If this is true, Dispensationalism is a lie

[mindlight]

Without necessarily agreeing with it I am aware that the modern consensus on the dating of the book of Daniel is as follows:

Daniel was written or heavily modified in the 2nd century BC - probably 167BC. This would make it apocalyptic literature that reflected on Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Daniels prophecy of the weeks would then be something completely different to the way it has been interpreted by Dispensationalists.


What do people think about this dating? Is this false? If so how could you demonstrate it was false?

It seems to me that if you cannot argue a case for a conservative dating of Daniel in the 6th century BC you cannot credibly argue a Dispensationalist point of view.

 

[1disciple]

Without necessarily agreeing with it I am aware that the modern consensus on the dating of the book of Daniel is as follows:

Daniel was written or heavily modified in the 2nd century BC - probably 167BC. This would make it apocalyptic literature that reflected on Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Daniels prophecy of the weeks would then be something completely different to the way it has been interpreted by Dispensationalists.


What do people think about this dating? Is this false? If so how could you demonstrate it was false?

It seems to me that if you cannot argue a case for a conservative dating of Daniel in the 6th century BC you cannot credibly argue a Dispensationalist point of view.

I think Daniel received all his visions and wrote them in various portions during his own times (in the mid 6th to early 5th centuries). However, the book of 'Daniel' as we have it today was most certainly compiled by Ezra the Scribe after the captivity and probably received re-editing during the times of the Maccabees. William Whiston in the 1700s demonstrated that Josephus was using the oldest and best copy of Daniel available and that it clearly pointed to Antiochus and Rome in Jewish understanding. After that, the Septuagint was the next oldest and least corrupt, and finally the late Massoretic Hebrew text that we have today. Whiston points out that much of Daniel was probably restored by Barochah from the Aramaic after the times of the Maccabees (and after Antiochus had gone on his Bible burning campaign) --viz. William Whiston, Six Dissertations: Dissertation II, London, 1734: p. 126-32.

So yes, it is reasonable to date Daniel in its final form today around 150 B.C. when the scribal colleges re-instituted after the Maccabean revolt were busy making new copies of scripture especially for the communities surrounding Jerusalem and sending them to the Temple and synagogues for study.

But to answer your question briefly, there is no such thing as a credible Dispensationalist view. It was an invention out of John Nelson Darby's own imagination in the 1830s. That's all it ever was, that's all it ever will be. End of story.

 

[mindlight]

I think Daniel received all his visions and wrote them in various portions during his own times (in the mid 6th to early 5th centuries). However, the book of 'Daniel' as we have it today was most certainly compiled by Ezra the Scribe after the captivity and probably received re-editing during the times of the Maccabees. William Whiston in the 1700s demonstrated that Josephus was using the oldest and best copy of Daniel available and that it clearly pointed to Antiochus and Rome in Jewish understanding. After that, the Septuagint was the next oldest and least corrupt, and finally the late Massoretic Hebrew text that we have today. Whiston points out that much of Daniel was probably restored by Barochah from the Aramaic after the times of the Maccabees (and after Antiochus had gone on his Bible burning campaign) --viz. William Whiston, Six Dissertations: Dissertation II, London, 1734: p. 126-32.

So yes, it is reasonable to date Daniel in its final form today around 150 B.C. when the scribal colleges re-instituted after the Maccabean revolt were busy making new copies of scripture especially for the communities surrounding Jerusalem and sending them to the Temple and synagogues for study.

But to answer your question briefly, there is no such thing as a credible Dispensationalist view. It was an invention out of John Nelson Darby's own imagination in the 1830s. That's all it ever was, that's all it ever will be. End of story.

OK so in your view the book may be older but it has been edited. The question then becomes how would you know that (for example the claims about its compilation by Ezra after the exile) and how serious are the editings to the basic message of the book? If Ezra brought it together it remains prophetic in genre rather than apocalyptic unless the later editings claimed added the bits about Alexander etc.

I am not sure why it has to be a problem for the book to include loan words from Persian, Chaldean etc and a mix of languages e.g. Aramaic and Hebrew, as Daniel was almost definitely multilingual and in serving all these different empires would have had to have been really. It does not necessarily prove later editing and comments on the style of language used, here and there,is really speculation from this distance and given the paucity of source materials to draw on.

I would also accept that Daniel was written by Daniel in 536 BC without necessarily accepting a Dispensationalist interpretation of it.

