Tsaphah
02-23-2010, 03:14 AM
Here are a few snippets from “so-called experts and scholars” published in 1920. Whether the author holds these thoughts, could be in question. He may only be stating the thinking of those in the field of history, science, biblical theological studies, and archeology. This particular point of view is still held today, as you will see from the linked article at the bottom.
The following quoted material is from “A Commentary on The Holy Bible, by Various Writers, edited by The Rev. J.R. Dummelow M.A., of Queens College, Cambridge. 1920
This particular part is dealing with the view of the Book of Daniel. “It has been the subject of much discussion and controversy, especially in recent times, and most Christian scholars now hold views both of its interpretation and of its literary character, authorship, and date, different from those which were formerly accepted in the church.” “The book professes to be a history of Daniel, a Jewish exile who was carried away to Babylon before the fall of his native kingdom, lived at the court of Nebuchadnezzar, and survived till the days of Cyrus, the Persian conqueror of Babylon.” “It was under Nebuchadnezzar that the fall of the Jewish kingdom and the final captivity of the Jewish nation took place in 586 B.C.”
I won't quote any of the different views of interpretation of the visions of Daniel, which may just cause confusion for some. Without an understanding and knowledge of ancient history, the subject being discussed by these “scholars” would be mis-leading for most Bible students. Will only address the views held by those “scholars and experts”. As you can see from the date quoted above, it does not coincide with that used by the WTB&TS's date. (Other than subject headings, Bolded portions are by me, for emphasis)
“Literary Character, Date, and Authorship of Daniel. It has generally been supposed, and is still maintained by some, that the book of Daniel is the work either of Daniel himself, or of a contemporary who composed the narratives and joined to them Daniel's own account of his visions. On this view the narratives are literal history, and the predictive chapters describe revelations of the future actually made to Daniel during or immediately after the Babylonian exile.”
“The modern conception of the book of Daniel is briefly this, that it dates not from the age in which Daniel's career is placed, but from the close of the period to which its visions refer... that its apparent outlines of the future are really past history thrown by the author into the guise of ancient prediction ; that the narratives, though founded more or less on historical tradition, are to be regarded chiefly as stories with a practical moral, and are valuable mainly on this account ; that the aim of the writer, both in the narratives and in the view of history presented in the visions, was to encourage the Jews to constancy under the religious persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes. this book differs widely from those of the prophets properly so-called. Except in the solitary exhortation of [Dan.] 4:27, it contains no practical message for the age of the exile, in which Daniel is placed.”
“The earliest period (as interpreters of all schools agree) in which it was fitted to convey instruction and encouragement, was that of Antiochus Epiphanes, 400 years after the captivity. Again, it appears to predict, not in the conditional manner of the prophets, but with absolute certainty, the leading particulars of the course of history during these intervening centuries,..” “The contents of c. 11 in particular are altogether unique in this respect, and have no resemblance to the predictions of OT. prophecy in general. So obvious is the contrast that some recent scholars, while seeking to maintain the earlier authorship of the book as a whole, have been constrained to regard c. 11 as an addition, composed after the events which it describes.” “At first sight the only alternative to the older view of the book of Daniel appears to be that it is a mere forgery which can have no right to a place in the Scriptures.” The author then goes on to compare Daniel with Apocryphal books which are obvious frauds and go against the teachings in the other books of the Bible.
“The Absence of External Evidence for the Earlier Date of Daniel. Along with the foregoing considerations there must be taken the important fact that there is nothing to show that the book of Daniel existed before the age of Antiochus Epiphanes. The mention of Daniel's name in Ezekiel (14:14, 20; 28:3) has no bearing upon the date of the book, since these prophecies of Ezekiel were uttered, the one before, and the other immediately after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., while the book of Daniel, at the earliest, cannot have been composed before the third year of Cyrus (536 B.C.) to which its narrative comes down.”
“Now the Jewish Canon of the Prophets was not closed till after the date of Malachi (about 450 B.C.), and if the book of Daniel was in existence then it is not easy to understand why it should not have been included in this collection. It is probable, indeed, that 'the books' ([Dan.] 9:2), among which Jeremiah was included, are to be understood of the Canon of the Prophets as already complete when the book of Daniel was written.”
