When was the book of Daniel written?

[Spud]

From another thread,

There's no evidence that the Book of Daniel existed before 200BCE.

Predictive prophecy is evidence that the Bible is the Word of God. Example: Jeremiah died long before the seventy year exile he prophesied came to an end. Another example: that King Josiah would burn the bones of priests on the altar was prophesied 300 years in advance (1 Kings 13). Cyrus is mentioned by name, well before the exile, in Isaiah.

According to historians, Daniel 11:36-45 is not an accurate account of Antiochus IV's final years. If Daniel is written after the events it describes then it is basically a hoax. So who are these verses about?

Well, some say it is yet to be fulfilled. Others think it may be about Octavius, the king of the North versus Mark Antony (and Cleopatra), the King of the South.

Can anyone offer any other explanations?

[2Corrie]

The Lord referred to Daniel in the Olivet discourse, what do you think of His opinion?

I think we sell ourselves short when we try to apply the linear timeline of the western mindset to these Jewish texts. Have you heard of Midrash? These texts often have many fulfillments; a recapitulating pattern.

[jeremyp]

Predictive prophecy is evidence that the Bible is the Word of God. Example: Jeremiah died long before the seventy year exile he prophesied came to an end. Another example: that King Josiah would burn the bones of priests on the altar was prophesied 300 years in advance (1 Kings 13).

300 hundred years in advance of what? Didn't you know that Kings was written during or after the reign of Josiah?

Cyrus is mentioned by name, well before the exile, in Isaiah.

No. Cyrus is mentioned in Deuteron-Isaiah which was most likely composed during or after the Exile.

According to historians, Daniel 11:36-45 is not an accurate account of Antiochus IV's final years.

Which is why Daniel is considered to have been written just before Antiochus' death.

If Daniel is written after the events it describes then it is basically a hoax.

Yep.

All of these examples of prophecy of yours were written after the events they prophesy. We should not be surprised, therefore, if they are sometimes accurate.

[Spud]

The Lord referred to Daniel in the Olivet discourse, what do you think of His opinion?

I think he was right, but I would like to understand why he interpreted the abomination of desolation and the great tribulation as about to happen within his generation, if the setting up of the abomination of desolation is said in Daniel 11:31 to occur in the time of Antiochus IV- a long time before Christ. Daniel 9:27 also mentions that the abomination of desolation will occur after the 69 weeks- which, if a 'week' is measured as seven years, places it as happening around the time of Christ.
An explanation offered several years ago was that if the 'week' was measured in four-year Greek 'olympiads' then the 69 weeks ends around the time of Antiochus' desecration of the temple, hence there is only one AofD. But this makes Matthew 24's AofD wrong. I personally think the 'week' should be measured as 7 years, though. Which means that Daniel 9:27 and 11:31, 12:11 are two different events.
This must be why Matthew and Mark say, 'let the reader understand'.

[DaveM]

The Lord referred to Daniel in the Olivet discourse, what do you think of His opinion?

I think he was right, but I would like to understand why he interpreted the abomination of desolation and the great tribulation as about to happen within his generation, if the setting up of the abomination of desolation is said in Daniel 11:31 to occur in the time of Antiochus IV- a long time before Christ. Daniel 9:27 also mentions that the abomination of desolation will occur after the 69 weeks- which, if a 'week' is measured as seven years, places it as happening around the time of Christ.
An explanation offered several years ago was that if the 'week' was measured in four-year Greek 'olympiads' then the 69 weeks ends around the time of Antiochus' desecration of the temple, hence there is only one AofD. But this makes Matthew 24's AofD wrong. I personally think the 'week' should be measured as 7 years, though. Which means that Daniel 9:27 and 11:31, 12:11 are two different events.
This must be why Matthew and Mark say, 'let the reader understand'.

One thing that I think we can say with certainty is that Daniel 11:36ff is not about Antiochus IV.  If Daniel indeed dates to the time of the Maccabees he would have been a fool to write so accurately (with hindsight) about the wars between the Ptolemy’s and the Seleucids only to blow his cover by getting the last bit way off target.  But since Daniel was 6th century BC this is of no real consequence.

I think 2Corrie is spot on in her post #1.  Jesus recognised the prophetic integrity of Daniel and also made it quite clear that at least some of his prophecies would find fulfilment post the cross.  Also worth noting that the prophecy of the ‘abomination that makes desolate’ is found three times in Daniel.  This is an example of a prophecy that has more than one fulfilment.  We have already seen a ‘partial’ fulfilment (at the time of Antiochus IV) but this was but a foreshadowing of a final and complete fulfilment which Jesus said was yet in the future.  And we need to note carefully that this final fulfilment was not forecast to take place at the end of the 69th week but at least halfway through the 70th week.  Of course the pre-mil view is that the 70th week has not yet commenced so at the present time this final fulfilment is still in the future.   

