I shall endeavor here to show why I do not date the Bible book of Daniel around the 2nd Century B.C. or later.
Probably the best reason is that Daniel was included in the Septuagint, or “LXX,” a Greek translation of the Scriptures begun around the second century B.C. * (The International Critical Commentary–A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel,* by James A. Montgomery, p. 3.)
Besides, Daniel appears widely throughout the text of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were unknown to Dr. James Moffatt, who placed Daniel around 200 B. C. in the foreword to his own Bible translation. I can safely assume he knew the LXX so he should certainly have known better that to say that. (See *The Biblical Archaeological Reader, * edited by Edward F. Campbell, Jr., and David Noel Freedman, Vol. III, 1970, p. 242.)
The point of the above two statements is that Daniel was already well-known by the time the LXX was begun and when the scrolls discovered at Qumran were written.
There is another point to poinder. Daniel mentions Belshazzar as king of Babylon at the time of its fall, whereas “secular” historical accounts–such as Berossus, Xenophon, and Herodotus–mention only Nabonidus, and not Belshazzar. However, in more recent times, cuneiform inscriptions have been discovered, that tell that Belshazzar was Nabonidus’ son, that he served as coregent for a while and in the absence of his father he was ruling in Babylon at the time the Persians invaded. It is likely for this reason that Belshazzar offered Daniel the position of third ruler of the kingdom–rather than second, which was his own position.
Thus one commentator wrote:
“The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom.” Nabonidus and Belshazzar (by Yale Professor H. P. Dougherty), p. 200.
Aside: I also remember the seeing picture of “Belshazzar” James G. Blaine, at a dinner at the high-tone New York restaurant Delmonico’s with some industry fat-cats, at appeared in at least one U. S. newspaper before the 1884 Presidential election. The phrase “MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN” appears on the wall behind “Belshazzar” Blaine; of course, he lost the election. 
Daniel probably wasn’t translated into Greek until about 100 BCE, though, so if it really was written in 200 BCE, that’s enough time for it to get popular enough for translation.
It’s been a decade and a half since my OT class in college, so forgive my ignorance or if I’m misremembering. But doesn’t the book of Daniel pretty much seem to be in two parts? I recall the first half being a narrative of Daniel in Babylon (getting thrown in the lion’s den; his friends tossed in the furnace, etc) and the second half being the apocolyptic visions leading up to the events in the second century BCE. Is it at all possible that the first part of Daniel was written much earlier, but the second half written at the time of the Maccabees?
I do remember writing an essay defending the earlier date for the authorship of Daniel, upon which my professor scribed, “Nice try.” But I think he gave it a decent grade, even though he was clearly unconvinced.
What was the question?
Sorry, but I prefer date sentient beings who appear to be humanoid, not walking, talking books. I am afraid the Book of Daniel will have to find someone else to spend time with this Saturday night.
That is so clever I forgot to scoff.
I’m starting this thread in response to an exchange with dougie_monty in this thread in which the subject of the dating of Daniel came up and I offered to explain why Daniel is easily and uncontroversially dated to the 2nd century BCE by contemporary Biblical scholars (who are to be distinguished from religious conservatives and traditionalists who date Daniel according to predisposed religious convictions rather than empirical methodology).
So here goes. Daniel (with the exception of the first few chapters which may date to the 3rd century) was written during the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus and the Seleucid Empire between 167-164 BCE. It is set during the Babylonian captivity but historians do not believe it could have been written then for a number of reasons. Those reasons include the following:
[ul][li]Daniel contains a number of historical inaccuracies regarding Baylonian history- the era during which it is alleged by traditionalists to have been written. These include such things as the erroneous belief that Nebuchadnezzar had a son named Belshazzar, that this Belshazzar was the last king of Babylon during the Jewish captivity, that Babylon under Belshazzar fell to Darius and that Darius was a Mede. Every single one of those points is wrong. There were four kings of Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel thinks there was only one, and the one he names never existed. Nebuchadnezzar did not have a son named Belshazzar and no one by that name was ever king of Babylon. The guy who was king when Babylon fell was named Nabonidus and he was not related to Nebuchadnezzar. Interestingly, Naboninus had a son named Belshazzar but that son was never king and he died before his father did. [/li]
Daniel is also wrong about both the name and nationality of the person who conquered Babylon (and liberated the Jews from captivity…something which a contemporary Jew should not have gotten confused about). Babylon was not conquered by “Darius the Mede,” but by Cyrus, who was Persian. There was no such person as Darius the Mede and (contrary to Daniel, who was evidently trying to backfill failed prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah) Babylon was never conquered by the Medes.
Cyrus had a grandson named Darius who eventually became king, but he, like his grandfather, was a Persian, not a Mede. Daniel also says that “Darius the Mede” was the son of Xerxes, but Xerxes was actually the son of Darius, not his father.
It is quite implausible that any Jewish person who survived the entire exile would get this many things wrong but would be entirely to be expected by anyone who was writing historical fiction several centuries later.