And on, and on, and on. Just as Jesus said in prayer, “Righteous Father, the world has, indeed, not come to know you;...” (Jn 17:25a) It matters not that Jesus made reference to Daniel (Dan 24:15), the world does not even believe that Jesus existed. They claim that there is no “historical reference” to Jesus, other than the Bible. So much for so-called “scholars and experts”. Which gets us back to the beginning of this piece. Read this article, Archaeologist sees proof for Bible in ancient wall
at the following link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_ancient_wall
Tsaphah
The following quoted material is from “A Commentary on The Holy Bible, by Various Writers, edited by The Rev. J.R. Dummelow M.A., of Queens College, Cambridge. 1920
This particular part is dealing with the view of the Book of Daniel. “It has been the subject of much discussion and controversy, especially in recent times, and most Christian scholars now hold views both of its interpretation and of its literary character, authorship, and date, different from those which were formerly accepted in the church.” “The book professes to be a history of Daniel, a Jewish exile who was carried away to Babylon before the fall of his native kingdom, lived at the court of Nebuchadnezzar, and survived till the days of Cyrus, the Persian conqueror of Babylon.” “It was under Nebuchadnezzar that the fall of the Jewish kingdom and the final captivity of the Jewish nation took place in 586 B.C.”
I won't quote any of the different views of interpretation of the visions of Daniel, which may just cause confusion for some. Without an understanding and knowledge of ancient history, the subject being discussed by these “scholars” would be mis-leading for most Bible students. Will only address the views held by those “scholars and experts”. As you can see from the date quoted above, it does not coincide with that used by the WTB&TS's date. (Other than subject headings, Bolded portions are by me, for emphasis)
“Literary Character, Date, and Authorship of Daniel. It has generally been supposed, and is still maintained by some, that the book of Daniel is the work either of Daniel himself, or of a contemporary who composed the narratives and joined to them Daniel's own account of his visions. On this view the narratives are literal history, and the predictive chapters describe revelations of the future actually made to Daniel during or immediately after the Babylonian exile.”
“The modern conception of the book of Daniel is briefly this, that it dates not from the age in which Daniel's career is placed, but from the close of the period to which its visions refer... that its apparent outlines of the future are really past history thrown by the author into the guise of ancient prediction ; that the narratives, though founded more or less on historical tradition, are to be regarded chiefly as stories with a practical moral, and are valuable mainly on this account ; that the aim of the writer, both in the narratives and in the view of history presented in the visions, was to encourage the Jews to constancy under the religious persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes. this book differs widely from those of the prophets properly so-called. Except in the solitary exhortation of [Dan.] 4:27, it contains no practical message for the age of the exile, in which Daniel is placed.”
“The earliest period (as interpreters of all schools agree) in which it was fitted to convey instruction and encouragement, was that of Antiochus Epiphanes, 400 years after the captivity. Again, it appears to predict, not in the conditional manner of the prophets, but with absolute certainty, the leading particulars of the course of history during these intervening centuries,..” “The contents of c. 11 in particular are altogether unique in this respect, and have no resemblance to the predictions of OT. prophecy in general. So obvious is the contrast that some recent scholars, while seeking to maintain the earlier authorship of the book as a whole, have been constrained to regard c. 11 as an addition, composed after the events which it describes.” “At first sight the only alternative to the older view of the book of Daniel appears to be that it is a mere forgery which can have no right to a place in the Scriptures.” The author then goes on to compare Daniel with Apocryphal books which are obvious frauds and go against the teachings in the other books of the Bible.
“The Absence of External Evidence for the Earlier Date of Daniel. Along with the foregoing considerations there must be taken the important fact that there is nothing to show that the book of Daniel existed before the age of Antiochus Epiphanes. The mention of Daniel's name in Ezekiel (14:14, 20; 28:3) has no bearing upon the date of the book, since these prophecies of Ezekiel were uttered, the one before, and the other immediately after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., while the book of Daniel, at the earliest, cannot have been composed before the third year of Cyrus (536 B.C.) to which its narrative comes down.”
“Now the Jewish Canon of the Prophets was not closed till after the date of Malachi (about 450 B.C.), and if the book of Daniel was in existence then it is not easy to understand why it should not have been included in this collection. It is probable, indeed, that 'the books' ([Dan.] 9:2), among which Jeremiah was included, are to be understood of the Canon of the Prophets as already complete when the book of Daniel was written.”
And on, and on, and on. Just as Jesus said in prayer, “Righteous Father, the world has, indeed, not come to know you;...” (Jn 17:25a) It matters not that Jesus made reference to Daniel (Dan 24:15), the world does not even believe that Jesus existed. They claim that there is no “historical reference” to Jesus, other than the Bible. So much for so-called “scholars and experts”. Which gets us back to the beginning of this piece. Read this article, Archaeologist sees proof for Bible in ancient wall
at the following link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_ancient_wall
Tsaphah