As a face-saving maneuver, it would seem prudent for the Adventist church to quietly bury Daniel. All the things you write give ample demonstration of the book's late origin, plus the Hebrews properly included it with their "Writings" and not with the prophets.

Continuing to preach on the "prophecies" of Daniel as devised by the early Adventist pioneers who had no training in either the Hebrew or Greek language and were incompetent as theologians, makes Adventistm more archaic and irrelevant to Christian theologians and scholars who are very aware of the book and its date. They saw what they were looking for to justify their a priori beliefs.

Thank you again Andrew for your insightful and thought provoking review.
I am always appreciative of someone willing to take the time, and to help put things in perspective.
You are right about Daniel.....but for the Church to admit it, would be paramount to acknowledging that they built their house upon the sand.

Well, it's refreshing to see Adventists give chapter 11 some consideration, because, especially in verses 30-32, there is yet another reference to desecrating the temple, abolishing the daily sacrifice and the abomination of desolation (or the abomination that causes desolation), which is very similar, if not outright parallel to, like-worded passages in Daniel chapter 12:11, chapter 9:26-27, and of course, Daniel 8:11-13. The church has seemingly applied one interpretation of the removal or desecration of the daily sacrifice and abomination in chapter 8, another interpretation to the similar passage in chapter 9, and varying interpretations to the like-worded passages in chapters 11 and 12.

Andrew,
You're wasting your key strokes with regard to Daniel. The fact that you're right means nothing to a fundamentalist. In the fundamentalist universe argument only serves to validate a prior faith decision. If arguments and evidence do not support it, it is by definition wrong.

To fundamentalists of every stripe one's gut is more reliable than the world of facts, which is hopelessly skewed towards a more complex view of reality.

Andrew, it appears as if the lengthy quote from the "Jewish Encyclopedia" has helped to buttress your real issue with this issue in your review of the Review. However, as an Adventist theologian with knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, I affirm the prophetic purpose and content of the book of Daniel.

Many who question the historicity believe that it is impossible for the real Daniel to have predicted certain events in Greek history so accurately. However, what has convinced me is the amazingly accurate depiction of Euro-American history in the details about the fourth kingdom (Rome).

When I preach from Daniel in my evangelistic series (yes, I have a PhD and do evangelism!), I do so with a conviction that is shored up by incontrovertible historical records and irrefutable specimens from our contemporary geopolitical sphere.

Having said this, in a recent response to a question about Daniel 12 in my REAL Bible Discussion group on facebook, I informed the inquirer that the true thesis of Daniel can be summed up in two words: God Wins! I believe that from the depths of my soul.

P.S. I think you may have given me an idea for my next Spectrum column–thanks!

Aage

Andrew, you, and the Jewish scholars are right on Daniel. It was written, of course, to address a serious problem in Jerusalem that the "Seventy" were tring to combat. The young men of Jerusalem were being Hellenized--raw-nude-heathen!

Daniel and his three stalward friends were to be the model of Jack Armstrong, the All American Boy! Of course, Daniel is not simply one book but at least two or three so that history could appear as prophecy.

That said, I have difficulty with your characterization of the fundamentalistic world. I know a host exactly as you depict. Yet as one the cartoon syllogisms of Shandelle suggests, anyone who holds firmly to a position is a fundamentalist. I abhore such libeling by labeling. It prejudices all subsequent attempts at dialogue.

Just because some scholarly researchers have reached a conclusion carries little weight until one examines the data base upon which their conclusion is based. I am not such a scholar, but I have had extensive conversations with those who are. They have convinced me that Daniel was written after the fact and was not in any sense pre-history or prophecy in the sense of predicting the future--and certainly not the 2300 days as understood by Miller, then revised by early Adventists. Such a reading is pure speculation.

The real question is not fundamentalism but: "How does an institution survive if it disavows its only "contribution" to theological thought?" It is far better than one man perish than a whole institution vanish!

