"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Yeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote

"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
[snip]

Date of Composition:
The author's lack of information about fifth century Babylon rules out a
fifth century date of composition.

Or simply record, i.e. the oral traditions concerning Daniel were written
down later from stories Daniel had given earlier.

Jesus considered Daniel an actual person and Daniel's prophecies
valid, though there is no accounting for distortions a scribe introduced.

In addition, there is a peculiar quirk in Daniel that we will get to
shortly.

By attributing it to a scribe who collected the oral traditions concerning
Daniel, you are admitting that it was written at a later date. Evidence
suggests that later date to be mid second century b.c.e., which would put
its composition after many of the events which it purports to prophecise.

The book of Daniel is written partly in the first person, and the
composition is purported to be contemporary with the events narrated. If
the book is taken as a unity, then the portion
written in the third person would be dated at the same time. It would
then be expected that the author would know contemporary history. But
that is not the case.

Dan 1:1, dates Nebuchadnezzar siege of Jerusalem in the third
year of King Jehoiakim. However, Scholars agree that the seize could not
have been earlier than the eleventh year of the
reign of Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:36).

Wrong siege: Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem three times, once against
Jehoiakim [2Ki 24:1-7], making him a vassal; then
later against Jehoiakin [2ki 24:8-17], at which time he carried away the
implements of the temple; and again against Zedekiah [25:1 ff.], at which
time he destroyed the temple.

Then again, the first verse of Daniel has the wrong king--
Nebuchadnezzar took the vessels from Jehoichin, not Jehoiakim,
which could be either an author error or a scribes error.

Also, 2Ki 23:26, in reference to Jeoiakim, not Jehoiakin, could
also be "after three years" or "in his third year," which would agree with
Daniel on the numbers, but not on the facts, i.e. right numbers, but wrong
incident.

However you look at it, the author of Daniel got the facts wrong.

And contrary to Dan 1:2, Jehoiakim died in Jerusalem. It was
his son Jehoiachim whom Nebuchadnezzar took to Babylon (II
Kings 24:12.)

Which goes back to the first error, i.e. the wrong king is listed, either
by author error, or scribal error, probably the later.

More likely, a scribe, assembling Daniel's prophecies into a collection,
was working without documents in hand, and may have compressed events
concerning three kings into one king, confusing the chronology of one king
with the events of another
king, and the ultimate demise of Jerusalem which happened during the reign
of yet another king.

Note that none of this has any effect on the prophecies per se.

Again, you admit to errors in the book. How can you depend upon a books
prophecies, when it is historically inaccurate?

One of the main characters in the story is King Belshazzar. According to
verse 5:2, Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar.

Not necessarily, for the same Hebrew and Greek words for "son" can also
mean "grandson," or simply "descendant," as
Jesus is called "son of David," though He is obviously several
steps (14 actually) removed.

In fact, it is pretty much assumed in the Christian world that Belshazzar
was a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar.

But that cannot be. The succession runs:

Nabopolassar 626-605
Nebuchadnezzar 605-562
Amel-Marduk 562-559
Neriglissar 559-555
Labishi-Marduk 556
Nabonidus 556-539

Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, and became co-regent
with him. The first four names on the list are Caldean kings
who ruled over Babylon. Nabonidus was a Babylonian and came to power in a
palace
revolt. So Belshazzar was not even descended from Nebuchadnezzar.

You assume too much:

From Wikipedia:
***********************
Nabonidus, whose relationship with the previous Chaldean
Kings of Babylon is unclear, came to the throne in 556 BC by
overthrowing the youthful king Labashi-Marduk. It is possible that he
substantiated his claim to the throne by his marriage to Nitocris, who was
the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar and the widow of Nergal-sharezer. In 549 BC
he left Babylon to live
at Tayma, a rich oasis city in Arabia, leaving his son Belshazzar behind
to rule the empire in his stead.
***********************

Note that, if Nabonidus were the legal in-law of Nebuchadnezzar
himself, then he would indeed be his "son," exactly as the book states.

Given that situations such as this were common in ancient times,
it is a mistake to claim Daniel "is in error," when, in fact, bloodlines
to a throne can be quite convoluted.

