Prophecies of Daniel.

[Aractus]

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).

Okay, let's split up these criticisms and address them separately. I'll address the significance of the date firstly.

One of the mss found at Qumran is reliably dated to late 2nd century BC (ie ~125 BC). The DSS themselves were the library (or part of the library) of works owned by a Jewish sect called the Essenes. Virtually all DSS date within 2nd century BC to first century AD; meaning we can reasonably infer that the majority of the scrolls themselves were penned by the Essenes. Some, however, would have been owned by the sectarians previously and added to the collection, thus we have the earliest dated fragment to the very late 3rd century BC.

Where was the book of Daniel written? Was it written at Qumran? It is near universally accepted that it was not written at Qumran, it was likely penned at Babylon. Thus we can conclude that the 125 BC mss that was discovered at Qumran is not the autograph. So it had to be written sometime prior to this - and gained enough circulation that a Jewish sect would be interested in having a number of copies of it. All this suggests that it was indeed canonized well before the 2dn century BC - the Essenes wouldn't have been interested in the book if it was a contemporary work.

The DSS provide further evidence that the book was not contemporary and was indeed accepted as scripture. The Manual of Discipline & Zadokite Fragments quote a number of books of the scripture, with the annotation "It is written". Books quoted are Deuteronomy, Numbers, Leviticus, Proverbs and Isaiah. Additionally, Zadokite quotes Deuteronomy, Numbers, Isaiah, Malachi, Amos, Zechariah, Hosea, and Micah with the annotation "God said". The apocryphal books are quoted but not with those annotations. Also, 1QpHab indicates that Habakkuk was accepted as scripture.

Josephus lists Daniel as being in the Prophets and not the Writings (in the Leningrad Codex it's in the Writings). He also mentions that authorship is attributed to Daniel.

Now we move on to internal biblical evidence. Daniel appears three times in Ezekiel. He is mentioned by Jesus himself as a prophet (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14), Jesus also uses the title "Son of Man" for himself numerous times - this is taken directly from Daniel 7:13.

Apocrypha - it is mentioned in 1 Maccabees. The events in 1 Maccabees take place in the 2nd century BC, thus its original authorship date is dated to this time - 135 BC. With a late authorship date of Daniel being in 165-163 BC that's a mere 30 years after critics of Daniel believe it was originally written!

Finally, among all the evidence, there isn't any that proves that the book is a forgery, or that it was written in stages. Thus the evidence is very strong that the book was not written in the 2nd century BC, and had to be written well before this time.

[EGross]

According to the babylonian Talmud (Bava Batra 15a):

The Men of the Great Assembly wrote Ezekiel, Trei Aser (the Twelve Minor Prophets), Daniel and Megillat (scroll of) Esther.

In other words, the Jewish sages considered Daniel, to have been pseudopigraphic. Written by a Rabbinical group, of which there is no full agreement of their makeup during the period of Ezra, who led them.

They also did not consider him a prophet, for they also wrote in the previous page of that same Masechta:

The order of "Writings" is Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, Prophets, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel and Magillat Esther, Ezra and Chronicles.

Obviously the order changed since then, and Daniel is joined by the other non-prophetic collection of works.

Please note that "Prophet", as I am using it does not mean that he lacked foresight (in fact, he is attributed the title of a chozeh or "seer" rather than a navi) or prophet, but that he did not have navuah, a flowing message from the Creator that drove him to give a message to the people towards repentance. In fact, he is standing among those who do have that task, and they remain quiet concerning what he says. Perhaps in acceptance. Perhaps not.

Just throwing some meat into the mix!

[Minimalist]

Remember, Qumran had a geneiza, just like the Cairo one.

Personally, I find the recent excavations of Yitzak Magen and Yuval Peleg far more compelling that Roland De Vaux's sentimental monks-copying-books fantasy which he doubtless drew from his own background as a Dominican priest.

[Justtristo]

Okay, let's split up these criticisms and address them separately. I'll address the significance of the date firstly.

One of the mss found at Qumran is reliably dated to late 2nd century BC (ie ~125 BC). The DSS themselves were the library (or part of the library) of works owned by a Jewish sect called the Essenes. Virtually all DSS date within 2nd century BC to first century AD; meaning we can reasonably infer that the majority of the scrolls themselves were penned by the Essenes. Some, however, would have been owned by the sectarians previously and added to the collection, thus we have the earliest dated fragment to the very late 3rd century BC.