And all the delegates said: Amen! Tom

"It is sometimes said in behalf of Adventist doctrines related to the year 1844 that they must be true because they are our only truly distinctive doctrines, the only ones completely unique to us; and that therefore without them we lose our reason for existence. Without passing judgment on these doctrines themselves, one must say that such an argument would appear to be a peculiar criterion of truth. If such reasoning be persuasive, we would do well to add more unique beliefs. If to the 27 we added the proposition that the moon is made of green cheese, it would indisputably enhance our uniqueness, if not our credibility."

- Robert M. Johnston, An Essay on the Taxonomy of Doctrines
http://www.atoday.com/magazine/2002/01/essay-taxonomy-doctrines

A question to all who reject an early date for Daniel: Why do you believe scholars who reject an early date for Daniel? Why not accept the view of someone like Gerhard Hasel, who argued for the early date of Daniel?

How many scholars, especially SDA, would have come up with this unique doctrine had it not been first introduced by the pioneers? Is their support based on propping up a poorly-educated, but honest Bible student, or would they ever have, without this contribution, arrived at the same conclusion? Isn't there a great deal of difference from a very personal study on one's own, and seeking support for a previously accepted doctrine?

Why, in all the world of Christian scholars for the past 200+ years, has no one other than Adventists arrived at this stunning (?) prophecy? In doing so, Adventists have had to ignore all the many discrepancies and exact events that could only have been related in retrospect. Only by maintaining a much earlier date for Daniel have they been able to read it as "prophecy." It is as prophetic as the Maccabees.

Hansen

Assume an early date, there is still no way in honest herumeneutics to get from Dan 8: 14 to Oct. 22, 1844 for any event in heaven or on earth. When Daniel was written is the minor issue.

The major issue is faulty understanding of Dan. 8: 14 and the castle of sand that was built upon it.

Dare to be a Daniel, Dare to Stand Alone is still good counsel, if the position upon which one stands in intellectually defensible: a Martin Luther like position. Such is not the case in relation to Dan. 8:14.

That we stand in judgment with Christ as our advocate is worth the stand.

However, the apparatus built upon Dan 8: 14 is doomed.

The institutional church knows as much. Its changing the IJ to the Pre-Advent Judgment is a baby step in that direction.

Now just divorce it from 1844 and its attendant legalism, and you have a Church and not a cult. To worship on Saturday is certainly one's choice but certainly not a condition of redemption.

Preach, teach, practice, Salvation by Grace, a healthy, ethical life style, and worship a Creator/Redeemer God at a time and place of consensus and you have a winner. Such pastors exist. Thanks be to God. Tom

Tom and Elaine,

When the book of Daniel was written and 1844, are, as you know, entirely separate matters.

I just wonder why, when someone such as Gerhard Hasel mounts a rather impressive defense for the early date of Daniel, his work is either ignored or rejected in favor of those who reject an ealy date for Daniel. Many of those same scholars have applied critical theories to most of Scripture and reduced it to, as has Elaine so eloquently stated more or less, "a book of myths contrived by old men sitting around a campfire, in hope of giving meaning to their existence."

Frankly, my knowledge of the ancient languages and other issues related to dating is inadequate to make a decision independently. When I look at the possibilities and consider the options, I consider Hasel's position, which appears to be based on solid research, tenable. On the other hand, so called "critical scholars," many of them, would simply destroy any divine activity in the writing or preserving of what we call Scripture. Daniel is just another victim on their "hit list."

In the end, it appears that people are simply making a decision based on their preconceived opinions, opinions which either acknowledge Scripture as a divinely inspired guide to eternal life, or scorn it as a humanly contrived mythology.

1844 is dependent on the linkage between the 490 years and the 2300 days. If the 490 years were cut off from the 2300 days/years, 1844 or thereabouts is a reasonable position to hold.

Jesus called Daniel a prophet. Did he mean that all 12 chapters of Daniel which we now have were inspired, or only the passages r/t the destruction of Jerusalem? Daniel 11 is a strange chapter, one which is not easy to understand and seems over concerned with details of uncertain relevance. Is the problem the chapter or our interpretation of it?

