The dating of Daniel: Why is it controversial?

[porthos11]

On another website, mainly frequented by Anglicans, I was following a thread about the dating of Daniel. The older view was that it was written during, or soon after, the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, but the present-day consensus seems to be that it was written 400 years later, in the Hellenistic period, and that “Babylon” and “Nebuchadnezzar” are code names, so to speak, referring to Syria and the Seleucid kings.

It was an interesting discussion on Biblical history, until the debate suddenly began to get quite emotional, with angry denunciations of “liberals” who dare to cast doubt on traditional teachings. I don’t understand that reaction. What is so special about Daniel that Christians find themselves compelled to defend one side or the other in a question that is, after all, strictly a matter of history?

I adhere to the later dating. Daniel fits more the genre of apocalyptic than prophetic, although it is written in prophetic language, much like Revelation (and I am partial to the preterist view of Revelation as well, without dismissing a future fulfillment).

Daniel is also classed as Ketuvim (Writings) in the Jewish classification, rather than Nevi’im (Prophets).

 

[Dan_Defender]

You believe all prophetic books were written after the fact?

No I don’t. I believe none of them were.

 

[Gorgias]

[Daniel] is written in prophetic language, much like Revelation (and I am partial to the preterist view of Revelation as well, without dismissing a future fulfillment).

Umm… in the case of Revelation, ‘preterist’ doesn’t mean “not prophetic.” Rather, even though it’s in the future of the author, it’s already in our past.

Daniel fits more the genre of apocalyptic than prophetic

Apocalyptic doesn’t imply “not looking to future events.” However, it does address them in a subtly different way than strictly prophetic utterances do. When apocalyptic literature talks about a day when the Lord will wipe away every tear, we don’t conclude “nah… that’s not a prophecy”.

Daniel is also classed as Ketuvim (Writings) in the Jewish classification, rather than Nevi’im (Prophets).

And that works for a Jewish interpretation of its text. Do you subscribe to Jewish interpretations of Scriptural text, over against Christian interpretations?

 

[annem]

annem:

You believe all prophetic books were written after the fact?

No I don’t. I believe none of them were.

How on earth do you defend the 160 BC date after the discovery of the Daniel manuscripts at Qumran?

 

[BartholomewB]

The editors of The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich) see no difficulty with that. In their 3½-page introduction to Daniel (link below) they don’t even consider the possibility of the earlier dating.

The introduction to Daniel is on pp. 482-485.

https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-932/page/n507/mode/2up

 

[Pattylt]

From what I’ve read on scholars dating, the strongest argument to me for the later date is that the prophesies are accurate until a point where they aren’t. Before 160 bc it’s spot on and after that, they fail. That’s why it’s dated for that time.

 

[annem]

Before 160 bc it’s spot on and after that, they fail. That’s why it’s dated for that time.

Sorry, but what are you talking about? The argument for the 160 date has to do with historical references not the prophecies.

 

[Pattylt]

Predictions is probably a better word. Daniel makes four predictions about what “will”happen…which are accurate, then goes on to predict what will happen “next”…which never did. This gives a cut off area of what Daniel “knew” and didn’t know.

It’s not my argument…it’s secular scholars…and it’s not the only evidence used, just a chunk of it. It’s the first truly apocalyptic literature discovered and shows up in history at the same time that apocalyptasism does within the Jewish Community.

 

[Mountie]

And that works for a Jewish interpretation of its text. Do you subscribe to Jewish interpretations of Scriptural text, over against Christian interpretations?

Both of those interpretations must exist in harmony. The Old Testament was the only canon that Israel had prior to the writings of Paul and the Gospels. As such, it should be able to stand alone as a means for Scripture and interpretation.

When Jesus became incarnate, we received a fuller picture of salvation history. Jesus did not negate the Old Testament but provided another layer. The Old Testament did not lose its value or the message that it taught and still teaches today. Rather, we received an additional way of viewing texts. This new way of looking at the Old Testament does not reduce what the text originally meant.

In short, neither the Jewish or Christian way of viewing the Old Testament are better or worse than the other. In fact, both must be used to get the full meaning of the texts. The text has a literal meaning that it still retains throughout history. And the text also points to Jesus, which was not fully realized until God became incarnate. I think often we can associate Christianity as being better than Judaism but we fail to remember the Jewish origins of our faith. Rather, we should claim that we have a fuller picture of God’s covenant love through Jesus. God is still faithful to all of His covenants, Jewish or Christian. Christians just have the missing piece of the puzzle that the Jews are still waiting for: Jesus.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

It’s been a while since I looked at the studies and read the Book of Daniel. From what I remember, the “musical instruments” argument was handled by claiming those were Greek loanwords that could have made their way into the language.

