Dating of the book of daniel
Before presenting to others the case against Antiochus and Greece as the horizon of Daniel's visions some general observations should be made. Even the liberal critics ac knowledge that not all able scholars are of their persuasion. This interpretation thus equates the ram of Daniel 8 with the bear and leopard of the preceding chapter, and the he-goat with the nondescript beast possessing ten horns.
While both Otto Eissfeldt and Robert Pfeiffer in their Old Testament introductions consider the second-century dating of Daniel to be "the assured position of scholar ship," both hasten to acknowledge that there are able and learned men who still advocate the traditional dating. There is an increasing trend of admission that Daniel at least contains much material that originated before the second century. The little horn in both chapters seven and eight represents Antiochus Epiphanes only. 92; Dominique Auscher, "Les relations entre la Crece et la Palestine avant la conquete d'Alexandre,"* Vetus Testamentum, XVII (1967), pp.
God has so inspired His Word that a lifetime spent in specialist studies is not necessary in order to recognize vital truths.
When laymen as well as workers grasp whatever is legitimate in the following arguments then there will be many well-read believers in other flocks (including shepherds) who will be prepared to listen to the eschatological teachings we have based on "the face-value" of Daniel.
However, because recent years have demonstrated the widespread Greek influences in the Near East before Nebuchadnezzar's time, and thus have shown that the Greek terms in Daniel could well be traced to that influence, we append a recent comment from an authority in this second area. 1965 there has been no reappraisal of the Maccabean date for Daniel, in spite of the increasing mass of evidence for early contacts between the Aegean and the Near East.
In reading commentaries on Daniel the writer has been struck by the complete sclerosis of critical thought regarding the date of its composition, and the implications of the Creek words in Daniel for that date. The late date of Daniel has come to be one of those "assumptions tidily packaged and put away as being no longer open to question." James A. Archeological evidence is accumulating at such a rate that any position particularly one based on arguments from silence or very limited data that is not carefully reappraised within a decade is in danger of obsolescence.
As far back as the Westminster Confession there were godly interpreters of Scripture who saw Greece as the fourth empire, and Epiphanes as the chief character. White, who has urged us to so study our doctrinal positions that we can defend them before the world's greatest minds.
Rejection of the authenticity of Daniel is usually defended on the following grounds: 1.The book, particularly in its early chapters, contains several historical inaccuracies. Linguistic and literary peculiarities indicate an authorship centuries removed from the time of the exile. Certain theological concepts, such as a developed angelology and the doctrine of the resurrection, belong to later times. The central figure of the "prophecies" is always Antiochus Epiphanes, and the four kingdoms are Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece.