Prophecies of Daniel.

[Aractus]

I've been told something a long the lines that Daniel makes predictions that are very specific. Those predictions happened in history. And that the intellectual theory before was that those were added to Daniel AFTER the events unfolded. Only thing is they found the dead sea scrolls in which the book of Daniel is found (ie. with these predictions).

I'm not sure of the details of the arguments for and against this are, the exact prophecies that suppose to have come true, etc...

Good question, although you worded it in a confusing way!

Daniel is one of the last of the OT books to be written. It has traditionally been dated using textual criticism - ie loanwords and expressions that date to a specific century or time bracket. The issue here is two-fold as to how it has been criticised.

1. Claims were made that Daniel was not originally written in Hebrew, but in Aramaic and sections were translated in order to make it appear more authentic.

Daniel is unique in being that a large section of the text - indeed the majority - is in Aramaic and not Hebrew. It begins in Hebrew, switches to Aramaic partway through verse 2:4 and then back to Hebrew at chapter 8 for the remainder of the book.

Hebrew and Aramaic share the same alphabet, so in written form they're very similar anyway.

2. Claims were made that Daniel was not accepted as Scripture until as late as 2nd century BC or possibly later still.

The Dead Sea Scrolls provide very valuable information. The first thing you have to realize is that the DSS are sectarian in nature, thus they contain a very large amount of non-biblical works and they contain paleo-Hebrew script. They also contain up to around 40% or so of the Old Testament biblical texts, again, in paleo-Hebrew script.

In total, eight manuscripts for the book of Daniel have been identified amongst the DSS manuscripts. Together they contain most of the book.

1Q71 and 4Q112 contain the relevant section in chapter two where the language switches from Hebrew to Aramaic.

4Q112 also contains the relevant section from the end of chapter 7 and beginning of chapter 8 where the language switches from Aramaic to Hebrew.

4Q113 confirms the change in language (although among the pieces of it, it doesn't have the very end of chapter 7).

4Q114 contains parts of Daniel 10 and 11 and dates to the 2nd century BC. The rest of the mss date from first century BC to first century AD.

The existence of 4Q114 confirms that Daniel must have been well established scripture well before the 2nd century BC, and thus refutes the theory that Daniel was written in the mid-2nd century BC. A total of Eight copies of Daniel were found, at least Seven of which originally contained the whole book of Daniel, the Eighth may have originally only contained the prayer that was found on it. To find seven copies means that the content must have been valuable to have invested in creating seven copies of the work. Parchment (animal hides) was not a cheaply available commodity, and scribes were not cheaply employed labour either, so creating copies was expensive. Finding evidence that they had 7 or more complete copies of the book means it was quite valuable to them.

For more try this:

[Justtristo]

Here.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/c...aniel.html

The Unfulfilled Predictions

Daniel 10-12, the fourth vision and the key to the entire book, describes the history of Israel from Daniel's day until the Messianic Kingdom. Mostly, it describes the wars between the main successor states of the Greek Empire, namely the Seleucid "king of the north" in Syria and the Ptolemaic "king of the south" in Egypt, culminating in the career of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean War. However, from Daniel 11:40 until the end of the book, the prophecy's description of the fate of Antiochus at the end of the world deviates seriously from real history.

It seems that everything "Daniel" predicted prior to 167 BC "happened" and everything he predicted after 167 BC did not. This suggests that it was written in 167 BC in the midst of the Maccabaean revolt against the Seleucid empire.

Fully agreed, interestingly enough Daniel is the only book in the bible that can be reliably dated, which is around 167 BC.

[Aractus]

Fully agreed, interestingly enough Daniel is the only book in the bible that can be reliably dated, which is around 167 BC.

Are you serious?

Or just intentionally deluded?

[Justtristo]

Fully agreed, interestingly enough Daniel is the only book in the bible that can be reliably dated, which is around 167 BC.

Are you serious?

Or just intentionally deluded?

I am serious, because the portrayal of historical events of the 2nd century CE up until 167 BC is extremely accurate. After that date the predictions the book of Daniel in does not correspond with historical events. It is obvious that the author was making a prediction of what would happen after 167 BC and that prediction turned out to be inaccurate. Every other book of the bible just does not have those features, I have described it above to date it that precisely.

[Drich]

I would like to go into as much detail as you can.

The study of Daniel is a huge undertaking. If you really want an indepth understanding start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PywcLTSCs60
Just go in order the message is chopped up into 10 min sermons. If you want watch one and if you have a question then tell me which one your on and ask your questions.

[Aractus]

I am serious, because the portrayal of historical events of the 2nd century CE up until 167 BC is extremely accurate. After that date the predictions the book of Daniel in does not correspond with historical events. It is obvious that the author was making a prediction of what would happen after 167 BC and that prediction turned out to be inaccurate. Every other book of the bible just does not have those features, I have described it above to date it that precisely.

Yes, but that's so unlikely in the light of the Dead Sea Scrolls that it's all but proven by the co-existence of the 7 mss of the Dead Sea Scrolls of Daniel plus the MT and the Theodotion and the LXX versions of Daniel (that's four versions that we have - two in Hebrew/Aramaic, two in Greek) that the only possible conclusion is that it had to be authored well before the 2nd century BC. This is in agreement with the textual criticism of the book. The only evidence you have for a late date - the only evidence - is that you think it's impossible that it is actually prophetic!

