When was the Book of Daniel written?

Yeah, forcing the crucifixion into 36 AD helps to highlight another problem with trying to use the math this way; which is that someone might actually check out what Daniel really says about the person expected to show up and represent himself as God during the last week If that's a bit too nebulous for you, here's the commentary by St. John the Divine In case someone thinks I'm cheating, here's Daniel again, outright telling us what he means The last half of a "week". 42 months. 1290 days. All fancy ways of saying three and a half years, the traditional length assigned to the ministry of Jesus. And what it's saying, isn't very pretty.Spoooky ...Edited by Iblis, : quote

in my first post i wrote that 36ce was the year of the messiahs appearance, but it should have been 29 CE29CE was the year Jesus was baptized and began his ministry.
And when Daniels 69/70 weeks prophecy is calculated, 29CE is the year.69weeks of years would amount to 69 times 7 years, or 483 years.When counting forward from 455BCE, 483 years takes us to the year 29CE

While 29 CE is possible it's far from certain.However it does seem certain that your 455 BCE start date is wrong. The actual evidence points to the decree in question being issued in 445 BC, which does not fit your calculation as we have already discussed. (And let us note that you abandoned the discussion without dealing with the evidence).

i dont need to use the septuagint as evidence for Daniels early writership...Daniel was not written in Koine Greek for a start, it was written in Hebrew therefore the septuagint version (written in greek) has no bearing on Daniels timingunfortunately, the only reason why scholars put its writing time at 167bc is because they suppose that its prophecies about the disgusting thing was referring to Antiochus IV Epiphanes who desecrated and looted the Jerusalems Temple around that time.they were way off the mark on that one....70CE was when the end came for the temple, not 167bc....but lets ignore the temples real destruction because there is no such thing as prophecy, right.

quote:

---

i dont need to use the septuagint as evidence for Daniels early writership...Daniel was not written in Koine Greek for a start, it was written in Hebrew therefore the septuagint version (written in greek) has no bearing on Daniels timing

---

Well, if you don't believe your own arguments are even relevant, why use them at all ?

quote:

---

unfortunately, the only reason why scholars put its writing time at 167bc is because they suppose that its prophecies about the disgusting thing was referring to Antiochus IV Epiphanes who desecrated and looted the Jerusalems Temple around that time.

---

You're wrong there. Not only are you ignoring most of the evidence relating Antiochus to the content of the prophecy, that's not even a mjor reason why Daniel is dated to that time.Significant reasons are:Failure in the prophecies (although accurately describing a lot of events, Daniel is wrong about the death of Antiochus).The lack of earlier references to either Daniel the man or the book. Ezekiel mentions a "Daniel", but not in terms that allow us even to identify the person he refers to as a contemporary of his (in fact it is more likely someone seen as belonging to the distant past). None of the other books of the Bible written between the two proposed dates mention Daniel at all, nor is Daniel mentioned in Sirach.Anachronisms, errors and omissions in the text relating to the supposed time of writing. (e.g. the failure to mention Nabonidus at all is a significant omission).

quote:

---

they were way off the mark on that one....70CE was when the end came for the temple, not 167bc....but lets ignore the temples real destruction because there is no such thing as prophecy, right.

---

As you know there is far more to the prophecy than that - and the 70 CE date does not fit at all. It doesn't even fit with YOUR interpretation of the 70 weeks. (Hint: 26 + 7 = 33).

the evidence is that Nabonidus was ruling Babylon in a legal manner. If he held no claim to the throne, then how could he have taken rulership?
The only way a non-blood relation could legally take the throne, was if he was married to a blood relation. You seem to be assuming that Neb only had 1 daughter, why is that?Neriglissar was the son-in-law of Nebuchadrezzar II. If he was a son-in-law it meant that he was married to one of Nebs daughters. And as a son in law, he was not a blood relation, yet he could rule the throne.You seem to think that Nabo could not have been married to one of Nebs daughters. And yet we know that Neriglissar was married to one and becaues of that he was able to legally rule. Neriglissar was not of Nebs bloodline. He was a 'son-in-law' this means he was married to one of nebs daughers. This also makes his son, Labashi-Marduk, a non blood relative, yes?so how did this young boy get put on the throne of babylon if he was not a blood relation??? I dont see any problem with this. Daniel was writing an account after it happend and described the events. Bel died in one night and the kingdom was then ruled by Darius...whats incorrect about that? That kings list you've provided is for the Persians...the Darius Daniel is mentioning is not a Persian....he is a Mede.Again, Daniel is not wrong.I will reply to your basic inaccuracies in a new post, this one is getting too long.

it wasnt really my argument

quote:

---

It wasnt really my argument

---

So you copied an argument, believing it to be worthless in the hope of convincing the readers ? Why would you do that ?

actually, his statement is quite relevent to this discussion.If he wrote in the first century CE that "No books have been added to the sacred writings since the days of Artaxerxes" then this is fairly good evidence that the book of Daniel was already among the sacred writings and that "since the days of Artaxerxes" no new books had been added.And think about it....there were many books that were written that never made it into the bible canon...the Apocrypha for instance. Ask why the jews did not make those books a part of the sacred writings. the scribes did combine themIt wasnt until the writings were made into books that they became separarte writings...ie 1 kings and 2nd kings or 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicals.

