Book of Daniel not completely written by Daniel?

[RMDY]

I heard that the leading biblical scholars believe that part of the book of daniel, especially on the visions that predicated the rise of the four kingdoms, were not written by him and are attributed to an author around the 2nd century B.C. or something.


Is this true regarding those scholars, and if so, is there any sources that give a defense for attributing the entire book of Daniel to only the prophet and not some later period?

 

[LargeTrout]

Part of the book of Daniel is written in Hebrew (early parts) and other parts are written in Aramaic (later parts).

Book of Daniel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Greek translation (the Septuagint) contains a few more chapters that you can find in Catholic Bibles. These extra chapters are part of the Deuterocanonical books (all of which are found in Catholic Bibles).

 

[Marcus Constantine]

It is all about presuppositions. If you go into Daniel not believing in miracles or the possibility of prophesy, then you have to conclude that the details in question could not have been written by Daniel - they must have been written after the facts. I think this is a blatant (and poor) attempt to discredit this portion of prophesy. Conservative scholars would believe that most of the book was written by Daniel (with the exception of the obvious monologue from Nebuchadnezzar being the only exception; although that was likely written down by Daniel or his scribe). More liberal scholars wouldn't believe in the possibility of prophesy so they would have to make another author up in order for their paradigm to work. I think it's dishonest from an academic viewpoint at the least.

 

[MichaelKelley]

Some of have suggested that, but it is completely false. I can't seem to find the video now, but I recommend you taking a look at Dr. Chuck Missler's website. The same people that say Daniel had two authors usually say that Isaiah had two authors. Daniel was written completely by Daniel, Isaiah was completely written by Isaiah. He has explained the book of Daniel also, but I cannot find the video of Daniel. His website is: www.khouse.org

Authorship of Isaiah

 

[christian73]

New explanations of the Bible are popping up all the time. Sad to see how far people will go to try to disprove the Bible.

 

[DeaconDean]

New explanations of the Bible are popping up all the time. Sad to see how far people will go to try to disprove the Bible.

Amen!

Remember a couple of years ago when they wanted to say the lost gospel of Judas was real?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[LargeTrout]

Amen!

Remember a couple of years ago when they wanted to say the lost gospel of Judas was real?

It is real, as in, it does exist. There are many extra Gospels out there which didn't make it into the Bible. There's a whole bunch of books available where you can read them, or read about them;

Lost Scriptures, by Bart Ehrman,
The Gnostic Gospels,
The Apocryphal New Testament and the aforementioned
Gospel of Judas.

Of course, they're all junk but make for interesting reading nonetheless.

As for Daniel, even Christian scholars (as opposed to liberal scholars) know that Daniel was written in two languages, Hebrew and Aramaic. This either means that Daniel, for some reason, used both languages himself or someone added parts onto it at a later date. Either way, the book still accurately predicts the Messiah and the 70 weeks.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

I don't see how 200bc further annotation to the story invalidates either the spiritual meaning or it's prophecy about 30ad

 

[Chococat]

Some of have suggested that, but it is completely false. I can't seem to find the video now, but I recommend you taking a look at Dr. Chuck Missler's website. The same people that say Daniel had two authors usually say that Isaiah had two authors. Daniel was written completely by Daniel, Isaiah was completely written by Isaiah. He has explained the book of Daniel also, but I cannot find the video of Daniel. His website is: www.khouse.org

Authorship of Isaiah

Whereabouts in this site does he discuss Daniel exactly as I can't find it.

 

[Chococat]

It's ok I found it and although I have only listened to the first podcast Mr Missler gives a convincing refutation of the skeptic's case.

 

[christian73]

Amen!

Remember a couple of years ago when they wanted to say the lost gospel of Judas was real?

God Bless

Till all are one.

The History channel tried to say once that the gospel of John was written by somebody else.

 

[dies-l]

Does the Bible claim anywhere that Daniel was written by one author and/or that his name was Daniel? I don't claim to have the background in history or language to strongly agree or disagree with either of the positions on the authorship of Daniel. However, I think it a good threshold question to ask if either of the theories clearly undermines the plain language of Scripture or if the debate relates primarily to human traditions.

