THIS is Brilliantly presented! I just read the article by Dr. Richard Carrier titled "Why Daniel is a forgery," and this video by Dr. Josh fortifies the objective evidence so clearly, concisely and powerfully even a teenager with average intelligence could grasp it readily. Digital Hammarabi "hiteth the ball out of the arena."
Dr carrrier doesn't have peer reviewed work ....and is not regarded as biblical scholar since he doesn't have the qualifications to be one(depends on interpretation from already interpreted).....he has no knowledge or studied ancient languages that requires one to be a biblical, he doesn't work or teach at an academic institution.... the few peer reviewed works he presented were regarded as an academic failure....... Quote from reputable scholars not the fringe ones....
Many so-called "Bible scholars" don't know what they are talking about, have no faith in God and do not believe in the existence of predictive prophecy -- hence they automatically discard the possibility of the Book of Daniel being authentic, because it predicts history so accurately. Well, the Book of Daniel is absolutely authentic and written more than 500 years BC... and accurately predicts the first coming of Jesus, to the exact year! And THAT is why the devil and atheists hate the book so much!
@@tened8530The dead sea scrolls date from the third to the first century BCE so that fits this video entirely. The dead sea scrolls aren't helping the case that Daniel comes from the sixth century BCE
@@patrickngunjiri5340 Have you actually READ Carrier? Doesn't look like it. All you offered was ad hominem arguments against him. Why not treat yourself to reading his essay on how Daniel is a forgery? What? You cannot use the knowledge of ancient history (his specialty) to show that almost all of the historical information that Daniel reports is all wrong? That Darius the Mede never existed? That he gets all the successors of Nebuchadnezzar wrong? That there is a plethora of Greek-loan words that one would not expect to see in an Aramaic text, especially Greek loan words that don’t otherwise appear in Aramaic texts or inscriptions until the late Persian period (long after Daniel was supposed to have been written)? That the 49, 434, and final 7-year periods (weeks) just coincidently happen to line up and culminate in the period between 171 BCE (the year that the High Priest i.e. “the Anointed" Onias III was assassinated), and 164 BCE, the conclusion of the Maccabean revolt? So if Daniel got all of this wrong, which is readily demonstrable now thanks to historical records from the Babylonians and Persians, then "Daniel" is full of shit. It is a forgery. And that the final 7-year period happens to line up with the conclusion of the Maccabean revolt, seems to indicate that this forgery is a piece of Maccabean theological propaganda. But again, think for yourself. Be open to falsifying your views. Consider alternate viewpoints. Daniel is a failed prophecy, and he tried to correct Jeremiah's failed prophecy before him. And 2 Esdras tries to save Daniel's failed prophecy after him (replacing Greece with Rome as the "final earthly kingdom.")
JESUS IS LORD That it doesn’t surprise me that channels geared toward ministry or apologetics would restrict dialogue or critique altogether by disabling comments. Hoover institute does it as well.
Sorry to tell you that the author of the video is not accurate with the information. I will be straight forward on this, this video is filled will inaccurate explanations and summary conclusions of 'what consensus scholarship' agrees on. The most honest thing said here was 'without going into great detail.' That basically means, 'let me give you my desired outcome' without exactly demonstrating if my conclusions are correct. This would be like going up to a science fair display board seeing the Hypothesis and Results without seeing the procedure and research being done. Like always, critics of 6th BC authorship have to adhere to a 4-Empire scheme that is 1) Bab 2) Media 3) Persia 4) Greece. While Daniel always and only refers to the Medes & Persians together (Dan 5:28; 6:8,12,15), the critics have to separate these two because if Greece is the 3rd, Rome is thus the 4th and the prophetical sections look past Greece. (see th-cam.com/video/xRNJVpCFDyo/w-d-xo.html) At 2:08, the author said that Daniel 1:1 is historically inaccurate, again wrong. It is actually spot on by the fact that Daniel is using the Babylonian accession counting method instead of the traditional Israelite non-accession counting method. (see th-cam.com/video/ofpbwU_2E4Y/w-d-xo.html) At 3:48, the author said that Daniel 9 lays out the time period to Greece. Um no. It's clearly a 490 year period that starts with the rebuilding of the wall 457 BC to 27 AD that says after this the Messiah will be cut off (die by execution, gee I wonder who this could be) and also the 2nd Temple would be destroyed after that as well (ie 70 AD Roman destruction under Titus.) Next, the Aramaic and Hebrew language do not reflect a late Palestinian Aramaic or Hebrew. Read Kenneth A Kitchen's "The Aramaic of Daniel." He's actually a linguistic scholar in the field and published or see th-cam.com/video/NlphqPSpDlY/w-d-xo.html. Is Nebuchadnezzar called Belshazzar's father and vice verse the son? Yes. Which is TOTALLY OKAY because Hebrew and Aramaic don't have a separate word for grandfather and grandson. They use the same word. This is used in the Bible and Assyrian records elsewhere: Old Testament Ex: Elisha called Elijah his father (2 Kings 2:12) 1 Kings 19:16 And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room. New Testament Ex: Jesus “the son of David” Matthew 1:1 Jews “Abraham is our father” John 8:39 Archaeological Ex: Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III Calls Israel’s King Jehu as ‘son of Omri’ The author said at the ~6:00 that 'we don't need a simplistic supernatural view.' What that really meant was that critics can't allow for early authorship because the God of the Bible and Israel would then be real because the only explanation for Daniel to forecast the next 700 years was by supernatural means.
Great vid Dr. Josh. I am just finishing up a book that Dr Carrier suggested to me about how the earlier books of the bible were composed. This video picks up right where the book left off. This is a fascinating part of history that so many know so little about, yet has influenced us greatly. Keep up the great work, and I am looking forward to your next vid. :-)
You separated the Medo-Persian Empire meanwhile the book of Daniel has them together as a combined empire (Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian) Daniel depicts them as the Bear which lifted up itself on one side with 3 ribs in his mouth and as the chest and arms of silver. His depictions go in the order of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and then Rome. The bear lifting up itself on one side simply means one of them was more prominent than the other. The two arms and chest of silver represent the 2 kingdoms of Medes and Persians connected together into one empire. The leopard with four heads represents the four of Alexander’s generals that took control after his death. After Alexander's death his Empire was divided among his four generals (known in Latin as the Diadochi, the name by which they are still referenced, from the Greek, Diadokhoi, meaning "successors") the wings represents speed in which the empire conquered. Greece conquered much faster than did Babylon with just 2 wings.
@Mavors the fourth kingdom is pagan Rome and out of her comes Papal Rome mother of harlots and the ten toes of of the Roman Empire which is Western Europe and The United States of America (The Lamblike beast). He’s just a EuroWhite tryna clear Europe out of the prophecy because it clearly lists them as the bad guys.
Kiya cherrae No zionist pagan god of Israel Daniel never existed Abraham moses old testament patriarch and Jesus his disciples never existed. And the new testament was never written by disciples this supernatural been you believe in who never existed and supertious claims that never happened evil genocidal racist maniac from the zionist bible and your speaking for this imaginary been who don't exists zionist bible is a book of racist zionist literature and zionist nationalism if any white European would have written that book it would have been banned Jews are middle eastern Asian they can get away with it.
I agree ... actually there are lots reasons why a second century dating of Daniel does not match up. www.markhaughwout.com/Bible/Dating_Daniel.pdf Daniel also predicts the establishment of a new Kingdom during the time of the fourth beast which will start small (a stone) and end up being a mountain which covers the whole world. Further Daniel accurately predicts the destruction of the second temple. If the text was written falsely to boost the Jewish believers they certainly would not have said that the second temple will be destroyed.
I'm thankful that I am doing a series exactly on this topic currently. So I will be straight forward on this, this video is filled will inaccurate explanations and summary conclusions of 'what consensus scholarship' agrees on. The most honest thing said here was 'without going into great detail.' That basically means, 'let me give you my desired outcome' without exactly demonstrating if my conclusions are correct. This would be like going up to a science fair display board seeing the Hypothesis and Results without seeing the procedure and research being done. Like always, critics of 6th BC authorship have to adhere to a 4-Empire scheme that is 1) Bab 2) Media 3) Persia 4) Greece. While Daniel always and only refers to the Medes & Persians together (Dan 5:28; 6:8,12,15), the critics have to separate these two because if Greece is the 3rd, Rome is thus the 4th and the prophetical sections look past Greece. (see th-cam.com/video/xRNJVpCFDyo/w-d-xo.html) At 2:08, the author said that Daniel 1:1 is historically inaccurate, again wrong. It is actually spot on by the fact that Daniel is using the Babylonian accession counting method instead of the traditional Israelite non-accession counting method. (see th-cam.com/video/ofpbwU_2E4Y/w-d-xo.html) At 3:48, the author said that Daniel 9 lays out the time period to Greece. Um no. It's clearly a 490 year period that starts with the rebuilding of the wall 457 BC to 27 AD that says after this the Messiah will be cut off (die by execution, gee I wonder who this could be) and also the 2nd Temple would be destroyed after that as well (ie 70 AD Roman destruction under Titus.) Next, the Aramaic and Hebrew language do not reflect a late Palestinian Aramaic or Hebrew. Read Kenneth A Kitchen's "The Aramaic of Daniel." He's actually a linguistic scholar in the field and published or see th-cam.com/video/NlphqPSpDlY/w-d-xo.html. Is Nebuchadnezzar called Belshazzar's father and vice verse the son? Yes. Which is TOTALLY OKAY because Hebrew and Aramaic don't have a separate word for grandfather and grandson. They use the same word. This is used in the Bible and Assyrian records elsewhere: Old Testament Ex: Elisha called Elijah his father (2 Kings 2:12) 1 Kings 19:16 And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room. New Testament Ex: Jesus “the son of David” Matthew 1:1 Jews “Abraham is our father” John 8:39 Archaeological Ex: Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III Calls Israel’s King Jehu as ‘son of Omri’ The author said at the ~6:00 that 'we don't need a simplistic supernatural view.' What that really meant was that critics can't allow for early authorship because the God of the Bible and Israel would then be real because the only explanation for Daniel to forecast the next 700 years was by supernatural means.
Hi Just Scriptures Ministries! We are really glad that you are here, and we appreciate your comments. It is nice to have people engage with the text. The issues surrounding the book of Daniel are quite complex, as I am sure that you know, and making definitive statements concerning the referents in apocalyptic language can be problematic. I would say that, to rely on a scholar like Kenneth Kitchen in linguistic matters is probably not a wise idea. I would suggest reviewing the work by the evangelical scholar C.L. Seow and John Collins on some of these issues. I would also say that the primary difficulty that one faces with an early dating of Daniel comes with the events portrayed in chapters 10-12. You are correct: the video is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis of all of the issues involved with the dating of Daniel, which would take a great deal of time (and likely be quite tedious for many of the viewers), but I would hope that you would not bring any of your own conclusions to the evidence. As it stands, I have no axe to grind here, nor a dog in the fight (I could probably think of other metaphors, but that's probably good enough :-) ); I am an agnostic that was a Christian for nearly 30 years, and my wife is still a Christian. Again, it is wonderful that you are here!!
@@DigitalHammurabi I think both of us know that we could throw scholars, e.g Gleason Archer Jr, at each other all day on this. The dividing line is the prophecies. Nobody would care anything about Daniel, no different than dating Nahum, Joel, Jonah, whoever if it wasn't for those prophecies. I agree that some viewers probably wouldn't want to see all the tedious, minutia, but I hope we would both agree that they should. The theory of late dating Daniel at 165 BC has absolutely no historical merit to it. Nobody from that time period ever spoke about the book in the manner that critics say, that it was forged by anonymous authors as an encouragement against AE4. Historical Reasons Why Late Dating Fails 1) Josephus basically copied and pasted the book into his Antiquities of the Jews Book Books 10-11 and said the book was presented to Alexander the Great that he was the notable horn from Daniel 8. So is Josephus part of the lie, a misinformed historian, or is he passing along a real story? 2) The Sibylline Oracles dated in the 2nd BC speaks of Daniel and make references out of Chapter 10. 3) 1 Maccabees dated at 132 BC speaks Daniel & his friends in the exile period with attached references to Daniel 3 & 6 events. 4) DSS of Daniel dated in the 2nd BC. There's no way for the copying and popularization to happen this quickly to then be taking to the Qumram community. 5) 3 Additions to Daniel said to have been composed at 100 BC. I would venture that is only because of the authorship debate, but still, those additions would have never made their way just a few decades after. 6) LXX Translation. The process started in 286 BC and there is no reason to say that it took them 200 years to do the whole OT Canon other than trying to shove Daniel late. 7) LXX Translation Errors: At the latest, even in the critical view, Daniel could be translated is at 100 BC because of the above but yet the translators (the most learned Jewish scribes) made errors. So they were either fooled, ignorant or part of the forgery? All of those are nonsense which means is that their difficulty in translating some words was because they had passed out of use long before them. 8) OT Canonization. Nobody has a problem saying that the rest of the OT was composed by 5th BC, but somehow Daniel (forged & full of errors - Critical View) got in coming out of the 2nd BC when all writings from that time and later Josephus said no prophets were around. Which is why they said they put the altar of sacrifice in storage because they didn't have a prophet to tell how to handle the situation. Daniel would have never been considered under the Critical View. 9) NT References - let's just be straight on this. Jesus mentions Daniel and quotes him about the abomination of desolation and speaking of it as a future event. So is Jesus lying, a fool, or telling the truth? 10) 2000 years of fooled ignorance? This issue is 1st spoken by Porphyry in the 4th AD that exists only in Jerome's work. So under the Critical View, 2000 years went by 165 BC - late 19th AD where everyone was fooled that Daniel was composed in the 6th BC until some German critical scholar took issue with it and the rest of the OT? Really? "Oh, that's because of the church domination." Sorry, bunk because of the reasons above and common sense. If chapters 7-12 were out, nobody would care and leave the book at the 6th BC. Put them in and critics freak out because of the implications that would leave them with.
Again, citing Gleason Archer tells me that you may not have done the necessary reading in the secondary literature to adequately address this issue. I do not mean to be offensive with that observation, but rather it is meant to encourage you to learn the languages that you are arguing from (if you have not already), and then digest the research (which is extensive) that has already gone into this issue.
@@DigitalHammurabi Do I know those ancient languages? No. So yes, I am going to appeal to scholars who are well known for their understanding in those languages. But do I need to know those languages for the historical side of the debate? No. The Late Authorship fails on these grounds for the reasons above. The Greek 4 Empire Scheme that critics have to use and place Greece as the fourth empire and the splitting Media and Persia apart absolutely does not follow what is said in Daniel or in history. But it is still used because Critical proponents can't allow for the book to be read as if it is speaking of events past AE4 and into the Roman period. Somehow they say that the Bear is Media; 4-winged Leopard is Persia; and 10-horn monster is Greece in Daniel 7 but then somehow concede that Daniel 8's 2-horn Ram is the combined Empire of Medo-Persia and the Goat is Greece. 2-horn Ram lines up with the Bear as both described one side of the empire stronger than the other, hence Persia was the stronger of the 2 nations. And the 4-winged Leopard lines up with the 4-horned goat. The goat with 4 horns doesn't line up with the 4th beast with 10 horns. Plus, they will never bring up Daniel 9's 70 Weeks because they cannot lay that out on a timeline without the events described in it falling into the 1st AD with Jesus being executed 'cut off' (30 AD) and the 2nd Temple being destroyed (70 AD). I honestly understand that those who don't desire or even hate the notion of Supernatural involvement will ever concede on these points. So if skeptics want to argue against Daniel and bring up "difficulties" within the text, go ahead. But they need to more transparent and honest with the available information. Simply giving pithy conclusions that agree with their desired outcome is where I draw issue with critics. Because it's not simply angled at dismissing the book, it's attacking the character of the Bible as a whole, and ultimately trying to subvert the faith of many people with the same intent as that of the Zeitgeist movie.
I know you believe this to be a clear and straightforward issue, but I would urge you to take the time to learn these languages and to read ancient literature in a meaningful way before drawing firm conclusions. You sound as if you are convinced of your position based on the information that you have, which is admirable; I would caution you to hold that position loosely while you develop an expertise in these fields and learn to examine critically the secondary literature. I wish you all the best in your endeavors.
Also worth noting verses like 12:9 where Daniel is told to keep his prophecies secret. "The words are to remain secret and sealed until the time of the end." This would explain to 2nd-century readers why they had never heard of these prophecies before. They were supposedly kept secret until they were being fulfilled!
That would imply the 70 or 72 rabies that went to Alexandria to translate the Tanakh to Greek, requested by the Greek Pharaoh, didn’t have the whole book of Daniel until after 165 BCE. They finished the whole LXX translation by 132, are you buying that you all? By 125 the Qumran people was considering it as Scriptures, interesting that from 3rd Century CE and at our time, we baldly declare it as forgery, basing conclusions mostly on the final piece of evidence. I personally don’t think so!
A couple of notes (around 2:16): Thiele has already noted that Daniel uses Tishri to Tishri accession reckoning, which was common in Judah and among the exiles but contrasts with the Nisan-Nisan reckoning used by Jeremiah and the Babylonians. As such, for six months out of every year the calendars appear out of sync. The year in question according to the reckoning of Daniel and Judah was the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar II, and Berossus indicates Nebuchadnezzar II took Jewish captives to Babylon when he traveled home to secure the throne. Secondly, Daniel does not distinguish Media and Persia as separate empires. In chapter 6 as well as in chapter 8, references is made to the law of the Medes and Persians which cannot be altered. Ezra likewise refers to the law in similar fashion--the laws of the Persians and Medes, which ought not be altered. Assyriologists have also long since recognized that Assyrian and Babylonian kings would refer to any one of their predecessors as their ex-officio father, even in the case where there is no blood relation, and a multitude of examples can be given. The phrase "the king my father" or "kings my fathers" is very common in Assyrian documents to speak of royal predecessors, even by usurpers (e.g. Tiglath-pilessar and Sargon II). Even Nabonidus, who claims that "kingship was not in me," refers to Nebuchadnezzar as his "royal ancestor" and in the Nabonidus Cylinder he refers to his predecessors as "kings my fathers." Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar likewise refer to their predecessors as "kings my fathers." In contrast, Nebuchadnezzar refers to his own father as "the father my begetter." In addition, Nabonidus was not in Babylon when it fell. He was holed up in Borsippa. He did not return to Babylon until after it was captured. It has been recognized by Assyriologists (Dougherty, Beaulieu) that the "king" who was killed in the Greek histories refers to Belshazzar. Nabonidus, on the other hand, lived out the rest of his life in Carmania.
It's a shame that everything you've mentioned here, which actually checks out, has apparently been ignored, while so may poor souls seem to be falling over themselves in order to congratulate the makers of this faulty content, swallowing it up with little or no critical evaluation. No honest reader could fail to see that Media and Persia are joined as one kingdom everywhere they occur in Daniel, ie Medo-Persia, and that secular history and archaeology back that up. Pretending that Nabonidus' return in some way casts doubt on Daniel's version of events is just plain dishonest. Is this a channel devoted to 'debunking' Daniel? Nobody who has done even a little research could be fooled. People need to search and test information out for themselves.