[floo]

Much more likely the life of Jesus was created by the gospel writers to fit in with the so called prophecies!

[DaveM]

One further comment on Isaiah and Cyrus.  When a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls (the earliest complete copy that we have) one of the first things many scholars did was to look at the transition from Isaiah 39 to Isaiah 40.  A break in the narrative would support the 2-author Isaiah theory’. In the event no break was found.  In fact chapter 40 begins on the last line of a column. 

While this does not provide any conclusive evidence on single or dual authorship, it is certainly what would be expected if there was a single author, whereas a distinct break would have given further support to the two author approach.  So while each is entitled to his own conclusion on authorship there are no compelling reasons to reject a single author.  So the validity of the prophecy concerning Cyrus might be challenged by the sceptics but has by no means been negated.

[DaveM]

Much more likely the life of Jesus was created by the gospel writers to fit in with the so called prophecies!

Including Jesus succeeding in getting Himself crucified right on time to the day!  And this despite the fact that the Jewish religious leaders did not plan or intend to have Him killed during the Passover festival.  Quite a supernatural achievement! 

[~TW~]

The Lord referred to Daniel in the Olivet discourse, what do you think of His opinion?

I think he was right, but I would like to understand why he interpreted the abomination of desolation and the great tribulation as about to happen within his generation, if the setting up of the abomination of desolation is said in Daniel 11:31 to occur in the time of Antiochus IV- a long time before Christ. Daniel 9:27 also mentions that the abomination of desolation will occur after the 69 weeks- which, if a 'week' is measured as seven years, places it as happening around the time of Christ.
An explanation offered several years ago was that if the 'week' was measured in four-year Greek 'olympiads' then the 69 weeks ends around the time of Antiochus' desecration of the temple, hence there is only one AofD. But this makes Matthew 24's AofD wrong. I personally think the 'week' should be measured as 7 years, though. Which means that Daniel 9:27 and 11:31, 12:11 are two different events.
This must be why Matthew and Mark say, 'let the reader understand'.

 The Great Tribulation is history AD 70.

 ~TW~

[DaveM]

The Lord referred to Daniel in the Olivet discourse, what do you think of His opinion?

I think he was right, but I would like to understand why he interpreted the abomination of desolation and the great tribulation as about to happen within his generation, if the setting up of the abomination of desolation is said in Daniel 11:31 to occur in the time of Antiochus IV- a long time before Christ. Daniel 9:27 also mentions that the abomination of desolation will occur after the 69 weeks- which, if a 'week' is measured as seven years, places it as happening around the time of Christ.
An explanation offered several years ago was that if the 'week' was measured in four-year Greek 'olympiads' then the 69 weeks ends around the time of Antiochus' desecration of the temple, hence there is only one AofD. But this makes Matthew 24's AofD wrong. I personally think the 'week' should be measured as 7 years, though. Which means that Daniel 9:27 and 11:31, 12:11 are two different events.
This must be why Matthew and Mark say, 'let the reader understand'.

 The Great Tribulation is history AD 70.

 ~TW~

Have I missed the New Jerusalem somewhere down the line?

[~TW~]

The Lord referred to Daniel in the Olivet discourse, what do you think of His opinion?

I think he was right, but I would like to understand why he interpreted the abomination of desolation and the great tribulation as about to happen within his generation, if the setting up of the abomination of desolation is said in Daniel 11:31 to occur in the time of Antiochus IV- a long time before Christ. Daniel 9:27 also mentions that the abomination of desolation will occur after the 69 weeks- which, if a 'week' is measured as seven years, places it as happening around the time of Christ.
An explanation offered several years ago was that if the 'week' was measured in four-year Greek 'olympiads' then the 69 weeks ends around the time of Antiochus' desecration of the temple, hence there is only one AofD. But this makes Matthew 24's AofD wrong. I personally think the 'week' should be measured as 7 years, though. Which means that Daniel 9:27 and 11:31, 12:11 are two different events.
This must be why Matthew and Mark say, 'let the reader understand'.

 The Great Tribulation is history AD 70.

 ~TW~

Have I missed the New Jerusalem somewhere down the line?

 I would assume you have things mixed up in a time scale not of scripture.