1) WHAT JESUS SAID: Matthew 24:15 Jesus quotes Daniel 11:31 and 12:11, speaking of 'Daniel the prophet'

So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken

of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand--

The references to daniel in the gospels include:

Dan 3:6 - Matt13:42, 50
Dan 7:13 - Matt 24:30, 26:64, Mark 13:26,14:62, Luke 21:27,22:69
Dan 9:27 - Matt 24:15
Dan 11:31 - Mark 13:14


2) WHAT JOSEPHUS SAID

Alexander the Greats behaviour before the conquest of Jerusalem.332bc

Account occurs in Josephus who clearly regarded Daniel to be the author and if this is a reliable report about Alexander reading from the book then it dates the book before 332 BC at the very least:

“. . . he [Alexander the Great] gave his hand to the high priest and, with the Jews running beside him, entered the city. Then he went up to the temple, where he sacrificed to God under the direction of the high priest, and showed due honour to the priests and to the high priest himself. And, when the book of Daniel was shown to him, in which he had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated; and in his joy he dismissed the multitude for the time being, but on the following day he summoned them again and told them to ask for any gifts which they might desire. . .”


Alexander Reads About Himself in the Book of Daniel - Good News Magazine | United Church of God

3) ACCEPTANCE ACROSS JUDAISM:

the book of Daniel was embraced by all sects of Judaism, whereas other literature produced after the schisms took place was only embraced by particular groups within Judaism.

Josephus on Alexander the Great and the Book of Daniel | For His Renown

 

[1disciple]

@mindlight

The fact that Daniel appears to be in such 'fragments' of prophecy actually, in this case, adds to the strength of its legitimacy. If it were all in 'pretty' 1st century Hebrew, it would be immediately spotted as a forgery. But the fact that it is scattered here and there with Aramaic, loan words and such divergent word usage from various periods clearly demonstrates that strata of the book are very old and have been given additional commentary, first under Ezra in the restoration and at last after the Maccabean revolt.

The book of Daniel is sufficient for its purpose in the way that we have it today. However, in this particular case, I put the Septuagint as being the oldest and best 'version' of Daniel extant, being the translation of the original compositions of Ezra under Ptolemy II. Therefore, when questions arise concerning variants, I go back to the Septuagint, Josephus and Maccabees every time as having preeminence over even the supposed 'infallible' Massoretic text, which can be shown not to be infallible at all, but rather often far more fallible and of later date.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Daniel was written or heavily modified in the 2nd century BC - probably 167BC. This would make it apocalyptic literature that reflected on Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Daniels prophecy of the weeks would then be something completely different to the way it has been interpreted by Dispensationalists.

What do people think about this dating? Is this false? If so how could you demonstrate it was false?

Daniel was written by a number of different people at different times. The detailed history in the latter chapters made to resemble prophesy, was written during the maccabean revolt about 167-164 BC. There was probably a core legend of Daniel and his visions dating to an earlier time. It's still the word of God, even if it is a mish-mash of different things cobbled together later.
I cant see where any dispensationalist theory is derived from Daniel especially.

I've had my doubts that there ever was a real Daniel, but Jesus seems to have believed so. To me, the story sounds too much like a repeat of Joseph in Egypt.

 

[Mazock]

Jesus recognized the writings of Daniel as prophetic in Matthew 24.

 

[mindlight]

@mindlight

The fact that Daniel appears to be in such 'fragments' of prophecy actually, in this case, adds to the strength of its legitimacy. If it were all in 'pretty' 1st century Hebrew, it would be immediately spotted as a forgery. But the fact that it is scattered here and there with Aramaic, loan words and such divergent word usage from various periods clearly demonstrates that strata of the book are very old

Yes I agree with all of that.

and have been given additional commentary, first under Ezra in the restoration and at last after the Maccabean revolt.

This is a common view but it seems to contradict what you said in the first part of what you said. If the text appears to be mainly ancient how do you know that it has been edited at all?

The book of Daniel is sufficient for its purpose in the way that we have it today. However, in this particular case, I put the Septuagint as being the oldest and best 'version' of Daniel extant, being the translation of the original compositions of Ezra under Ptolemy II. Therefore, when questions arise concerning variants, I go back to the Septuagint, Josephus and Maccabees every time as having preeminence over even the supposed 'infallible' Massoretic text, which can be shown not to be infallible at all, but rather often far more fallible and of later date.

This is an interesting discussion but I am not sure I follow the logic of it completely since the advent of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
We can "purify" the 700 AD Masoretic text from its later non Messianic Jewish changes from the dead sea scrolls. I have seen with my own eyes a 2nd century BC version of Isaiah for instance by which we could correct the Massoretic text with reference to the Septuagint also. So the old arguments about the primacy of the Septuagint are probably not as valid as they were before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The below link lists some interesting differences in the Massoretic text which were clearly orchestrated by Jewish scholars determined to overthrow Christian claims about Jesus being the Messiah etc.