Not distinguishing between the Medes and Persians is a later development in historical writings. Herodotus for example in the 5th century BC does distinguish the two. As for Belshazzar, it obviously refers to him as the son of Nebuchadnezzar. This is a Jewish writing in which Belshazzar doesn't refer to him as "the king of my father," but "my father," and Daniel refers to him as "you Belshazzar, his son." This is unambiguous. Furthermore, Daniel doesn't even mention Nabonidus, an odd omission if it was truly written near the end of the Babylonian Empire when he should have been reigning, and misattributes Nabonidus leave of rule to Nebuchadnezzar's "madness." The most obvious and parsimonious explanation is that the author of Daniel confused Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus.
@@colinc892 Kings my fathers or the king my father, or like variations, are customary references to royal predecessors in both Assyrian and Babylonian cuneiform literature. Historically, when Babylon fell, Nabonidus was in the field being chased by Cyrus. He returned and surrendered after Babylon fell. Belshazzar would have been acting regent. Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned in the context of Daniel, who served that king, but no longer served in the Babylonian court. So the reference is entirely appropriate. Cyrus the Great controlled both the Medes and Persians, but the Medes were the more prominent of the two kingdoms. The author of Daniel clearly notes in two locations that they were unified under one system of law-the law of the Medes and Persians. Esther does the same, and they are also clearly one kingdom. You mention Herodotus in the 5th century, but nothing before that. My notes aren't on hand, so I can't elaborate further.
@@livealive3323 A few points. Firstly, the writer of Daniel is Jewish, so using customary Assyrian or Babylonian references does not make sense contextually. Some apologists have argued that the word "Father" here can also mean "Grandfather," and while that is true, we have no solid evidence of Nabonidus, the father of Belshazzar, taking one of Neb's daughters as wife. Furthermore, the whole "madness of Nebuchadnezzar" episode closely matches what actually happened historically with Nabonidus, in that he abandoned the traditional Babylonian gods, ran off to Tayma, and worshipped foreign gods. There's no record of anything close to this happening to Neb II himself. The most parsimonious interpretation is that the author of Daniel, writing hundreds of years later, mixed up Neb II and Nabonidus, which explains why the "madness" was attributed to Neb II and why Nabonidus is called "his son" in ch 5 vs 22. Secondly, no Nabonidus was very likely in Babylon during its fall. His self-imposed exile to Tayma ended before the fall. This is backed by the Nabonidus Chronicle, which states Nabonidus was captured in Babylon when it fell, but makes no mention of Belshazzar there. Also the New Year's festival was celebrated again right before Babylon's fall, which could ONLY be done in the presence of the king, and was suspended during Belshazzar's regency and the true king's absence. If Daniel was around when Belshazzar was regent, and when Babylon fell, then he would have served under Nabonidus. Him not mentioning the correct king of Babylon during its fall makes much more sense for a later date. In fact, Daniel repeatedly refers to Belshazzar himself as "king," which is incorrect. The Babylonians themselves did not consider him king, even during his regency. Thirdly, the point about the Medes/Persians is that later writers DO conflate the two empires into a Medo-Persian Empire, but earlier writers make more of a distinction. The reason I brought up Herodotus is that he goes through great detail regarding the conflict between the Medes and Persians and how they were rivals to each other, trading who was on top. Daniel mentions "Darius the Mede" taking Babylon, but there is no matching historical figure for this character. Fourthly, the Hebrew of the book of Daniel is (according to those that can read Hebrew, I certainly can't) a later form. Finally, the book of Daniel is not quoted by other texts until the 2nd century BC. The Book of Sirach leaves it out, and does so with only a select few other OT books. It also wasn't listed in the 'Prophets' section of the Nevi'im. The earliest dated manuscripts that have been found also date from 2nd BC I believe. The whole picture taken together is clearly one a mid 2nd century BC pseudo-epigraphical work, and that's not even getting into the prophetic content about Antiochus Epiphanes and what Daniel gets right vs what he gets wrong.
How is the Four-Headed leopard a metaphor for Persia? Shouldn't the Greeks be the four headed animal, considering that Alexander's realm was split into four?
no really, since no events were predicted just by the use of the phrase "What's up?". i mean, the book of daniel makes a lot of prophecies. we are not talking about a two word phrase here buddy.
Also, a later writing would account for the accuracy of the later prophecy. Of course, his "vision" would be far more detailed if written contemporaneously.
Hello, I wonder how would that work if the writer port fact got so many details wrong, some others right, how is your argument supposedly works? I am writing about the presidential campaign during the time, but I can’t research the details of the civil war to get those right, at least according to current History at the time of writing? Is that logical to you? Also, the Hebrew and Aramaic analysis of the text dates it between the 4th and 2nd centuries, but you guys push it to the middle of the second century, just because IT CAN’T contain actual prophecy? Is that what I just heard from Dr. Bowen? Respect, but I don’t think that is honest, in my personal opinion.
okay so if there are so many historical inaccuracies in the book of Daniel, wouldn't it show that it was written before the events it claims to prophesy? i mean, the author could have make it much more accurate had he written is after the events occurred (it doesn't make sense for him to intentionally introduce inaccuracies since it would weaken his ability to convince people that the prophecies did indeed occur).
Hey Brian. I'm not an expert on the subject, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But AFAIU Daniel was very accurate in the "predictions" that were closer to the time when the story was written (2nd cent) and vague on those that were closer to when the story took place (and farther away from when it was actually written). I'm guessing that the writers might not have access to all the history details. Wikipedia was waay later down the line :)
In a similar way, there are many "prophecies" in the Book of Mormon. Events that were well known in Joseph Smith's own time, such as the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Americas, are prophesied in great detail. Events which supposedly happened in the Americas centuries before Columbus tend to be described either vaguely or inaccurately. Prophecies concerning events happening after Smith's own time are either vague or inaccurate. This is one way we can confirm that the Book of Mormon is a product of the nineteenth century, and is not an ancient record.
Really enjoyed the presentation. 18 minutes invested and I am *_much more_* expertly informed than would ever be possible for the same amount of time if I had attempted to research the themes from scratch.😎 For future analyses I would be interested in a pre or postscript note quickly timelining the oldest known *tangible/concrete* texts - from fragments through to complete - as contrasted to the estimated/inferred original writing dates based on the other scholarships brought to bear on the language/text/contextual study.
@Digital Hammurabi, So when Jesus says to his followers to read Daniel and understand, concerning the abomination that makes desolation, he doesn't know that Daniel is actually talking about Antiochus IV and that the abomination caused by Antiochus already took place? Apologists get around this by saying there are more than one abomination(s) that makes desolation. Also Daniel 9:27 seems to be referring to the destruction of the 2nd temple buy the Roman general prince Titus, how would you explain that verse since Antiochus doesn't actually destroy the temple and the city? I enjoy your videos, thanks.
When Jesus Said: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” He is reffering to the timetable of Daniel. 49 weeks of Years.
How do you make this dating fit for Daniel given that it was included in it’s entirety in the Septuagint which was translated 285-247 BCE. I would think that it must have been written sometime before this as I don’t think the Jews would have included it in the Cannon if it hadn’t been around at least 1-2 centuries prior. Thanks for your help and all the great content!
At 11:30 'Scholars generally agree the Aramaic dates 400-200 BC'...do you know of a source that says that this agreement exists? I have seen scholars on both sides of this issue, but I can't find any 'Daniel' or Aramaic specialists saying there is a general agreement.
Great video, just what I was looking for. I've also consider the events recorded by Josephus concerning Alexander the Great coming to Jerusalem and reading himself into the text of Daniel. I believe Jospehus has misattributed this event or even fabricated it. Would love to hear your position on this. The other thing is I'm so glad you studied enough in my opinion to get the four kingdoms correct .
Thanks! I left the following comment on our Aramaic Dating of Daniel video; hope it helps! "I am currently on vacation with Megan, but In light of the demands for immediate response by SJ Thomason, I have done a bit of research into what scholars in the field are saying about Josephus’s description of Alexander the Great coming to Jerusalem and reading the Book of Daniel. Let me give a quick summary of what Josephus says, and then I will cite a number of scholars and their opinions. Again, this is the result of but a small amount of research, and I would be very excited for any scholars who specialize in the period to add to or correct what I write here. The story can be found in Josephus, Antiquities11, chapters 7-8. Yaddua was high priest when Alexander began his conquest. Yaddua’s brother, Manasseh, married the daughter of the governor of Samaria, Sanballat. The elders of Jerusalem ordered Manasseh to divorce her, or to step down from the priesthood. Sanballat offered to establish a temple on Mt. Gerizim, and that Manasseh would serve as high priest there. He also swore that he would get Darius III’s permission to do so. Others from Jerusalem who had intermarried followed Manasseh. Darius then squares off against Alexander at Issos, and thinking that Darius would defeat Alexander, Sanballat told Manasseh that he would approach him after the conflict. Alexander won, and moved south to Damascus, Sidon, and then to Tyre. From there, Alexander sent word to Yaddua, commanding him to provide assistance and tribute. Yaddua responded that he had sworn an oath to Darius, and he could not go back on it. Alexander then determined to attack Yaddua after taking Tyre. After Tyre, Alexander went to Gaza and besieged it. When Sanballat saw what happened between Alexander and Darius, he switched allegiance to Alexander and sent men to help with the siege against Tyre. He then requested permission to build the temple on Mt. Gerizim, which was granted. Sanballat died nine months later. When Alexander finally began to move toward Jerusalem, Yaddua sought God’s help and protection. God came to him in a dream and told him not to fear, but to welcome Alexander. When Alexander came, Yaddua and the priests met him on the way, outside of the city. Those with Alexander thought that he would destroy and plunder Jerusalem and kill Yaddua, but instead Alexander showed them favor, and ultimately entered Jerusalem, sacrificed to God, and was shown the Book of Daniel, which he interpreted as referring to himself. The argument here concerns the dating of Daniel. If it existed to be shown to Alexander at the time of his arrival, it must have been written much earlier than the second century. As a general note, we need to remember that Josephus is not simply an unbiased historian (should such a thing even exist), but has his own agenda in writing his accounts. Concerning Josephus’s representation of the Book of Daniel in Antiquities, Collins writes, “Joesphus follows the biblical account fairly closely, but with some interesting embellishments. Thus he reports that some of the Jewish youths were made eunuchs (§186) and that Daniel and his companions ‘resolved to live austerely’ (§190). He also attempts to resolve some historical problems. Thus Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2) is dated to the second year after the sacking of Egypt rather than to the second year of his reign (§195); Belshazzar (Baltasares) is ‘also called Naboandelos’ (Nabonidus; §231); and Darius the Mede is a son of Astyages and known by another name among the Greeks (§248)” (Collins 1993: 85). In other words, Josephus is doing something with his writing, and it would be unwise to simply take what he says at face value. It seems as though scholars take this approach when it comes to the story of Alexander and Jerusalem. I will quote from Peter Green, Celicia Peek, and Jonathan Goldstein below, but their overall opinions appear to be that, while it is possible that Alexander may have come to Jerusalem, it seems very unlikely. Instead, this fictional or legendary story may have served as an explanation and encouragement, showing how God remains in control, despite the ruler in power, and obeying such earthly powers is not necessarily in conflict with serving God.
Concerning Alexander’s Trip to Jerusalem: “Alexander spent little time on Palestine, having other goals in mind, and late accounts (in particular that of Josephus), claiming that he made a special journey to Jerusalem, indeed offered sacrifice there, are mere ex post factolegends, put out by pious ideologues determined to show that the legendary world conqueror knew a true Holy City when he saw one.” Peter Green, Alexander to Actium(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990) 499 “Consider the visit of Alexander the Great to Jerusalem after his conquest of Tyre in 332 B.C. Greek historians make no mention of this visit; in fact, no surviving non-Jewish source mentions any connection between Alexander and the Jews. The Jewish historian Josephus is the earliest extant author to record a visit by Alexander to Jerusalem. The tradition behind Josephus’s narrative is obscure at best. It is possible that Alexander visited Jerusalem, but the preserved descriptions of his visit are almost certainly fictional, ‘mere ex post factolegends.’” This is not to say that Josephus’s account is therefore without historical value. Albiet untrustworthy in reconstructing the facts of history, it does offer valuable insight into at least one Jewish view of the appropriate relationship between the Jews and a Greek ruler.” Celicia M. Peek, “Alexander the Great Comes to Jerusalem: The Jewish Response to Hellenism” BYU Studies36/3 (1996) 104-105 “None of these legends can be true. Pagan eye-witnesses chronicled Alexander’s career, and though their works have perished, later writers were able to draw upon them, particularly Arrian. The pagan authors took pains to record the king’s visits to the shrines of non-Greek deities and his participation in their rituals, especially during the years 333-331 B.C.E. when he was in the vicinity of Judaea. Throughout, the pagan Alexander historians tell how the king showed respect to deities, and there is no reason to assume that they would have suppressed a report that Alexander made obesience to the God of the Jews or even to His high priest. On the other hand, if Alexander had made obesience to any human being, as related in Josephus and in the rabbinic tale, the fact would have been so astounding that no biographer of the king would have passed over it in silence.” Jonathan Goldstein, “Alexander and the Jews” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research59 (1993) 70-71
Concerning Why Josephus Wrote the Story: “It is said that the account of Alexander’s arrival and that of his epiphany must originally have been two distinct narratives, which are thematically irreconciliable: the former demonstrates Jewish submission to Alexander, while the latter demonstrates Alexander’s submission to the God of the Jews. However, is it not the very disjunction between the narratives that accurately characterizes the tension in the relationship between Alexander and the Jewish people? The story as a whole represents an effort to clarify and relieve that tensin by defining the Jewish place in a world dominated by the Hellenistic world-conqueror. The hard fact is that the Jews must acknowledge the temporaloverlordship of the victorious Alexander and, by extension, whichever of his successors should control Palestine. But their lives are also governed by their God and the laws established by him, and He takes precedence.” Peek 1996: 106-107 “Fanciful though Josephus’s account of Alexander the Great’s visit to Jerusalem may be, it is powerful metaphor. It commemorates and contemplates the introduction of Hellenism to Judea.” Ibid., 107 “The legend in Josephus teaches multiple lessons. The author believes that normally Jews must be loyal to the pagan king God has placed over them, but also that signs from the LORD can indicate that Jews should switch their loyalty when He has replaced one such ruler by another. Furthermore, even in this age of their punitive servitude, God’s providence protects His chosen people. Even the greatest pagan potentate was a mere instrument of the LORD.” Goldstein 1993: 90"
I'm sorry to say but there are reasons why he didn't go into detail; so I will be straight forward on this, this video is filled will inaccurate explanations and summary conclusions of 'what consensus scholarship' agrees on. The most honest thing said here was 'without going into great detail.' That basically means, 'let me give you my desired outcome' without exactly demonstrating if my conclusions are correct. This would be like going up to a science fair display board seeing the Hypothesis and Results without seeing the procedure and research being done. Like always, critics of 6th BC authorship have to adhere to a 4-Empire scheme that is 1) Bab 2) Media 3) Persia 4) Greece. While Daniel always and only refers to the Medes & Persians together (Dan 5:28; 6:8,12,15), the critics have to separate these two because if Greece is the 3rd, Rome is thus the 4th and the prophetical sections look past Greece. (see th-cam.com/video/xRNJVpCFDyo/w-d-xo.html) At 2:08, the author said that Daniel 1:1 is historically inaccurate, again wrong. It is actually spot on by the fact that Daniel is using the Babylonian accession counting method instead of the traditional Israelite non-accession counting method. (see th-cam.com/video/ofpbwU_2E4Y/w-d-xo.html) At 3:48, the author said that Daniel 9 lays out the time period to Greece. Um no. It's clearly a 490 year period that starts with the rebuilding of the wall 457 BC to 27 AD that says after this the Messiah will be cut off (die by execution, gee I wonder who this could be) and also the 2nd Temple would be destroyed after that as well (ie 70 AD Roman destruction under Titus.) Next, the Aramaic and Hebrew language do not reflect a late Palestinian Aramaic or Hebrew. Read Kenneth A Kitchen's "The Aramaic of Daniel." He's actually a linguistic scholar in the field and published or see th-cam.com/video/NlphqPSpDlY/w-d-xo.html. Is Nebuchadnezzar called Belshazzar's father and vice verse the son? Yes. Which is TOTALLY OKAY because Hebrew and Aramaic don't have a separate word for grandfather and grandson. They use the same word. This is used in the Bible and Assyrian records elsewhere: Old Testament Ex: Elisha called Elijah his father (2 Kings 2:12) 1 Kings 19:16 And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room. New Testament Ex: Jesus “the son of David” Matthew 1:1 Jews “Abraham is our father” John 8:39 Archaeological Ex: Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III Calls Israel’s King Jehu as ‘son of Omri’ The author said at the ~6:00 that 'we don't need a simplistic supernatural view.' What that really meant was that critics can't allow for early authorship because the God of the Bible and Israel would then be real because the only explanation for Daniel to forecast the next 700 years was by supernatural means.
@Blaster MasterPrint out what you just wrote, take it in any Ancient History or Theological Department in the nation. Go to the most secular University you like and see what they have to say about your historical claims
@Blaster Master If you started walking down the conspiratorial path, that was your choice. Nabonidus' returns mean nothing. The Medo-Persian Empire was now in control and he wasn't killed like his son was on the night of the Fall of Babylon in 539 BC. The funny thing is that only the Book of Daniel records Belshazzar's name. So how did the "Anonymous 2nd BC" author that critics propose get this right? Book of Isaiah. The only reason for dividing the book is because of the naming of Cyrus beforehand. Same issue at play. Predictive prophecy cannot be allowed by the critic so they go fishing/manipulating the text to make it look suspect to cause one to think that single authorship not possible. Dr. Michael Heiser's Podcast on Isaiah. nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/naked-bible-217-authorship-and-date-of-the-book-of-isaiah/ Daniel 1-6 different than 7-12, you say. Why? Because of the prophecies that spell out the next 700 years? That's the critical position. Odd why Ch 7 was detached when it's part of the Aramaic section of the book. Or is that just part of the clever 2nd authorship as well? When 1611 AKJV was composed, you 1) already had many English translations starting with the Wycliffe's in the 14th and 2) the vowel notation system in the Hebrew Bible was done by the Masoretes already for over 300 years. "Centuries of traditional Judaic teachings of the Old Testament has been undone because of christianity" Name some. I'm not sure why you are stuck on bashing the KJV. They did the best they could with what they had available. The Critical Text and 20,000+ manuscripts, papyri, and codices discovered, the Church Father citations, etc has only allowed us to narrow in on the originals. But these so-called variants have never effected core Christian doctrine. I know you're definitely on the other side of the aisle right now but I hope if you study that it is done being objective. If you want to come rip my Daniel videos up, you're more than welcome to. th-cam.com/play/PL2-NcugBdqZFGpjtmL31nBvFlNj0NiyJ8.html
The Leopard is Greece. That's why it has 4 heads just as the goat's horn breaks into 4 pieces. The Medes and Persians are the same kingdom as depicted by the Bear and the Ram. The legs of Iron /the 4th Beast is Rome. The feet of clay and iron depict Judea mixed with Rome.
I'm not Dr. B, but the answer is obvious. They didn't write it in Greek because they wanted it to appear to be prophecy from ~600BC. This begs the question, what purpose where they pursuing by writing the fake prophecy? It was clearly a lot of work to write the whole document, so this wasn't done for fun.