  I am happy to discuss it.

                      ~TW~

[~TW~]

Well it looks like Dave M agrees

                       ~TW~

[jeremyp]

One thing that I think we can say with certainty is that Daniel 11:36ff is not about Antiochus IV.

Wrong.

If Daniel indeed dates to the time of the Maccabees he would have been a fool to write so accurately (with hindsight) about the wars between the Ptolemy’s and the Seleucids only to blow his cover by getting the last bit way off target.

He got the last bit wrong because he was writing just before it happened. It's easy to right prophecy in hindsight. As Daniel proves it can go wrong when you are trying to predict future events.

But since Daniel was 6th century BC this is of no real consequence.

Please explain why there are no pre-second century references to Daniel if he was 6th century.

[Spud]

The Lord referred to Daniel in the Olivet discourse, what do you think of His opinion?

I think he was right, but I would like to understand why he interpreted the abomination of desolation and the great tribulation as about to happen within his generation, if the setting up of the abomination of desolation is said in Daniel 11:31 to occur in the time of Antiochus IV- a long time before Christ. Daniel 9:27 also mentions that the abomination of desolation will occur after the 69 weeks- which, if a 'week' is measured as seven years, places it as happening around the time of Christ.
An explanation offered several years ago was that if the 'week' was measured in four-year Greek 'olympiads' then the 69 weeks ends around the time of Antiochus' desecration of the temple, hence there is only one AofD. But this makes Matthew 24's AofD wrong. I personally think the 'week' should be measured as 7 years, though. Which means that Daniel 9:27 and 11:31, 12:11 are two different events.
This must be why Matthew and Mark say, 'let the reader understand'.

One thing that I think we can say with certainty is that Daniel 11:36ff is not about Antiochus IV.  If Daniel indeed dates to the time of the Maccabees he would have been a fool to write so accurately (with hindsight) about the wars between the Ptolemy’s and the Seleucids only to blow his cover by getting the last bit way off target.  But since Daniel was 6th century BC this is of no real consequence.

I think 2Corrie is spot on in her post #1.  Jesus recognised the prophetic integrity of Daniel and also made it quite clear that at least some of his prophecies would find fulfilment post the cross.  Also worth noting that the prophecy of the ‘abomination that makes desolate’ is found three times in Daniel.  This is an example of a prophecy that has more than one fulfilment.  We have already seen a ‘partial’ fulfilment (at the time of Antiochus IV) but this was but a foreshadowing of a final and complete fulfilment which Jesus said was yet in the future.  And we need to note carefully that this final fulfilment was not forecast to take place at the end of the 69th week but at least halfway through the 70th week.  Of course the pre-mil view is that the 70th week has not yet commenced so at the present time this final fulfilment is still in the future.

Thanks Dave. Having read through Wikipedia's entry on Antiochus IV, I can see some similarities between the Sixth Syrian War and Daniel 11:29-44. 'The king' in verse 36 seems to refer to Antiochus. I would disagree with Jeremy's view that 36-45 are not historically accurate. They seem to be expanding on 29-32. [EDIT: that depends on whether these verses are in continuous succession chronologically with the previous ones]. I have this feeling that all Daniel's references to the abomination of desolation are of the same thing. There is also a reference in 8:13 to when the daily sacrifice is stopped and 'the rebellion that causes desolation'. I think what is meant by this rebellion is the action of the Hellenized Jews who side with Antiochus. The abomination of desolation is the image of or sacrifice to Greek gods. It is part of the same event, which includes the little horn/king of the North and the cessation of the daily sacrifice for three and a half years.

[Spud]

The question for me is, does Daniel speak only about the three years when the daily sacrifice was stopped by Antiochus, or does he continue up until AD 70 when it was stopped permanently?

[~TW~]

The question for me is, does Daniel speak only about the three years when the daily sacrifice was stopped by Antiochus, or does he continue up until AD 70 when it was stopped permanently?

SPud you seem to be having a conversation with yourself on this thread.So tell me what is the point of it.

 ~TW~

[jeremyp]

The question for me is, does Daniel speak only about the three years when the daily sacrifice was stopped by Antiochus, or does he continue up until AD 70 when it was stopped permanently?

No and no.

[Spud]

The question for me is, does Daniel speak only about the three years when the daily sacrifice was stopped by Antiochus, or does he continue up until AD 70 when it was stopped permanently?

SPud you seem to be having a conversation with yourself on this thread.So tell me what is the point of it.