The Masoretic scribes purposely and willfully rearranged the original chapter order in the prophetic Book of Daniel, so that the chapters make no sense chronologically.

Isaiah 53 contains 10 spelling differences, 4 stylistic changes and 3 missing letters for light in verse 11, for a total of 17 differences.

Isaiah 7:14. “Virgin” replaced by “young woman.”

MYSTAGOGY: Septuagint vs. Masoretic: Which Is More Authentic?

 

[mindlight]

Daniel was written by a number of different people at different times. The detailed history in the latter chapters made to resemble prophesy, was written during the maccabean revolt about 167-164 BC. There was probably a core legend of Daniel and his visions dating to an earlier time. It's still the word of God, even if it is a mish-mash of different things cobbled together later.

Yes that is a statement of the classic liberal view which prevails in many theological circles but I do not see how the evidence supports it. How would you argue this case?

I cant see where any dispensationalist theory is derived from Daniel especially.

The main passage supporting this view is daniels prophecy of the weeks which provides the basic time frame for Jesus's coming, for the destruction of Jerusalem and the tribulation.

I've had my doubts that there ever was a real Daniel, but Jesus seems to have believed so. To me, the story sounds too much like a repeat of Joseph in Egypt.

That these themes reoccur in scripture are not necessarily an argument against their historicity and especially if one accepts the sovereignty and Omnipotence of God.

 

[mindlight]

Jesus recognized the writings of Daniel as prophetic in Matthew 24.

Yes and his words seem almost to be direct quotes from the book. He both affirms the historical existence of the person of Daniel and his prophetic status.

 

[PreachingChristCrucified]

If this is true, Dispensationalism is a lie

I have never given Dispensationalism much attention. It's garbage as far as I'm concerned. Jesus will return in his timing not after 6,000 years. Dispensationalists are arrogant to think that they know the timing of Christ's coming. Daniel's writings reveal no such thing.

 

[mindlight]

I have never given Dispensationalism much attention. It's garbage as far as I'm concerned. Jesus will return in his timing not after 6,000 years. Dispensationalists are arrogant to think that they know the timing of Christ's coming. Daniel's writings reveal no such thing.

My understanding of Dispensationalism is that the actual date of Jesus return is unknown so your criticism appears invalid in that respect. But once Jesus returns to greet his people at the rapture in the clouds they have a fairly precise chronology worked out for the 70th week of Daniels prophecy of the weeks which they say has not happened yet and which then leads to the Glorious Appearing at the end of this week of 7 years.

 

[PreachingChristCrucified]

My understanding of Dispensationalism is that the actual date of Jesus return is unknown so your criticism appears invalid in that respect.

In Dispensationalism the actual date of Christ's coming may be unknown but the general time frame (after 6,000 years) is known. In my mind even claiming to know the general time frame of Christ's coming is arrogance. He comes as a thief.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Yes that is a statement of the classic liberal view which prevails in many theological circles but I do not see how the evidence supports it. How would you argue this case?

I came to that conclusion by reading the later chapters of Daniel and thinking ‘what’s going on here?’ it was way too detailed, and nothing like any of the other prophesy in the bible, nothing like the ‘I am against thee Gebusites’ type of prophesy. I think it might be that they had no tradition of writing history, and thought that it would be impressive if they wrote history, after the facts, to make it look like a very detailed and accurate prophesy.

I later read about this theory, which every biblical scholar seems to have concluded, and I thought that it fits with the evidence.
Another thing is that the resurrection concept wasn’t formulated back in c. 600 BC, so was probably written in later by an editor. That and the fact that Daniel is written in two languages, with adopted words.​

I think there was an early legend, which might have been fiction, which was used at different times as the core, on which to add more material. It was probably based on the Joseph in Egypt story. I doubt any of it was real. Ezekiel mentions a ‘Danel’.. perhaps a legendary figure, lost in time. Some think that Danel might have been a non-Hebrew.​

 

[RDKirk]

In Dispensationalism the actual date of Christ's coming may be unknown but the general time frame (after 6,000 years) is known. In my mind even claiming to know the general time frame of Christ's coming is arrogance. He comes as a thief.

And why is He coming as a thief?