@@tim57243 they must have really studied 5th century Aramaic to really hone it in, I mean supposedly Daniel's writer didn't remember the order of the kings of Babylon but he was really good to erase every Greek apart from instrument names from his vocabulary and speak in earlier Aramaic... sounds plausible.
@@nyktal Okay, I have on my Kindle here LaCocque's "Book of Daniel, Second Edition". Cite chapter and verse for what you're talking about, and we can see what someone who can actually read these languages thinks about it.
@@tim57243 chapters 2 to 7, check also E. Y. kutscher works, his extensive research points to an imperial aramaic aka from 6th to 3rd century and points to an eastern writing as opposed to a western maccabean date.
@@nyktal I still intend to make a better reply to you, but in the meanwhile you might be interested in Richard Carrier's recent blog post "How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery". I would put the URL here but when I do that TH-cam usually deletes my comment. Do the obvious query, it is there. Might have to indirect through a tweet.
Another quick question. By supposing an earlier composition based on the grammatical style of Daniel's Aramaic, are you assuming that the extant texts were never altered from their originals? GIven the development of the language over time (older to newer forms), the original Daniel could have been written in Old and/or Official Aramaic and then altered over time by scribes as the Aramaic evolved. How can we know that the extant text (newer Aramaic) isn't just a second-century scribal update from a 6th century original?
Until evidence for such a thing surfaces, have we any reason to assume anything like that ever took place? :D ... unless there are theological forces at work here? :P
@@jasonokasuo3401 Hi Jason. Dr. B's take must assume the extant texts were never altered as they were transcribed. Most, if not all scholars accept and can demonstrate given the wide number of extant manuscripts in existence, that minor scribal alterations are a fact. Why now should we suddenly assume the grammar/style of Daniel was never altered?
Hi Daniel. The consensus view certainly does not assume a lack of redaction history. In fact, it is very likely that the individual Aramaic tales are older than the visions and revelations from the second half of the book. But I don’t know if anyone who holds to a late date would argue for no redaction.
@@DigitalHammurabi Hello Dr. B! My two cents. It seems that in order to hold to a Maccabean date of authorship judging by the Aramaic, one assumes the Aramaic to be a "later" derivation, correct? So isn't it possible later scribes "updated" what could have been Old Aramaic nuances? I hope you know I'm not trying to be a trolling jock-o-moe. Genuinely interested in this topic! Eager to learn.
Oh no, I absolutely know that you are not trolling. :-) I would say that the linguistic details are probably a little too complicated (for me, anyway) to go into here. I need to put together a supplemental video on this topic, so I’ll go into more detail then, if that works for everyone. In the meantime, Collins’ commentary in the Hermeneia series has an extensive discussion on the linguistic arguments, along with bibliographic references :-)
You say “without going into detail “, and I understand this. But where can I find the details? And how can we be sure Daniel is not accurate but the alternative views are accurate? How do we actually know who’s right?
Interesting that a channel named "Digital Hammurabi" is discussing this subject in particular given he was named a god in his lifetime and claimed to receive a code of law from Shamash. I am quite new to your channel so perhaps I have missed an explanation for why you chose his name to represent yourself though I see you did so prior to the publishing of this video. I quite like your presentation style but I was disappointed that it relies on Collins so much. (Consequently what do you think of counter arguments such as those done by the Associates of Biblical Research here on youtube in their video titled "Daniel, Prophet or Pretender" What do you think about the language similarities of the marriage document in the Elephantine Papyri (449 BCE) with the language used by Daniel? This document has been claimed to corroborate that the language was contemporary to the alleged time of Daniel and I am curious as to what your opinion on that is as you have a greater expertise. There are other archeological finds that seem to lend additional validity as well and I am curious if you have seen some of these counter arguments and what Professor Collins may have said about them as I noticed he has appeared on your channel. Please forgive me for any poor tone in my writing, I do not want to seem combative and I know that is a great risk on social media when having important discussion. Thank you and God bless you.
thanks a lot! but how about messianic and "end of time" prophecies in the daniel? I gonna check the material from Roger Liebi and hope you ll answer it
@Digital Hammurabi Hi, do you think you could provide sources for these scholars that apparently agree that the idioms and linguistic style of the Daniel texts supports a later date? Perhaps with analysis of the actual Aramaic? Or is this easily found in your general source material?
DANG JOS Here is the link to our series on the dating of Daniel. Videos and their descriptions contain bibliographies. :-) th-cam.com/play/PLmXNllWcFFRMQsr2nC8XGmGTSczO78FY5.html
@Blaster Master yea job is the first book of the Bible ever written thats the jewish tradition and church's tradition. And if the book of Daniel was written much later for say 3rd or 2nd century bce it doesn't take away the prophetic vision written in it. Daniel prophesied about it 5th century bce but was written much later. That's what we find in the church history people writing about stuff that happened decades or even centuries ago. It doesn't discredit the accounts written in Daniel
Considering the dating, then, wouldn't Daniel 12:4 better read as "You, Daniel, keep these words and seal the scroll until the multitudes stop wandering and increase [or embrace] understanding [of spiritual things]"?
The book of Daniel still is accurate about the later events about the Romans, the death of the Messiah, and even the divided kingdoms some strong and some weak that will come after the Romas. This includes even our current time. These are things that are fulfilled after the new dating you are suggesting even spans to the current time we live in. Plus, all the prophecies are not yet fulfilled. He predicted about a king that will rise against God and the last seven years and the coming of a righteous king which is Jesus. The writers he is mentioning are taking very minor things make them look like big and put their own assumptions saying this is when it is written. Just because he spoke details about a specific period of time one can not say it is evidence it is when it was written.
One comment I would love your opinion on Josh is that people who often argue for an early date refer to the Daniel texts found qumran. Some conservative commentators date these to the 150's BCE and therefore claim that 10 to 15 years is not long enough for them be be accepted as "Cannon" if Daniel was really composed 165BCE. They appear to be copies. I'd be grateful to hear your opinion, thanks!
It is truly shocking that this issue, which was already decided by scholars back in the 1970's is still being held up as "prophecy" by conservatives and preached as such. The great divide between what pastors learn in (reputable) theological faculties and what they disseminate to the faithful from the pulpit is one of the reasons I, for one, can no longer hold these people in any esteem.
There are counter arguments that present archeological evidence as well. Quite compelling physical evidence that verifies details of Daniel's claim of when he lived. (Details of life in Babylonian court, language, etc) Please look up "Daniel, prophet or pretender" by the associates for biblical research here on youtube for more detail. It is not as decided of an issue as you seem to think it is, if you are willing you can explore more into it. (Which in my opinion is foundational to good scientific conclusions, you have to see all evidence and counter evidence and test it.) I found the Marriage Document of the Elephantine Papyri (449 BCE) particularly interesting as it seems to verify that the language allegedly used by Daniel was in fact of his time or much closer to his time than when John Collins suggests in his work in the 70's you referenced.
I think from the standpoint of a former seminarian all I can say is that not every divinity student is the same person. Some theology students-who-become-pastors try to preach the truth to their congregations and get fired by the board for speaking the truth. Those "radical" truth tellers are never heard from again, they go on to become school teachers or salesmen. Then you have the narcissists who don't care at all about history, they just want to build the biggest church so they never preach anything controversial, and that's what you see happening these days, these big churches with vanilla preachers who never say anything too specific.
@@ttownsupreme2183 I suppose this question is meant to accuse my comment of fabrication: since I mentioned that this was the consensus of scholarship 50 years ago, my point was that continuing to rehash the debate to skew it in favour of conservative aims is an ideologically intended waste of time. "Consensus" means a majority view in academia, a full list can no doubt be obtained with a little reading - plus the intervening 50 years' additions, which do not seem to have served the conservative position in the slightest.
@@DigitalHammurabi Let's not start playing games. I am sure you are a well educated guy who knows enough to create a TH-cam video attempting to debunk one of the greatest prophets in the Bible!
Good stuff and compelling. Still I think you have not fully discounted the prophetic nature of Daniel for non-Bible literalists. You have only undermined a fundamentalist “””there can be no errors” approach. Where for example is your analysis of Daniel’s prophecy concerning the death of the “annointed one” in the first century CE and then the destruction of the temple?
Hi David. This is a summary video that is developed at greater length in a five-part series (I known they are in this playlist: th-cam.com/play/PLmXNllWcFFROIatgdULEb7slOGETtkRrY.html)
Where were the Egyptians during Daniel's writing? Strikes me as odd that Mesopotamia gets so much attention in Daniel, while Egypt is much closer and more influential.
It could be the writer of Daniel would not touch Egyptian items even with a long stick, somehow all things Egyptian had a bad rep in Judea. I think it was Jeremiah who scolded the Judean king for trusting the Egyptian and when Jewish mercaneries had established a colony and a Temple at Elephantine in Egypt they got a tonguelassing from some Jerusalem authority ( whose name I forgot ) in contrast over what he had to say about the Jews living in Mesopotamia. Considering the book of Daniel as a manifest to stand strong against forged Hellenisation it would not be wise or effective to bring Egypt into the mix. It could have been compaired with the Hebrews from the Exodus who complained about leaving Egypt Exodus 16:3 The Israelites said to them, "If only we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and ate our fill of bread; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger." always presented as not having faith in the Lord, so the writer of Daniel would not take that risk.
What can you tell us about the Greek additions to Daniel (Chap 13- Susanna, Chap 14- Bel & the Dragon)? They don’t seem to fit at all with the rest of the story and further suggest revisions/ changes to the book.
Late-Daters don't bring up the LXX, additions, and DSS because the historical timeframe doesn't allow for their 165 BC authorship to take place. (see th-cam.com/video/3RBtj53Nzgw/w-d-xo.html) And they never bring up how 1 Maccabees speaks of Daniel in the Exile period with his 3 friends and is dated just following the Maccabean Revolt. Sorry, but Critics are not giving you all the information.
A Seleucid context makes perfect sense: the author would be comparing the Babylonians and Persians to their current pagan rulers. History is often repeated or made into a narrative to reflect current events. Why did Sergei Eisenstein make a movie about a German Crusade against Novgorod? Because Hitler and Stalin were sharpening their knives and the Russian film industry was supervised by the Soviet government. Why did Zach Snyder make 300? The US was at war in the Middle East, and Snyder supported the "western democracy" over "oriental barbarism"-arguably Avatar and Kingdom of Heaven were a liberal response. Why make the film MASH? Because the US was fighting in Vietnam and there was a strong anti-war sentiment. Why is the play Hamilton so popular? Because the foundations of American politics like democracy, race, and individual liberty is being discussed and confronted. So the author of Daniel basically used history to reframe the current conflict with the Hellenistic culture.
Nah Doc. I hate to bust your bubble but Daniel was written by Bernie Taupin in 1973. I know, I know, lots of people think Elton John wrote it. Easy mistake to make. 😄
This is an interpretation by conservative evangelical scholarship, but the primary difficulty with this understanding is the final kingdom, which in 8 and 10-12 is clearly Greece.
Digital Hammurabi the goat is certainly supposed to represent what we call Greece. The single horn representing Alexander the Great that after his death had his kingdom divided into four and run by his four generals. Fits with what I understand from history. Now horn/-s are usually representing kings or rulers. One of the areas one of these four horns ruled over would contain what we would call Italy, where the Roman Empire was to rise out of. The small horn rising out of one of these horns fits with the Roman Catholic Church rising out of the Roman Empire. 8:20 “The ram which you saw, having the two horns - (they are) the kings of Media and Persia.” According to my NKJV so it’s already written that the Bible more or less counts them as one kingdom. It also clearly claims that the goat is Greece. But I don’t see where it necessary claims that the prophecy about all the different horns is still Greece. It says that the small horn (echoed in other prophecies) shall rise from one of those kingdoms, not necessarily that it is the same kingdom. It being Rome fits the other prophecies (the four beasts, the statue, the goat’n’ram, the part in Revelation) much better... But I don’t claim that I have the original documents, nor do I know how to read it even if that was the case. Although history and stuff like this I find insanely interesting. I could grant you that it’s highly possible that the book is older than it wishes to claim, it’s even highly probable, but I don’t really find it relevant if the people writing the Bible was a combination of conmen, delusional idiots and people with a fragile ego desperate to create a history that would paint them as the greatest people personally chosen by God... Finding the truth about history is something that would be interesting, but not really relevant to the prophetic nature of the prophecies written in the Bible as far as I am concerned. But do continue teach about the Bible, scripture and stuff like that! Like I said it’s a fascinating topic of discussion, and I’m always interested in reading and finding out things concerning translation and all that jazz Hope you have a great time ^^,
@@DigitalHammurabi Sorry wrong. The reason why you didn't go into detail is because of the harmonization of Daniel 2,7,8 makes Greece the 3rd Kingdom. You at least said that the Ram is Medo-Persia, which obviously signifies they were united as one empire which you forcefully had separate by conveniently avoiding how Daniel does describe the 2 together in Daniel 5 and 6.
@@JustScriptureMinistries what about 8 makes greece the 3rd kingdom with more following it? the vision "for the time of the end" is the vision of the Antiochene crisis 11 also has the world ending with the antiochene crisis, from a plain reading of the events in the text (and not the unfalsifiable "stick a 2100+ year time gap wherever you need" reading)
@@dreamingclouds4699 "if the people writing the Bible was a combination of conmen, delusional idiots and people with a fragile ego desperate to create a history that would paint them as the greatest people personally chosen by God" this framing negatively predisposes you towards any view of the Bible that is not the traditional inspired version it's not a dichotomy between the holy spirit driving people and whatever new atheist redditors have to say about the Bible
hey Josh it'd be nice if you respond. have u seen Mike wingers video on Daniel? if so what are your thoughts? also his last point about how long it would take for Daniel to circulate and even become part of the qumran scrolls or the septuigant just some 30 years later is unlikely.
@@DigitalHammurabi thank you!!! also are there any channels u recommend that have good scholarly views on the bible. I'm recently getting out of the whole apologetics thing and the only ones I could find were you and Kipp and inspiringphilosophy but no others. so if you could recommend some that would be great! again you don't have to but it would be much appreciated
What do you say when Christians say that the word “father” means ancestor when trying to justify why the passage calls Belshazzar Nebuchadnezzar‘s son?
This video backtracks on the consensus of Aramaic scholars by almost 50 years and viewers should regard it with caution. His main source is John Collins whose section on dating attempts to refute the consensus of Aramaic scholars by using material that has already been refuted, which never made sense to me. Collins is in the minority in his position and for good reason, and he even resorts to an older model of Imperial Aramaic that is no longer held so that he can push the date closer to the 2nd century. The Aramaic sections of Daniel are written in Imperial Aramaic of an eastern dialect. Imperial Aramaic is from the 9th century to the 4th century BC. It is not Judean Aramaic.
An excellent (and more detailed) rebuttal to this video is here: th-cam.com/video/5z4c4DxTHhE/w-d-xo.html Years ago in grad school, I wrote a paper examining these arguments. I didn’t think at the time the “late daters” then had convincing arguments. Since then, there is newer evidence that seems to point to an earlier date for Daniel.
Well, even if the Book of Daniel was written in the 6th century, that would in no way show or demonstrate that the information about the future was given by god or a supernatural source. All it would mean is that people seemed to have known and written something about the future, and we (people now) have no idea how they knew this information. There is no justification to jumping to the conclusion that god or something supernatural gave them the information.
@@John-pu5kz So what? You have no proof to say it was. Which means your claim that it was god is unfounded and unsupported. This argument that "You can't prove it wasn't god" is a stupid argument. Can you (or any human) prove it wasn't Fairies, or leprechauns? NO! Is that a good reason to believe it was fairies or leprechauns? NO! If you are saying it was god, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it was god. I have no burden of proof to show it wasn't god.
@@John-pu5kz Why would I believe 2 Peter? So your evidence the bibles prophecies are from god, is that the bible says they are? Why should I (or anyone else) believe 2 Peter's claim that prophecy comes from gods holy spirit is true? Why should anyone believe this claim made by the author of 2 Peter?
Can u please make similar videos on the book of isaiah's 3 authors and why mainstream scholarship attributes the authorship of the book of ezekiel to a "school" of ezekiel's followers and not one person. U are possibly the only channel that makes scholarly biblical studies accessible for a layman like myself so u are the only one i feel like asking lol
As long as the writings were before the 1st century, you can't dispute the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem did take place as Daniel prophesied. in. Also, the prophecy concerning the "messiah" to be cut off in the midst of the "week" or 7 year period lines up in order of the 70 weeks prophesy. Everything Daniel spoke of did happen as it was told and Jesus was crucified at the right time. In AD 70, Jerusalem was destroyed and the prophecy was thus fulfilled as Daniel's prophecy told regardless of when the copies were dated.
I made the same point above when this came out. We know a man who claimed to be Messiah (Jesus), was indeed "cut-off" crucified to death. That same Messiah said the city would be destroyed in "that generation", which guess what, happened in AD 70, never to be rebuilt again and ending the Old C system, just as prophesied. So even if Daniel was written right up to the point of Christ's birth, it would still be significant. I'll trust Christ.
Daniel 9:1-2 - "In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem." Here the text claims that Daniel was living during the reign of "Darius son of Xerxes." However, the only "Xerxes" with a son named Darius was Artaxerxes I. Given that this is true, that would give Daniel a lifespan of over over 200 years (the time between Nebuchadnezzar II and Darius II.) Thoughts? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_II
@LeeTubular Hahaha. Wow. So they're answer is to basically move the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II forward 200 years. That is indeed a lot of fuckery to make a square peg fit a round hole.
@LeeTubular Sometimes I don't think they assess the implications of the "solutions" that they propose. If you move Nebuchadnezzar, you'd have to re-write the entire chronology of Ancient Near Eastern rulers, including the dates for biblical monarchs such as Solomon and other important events. Oh btw, Nabonidus was the father of Belshazzar.
Is it significant that Daniel has major portions in Aramaic at all? Are any earlier scriptures in Aramaic? Given the overall message of unity of the “tribe” (one god, one religion, expel foreign spouses), it seems odd that writing the scriptures in anything but Hebrew would be OK. It would seem to indicate that enough time had passed after The Babylonian Exile to allow an additional language to become prominent
The common view is that the Aramaic section is focussed on the Gentile nations why the Hebrew sections are focussed on the Jews. Nothing proveably, but the most common view.
@@JustScriptureMinistries In the later books, that would correspond with time passing and the post-Exilic Israelites becoming less inward-looking. The earlier books don't switch to Aramaic when they talk about non-Hebrews, so overall that "most common view" does not correspond to what is in the OT, AFAIK.
@@scienceexplains302 Everything you just stated is completely speculation. How can you possibly know they became less inward-looking? Ezra read the entire Law to the people, they recommitted themselves, idolatry never returned, rebuilt the Temple, divorced their pagan wives, etc. What part of that shows less inward-looking?
