[Serious] The Story

[John 6IX Breezy]

It was already clear to me that if you're arguing for a 2nd century date, that by default you can't consider Daniel a prophet or his writings prophecies.

The author calls them dreams and visions. I have no problem simply calling them such if it makes any difference to you.

[Angrboda]

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.

Why?

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.

I don't know what this multiple authors business is about. As to the razor, it takes as much to intend falsely as it does to intend truly, so even if you could make an argument for the razor, it would still be moot.

[The Grand Nudger]

It was already clear to me that if you're arguing for a 2nd century date, that by default you can't consider Daniel a prophet or his writings prophecies.

It doesn't matter whether -I- consider daniel a prophet.  Daniel...is not...a prophet...in judaism.  This is not the traditional interpretation of that story.  No specifically christian interpretation of any ot story, is the traditional or conservative interpretation.  Not even those jewish people who mistakenly believed that daniel was written in the 6th century, considered it to be a prophetic work.

The author calls them dreams and visions. I have no problem simply calling them such if it makes any difference to you.

It makes a difference to judaism, and it clearly makes a difference to you, as your rejection of all of this content is specifically predicate on your belief that it is a prophetic book. That, likely, influences your belief that it was composed in the sixth century, as well. I mean, if it helps, I think that your interpretation is accurate with respect to your beliefs? Obviously, I don't use your beliefs as the metrics or the context of the stories, is all.

[John 6IX Breezy]

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.

Why?

Probabilistic reasons, perhaps. Something like a Bayesian approach.

[The Grand Nudger]

A bayesian approach to a fundamentally inaccurate statement?

[John 6IX Breezy]

It makes a difference to judaism, and it clearly makes a difference to you, as your rejection of all of this content is specifically predicate on your belief that it is a prophetic book.  That, likely, influences your belief that it was composed in the sixth century, as well.

This page seems to describe why Daniel isn't a prophet in Judaism, and I agree with pretty much all of it. They just use a more nuanced definition of prophet while we use a broader one.

ps. I'm also not finding evidence that Jewish traditionally believe Daniel was written in the second century. I've actually found a few Rabbis arguing against such a position, and their arguments are pretty identical to traditional Christian ones. Here this Rabbi mentions that the introduction to Daniel was written by the Great Assembly in the third-person (which I have no issues with), and that the second half was written by Daniel in the first-person (which I've alluded to).

[The Grand Nudger]

You keep coming back to the date, but you clearly understand that the the christian interpretation of the narrative is not the traditional interpretation of the narrative, even if you only now found out about that. That the two religions were both wrong about the same thing does not alter that, or certify that your christian interpretation is the traditional or conservative interpretation.

Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that the necessities of your faith place restrictions and incur responsibilities on the texts? Why call it anything other than what it is? Why do we even have to have this ridiculous argument? I was only wondering how you felt about the missing or rejected content that any such interpretation created. I suppose I have an answer of sorts. It's nbd, and, besides, the ot wasn't about the jewish people, it was about the coming christian god.

[John 6IX Breezy]

You keep coming back to the date, but you clearly understand that the the christian interpretation of the narrative is not the traditional interpretation of the narrative.  That the two religions were both wrong about the same thing does not alter that, or certify that your christian interpretation is the traditional or conservative interpretation.

The more I look into Jewish beliefs about Daniel, the more they sound identical to the Christian ones I grew up with. That seems pretty traditional to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

Questions asked and answered, it seems.

[Pat Mustard]

OK, a rather overlong answer to the persecution question, now I can focus on such a tangent.

Firstly, what is persecution? There is high level persecution in which an emperor declares that Xians are bad and there are prizes for the people who kill the most Xians. There is no evidence of that before Nero. There is medium level persecution such as a minor riot. The sort of thing that uses pitchforks and torches. Then there is low level, such as a couple of drunks doing dental work on a Xian with their boots. There is overwhelming evidence for those two.

In C1 Mediterranean society, unlike C21 Western, religion was not a private matter in it's own box. It was intimately bundled with your culture, race, community and nation. To change religion was to insult all of those.

To a Jew, you denied the uniqueness of the Jews, declared Torah redundant and denied the need to make Israel independent. To a Roman, declaring Jesus to be Christ (=King) was to declare that Caesar wasn't, which was sedition and treason. To an urban Greek, the town god protected the local town from harm, so when someone comes along and says to stop worshipping the god (and stop buying his merch) it badly upsets people.

So Xians were angering pretty much every society in which they operated, and a convert to Xianity got the reaction it would get today in, say North Korea, Iran or  Kyrgyzstan.

Nothing high level or organised, but a constant stream of vilification and violence.

What is the evidence for this low/medium persecution in the earliest church?
Stephen barely gets his head around Jesus when someone bashes it in. Saul organises persecution (and he knew what would happen to him when he converted). Herod executes James. A riot in Ephesus. Etc and a full long list in Acts is here: Acts bit (Book of Acts). Paul writes to Thessalonica to comfort them in their persecution (1 Thess 2). Paul writes to Phillippi to comfort them in their persecution (Phil 1). Paul writes to Rome to comfort them in their persecution (Rom 5 and 8). Einstein, James Dean, Brooklyn's got a winning team (Joel). Jesus tells the disciples to expect suffering (Makes no sense if there weren't any; Luke 21, Matt 5 etc). Paul getting hurt (1 Cor 4 etc) Martyrs in Revelation (2,6,20)

And then there's 2 Corinthians.
Paul's legitimacy has been challenged by the Torah-bashers. The Corinthians have asked for a CV listing all his achievements so they can do a relaunch of his ministry as a fine, noble figure.

Paul's reply is a masterpiece of dark comedy.

He starts by talking about what a Xian hero looks like i.e. Jesus. He points out that Jesus got beaten up, spat on and killed. That the Corinthians have it the wrong way around- if you want to be a Xian hero, expect to suffer like Jesus. He then writes the following.

(If you genuinely, really, actually don't think Xians were persecuted, please please read this passage slowly enough to understand it.)

Funny man

In other words, he says, if you want a CV to glorify me, I'll pull down my pants and it's written in the terrible scars on my arse.

(US=ass. I paraphrase a bit. There's a corona muralis reference in v33)

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.

There is no evidence of persecution by Nero. There can be no evidence of persecution of christians by Nero, there were still no christians at this stage.

If you want to see persecution, look to the christian emperors, they set the ball rolling. And most stories of "christian persecution" are simply christians taking what they did onto others, backdating it and creating fictional early christians as the victims.

It's always the perpetrators who will shout the loudest as being victims.