You are depending upon a hypothetical marriage of Nebonidus to a daughter of
Nebuchadnezzar. The theory was invented as an attempt to harmonize the
Book of Daniel with history. There is no evidence to support such a
marriage. Nibonidus, a Babylonian, would have been more interested in
legitimizing his kingship through decent from a Babylonian dynasty, rather
than from the Chaldean dynastry which he had just overthrown.

Nebonidus did not leave his son Belshazzar behind to rule as your source
suggests. It has been established that Nebonidus and Belshazzar were
co-regents. Nebonidus was still king when Babylon fell to Cyrus. The book
of Daniel gives no hint that Belshazzar was not the sole monarch.

Next, who was Darius the Mede? You may be thinking of the
Darius who signed the decree permitting the Israelites to return
home,

No, that would be Darius II

Darius I, Darius II, and Darius III were all Persians and came after Cyrus,
not before him.

but that Darius was a Persian, not a Mede.

Obviously.

But most people who Daniel wouldn't make that assumption in the
first place.

Most people who read the Bible would not know if Darius was a Babylonian,
Median, or Persian. The author of Daniel didn't know either.

According to Dan 5:29-30 Darius the Mede came to power when King
Belshazzar was killed. However, the Median empire
was overthrown by the Persian King Cyrus seventeen years before
Belshazzar's dearth. It was Cyrus himself who overthrew
Babylon, with Darius the Persian coming after Cyrus.

Hmm.

Cyrus had a good habit of quickly making friends and promoting
people to high rank after he conquered them. "Darius the Mede" was
probably a general of the Median empire whom Cyrus set over Babylon.

It is also possible that there is any connection between "Darius
the Mede" and Darius I of Persia. However, given the situation
with the pseudo-Smerdis who quickly ascended and fell from power, it IS
possible that Darius the Mede and Darius I are one
and the same.

Again, you are argueing from silence. There has been numerous attempts to
reconcile "Darius the Mede" with history. None of them have been found
satisfactory.

In Chapter 6, Darius is described as "King", and has powers over local
governors (or Satraps). He is not a satrap himself. That rules out the
"Median General" theory. The author of Daniel somehow plants a Median king
in Babylon who rules before the Persian King Cyrus. Babylon was never under
Median rule.

Where are you getting your sloppy information from?

History.

Now what about Daniel's prophecies?
In chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzar has a dream which Daniel interprets. The
interpretation tells about four kingdoms which
will rule the world before they are replaced by the heavenly kingdom
which will stand forever (Dan 2:37-45.)

Now we get into the real problem, which is the interpretation of prophecy.

As per Ezekiel et al., prophecy occurs in iterations, past events
become prologue to future events, as Ezekiel makes statement
like "there is an end; there is the end."

It might look like you are reading history, and the historical perspective
is important, but what the prophet is really referring
to is the future.

Going on...

In chapter 7 Daniel himself has a vision of four beasts, and ends
with the coming of "the son of man".

Which, in figure, was Judas Maccabees, fulfilling the role that Christ
will later fulfill.

It is nice to see that you recognize the connection between the prophecies
and the Maccabean revolt. It supports the arguement that the book was
written in the mid second century b.c.e. which is when the Maccabean revolt
took place.

An Angel interpret the beasts as being four kingdoms which will rule
until the coming of the Kingdom of God (Dan 7:27.)

Not necessarily, since Daniel saw all four kingdoms existing at once, not
in succession, which is an anachronism, not an error.

Some works of fiction deliberately use anachronisms, but in all other cases,
an "anachronism" is an error.

In Daniel 12:4 an Angel tells Daniel to "seal up the book" until "the
end time."

And that has what to do with what?

We still haven't arrived at "the end of time" yet, have we?

Evidently somebody in the second century b.c.e. thought they were, thus the
Book of Daniel was published. That isn't unusual. Many early Christians
believed that they were living in the "end time", and even today numerous
Christians believe that this is the "end time".

The book suddenly appears in the middle of the second century
b.c.e.

Maybe, but Jesus validated Daniel, so who cares?

That is slippery ground you are standing on. Usually, the book of Daniel is
used as proof of the messiahship of Jesus. If you now start using Jesus as
validation of Daniel, then you are jarpardizing the position of Jesus. You
can't have it both ways.

The is no evidence of the books existence before then. The implication
is the writer viewed the middle of the second
century b.c.e. as "the end time."