 ~TW~

To stop the speaking in tongues thread from going too far off topic. The new topic is how do we know the Bible is telling the truth. We might have proof that Daniel is true prophecy if we can show that 11:36-45 is referring to Herod and the battle of Actium.

[jeremyp]

We might have proof that Daniel is true prophecy if we can show that 11:36-45 is referring to Herod and the battle of Actium.

You can't because it is not.

[floo]

'Prophecies' are open to many interpretations, just like that crazy book of Revelation!

[~TW~]

The question for me is, does Daniel speak only about the three years when the daily sacrifice was stopped by Antiochus, or does he continue up until AD 70 when it was stopped permanently?

SPud you seem to be having a conversation with yourself on this thread.So tell me what is the point of it.

 ~TW~

To stop the speaking in tongues thread from going too far off topic. The new topic is how do we know the Bible is telling the truth. We might have proof that Daniel is true prophecy if we can show that 11:36-45 is referring to Herod and the battle of Actium.

 Read your bible Spud Daniel does it for me.

 ~TW~

[floo]

The question for me is, does Daniel speak only about the three years when the daily sacrifice was stopped by Antiochus, or does he continue up until AD 70 when it was stopped permanently?

SPud you seem to be having a conversation with yourself on this thread.So tell me what is the point of it.

 ~TW~

To stop the speaking in tongues thread from going too far off topic. The new topic is how do we know the Bible is telling the truth. We might have proof that Daniel is true prophecy if we can show that 11:36-45 is referring to Herod and the battle of Actium.

 Read your bible Spud Daniel does it for me.

 ~TW~

Now there is a surprise!

[Spud]

TW, quite right. I do need to revise this subject because others like Jeremy are saying Daniel isn't true prophecy and we need to answer that.

Here's what I mean- this is something I had forgotten:

The 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah speaks of the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity.  God decreed that the land of Judah was to lie desolate for 70 years.  The book of II Chronicles tells us why their punishment was to run for that particular amount of time:
II CHRONICLES 36:20 And those who escaped from the sword he [Nebuchadnezzar] carried away to Babylon, where they became servants to him and his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia, 21 to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths.  As long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years. (NKJV)
As recorded in the 26th chapter of Leviticus, God warned Israel through Moses about this very punishment for disobedience:
LEVITICUS 26:31 "I will lay your cities waste and bring your sanctuaries to desolation, and I will not smell the fragrance of your sweet aromas.  32 I will bring the land to desolation, and your enemies who dwell in it shall be astonished at it.  33 I will scatter you among the nations and draw out a sword after you; your land shall be desolate and your cities waste.  34 Then the land shall enjoy its Sabbaths as long as it lies desolate and you are in your enemies' land; then the land shall rest and enjoy its Sabbaths.  35 As long as it lies desolate it shall rest – for the time it did not rest on your Sabbaths when you dwelt in it." (NKJV)
Apparently Israel did not keep the sabbatical years for a period of at least 490 years (70 times every 7th year).  Therefore, God allowed the land to be desolate for 70 years in order for it to observe those neglected Sabbaths.

http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=70-Weeks-Daniel

This shows that the seventy sevens in Daniel 9 should probably be taken to mean a literal period of 490 years.

[~TW~]

    This shows that the seventy sevens in Daniel 9 should probably be taken to mean a literal period of 490 years.

 did I not send you a pm which shows this to be true  490 years follow what I sent you it goes into detail.

                 ~TW~

[Red Giant]

Nothing about Daniel can link it with the primitive legalistic Judaism of Ezra.  It belongs with the intertestamental literature, which is full of similar dross.

Notice it was never part of what Jesus called the Law and the Prophets.  It was only ever classed with the Writings, a loose collection of later religious scribblings of doubtful inspiration with no defined canon.

After the Destruction the rabbis collected and canonised everything they could find that wasn't in Greek, and as it happened they could put their hands on parts of Daniel in Hebrew and Aramaic, so those bits went in.  They were well aware of course that they had the whole book in the Septuagint, along with various other books which had only survived in Greek and therefore had to be rejected (but were still accepted by Christians).

So you end up with the position that parts of Daniel were divinely inspired and parts not.  And nobody knew which was which until the Destruction, which God micromanaged so as to preserve only the inspired parts in the holy languages.  He probably had some Roman soldier tearing Hebrew papyri across the middle at the exact points where the inspiration cut in and out.

I say dross because stuff that means nothing can be interpreted to mean anything.  (Which is why horoscopes are so accurate.)

A coded prediction where the code is only explained after the event is no better than any other prediction after the event.