Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Thanks for the detailed information DCH. However, if pilgrims were bringing in "foreign" coins (including drachmae and denarii) which the money changers exchanged, there must have been denarii to be found in the vicinity of Jerusalem. That they are not found in hoards in Judea would sugges...

And I would imagine coinage from different parts of the empire would circulate freely. The exception would be purchases made in the temple for sacrificial animals, but outside of the temple one dollar would be as good as another.

semiopen wrote:Now Semiopen was a very humble man, more so than any other man on earth. (Num 12:3 TNK)

We must be twins.

Josephus recounts a legend about a religious work, that happened in 331 BCE ... That he has the Jewish high priest present the book to Alexander is probably his own invention ... So, Josephus is accurate when it agrees with liberal scholarship? But it is 'legend' or 'his invention' when it agrees w...

Of particular interest to biblical scholars are Chapters 44–50, in which Ben Sira praises "men of renown, and our fathers in their generation" ... with the apparent exception of only Ezra, Daniel, Ruth, Esther, and perhaps Chronicles ... This is very strong evidence considering the subjec...

semiopen wrote: Obviously academics have read Josephus, and they don't think that legend is credible.

Well, obviously you don't know. I wonder if any of the 'academics' would like to make explain Josephus' deviation into legend?

In the OP, you quite rationally asked if there was a middle ground between 530 BCE and 165 BCE. Thank you. :) I think Im coming up with something. :idea: As we know the extreme views of 'fundamentalists' and 'liberals' place the date of Daniel at 530 BC and 165 BC respectively. Now, I would like to...

spin wrote:

Ged wrote:

semiopen wrote:Sorry there is no middle view.

Im not sure you are right there.

Think about it a bit more considering all the evidence and come back with your conclusions.

Hang on a minute. I just need to bestow upon myself 'rational analytic skills' before I come back with my conclusions.

semiopen wrote: My own personal theory is that people who say 530 BCE are religious fundamentalists who have limited rational analytic skills.

Which is worst - limited analytic skills or unlimited arrogance?

semiopen wrote:Sorry there is no middle view.

Im not sure you are right there.

Kris, While you haven't asked (yet), The modern convention of dating the composition of the book of Daniel to the Maccabean rebellion, usually around 165 to 164 BCE, is not based on the dates that are ascribed to the stories in the text. Traditionally Daniel has been dated to about 530 BC during th...