Just Scripture Ministries I didn’t say I know, I said it would explain it. Daniel was completed more than 200 (300?) years after the return from the Exile. I am talking about things that likely happened based on evidence . I don’t take religious teachings as necessarily historically accurate
@@scienceexplains302 The Maccabean Theory (ie Late Date Authorship) is a contrived idea to avoid the Supernatural implications that Early Authorship would dictate. You might have not said, 'I know,' but that's how you stated it as if it were factual knowable. Historical Reasons Why Late Dating Fails 1) Josephus basically copied and pasted the book into his Antiquities of the Jews Book Books 10-11 and said the book was presented to Alexander the Great that he was the notable horn from Daniel 8. So is Josephus part of the lie, a misinformed historian, or is he passing along a real story? 2) The Sibylline Oracles dated in the 2nd BC speaks of Daniel and make references out of Chapter 10. 3) 1 Maccabees dated at 132 BC speaks Daniel & his friends in the exile period with attached references to Daniel 3 & 6 events. 4) DSS of Daniel dated in the 2nd BC. There's no way for the copying and popularization to happen this quickly to then be taking to the Qumram community. 5) 3 Additions to Daniel said to have been composed at 100 BC. I would venture that is only because of the authorship debate, but still, those additions would have never made their way just a few decades after. 6) LXX Translation. The process started in 286 BC and there is no reason to say that it took them 200 years to do the whole OT Canon other than trying to shove Daniel late. 7) LXX Translation Errors: At the latest, even in the critical view, Daniel could be translated is at 100 BC because of the above but yet the translators (the most learned Jewish scribes) made errors. So they were either fooled, ignorant or part of the forgery? All of those are nonsense which means is that their difficulty in translating some words was because they had passed out of use long before them. 8) OT Canonization. Nobody has a problem saying that the rest of the OT was composed by 5th BC, but somehow Daniel (forged & full of errors - Critical View) got in coming out of the 2nd BC when all writings from that time and later Josephus said no prophets were around. Which is why they said they put the altar of sacrifice in storage because they didn't have a prophet to tell how to handle the situation. Daniel would have never been considered under the Critical View. 9) NT References - let's just be straight on this. Jesus mentions Daniel and quotes him about the abomination of desolation and speaking of it as a future event. So is Jesus lying, a fool, or telling the truth? 10) 2000 years of fooled ignorance? This issue is 1st spoken by Porphyry in the 4th AD that exists only in Jerome's work. So under the Critical View, 2000 years went by 165 BC - late 19th AD where everyone was fooled that Daniel was composed in the 6th BC until some German critical scholar took issue with it and the rest of the OT? Really? "Oh, that's because of the church domination." Sorry, bunk because of the reasons above and common sense. If chapters 7-12 were out, nobody would care and leave the book at the 6th BC. Put them in and critics freak out because of the implications that would leave them with.
Funny how people judged written history as accurate and Bible has inaccurate once it doesnt conform to the mainstream history. The question is how accurate are the history as we know today most of which are written from the point of view of the people in question. Which might as well be exaggerated or even untrue. For example the story of 300 Spartans was written by Herodotus 200 years after it happened from mere the word of mouth of Spartans when he visited them. Yet the whole world believe it is accurate. If it were be the Bible guys like this video uploader will find something to disprove it.
Thanks for your comment! You make a good point, scholars used to be far less critical of ancient written sources - but they were likewise far less critical of the history presented in the Bible. History as a field of study has come a long way since the works of Herodotus were taken at face value, and now it is common practice to consider things like motive, context, genre of writing, and what the linguistic data contained within any given source tells us about its date, purpose, and historical reliability. To go back to your Herodotus example - very few (almost no-one, I believe) takes Herodotus as historical fact, precisely for some of the reasons you mentioned. Which are, by the way, the same reasons why much of the Bible is no longer taken as historical fact either ☺️
Nothing on the Septuagint and almost nothing relating to Dead Sea Scrolls. He commits the same error that he purports the other side commits; giving his opinion and using phrases like, “scholars generally agree”. But I guess it is difficult to find unbiased evaluation these days.
It'll just take another Dead Sea Scrolls for this old academic canard to be disproven yet again. Historical-Critical theory does not have great track record with this sort of stuff.
I'm so clad you guys are doing what you are doing. I don't think I would have the determination to check up on these claims if it wasn't for people like you who are exposing the incorrect assertions that religions try to shovel down our throats.
Sorry to tell you but the author is giving very bad information here. I will be straight forward on this, this video is filled will inaccurate explanations and summary conclusions of 'what consensus scholarship' agrees on. The most honest thing said here was 'without going into great detail.' That basically means, 'let me give you my desired outcome' without exactly demonstrating if my conclusions are correct. This would be like going up to a science fair display board seeing the Hypothesis and Results without seeing the procedure and research being done. Like always, critics of 6th BC authorship have to adhere to a 4-Empire scheme that is 1) Bab 2) Media 3) Persia 4) Greece. While Daniel always and only refers to the Medes & Persians together (Dan 5:28; 6:8,12,15), the critics have to separate these two because if Greece is the 3rd, Rome is thus the 4th and the prophetical sections look past Greece. (see th-cam.com/video/xRNJVpCFDyo/w-d-xo.html) At 2:08, the author said that Daniel 1:1 is historically inaccurate, again wrong. It is actually spot on by the fact that Daniel is using the Babylonian accession counting method instead of the traditional Israelite non-accession counting method. (see th-cam.com/video/ofpbwU_2E4Y/w-d-xo.html) At 3:48, the author said that Daniel 9 lays out the time period to Greece. Um no. It's clearly a 490 year period that starts with the rebuilding of the wall 457 BC to 27 AD that says after this the Messiah will be cut off (die by execution, gee I wonder who this could be) and also the 2nd Temple would be destroyed after that as well (ie 70 AD Roman destruction under Titus.) Next, the Aramaic and Hebrew language do not reflect a late Palestinian Aramaic or Hebrew. Read Kenneth A Kitchen's "The Aramaic of Daniel." He's actually a linguistic scholar in the field and published or see th-cam.com/video/NlphqPSpDlY/w-d-xo.html. Is Nebuchadnezzar called Belshazzar's father and vice verse the son? Yes. Which is TOTALLY OKAY because Hebrew and Aramaic don't have a separate word for grandfather and grandson. They use the same word. This is used in the Bible and Assyrian records elsewhere: Old Testament Ex: Elisha called Elijah his father (2 Kings 2:12) 1 Kings 19:16 And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room. New Testament Ex: Jesus “the son of David” Matthew 1:1 Jews “Abraham is our father” John 8:39 Archaeological Ex: Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III Calls Israel’s King Jehu as ‘son of Omri’ The author said at the ~6:00 that 'we don't need a simplistic supernatural view.' What that really meant was that critics can't allow for early authorship because the God of the Bible and Israel would then be real because the only explanation for Daniel to forecast the next 700 years was by supernatural means.
@@JustScriptureMinistries > Next, the Aramaic and Hebrew language do not reflect a late Palestinian Aramaic or Hebrew. Read Kenneth A Kitchen's "The Aramaic of Daniel." He's actually a linguistic scholar in the field and published or see th-cam.com/video/NlphqPSpDlY/w-d-xo.html. I watched it, neat how all your video links in your response are back to your own channel. Funny you didn't mention anything about that as you put the links. A cynical person could take that as a form of self-boosting advertisement, and consider you to be a dick. And not a nice kind of a dick. What you basically have is Kitchen saying that "it could honestly be anything from 600 BCE onwards, we don't know" and then the other guy Archer (a christian, imagine my shock) who "neatly wraps things up" with "yeah, totally old language, Daniel is authentic, mah god is realz". I paraphased the quotes. > Is Nebuchadnezzar called Belshazzar's father and vice verse the son? Yes. Which is TOTALLY OKAY because Hebrew and Aramaic don't have a separate word for grandfather and grandson. They use the same word. This is used in the Bible and Assyrian records elsewhere: I need a dictionary source, or anyting, for this one. I could not find anything to back this up. > The author said at the ~6:00 that 'we don't need a simplistic supernatural view.' What that really meant was that critics can't allow for early authorship because the God of the Bible and Israel would then be real because the only explanation for Daniel to forecast the next 700 years was by supernatural means. Let's see, it could mean that the God of the *hebrew* bible is true, but nothing else. It could also be an another supernatural entity, playing tricks on Daniel and then making sure that these things come to pass, so it could have a giggle watching idiots in the current year still holding on the silly God of the Bible. Did you ever think about that? No, you only think about yourself. And supernatural explanation is not the only explanation, either. Self-fulfilling prohecies could also be a thing, as at the time people who acted out these prophecies either could have or did know about them. Or the most simplest, natural explanation, would be a inaccurate historical telling masked as a prophecy, as mentioned in the video. So for time being, I don't find you or your god convincing.
When it comes to prophecy Daniel and Revelation should be studied together. I don’t think the book of Daniel was written after the events happened. We are now living under the toes of the image that King Nebuchadnezzar dreamed about. The little horn w/c is the papal Rome in prophecy. One really can’t discredit the Bible which is the inspired word of God.
Dr. Josh I have just sent you a hundred dollars via paypal to Meghan lewis account. I appreciate what you are doing. Is there anyway you could break down the dream of the statue head of gold and feet of clay? As if anything I believe the dream was not forgotten and that if anything the King never had that dream. But when he heard Daniels story of the dream and the explanation. He said Yup that is it. Do you think Daniel is another fictional character? Keep up the good work :)
Isn't it strange that you start your conversation with pointing out the 4 beasts governments? That your theory promotes Darius being the second one, Greece being the fourth. Yet later in your video you specifically say that Darius was not even in the picture in the first place. This certainly throws a major problem in your analysis. The fourth beast government is definitely Rome.
in a discussion with AronRa you ended with a conclusion that the messege and purpose of the book of Daniel was to strenghten the resultion of the Jews against the opperssion by Antiochus IV,so more or less a polical pamflet. Assuming this it right, and making much more sense then what I got tought about id elementery school, I wonder how that would have worked out. Was it spread among the elite only or was it read at the gatherings in the synagogues. In the last case the congegration must have very patient, because as a political pamflet it's a bit long and winding. War could be over before they reached the end of the text. Comparision with the Communist Manifesto written in 1848, the year of the Revolution in France overthrow the July Kingdom pops up. One might think that Manifest inspired the revolutionaires till you realise it was not translated into French till after the event. Any idea what would be the working in its time of this "Danineal Manifesto"
Take your pick on the dating, it really doesn’t matter. Even with an early date the authors Daniel obviously describe the Roman Empire in the statue prophecy. Daniel also perfectly describes the the Greek empire as the leopard. So much reach goes into separating the meads and the Persians.
Media? Medians? They were middle of the road journalists? I've always seen it as Medes, Medea and Medeans. Doesn't hurt to proof read. Other than that an excellent piece.
So I will be straight forward on this, this video is filled will inaccurate explanations and summary conclusions of 'what consensus scholarship' agrees on. The most honest thing said here was 'without going into great detail.' That basically means, 'let me give you my desired outcome' without exactly demonstrating if my conclusions are correct. This would be like going up to a science fair display board seeing the Hypothesis and Results without seeing the procedure and research being done. Like always, critics of 6th BC authorship have to adhere to a 4-Empire scheme that is 1) Bab 2) Media 3) Persia 4) Greece. While Daniel always and only refers to the Medes & Persians together (Dan 5:28; 6:8,12,15), the critics have to separate these two because if Greece is the 3rd, Rome is thus the 4th and the prophetical sections look past Greece. (see th-cam.com/video/xRNJVpCFDyo/w-d-xo.html)
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN Excellent video Dr. Josh! I've long been aware that critical scholars had given the book, or at least the prophetic parts, this late dating. However I've never looked into it in any depth or seen any of your great and very nerdy timeline charts. I'm adding this video to my watch later list, because I'm sure I'll want to watch it again. However, lets not forget the words of the great Phil Harris (Shadrach) (Shadrach) There were three children from the land of Israel (Shadrach), Meshach, Abednego They took a little trip to the land of Babylon (Shadrach), Meshach, Abednego Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon (Shadrach), Meshach, Abednego Took a lot of gold and he made an idol (Shadrach), Meshach, Abednego And he told everybody when they heard the music of the cornet....... And he told everybody when they heard the music of the clarinet....... And he told everybody when they heard the music of the horn....... You must bow down and worship the idol Shadrach, (Meshach, Abednego) But the children of Israel would not bow down Not Shadrach, (Meshach, Abednego) You couldn't fool them with no golden idol Shadrach, (Meshach, Abednego) The king put the children in the fiery furnace (Oh Shadrach), Meshach, Abednego Heaped on the coals and the red-hot brimstone (Oh Shadrach), Meshach, Abednego Seven times hotter, hotter than it oughta be (Oh Shadrach), Meshach, Abednego Burnt up the soldiers that the king had put there Shad(Shad)rach(rach), Meshach, Abednego But the Lord sent an angel with snowy-white wings Down in the middle of the furnace (Yeah!) Talkin' to the children 'bout the power of the Gospel (Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego) Couldn't even harm a hair on the head of Shadrach, (Meshach, Abednego) Laughin' and a-talkin' while the fire's a-chuggin' up (Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego) Oh, Nebuchadnezzar called (Oh Yeah!) When he saw the power of the Lord And they had a big time in the house of Babylon (Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego) (Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego) (Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego) (Shadrach!)
@@johananandrewich5707 What makes you say that? At this point I can't remember the content of this video vs all the other debate about Daniel I have read and watched in the last 9 months, so I can't discuss this unless things get interesting enough for me to rewatch.
@leumasdiderot I always find the "God is a trickster demon" argument most plausible, if we take as given that all those Bible writers were recording events as they happened and the Bible is an accurate copy of those records. So yes, I agree. Haven't heard anyone else advocate that recently. Nice to meet you. ...but we know that isn't true, right? Even Christians don't believe most Christian writing from that period. The vast majority of early Christian writing is apocryphal. Look at this huge list, and subtract out the 27 or so books of the New Testament: www.earlychristianwritings.com/ There isn't much to distinguish the reliability of the books of the Bible from all this random crap from this era that approximately nobody believes. Even half the Biblical Pauline Epistles were forged: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
Saying that the 2th century BC styled language in Daniel is evidence for a late composition date is like saying the NIV version of the Bible is evidence for the Bible being written in the 21st century
I would suggest the following video for another view of the kingdom interpretation in Daniel. th-cam.com/video/qtjyv-tNvYo/w-d-xo.html I think this is a far better interpretation of them than what is presented by Dr. Bowen. Thanks!
Know that 200bc is 500 yrs more than what tuis same secular/athiest faction of acedimia used to teach for 100 yrs. Its the bottom line they can argue. 250yrs from the time of Babylon 200bc we know is very helenized Jewish generation that adopts Greek numerical system at this time. After Alexander it was an explosion of new vocabulary as merging languages was being shared. We should expect updates and edited sources to this time like we see in other works. State funded scribes took 1.5 years to copy the Biblical works. This means that 10 scribes for 100 yrs copied 660 bibles but we found one of them in dead seas scrolls as some books are dated 150 bc. Lol This word for word secular athistic academic argument and teaching is very flawed and unfair. The order of the kings mistakes show up in different orders in the Aramaic Daniel..it isn't the as the Greek order. Clearly in 200bc it was great grandchildren in the leadership of those who lived in Babylon as it wasnt but maybe 20 k jews in Babylon. Daniel woukd be known of by readers it would have to be close to what they had shared to one anothers .
"Like, Subscribe - Come along for the ride" great tag line! Again thanks for breaking down Daniel, one of the worst when it comes to "huh?" moments in the OT. Do you similar insight to Isaiah or the single worst book of the bible, Job? If so - asking for a video. David & Goliath? Samson & Delilah? Song of Solomon -- just kidding.
THIS is Brilliantly presented! I just read the article by Dr. Richard Carrier titled "Why Daniel is a forgery," and this video by Dr. Josh fortifies the objective evidence so clearly, concisely and powerfully even a teenager with average intelligence could grasp it readily. Digital Hammarabi "hiteth the ball out of the arena."
Well you would be wrong because it was found in the Dead Sea scrolls dating
Dr carrrier doesn't have peer reviewed work ....and is not regarded as biblical scholar since he doesn't have the qualifications to be one(depends on interpretation from already interpreted).....he has no knowledge or studied ancient languages that requires one to be a biblical, he doesn't work or teach at an academic institution.... the few peer reviewed works he presented were regarded as an academic failure.......
Quote from reputable scholars not the fringe ones....
Many so-called "Bible scholars" don't know what they are talking about, have no faith in God and do not believe in the existence of predictive prophecy -- hence they automatically discard the possibility of the Book of Daniel being authentic, because it predicts history so accurately. Well, the Book of Daniel is absolutely authentic and written more than 500 years BC... and accurately predicts the first coming of Jesus, to the exact year! And THAT is why the devil and atheists hate the book so much!
@@tened8530The dead sea scrolls date from the third to the first century BCE so that fits this video entirely. The dead sea scrolls aren't helping the case that Daniel comes from the sixth century BCE
@@patrickngunjiri5340 Have you actually READ Carrier?
Doesn't look like it. All you offered was ad hominem arguments against him. Why not treat yourself to reading his essay on how Daniel is a forgery? What? You cannot use the knowledge of ancient history (his specialty) to show that almost all of the historical information that Daniel reports is all wrong? That Darius the Mede never existed? That he gets all the successors of Nebuchadnezzar wrong? That there is a plethora of Greek-loan words that one would not expect to see in an Aramaic text, especially Greek loan words that don’t otherwise appear in Aramaic texts or inscriptions until the late Persian period (long after Daniel was supposed to have been written)? That the 49, 434, and final 7-year periods (weeks) just coincidently happen to line up and culminate in the period between 171 BCE (the year that the High Priest i.e. “the Anointed" Onias III was assassinated), and 164 BCE, the conclusion of the Maccabean revolt?
So if Daniel got all of this wrong, which is readily demonstrable now thanks to historical records from the Babylonians and Persians, then "Daniel" is full of shit. It is a forgery. And that the final 7-year period happens to line up with the conclusion of the Maccabean revolt, seems to indicate that this forgery is a piece of Maccabean theological propaganda.
But again, think for yourself. Be open to falsifying your views. Consider alternate viewpoints.
Daniel is a failed prophecy, and he tried to correct Jeremiah's failed prophecy before him. And 2 Esdras tries to save Daniel's failed prophecy after him (replacing Greece with Rome as the "final earthly kingdom.")
Great material Dr. Bowen. Loved the 8:48 'text message; 😂
Love this! I'm sure I will have many opportunities to recommend it.
I got here from your channel.
JESUS IS LORD Only fitting that comments are turned off on that video.
@@chaseharrison5469 So what's your point?🤔
JESUS IS LORD That it doesn’t surprise me that channels geared toward ministry or apologetics would restrict dialogue or critique altogether by disabling comments. Hoover institute does it as well.
@@chaseharrison5469 comments are enabled... Am I missing something?
Thanks for sharing this little bit of history and perspective on the Book Of Daniel.
I appreciate the work you must've put into it.
Sorry to tell you that the author of the video is not accurate with the information.
I will be straight forward on this, this video is filled will inaccurate explanations and summary conclusions of 'what consensus scholarship' agrees on.
The most honest thing said here was 'without going into great detail.' That basically means, 'let me give you my desired outcome' without exactly demonstrating if my conclusions are correct. This would be like going up to a science fair display board seeing the Hypothesis and Results without seeing the procedure and research being done.
