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?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

There were Councils that canonized the 73 books we use for Scripture and since the Church has declared them so then we as the Body of that Church (of Jesus Christ) accept it.

 

[RMDY]

There were Councils that canonized the 73 books we use for Scripture and since the Church has declared them so then we as the Body of that Church (of Jesus Christ) accept it.

That didn't answer my question. If the prophecies of Daniel and the four kingdoms were not written by Daniel but added after Alexander the Great conquered Judea, that has implications.....

 

[JacktheCatholic]

That didn't answer my question. If the prophecies of Daniel and the four kingdoms were not written by Daniel but added after Alexander the Great conquered Judea, that has implications.....

Why???

 

[anawim]

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?

There are Greek portions of Daniel (ch. 3:24-90, and ch. 13 & 14)

However, they may or may not have originally been composed in Hebrew. Since it has not been preserved, I'm not sure that anyone can say for certain whether or not Daniel wrote those chapters and verses as well.

 

[LargeTrout]

The OP posted this very same question in the Baptist subforum as well. Odd.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The OP posted this very same question in the Baptist subforum as well. Odd.

truly...

 

[anawim]

The rise of the 4 kingdoms is in Dan. ch. 2 & 7, btw. Not in 3, 13, or 14.

 

[ebia]

There were Councils that canonized the 73 books we use for Scripture and since the Church has declared them so then we as the Body of that Church (of Jesus Christ) accept it.

The question isn't "is Daniel inspired, canonical, scripture", but "when was it written?".

 

[ebia]

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.

Yep. Most? serious scholarship for best part of a century has dated Daniel to the mid 2nd century (though no doubt parts of the stories are much older).

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?

Mostly they are about a particular view of what scripture must be, rather than an examination of what Daniel is, but you can find them by rifling through the commentaries till you find one that agrees with you.

 

[JoabAnias]

5 Dating and content

Link fixed.

@ RMDY, your not concerned with the book being spurious are you?

 

[Polycarp1]

5 Dating and content

Whatever you intended to do, Joab, that link takes one to the main menu of CF. Try posting it again, sir, if you'd be so kind?

As is the case with Jeremiah, the narrative portions of Daniel are about rather than by the prophet. While in the case of Jeremiah, we know the author: Baruch the scribe, Jeremiah's amanuensis, wrote down Jeremiah's prophecies and wrote the framework in which they are presented, we do not know the same for Daniel. For reasons of Hebrew style and vocabulary, as well as the extensive use of Aramaic and Greek, some scholars think that the book as we have it (in either the proterocanonical or deuterocanonical versions) dates from roughly Persian to Maccabean times. As noted, this does not affect its canonicity, merely the dating of its final form.

 

[JoabAnias]

Whatever you intended to do, Joab, that link takes one to the main menu of CF. Try posting it again, sir, if you'd be so kind?

As is the case with Jeremiah, the narrative portions of Daniel are about rather than by the prophet. While in the case of Jeremiah, we know the author: Baruch the scribe, Jeremiah's amanuensis, wrote down Jeremiah's prophecies and wrote the framework in which they are presented, we do not know the same for Daniel. For reasons of Hebrew style and vocabulary, as well as the extensive use of Aramaic and Greek, some scholars think that the book as we have it (in either the proterocanonical or deuterocanonical versions) dates from roughly Persian to Maccabean times. As noted, this does not affect its canonicity, merely the dating of its final form.

Argh, not sure why it does that. I have caught that before too. Missed it this time.

Here is the link:

Book of Daniel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just go down to item 5.

There is some interesting reasoning there that Daniel's revelations are actually vaticinia ex eventu or prophecies after the event.

Thanks for catching the broken link.

 

[Fish and Bread]

There are Greek portions of Daniel (ch. 3:24-90, and ch. 13 & 14)

I like the part about the dragon.

However, they may or may not have originally been composed in Hebrew. Since it has not been preserved, I'm not sure that anyone can say for certain whether or not Daniel wrote those chapters and verses as well.

That's a good point. I've heard that researchers have discovered that some of the duetrocanonical books, which were previously thought to have been originally written in Greek, have had Hebrew versions that may be the actual originals surface.

Anyhow, I think the bottom line with any of this stuff is that one accepts them on the Church's authority as inspired scripture. It doesn't really matter who wrote them, in that sense. The Torah was at one time thought to have been written by Moses, but it's almost certain now that it wasn't, and may well have had lots of different authors, and that doesn't really effect it's validity, because it's validity as scripture wasn't based on who wrote it, but it's recognition by the Church.

Still, some of these questions are interesting just in and of themselves, even if they don't really effect anything in a strict sense. Honestly, the part about the dragon is probably enough to tell you portions of some of these books may be a little ahistorical and not written by the actual historical personages involved. But not always being things that literally happened doesn't mean that they don't convey spiritual truth.

 

[ebia]

In the case of Daniel realizing a late date can help draw some inferences about what are good and less good ways of trying to apply those 'prophetic' chapters - and similar chapters elsewhere. I'd put money on anyone who tries to read Rev as the history of this century written in advance being also someone who dates Daniel to the 6th century.

 

[Chococat]

Daniel 1 - 2 - 66/40 - K-House

 

[EmbattledBunny]

There were Councils that canonized the 73 books we use for Scripture and since the Church has declared them so then we as the Body of that Church (of Jesus Christ) accept it.

Try to stay on topic, moderator.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

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?

Liberal "scholars" and critics prima facie reject the idea of prophecy. They believe that if a prophecy seems to be accurate, it must have been written after the events happened. They are wrong.

 

[SolomonVII]

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?

When it comes to Biblical research, the question is not so much whether a theory is true, but whetyher it is believable, well-researched and threrefore probable.

From a Christian point of view, whatever the implications of this being written at a later date than expected, there can be no implications that it is therefore not scriptural.
I personally think that Daniel was written in the period when the Deuterocanicals were written, and that the Five Books of Moses were written closer to the times of David than the times of Moses.

But what do I know?

 

[ebia]

Liberal "scholars" and critics prima facie reject the idea of prophecy. They believe that if a prophecy seems to be accurate, it must have been written after the events happened. They are wrong.

There is some truth in that, but there is also a mass of scholaship that does not reject the possibility of genuine prophesy, is far from "liberal", and dates Daniel to the second century bc on good historical thought and good theology about the nature of inspired prophesy - both Catholic and non-Catholic scholarship.

It would be a lie to say that everyone who dates Daniel late disbelieved in genuine biblical prophesy.