Song of Solomon is "strange" too, but I don't reject it. I simply spend my time on the parts of Scripture which do make sense.

So Daniel was not really Daniel and the author was a liar. Sounds very suspicious to me. If that is the case then Sola Scriptura is certainly suspect.

If all this is true than why even discuss the relevance of Daniel as there is none. The book would be considered worthless.

Hansen

There very well might have been a Daniel. The issue is: was the manuscript used in the KJV and others, his aolo work or the work of the 70 down in Alexandra and others? Dan 8:14 is a critical issue within the larger question. Just study the history of Hanukkah.

Yes Jesus recapitulated Hebrew history. What the nation of Israel failed to do. Christ (the Prince that prevailed with God--Israel) did, every jot and tittle. The focus of Christianity is Christ not Daniel.

By the way, Jesus also cleansed the temple twice within the 1200 days of His ministry. Just an observation.

The critical point is: does one build an entire theology on one verse of apocalytic writings of questionable origin?

In an aside, the word dispensation appears four times in the KJV while the word covenant appears 202 times. Which make the stronger case: Dispensational theology or Covenantal theology?

Yet Adventism hangs its case on one text of questionable origin and equally questionable exegesis.

Tom

"I warn the Seventh-day Adventist Church to be careful how you receive every new notion and those who claim to have great light. The character of their work seems to be to accuse and to tear down." How interesting that Ellen White pegs the characters of those with false "new light." The new light from Jesus displayed a character which is attractive and believable.

Jody ;)

Tom
I'm not opposed to people drawing conclusions based on evidence or embracing, by faith, a certain point of view. What I deplore is a fundamentalist mind-set which refuses to consider evidence or arguments that might lead to different conclusions.

It takes more than convictions to merit the label "fundamentalist." You have to reject contrary information on principle and I have never thought of you in that way.

As to Gerhard Hasel. Hasel was so conservative that when the White Estate conceded that EGW had copied false historical information into Great Controversy (an argument advanced by Don McAdams in 1978) Hasel, in a paper marinated in footnotes, tried to rescue EGW from both McAdams and the White Estate. Hasel was an intellectual force to be reckoned with but he used his considerable skills to fight against the very scholarly methods he had been trained to deploy at Vanderbuilt, and ended up the protegé of Gordon Hyde, the leading SDA theological kommisar of the 1970s and 80s. He was a scholar who chose to serve as propagandist, and I think that's one reason few people consult his writings today.

The interesting thing is that Hasel may have been the last well equipped professionally theologian to defend the Babylonian origin of Daniel, even amongst SDA scholars. A lot has happened since his days. Back then it was not only Adventists who held views similar to Hasel. Now Adventists are pretty much the only ones to defend the indefensible position. And there have been many splinter groups, who agree with SDA's on almost everything - except the interpretation of Daniel. E G White encouraged re-examination of one's beliefs and wrote that dogmas were not made true just because they have been hed long enough. Isn't it time for the SDA church to take White seriously?

To the Octogenarians and Andrew,

Why are you so quick to dismiss a well written article, which in a very helpful way shifts the focus of our attention from the significant bits and pieces of history to the Messiah Prince?

Why are you so quick to wrap yourself in the cloak of the so-called 'scholars' of the age? Even the pin-up boy of Aventist scholars, Des Ford, has not travelled as far as to embrace a late authorship of the book of Daniel!

CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING ISSUES ARE URGENTLY NEEDED

1) Must we follow scholarship without first inquiring whether the scholars in question claim to be activated in their research by the Spirit? (You see 1 Cor 1:26 tells us that not many wise, according to the flesh, are called).

2) How do the founding Adventist fathers differ from Christ's own disciples who were 'unlearned and ignorant men' and yet who were gifted by the Spirit? Even Christ Himself was not trained in the rabbinic schools!! Should we dismiss these men from our reckoning as easily as we appear to have dismissed the founding fathers of Adventism?

