of what was greatly for their happiness; and they desired that he would give leave to their rulers also to read the law.
http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-12.htm
The "Septuagint" as we now have it is a third-century AD reconstruction carried out by Origen using various old Greek renderings (including corrective translations made from the Targums by Aquila and Theodotian), in which the Apostolic references to various Hebrew scriptures have been written in in the exact words of the New Testament to replace the literal text.
Hexapla - Wikipedia
Edited by Iblis, : miskey

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 11-22-2009 6:33 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Peg, posted 11-22-2009 7:58 AM Iblis has not replied
 Message 32 by Peg, posted 11-23-2009 5:41 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 28 of 83 (536359)
11-22-2009 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Jazzns
11-20-2009 10:26 AM


Re: Clearning a few things up about Bel
Jazzns writes:
From a 5th century writer, not contemporaneous, and at BEST would make Bel the step-son of Nitocris, the step-grandson of Neb.
Still not related to Neb. Sorry
No because Nebo was not related by blood to Neb, so for Nebo to take the throne, he would have to marry a decendent of the throne. That one is suggested to be Nitorcis...an earlier wife of Neb (I) is also named Nitocris and therefore could easily be a daughter of her.
But besides this, the evidence suggests that ancient people viewed grandsons and greatgrandsons as 'sons' of the original ruler. An example can be seen on the 'Black Obelisk' of Shalmaneser III an Assyrian king.
He names the Hebrew 'Jehu' as a son [as in successor] of Omri even though Jehu was not a son of Omri. The Assyrians continued to call Israel the land of Omri and Israels kings the house of Omri for a long time after Omri's immediate descendants had ceased ruling.
Jazzns writes:
Which brings us to our next inaccuracy in Daniel. Daniel says it was Darius!
Daniel says at 9:1 "In the first year of Da‧ri′us the son of A‧has‧u‧e′rus of the seed of the Medes, who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chal‧de′ans"
He doest say that Darius will be the one to overthrow Babylon...he says that Darius was put in charge of Babyblon.
Jazzns writes:
The point about the violent overthrow of babylon was to point out that even though there was some outlying battles, the city itself was taken with out a fight as claimed by both the Cyrus Cylinder and the Nabonidus Chronicle.
that is also how the bible prophecy describes it...'the mighty men of babylon have ceased to fight'...'they have become like women'...'the gates will be left open'....'the waters will dry up'
Jazzns writes:
Yea! I did in the very post you are replying too. I gave links. You can read them for yourself as they have been translated. They claim that the takeover of the city was bloodless. What do you take that to mean?
it could mean that Cyrus wanted the people to believe that he had taken the rulership at Gods direction and therefore he didnt need to do any fighting. This is likely the case for its what the bible says. However, the bible also says that Belshazzar was killed that very night as does 2 other secular sources
according to both Herodotus and Zenophon, he certainly killed Bel.
[qs]And when day dawned and those in possession The entire
of the citadels discovered that the city was taken and to*Cyr^*^
the king slain^ they surrendered the citadels^ too. Cyropaedia, VII, v, 33[qs]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Jazzns, posted 11-20-2009 10:26 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Jazzns, posted 11-23-2009 11:48 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 29 of 83 (536362)
11-22-2009 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jazzns
11-20-2009 10:31 AM


Re: Bring out the scales!
Jazzns writes:
I did peg. Please, are you reading my posts?
The Torah is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Thats it. That is what was canonized in 400BC.
ok, fair enough i see where you are coming from now
However, did you read what Josephus said about the timing of the books of the hebrew scriptures?
Against Apion (I, 38-41 [8]), refers to all the books that were recognized by the Hebrews as sacred. He wrote: We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of our 39 today, as is shown in paragraph11], and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. ... From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.
Do you see that Jesophus said the 13 books of the prophets and the remaining 4 contained hymns and precepts for conduct were "Until the time of Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia"
now Artaxerxes I Longimanus ruled from 465—424 BCE...this means that all these books, according to Josephus, were already considered to be the holy books of the jewish faith.
besides this, he adds that no books have been added or taken away from them.
So the Torah was not the only books cannonized early on...the prophets and the other books were also in there...22 in total according to Josephus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 11-20-2009 10:31 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Iblis, posted 11-22-2009 11:01 PM Peg has replied
 Message 41 by Jazzns, posted 11-23-2009 11:54 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 30 of 83 (536363)
11-22-2009 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Iblis
11-22-2009 7:25 AM


Re: Bring out the scales!
i'll come back to you tomorrow...which is only a few minutes away now, so i'm off to bed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Iblis, posted 11-22-2009 7:25 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024