When the strong man, fully armed, guards his own dwelling, his goods are safe. But when someone stronger attacks him and overcomes him, he takes from him his whole armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoils.
— Luke 11:21-22

If the "strong man" is Satan, then it's God's intention that Satan not know the time of the second coming. Given that Satan is pretty darned clever--more clever than any human--and has had thousands of years to work problem, it seems unlikely to me that the timing of the second coming is a matter of merely working out word or numerology puzzles in scripture that a human should be capable of resolving.

If the date is contained in scripture, Satan would have figured it out by now.

 

[mindlight]

I came to that conclusion by reading the later chapters of Daniel and thinking ‘what’s going on here?’ it was way too detailed, and nothing like any of the other prophesy in the bible, nothing like the ‘I am against thee Gebusites’ type of prophesy. I think it might be that they had no tradition of writing history, and thought that it would be impressive if they wrote history, after the facts, to make it look like a very detailed and accurate prophesy.

I later read about this theory, which every biblical scholar seems to have concluded, and I thought that it fits with the evidence.
Another thing is that the resurrection concept wasn’t formulated back in c. 600 BC, so was probably written in later by an editor. That and the fact that Daniel is written in two languages, with adopted words.​

I think there was an early legend, which might have been fiction, which was used at different times as the core, on which to add more material. It was probably based on the Joseph in Egypt story. I doubt any of it was real. Ezekiel mentions a ‘Danel’.. perhaps a legendary figure, lost in time. Some think that Danel might have been a non-Hebrew.​

It sounds like , it feels like, everybody else agrees....Ummmm

The mix of words /languages reflects the reference to the various empires Daniel lived in as a Jew familiar with the alternate languages. That does not seem to be evidence supporting a late dating at all.

How do you deal with extra biblical references to the text in Josephus for instance and reference to the use of Daniel in 332BC.

Josephs story is different from Daniel in a great many ways and again an Omnipotent and Sovereign God may well work with patterns like this in the demonstration of his control of events. There is not really an argument there.

 

[mindlight]

And why is He coming as a thief?

When the strong man, fully armed, guards his own dwelling, his goods are safe. But when someone stronger attacks him and overcomes him, he takes from him his whole armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoils.
— Luke 11:21-22

If the "strong man" is Satan, then it's God's intention that Satan not know the time of the second coming. Given that Satan is pretty darned clever--more clever than any human--and has had thousands of years to work problem, it seems unlikely to me that the timing of the second coming is a matter of merely working out word or numerology puzzles in scripture that a human should be capable of resolving.

If the date is contained in scripture, Satan would have figured it out by now.

Not sure it really matters if Satan did work it out. He would not be able to stop it either way. But God has his own reasons for keeping the day and the hour unknown.

 

[1disciple]

@mindlight

I hold that Daniel only wrote the visionary portions of the book of Daniel. The rest of the anedotal narratives and times of the various kings under whom Daniel received his visions by angels were all the compilations of commentary and additions of Ezra and later scribes, just as the twelve books (Gen.-2 Kings) of history were. The visions of Daniel are veritable and legitimate inspired, prophetic witness. I accept Daniel as being inspired Scripture even though I do not believe the Book of Daniel was completed in its present form until about 150 B.C. I don't hold this to be a liberal view. I hold it to simply be a view based on an accurate documentary history of the Bible.

But again, I hold Dispensationalism (and its sore abuse of Daniel) to be the highest form of exegetical sophistry and delusion possible, fit only for the nearest toxic waste dump and the woefully ignorant.

 

[mindlight]

@mindlight

I hold that Daniel only wrote the visionary portions of the book of Daniel. The rest of the anedotal narratives and times of the various kings under whom Daniel received his visions by angels were all the compilations of commentary and additions of Ezra and later scribes, just as the twelve books (Gen.-2 Kings) of history were. The visions of Daniel are veritable and legitimate inspired, prophetic witness.

Yes but the question was HOW do you know that?

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

The mix of words /languages reflects the reference to the various empires Daniel lived in as a Jew familiar with the alternate languages. That does not seem to be evidence supporting a late dating at all.

that’s a bit of a stretch?

How do you deal with extra biblical references to the text in Josephus for instance and reference to the use of Daniel in 332BC.

There probably was a book of Daniel, back in 332BC, without all the later chapters, and editing.

Josephs story is different from Daniel in a great many ways and again an Omnipotent and Sovereign God may well work with patterns like this in the demonstration of his control of events. There is not really an argument there.

I think that God can make use of a hodgepodge contrived fiction, and use it as a teaching tool, and containing some real prophesy. I have similar views about Revelation.

 

[1disciple]

Yes but the question was HOW do you know that?

Simple: I read Whiston, Maccabees, Spinoza and Josephus.