Which, from his perspective, WAS "an" end-time, but not "the" end-time, as
is typical of the prophets.

The Book of Daniel does not make a distinction between "an" end-time, and
"the" end-time. That is merely an attempt to harmonize the the book with
history.

The four kingdoms should therefore be explained from a second century
b.c.e. viewpoint. In which case the four kingdoms have
to be identified as Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece.

Well, you just slammed two different prophecies together, but let's go
with it anyway.

To Daniel, the four beasts would be Medo-Persia, the Macedonians under
Alexander, followed by "diadoche," (four satrapys), which gave way to the
Seleucids of the north and the
Ptolemys of Egypt.

Babylon wasn't included in this one--Daniel was seeing what was
about to replace it.

The he-goat of the second vision is Alexander, and the "king of the
south" and the "king of the north" in the fourth vision are the
Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties of Egypt and Syria, while the
boasting horn of the first vision, the blasphemous little horn of
the second, the "prince who shall come" of the third, and the furious
"king of the north" of the fourth vision all typify Antiochus
Epiphanes, who persecuted the Jews from 168 onward and
sought to destroy Judaism in its ancestral home.

Yea, and...?

The author knows about "the abomination that makes
desolate" (1 Macc 1:54) (Dan 11:31, 12:11), so we may assume that the
setting up of the altar had already taken place. But he gives
conflicting times on when it will be removed (1 Macc 41-51.)

Umm, no you are confusing various statements about various
aspects of the prophecy.

This places the date of composition between 167 and 164 b.c.e.

Or it is a prophecy and Daniel knew about these things in advance.

You can't prove one or the other.

You yourself said, "the oral traditions concerning Daniel were written down
later from stories Daniel had given earlier." It is the date at which they
were written down that is important. An oral tradition can always be
modified to accord with history. As a result, you can't prove that any of
the prophecies came from Daniel, or are even in the form which Daniel made
them. From your admission, it is possible that they came from a second
century b.c.e. scribe who was recording past events as prophecy.

Taking this date of composition we see that chapter 11:22-45
gives an account of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (the "King of the
North"), including the persecutions and the revolt of Judas.

And...?

But in verses 11:40-45, "the end time", Antiochus invades Egypt (the
"King of the South") for a third time and dies there. Then
at Dan 12:1 the angel Michael appears and the Kingdom of God
is established.

If you think Daniel was actually talking about history, and not the
future.

See, you haven't even scratched the surface: I can show you TONS of
anachronisms in Daniel.

That doesn't mean the book is wrong.

It just means you are operating under an assumption.

You are contradicting yourself. If the Book of Daniel contains "TONS of
anachronisms", then by your own admission it is wrong. Certainly a book
containing that many errors cannot be relied upon.

However, Antiochus did not invade Egypt for a third time. Instead he died
in the east.

Ah, no, he did neither.

Antiochus died when he "turned his face against" Rome, enroute to
repelling their invasion, which forced him to break off his siege
of Israel.

(Some say he died in battle, but more likely he was poisoned by
his own troops, and died on his way back to Syria.)

Which is an admission that he did not make a third invasion of Egypt as the
book says.

It is at verse 11:40 therefore that history passes into prophecy, and
this would be the time the book was written.

You say, but you haven't really proved anything.

Just speculated a lot, and badly at that.

I have your own admission, the book could have been composed by a scribe,
rather than by Daniel. Also by your own admission the book contains
numerous errors, which you call "anachronisms". And you were not able to
defend the book without making numerous speculations and assumptions such as
to the identity of Darius the Mede, or the relationship between Belshazzar
and Nebuchadnezzar.

Your own admissions are enough to show the questionability of the book.

--Wax

"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:44945A31.3798D675@Nothing_But_The.Truth...

Weatherwax wrote:

"Melchizedek" <Melchizedek@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:MpKkg.9165$y%3.5293@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

Daniel Commentary Bible Study
in MediaPlayer (WMV Video)

by Dr. Chuck Missler

The Book of Daniel contains the most amazing prophecies of
the Bible, and is one of the most authenticated books of the
Old Testament. The numerous detailed prophecies of the
period of Gentile dominion make this one of the most important
foundational studies for anyone who takes the Bible seriously.

