by itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat 52 Replies latest watchtower bible
Well CA; I dont have time to discuss the dating of daniel because its pretty clear you are not bringing any new to the table, only the old hoots appolegists have been hooting for decades.
I do however think its funny to point out where you are factual wrong and see how you (predictably) have the hardest time admitting so. It show a lot about how you value intellectual integrity.
I do however think its funny to point out where you are factual wrong and see how you (predictably) have the hardest time admitting so.
How so? I admitted misspeaking. What more do you want?
I dont have time to discuss the dating of daniel
Then why are you posting on a thread about dating Daniel?
only the old hoots appolegists have been hooting for decades.
It's been clear that you don't know WHAT the old hoots have been hooting and can't add to the conversation. Good day, sir.
Anyway, Leolaia, would not Ezekiel need to have been written after the 2nd century as well since it refers to Daniel and lists him among other ancient faithfuls?
would not Ezekiel need to have been written after the 2nd century as well since it refers to Daniel and lists him among other ancient faithfuls?
As I recall, "Daniel" was a legendary Jewish figure, with non-canonical legends and writings about him abounding, stretching back for centuries prior to the 2nd century BC.
Also, based on my fuzzy memory, that was why the author(s) of the "Book of Daniel" named it such - it gave their work "instant credibility".
Leolaia will likely return and give solid references to my vague ideas.
btw, the link you posted, jgnat, was fascinating. Interesting take on Daniel. http://slavenssays.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/the-book-of-daniel-who-wrote-it-and-when-part-1/
CA: Im done here.
Good luck pawning leolaia. Its a real novel idea you put forth; no historian of repute ever thought about reading the bible to discover which book refers to which. Checkmate, atheists!
CA: Im done here.
See ya, bohm. Hope your day gets better.
No, the literary evidence of Ezekiel shows it fits in well with the sixth century BC (with possibly later accretions).
Anyway, Leolaia, would not Ezekiel need to have been written after the 2nd century as well since it refers to Daniel and lists him among other ancient faithfuls?
He refers to a Danel (dn'l), not our Daniel (dny'l) per se. Why should such a figure be identified with Daniel? Isn't it odd for a contemporary to be listed with "other ancient faithfuls"? And how was Daniel noted for saving or losing his sons and daughters (as Noah and Job were)?
It is instead often noted that there was a Danel in Canaanite legend who fits the bill: The wise Danel, the father of Aqhat, whose only son was tragically murdered by the gods, who sent his daughter Pughat to smite her brother's smiter. The story is incomplete and it is unknown whether Aqhat was rescued from the underworld like Baal was.
Ezekiel makes reference to Danel when addressing the Phoenician king, so this is probably a person known to the Phoenicians. A figure from Canaanite legend thus fits quite well.
ETA: Just to point out one more thing...Even if the reference was to our Daniel (against the contextual evidence which shows that he wasn't referring to a contemporary), this doesn't mean that Ezekiel would have to be dated later than Maccabean times. Ezekiel refers to a person, not a book. There are many pseudepigraphal books attributed to older figures, like Enoch, Ezra, Baruch, etc. We also know that there are a wide array of Danielic material in the second century BC, going far beyond what is found in the canonical book of Daniel.
There are very strong comparisons to Noah, Daniel, and Job. They were men, who for their integrity, were delivered from the ruin that befell others. But you make a valid point, why would Daniel, a supposed contemporary of Ezekiel, be classed with the other two? Daniel 2 shows that Daniel was well known and considered remarkable by more than just the Jews. Ezekiel would have given life to his illustration by including a modern example among Noah and Job. I did not notice, in the text, that Daniel is noted for saving his own sons and daughters...
Barnes commentary brings out that " There is in the order in which the names occur a kind of climax. Noah did not rescue the guilty world, but did carry forth with him his wife, sons, and sons' wives. Daniel raised only a few, but he did raise three of his countrymen with him to honor. To Job was spared neither son nor daughter."
Clarke brings out: " Noah, though a righteous man, could not by his intercession preserve the old world from being drowned. Job, though a righteous man, could not preserve his children from being killed by the fall of their house. Daniel, though a righteous man, could not prevent the captivity of his country."
So just because Daniel is mentioned with Noah and Job, does not mean that this was necessarily referring to an earlier Daniel (though I don't rule that out completely). As far as the biblical text itself goes, there isn't any reason to think it refers to anyone BUT the contemporary to Ezekiel.
At the time of Ezekiels writing, Daniel would have been in captivity for 14 years and would have been very well known to captive Jews.
It is also unlikely that Ezekiel would have been refering to this Canaanite legend. Ezekiel is talking about how even the righteousness of Noah, Daniel, and Job would not be enough to save the people. Vs 16 says: " Even if these three men were there, the Sovereign LORD swears that it would do no good -- it wouldn't save the people from destruction. Those three alone would be saved, but the land would be devastated." These three men would have been used as well known examples that the Israellites and the Phoenicians were very familiar with. And adding a contemporary among Noah and Job would have made perfect sense to drive home the point that Ezekiel was making.
I respectively disagree, the context and language much better fits someone like Danel from Canaanite legend than a contemporary Jewish courtier in Babylon: (1) Noah and Job were figures from hoary antiquity (√ Danel, * Daniel), (2) Noah and Job were not Israelites (√ Danel, * Daniel), (3) Noah and Job were known for saving and/or losing their sons and daughters (√ Danel, * Daniel), (4) Ezekiel's Danel was someone known to the Phoenician king (a figure from Phoenician/Canaanite legend > a contemporary courtier in a foreign land), (5) Ezekiel spells the name "Danel" (√ Danel, * Daniel), etc. I just don't see any compelling reason to suspect any identity between Ezekiel's "Danel" and the main character of the book of Daniel. The contrary position is burdened by a host of suppositions that need to be held in order to favor it (e.g. Daniel really did exist, Daniel was internationally famous, Daniel was famous for saving or losing his sons and daughters, etc.). The identification with Danel is just much more satisfying and imo more probable. If someone mentioned a wise "Danel" to a Phoenician in a mythological context (ch. 28 draws on Phoencian and Canaanite mythological themes), wouldn't the Phoenician more naturally think of the famous wise Danel (who judged the cases of orphans and widows) who was already the subject of an epic poem?
Anyway, I don't see this as an argument that has relevance to the dating of Daniel.