you really do twist words aroundIt was Iblis who started the septuagint argument off is what i meant. My argument is and was and still is that "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."The argument went on with more skeptisism such as "but the septuagint was only the Torah originally"and"no one knows what other books may have been translated"We can go on and on like that, but in the end its not man who authorises the writings of God which is why the council of Jamnia is really a side point.
Daniel was written back in the 5th century BCE and according to the Jews, no books were added to the canon after the days of Artaxerxes... So Daniel which is in the canon must have been in there before the days of Artaxerxes.

the date is not the issue hereI was showing Iblis that the Greek Septuagint translation did not only contain the Torah (Gen,Ex,Deut,Num,Lev) as he suggests.The fragments of Greek Septuagint found among the dead sea scrolls prove that there were other books (the 12 prophets) that had also been translated.

quote:

---

you really do twist words around

---

You're really not in a position to make that accusation.For instance your assertion in Message 54
Has the problem that you have not quoted Josephus as saying any such thing.Or in Message 56
Iblis stated that the original translation effort included only the Torah (msg=27), not that no other books were included later. But your argument deals with a later situation, allowing plenty of time for further translations to be made. What is more, this is not the first time you have made this misrepresentation, which I pointed out in Message 36.

quote:

---

My argument is and was and still is that "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."

---

Firstly, you already said that it wasn't really your argument (Message 52)
Secondly your argument about canonisation is meant to establish an early date for Daniel - and it is based on the Septuagint. Yet in Message 49 you said: This is the point, I am trying to make. Put your brain in gear before writing. The greek translation of Daniel DOES have a bearing on the timing of Daniel since it must come afterwards. The only problem is that you have no valid argument for the date of the translation - nothing that indicates that the 3rd Century BC translation effort included anything more than the Torah, let alone that the choice of books to translate was determined by a canon.

Daniel was a writer for God, he wasnt a historian for Babylon. He had a purpose for his writing and it had nothing to do with Babylons posterity. However he does mention Neb as the builder of Babylon and of religious images. Dan 4:29At the end of twelve lunar months he happened to be walking upon the royal palace of Babylon. 30The king was answering and saying: Is not this Babylon the Great, that I myself have built for the royal house with the strength of my might and for the dignity of my majesty?

​

Dan3:1 "Neb‧u‧chad‧nez′zar the king made an image of gold, the height of which was sixty cubits [and] the breadth of which was six cubits."Archaeologists have found evidence that neb got people more involved in nationalistic and religious practices.
Daniel shows that there is a difference between Babylonian and Medo-Persian laws. Under Babylonian law Daniel says he was thrown into a fiery furnace for refusing to obey the king’s command. Archaeologists have found an actual letter from ancient Babylon that specifically mentions this form of punishment.Later under the Medes, Daniel was thrown into a pit of lions for refusing to obey a law. As the Medes viewed fire as sacred, they used the lion pit as a form of punishment.Daniel shows that Nebuchadnezzar could enact and change laws when it suited him, but Darius could not change even the laws he had created. Historian John C.Whitcomb Another interesting detail that Daniel gives is that women were present at Belshazzars banquet. They were the secondary wives and his concubines. Archaeology supports this babylonian custom which is very unusual because in many other nations, wives and concubines would not join men for such feasts. In fact, it was something quite objectionable to Jews and Greeks in the Maccabean era. This point really highlights why a writer from the maccabean period would write such a strange thing...Jewish men would not even walk with thier wives in public let alone sit and eat at a public feast with them. Whats even more intersting is that the earliest versions of the greek septuagint omit this line about the women at the feast. We know about them though because the greek septuagint was not the only copy of the Hebrew scriptures made.i'll get back to the rest of you post tomorrow...,im off to bed now.Edited by Peg, : darius could 'not' change laws - my error ammended

you forgot about the dead sea scrolls which included the 12 prophets as part of the greek septuagint translationi think that is hard physical evidence that the greek septuagint was more then just the Torah....you seem to keep ignoring that fact though.

quote:

---

you forgot about the dead sea scrolls which included the 12 prophets as part of the greek septuagint translation

---

No, I did not. Even the very earliest scrolls in the collection (circa 150 BCE) are too late to be of any use to your argument. Even worse for you I can find no evidence of Greek copies of Daniel in the DSS.

quote:

---

i think that is hard physical evidence that the greek septuagint was more then just the Torah....you seem to keep ignoring that fact though.

---

Again, Iblis only stated that the original translation effort in the 3rd Century BC was restricted to the Torah. To have "hard physical evidence" that Daniel was translated into Greek in the 3rd Century BCE you would need to have Greek translations of Daniel from the 3rd Century BCE. However the DSS includes nothing so early, and apparently no Greek translations of Daniel.How is the mere existence of a manuscript in Hebrew and/or Aramaic evidence of a Greek translation of the same work 100 years earlier ?As I said, learn to put your brain in gear before you start writing. Then you won't make so many hideous mistakes.