scholar is correct in saying that 'Porphyry was the first 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". I wish that the correct works of Porphyry were extant so that I could read (in an English translation) what he said about Christianity. He might have had some strong evidence against many of the core claims of Christianity and its NT Bible. Likewise I wish that the complete works of Celsus survived, for the same reason. Celsus "was a 2nd-century Greek philosopher and opponent of early Christianity" (that quote is from Wikipedia).
Regarding " 'higher criticism' of the Bible" I am fascinated by it. Consider for example something which The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary On the Bible: Including the Apocrypha; with General Articles [copyright 1971 by Abingdon Press, and of my favorite scholar books by 'Christendom', an ecumenical book authored by Jews, Protestants, and Roman Catholics] says on pages 436-437 as part of the evidence of the book of Daniel being authored under a false name and having been written no earlier than the 2nd century B.C.E.
'There are a number of a number of Persian and Greek words in the text. E.g. the name of one of the musical instruments in 3:5 transcribes a word that is not only Greek but found with this meaning nowhere in Greek literature before the 2nd cent. B.C. The name "Chaldeans" is also used in a special sense it did not acquire till long after the Exile (see below on 1:3-5). The fact that the book in the Hebrew Bible is placed among the Writings rather than the Prophets indicates a late date; if it had been in existence before ca. 200 B.C. it probably would have been included rather among the Prophets, as it now stands in the English Bible. Writing ca. 180 Jeshua ben Sira lists the heroes of the faith from Enoch, Noah, and Abraham through Nehemiah (Ecclus. 44-49) but makes no mention of Dan., evidently because he does not know of the book about him. On the other had Dan. and his 3 companions are mentioned in 1 Macc.2:59-60, probably composed late in the 2nd cent., and fragments of the book apparently produced ca. the same time have been found among the Dead Sea scrolls.' The next paragraph in the book provides further evidence that the book was written about the year 164 B.C.E, including pertaining to the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Other portions in the article about "The Book Of Daniel" (by George A. F. Knight) in the commentary book provide further evidence in support of a date of about 164 B.C.E for the book of Daniel.
Jeffro, I very strongly think you are correct in saying the following. "Setting aside the exaggerated end times claims about a hypothetical future, there are no details in Daniel requiring knowledge beyond around 164 BCE. (Daniel was in circulation by the end of that century so writing couldn’t have been much later than 164 B.C.E either.)
Christian
re-interpretations that some of the elements refer to the Roman Empire,
to Jesus, or to the modern era are incorrect and all the elements in
Daniel can be identified with events up to the 2nd century B.C.E." The only reservation I have about those words is that the Roman Empire and its dissolution seem to well fit the Daniel chapter 2 in regards to the description of the iron legs and of feet of the image.
In contrast the WTS' interpretation of a so-called Anglo-American world power being indicated is highly problematic to me. That is largely because the USA (after it won it war of independence) and Great Britain were never combined together as one kingdom, one nation, or even one world power. The USA was even at war with Britain during the war of 1812 when England invaded the USA and attempted to take it over, something I first learned about in social studies (history) classes in public school (first learned in high school, if not first learned in grade school). Though in later times the USA has often been allied with Great Britain (including defending it militarily during WW1 and WW2) it has not really been part of an Anglo-American world power.
When I was an active strongly believing JW I thought that the WTS' interpretation of part of Daniel chapter 2 as pertaining to the Anglo-American world power was a mainstream idea of modern Christianity. After I started doing independent research upon the Bible I was shocked to learn that other than the JW no Christian group (other than perhaps some very some small groups) have that idea, not even the SDA have that idea.
Jeffro, you are correct in saying the following. "Everything in Daniel 11 and12 can be readily associated
with events up until the Seleucid period (apart from the exaggerated
claims about a hypothetical future that aren’t real at all). It has
nothing at all to do with “our day”. "'It’s funny how the threshold for evidence that JWs (and many other
religious people) expect from others is a lot higher than for the
‘evidence’ they accept for their own dogmatic superstitions."