The book I referenced (A Catholic Introduction . . .to the Old Testament) follows the typical Ignatius series of intros: for books with dating in question, they present the more modern view, and then provide balanced scholarship on the side of traditional authorship. In the end, they support the traditional dating.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

Note they use the word “compiled,” not “written,” as Daniel could have been written and added onto over many years.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

Well, I take that back. Later in the intro they say “not written until 165 BCE.”

 

[BartholomewB]

Note they use the word “compiled,” not “written,” as Daniel could have been written and added onto over many years.

Yes, that’s what I’ve seen as an explanation of the language switching between Hebrew and Aramaic: originally separate documents by different writers. I suppose it must be a possibility, at least.

 

[Dan_Defender]

From what I’ve read on scholars dating, the strongest argument to me for the later date is that the prophesies are accurate until a point where they aren’t. Before 160 bc it’s spot on and after that, they fail. That’s why it’s dated for that time.

Sorry, the visions of chapters 7–12 in the Book of Daniel reflect the crisis which took place in Judea in 167–164 BC when Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Greek king of the Seleucid Empire, threatened to destroy traditional Jewish worship in Jerusalem. There are no prophecies after Chapter 12.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

And that works for a Jewish interpretation of its text. Do you subscribe to Jewish interpretations of Scriptural text, over against Christian interpretations?

Both of those interpretations must exist in harmony.

Even on the face of it, that assertion doesn’t stand up to scrutiny! Christians say that the prophet Isaiah was speaking about Jesus, and Jews disagree. Christians say that the Psalms prophesy to events in the life of Jesus, and Jews disagree.

The very nature of the differences in our belief systems tends to require (as it were) that we approach the same texts in different ways!

The Old Testament was the only canon that Israel had prior to the writings of Paul and the Gospels. As such, it should be able to stand alone as a means for Scripture and interpretation.

Umm… literally no one in the Christian Church (Catholic or not) makes that kind of claim. In fact, starting with the Early Church Fathers and onward, we see the assertion that what we could not see in the OT is revealed to us in the NT. Therefore… the OT cannot stand on its own!

In short, neither the Jewish or Christian way of viewing the Old Testament are better or worse than the other. In fact, both must be used to get the full meaning of the texts.

I disagree. If you only had the OT and I only had the NT, who would understand God’s plan for salvation better?

The Christian understanding of the OT – coming, as it does, from an understanding of Jesus (and the NT) – does stand above an understanding rooted solely in the OT.

I think often we can associate Christianity as being better than Judaism

Hold on a second – you just jumped the rails and started arguing a completely different assertion there! No one is saying that “Christianity is better than Judaism”, and unless you think that’s what’s in play in our discussion, then you’re off in the weeds, I’m afraid. Paul himself discusses the fact that Jews and Gentiles are different, but that there’s no distinction between them in terms of “better” or “worse” in the eyes of God. Of course… you’d have to read the NT to learn that; the OT would teach you that Gentiles are inferior to Jews…!

God is still faithful to all of His covenants, Jewish or Christian.

And no one is making that claim – that God’s covenant with the Jews is now null – either!

 

[Dolphin]

When I saw the thread title I was thinking ”Wait did Daniel date someone like at 14 years old??”

Then I was like “ohhh”

 

[Mountie]

Christians say that the prophet Isaiah was speaking about Jesus, and Jews disagree. Christians say that the Psalms prophesy to events in the life of Jesus, and Jews disagree.

Your comment is greatly misleading. Of course Jews would disagree with the Christian interpretation. However, Christians don’t solely interpret the OT as being exclusively about Jesus. Those texts had meaning centuries prior to Jesus. Those meanings are still retained and exist in harmony with the Christian interpretations. In biblical interpretation, it’s called a “double literal meaning.”

Therefore… the OT cannot stand on its own!

The Catholic Church asserts that the OT stands on its own as inspired revelation. We would all benefit from re-reading Nostra Aetate. This does not mean that the OT is separated from the NT. No one is claiming that, which I assume was your understanding of my claim. However, we must admit as Christians that the Old Testament has a distinct meaning on its own that is both true and is part of God’s divinely revealed revelation.

I disagree. If you only had the OT and I only had the NT, who would understand God’s plan for salvation better?

Neither of us. We would both be missing out on the fullness of revelation. I would still be waiting for God’s covenant to be fulfilled and you would lack the necessary background that the entire New Testament is laid on.

The Christian understanding of the OT – coming, as it does, from an understanding of Jesus (and the NT) – does stand above an understanding rooted solely in the OT.

Your statement is unclear. Jesus was mysteriously foretold in the OT for sure. But God’s initial covenant was with the Jews, not the Christians. There was no Christian understanding of the OT until Jesus. Are you trying to imply that God’s initial covenants were lacking in something because your statement certainly seems to suggest that.

No one is saying that “Christianity is better than Judaism”, and unless you think that’s what’s in play in our discussion, then you’re off in the weeds, I’m afraid.