You cannot discount the possibility that that manuscript of Daniel elsewhere and by somebody who was not a member of the Qumran. Only later on in the 1st century CE the document ended up with the Qumran community. Much the same has happened to the old books I have on my shelf, which were produced many years ago and were owned by one or more persons, before I got it.

Where was the book of Daniel written? Was it written at Qumran? It is near universally accepted that it was not written at Qumran, it was likely penned at Babylon. Thus we can conclude that the 125 BC mss that was discovered at Qumran is not the autograph. So it had to be written sometime prior to this - and gained enough circulation that a Jewish sect would be interested in having a number of copies of it. All this suggests that it was indeed canonized well before the 2dn century BC - the Essenes wouldn't have been interested in the book if it was a contemporary work.

The date which the scrolls at Qumran were deposited was likely the late 1st to early 2nd century CE, which was something like two centuries after the Macabbean revolt which was in the earlier half of the 2nd century BCE. That is quite a long time and certainly by the first century CE Daniel was considered scripture and Daniel was considered a Prophet by the Jews (including Josephus).

Also people back then were much more credulous than us modern people, so it could not taken very long for people to believe that a book like Daniel was actually written by a guy who lived back during the Persian period. This article gives you an idea how credulous the people of the Greco-Roman world were during the first centuries of the 1st millennium CE, I cannot see how the Jews of the period we are covering in this discussion were any less so.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...kooks.html

Now we move on to internal biblical evidence. Daniel appears three times in Ezekiel. He is mentioned by Jesus himself as a prophet (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14), Jesus also uses the title "Son of Man" for himself numerous times - this is taken directly from Daniel 7:13.

In Ezekiel Daniel is portrayed as some ancient figure like Noah and Job, not as a contemporary of Ezekiel. The same sort of Daniel appears in Urgatic texts (14th century BCE), it is clear from my point of view that Daniel is an old mythical character in Levantine Semitic culture (which the Old Testament emerged out of), who somebody decided to use as the main character of the book of Daniel we find in the bible.

Finally, among all the evidence, there isn't any that proves that the book is a forgery, or that it was written in stages. Thus the evidence is very strong that the book was not written in the 2nd century BC, and had to be written well before this time.

I am not claiming that how ever wrote Daniel in the first place was creating a forgery on purpose. Given this was a very credulous age, it is not surprising that people fairly quickly would believe that the book of Daniel was actually written by person who was a court official in Babylon around the time of the exile. Also this same person was a prophet of god, who is essentially is somebody who is an mouthpiece of god.

[jap23]

As a general question, I'd be interested to know why you think that if Daniel 11v1-35 (up to 167 BC) were written as history in 167 BC, why on earth would the writer have decided to continue with vv36 and onwards? He could have ended it at v35, and it would have been perfect!

Also people back then were much more credulous than us modern people, so it could not taken very long for people to believe that a book like Daniel was actually written by a guy who lived back during the Persian period. This article gives you an idea how credulous the people of the Greco-Roman world were during the first centuries of the 1st millennium CE, I cannot see how the Jews of the period we are covering in this discussion were any less so.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...kooks.html

Other people were so the Jews must have been too? Don't think so- the Jews were very different when it came to discerning between false prophets and mythology. the Jews had many guidelines for examining false prophets, and carefully excluded apocryphal writings. If Daniel was written in 167 BC as a mimic of a 600 BC tale- that would be a lot more obvious than most apocryphal books. You can say that it was a very credulous time, but it seems the Jews were not so; Baruch was too a prophetic book, but was rejected at the time of its introduction and never was received as genuine by the Jews. They did the same to 'Daniel 13', but not to the rest of Daniel.

The article you provided is kind of irrelevant but I won't dismiss it for being so. I'll make a thread when I get the time.

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.