3) Christian history evidences the fact that God has indeed chosen the likes of John Wycliffe and John Wesley, two Oxford dons to lead great movements of the Spirit. However, God is just as able to use the 17 year old daughter of a poor New Enland hatter with a 3rd grade education ie Ellen White, or the son of a poor English tinker (a mender of pots and pans) again with little more than a third grade education ie. John Bunyan. God led John Bunyan to write Pilgrims Progress, a best seller for almost 400 years.

4) God led William Tyndale to exclaim that he wished to produce a translation of the Bible so that the uneducated plow boy could read and understand. Can plow boys actually come to an understanding of the assured results of the Scriptures (without a scholar's intervention)?

5) Why do we dismiss the books of Daniel and Revelation from their historically prominent place in the forming of an Adventist world-view?

Is this because both books were written by men noted in Scripture as beloved of God? (I like to believe that God chose these two men, greatly beloved of God to bear special messages to his people through the ages?)

Why do we dismiss a prominent place for the books of Daniel and Revelation in our thinking when Daniel proclaimed about his first vision that "the dream is certain and the interpretation thereof sure?"

Aage

Thank you, I agree with your assessment of Hasel and G. Hyde.

Peter:

Why the apocalyticism? Jesus gave us a charge: "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, batizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you alway even unto the end of the world."
Matt. 28.

Even give the scholarly question of the phrase: "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

Or search the Scriptures, they testify of Me. (pharaphrase)

Our task is to spread the Gospel not fear or pious nonsense.

To hang one's theology on a single verse of questionable exegesis is folly--

You make one excellent point: Ellen White was a Methodist--A Methodist after the Wesleys had their conversion experience following the visit to Aldersgate. The many attractive elements of Adventism are taken lock stock and barrel from post-Aldersgate Methodism. The baggage that Adventism carry is their eschatology and their exculsivism, so well pointed oub by Andrew.

A comment: I gave the valadictory address at the graduation exercises at Emmanuel Missionary College Academy in the Spring of 1943. I included the quote from E. G. White with my own modification. It went something like this: "The want of the world is the want of men: young men----

Now I am old and a lot wiser. I don't set myself up as a sage. I do have an experience and a bout with history that many have not experienced. I share it. Question my opinion--not my age. I certainly hope you live as long and grow in wisdom equal to its length.

At your age, I also believed in Dan 8:14 a la Great Controversy. I hope and pray that you also will grow out of it and enjoy the full blessings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Tom

Tom, you and your friends need to decide on what issue you want to focus. Certainly your not naive enough to let an ad hominem influence your understanding of the facts of the case. First, decide, what is the issue. Hasel's competence, 1844, or the integrity of Daniel?

Consider the following article which lists over 75 problems associated with a late date for Daniel: Just to whet your appetite, note the following from the conclusion:

"Mounce points out that "the excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural." [Robert H. Mounce, "Is the New Testament Historically Accurate?" in Can I Trust the Bible? ed. Howard F. Vos, p. 176, emphasis mine; quote found in Both/And: A Balanced Apologetic. by Ronald B. Mayers (Moody, 1984); for another example see Allis, 248] This perception of the nature of the bias against the Bible is reinforced by noting that previous opinions in regards to secular history have been overturned when archaeology had proven them to be in error. [Yamauchi (1974): 54-70] And yet when it comes to the Bible the "old" views which can now be known to be wrong continue to be broadcast to an overly-trusting and unsuspecting audience."

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/danielblast.html

Aage,
I would like to modify your statement regarding the use of Gerhard Hasel and his writings today.

I am currently enrolled in the course "Theology of the Old Testament" at Andrews University. The textbook for the course is a new book (Zondervan, 2007) by Bruce K. Waltke, a professor of Old Testament at the Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Fla.

He quotes favorably from Hasel several times in his text and footnotes him as well. The understanding of "inspiration" promoted by Hasel - is the same as the one used in this text book. So Hasel's views are alive and well at Andrews.

And Hasel got his views on inspiration validated and voted on as our church's official position at an Autumn Council held several years ago in Brazil. (Check out the very small print in the R&H report of that meeting)

Hansen

Hasel stakes his reputation on the early date of Daniel and the validity of E.G. White's prophetic gifts which inpacts on 1844---It is one issue with many facets.

