So what we have here is in fact not a road map of the future laid down in the 6th century B.C. Why? Because human beings are unable to accurately predict the future events centuries in advance and to say that Daniel could do so, even on the basis of a symbolic revelation, vouchsafed to him by God and interpreted by an angel, is to fly in the face of the certainties of human nature. However, as long as we have Daniel commentators, scholars, and skeptics starting out with their presuppositions such as: “We need to assume that the vision of Daniel chapter 8 as a whole is a prophecy after the fact. date for an uninformed writer versus an eyewitness writer or for a fictional genre versus a historical genre, but never for a post-Maccabean dating, never! The predictive prophecy relative to Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel will therefore stand, and stand firm! This material therefore could be used to argue for a 3rd century B.C.E. Historical and linguistic difficulties become interpretive issues, and the methods of dating or locating the text within the pre-Maccabean period and methods for assessing the accuracy of the writer become another mater altogether. If we regard this conclusion to be true and we do, then all the historical and linguistic problems in the book of Daniel are irrelevant, to a discussion of this ‘Maccabean’ or ‘pre-Maccabean’ question.
Accordingly, it looks like the manuscript data is very supportive that Daniel is at least pre-Maccabean and therefore the prophetic sections of Daniel were written before the events were mentioned. Finally we also see that the use of ‘Jubilees’ as authoritative interpretation at Qumran cannot be used successfully to determine the argument.
and in light of dual textual tradition, canonical prophetic status and pre-sectarian origins, this would support a date of origination much earlier than 165 B.C.E. We see from the fact that Daniel having been written before the Qumran community was established places it minimally, pre-150 B.C.E. Therefore, acceptance of a ‘Late Date Jubilee Theory’ for the book of Daniel, created by the founding Teachers is absolutely absurd!Īs we summarize what we have gleaned from the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ we see that the presence of the manuscripts of Daniel, when coupled with the “High View Theory” of Daniel as a prophet would indicate a pre-Maccabean date, by a methodology admitted to by the non-conservatives themselves. It also enjoyed pan-Jewish acceptance as only the “High Scripture” books did, and this indicates pre-sectarian antiquity for its prophetic significance for the Qumran community as well as the rest of the nation of Israel. It was itself “interpreted” and translated in the ( Midrash) a Jewish commentary and was “emulated” by many other works.
is at least pre-Maccabean and therefore his prophecies were true prophecies indeed!ĭaniel also had membership in what is referred to as, “High Scripture” and was fully authoritative in a primary and non-derivitive sense. Then, it would be safe to say that Daniel, if not originally 6th century B.C.E. and the most probable direction of borrowing in each case is from Daniel. Summary: Now, if we have early Daniel manuscripts from the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ that virtually require a pre-Maccabean date for their previous text, under commonly accepted “literary diffusion” time requirements and all the major pre-Maccabean literature utilizes elements from Daniel and all the “possibly” to “quite probably” pre-Maccabean literature utilizes elements from Daniel and all the Maccabean and post-Maccabean works of significance utilize Daniel and all of the sources closest in time, expertise and eyewitnesses to the situation, (Qumran, New Testament, Josephus, Rabbinics, etc) describe Daniel’s writings as prophecies of the future and all of the sectarian groups accept Daniel as canonical and several of the documents discussed suggest a date for Daniel around the end of the 4th century and the start of the 3rd century B.C.E. “The Daniel Dilemma by Adam Boguski – Part #3”
0 kommentar(er)