In reference to chapter 11:
We probably agree, for the main part, that vv1-35 happened (whether historical or prophetic). vv36 seems to refer to a different time and there isn't really a problem with that, because KOS and KON (kings of north/south) are not described according to the individuals but simply according to their role- as king!
Edit: WARNING- you may not like what I'm about to say:
v36-39 seems to fit with the Roman Empire. In the 2nd and 3rd century BC rome began to dominate the mediterranean region, and thus became the news kings at around that time (in accordance with Dan 2 & Dan 7). Caesars also elevated themselves to god-status, although during those times they were mainly pagan. When the Christians came onto the scene, they were persecuted by pagan Rome- and prospered until the 'indignation is finished'; until the end times (v40- onwards). Eventually the Roman Empire became Christian- but not truly so. Constantine in particular created a half-breed mix of true Christianity and Paganism which has resulted in a big mess of Christian doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church continued from there to persecute any of those who didn't follow them or their doctrines. It is this denomination that honoured the strange half-christian-half-pagan trinitarian God with 'gold, silver, costly stones and treasures' (v38). And, of course, the Roman Catholic Church and the Papal system has stayed even until today (v36), and don't show regard for the desire of women (v37- celibacy).
Of course, it will take a long time to explain everything, but I've briefly explained what I understand v36-39 to be talking about. v40 and onwards would occur 'at the end time' (see v40)- i.e. the future.

In reference to what you said about nothing being fulfilled after 167 BC: What about the Romans? Chapter 2 & 7

In Ezekiel Daniel is portrayed as some ancient figure like Noah and Job, not as a contemporary of Ezekiel. The same sort of Daniel appears in Urgatic texts (14th century BCE), it is clear from my point of view that Daniel is an old mythical character in Levantine Semitic culture (which the Old Testament emerged out of), who somebody decided to use as the main character of the book of Daniel we find in the bible.

If we consider what Ezekiel is actually saying in 14:12-20,

---

And the word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, when a land sins against me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out my hand against it and break its supply of bread and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord GOD. “If I cause wild beasts to pass through the land, and they ravage it, and it be made desolate, so that no one may pass through because of the beasts, even if these three men were in it, as I live, declares the Lord GOD, they would deliver neither sons nor daughters. They alone would be delivered, but the land would be desolate. “Or if I bring a sword upon that land and say, Let a sword pass through the land, and I cut off from it man and beast, though these three men were in it, as I live, declares the Lord GOD, they would deliver neither sons nor daughters, but they alone would be delivered. “Or if I send a pestilence into that land and pour out my wrath upon it with blood, to cut off from it man and beast, even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, declares the Lord GOD, they would deliver neither son nor daughter. They would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness.

---

we will find that each of the times these three men are mentioned it is saying that even if these three men were to be there in that day, they would only be able to deliver themselves. Ezekiel's point is clearly that these were righteous men who delivered others, not ancient randoms. By the time Ezekiel got this message from God, Daniel had recently delivered all the wise men from the death penalty by having the answer revealed to him in response to a prayer (Dan 2:17-19), likewise Job interceded for his friends (Job 42) and Noah saved his family from the flood.
Why would Ezekiel refer to pagan mythology outside of the scripture that the Jews were to so closely adhere to?

[Justtristo]

Also people back then were much more credulous than us modern people, so it could not taken very long for people to believe that a book like Daniel was actually written by a guy who lived back during the Persian period. This article gives you an idea how credulous the people of the Greco-Roman world were during the first centuries of the 1st millennium CE, I cannot see how the Jews of the period we are covering in this discussion were any less so.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...kooks.html

Other people were so the Jews must have been too? Don't think so- the Jews were very different when it came to discerning between false prophets and mythology. the Jews had many guidelines for examining false prophets, and carefully excluded apocryphal writings. If Daniel was written in 167 BC as a mimic of a 600 BC tale- that would be a lot more obvious than most apocryphal books. You can say that it was a very credulous time, but it seems the Jews were not so; Baruch was too a prophetic book, but was rejected at the time of its introduction and never was received as genuine by the Jews. They did the same to 'Daniel 13', but not to the rest of Daniel.

Richard Carrier in a couple of paragraphs in the article quotes Josephus to describe how gullable even the Jews were back then.