[li]The Book of Daniel contains a number of historical anochronisms which date it well after the Exile and into the Hellenistic period. It uses Greek words and references a Greek musical instrument which didn’t exist until the 2nd century. it contains Aramaic dialect which dates well after the exilic period. It contains an anachronistic use of the word “Chaldean” to refer to astrologers. That word was only an ethnic indicator during the era of the exile and only came to be used for astrologers much later. Daniel contains post-exilic eschatological ideas about such things as a resurrection and judgement of the dead. Daniel also references the book of Jeremiah as a “sacred book” (i.e. as scripture) but Jeremiah would have been a contemporary of Daniel and the Book of Jeremiah did not become part of Jewish Canon until c. 200 CE.[/li]
[li]Daniel is very accurate about the Greek period and makes historically sound “predictions” regarding Alexander’s conquest and subsequent dynasties up to and including the reign of Antiochus, his installation of a statue of Zeus in the Temple (167 BCE) and the revolt against him. Once Daniel gets past 164 BCE, though, the predictions all fail. Daniel predicted that Antiochus would be killed in Palestine by a Ptolemaic king from the south and then the end of the world would. Antiochus died not in Ralestine, but in Persia, not by a king from the south but by an illness. Obviously, the world never ended either.[/ul][/li]
This is a clear indication that Daniel was written after the installation of the 'abomination" in the Temple (167 BCE) but before the death of Antiochus (164 BCE). As I said in the other thread, this makes Daniel one of the most datable books in the Bible.
I open the floor to rebuttals.
Nicely laid out argument. Congrats.
Could have done without the “resolved” in the title, though.
He beat ya to it, Dio,
Point taken about the title. I was just trying to make it sound like a debate title. No belligerance or smugness was intended.
This debate is a spin-off from a GQ discussion about differing versions of the Bible. The OP and I agreed to take the topic to a separate debate thread and it seems we’ve gotten our wires crossed and started redundant threads. If the OP started his own thread in this forum by mistake, may I suggest that it be merged with my own thread in GD? I think that would clean up everything nicely.
What Captain Amazing said. The first version of the LXX only included the Torah and other books were gradually added until the 1st Century BCE. So the evntual inclusion of Daniel into the Septaugint is not exactly startling unless you have a manuscript or an attestation that it was in there before 167 BCE (anything after the first six chapters, that is).
So what? The Qumran library dates from between the 1st century BCE and the first Century CE. Why would a first century manuscript of Daniel be evidence for a ore-2nd century daye of authorship?
Cite? There is no evidence for this whatsover. When the Septuagint was begun, it only included the Torah.
And the Qumran scrolls are 1st century BCE at best. How does that help you?
Daniel does not say that Belshazzar was the son of Nabodinus or a co-regent of Nabodinus. Daniel says that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar (WRONG) and shows no awareness of Nabodinus at all. The book also claims that Belshazzar immediately succeeded Nebuchadnezzar but the fact is that there were four kings in between Nebuchadnezzar and any sort of co-regency by the son of Nabodinus.
Aside: I also remember the seeing picture of “Belshazzar” James G. Blaine, at a dinner at the high-tone New York restaurant Delmonico’s with some industry fat-cats, at appeared in at least one U. S. newspaper before the 1884 Presidential election. The phrase “MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN” appears on the wall behind “Belshazzar” Blaine; of course, he lost the election.
[/QUOTE]
Funny you should mention the writing on the wall story because it’s a story that provides a direct contradiction (more than one actually) with the very Cuneiform inscriptions you mentioned earlier. They say that Belshazzar was killed 4 months after the capture of Babylon while Daniel says that Belshazzar was killed “that very night.” (Dan. 5:30)
Daniel is also wrong about who captured Babylon. he claimed it was “Darius the Mede,” but no such person ever existed. Babylon was taken by Cyrus the Persian. Cyrus had a grandson named Darius who eventually became King, but he was also a Persian, did not conquer Nabodinus and was not “62 years of age” at teh time as Daniel claims. Daniel also says that Darius’ father was Xerxes, but Xerxes was Darius’ son, not his father.
Why would a pious Jew living in the Babylonian court throught the exile not know who the kings were and not know who his own liberators were?
I merged the two threads started separately by dougie_monty and DtC.
Sorry if this one reads a bit screwy.
“Screwy” is hardly the word! “Mendacious” or “libelous” would fit better!
I had specifically titled the thread I started for a purpose. Juxtaposing your title with my name (as I saw in the Search Results) is a blatant example of putting words in my mouth, and I resent it.
I refuse to be quoted with a statement originating with the Higher Critics. Mr. Moderator, if you want to sustain this thread, I want my name removed from it. “Daniel written about 200 B. C.”? I said nothing of the sort. :mad:
The “Resolved: The Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd Century BCE” title was the title of the thread started by Diogenes the Cynic, not knowing that you also had started one. His OP was post 7 in this thread. When Samclem combined them, his title got glommed onto your thread.
So basically, you have two seperate documents with different points of view combined by a third person. Sounds like the Book of Daniel. 
Well, you know what they say. One man’s Mede is another man’s Persian.
Heh heh, bravo Bren!
Yes. Everything after chapter 6 is generally believed to have been added onto a previously existing narrative about Daniel.
And a simple e-mail to the Mods would have gotten a quicker reaction than your overemotional post that none of us saw until someone else actually did report it.
We try to read all the threads, but it takes a while. Having tossed the merged threads to GD, it is unlikely that Sam would seen have seen this thread again and when I last visited it, it was still a reasonably calm discussion of the issues that did not encourage me to re-visit it right away looking for problems.
The new title does not have the flash that you sought, but it does indicate the actual content of the thread.
For those interested, Dougie’s title was ‘Daniel in the Critics’ Den: Dating the Book of Daniel’. while Dio’s title was Resolved: the Book of Daniel was written in the 2d century B.C.E..
[ /Moderator Mode ]
Fair enough.
Fine. The next time something like this happens I will send an e-mail as you suggest. (Reporting the thread would not be my recourse as there was no specific posting I could refer to.)