Like always, critics of 6th BC authorship have to adhere to a 4-Empire scheme that is 1) Bab 2) Media 3) Persia 4) Greece. While Daniel always and only refers to the Medes & Persians together (Dan 5:28; 6:8,12,15), the critics have to separate these two because if Greece is the 3rd, Rome is thus the 4th and the prophetical sections look past Greece. (see th-cam.com/video/xRNJVpCFDyo/w-d-xo.html)
At 2:08, the author said that Daniel 1:1 is historically inaccurate, again wrong. It is actually spot on by the fact that Daniel is using the Babylonian accession counting method instead of the traditional Israelite non-accession counting method. (see th-cam.com/video/ofpbwU_2E4Y/w-d-xo.html)
At 3:48, the author said that Daniel 9 lays out the time period to Greece. Um no. It's clearly a 490 year period that starts with the rebuilding of the wall 457 BC to 27 AD that says after this the Messiah will be cut off (die by execution, gee I wonder who this could be) and also the 2nd Temple would be destroyed after that as well (ie 70 AD Roman destruction under Titus.)
Next, the Aramaic and Hebrew language do not reflect a late Palestinian Aramaic or Hebrew. Read Kenneth A Kitchen's "The Aramaic of Daniel." He's actually a linguistic scholar in the field and published or see th-cam.com/video/NlphqPSpDlY/w-d-xo.html.
Is Nebuchadnezzar called Belshazzar's father and vice verse the son? Yes. Which is TOTALLY OKAY because Hebrew and Aramaic don't have a separate word for grandfather and grandson. They use the same word. This is used in the Bible and Assyrian records elsewhere:
Old Testament Ex:
Elisha called Elijah his father (2 Kings 2:12)
1 Kings 19:16 And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be
king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt
thou anoint to be prophet in thy room.
New Testament Ex:
Jesus “the son of David” Matthew 1:1
Jews “Abraham is our father” John 8:39
Archaeological Ex:
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III
Calls Israel’s King Jehu as ‘son of Omri’
The author said at the ~6:00 that 'we don't need a simplistic supernatural view.' What that really meant was that critics can't allow for early authorship because the God of the Bible and Israel would then be real because the only explanation for Daniel to forecast the next 700 years was by supernatural means.
Great vid Dr. Josh. I am just finishing up a book that Dr Carrier suggested to me about how the earlier books of the bible were composed. This video picks up right where the book left off. This is a fascinating part of history that so many know so little about, yet has influenced us greatly. Keep up the great work, and I am looking forward to your next vid. :-)
@LeeTubular "The Bible Unearthed" by Fincklestein and Silberman.
You separated the Medo-Persian Empire meanwhile the book of Daniel has them together as a combined empire (Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian) Daniel depicts them as the Bear which lifted up itself on one side with 3 ribs in his mouth and as the chest and arms of silver. His depictions go in the order of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and then Rome. The bear lifting up itself on one side simply means one of them was more prominent than the other. The two arms and chest of silver represent the 2 kingdoms of Medes and Persians connected together into one empire. The leopard with four heads represents the four of Alexander’s generals that took control after his death. After Alexander's death his Empire was divided among his four generals (known in Latin as the Diadochi, the name by which they are still referenced, from the Greek, Diadokhoi, meaning "successors") the wings represents speed in which the empire conquered. Greece conquered much faster than did Babylon with just 2 wings.
@Mavors the fourth kingdom is pagan Rome and out of her comes Papal Rome mother of harlots and the ten toes of of the Roman Empire which is Western Europe and The United States of America (The Lamblike beast). He’s just a EuroWhite tryna clear Europe out of the prophecy because it clearly lists them as the bad guys.
@@misskiya uh huh…
yep
Kiya cherrae No zionist pagan god of Israel Daniel never existed Abraham moses old testament patriarch and Jesus his disciples never existed. And the new testament was never written by disciples this supernatural been you believe in who never existed and supertious claims that never happened evil genocidal racist maniac from the zionist bible and your speaking for this imaginary been who don't exists zionist bible is a book of racist zionist literature and zionist nationalism if any white European would have written that book it would have been banned Jews are middle eastern Asian they can get away with it.
I agree ... actually there are lots reasons why a second century dating of Daniel does not match up.
www.markhaughwout.com/Bible/Dating_Daniel.pdf
Daniel also predicts the establishment of a new Kingdom during the time of the fourth beast which will start small (a stone) and end up being a mountain which covers the whole world. Further Daniel accurately predicts the destruction of the second temple. If the text was written falsely to boost the Jewish believers they certainly would not have said that the second temple will be destroyed.
Excellent video! I'd love to see you do a video specifically about Daniel 9. I think that would be interesting.
I'm thankful that I am doing a series exactly on this topic currently.
So I will be straight forward on this, this video is filled will inaccurate explanations and summary conclusions of 'what consensus scholarship' agrees on.
The most honest thing said here was 'without going into great detail.' That basically means, 'let me give you my desired outcome' without exactly demonstrating if my conclusions are correct. This would be like going up to a science fair display board seeing the Hypothesis and Results without seeing the procedure and research being done.
Like always, critics of 6th BC authorship have to adhere to a 4-Empire scheme that is 1) Bab 2) Media 3) Persia 4) Greece. While Daniel always and only refers to the Medes & Persians together (Dan 5:28; 6:8,12,15), the critics have to separate these two because if Greece is the 3rd, Rome is thus the 4th and the prophetical sections look past Greece. (see th-cam.com/video/xRNJVpCFDyo/w-d-xo.html)
At 2:08, the author said that Daniel 1:1 is historically inaccurate, again wrong. It is actually spot on by the fact that Daniel is using the Babylonian accession counting method instead of the traditional Israelite non-accession counting method. (see th-cam.com/video/ofpbwU_2E4Y/w-d-xo.html)
At 3:48, the author said that Daniel 9 lays out the time period to Greece. Um no. It's clearly a 490 year period that starts with the rebuilding of the wall 457 BC to 27 AD that says after this the Messiah will be cut off (die by execution, gee I wonder who this could be) and also the 2nd Temple would be destroyed after that as well (ie 70 AD Roman destruction under Titus.)
Next, the Aramaic and Hebrew language do not reflect a late Palestinian Aramaic or Hebrew. Read Kenneth A Kitchen's "The Aramaic of Daniel." He's actually a linguistic scholar in the field and published or see th-cam.com/video/NlphqPSpDlY/w-d-xo.html.
Is Nebuchadnezzar called Belshazzar's father and vice verse the son? Yes. Which is TOTALLY OKAY because Hebrew and Aramaic don't have a separate word for grandfather and grandson. They use the same word. This is used in the Bible and Assyrian records elsewhere:
Old Testament Ex:
Elisha called Elijah his father (2 Kings 2:12)
1 Kings 19:16 And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be
king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt
thou anoint to be prophet in thy room.
New Testament Ex:
Jesus “the son of David” Matthew 1:1
Jews “Abraham is our father” John 8:39
Archaeological Ex:
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III
Calls Israel’s King Jehu as ‘son of Omri’
The author said at the ~6:00 that 'we don't need a simplistic supernatural view.' What that really meant was that critics can't allow for early authorship because the God of the Bible and Israel would then be real because the only explanation for Daniel to forecast the next 700 years was by supernatural means.
Hi Just Scriptures Ministries! We are really glad that you are here, and we appreciate your comments. It is nice to have people engage with the text. The issues surrounding the book of Daniel are quite complex, as I am sure that you know, and making definitive statements concerning the referents in apocalyptic language can be problematic. I would say that, to rely on a scholar like Kenneth Kitchen in linguistic matters is probably not a wise idea. I would suggest reviewing the work by the evangelical scholar C.L. Seow and John Collins on some of these issues. I would also say that the primary difficulty that one faces with an early dating of Daniel comes with the events portrayed in chapters 10-12. You are correct: the video is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis of all of the issues involved with the dating of Daniel, which would take a great deal of time (and likely be quite tedious for many of the viewers), but I would hope that you would not bring any of your own conclusions to the evidence. As it stands, I have no axe to grind here, nor a dog in the fight (I could probably think of other metaphors, but that's probably good enough :-) ); I am an agnostic that was a Christian for nearly 30 years, and my wife is still a Christian. Again, it is wonderful that you are here!!
@@DigitalHammurabi I think both of us know that we could throw scholars, e.g Gleason Archer Jr, at each other all day on this. The dividing line is the prophecies. Nobody would care anything about Daniel, no different than dating Nahum, Joel, Jonah, whoever if it wasn't for those prophecies.
I agree that some viewers probably wouldn't want to see all the tedious, minutia, but I hope we would both agree that they should.
The theory of late dating Daniel at 165 BC has absolutely no historical merit to it. Nobody from that time period ever spoke about the book in the manner that critics say, that it was forged by anonymous authors as an encouragement against AE4.
Historical Reasons Why Late Dating Fails
1) Josephus basically copied and pasted the book into his Antiquities of the Jews Book Books 10-11 and said the book was presented to Alexander the Great that he was the notable horn from Daniel 8. So is Josephus part of the lie, a misinformed historian, or is he passing along a real story?
2) The Sibylline Oracles dated in the 2nd BC speaks of Daniel and make references out of Chapter 10.
3) 1 Maccabees dated at 132 BC speaks Daniel & his friends in the exile period with attached references to Daniel 3 & 6 events.
4) DSS of Daniel dated in the 2nd BC. There's no way for the copying and popularization to happen this quickly to then be taking to the Qumram community.
5) 3 Additions to Daniel said to have been composed at 100 BC. I would venture that is only because of the authorship debate, but still, those additions would have never made their way just a few decades after.
6) LXX Translation. The process started in 286 BC and there is no reason to say that it took them 200 years to do the whole OT Canon other than trying to shove Daniel late.
7) LXX Translation Errors: At the latest, even in the critical view, Daniel could be translated is at 100 BC because of the above but yet the translators (the most learned Jewish scribes) made errors. So they were either fooled, ignorant or part of the forgery? All of those are nonsense which means is that their difficulty in translating some words was because they had passed out of use long before them.
8) OT Canonization. Nobody has a problem saying that the rest of the OT was composed by 5th BC, but somehow Daniel (forged & full of errors - Critical View) got in coming out of the 2nd BC when all writings from that time and later Josephus said no prophets were around. Which is why they said they put the altar of sacrifice in storage because they didn't have a prophet to tell how to handle the situation. Daniel would have never been considered under the Critical View.
9) NT References - let's just be straight on this. Jesus mentions Daniel and quotes him about the abomination of desolation and speaking of it as a future event. So is Jesus lying, a fool, or telling the truth?
10) 2000 years of fooled ignorance? This issue is 1st spoken by Porphyry in the 4th AD that exists only in Jerome's work. So under the Critical View, 2000 years went by 165 BC - late 19th AD where everyone was fooled that Daniel was composed in the 6th BC until some German critical scholar took issue with it and the rest of the OT? Really? "Oh, that's because of the church domination." Sorry, bunk because of the reasons above and common sense.
If chapters 7-12 were out, nobody would care and leave the book at the 6th BC. Put them in and critics freak out because of the implications that would leave them with.
Again, citing Gleason Archer tells me that you may not have done the necessary reading in the secondary literature to adequately address this issue. I do not mean to be offensive with that observation, but rather it is meant to encourage you to learn the languages that you are arguing from (if you have not already), and then digest the research (which is extensive) that has already gone into this issue.
@@DigitalHammurabi Do I know those ancient languages? No. So yes, I am going to appeal to scholars who are well known for their understanding in those languages.
But do I need to know those languages for the historical side of the debate? No. The Late Authorship fails on these grounds for the reasons above.
The Greek 4 Empire Scheme that critics have to use and place Greece as the fourth empire and the splitting Media and Persia apart absolutely does not follow what is said in Daniel or in history. But it is still used because Critical proponents can't allow for the book to be read as if it is speaking of events past AE4 and into the Roman period.
Somehow they say that the Bear is Media; 4-winged Leopard is Persia; and 10-horn monster is Greece in Daniel 7 but then somehow concede that Daniel 8's 2-horn Ram is the combined Empire of Medo-Persia and the Goat is Greece.
2-horn Ram lines up with the Bear as both described one side of the empire stronger than the other, hence Persia was the stronger of the 2 nations.
And the 4-winged Leopard lines up with the 4-horned goat. The goat with 4 horns doesn't line up with the 4th beast with 10 horns.
Plus, they will never bring up Daniel 9's 70 Weeks because they cannot lay that out on a timeline without the events described in it falling into the 1st AD with Jesus being executed 'cut off' (30 AD) and the 2nd Temple being destroyed (70 AD).
I honestly understand that those who don't desire or even hate the notion of Supernatural involvement will ever concede on these points.
So if skeptics want to argue against Daniel and bring up "difficulties" within the text, go ahead. But they need to more transparent and honest with the available information. Simply giving pithy conclusions that agree with their desired outcome is where I draw issue with critics. Because it's not simply angled at dismissing the book, it's attacking the character of the Bible as a whole, and ultimately trying to subvert the faith of many people with the same intent as that of the Zeitgeist movie.
I know you believe this to be a clear and straightforward issue, but I would urge you to take the time to learn these languages and to read ancient literature in a meaningful way before drawing firm conclusions. You sound as if you are convinced of your position based on the information that you have, which is admirable; I would caution you to hold that position loosely while you develop an expertise in these fields and learn to examine critically the secondary literature. I wish you all the best in your endeavors.
Also worth noting verses like 12:9 where Daniel is told to keep his prophecies secret. "The words are to remain secret and sealed until the time of the end." This would explain to 2nd-century readers why they had never heard of these prophecies before. They were supposedly kept secret until they were being fulfilled!
Great point
That would imply the 70 or 72 rabies that went to Alexandria to translate the Tanakh to Greek, requested by the Greek Pharaoh, didn’t have the whole book of Daniel until after 165 BCE. They finished the whole LXX translation by 132, are you buying that you all? By 125 the Qumran people was considering it as Scriptures, interesting that from 3rd Century CE and at our time, we baldly declare it as forgery, basing conclusions mostly on the final piece of evidence. I personally don’t think so!
Super video. Clear and concise. Thank you very much. As a newbie to Daniel this was very helpful.
Wont be able to see it live but you can bet i will be back😀 In the mean time i left a like.
A couple of notes (around 2:16): Thiele has already noted that Daniel uses Tishri to Tishri accession reckoning, which was common in Judah and among the exiles but contrasts with the Nisan-Nisan reckoning used by Jeremiah and the Babylonians. As such, for six months out of every year the calendars appear out of sync. The year in question according to the reckoning of Daniel and Judah was the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar II, and Berossus indicates Nebuchadnezzar II took Jewish captives to Babylon when he traveled home to secure the throne. Secondly, Daniel does not distinguish Media and Persia as separate empires. In chapter 6 as well as in chapter 8, references is made to the law of the Medes and Persians which cannot be altered. Ezra likewise refers to the law in similar fashion--the laws of the Persians and Medes, which ought not be altered.
Assyriologists have also long since recognized that Assyrian and Babylonian kings would refer to any one of their predecessors as their ex-officio father, even in the case where there is no blood relation, and a multitude of examples can be given. The phrase "the king my father" or "kings my fathers" is very common in Assyrian documents to speak of royal predecessors, even by usurpers (e.g. Tiglath-pilessar and Sargon II). Even Nabonidus, who claims that "kingship was not in me," refers to Nebuchadnezzar as his "royal ancestor" and in the Nabonidus Cylinder he refers to his predecessors as "kings my fathers." Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar likewise refer to their predecessors as "kings my fathers." In contrast, Nebuchadnezzar refers to his own father as "the father my begetter." In addition, Nabonidus was not in Babylon when it fell. He was holed up in Borsippa. He did not return to Babylon until after it was captured. It has been recognized by Assyriologists (Dougherty, Beaulieu) that the "king" who was killed in the Greek histories refers to Belshazzar. Nabonidus, on the other hand, lived out the rest of his life in Carmania.
It's a shame that everything you've mentioned here, which actually checks out, has apparently been ignored, while so may poor souls seem to be falling over themselves in order to congratulate the makers of this faulty content, swallowing it up with little or no critical evaluation. No honest reader could fail to see that Media and Persia are joined as one kingdom everywhere they occur in Daniel, ie Medo-Persia, and that secular history and archaeology back that up.
Pretending that Nabonidus' return in some way casts doubt on Daniel's version of events is just plain dishonest.
Is this a channel devoted to 'debunking' Daniel? Nobody who has done even a little research could be fooled. People need to search and test information out for themselves.
Great ... this channel tries hard to defame the book of Daniel, Misleading many uninformed souls
Not distinguishing between the Medes and Persians is a later development in historical writings. Herodotus for example in the 5th century BC does distinguish the two.
As for Belshazzar, it obviously refers to him as the son of Nebuchadnezzar. This is a Jewish writing in which Belshazzar doesn't refer to him as "the king of my father," but "my father," and Daniel refers to him as "you Belshazzar, his son." This is unambiguous.
Furthermore, Daniel doesn't even mention Nabonidus, an odd omission if it was truly written near the end of the Babylonian Empire when he should have been reigning, and misattributes Nabonidus leave of rule to Nebuchadnezzar's "madness." The most obvious and parsimonious explanation is that the author of Daniel confused Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus.
@@colinc892 Kings my fathers or the king my father, or like variations, are customary references to royal predecessors in both Assyrian and Babylonian cuneiform literature. Historically, when Babylon fell, Nabonidus was in the field being chased by Cyrus. He returned and surrendered after Babylon fell. Belshazzar would have been acting regent. Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned in the context of Daniel, who served that king, but no longer served in the Babylonian court. So the reference is entirely appropriate.
Cyrus the Great controlled both the Medes and Persians, but the Medes were the more prominent of the two kingdoms. The author of Daniel clearly notes in two locations that they were unified under one system of law-the law of the Medes and Persians. Esther does the same, and they are also clearly one kingdom. You mention Herodotus in the 5th century, but nothing before that. My notes aren't on hand, so I can't elaborate further.
@@livealive3323 A few points. Firstly, the writer of Daniel is Jewish, so using customary Assyrian or Babylonian references does not make sense contextually. Some apologists have argued that the word "Father" here can also mean "Grandfather," and while that is true, we have no solid evidence of Nabonidus, the father of Belshazzar, taking one of Neb's daughters as wife. Furthermore, the whole "madness of Nebuchadnezzar" episode closely matches what actually happened historically with Nabonidus, in that he abandoned the traditional Babylonian gods, ran off to Tayma, and worshipped foreign gods. There's no record of anything close to this happening to Neb II himself. The most parsimonious interpretation is that the author of Daniel, writing hundreds of years later, mixed up Neb II and Nabonidus, which explains why the "madness" was attributed to Neb II and why Nabonidus is called "his son" in ch 5 vs 22.
Secondly, no Nabonidus was very likely in Babylon during its fall. His self-imposed exile to Tayma ended before the fall. This is backed by the Nabonidus Chronicle, which states Nabonidus was captured in Babylon when it fell, but makes no mention of Belshazzar there. Also the New Year's festival was celebrated again right before Babylon's fall, which could ONLY be done in the presence of the king, and was suspended during Belshazzar's regency and the true king's absence. If Daniel was around when Belshazzar was regent, and when Babylon fell, then he would have served under Nabonidus. Him not mentioning the correct king of Babylon during its fall makes much more sense for a later date. In fact, Daniel repeatedly refers to Belshazzar himself as "king," which is incorrect. The Babylonians themselves did not consider him king, even during his regency.