Peter's rejoiner has nothing to do with Daniel and its interpretation. Other than his poor judgment in attempting to defend the indefensible, he seems like a nice guy. I hope he matures in his reading and writing.

Why does the defense of Dan 8:14 always have to carry a sting? What are you and Peter afraid of?

I believe in a judgment. I believe that upon my testimony that the Christ event was necessary and sufficient, Christ will stand as my advocate. I think that is good news, don't you?

I also believe that any place that Christ stands is the Most Holy Place, don't you? Even if it is only beside a burning bush. Don't you?

One can understand someone misunderstanding Daniel. But why
compound the error by misusing Hebrews 8-10?

Compound abuse of Scripture for institutional gain or continuance should be a felony. Andrews said as much, and I agree with his assessment.

My rejoiner to Peter on age was simply to let him know it added nothing to his cause. The issue certainly isn't Tom or his age, or even his opinion. Just read the Scripture fair and square. You will come out of the experience a free man and thank Andrew for his insight and courage. I did, which seems to have have a negative impact on you and Peter. Sorry
but the Truth remains--The SDA stance on Dan. 8: 14 is and always was indefensible.

The SDA exculsivism only compounds the nagative image of an institution will many good works to its credit--none of which will stand in judgment without a full and ringing endorement of the "Finished Work of Jesus Christ!" The SDA position makes Jesus look like the supreme head of the IRS and not our Creator/Redeemer/Advocate/Friend and coming King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Tom

Tom, I'm not defending 1844. I pointed out that if the 490 years of Daniel are cut off from the 2300 years of Daniel, one would look for a termination around 1844. I wish I could get behind 1844, but I can't. I have knocked around Daniel quite a bit, examined every important word in Daniel 8 and 11, cross referenced, it still doesn't make sense to me.

One thing I noticed is that the word "justified" or "cleansed" in Daniel 8:14 is used numerous times in Scripture. It always refers to the justification of people or, in one case, God, in one case his judgments.

It is never used with reference to the cleansing of the earthly temple, which was defiled and cleansed numerous times. It happened during the reigns of Hezekiah, Josiah, Mannaseh, Ezra/Nehemiah, for example. A different word is used there, a word which means cleanse, not justify, although some might argue, perhaps correctly, that these things are the same.

The investigative judgment doctrine of Adventism, as I understood it, can not bear the blaze emanating from Hebrews 9 and 10.

But that's an entirely different issue than the authenticity of Daniel, a book which has the endorsement of Jesus Christ himself.

As noted above by another author, an aversion to the supernatural seems to be the real issue here. If God does rule in the kingom of men, as Daniel clearly asserts, it is not going to go well for those who reject him. Trashing his Word is not going to change anything, but the unbelievers have something with which to occupy themselves until he comes.

Hansen

1. Why not address your concerns with Andrew?

2. Jesus referenced Daniel, He did not endorse Daniel. Defend Jeus's use of the story of the Rich man and Lazarus as an authentic understanding of the state of the dead or the continuing existance of hell.

The problem with the SDA use of Daniel and Revelation is that they try to make it walk on all fours and fit into their pre-conceived end-time views to the exclusion of all others and have the gall to claim a direct inspired revalation from God to a little girl. When in truth it was a cherry picking of a host of prior authors without attribution--even from among her every own.

It just doesn't pass the smell test let alone taste! That is what Andrews implied and to which I agreed. So go take it up with him. Tom

There definitely are qualified scholars such as Yamauchi who see no insurmountable difficulty in Daniel having an early date.
http://www.etsjets.org/?q=officers/20

Most would not, along with myself, accept our version of Dan.8:14 which is not the major issue here.

But consider the difficulties for “liberal theologians” if scripture was inspired and God actually could foretell future events at the expense of pure naturalism or
“hyper-openness ”…Daniel “must” be late!

