Re: Daniel

From: Allen Roy (
Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 20:02:15 EDT

  • Next message: Terry M. Gray: "List Policy"

    From: "Shuan Rose" <>
    > from this Web site
    > Hese are the reasons why Daniel has been given a Maccabean date. Feel free
    > to dispute them if you want. I am content to let the list decide.
    > The Dating of the Book of Daniel.
    > Although it does not actually claim to have been written in the sixth
    > century BCE, the Book of Daniel gives clear internal dates such as "the
    > third year of the reign of king Jehoiakim," (1:1), that is, 606 BCE); "the
    > second year of the reign of king Nebuchadnezzar, " (2:1), that is, 603
    > "the first year of Darius," (9:1), that is 522 BCE); "in the third year of
    > Cyrus," (10:1), that is 547 or perhaps 536). Daniel and his associates are
    > portrayed as Jewish Exiles in Babylon during that period. However, several
    > internal inconsistencies give rise to certain questions and we are forced
    > ask whether these dates can be taken as the date of composition.
    > First, who was Belshazzar? The book of Daniel portrays him as the
    > king in the first year of whose reign Daniel has his dream of the four
    > beasts which come up out of the sea. (7:1-14) Belshazzar was said to have
    > been slain after he saw the writing on the wall, at which time Darius the
    > Mede supposedly took over the Babylonian kingdom (5:30)

    It used to be that there was no extra-biblical evidence of Belshazzer.
    However, archaeology had confirmed that he not only existed, but we know of
    his co-regency with his father Nabonitus. He was king of Babylon when
    Daniel was given some of his prophecies, while his Father, Nabonitus, was
    gone. The supposed problem is superficial.

    > Actually Belshazzar
    > was the son of the Babylonian king, Nabonidus, and he ruled in place of
    > father when Nabonidus went to live in Teima in the Arabian desert for
    > years (c. 552 - 545 BCE.)

    I pointed this out before. The term 'son' in the Bible can mean 'a
    descendent of' and not just the immediate progenity.

    > However, no evidence exists for the assassination of Belshazzar

    Who cares? One does not need extra-biblical evidence for it to be true.
    These 'scholars' seem to think that it can only be true if it comes from
    exta-biblical evidence.

    > and it is known from conclusive extra-Biblical evidence that
    > in fact Cyrus of Persia took the Babylonian crown from Nabonidus in 539.

    Yes indeed. Nabonidus was not in Babylon, Belshazzar was. After Babylon
    was destroyed and Darius was set up to rule the place, Cyrus went on over
    and took care of Nabonidus. Belshazzar was co-ruller with Nabonidus. Both
    had to be taken before Cyrus had full claim over Babylon.

    > Darius was the second successor to Cyrus after Cambyses and he (Darius)
    > ascended the Persian throne in 522 BCE. How could the author of the Book
    > Daniel make such an error if he lived and wrote at the time indicated?

    Darius was first set up as ruler of Babylon, not ruler of the Persions. It
    was not until later that he became ruler of the Persian throne. The error
    is only in the eyes of these 'scholars.'

    > The author of the Book of Daniel seems to place the rule of Cyrus after
    > of Darius, again an inexplicable error for an author contemporary with
    > events.

    Just because Darius was set up as ruler of babylon, that does not mean that
    he was ruler above or before Cyrus in the Persian empire. Babylon did not
    become the captial of the Persian empire. it became merely another conqured
    city that needed a king in it -- ergo-- Darius king of Babylon.

    > Furthermore he makes no mention of the fact that it was the Edict of
    > Cyrus of 538 BCE. which finally allowed the Hebrews to return to Israel.
    > This is a crucial event in the history of the religion of Israel and would
    > surely warrant a mention from any author of that period.

    Maybe, maybe not. The book of Daniel is tied up with the prophecies give
    him, he was not concerned with the fulfillment of the prophecies of others.

    > Third it does not seem to be consistent with the facts that the
    > are presented as actively persecuting the Jews and attempting to destroy
    > their religion. In fact the Jews lived quite peacefully and had plenty of
    > opportunity to practice their faith in exile in Babylon. The synagogue and
    > the canonization of the Torah have their origins in Babylonian Judaism,
    > of course, does the Babylonian Talmud.

    The Jews were able to live quite peacefully because of what Daniel and his
    friends went through at first to gain it for them.

    > Fourth the predictions given by Daniel in the form of the interpretation
    > dreams and visions are remarkably accurate up to a point. ... This
    > king is "predicted" to cause the sacrifices of the Temple to cease
    > to set up a "desolating sacrilege" in the Temple (12:11) This can be non
    > other than Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid ruler of Babylon who
    > profaned the Jerusalem Temple in 167 BCE and set up a statue of Zeus with
    > whom he identified himself.

    These certain prophecies of Daniel 11 have zero, zip, nada to do with
    Antiochus Epiphanes. Any attempt to force the prophcies to fit his reign is
    doomed to fail. The fact is that the prophecies of Daniel 2, 7, 8 and 11-12
    all extend to "the day of the Lord" which lasts through today unto the
    coming end of the world. These prophecies find remarkable further
    fulfillment in the histories of pagan and papal Rome and the modern nations
    in an unbroken stream of historical events from the time of Daniel through
    today and beyond.

    This argument is based on utter ignorance of the Bible prophecies of Daniel.

    > Unfortunately, after these remarkably accurate
    > "predictions" Daniel goes awry at (11:40) when he predicts that this king
    > will be attacked by the king of the south etc. This does not accord with
    > historical event.

    As I said before, this section of Bible prophecy has zero, zip, nada to do
    with Antiochus Epiphanes, so one would not expect this to match anything in
    his reign.

    > Finally, and of considerable significance, is the fact that the Book of
    > Daniel was never grouped with the Hebrew Nevi'im (the Prophets) but has
    > always belonged to the Ketuvim (the writings). If the author had been
    > accepted to be a sixth century Jew of the Exile his work would have
    > pre-dated Ezra and Nehemiah and would certainly have been considered
    > authoritative enough to group it with the other prophets.

    Issaiah is prophetic, Jeremiah is prophetic, Ezekiel is prophetic, Daniel is
    prophetic, Hosa is prophectic, Joel is prophetic, etc.. These people are
    just blowing smoke.

    > What explanation could make sense of these inconsistencies?

    These inconsistencies only exist in the eye-of-the-beholders because of
    their utter ignorance of Bible prophecy.

    The most obvious
    > conclusion would be that the Book of Daniel was written at the time of the
    > profanation of the Temple by Antiochus IV, during the Maccabean revolt
    > that sacrilege provoked.

    This is the only possibility for people who haven't a clue when it comes to
    Bible prophecy.

    [a bunch of useless speculation snipped]


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 06 2002 - 21:00:57 EDT