Thirdly, the point about the Medes/Persians is that later writers DO conflate the two empires into a Medo-Persian Empire, but earlier writers make more of a distinction. The reason I brought up Herodotus is that he goes through great detail regarding the conflict between the Medes and Persians and how they were rivals to each other, trading who was on top. Daniel mentions "Darius the Mede" taking Babylon, but there is no matching historical figure for this character.
Fourthly, the Hebrew of the book of Daniel is (according to those that can read Hebrew, I certainly can't) a later form.
Finally, the book of Daniel is not quoted by other texts until the 2nd century BC. The Book of Sirach leaves it out, and does so with only a select few other OT books. It also wasn't listed in the 'Prophets' section of the Nevi'im. The earliest dated manuscripts that have been found also date from 2nd BC I believe. The whole picture taken together is clearly one a mid 2nd century BC pseudo-epigraphical work, and that's not even getting into the prophetic content about Antiochus Epiphanes and what Daniel gets right vs what he gets wrong.
Great video!
great video Josh. love the graphics, you guys are getting good at this.
Thank you so much! I’m glad it’s improving 😁
How is the Four-Headed leopard a metaphor for Persia? Shouldn't the Greeks be the four headed animal, considering that Alexander's realm was split into four?
Dating Daniel? I think I'd rather go on a date with Nebuchadnezzar.
The Virgin Daniel vs. NebuCHADnezzer
Of the two, I'd rather date Ol' Neb during his grass eating phase ....
I think Neb would have known how to throw a decent party.
Daniel was a eunich@@autobotstarscream765
I'm sure a True Believer would say that the appearance of "What's up?" in Shakespeare would simply prove that he saw the future accurately.
no really, since no events were predicted just by the use of the phrase "What's up?". i mean, the book of daniel makes a lot of prophecies. we are not talking about a two word phrase here buddy.
@@charmander777 And all of its prophecies after about 165 BCE are dead wrong.
@@michaelsommers2356 proof?
@@John-pu5kz The proof is in the text and in the historical record. See, for example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Dating
@@michaelsommers2356 th-cam.com/video/U9kwgxkW0qE/w-d-xo.html
Great video again. Love your work!
I really appreciate this and the other series you've done on Daniel. Not so easy to find non fundamentalist articles on the dating of Daniel!
Yes! No wonder they all believe they’re right. It’s so hard to dig into history without a bias.
Also, a later writing would account for the accuracy of the later prophecy. Of course, his "vision" would be far more detailed if written contemporaneously.
Hello, I wonder how would that work if the writer port fact got so many details wrong, some others right, how is your argument supposedly works? I am writing about the presidential campaign during the time, but I can’t research the details of the civil war to get those right, at least according to current History at the time of writing? Is that logical to you?
Also, the Hebrew and Aramaic analysis of the text dates it between the 4th and 2nd centuries, but you guys push it to the middle of the second century, just because IT CAN’T contain actual prophecy? Is that what I just heard from Dr. Bowen?
Respect, but I don’t think that is honest, in my personal opinion.
This is really fascinating. I always wondered how scholars determined some of the things you discuss.
This is a very helpful video. Thanks for making it.
okay so if there are so many historical inaccuracies in the book of Daniel, wouldn't it show that it was written before the events it claims to prophesy? i mean, the author could have make it much more accurate had he written is after the events occurred (it doesn't make sense for him to intentionally introduce inaccuracies since it would weaken his ability to convince people that the prophecies did indeed occur).
Hey Brian. I'm not an expert on the subject, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But AFAIU Daniel was very accurate in the "predictions" that were closer to the time when the story was written (2nd cent) and vague on those that were closer to when the story took place (and farther away from when it was actually written). I'm guessing that the writers might not have access to all the history details. Wikipedia was waay later down the line :)
In a similar way, there are many "prophecies" in the Book of Mormon. Events that were well known in Joseph Smith's own time, such as the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Americas, are prophesied in great detail. Events which supposedly happened in the Americas centuries before Columbus tend to be described either vaguely or inaccurately. Prophecies concerning events happening after Smith's own time are either vague or inaccurate. This is one way we can confirm that the Book of Mormon is a product of the nineteenth century, and is not an ancient record.
This is actually a terrific point!!!
I've loved watching and listening.
Really enjoyed the presentation. 18 minutes invested and I am *_much more_* expertly informed than would ever be possible for the same amount of time if I had attempted to research the themes from scratch.😎
For future analyses I would be interested in a pre or postscript note quickly timelining the oldest known *tangible/concrete* texts - from fragments through to complete - as contrasted to the estimated/inferred original writing dates based on the other scholarships brought to bear on the language/text/contextual study.
@Digital Hammurabi, So when Jesus says to his followers to read Daniel and understand, concerning the abomination that makes desolation, he doesn't know that Daniel is actually talking about Antiochus IV and that the abomination caused by Antiochus already took place? Apologists get around this by saying there are more than one abomination(s) that makes desolation. Also Daniel 9:27 seems to be referring to the destruction of the 2nd temple buy the Roman general prince Titus, how would you explain that verse since Antiochus doesn't actually destroy the temple and the city? I enjoy your videos, thanks.
When Jesus Said: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” He is reffering to the timetable of Daniel. 49 weeks of Years.
The authors of the gospels are free to shove whatever words they like into Jesus mouth
Great video again.
How do you make this dating fit for Daniel given that it was included in it’s entirety in the Septuagint which was translated 285-247 BCE. I would think that it must have been written sometime before this as I don’t think the Jews would have included it in the Cannon if it hadn’t been around at least 1-2 centuries prior. Thanks for your help and all the great content!
At 11:30 'Scholars generally agree the Aramaic dates 400-200 BC'...do you know of a source that says that this agreement exists? I have seen scholars on both sides of this issue, but I can't find any 'Daniel' or Aramaic specialists saying there is a general agreement.
As simple as the illustrations are I find them helpful when people speak in centuries.
Great video, just what I was looking for. I've also consider the events recorded by Josephus concerning Alexander the Great coming to Jerusalem and reading himself into the text of Daniel. I believe Jospehus has misattributed this event or even fabricated it. Would love to hear your position on this.
The other thing is I'm so glad you studied enough in my opinion to get the four kingdoms correct .
Thanks! I left the following comment on our Aramaic Dating of Daniel video; hope it helps!
"I am currently on vacation with Megan, but In light of the demands for immediate response by SJ Thomason, I have done a bit of research into what scholars in the field are saying about Josephus’s description of Alexander the Great coming to Jerusalem and reading the Book of Daniel. Let me give a quick summary of what Josephus says, and then I will cite a number of scholars and their opinions. Again, this is the result of but a small amount of research, and I would be very excited for any scholars who specialize in the period to add to or correct what I write here.
The story can be found in Josephus, Antiquities11, chapters 7-8. Yaddua was high priest when Alexander began his conquest. Yaddua’s brother, Manasseh, married the daughter of the governor of Samaria, Sanballat. The elders of Jerusalem ordered Manasseh to divorce her, or to step down from the priesthood. Sanballat offered to establish a temple on Mt. Gerizim, and that Manasseh would serve as high priest there. He also swore that he would get Darius III’s permission to do so. Others from Jerusalem who had intermarried followed Manasseh.
Darius then squares off against Alexander at Issos, and thinking that Darius would defeat Alexander, Sanballat told Manasseh that he would approach him after the conflict. Alexander won, and moved south to Damascus, Sidon, and then to Tyre. From there, Alexander sent word to Yaddua, commanding him to provide assistance and tribute. Yaddua responded that he had sworn an oath to Darius, and he could not go back on it. Alexander then determined to attack Yaddua after taking Tyre. After Tyre, Alexander went to Gaza and besieged it.
When Sanballat saw what happened between Alexander and Darius, he switched allegiance to Alexander and sent men to help with the siege against Tyre. He then requested permission to build the temple on Mt. Gerizim, which was granted. Sanballat died nine months later.
When Alexander finally began to move toward Jerusalem, Yaddua sought God’s help and protection. God came to him in a dream and told him not to fear, but to welcome Alexander. When Alexander came, Yaddua and the priests met him on the way, outside of the city. Those with Alexander thought that he would destroy and plunder Jerusalem and kill Yaddua, but instead Alexander showed them favor, and ultimately entered Jerusalem, sacrificed to God, and was shown the Book of Daniel, which he interpreted as referring to himself.
The argument here concerns the dating of Daniel. If it existed to be shown to Alexander at the time of his arrival, it must have been written much earlier than the second century.
As a general note, we need to remember that Josephus is not simply an unbiased historian (should such a thing even exist), but has his own agenda in writing his accounts. Concerning Josephus’s representation of the Book of Daniel in Antiquities, Collins writes, “Joesphus follows the biblical account fairly closely, but with some interesting embellishments. Thus he reports that some of the Jewish youths were made eunuchs (§186) and that Daniel and his companions ‘resolved to live austerely’ (§190). He also attempts to resolve some historical problems. Thus Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2) is dated to the second year after the sacking of Egypt rather than to the second year of his reign (§195); Belshazzar (Baltasares) is ‘also called Naboandelos’ (Nabonidus; §231); and Darius the Mede is a son of Astyages and known by another name among the Greeks (§248)” (Collins 1993: 85). In other words, Josephus is doing something with his writing, and it would be unwise to simply take what he says at face value.
It seems as though scholars take this approach when it comes to the story of Alexander and Jerusalem. I will quote from Peter Green, Celicia Peek, and Jonathan Goldstein below, but their overall opinions appear to be that, while it is possible that Alexander may have come to Jerusalem, it seems very unlikely. Instead, this fictional or legendary story may have served as an explanation and encouragement, showing how God remains in control, despite the ruler in power, and obeying such earthly powers is not necessarily in conflict with serving God.
Concerning Alexander’s Trip to Jerusalem:
“Alexander spent little time on Palestine, having other goals in mind, and late accounts (in particular that of Josephus), claiming that he made a special journey to Jerusalem, indeed offered sacrifice there, are mere ex post factolegends, put out by pious ideologues determined to show that the legendary world conqueror knew a true Holy City when he saw one.” Peter Green, Alexander to Actium(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990) 499
“Consider the visit of Alexander the Great to Jerusalem after his conquest of Tyre in 332 B.C. Greek historians make no mention of this visit; in fact, no surviving non-Jewish source mentions any connection between Alexander and the Jews. The Jewish historian Josephus is the earliest extant author to record a visit by Alexander to Jerusalem. The tradition behind Josephus’s narrative is obscure at best. It is possible that Alexander visited Jerusalem, but the preserved descriptions of his visit are almost certainly fictional, ‘mere ex post factolegends.’” This is not to say that Josephus’s account is therefore without historical value. Albiet untrustworthy in reconstructing the facts of history, it does offer valuable insight into at least one Jewish view of the appropriate relationship between the Jews and a Greek ruler.” Celicia M. Peek, “Alexander the Great Comes to Jerusalem: The Jewish Response to Hellenism” BYU Studies36/3 (1996) 104-105
“None of these legends can be true. Pagan eye-witnesses chronicled Alexander’s career, and though their works have perished, later writers were able to draw upon them, particularly Arrian. The pagan authors took pains to record the king’s visits to the shrines of non-Greek deities and his participation in their rituals, especially during the years 333-331 B.C.E. when he was in the vicinity of Judaea. Throughout, the pagan Alexander historians tell how the king showed respect to deities, and there is no reason to assume that they would have suppressed a report that Alexander made obesience to the God of the Jews or even to His high priest. On the other hand, if Alexander had made obesience to any human being, as related in Josephus and in the rabbinic tale, the fact would have been so astounding that no biographer of the king would have passed over it in silence.” Jonathan Goldstein, “Alexander and the Jews” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research59 (1993) 70-71
Concerning Why Josephus Wrote the Story:
“It is said that the account of Alexander’s arrival and that of his epiphany must originally have been two distinct narratives, which are thematically irreconciliable: the former demonstrates Jewish submission to Alexander, while the latter demonstrates Alexander’s submission to the God of the Jews. However, is it not the very disjunction between the narratives that accurately characterizes the tension in the relationship between Alexander and the Jewish people? The story as a whole represents an effort to clarify and relieve that tensin by defining the Jewish place in a world dominated by the Hellenistic world-conqueror. The hard fact is that the Jews must acknowledge the temporaloverlordship of the victorious Alexander and, by extension, whichever of his successors should control Palestine. But their lives are also governed by their God and the laws established by him, and He takes precedence.” Peek 1996: 106-107
“Fanciful though Josephus’s account of Alexander the Great’s visit to Jerusalem may be, it is powerful metaphor. It commemorates and contemplates the introduction of Hellenism to Judea.” Ibid., 107
“The legend in Josephus teaches multiple lessons. The author believes that normally Jews must be loyal to the pagan king God has placed over them, but also that signs from the LORD can indicate that Jews should switch their loyalty when He has replaced one such ruler by another. Furthermore, even in this age of their punitive servitude, God’s providence protects His chosen people. Even the greatest pagan potentate was a mere instrument of the LORD.” Goldstein 1993: 90"
@@DigitalHammurabi I have also being studying these. I will check out your other videos. Thanks
@Rogers
Why don't you make videos ?
Very interesting!
Your dialect... Did you happen to grow up in or around Pittsburgh?
Maryland :-)
Beautiful video and great explanation.
I would have loved you to go into detail about the history and linguistics of it. It would have made a very interesting, if longer, video.
I'm sorry to say but there are reasons why he didn't go into detail; so I will be straight forward on this, this video is filled will inaccurate explanations and summary conclusions of 'what consensus scholarship' agrees on.
The most honest thing said here was 'without going into great detail.' That basically means, 'let me give you my desired outcome' without exactly demonstrating if my conclusions are correct. This would be like going up to a science fair display board seeing the Hypothesis and Results without seeing the procedure and research being done.
Like always, critics of 6th BC authorship have to adhere to a 4-Empire scheme that is 1) Bab 2) Media 3) Persia 4) Greece. While Daniel always and only refers to the Medes & Persians together (Dan 5:28; 6:8,12,15), the critics have to separate these two because if Greece is the 3rd, Rome is thus the 4th and the prophetical sections look past Greece. (see th-cam.com/video/xRNJVpCFDyo/w-d-xo.html)
At 2:08, the author said that Daniel 1:1 is historically inaccurate, again wrong. It is actually spot on by the fact that Daniel is using the Babylonian accession counting method instead of the traditional Israelite non-accession counting method. (see th-cam.com/video/ofpbwU_2E4Y/w-d-xo.html)
At 3:48, the author said that Daniel 9 lays out the time period to Greece. Um no. It's clearly a 490 year period that starts with the rebuilding of the wall 457 BC to 27 AD that says after this the Messiah will be cut off (die by execution, gee I wonder who this could be) and also the 2nd Temple would be destroyed after that as well (ie 70 AD Roman destruction under Titus.)
Next, the Aramaic and Hebrew language do not reflect a late Palestinian Aramaic or Hebrew. Read Kenneth A Kitchen's "The Aramaic of Daniel." He's actually a linguistic scholar in the field and published or see th-cam.com/video/NlphqPSpDlY/w-d-xo.html.
Is Nebuchadnezzar called Belshazzar's father and vice verse the son? Yes. Which is TOTALLY OKAY because Hebrew and Aramaic don't have a separate word for grandfather and grandson. They use the same word. This is used in the Bible and Assyrian records elsewhere:
Old Testament Ex:
Elisha called Elijah his father (2 Kings 2:12)
1 Kings 19:16 And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be
king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt
thou anoint to be prophet in thy room.
New Testament Ex:
Jesus “the son of David” Matthew 1:1
Jews “Abraham is our father” John 8:39
Archaeological Ex:
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III
Calls Israel’s King Jehu as ‘son of Omri’
The author said at the ~6:00 that 'we don't need a simplistic supernatural view.' What that really meant was that critics can't allow for early authorship because the God of the Bible and Israel would then be real because the only explanation for Daniel to forecast the next 700 years was by supernatural means.
@@JustScriptureMinistries I went through the link you posted. There's to many false assertions. Well for me anyways. εσφαλμένος
@@themadhack3r431 Could you share a couple of the specific ones that jumped out at you?
@Blaster MasterPrint out what you just wrote, take it in any Ancient History or Theological Department in the nation. Go to the most secular University you like and see what they have to say about your historical claims
@Blaster Master If you started walking down the conspiratorial path, that was your choice.
Nabonidus' returns mean nothing. The Medo-Persian Empire was now in control and he wasn't killed like his son was on the night of the Fall of Babylon in 539 BC. The funny thing is that only the Book of Daniel records Belshazzar's name. So how did the "Anonymous 2nd BC" author that critics propose get this right?
Book of Isaiah. The only reason for dividing the book is because of the naming of Cyrus beforehand. Same issue at play. Predictive prophecy cannot be allowed by the critic so they go fishing/manipulating the text to make it look suspect to cause one to think that single authorship not possible.
Dr. Michael Heiser's Podcast on Isaiah.
nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/naked-bible-217-authorship-and-date-of-the-book-of-isaiah/
Daniel 1-6 different than 7-12, you say. Why? Because of the prophecies that spell out the next 700 years? That's the critical position. Odd why Ch 7 was detached when it's part of the Aramaic section of the book. Or is that just part of the clever 2nd authorship as well?
When 1611 AKJV was composed, you 1) already had many English translations starting with the Wycliffe's in the 14th and 2) the vowel notation system in the Hebrew Bible was done by the Masoretes already for over 300 years.
"Centuries of traditional Judaic teachings of the Old Testament has been undone because of christianity" Name some.
I'm not sure why you are stuck on bashing the KJV. They did the best they could with what they had available. The Critical Text and 20,000+ manuscripts, papyri, and codices discovered, the Church Father citations, etc has only allowed us to narrow in on the originals. But these so-called variants have never effected core Christian doctrine.
I know you're definitely on the other side of the aisle right now but I hope if you study that it is done being objective.
If you want to come rip my Daniel videos up, you're more than welcome to. th-cam.com/play/PL2-NcugBdqZFGpjtmL31nBvFlNj0NiyJ8.html
The Leopard is Greece. That's why it has 4 heads just as the goat's horn breaks into 4 pieces.
The Medes and Persians are the same kingdom as depicted by the Bear and the Ram.
The legs of Iron /the 4th Beast is Rome. The feet of clay and iron depict Judea mixed with Rome.
I’ll alert consensus scholarship.
does the ram representing the medes and persians simultaneously not serve as evidence that the book wrote of the two as a single empire?
Hi Dr. B - if Daniel was written closer to the Hellenistic period, why do you think this was NOT written entirely in Greek?
I'm not Dr. B, but the answer is obvious. They didn't write it in Greek because they wanted it to appear to be prophecy from ~600BC.
This begs the question, what purpose where they pursuing by writing the fake prophecy? It was clearly a lot of work to write the whole document, so this wasn't done for fun.
@@tim57243 they must have really studied 5th century Aramaic to really hone it in, I mean supposedly Daniel's writer didn't remember the order of the kings of Babylon but he was really good to erase every Greek apart from instrument names from his vocabulary and speak in earlier Aramaic... sounds plausible.
