Dating of Daniel

[John T]

@Jayson,

I understand your point but still disagree with your assumption.
Be as that may, that is besides the point. So, back to your main point as to how old is the book of Daniel.

The book of Daniel is tied directly to the Babylonian exile. Daniel is probably Dnil, from the Ugaritic Aqhat legend of 1500 B.C. The name and events gets changed to better suit the situation and religious beliefs of the Jews in captivity.
Edited over the centuries, as needs warranted, it is easy to see how people today could take Chap.11 which was revised history when written and read it as fulfilled prophecy regarding Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Syria in 168 B.C.

It is my understanding and I'm too lazy to look it up, that Daniel was still being revised in 200 A.D. The Essenes looked at Daniel, specifically chapter 12, for clues as to when the great prince Michael (the angel) would appear. See "Prayer of Nabonidus".

So, how old is Daniel? Well, it all depends on which edition of Daniel you are talking about. The first edition is around 535 B.C. however, that was based on another story from 1500 B.C. from another culture/religion.

Hope that helps.

Sincerely,
John T

[Jayson]

I agree on your outline of providence timeline; for clarity, I was only answering to the query regarding the DSS copy.
If we are discussing the absolute origin, as you state, that is a slippery question and depends, as you note, on which way the question is asked.
The first "Hebrew" copy appears to be in the 500 BCE range and then of course we have to keep in mind, again as you note, that the Hebrew peoples inherited much of their mythology from prior cultures of influence such as the Ugaritic culture.

[John T]

The dating of the oldest edition of Daniel written by the Essenes varies.
I do not know of any carbon dating of Daniel, DSS.

"The oldest manuscript of Daniel by far is 4QDanc, which Cross dated in 1961 to the “late second century BC” (Cross 1961:43)....Dr. Hasel

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... px#Article

4QDanc/4Q114, is so badly fragmented (broken pieces) to the point I don't see how they can determine that it is the oldest. Frankly, to the naked eye, the pieces vary in color to the point I wonder if they are all part of the same scroll? Perhaps DCHindley knows?

http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explor ... pt/4Q114-1

John T

[Jayson]

2nd c CE is not a challenging date, though, even as a guess; that's the date range of a good amount of DSS content.

[John T]

Most of the DSS of Daniel could easily be dated around the time of James the Just.
Chances are, 4Q114 is not really that old but belongs to around 40 A.D. (IMHO).

[Jayson]

I am unfamiliar with your reference of citing 114 to CE ranges.
4Q114 is typically ranged to late 2nd c BCE paleographically.
1Q71 and 72 are Herodian time frame, 4Q113 and 6Q7 align to 1st c CE ranges as well, while 4Q112, 114, 115 and 116 range between late 2nd c BCE to 1st c BCE paleographically.

Why do you determine CE range for 114?

[spin]

I am unfamiliar with your reference of citing 114 to CE ranges.
4Q114 is typically ranged to late 2nd c BCE paleographically.
1Q71 and 72 are Herodian time frame, 4Q113 and 6Q7 align to 1st c CE ranges as well, while 4Q112, 114, 115 and 116 range between late 2nd c BCE to 1st c BCE paleographically.

Qumran palaeography is, to be succinct, bollox. It is a hare-brained scheme that leapt out of FM Cross's head in the late 1950s, first fully enunciated in the Albright festschrist, ed GE Wright, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, DD-Anchor 1961, "The Development of Jewish Scripts", 170-264. Not one of the chronological fixed points he uses holds up. Cross argued against Ronny Reich's date of the Gezer boundary markers. He used de Vaux's now rejected date for the end of his Period 1B. Qumran palaeography is a bit like mental cosplay for bib-archeologists. It is not supported in any meaningful way by carbondating and when it's wrong, as demonstrated in the first publication of 4Q448, they surreptitiously used the internal dating to the time of Alexander Jannaeus, the text's "King Jonathan".

[Jayson]

I am not averse to re-dating anything in the DSS. We just have to show reasoning for what dates we elect.
If we cast out the current paleographic dates, where such is the only current dating, what device shall we employ to determine our dates?

[semiopen]

I agree on your outline of providence timeline; for clarity, I was only answering to the query regarding the DSS copy.
If we are discussing the absolute origin, as you state, that is a slippery question and depends, as you note, on which way the question is asked.
The first "Hebrew" copy appears to be in the 500 BCE range and then of course we have to keep in mind, again as you note, that the Hebrew peoples inherited much of their mythology from prior cultures of influence such as the Ugaritic culture.

I'm not sure if I'm reading to much into the subtle wording here but -

There is a claim that Danel is related to the guy mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel. This is pretty dubious, but I haven't seen anybody bold enough to actually claim that Danel is related to Daniel. But maybe you're not saying that at all.

Also you mentioned David and Habiru in the same sentence in another thread. The Habiru probably have nothing to do with Hebrews -

Since the discovery of the 2nd millennium inscriptions mentioning the Habiru there have been many theories linking these to the Hebrews of the Bible. Anson Rainey has argued that "the plethora of attempts to relate apiru (Habiru) to the gentilic ibri are all nothing but wishful thinking."[9]

Wishful thinking to say the least. John_Van_Seters notes that it's hard to believe that the P in Apiru could somehow morph into a B, not to mention a few dozen other issues. Nonetheless this is much less outrageous than linking Danel to Daniel.

But, again, you probably weren't implying this at all.

[Jayson]

I agree on your outline of providence timeline; for clarity, I was only answering to the query regarding the DSS copy.
If we are discussing the absolute origin, as you state, that is a slippery question and depends, as you note, on which way the question is asked.
The first "Hebrew" copy appears to be in the 500 BCE range and then of course we have to keep in mind, again as you note, that the Hebrew peoples inherited much of their mythology from prior cultures of influence such as the Ugaritic culture.

I'm not sure if I'm reading to much into the subtle wording here but -

There is a claim that Danel is related to the guy mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel. This is pretty dubious, but I haven't seen anybody bold enough to actually claim that Danel is related to Daniel. But maybe you're not saying that at all.

I was not addressing any historical accuracy to the content within the text, no.

Also you mentioned David and Habiru in the same sentence in another thread. The Habiru probably have nothing to do with Hebrews

Are you sure that was me?
I don't recall this post.