Jeffrey I noticed you said the following. "Actually, he’s quite incorrect. Porphyry is a known early source for considering interpretations of Daniel by Christians,
but not ‘the first person to introduce the idea’. Obviously the
original author of the work knew when the work was first written, along
with any number of other Jewish sources that may now be lost." I reply to that I say the following.
I realize that someone before Porphyry might have said that f'irst person to introduce the idea that Daniel was not a work of the 6th century but was written much later in the time of the Seleucids in the 2nd century', but Porphyry is the earliest known person to mention that claim.. I didn't think I needed to meticulously specifically say in my post that in known extant manuscripts he is the earliest known example of someone making that claim. Or are you saying that there is an extant document which identifies someone else as making the claim before him? The writer of Daniel while knowing his/her writing was written in the 2nd BC.E. did not make the claim (as far as anyone today knows) that his story was written in the 2nd century B.C.E.
It is like when history books say a particular person made a particular scientific discovery. They mean our knowledge the said person was the first, even though obviously someone else might have been first without there being a know extant record mentioning someone else.
--------
You also said the following. "... it is an established fact that Daniel was definitely written prior to the Roman period, and there is no basis for deferring to magical thinking." In reply to it I say the following.
Yes Daniel was written before the time period that Rome became an empire and before Rome conquered the Seleucid empire and/or the Greek empire. But the Roman kingdom was in existence prior to 180 B.C.E. Not only that, but Rome defeated Antiochus III the Great (the Seleucid king) in the Roman–Seleucid War of 192 B.C.E. – 188 B.C.E. Furthermore, Antiochus III was the father of
Antiochus IV Epiphanes! [See and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_III_the_Great ].
The latter web page mentioned above about the war says the following. "The fighting ended with a clear Roman victory. In the Treaty of Apamea the Seleucids were forced to give up Asia Minor, which fell to Roman allies. As a main result of the war the Roman Republic gained hegemony over Greek city states and Asia Minor, and became the only remaining major power around the Mediterranean Sea." it would thus have been
humanly possible, by purely naturalistic means, for someone (such as the writer(s) of the book of Daniel), using a
knowledge of history, to have have correctly deduced/predicted that Rome would
eventually also conquer the Ptolemaic Kingdom, - and become an empire. No magical thinking would would been required, though a favorable element of random chance might would have been required.
Likewise I believe that some of the prophets in the OT Bible, using knowledge of history, could have made some correct predictions pertaining to military conquests. I also believe that some of the apparent predictions in the OT Bible by various so-called prophets were those kinds of predictions. Especially when one considers that the Bible says there were a great many of people in biblical times who claimed to be prophets and who made predictions, it is thus feasible that some of the predictions by some people came true. A number of the prophetic books of Bible (books which are claimed by the Bible to be inspired) focuses on those of people who made predictions which came true. Those who were deemed false prophets were excluded from having books of the Bible named after them. The compilers of the Bible chose those books that they thought were inspired of God, but which in fact were the product of human reasoning (and perhaps some element of chance in their favor).
I
even think that the prediction (recorded in Mark, Matthew, and Luke)
attributed to Jesus saying that Jerusalem (and its temple) would be
destroyed, could have actually been made my Jesus (using purely
naturalistic means of deducing what would happen).
I even think it is possible that the biblical prophets might have used a meditative practice which enhanced the power of their subconscious mind to detect patterns world events, and then present the conclusions to heir conscious mind - even in visions. Because I think such might be possible I have even tried do such myself. On one occasion I even managed to to induce myself to have a vivid vision (as if watching a TV broadcast) while I was fully awake! It was the result of an effort to see and hear what the leader of the PLO would announce at the UN. In the visions I saw what looked like him at the UN. Why he said in my vision (as best as I could remember it) didn't come true, but it showed me it is possible to develop the ability to see visions of the kind which are attributed to prophets. Maybe with practice I could come to have some accurate visions. The following morning while lying in bed (whether I had already woken up by the time or whether I was dreaming at the time I don't know), I heard a voice call out my name - though I was the only person in my home at the time. the voice sounded like it came from outside my mind. I known it must have been from my mind (I'm a scientific naturalist), but it sounded external to me. The experience scared me. Note, the prior night I said to myself "time me me the future" (before having the vision). However
I stopped the experiments for fear that the process might rewire my
brain to the point where become crazy (including seeing the visions and
hearing voices uncontrollably.
------------------
You also said "But it remains the case that only two verses of Daniel actually refer to a future kingdom of God." My reply is the following.
Even if only two verses in Daniel specifically say they are about a future kingdom of God, that doesn't mean the story they are about isn't also about a proclaimed future kingdom of God. The two verses are a conclusion to one of more visions in the book. They reveal what the theme was of one or more visions in the book, and very possibly even for the book as a whole. The succession of kingdoms represented by an image made of metals and clay (with the latter kingdoms being described as inferior to the prior ones) leads up to the climatic claim of those kingdoms being removed from existence by the kingdom of God. I am not saying that the book of Daniel says that such kingdom is of the Christian sense (with Jesus Christ as king), nor am I am saying such a kingdom will come. [I am an atheist after all.] Obviously the book was written by a Jewish non-Christian, but one with hopes for an anointed one of God to rule in Jerusalem as the representative of God.
I think there were many Jews in the latter 2nd century B.C.E. and in later times who thought that at least one of the visions in the book of Daniel had the theme that YHWH God would eventually bring a kingdom which would conqueror gentile empires and kingdoms and rule the earth (likely with the headquarters in Jerusalem). I tried to see if there were Jewish commentaries which say such, but Jewish commentaries are far less numerous in the USA than Christian commentaries are. I haven't found more than a few religious Jewish commentaries of the Hebrew Scriptures (even of texts which can be read online in English).