 

[DeaconDean]

It is real, as in, it does exist. There are many extra Gospels out there which didn't make it into the Bible. There's a whole bunch of books available where you can read them, or read about them;

Lost Scriptures, by Bart Ehrman,
The Gnostic Gospels,
The Apocryphal New Testament and the aforementioned
Gospel of Judas.

Of course, they're all junk but make for interesting reading nonetheless.

I have the "Lost Books of the New Testament".

But that is neither here nor there.

But looking at the evidence, Judas, a companion of Jesus and the discples, is supposedly to have written this book.

From the facts gleened so far, how can a man write a book about the life, death, and resurrection of the Christ, when he died before Jesus did?

Hum...

When examining the Greek text in which the book is written, how come the writting style does not match that of first century writters?

Hum...

After even longer examination, it was deduced that writting styles, character development, literary content, etc., only matches that of writers in the AD 200-AD 300 era?

The oldest Coptic document has been carbon dated to AD 280, plus or minus 50 years.

Source

Hum...

Sorry, I just cannot accept the Gospel of Judas.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[MichaelKelley]

Whereabouts in this site does he discuss Daniel exactly as I can't find it.

It took me a while, but I found the teaching on the book of Daniel. No other book has been as validated as the book of Daniel.

Book of Daniel - Chuck Missler Podcast

 

[christian73]

I have the "Lost Books of the New Testament".

But that is neither here nor there.

But looking at the evidence, Judas, a companion of Jesus and the discples, is supposedly to have written this book.

From the facts gleened so far, how can a man write a book about the life, death, and resurrection of the Christ, when he died before Jesus did?

Hum...

When examining the Greek text in which the book is written, how come the writting style does not match that of first century writters?

Hum...

After even longer examination, it was deduced that writting styles, character development, literary content, etc., only matches that of writers in the AD 200-AD 300 era?



Source

Hum...

Sorry, I just cannot accept the Gospel of Judas.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Whether the gospel of Judas exists or not tyo me is irrelevant. Since God inspired the Bible, I'm sure he put the books in the Bible he wanted in there. Therefore, the books that are not in there are not in there for a reason.

 

[DeaconDean]

In doing a little research, we also find that the book of Daniel was written in four different languages:

2. Linguistic Evidence:

a. Aramaic: Daniel’s Aramaic demonstrates grammatical evidences for an early date more closely associated with the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. than with the second century B.C.14

b. Persian:

1) Persian loan words in Daniel do not necessarily argue against an early date for the book since Daniel, who lived under the Persians, could have placed the material in its final form at the latter part of his life15

2) Four of the nineteen Persian words are not translated well by the Greek renderings of about 100 B.C. implying that their meaning was lost or drastically changed meaning that it is very unlikely that Daniel was written in 165 B.C.16

3) The Persian words which are cited in Daniel are specifically old Persian words dating from around 300 B.C. This argues against a 165 date17

c. Greek: Three Greek loan words in Daniel need not argue for a late date since there may well have been Greek writing prior to Plato (370 B.C.) where these words could have been used, and since they are the names of musical instruments which often are circulated beyond national boundaries, and since Greek words are found in the Aramaic documents of Elephantine dated to the fifth-century B.C.18

14 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 398-401. Daniel's Aramaic is closer to Eastern Aramaic (rather than Western Aramaic) much like that which is found in the Elephantine papyri (fifth-century B.C.) and Ezra (450 B.C.) than it is with the Genesis Apocryphon found in Qumran Cave One from the first century B.C. (Bruce K. Waltke, The Date of the Book of Daniel. Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976): 322-23; Franz Rosenthal, Die Aramaistisch Forschung (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1939), 66ff; Kenneth A. Kitchen, et. al., The Aramaic of Daniel, in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, 31-79.

15 Kenneth A. Kitchen, et. al., The Aramaic of Daniel, in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, 41-42; Bruce K. Waltke, The Date of the Book of Daniel. Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976): 323.

16 Kenneth A. Kitchen, et. al., The Aramaic of Daniel, in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, 43.

17 Ibid., 43-44.

18 For a fuller discussion see Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 395-97 where he also shows how the Greek (or lack thereof) is a strong support for an early date for Daniel. Bruce K. Waltke, The Date of the Book of Daniel. Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976): 324..

God Bless

Till all are one.