@@nyktal Okay, I have on my Kindle here LaCocque's "Book of Daniel, Second Edition". Cite chapter and verse for what you're talking about, and we can see what someone who can actually read these languages thinks about it.
@@tim57243 chapters 2 to 7, check also E. Y. kutscher works, his extensive research points to an imperial aramaic aka from 6th to 3rd century and points to an eastern writing as opposed to a western maccabean date.
@@nyktal I still intend to make a better reply to you, but in the meanwhile you might be interested in Richard Carrier's recent blog post "How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery".
I would put the URL here but when I do that TH-cam usually deletes my comment. Do the obvious query, it is there. Might have to indirect through a tweet.
Another quick question. By supposing an earlier composition based on the grammatical style of Daniel's Aramaic, are you assuming that the extant texts were never altered from their originals? GIven the development of the language over time (older to newer forms), the original Daniel could have been written in Old and/or Official Aramaic and then altered over time by scribes as the Aramaic evolved. How can we know that the extant text (newer Aramaic) isn't just a second-century scribal update from a 6th century original?
Until evidence for such a thing surfaces, have we any reason to assume anything like that ever took place? :D
...
unless there are theological forces at work here? :P
@@jasonokasuo3401 Hi Jason. Dr. B's take must assume the extant texts were never altered as they were transcribed. Most, if not all scholars accept and can demonstrate given the wide number of extant manuscripts in existence, that minor scribal alterations are a fact. Why now should we suddenly assume the grammar/style of Daniel was never altered?
Hi Daniel. The consensus view certainly does not assume a lack of redaction history. In fact, it is very likely that the individual Aramaic tales are older than the visions and revelations from the second half of the book. But I don’t know if anyone who holds to a late date would argue for no redaction.
@@DigitalHammurabi Hello Dr. B! My two cents. It seems that in order to hold to a Maccabean date of authorship judging by the Aramaic, one assumes the Aramaic to be a "later" derivation, correct? So isn't it possible later scribes "updated" what could have been Old Aramaic nuances? I hope you know I'm not trying to be a trolling jock-o-moe. Genuinely interested in this topic! Eager to learn.
Oh no, I absolutely know that you are not trolling. :-) I would say that the linguistic details are probably a little too complicated (for me, anyway) to go into here. I need to put together a supplemental video on this topic, so I’ll go into more detail then, if that works for everyone. In the meantime, Collins’ commentary in the Hermeneia series has an extensive discussion on the linguistic arguments, along with bibliographic references :-)
You really reminded me of the actors Corey Stoll and Jon Hamm here for some reason!
Awesome job! Thank you!
You say “without going into detail “, and I understand this. But where can I find the details? And how can we be sure Daniel is not accurate but the alternative views are accurate? How do we actually know who’s right?
Interesting that a channel named "Digital Hammurabi" is discussing this subject in particular given he was named a god in his lifetime and claimed to receive a code of law from Shamash. I am quite new to your channel so perhaps I have missed an explanation for why you chose his name to represent yourself though I see you did so prior to the publishing of this video.
I quite like your presentation style but I was disappointed that it relies on Collins so much. (Consequently what do you think of counter arguments such as those done by the Associates of Biblical Research here on youtube in their video titled "Daniel, Prophet or Pretender"
What do you think about the language similarities of the marriage document in the Elephantine Papyri (449 BCE) with the language used by Daniel? This document has been claimed to corroborate that the language was contemporary to the alleged time of Daniel and I am curious as to what your opinion on that is as you have a greater expertise. There are other archeological finds that seem to lend additional validity as well and I am curious if you have seen some of these counter arguments and what Professor Collins may have said about them as I noticed he has appeared on your channel.
Please forgive me for any poor tone in my writing, I do not want to seem combative and I know that is a great risk on social media when having important discussion. Thank you and God bless you.
thanks a lot!
but how about messianic and "end of time" prophecies in the daniel? I gonna check the material from Roger Liebi and hope you ll answer it
@Digital Hammurabi Hi, do you think you could provide sources for these scholars that apparently agree that the idioms and linguistic style of the Daniel texts supports a later date? Perhaps with analysis of the actual Aramaic? Or is this easily found in your general source material?
DANG JOS Here is the link to our series on the dating of Daniel. Videos and their descriptions contain bibliographies. :-) th-cam.com/play/PLmXNllWcFFRMQsr2nC8XGmGTSczO78FY5.html
This would of course make Daniel the youngest book in the Old Testament.
@Blaster Master yea job is the first book of the Bible ever written thats the jewish tradition and church's tradition. And if the book of Daniel was written much later for say 3rd or 2nd century bce it doesn't take away the prophetic vision written in it. Daniel prophesied about it 5th century bce but was written much later. That's what we find in the church history people writing about stuff that happened decades or even centuries ago. It doesn't discredit the accounts written in Daniel
Considering the dating, then, wouldn't Daniel 12:4 better read as "You, Daniel, keep these words and seal the scroll until the multitudes stop wandering and increase [or embrace] understanding [of spiritual things]"?
The book of Daniel still is accurate about the later events about the Romans, the death of the Messiah, and even the divided kingdoms some strong and some weak that will come after the Romas. This includes even our current time. These are things that are fulfilled after the new dating you are suggesting even spans to the current time we live in. Plus, all the prophecies are not yet fulfilled. He predicted about a king that will rise against God and the last seven years and the coming of a righteous king which is Jesus.
The writers he is mentioning are taking very minor things make them look like big and put their own assumptions saying this is when it is written. Just because he spoke details about a specific period of time one can not say it is evidence it is when it was written.
How on earth is it possible that the long lasting, mighty Roman Empire did not figure in these prophetic descriptions?
One comment I would love your opinion on Josh is that people who often argue for an early date refer to the Daniel texts found qumran. Some conservative commentators date these to the 150's BCE and therefore claim that 10 to 15 years is not long enough for them be be accepted as "Cannon" if Daniel was really composed 165BCE. They appear to be copies. I'd be grateful to hear your opinion, thanks!
It is truly shocking that this issue, which was already decided by scholars back in the 1970's is still being held up as "prophecy" by conservatives and preached as such. The great divide between what pastors learn in (reputable) theological faculties and what they disseminate to the faithful from the pulpit is one of the reasons I, for one, can no longer hold these people in any esteem.
There are counter arguments that present archeological evidence as well. Quite compelling physical evidence that verifies details of Daniel's claim of when he lived. (Details of life in Babylonian court, language, etc)
Please look up "Daniel, prophet or pretender" by the associates for biblical research here on youtube for more detail.
It is not as decided of an issue as you seem to think it is, if you are willing you can explore more into it. (Which in my opinion is foundational to good scientific conclusions, you have to see all evidence and counter evidence and test it.)
I found the Marriage Document of the Elephantine Papyri (449 BCE) particularly interesting as it seems to verify that the language allegedly used by Daniel was in fact of his time or much closer to his time than when John Collins suggests in his work in the 70's you referenced.
I think from the standpoint of a former seminarian all I can say is that not every divinity student is the same person. Some theology students-who-become-pastors try to preach the truth to their congregations and get fired by the board for speaking the truth. Those "radical" truth tellers are never heard from again, they go on to become school teachers or salesmen. Then you have the narcissists who don't care at all about history, they just want to build the biggest church so they never preach anything controversial, and that's what you see happening these days, these big churches with vanilla preachers who never say anything too specific.
Scholars whose names are.....
@@ttownsupreme2183 I suppose this question is meant to accuse my comment of fabrication: since I mentioned that this was the consensus of scholarship 50 years ago, my point was that continuing to rehash the debate to skew it in favour of conservative aims is an ideologically intended waste of time. "Consensus" means a majority view in academia, a full list can no doubt be obtained with a little reading - plus the intervening 50 years' additions, which do not seem to have served the conservative position in the slightest.
something nice to pass along on Sabbath morning.
The prophecies of Daniel are so amazingly accurate that sceptics are forced to deny them as it completely destroys their infidelity!
😂
@@DigitalHammurabi by the way, could you let us know which books of the Bible you accept as authentic?
@@Jasho-Beam Define authentic.
@@DigitalHammurabi Let's not start playing games. I am sure you are a well educated guy who knows enough to create a TH-cam video attempting to debunk one of the greatest prophets in the Bible!
@@DigitalHammurabi let's just make it simple. Which books of the Bible do you accept as inspired?
Good stuff and compelling. Still I think you have not fully discounted the prophetic nature of Daniel for non-Bible literalists. You have only undermined a fundamentalist “””there can be no errors” approach. Where for example is your analysis of Daniel’s prophecy concerning the death of the “annointed one” in the first century CE and then the destruction of the temple?
Hi David. This is a summary video that is developed at greater length in a five-part series (I known they are in this playlist: th-cam.com/play/PLmXNllWcFFROIatgdULEb7slOGETtkRrY.html)
Where were the Egyptians during Daniel's writing? Strikes me as odd that Mesopotamia gets so much attention in Daniel, while Egypt is much closer and more influential.
It could be the writer of Daniel would not touch Egyptian items even with a long stick, somehow all things Egyptian had a bad rep in Judea. I think it was Jeremiah who scolded the Judean king for trusting the Egyptian and when Jewish mercaneries had established a colony and a Temple at Elephantine in Egypt they got a tonguelassing from some Jerusalem authority ( whose name I forgot ) in contrast over what he had to say about the Jews living in Mesopotamia.
Considering the book of Daniel as a manifest to stand strong against forged Hellenisation it would not be wise or effective to bring Egypt into the mix. It could have been compaired with the Hebrews from the Exodus who complained about leaving Egypt
Exodus 16:3 The Israelites said to them, "If only we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and ate our fill of bread; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger."
always presented as not having faith in the Lord, so the writer of Daniel would not take that risk.
your dating of the book of when daniel was written is later then the dead sea scrolls, in the book of daniel is present...
@@meee2014 Umm… no. It’s not. Try again.
What can you tell us about the Greek additions to Daniel (Chap 13- Susanna, Chap 14- Bel & the Dragon)? They don’t seem to fit at all with the rest of the story and further suggest revisions/ changes to the book.
Late-Daters don't bring up the LXX, additions, and DSS because the historical timeframe doesn't allow for their 165 BC authorship to take place. (see th-cam.com/video/3RBtj53Nzgw/w-d-xo.html)
And they never bring up how 1 Maccabees speaks of Daniel in the Exile period with his 3 friends and is dated just following the Maccabean Revolt.
Sorry, but Critics are not giving you all the information.
A Seleucid context makes perfect sense: the author would be comparing the Babylonians and Persians to their current pagan rulers. History is often repeated or made into a narrative to reflect current events. Why did Sergei Eisenstein make a movie about a German Crusade against Novgorod? Because Hitler and Stalin were sharpening their knives and the Russian film industry was supervised by the Soviet government. Why did Zach Snyder make 300? The US was at war in the Middle East, and Snyder supported the "western democracy" over "oriental barbarism"-arguably Avatar and Kingdom of Heaven were a liberal response. Why make the film MASH? Because the US was fighting in Vietnam and there was a strong anti-war sentiment. Why is the play Hamilton so popular? Because the foundations of American politics like democracy, race, and individual liberty is being discussed and confronted.
So the author of Daniel basically used history to reframe the current conflict with the Hellenistic culture.
Never say you cover the Darius the Mede and how he
Can’t be real video? I thought you were going to do one?
Nah Doc. I hate to bust your bubble but Daniel was written by Bernie Taupin in 1973. I know, I know, lots of people think Elton John wrote it. Easy mistake to make. 😄
Is there any difference in manuscripts of sections of Daniel from those periods?
The second beast is mede-persia, so the forth being rome is much more likely. Or the other prophesies becomes really weird and don’t fit
This is an interpretation by conservative evangelical scholarship, but the primary difficulty with this understanding is the final kingdom, which in 8 and 10-12 is clearly Greece.
Digital Hammurabi the goat is certainly supposed to represent what we call Greece. The single horn representing Alexander the Great that after his death had his kingdom divided into four and run by his four generals.
Fits with what I understand from history.
Now horn/-s are usually representing kings or rulers. One of the areas one of these four horns ruled over would contain what we would call Italy, where the Roman Empire was to rise out of. The small horn rising out of one of these horns fits with the Roman Catholic Church rising out of the Roman Empire.
8:20 “The ram which you saw, having the two horns - (they are) the kings of Media and Persia.” According to my NKJV so it’s already written that the Bible more or less counts them as one kingdom. It also clearly claims that the goat is Greece. But I don’t see where it necessary claims that the prophecy about all the different horns is still Greece.
It says that the small horn (echoed in other prophecies) shall rise from one of those kingdoms, not necessarily that it is the same kingdom.
It being Rome fits the other prophecies (the four beasts, the statue, the goat’n’ram, the part in Revelation) much better...
But I don’t claim that I have the original documents, nor do I know how to read it even if that was the case.
Although history and stuff like this I find insanely interesting. I could grant you that it’s highly possible that the book is older than it wishes to claim, it’s even highly probable, but I don’t really find it relevant if the people writing the Bible was a combination of conmen, delusional idiots and people with a fragile ego desperate to create a history that would paint them as the greatest people personally chosen by God...
Finding the truth about history is something that would be interesting, but not really relevant to the prophetic nature of the prophecies written in the Bible as far as I am concerned.
But do continue teach about the Bible, scripture and stuff like that! Like I said it’s a fascinating topic of discussion, and I’m always interested in reading and finding out things concerning translation and all that jazz
Hope you have a great time ^^,
@@DigitalHammurabi Sorry wrong. The reason why you didn't go into detail is because of the harmonization of Daniel 2,7,8 makes Greece the 3rd Kingdom. You at least said that the Ram is Medo-Persia, which obviously signifies they were united as one empire which you forcefully had separate by conveniently avoiding how Daniel does describe the 2 together in Daniel 5 and 6.
@@JustScriptureMinistries what about 8 makes greece the 3rd kingdom with more following it? the vision "for the time of the end" is the vision of the Antiochene crisis
11 also has the world ending with the antiochene crisis, from a plain reading of the events in the text (and not the unfalsifiable "stick a 2100+ year time gap wherever you need" reading)
@@dreamingclouds4699 "if the people writing the Bible was a combination of conmen, delusional idiots and people with a fragile ego desperate to create a history that would paint them as the greatest people personally chosen by God" this framing negatively predisposes you towards any view of the Bible that is not the traditional inspired version
it's not a dichotomy between the holy spirit driving people and whatever new atheist redditors have to say about the Bible
hey Josh it'd be nice if you respond. have u seen Mike wingers video on Daniel? if so what are your thoughts? also his last point about how long it would take for Daniel to circulate and even become part of the qumran scrolls or the septuigant just some 30 years later is unlikely.
I would actually talk to Dr. Kipp Davis about this, given his specialization in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
@@DigitalHammurabi thank you!!! also are there any channels u recommend that have good scholarly views on the bible. I'm recently getting out of the whole apologetics thing and the only ones I could find were you and Kipp and inspiringphilosophy but no others. so if you could recommend some that would be great! again you don't have to but it would be much appreciated
What do you say when Christians say that the word “father” means ancestor when trying to justify why the passage calls Belshazzar Nebuchadnezzar‘s son?
This video backtracks on the consensus of Aramaic scholars by almost 50 years and viewers should regard it with caution. His main source is John Collins whose section on dating attempts to refute the consensus of Aramaic scholars by using material that has already been refuted, which never made sense to me. Collins is in the minority in his position and for good reason, and he even resorts to an older model of Imperial Aramaic that is no longer held so that he can push the date closer to the 2nd century. The Aramaic sections of Daniel are written in Imperial Aramaic of an eastern dialect. Imperial Aramaic is from the 9th century to the 4th century BC. It is not Judean Aramaic.
An excellent (and more detailed) rebuttal to this video is here: th-cam.com/video/5z4c4DxTHhE/w-d-xo.html
Years ago in grad school, I wrote a paper examining these arguments. I didn’t think at the time the “late daters” then had convincing arguments. Since then, there is newer evidence that seems to point to an earlier date for Daniel.
😂
Well, even if the Book of Daniel was written in the 6th century, that would in no way show or demonstrate that the information about the future was given by god or a supernatural source.
All it would mean is that people seemed to have known and written something about the future, and we (people now) have no idea how they knew this information. There is no justification to jumping to the conclusion that god or something supernatural gave them the information.
And you have no proof to say it wasn't God😉
@@John-pu5kz So what? You have no proof to say it was. Which means your claim that it was god is unfounded and unsupported.
This argument that "You can't prove it wasn't god" is a stupid argument.
Can you (or any human) prove it wasn't Fairies, or leprechauns? NO! Is that a good reason to believe it was fairies or leprechauns? NO!
If you are saying it was god, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it was god.
I have no burden of proof to show it wasn't god.
@@jinxy72able Sure about that?
th-cam.com/video/U9kwgxkW0qE/w-d-xo.html
@@jinxy72able 2 Peter 1:21
For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
@@John-pu5kz Why would I believe 2 Peter?
So your evidence the bibles prophecies are from god, is that the bible says they are?
Why should I (or anyone else) believe 2 Peter's claim that prophecy comes from gods holy spirit is true?
Why should anyone believe this claim made by the author of 2 Peter?
Can u please make similar videos on the book of isaiah's 3 authors and why mainstream scholarship attributes the authorship of the book of ezekiel to a "school" of ezekiel's followers and not one person.
U are possibly the only channel that makes scholarly biblical studies accessible for a layman like myself so u are the only one i feel like asking lol
We’ll work on that, thank you for asking!
@@DigitalHammurabi thanks
As long as the writings were before the 1st century, you can't dispute the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem did take place as Daniel prophesied. in. Also, the prophecy concerning the "messiah" to be cut off in the midst of the "week" or 7 year period lines up in order of the 70 weeks prophesy. Everything Daniel spoke of did happen as it was told and Jesus was crucified at the right time. In AD 70, Jerusalem was destroyed and the prophecy was thus fulfilled as Daniel's prophecy told regardless of when the copies were dated.
Skylarfictionshow@gmail.com. Email Skylar and you can come on his show and make your case to us live.
I made the same point above when this came out. We know a man who claimed to be Messiah (Jesus), was indeed "cut-off" crucified to death. That same Messiah said the city would be destroyed in "that generation", which guess what, happened in AD 70, never to be rebuilt again and ending the Old C system, just as prophesied. So even if Daniel was written right up to the point of Christ's birth, it would still be significant. I'll trust Christ.
Daniel 9:1-2 - "In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem."
Here the text claims that Daniel was living during the reign of "Darius son of Xerxes." However, the only "Xerxes" with a son named Darius was Artaxerxes I. Given that this is true, that would give Daniel a lifespan of over over 200 years (the time between Nebuchadnezzar II and Darius II.) Thoughts?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_II
@LeeTubular Hahaha. Wow. So they're answer is to basically move the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II forward 200 years. That is indeed a lot of fuckery to make a square peg fit a round hole.
@LeeTubular Sometimes I don't think they assess the implications of the "solutions" that they propose. If you move Nebuchadnezzar, you'd have to re-write the entire chronology of Ancient Near Eastern rulers, including the dates for biblical monarchs such as Solomon and other important events. Oh btw, Nabonidus was the father of Belshazzar.