Beyond the bible, the historian Josephus supplies some insights. Writing toward the end of the first century, himself an eye-witness of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D, he tells us that the region was filled with "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" (Jewish War, 2.259-60; Jewish Antiquities, 20.167), entrancing the masses and leading them like sheep, usually to their doom. The most successful of these "tricksters" appears to be "the Egyptian" who led a flock of 30,000 believers around Palestine (Jewish War, 2.261-2; Paul is mistaken for him by a Roman officer in Acts 21:38). This fellow even claimed he could topple the walls of Jerusalem with a single word (Jewish Antiquities, 20.170), yet it took a massacre at the hands of Roman troops to finally instill doubt in his followers.

Twenty years later, a common weaver named Jonathan would attract a mob of the poor and needy, promising to show them many signs and portents (Jewish War, 7.437-8). Again, it took military intervention to disband the movement. Josephus also names a certain Theudas, another "trickster" who gathered an impressive following in Cyrene around 46 A.D., claiming he was a prophet and could part the river Jordan (Jewish Antiquities, 20.97). This could be the same Theudas mentioned in Acts 5:36. Stories like these also remind us of the faithful following that Simon was reported to have had in Acts 8:9-11, again showing how easy it was to make people believe you had "the power of god" at your disposal. Jesus was not unique in that respect.

[Minimalist]

In the 2nd and 3rd century BC rome began to dominate the mediterranean region, and thus became the news kings at around that time

Time to put down your stupid-ass bible and learn some Roman history so you won't make a fool out of yourself.

Rome ended the 3'd century BC having finally defeated Carthage in a struggle to the death in 202. She opened the 2d century at war with Macedon and trying to pacify Greece. This was accomplished when Titus Quinctius Flamininus defeated Phillip of Macedon in 198. With the Macedonians crushed, Antiochus III of the Seleucid Empire tried to assert Seleucid rule in Greece which provoked the First Syrian War with Rome. Antiochus III was kicked out of Greece by M. Acilius Glabrio at the Battle of Thermopylae (yes, THAT Thermopylae) in 191 and then the Romans, with their allied states, Pergamum and Rhodes defeated the Seleucid navy, crossed to Asia Minor and defeated Antiochus at Magnesia under the command of Lucius Cornelius Scipio...who had his more famous brother, Publius, along as "advisor." The Romans saddled Antiochus with a savage war reparation and took a great deal of terrritory from him...which they turned over to their Pergamene and Rhodian allies. Contrary to your statement, the Romans withdrew from Asia Minor at that time (early in the 2d century.)

They still had periodic problems in Greece and Spain and factions in the Senate were agitating for another war with Carthage ( Marcus Porcius Cato famously ended every speech in the Senate with "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed). In 146 BC Cato got his wish....while another Roman commander sacked and burned Corinth for good measure.

At such a point in time your assertion of Roman domination of the Mediterranean might have been true except for 100 years of civil strife;
the Gracchi brothers, a slave revolt in Sicily, the Social Wars, the slave revolt of Spartacus, Marius, Sulla, and the civil war between Caesar and Pompey. In foreign affairs the Romans suffered a stunning defeat at the hands of Germanic tribes. The second half of the 2d century and the beginning of the first were hardly a pax Romana. For most of that time they maintained their alliances in the east with Pergamon, Rhodes and the Ptolemies in Egypt. They managed to avoid major war in the East until the First Mithridatic War in 86 BC.

It wasn't until Pompey was given given a command against pirates in the East (and exceeded his authority) that Roman control of the East was established.

Now, all of this was done without a single KING (or emperor ) being established in the Roman world. The various consuls named above were all elected to their positions by the senate. Rome remained a republic... at least in form...so when you try to stretch your fairy tales like you did you had best take a little time to learn some shit.

You wouldn't want people to think you were stupid...in addition to being a xtian... would you?

[jap23]

---

In the 2nd and 3rd century BC rome began to dominate the mediterranean region, and thus became the news kings at around that time

Time to put down your stupid-ass bible and learn some Roman history so you won't make a fool out of yourself.

