[Serious] The Story

[Angrboda]

It's suspected that the book of Daniel, while pretending to recount visions of future events is actually written after the events for rhetorical reasons.  It was a common exercise in rhetoric on ancient schools to attempt to write or speak in the style of a great author or orator.  Many of Paul's epistles are thought to be forgeries.  It was also rather common for groups of people, schools, to write as if they were a legendary author (Laozi comes to mind).  It is a common literary device to write from a first-person perspective even when no such first-person perspective existed.  Given all the millions of religious accounts of visions and the mere fact that only a few or none of them can be true, the first-hand accounts of most of them are not true.  And we know that various other motives than telling the truth are strong in writing pertaining to religious topics.  The book of Deuteronomy is likely not what it appears to be given its miraculous "discovery" in an ancient temple after the fact.

Given the ubiquity of artful but false narratives in this genre, why do you think a naive reading of these statements is most likely to be true?

I prefer conservative interpretations as a starting point. So, my initial objection to your response was going to be something like occam's razor—there's no need to multiply authors unnecessarily, with each author more mysterious than the last. However, you mentioned something that I think is the important part of your argument: You said it was a common literary device to write from a first-person perspective, even when no such perspective existed. 

My guess is you have something like Plato's Republic in mind (I'm not familiar with Laozi). So, I would like to know what you had in mind, or what is it that you're comparing it to?

Occam's razor doesn't apply to matters of choice as necessity doesn't constrain such choices. I think you're implying an inductive argument, instead, that the naive interpretation is more probable because it's the more frequent occurrence. If so, it's not at all clear that this is true. And there's nothing simpler about the naive interpretation. As to first person perspectives, much of fictional literature is written from such a perspective and is still fictional. And this isn't confined to the modern world as fiction isn't anything new. Take the plays of ancient Greece or any of numerous epic tales.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Occam's razor doesn't apply to matters of choice as necessity doesn't constrain such choices. I think you're implying an inductive argument, instead, that the naive interpretation is more probable because it's the more frequent occurrence. If so, it's not at all clear that this is true. And there's nothing simpler about the naive interpretation. As to first person perspectives, much of fictional literature is written from such a perspective and is still fictional. And this isn't confined to the modern world as fiction isn't anything new. Take the plays of ancient Greece or any of numerous epic tales.

As far as your frequency comment, yes, I think the traditional or conservative position should always be the starting point. And even when a more liberal position is preferred, it is best to adopt it in response to, or opposition to, the standard or common position.

As for the razor, I think the principle of it still applies: I don't see the need to multiply authors unnecessarily if it isn't otherwise obvious or evident. It just adds more assumptions and becomes less verifiable in the process.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is more evidence, but we already have multiple sources in multiple forms (History, letters, music, biography, comedy...). Historically it's an earthquake creating slam dunk of certainty that the earliest Xians were persecuted.

-another point where I find the need to agree to disagree.  You at least know where I'm coming from and can maybe better understand my thoughts on the larger narrative, even so.

As far as your frequency comment, yes, I think the traditional or conservative position should always be the starting point. 

You may not be employing that term the way that others would.  Is a more conservative interpretation...properly, an interpretation that more closely adheres to your religious beliefs, and a liberal interpretation, properly, one that does not? Obviously, the traditional interpretation for any story in the ot...isn't any christian one

[John 6IX Breezy]

Is a more conservative interpretation...properly, an interpretation that more closely adheres to your religious beliefs, and a liberal interpretation, properly, one that does not?

I'm using the term conservative in the way the paper I linked to earlier used it—to describe the 6th century BC position

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, sometime after having been written in the second century it came to be widely believed that it originated from the sixth century. As post exilic apocalyptic literature it's narrative setting begins as exile does. Nevertheless, Daniel isn't a prophet in judaism....and it makes no difference to judaism whether it's given the sixth or second century dating, just a it makes no difference to judaism whether there was ever any single daniel. The narrative, like the one in the fall, is timeless. So long as people are displaced or captured or oppressed, it's gonna to speak to someone.

One of the most interesting (and maybe even tragic) things about daniel -imo- is that the author doesn't seem to be aware of the success of the maccabean revolt. You get the impression he'd have loved to have seen it.

[Jehanne]

Of course, there is a substantial batch of apocalyptic literature, both Jewish & Christian, that exists outside of both the Old & New Testaments.

[The Grand Nudger]

Absolutely, and some of it is the most interesting stuff in the bunch. The way I see it, they're all a part of the story as well. Apocryphal or not, they represented communities of belief.

[Jehanne]

And, in my opinion, the communities needs to be emphasized.

[John 6IX Breezy]

One of the most interesting (and maybe even tragic) things about daniel -imo- is that the author doesn't seem to be aware of the success of the maccabean revolt. You get the impression he'd have loved to have seen it.

But that's not very surprising from the 6th century perspective—it's kind of expected.

The only evidence I'm coming across for the 2nd century position is the position itself. Which seems primarily built around the interpretation that the prophecies of Daniel refer to events in that period.

It's worth mentioning that SDA interpretation has very little to do with Antiochus or the Maccabean period. In other words, that's not an exclusive interpretation that a passive reading of Daniel points to. You have to actively connect the dots and interpret imagery to arrive at the Maccabean revolt in the first place.

In other words, if the biggest evidence for composition during the second century by a different author is the belief that the visions are about that period, then the whole thing is circular. It becomes a matter of prophetic interpretation and nothing more.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, Daniel is not a prophet in judaism...and I didn't think I'd have to mention that prophecy is a complete nonstarter academically. Christian interpretations of the ot are not their traditional interpretations.

In the end, you know I don't particularly mind when people don't agree with the consensus view on some biblical issue. It's not like imma deduct brownie points from you for straying from that path. To some extent, it's practically guaranteed - as you're a believing christian who has ideological and theological requirements of the text and the academic positions on every biblical issue are decidedly secular. I don't think I can add much to the point I was making except to say that this argument has itself been an example of the issue of missing or rejected narrative content under dogmatically motivated interpretations.

They are not traditional or conservative, except insomuch as they are traditional to your faith, and your subsect of your faith. I think that does the stories a disservice, is all. You read it, as you apparently must, as a simple story about Some Guy predicting the future of your god. I read it and connect with the author and even let myself imagine what that author would have felt if he'd seen the summation of the moment that lead to the narratives construction. In the one telling, it's just a declaration about some other thing, some other religion..even. In the other, it's one part of a complex and difficult time in the history of the culture telling the story.