Regards,
pat

PS. Donna, Waltke was one of my Profs. at RTS. He would also view Daniel written at an Early date.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Waltke

Pat Thanks

However, it seems that Andrew and the Review make 1844 the issue. Just for my information, please give me the benefit of your reading on what conservative scholars have to say about the one or more "books" or sections to the Book of Daniel as we have it in modern translations? My limited study suggests at least two separate writings.

The primary issue remains the use of negative ads to promote Adventism on the basis of poor constructs of Scripture. Tom

Peter and Hansen seem to argue that bias is the reason why scholars assign a late date to Daniel. I'm sure some of them are biased against the supernatural. So are most of us. When a young man from Palmyra, New York, claims to have encountered angels directing him to dig up a Third Testament engraved on golden tablets in a local hill, we tend to be skeptical. And yet, bias will only go so far. If the historical events recorded in the Book of Mormon could be verified by archeology (walled cities, enormous battles, named kings and prophets), bias would become irrelevant. Bias is only important when evidence is missing.

The arguments against an early dating of Daniel would have no legs if the evidence for it was missing. It's an honorable thing to embrace an early dating on basis of faith, but if you want to base your view on factual argumentation you'll be hard put to dismiss the conclusions of modern scholars, who by the way, have no dog in the intramural SDA fight.

Tom,

You have asked me an excellent question - Why the apocalypticism? Let me attempt a short answer!

1) The gospel is apocalyptic in nature. After all, it is 'the gospel of the kingdom,' an undoubted reference to God's everlasting kingdom.

2) The book of Revelation, or at least a huge part of it is an expansion of Matthew 24. In this way, we cetainly can teach all things Jesus commanded us while teaching from the book of Revelation.

3) The line of reasoning that suggests that God gave very important messages to the two individuals 'greatly beloved of God' is compelling to my mind.

4) Apocalyticism has had an important place in forming my worldview.

5) Such a 'warfare worldview' is considered revolutionary by Gregory Boyd and as 'ancient future faith' by Robert Webber. It was considered 'present truth' by the founding Adventist fathers.

PS The term 'octogenarian' may be considered a term of respect as easily as a term of derision. (By the way, I am 51 years old).

Tom,

Do you have “ Daniel and the Coming King” by Des Ford? He deals with and quotes various “conservative” scholars that deal with the major “critical” issues concerning the dating of Daniel on pp.169-178.

Some of these issues would also be where more "conservative scholar" Des and Cottrell would part company although both disagree with our traditional interpretation of 8:14 as you know. Perhaps someone you know or Des can send you a copy. Des’ last book on Dan.9:24-27 is also good entitled “In the Heart of Daniel.” Cottrell and Des would also vary on issues here springing from the "predictive" and dating perceptions.

Regards,
pat

Peter

The term octogenarian is a term of rerpect--that is why I called you on your use--

If you find the Gospel as compelling as you assert, why not address it--rather than defending privately interpreted Scripture in the face of: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" 1 Peter 1: 20

Just a few private interpretations:

Dan. 8:14; Hebrews 8 through 10; Revelation 2 and 3--(dispensationally presented) Rev. 14: 6-12; Rev. 19: 10 (to list just a few.)

Tom

Certainly the scriptures you reference Tom, are supported by more than 1 person. You stretch the term "private interpitation" to suit your own definition?
What would that definition be? A body as large as the SDA church? Larger? By how many?

The logical extension being who ever has the most adherants is right. Or is that going to far for you?

Michael,

You addressed to Tom but...

Why would no other Christian group (private interpretation) share our view of Dan.8:14 or Hebrews to the effect that Christ did not enter the Most Holy until 1844. Might it be that it is an understanding and affirmation of EGW that drives the interpretation...which we dare not question? Are they all deluded and not "Spirit led?"

regards,
pat

From the SDA Bible Dictionary (1979):

"Daniel was not accepted by the Jews a part of the Sacred Canon until after the contents of "the law" (the Petateuch) and "the prophets" (see Luke 24:44) had become fixed."