I’m not claiming that this is the topic currently being discussed. However, if we continue to take the faulty framework that you’re laying out, that’s where we are headed. If the New Testament is superior to the Old Testament, then why would Christians not be better than Jews? If the Old Testament cannot stand on its own as Scripture, what do the Jews actually have? Do you see the point that I’m making?

And no one is making that claim – that God’s covenant with the Jews is now null – either!

Again, I’m not addressing an explicitly stated claim. However, I’m addressing a point that typically follows from that line of thinking.

 

[Mountie]

Christians typically forget our Jewish origins. We try to apply a Christian lens to everything that we see. That’s not bad per say, but it results in us actually missing out on part of God’s revelation, in both the OT as well as the NT. To fully understand the NT and who Jesus is, we need to look at the OT and understand it, not as Christians 2500 years after the text was fully written, but as the original audience understood it and the way that God made covenants to Israel. That’s all that I’m claiming. If you take any of my comments to suggest anything else, then you are completely missing what I am saying.

 

[Gorgias]

Your comment is greatly misleading. Of course Jews would disagree with the Christian interpretation.

Both of those interpretations [Jewish and Christian] must exist in harmony.

Why is it misleading? It rebuts your statement, and you agree with the rebuttal:

Of course Jews would disagree with the Christian interpretation.

The Catholic Church asserts that the OT stands on its own as inspired revelation.

You’re moving the goalposts. Of course the OT is inspired revelation, and doesn’t need anything else to prop up its claim as ‘inspired revelation.’ That’s not what we’re discussing, however.

Neither of us. We would both be missing out on the fullness of revelation. I would still be waiting for God’s covenant to be fulfilled and you would lack the necessary background that the entire New Testament is laid on.

So… you would be holding a box with puzzle pieces, and I’d be holding a puzzle with some pieces missing. I’m guessing which one of us would know what the puzzle depicts, then…

There was no Christian understanding of the OT until Jesus.

Which is why a theology based only on the OT is incomplete.

Are you trying to imply that God’s initial covenants were lacking in something

Not as such. If anything, they were lacking in scope, though, wouldn’t you say? Each successive covenant expanded the scope of inclusion in God’s family, until Jesus’ New Covenant, which includes all of humanity.

If the New Testament is superior to the Old Testament, then why would Christians not be better than Jews?

That’s just poor logic. If Pepsi is better than Coke, are Pepsi drinkers therefore better than Coke drinkers? (Of course not!)

Again, I’m not addressing an explicitly stated claim.

Right; you’re just implicitly raising it – and attempting to tar and feather me with it? – as if it were something I had said!

 

[Mountie]

Why is it misleading? It rebuts your statement, and you agree with the rebuttal:

It isn’t addressing my statement whatsoever. You’re saying that Jews disagree with the Christian view of the OT as evidence that these views cannot exist in harmony. I’m saying that for Christians, they must exist in harmony. You shifted the pov from Christianity to Judaism, which is why it is misleading.

You’re moving the goalposts. Of course the OT is inspired revelation, and doesn’t need anything else to prop up its claim as ‘inspired revelation.’ That’s not what we’re discussing, however.

Not in the slightest. I’m saying the same thing that I’ve claimed from the start. I think that your interpretation of what I’m saying is what changed. The OT must stand alone as inspired revelation independent of the NT. That doesn’t mean that it is to be separated from the NT. That’s what I claimed. And to be honest, I was shocked that anyone would disagree with that claim lol.

So… you would be holding a box with puzzle pieces, and I’d be holding a puzzle with some pieces missing. I’m guessing which one of us would know what the puzzle depicts, then…

I think that a better analogy would be that I’m holding the puzzle pieces without the box that shares what the image is and you’re holding the box without the puzzle to build. I’m waiting to see what comes next and you’re trying to figure out how to build it. I know it’s a puzzle but don’t know how it is supposed to be finished. You know what the image is supposed to be but don’t know what it is. If you share the box with me, it all comes together. Likewise, if I share my pieces with you, you know what that image is supposed to be.

Which is why a theology based only on the OT is incomplete.

Clever, but that does not really address what we are discussing. I’m 100% with you that we need the NT.

Not as such. If anything, they were lacking in scope, though, wouldn’t you say? Each successive covenant expanded the scope of inclusion in God’s family, until Jesus’ New Covenant, which includes all of humanity.

That’s a good way of putting it.

That’s just poor logic. If Pepsi is better than Coke, are Pepsi drinkers therefore better than Coke drinkers? (Of course not!)

Fair. I’ll provide a better formulation: If the NT is superior to the OT, then Christianity would be superior to Judaism. That’s a claim that you explicitly rejected.

Right; you’re just implicitly raising it – and attempting to tar and feather me with it? – as if it were something I had said!

I’m in no way trying to hold those opinions to you. I apologize if you took it as such. Your initial question was open-ended, and some people, certainly not you, do take it to far. My comment was more to shut that door down before anyone could go through it, so to speak.