@LeeTubular I...I...I'm at a loss for words.
Is it significant that Daniel has major portions in Aramaic at all? Are any earlier scriptures in Aramaic? Given the overall message of unity of the “tribe” (one god, one religion, expel foreign spouses), it seems odd that writing the scriptures in anything but Hebrew would be OK. It would seem to indicate that enough time had passed after The Babylonian Exile to allow an additional language to become prominent
The common view is that the Aramaic section is focussed on the Gentile nations why the Hebrew sections are focussed on the Jews. Nothing proveably, but the most common view.
@@JustScriptureMinistries In the later books, that would correspond with time passing and the post-Exilic Israelites becoming less inward-looking. The earlier books don't switch to Aramaic when they talk about non-Hebrews, so overall that "most common view" does not correspond to what is in the OT, AFAIK.
@@scienceexplains302 Everything you just stated is completely speculation. How can you possibly know they became less inward-looking? Ezra read the entire Law to the people, they recommitted themselves, idolatry never returned, rebuilt the Temple, divorced their pagan wives, etc. What part of that shows less inward-looking?
Just Scripture Ministries I didn’t say I know, I said it would explain it. Daniel was completed more than 200 (300?) years after the return from the Exile. I am talking about things that likely happened based on evidence . I don’t take religious teachings as necessarily historically accurate
@@scienceexplains302 The Maccabean Theory (ie Late Date Authorship) is a contrived idea to avoid the Supernatural implications that Early Authorship would dictate.
You might have not said, 'I know,' but that's how you stated it as if it were factual knowable.
Historical Reasons Why Late Dating Fails
1) Josephus basically copied and pasted the book into his Antiquities of the Jews Book Books 10-11 and said the book was presented to Alexander the Great that he was the notable horn from Daniel 8. So is Josephus part of the lie, a misinformed historian, or is he passing along a real story?
2) The Sibylline Oracles dated in the 2nd BC speaks of Daniel and make references out of Chapter 10.
3) 1 Maccabees dated at 132 BC speaks Daniel & his friends in the exile period with attached references to Daniel 3 & 6 events.
4) DSS of Daniel dated in the 2nd BC. There's no way for the copying and popularization to happen this quickly to then be taking to the Qumram community.
5) 3 Additions to Daniel said to have been composed at 100 BC. I would venture that is only because of the authorship debate, but still, those additions would have never made their way just a few decades after.
6) LXX Translation. The process started in 286 BC and there is no reason to say that it took them 200 years to do the whole OT Canon other than trying to shove Daniel late.
7) LXX Translation Errors: At the latest, even in the critical view, Daniel could be translated is at 100 BC because of the above but yet the translators (the most learned Jewish scribes) made errors. So they were either fooled, ignorant or part of the forgery? All of those are nonsense which means is that their difficulty in translating some words was because they had passed out of use long before them.
8) OT Canonization. Nobody has a problem saying that the rest of the OT was composed by 5th BC, but somehow Daniel (forged & full of errors - Critical View) got in coming out of the 2nd BC when all writings from that time and later Josephus said no prophets were around. Which is why they said they put the altar of sacrifice in storage because they didn't have a prophet to tell how to handle the situation. Daniel would have never been considered under the Critical View.
9) NT References - let's just be straight on this. Jesus mentions Daniel and quotes him about the abomination of desolation and speaking of it as a future event. So is Jesus lying, a fool, or telling the truth?
10) 2000 years of fooled ignorance? This issue is 1st spoken by Porphyry in the 4th AD that exists only in Jerome's work. So under the Critical View, 2000 years went by 165 BC - late 19th AD where everyone was fooled that Daniel was composed in the 6th BC until some German critical scholar took issue with it and the rest of the OT? Really? "Oh, that's because of the church domination." Sorry, bunk because of the reasons above and common sense.
If chapters 7-12 were out, nobody would care and leave the book at the 6th BC. Put them in and critics freak out because of the implications that would leave them with.
Are the Dead Sea Scrolls the oldest source that scholars use to date the writings in the bible?
Funny how people judged written history as accurate and Bible has inaccurate once it doesnt conform to the mainstream history. The question is how accurate are the history as we know today most of which are written from the point of view of the people in question. Which might as well be exaggerated or even untrue. For example the story of 300 Spartans was written by Herodotus 200 years after it happened from mere the word of mouth of Spartans when he visited them. Yet the whole world believe it is accurate. If it were be the Bible guys like this video uploader will find something to disprove it.
Thanks for your comment! You make a good point, scholars used to be far less critical of ancient written sources - but they were likewise far less critical of the history presented in the Bible. History as a field of study has come a long way since the works of Herodotus were taken at face value, and now it is common practice to consider things like motive, context, genre of writing, and what the linguistic data contained within any given source tells us about its date, purpose, and historical reliability. To go back to your Herodotus example - very few (almost no-one, I believe) takes Herodotus as historical fact, precisely for some of the reasons you mentioned. Which are, by the way, the same reasons why much of the Bible is no longer taken as historical fact either ☺️
Nothing on the Septuagint and almost nothing relating to Dead Sea Scrolls. He commits the same error that he purports the other side commits; giving his opinion and using phrases like, “scholars generally agree”. But I guess it is difficult to find unbiased evaluation these days.
Guessing you didn’t watch the entire series, of which this video is but a brief summary. Pity.
@@DigitalHammurabi thank you. Didn’t catch that it was part of a series, will check it out. But still wish he would be more pragmatic and less biased.
Did I get a sneak peek lol
Yes :D
We have an upcoming video on slavery and one on the formation of the Pentateuch :-)
Very well done.
It'll just take another Dead Sea Scrolls for this old academic canard to be disproven yet again. Historical-Critical theory does not have great track record with this sort of stuff.
I'm so clad you guys are doing what you are doing. I don't think I would have the determination to check up on these claims if it wasn't for people like you who are exposing the incorrect assertions that religions try to shovel down our throats.
Sorry to tell you but the author is giving very bad information here.
I will be straight forward on this, this video is filled will inaccurate explanations and summary conclusions of 'what consensus scholarship' agrees on.
The most honest thing said here was 'without going into great detail.' That basically means, 'let me give you my desired outcome' without exactly demonstrating if my conclusions are correct. This would be like going up to a science fair display board seeing the Hypothesis and Results without seeing the procedure and research being done.
Like always, critics of 6th BC authorship have to adhere to a 4-Empire scheme that is 1) Bab 2) Media 3) Persia 4) Greece. While Daniel always and only refers to the Medes & Persians together (Dan 5:28; 6:8,12,15), the critics have to separate these two because if Greece is the 3rd, Rome is thus the 4th and the prophetical sections look past Greece. (see th-cam.com/video/xRNJVpCFDyo/w-d-xo.html)
At 2:08, the author said that Daniel 1:1 is historically inaccurate, again wrong. It is actually spot on by the fact that Daniel is using the Babylonian accession counting method instead of the traditional Israelite non-accession counting method. (see th-cam.com/video/ofpbwU_2E4Y/w-d-xo.html)
At 3:48, the author said that Daniel 9 lays out the time period to Greece. Um no. It's clearly a 490 year period that starts with the rebuilding of the wall 457 BC to 27 AD that says after this the Messiah will be cut off (die by execution, gee I wonder who this could be) and also the 2nd Temple would be destroyed after that as well (ie 70 AD Roman destruction under Titus.)
Next, the Aramaic and Hebrew language do not reflect a late Palestinian Aramaic or Hebrew. Read Kenneth A Kitchen's "The Aramaic of Daniel." He's actually a linguistic scholar in the field and published or see th-cam.com/video/NlphqPSpDlY/w-d-xo.html.
Is Nebuchadnezzar called Belshazzar's father and vice verse the son? Yes. Which is TOTALLY OKAY because Hebrew and Aramaic don't have a separate word for grandfather and grandson. They use the same word. This is used in the Bible and Assyrian records elsewhere:
Old Testament Ex:
Elisha called Elijah his father (2 Kings 2:12)
1 Kings 19:16 And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be
king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt
thou anoint to be prophet in thy room.
New Testament Ex:
Jesus “the son of David” Matthew 1:1
Jews “Abraham is our father” John 8:39
Archaeological Ex:
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III
Calls Israel’s King Jehu as ‘son of Omri’
The author said at the ~6:00 that 'we don't need a simplistic supernatural view.' What that really meant was that critics can't allow for early authorship because the God of the Bible and Israel would then be real because the only explanation for Daniel to forecast the next 700 years was by supernatural means.
@@JustScriptureMinistries
> Next, the Aramaic and Hebrew language do not reflect a late Palestinian Aramaic or Hebrew. Read Kenneth A Kitchen's "The Aramaic of Daniel." He's actually a linguistic scholar in the field and published or see th-cam.com/video/NlphqPSpDlY/w-d-xo.html.
I watched it, neat how all your video links in your response are back to your own channel. Funny you didn't mention anything about that as you put the links. A cynical person could take that as a form of self-boosting advertisement, and consider you to be a dick. And not a nice kind of a dick.
What you basically have is Kitchen saying that "it could honestly be anything from 600 BCE onwards, we don't know" and then the other guy Archer (a christian, imagine my shock) who "neatly wraps things up" with "yeah, totally old language, Daniel is authentic, mah god is realz". I paraphased the quotes.
> Is Nebuchadnezzar called Belshazzar's father and vice verse the son? Yes. Which is TOTALLY OKAY because Hebrew and Aramaic don't have a separate word for grandfather and grandson. They use the same word. This is used in the Bible and Assyrian records elsewhere:
I need a dictionary source, or anyting, for this one. I could not find anything to back this up.
> The author said at the ~6:00 that 'we don't need a simplistic supernatural view.' What that really meant was that critics can't allow for early authorship because the God of the Bible and Israel would then be real because the only explanation for Daniel to forecast the next 700 years was by supernatural means.
Let's see, it could mean that the God of the *hebrew* bible is true, but nothing else. It could also be an another supernatural entity, playing tricks on Daniel and then making sure that these things come to pass, so it could have a giggle watching idiots in the current year still holding on the silly God of the Bible. Did you ever think about that? No, you only think about yourself.
And supernatural explanation is not the only explanation, either. Self-fulfilling prohecies could also be a thing, as at the time people who acted out these prophecies either could have or did know about them. Or the most simplest, natural explanation, would be a inaccurate historical telling masked as a prophecy, as mentioned in the video. So for time being, I don't find you or your god convincing.
@@Heroltz998 th-cam.com/video/U9kwgxkW0qE/w-d-xo.html
When it comes to prophecy Daniel and Revelation should be studied together. I don’t think the book of Daniel was written after the events happened. We are now living under the toes of the image that King Nebuchadnezzar dreamed about. The little horn w/c is the papal Rome in prophecy. One really can’t discredit the Bible which is the inspired word of God.
Yikes. Lots of conclusions from which you are backing into the data.
Dr. Josh I have just sent you a hundred dollars via paypal to Meghan lewis account.
I appreciate what you are doing. Is there anyway you could break down the dream of the statue head of gold and feet of clay? As if anything I believe the dream was not forgotten and that if anything the King never had that dream. But when he heard Daniels story of the dream and the explanation. He said Yup that is it.
Do you think Daniel is another fictional character? Keep up the good work :)
Oh no he's not😉
MIKE WINGER has a video on youtube entitled
DEFENDING DANIEL
Our Daniel series is responding to many of his points.
Isn't it strange that you start your conversation with pointing out the 4 beasts governments? That your theory promotes Darius being the second one, Greece being the fourth. Yet later in your video you specifically say that Darius was not even in the picture in the first place. This certainly throws a major problem in your analysis. The fourth beast government is definitely Rome.
@@RickyCox-ob7mb 😂😂😂You might want to spend a bit more time thinking about what I’m arguing. You haven’t got it yet.
@@DigitalHammurabi No, I think I know exactly what your argument is.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Funny yet, reprobate?
Sending to SJ... :D
Translators/cppyists/scribes of ancient texts put it upon themselves to modernize the linguistic style....Collins does not address this.
Chapter 2 suggests the kingdom is Rome because it's the iron age. Greece had bronze chapter 2 verse 38-42
that does not make sense to me, the Bronze age was centuries before even the rise of the Jewish Kingdoms, they ( Juda and Israel ) were Iron Age.
Haha, an exceedingly clever introduction into the doctrinally correct view of the Trumpian demon in accordance with the religion of Wokism. Well done!
Great video, thank you👍
in a discussion with AronRa you ended with a conclusion that the messege and purpose of the book of Daniel was to strenghten the resultion of the Jews against the opperssion by Antiochus IV,so more or less a polical pamflet. Assuming this it right, and making much more sense then what I got tought about id elementery school, I wonder how that would have worked out. Was it spread among the elite only or was it read at the gatherings in the synagogues. In the last case the congegration must have very patient, because as a political pamflet it's a bit long and winding. War could be over before they reached the end of the text.
Comparision with the Communist Manifesto written in 1848, the year of the Revolution in France overthrow the July Kingdom pops up. One might think that Manifest inspired the revolutionaires till you realise it was not translated into French till after the event.
Any idea what would be the working in its time of this "Danineal Manifesto"
Take your pick on the dating, it really doesn’t matter. Even with an early date the authors Daniel obviously describe the Roman Empire in the statue prophecy.
Daniel also perfectly describes the the Greek empire as the leopard. So much reach goes into separating the meads and the Persians.
associates for biblical research has videos for this topic
Check the Nabonidus Cylinder about Belshazzar
8:48 made me laugh so hard 😂
Media? Medians? They were middle of the road journalists? I've always seen it as Medes, Medea and Medeans. Doesn't hurt to proof read. Other than that an excellent piece.
kleinjahr Thanks! It is Media, which does seem odd :-)
So I will be straight forward on this, this video is filled will inaccurate explanations and summary conclusions of 'what consensus scholarship' agrees on.
The most honest thing said here was 'without going into great detail.' That basically means, 'let me give you my desired outcome' without exactly demonstrating if my conclusions are correct. This would be like going up to a science fair display board seeing the Hypothesis and Results without seeing the procedure and research being done.
Like always, critics of 6th BC authorship have to adhere to a 4-Empire scheme that is 1) Bab 2) Media 3) Persia 4) Greece. While Daniel always and only refers to the Medes & Persians together (Dan 5:28; 6:8,12,15), the critics have to separate these two because if Greece is the 3rd, Rome is thus the 4th and the prophetical sections look past Greece. (see th-cam.com/video/xRNJVpCFDyo/w-d-xo.html)
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN Excellent video Dr. Josh! I've long been aware that critical scholars had given the book, or at least the prophetic parts, this late dating. However I've never looked into it in any depth or seen any of your great and very nerdy timeline charts. I'm adding this video to my watch later list, because I'm sure I'll want to watch it again. However, lets not forget the words of the great Phil Harris
(Shadrach)
(Shadrach)
There were three children from the land of Israel
(Shadrach), Meshach, Abednego
They took a little trip to the land of Babylon
(Shadrach), Meshach, Abednego
Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon
(Shadrach), Meshach, Abednego
Took a lot of gold and he made an idol
(Shadrach), Meshach, Abednego
And he told everybody when they heard the music of the cornet.......
And he told everybody when they heard the music of the clarinet.......
And he told everybody when they heard the music of the horn.......
You must bow down and worship the idol
Shadrach, (Meshach, Abednego)
But the children of Israel would not bow down
Not Shadrach, (Meshach, Abednego)
You couldn't fool them with no golden idol
Shadrach, (Meshach, Abednego)
The king put the children in the fiery furnace
(Oh Shadrach), Meshach, Abednego
Heaped on the coals and the red-hot brimstone
(Oh Shadrach), Meshach, Abednego
Seven times hotter, hotter than it oughta be
(Oh Shadrach), Meshach, Abednego
Burnt up the soldiers that the king had put there
Shad(Shad)rach(rach), Meshach, Abednego
But the Lord sent an angel with snowy-white wings
Down in the middle of the furnace (Yeah!)
Talkin' to the children 'bout the power of the Gospel
(Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego)
Couldn't even harm a hair on the head of
Shadrach, (Meshach, Abednego)
Laughin' and a-talkin' while the fire's a-chuggin' up
(Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego)
Oh, Nebuchadnezzar called (Oh Yeah!)
When he saw the power of the Lord
And they had a big time in the house of Babylon
(Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego)
(Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego)
(Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego)
(Shadrach!)
Briefly, this argues for the 164 BC or so date for Daniel 11 without bringing in assumptions about the plausibility of actual divine prophecy.
this video is worth nothing.
@@johananandrewich5707 What makes you say that?
At this point I can't remember the content of this video vs all the other debate about Daniel I have read and watched in the last 9 months, so I can't discuss this unless things get interesting enough for me to rewatch.
@leumasdiderot I always find the "God is a trickster demon" argument most plausible, if we take as given that all those Bible writers were recording events as they happened and the Bible is an accurate copy of those records. So yes, I agree.
Haven't heard anyone else advocate that recently. Nice to meet you.
...but we know that isn't true, right? Even Christians don't believe most Christian writing from that period. The vast majority of early Christian writing is apocryphal. Look at this huge list, and subtract out the 27 or so books of the New Testament: www.earlychristianwritings.com/ There isn't much to distinguish the reliability of the books of the Bible from all this random crap from this era that approximately nobody believes.
Even half the Biblical Pauline Epistles were forged: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
@@tim57243he does not look at the evidence objectively.
@@johananandrewich5707 Can you make a specific claim about something he says at a particular minute and second of the video?
Saying that the 2th century BC styled language in Daniel is evidence for a late composition date is like saying the NIV version of the Bible is evidence for the Bible being written in the 21st century
No, it’s really not.
Thats great!
I would suggest the following video for another view of the kingdom interpretation in Daniel.
th-cam.com/video/qtjyv-tNvYo/w-d-xo.html
I think this is a far better interpretation of them than what is presented by Dr. Bowen.
Thanks!
Know that 200bc is 500 yrs more than what tuis same secular/athiest faction of acedimia used to teach for 100 yrs. Its the bottom line they can argue. 250yrs from the time of Babylon
200bc we know is very helenized Jewish generation that adopts Greek numerical system at this time.
After Alexander it was an explosion of new vocabulary as merging languages was being shared.
We should expect updates and edited sources to this time like we see in other works.
State funded scribes took 1.5 years to copy the Biblical works. This means that 10 scribes for 100 yrs copied 660 bibles but we found one of them in dead seas scrolls as some books are dated 150 bc.
Lol
This word for word secular athistic academic argument and teaching is very flawed and unfair.
The order of the kings mistakes show up in different orders in the Aramaic Daniel..it isn't the as the Greek order.
Clearly in 200bc it was great grandchildren in the leadership of those who lived in Babylon as it wasnt but maybe 20 k jews in Babylon.
Daniel woukd be known of by readers it would have to be close to what they had shared to one anothers .
Aramaic was spoken by the aserians in 800 bce
"Like, Subscribe - Come along for the ride" great tag line! Again thanks for breaking down Daniel, one of the worst when it comes to "huh?" moments in the OT. Do you similar insight to Isaiah or the single worst book of the bible, Job? If so - asking for a video.
David & Goliath? Samson & Delilah? Song of Solomon -- just kidding.