Book of daniel dating
On the other hand, until the conviction of the authenticity of the book is established in the mind of the inquirer, further study is useless, unless we apply the device of "re-interpretation" as a hermeneutic.
Let it be emphasized the latter is all that re mains to Seventh-day Adventists if we reject the traditional dating of the Old Testament apocalypse.
The book, particularly in its early chapters, contains several historical inaccuracies. Linguistic and literary peculiarities indicate an authorship centuries removed from the time of the exile. Certain theological concepts, such as a developed angelology and the doctrine of the resurrection, belong to later times. The central figure of the "prophecies" is always Antiochus Epiphanes, and the four kingdoms are Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece.
Jeremiah 30-31 is not dated and consists of a prophetic oracle of hope not of a pronouncment of enactment of a divine decree.
Furthermore, the position that the first seven weeks of years begin with the enunciation of Jeremiah's warnings regarding Jerusalem's destruction turns the Danielic prophecy on its head.
THE Seventh-day Adventist doctrinal structure is at several points similar to a spider's web suspended from a single vital strand.
For example, our doctrinal distinctiveness lies in eschatology, and our traditional positions here are dependent upon the validity of the year-day principle and the sixth-century dating of Daniel.
Neither is the concept of resurrection entirely missing from the rest of the Old Testament.
The reason for its rare occurrence is indicated in 2 Timothy .
Nowadays, in view of our increased knowledge of the early spread of Greek culture and language to Palestine and surrounding countries, it has be come a puzzle for those who date Daniel late why the book does not contain scores of Greek terms instead of just three." Linguistic studies show that Greek expressions exist in texts of the Near East long before the Maccabean era. Along with these preliminary observations the Adventist advocate should be aware that on the other hand a number of scholars in our own ranks admit the presence (but not the pre-eminence) of Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel's prophecies. Now let us consider the evidence against that position which posits the centrality of Epiphanes and the position of Greece as the fourth empire. The seventy weeks equal 490 years, roughly speaking. To view it as merely a pious hope associated with the re-establishment of the sanctuary services after Antiochus Epiphanes is to restrict its perspective with out legitimate reason.
"The going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" is an allusion to one of the prophecies of Jeremiah. The following points summarize our critique of the Maccabean interpretation. To interpret "the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem" as being a prophetic message from Jeremiah requires not only a rejection of the bearing of parallel passages of similar wording, but also an imagination of sufficient power to transmute prophetic passages descriptive of ruin into divine commands of restoration. In both cases the meaning is obviously that of the pronouncement and enactment of a royal command.
However, because recent years have demonstrated the widespread Greek influences in the Near East before Nebuchadnezzar's time, and thus have shown that the Greek terms in Daniel could well be traced to that influence, we append a recent comment from an authority in this second area. 1965 there has been no reappraisal of the Maccabean date for Daniel, in spite of the increasing mass of evidence for early contacts between the Aegean and the Near East.
In reading commentaries on Daniel the writer has been struck by the complete sclerosis of critical thought regarding the date of its composition, and the implications of the Creek words in Daniel for that date. The late date of Daniel has come to be one of those "assumptions tidily packaged and put away as being no longer open to question." James A. Archeological evidence is accumulating at such a rate that any position particularly one based on arguments from silence or very limited data that is not carefully reappraised within a decade is in danger of obsolescence.
The most well-known instance is the argument based on the Ara maic in chapters 2-7 of the book. While orthography in many cases indicates editorial work by later hands this is also the case with other Old Testament books. Similarly, since the discovery of Daniel manuscripts among the Dead Sea scrolls scholars are enquiring whether this fact does not call for a revision of the critical dating position analogous to the revision already made of the dating of some of the Psalms once postulated as Maccabean. Not only have some once popular arguments against the authenticity of Daniel been either modified or dropped, but it is just as true that others have boomeranged. Ginsberg (who sees at least six authors behind Daniel) others now follow H. Rowley in postulating a single author for the book, one who gathered older materials and fashioned a unified presentation. The last week of the seventy revolves around the exploits of Antiochus, the first half comprehending his alliance with apostate Jews, and the second involving the persecution of the faithful in Israel. Verse 24 is one of the most sublime passages in the Old Testament.