Rome ended the 3'd century BC having finally defeated Carthage in a struggle to the death in 202. She opened the 2d century at war with Macedon and trying to pacify Greece. This was accomplished when Titus Quinctius Flamininus defeated Phillip of Macedon in 198. With the Macedonians crushed, Antiochus III of the Seleucid Empire tried to assert Seleucid rule in Greece which provoked the First Syrian War with Rome. Antiochus III was kicked out of Greece by M. Acilius Glabrio at the Battle of Thermopylae (yes, THAT Thermopylae) in 191 and then the Romans, with their allied states, Pergamum and Rhodes defeated the Seleucid navy, crossed to Asia Minor and defeated Antiochus at Magnesia under the command of Lucius Cornelius Scipio...who had his more famous brother, Publius, along as "advisor." The Romans saddled Antiochus with a savage war reparation and took a great deal of terrritory from him...which they turned over to their Pergamene and Rhodian allies. Contrary to your statement, the Romans withdrew from Asia Minor at that time (early in the 2d century.)

They still had periodic problems in Greece and Spain and factions in the Senate were agitating for another war with Carthage ( Marcus Porcius Cato famously ended every speech in the Senate with "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed). In 146 BC Cato got his wish....while another Roman commander sacked and burned Corinth for good measure.

At such a point in time your assertion of Roman domination of the Mediterranean might have been true except for 100 years of civil strife;
the Gracchi brothers, a slave revolt in Sicily, the Social Wars, the slave revolt of Spartacus, Marius, Sulla, and the civil war between Caesar and Pompey. In foreign affairs the Romans suffered a stunning defeat at the hands of Germanic tribes. The second half of the 2d century and the beginning of the first were hardly a pax Romana. For most of that time they maintained their alliances in the east with Pergamon, Rhodes and the Ptolemies in Egypt. They managed to avoid major war in the East until the First Mithridatic War in 86 BC.

It wasn't until Pompey was given given a command against pirates in the East (and exceeded his authority) that Roman control of the East was established.

Now, all of this was done without a single KING (or emperor ) being established in the Roman world. The various consuls named above were all elected to their positions by the senate. Rome remained a republic... at least in form...so when you try to stretch your fairy tales like you did you had best take a little time to learn some shit.

You wouldn't want people to think you were stupid...in addition to being a xtian... would you?

---

First things first, I love history, especially that of the Romans and Greeks- not saying that I get everything right though.
Now- I hate it when I have to talk about a previous post instead of the actual topic, but that's what I'll have to do. I'll repost what I wrote, and underline the bit you obviously missed out:

In the 2nd and 3rd century BC rome began to dominate the mediterranean region, and thus became the news kings at around that time

Now if you want me to spell it out- the Romans emerged as a dominant (i.e. pretty powerful) presence around that time, and eventually came to dominate the region (mostly after the birth of Christ (the alleged date anyway- just so you don't start flaming me for being close-minded, assumptive, etc.)). Hence why I mentioned the third century, which was way before this whole 167 BC thing- It was a gradual process and I was well aware of it. Surely it was obvious that I wasn't saying they suddenly popped into absolute dominance? But they were making reasonable progress. Your own historical recap shows a successful campaign against Greece in 147 BC (Around the the time we're talking about).

Now, all of this was done without a single KING (or emperor ) being established in the Roman world. The various consuls named above were all elected to their positions by the senate.

Okay.... rulerships then. I understand that Rome had Tribunal and Consular systems early on, but the Caesars were established at about 27 BC- and it was under their rule that the saints experienced the relevant opposition. I don't see the point of spelling everything out as though I was speaking to a three-year-old; it doesn't really affect my point.

You've taken a hardly relevant blip in my post, ignored everything else, and decided to flame me over that. All of the things that you've said doesn't change the essential part of what I was talking about. I could have taken what you just said in the quote above, and decided to flame you about the fact that you didn't consider that Rome had Regal and Dictatorial systems well before that happened- but rather I understood the essence of what you were saying and build on that. Can't you do the same? This whole thing shouldn't have happened.

Open-minded, intelligent and reasonable people would take whatever opposing ideas there are, and compare them to their own to see what they can make of it. If you were like that, you wouldn't choose to ignore everything else I wrote and decide to attack me over a little blip.

deep breath...
Justtristo

Richard Carrier in a couple of paragraphs in the article quotes Josephus to describe how gullable even the Jews were back then.

