Book of daniel dating

Jeremiah 30-31 is not dated and consists of a prophetic oracle of hope not of a pronouncment of enactment of a divine decree.

Furthermore, the position that the first seven weeks of years begin with the enunciation of Jeremiah's warnings regarding Jerusalem's destruction turns the Danielic prophecy on its head.

Daniel uses the Aramaic equivalent of this expression in chap. Jeremiah 25 is dated as belonging to the fourth year of jehoiakim (605 B. Kutscher, "Aramaic," Encyclopaedialudaica, (1972); "Daniel," encyclopaedia Britannica, (1946 ed.).

C.) but its burden is the impending ruin of Jerusalem, not its restoration. Kitchen, "The Aramaic of Daniel," Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, p.

Neither is the concept of resurrection entirely missing from the rest of the Old Testament.

The reason for its rare occurrence is indicated in 2 Timothy .

In this respect we differ from the vast majority of modern scholars. our terminus for the 2300 days is likewise dislocated and Adventist's supposedly providential beginning dispelled.

It is doubtful that a single secular university engaging in Biblical studies would accept our position, and it is quite certain that the majority of theological seminaries affirm the Maccabean dating of this Old Testament apocalypse. starting point for the seventy weeks is thereby invalidated inasmuch as the proponents of the Maccabean dating assume instead a much earlier date associated with the prophecies of Jeremiah. The Maccabean dating assumes that the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7 are Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece, but neither Rome nor the Papacy are envisaged.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.On the other hand, until the conviction of the authenticity of the book is established in the mind of the inquirer, further study is useless, unless we apply the device of "re-interpretation" as a hermeneutic. Let it be emphasized the latter is all that re mains to Seventh-day Adventists if we reject the traditional dating of the Old Testament apocalypse. 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.

Tags: , ,