[Justtristo]

Yes, but that's so unlikely in the light of the Dead Sea Scrolls that it's all but proven by the co-existence of the 7 mss of the Dead Sea Scrolls of Daniel plus the MT and the Theodotion and the LXX versions of Daniel (that's four versions that we have - two in Hebrew/Aramaic, two in Greek) that the only possible conclusion is that it had to be authored well before the 2nd century BC. This is in agreement with the textual criticism of the book. The only evidence you have for a late date - the only evidence - is that you think it's impossible that it is actually prophetic!

The main evidence I present for the dating of Daniel is the predictions for the future made in Chapter 11 verse 40 onwards, before that verse the predictions correlate extremely closely to what actually happen. After Chapter 11 verse 40, the events being predicted diverge wildly from actual historical events. Particularly the prediction that god would soon intervene and destroy the Seleucid empire, this would be closely followed by the resurrection of the dead. This a big reason why scholars of Daniel who aren't evangelical Christians date the writing of Daniel to the Maccabean revolt, no other book of the Bible can be dated so precisely as Daniel can be.

As far I know it the dating for the Daniel fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls being in the 2nd century BCE, does not conflict with Daniel being written during the Maccabean revolt.

Also I don't believe in any so-called prophecies that have been made. Because they turn out to be either prophecies made after the fact and/or they are inaccurate (often wildly so).

[Angrboda]

I've been told something a long the lines that Daniel makes predictions that are very specific. Those predictions happened in history. And that the intellectual theory before was that those were added to Daniel AFTER the events unfolded. Only thing is they found the dead sea scrolls in which the book of Daniel is found (ie. with these predictions).

I'm not sure of the details of the arguments for and against this are, the exact prophecies that suppose to have come true, etc...

In total, eight manuscripts for the book of Daniel have been identified amongst the DSS manuscripts. Together they contain most of the book.

1Q71 and 4Q112 contain the relevant section in chapter two where the language switches from Hebrew to Aramaic.
4Q112 also contains the relevant section from the end of chapter 7 and beginning of chapter 8 where the language switches from Aramaic to Hebrew.
4Q113 confirms the change in language (although among the pieces of it, it doesn't have the very end of chapter 7).
4Q114 [aka 4QDan(c) - apo] contains parts of Daniel 10 and 11 and dates to the 2nd century BC. The rest of the mss date from first century BC to first century AD.

The existence of 4Q114 confirms that Daniel must have been well established scripture well before the 2nd century BC, and thus refutes the theory that Daniel was written in the mid-2nd century BC. A total of Eight copies of Daniel were found, at least Seven of which originally contained the whole book of Daniel, the Eighth may have originally only contained the prayer that was found on it. To find seven copies means that the content must have been valuable to have invested in creating seven copies of the work. Parchment (animal hides) was not a cheaply available commodity, and scribes were not cheaply employed labour either, so creating copies was expensive. Finding evidence that they had 7 or more complete copies of the book means it was quite valuable to them.

The figure I'm seeing repeated most places seems to indicate that 4QDan(c) was radiocarbon dated to 125 BCE.

Do you have any citations for a different date of the fragment based on physical evidence?


(Minor changes to original post made for clarity)

[Minimalist]

Yes, but that's so unlikely in the light of the Dead Sea Scrolls that it's all but proven by the co-existence of the 7 mss of the Dead Sea Scrolls of Daniel plus the MT and the Theodotion and the LXX versions of Daniel (that's four versions that we have - two in Hebrew/Aramaic, two in Greek) that the only possible conclusion is that it had to be authored well before the 2nd century BC.

I just have to ask. When do you think the DSS were written?

[EGross]

Remember, Qumran had a geneiza, just like the Cairo one. A Geneiza is a storage recepticle for items that have "God" of some form written upon them. For example, if you want to learn to be a scribe, you begin by practicing on verses of psalms. Some are pretty bad, or mis-spelled, or wrong, or perhaps correct but could be better, so they get tossed into a geneiza. If a teacherr had a Torah scroll that he had written for personal use, and made his own commentaries (which was, according to the Talmud, a common practice) then these scrolls would be buried upon the death of the writer). Later, this practice was dissuaded for obvious reasons, lest people think these were authentic ones). One example found a few years ago is where God says to Abraham "My son, My only one Whom I love" rather than the normal "your son, your only one, whom you love". This fragment was found in another geneiza.

I got to see the DSS collection more than once, and as I expected, the Psalms normally had the worst script, then Writings had it better, Prophets even better, and eventually sections of Torah, which were the best. From that, it has been suggested that these were scribal school discards, which I tend to agree with. I did find it facinating that in some cases, rather than normal Hebrew, Paleo-Hebrew was used when writing the name of God, while the rest of the text was Hebrew. Some things can be inferred about that, but not confirmed.

Finally, the Arabs who found the scrolls discovered that people paid by the number of pieces found, so they shredded them and sold them in smaller pieces. The final grouping was then taped together with scotch tape, and now, they have people hired to remove the decaying scotch tape one micron at a time, since it was ruining the leather.