Quote:
Beyond the bible, the historian Josephus supplies some insights. Writing toward the end of the first century, himself an eye-witness of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D, he tells us that the region was filled with "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" (Jewish War, 2.259-60; Jewish Antiquities, 20.167), entrancing the masses and leading them like sheep, usually to their doom. The most successful of these "tricksters" appears to be "the Egyptian" who led a flock of 30,000 believers around Palestine (Jewish War, 2.261-2; Paul is mistaken for him by a Roman officer in Acts 21:38). This fellow even claimed he could topple the walls of Jerusalem with a single word (Jewish Antiquities, 20.170), yet it took a massacre at the hands of Roman troops to finally instill doubt in his followers.

Twenty years later, a common weaver named Jonathan would attract a mob of the poor and needy, promising to show them many signs and portents (Jewish War, 7.437-8). Again, it took military intervention to disband the movement. Josephus also names a certain Theudas, another "trickster" who gathered an impressive following in Cyrene around 46 A.D., claiming he was a prophet and could part the river Jordan (Jewish Antiquities, 20.97). This could be the same Theudas mentioned in Acts 5:36. Stories like these also remind us of the faithful following that Simon was reported to have had in Acts 8:9-11, again showing how easy it was to make people believe you had "the power of god" at your disposal. Jesus was not unique in that respect.

Thanks for being reasonable, but I get the feeling your argument is based on the assumption that I was speaking in absolute terms. The fact that there's always an exception to the rule (even that one itself) should obvious.

I like what you said because:
1) You're using Josephus. Now see what he wrote about Alexander the great's reaction to the prophecy of Daniel, and about person of Christ
2) Considering that particular time-frame you're talking about (after Christ), it simply adds to Christ's words in the Olivet Prophecy about false-prophets coming and deceiving many towards the time of AD 70. If you want to be proven right you should steer clear of proving Christ's words because it was the same man, during the same discourse, who apparently believed Daniel was written by Daniel.

[Angrboda]

[Justtristo]

Justtristo

Richard Carrier in a couple of paragraphs in the article quotes Josephus to describe how gullable even the Jews were back then.

Quote:
Beyond the bible, the historian Josephus supplies some insights. Writing toward the end of the first century, himself an eye-witness of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D, he tells us that the region was filled with "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" (Jewish War, 2.259-60; Jewish Antiquities, 20.167), entrancing the masses and leading them like sheep, usually to their doom. The most successful of these "tricksters" appears to be "the Egyptian" who led a flock of 30,000 believers around Palestine (Jewish War, 2.261-2; Paul is mistaken for him by a Roman officer in Acts 21:38). This fellow even claimed he could topple the walls of Jerusalem with a single word (Jewish Antiquities, 20.170), yet it took a massacre at the hands of Roman troops to finally instill doubt in his followers.

Twenty years later, a common weaver named Jonathan would attract a mob of the poor and needy, promising to show them many signs and portents (Jewish War, 7.437-8). Again, it took military intervention to disband the movement. Josephus also names a certain Theudas, another "trickster" who gathered an impressive following in Cyrene around 46 A.D., claiming he was a prophet and could part the river Jordan (Jewish Antiquities, 20.97). This could be the same Theudas mentioned in Acts 5:36. Stories like these also remind us of the faithful following that Simon was reported to have had in Acts 8:9-11, again showing how easy it was to make people believe you had "the power of god" at your disposal. Jesus was not unique in that respect.

Thanks for being reasonable, but I get the feeling your argument is based on the assumption that I was speaking in absolute terms. The fact that there's always an exception to the rule (even that one itself) should obvious.

I like what you said because:
1) You're using Josephus. Now see what he wrote about Alexander the great's reaction to the prophecy of Daniel, and about person of Christ
2) Considering that particular time-frame you're talking about (after Christ), it simply adds to Christ's words in the Olivet Prophecy about false-prophets coming and deceiving many towards the time of AD 70. If you want to be proven right you should steer clear of proving Christ's words because it was the same man, during the same discourse, who apparently believed Daniel was written by Daniel.

Josephus portrayal of events happening in 50AD are much more reliable than his recording of Alexander the Great's reaction to the prophecy of Daniel. Because Josephus was alive and living in that part of the world at the time the events in that quote took place.

Also we have plenty of biographies of Alexander the Great, Rufus and Arrian being the most well known which have no mention of Alexander finding out about such a Jewish prophecy.

2. If you have read my previous posts I discussed how by the 1st century CE Jews in general believed that the book of Daniel was written by a person named Daniel who lived in Babylon during the Babylonian and Persian periods.