"Three arguments against the historicity of the book of Daniel are:

(1) That the principal theme of the prophetic portion of Daniel is the presecuting power depicted in chs. 7 and on, and that this refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164/63 B.C.)

(2) That the historical sections of the book contain numerous historical inaccuracies, anachronisms, and misconceptions.

(3) That the occurence of Greek and Persian words in the book are evidence of a late date.

The fact that some of the prophetic specifications seem to fit Antiochus (and many commentators who accept the book as genuine prediction by Daniel will allow at least some application to Antiochus in ch. 8 or 11) DOES NOT PROVE THAT A LATER FULFILLMENT MIGHT NOT (caps. supl) fit the requirements even better
and more completely."

Similar terms are used: "The Ionian (Greek) and Persian artists wre employed at the Babylonian court WHO MIGHT EASILY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF FOREIGN TERMS."

"It is recognized that the book of Daniel has two parts: the first essentially historical in nature, and the second prophetic."

It should be noted that the writers of the SDA Dictionary do not express absolute evidence but use terms "does not prove" and "might have been," does not reflect exact certitude. The lack of such certainty for pillars of the "truth" should be of concern.

From the Interpreter's Bible Commentary 1982, on Daniel:

"There are many evidences, however, that it was written at a later time and is pseudepigraphic. i.e. issued under the name of Daniel by another person. There are 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 acauire till long after the Exile. 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. Writing ca. 180 Jeshua ben Sira lists the heroes of the faith from Enoch, Noah, and Abraham through Nehemia but makes no mention of Daniel, evidently because he does not know of the book about him. OTOH, Daniel 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 desecration and restoration of the sanctuary is a important theme of the OT. Some might argue it is the central theme. Considering the cherubim placed at the Gate of Eden, the motif appears at a very early point in Scripture.

The following books are tied to the destruction/ restoration motif: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah, Haggai, 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles. The building of the Temple played an important roll in the life of David and Solomon. A central feature in the biographies of Mannaseh, Hezekiah, and Josiah was either the desecration or cleansing of the temple.

Daniel's prayer in chapter 9 bewails the desolation of the sanctuary. Daniel 8 does not exist in a vacum. There is a huge context for the casting down and justification of the sanctuary. Daniel was a captive in Babylon, in part, because the temple had been defiled by the Jews and descecrated by the Babylonians.

More important than the date of Daniel is the contribution it makes to understanding this central theme of the OT. What does it contribute to our understanding of the desecration [crucifixion] and justification [resurrection] of the true temple,Jesus Christ? Jesus validated the predictive nature of Daniel, admonishing his listeners to understand Daniel the prophet.

Daniel withstood the lions, his friends the fiery furnace. The rantings and foment of skeptics, atheists, and higher critics are nothing compared to these.

Hansen - note from our discussion here that even many orthodox Adventists favour now a late composition date od Daniel - those are the facts that cannot be ignored. Soon a bunch of traditional Adventists and Jehova's Witnesses will be all that cling to the indefensible position.

For those who have the time and interest, I recommend the most carefully researched and balanced commentary on Daniel published so far: John Joseph Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible). Anyone interested in the arguments on various sides regarding the dating of Daniel, with attention to the major arguments of both critical and conservative scholars, will find his presentation comprehensive and fair. (His wife and colleague Adelle Yarbro Collins has also published some provocative books on the Book of Revelation, especially its ethical outlook.)

Happy reading!

Graeme

Hansen

If it were not for the faulty exegesis of Dan 8:14 this challenge of the dating of Daniel would be moot.

To the Jew of the first century the Temple was sacred, note how determined they were to "protect" an empty Most Holy Place during the Roman invasion of the city and the temple.

The focus of Daniel 8:14 is most assuredly a direct reference to the defilement with pig's blood in the inter-testament period.

This was a primary concern of the 70 down in Alexandra as well as the "worldly" way of the young men of Jerusalem.

The Book of Daniel was the Jewish Messages to Young People.

A very devote farmer should have stuck with potatoes and a very devote young firl should have stuck with John Wesley.

Tom