Date of Composition:
The author's lack of information about fifth century Babylon rules out a
fifth century date of composition. The book of Daniel is written partly in
the first person, and the composition is purported to be contemporary with
the events narrated. If the book is taken as a unity, then the portion
written in the third person would be dated at the same time. It would then
be expected that the author would know contemporary history. But that is
not the case.

Dan 1:1, dates Nebuchadnezzar siege of Jerusalem in the third year of King
Jehoiakim. However, Scholars agree that the seize could not have been
earlier than the eleventh year of the reign of Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:36).
And contrary to Dan 1:2, Jehoiakim died in Jerusalem. It was his son
Jehoiachim whom Nebuchadnezzar took to Babylon (II Kings 24:12.)

One of the main characters in the story is King Belshazzar. According to
verse 5:2, Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar. But that cannot be.
The succession runs:

Nabopolassar 626-605
Nebuchadnezzar 605-562
Amel-Marduk 562-559
Neriglissar 559-555
Labishi-Marduk 556
Nabonidus 556-539

Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, and became co-regent with him. The
first four names on the list are Caldean kings who ruled over Babylon.
Nabonidus was a Babylonian and came to power in a palace revolt. So
Belshazzar was not even descended from Nebuchadnezzar.

Next, who was Darius the Mede? You may be thinking of the Darius who
signed the decree permitting the Israelites to return home, but that Darius
was a Persian, not a Mede.

According to Dan 5:29-30 Darius the Mede came to power when King Belshazzar
was killed. However, the Median empire was overthrown by the Persian King
Cyrus seventeen years before Belshazzar's dearth. It was Cyrus himself who
overthrew Babylon, with Darius the Persian coming after Cyrus.

Now what about Daniel's prophecies?
In chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzar has a dream which Daniel interprets. The
interpretation tells about four kingdoms which will rule the world before
they are replaced by the heavenly kingdom which will stand forever (Dan
2:37-45.) In chapter 7 Daniel himself has a vision of four beasts, and ends
with the coming of "the son of man". An Angel interpret the beasts as being
four kingdoms which will rule until the coming of the Kingdom of God (Dan
7:27.)

In Daniel 12:4 an Angel tells Daniel to "seal up the book" until "the end
time." The book suddenly appears in the middle of the second century
b.c.e. The is no evidence of the books existence before then. The
implication is the writer viewed the middle of the second century b.c.e. as
"the end time." The four kingdoms should therefore be explained from a
second century b.c.e. viewpoint. In which case the four kingdoms have to
be identified as Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece.

The he-goat of the second vision is Alexander, and the "king of the south"
and the "king of the north" in the fourth vision are the Ptolemaic and
Seleucid dynasties of Egypt and Syria, while the boasting horn of the first
vision, the blasphemous little horn of the second, the "prince who shall
come" of the third, and the furious "king of the north" of the fourth vision
all typify Antiochus Epiphanes, who persecuted the Jews from 168 onward and
sought to destroy Judaism in its ancestral home.

The author knows about "the abomination that makes desolate" (1 Macc 1:54)
(Dan 11:31, 12:11), so we may assume that the setting up of the altar had
already taken place. But he gives conflicting times on when it will be
removed (1 Macc 41-51.) This places the date of composition between 167
and 164 b.c.e.

Taking this date of composition we see that chapter 11:22-45 gives an
account of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (the "King of the North"),
including the persecutions and the revolt of Judas.

But in verses 11:40-45, "the end time", Antiochus invades Egypt (the "King
of the South") for a third time and dies there. Then at Dan 12:1 the
angel Michael appears and the Kingdom of God is established.

However, Antiochus did not invade Egypt for a third time. Instead he died
in the east. It is at verse 11:40 therefore that history passes into
prophecy, and this would be the time the book was written.

--Wax\

===>Excellent summary of the facts, Wax. Hopefully it is not wasted on
too many readers.
BTW, the official Jewish division of the "Old Testament" (TANAKH) books has a
special section for PROPHETS (NEVI'IM), but it DOES NOT include
"DANIEL".
"DANIEL" is simply placed in the collection of STORIES or "WRITINGS"
(KETHUVIM).
Only the Christians consider it a book of prophecy, mainly because due to
its obscure statements and bizarre imagery, it can be twisted to say whatever
Christians wish it to have said. -- L.

--- Daniel is in the LXX (validates its writing period)