Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Fred P Miller <fmoeller AT ao.net>]

Jonathan D. Safren wrote:

> I haven't been following the argument, but isn't the argument for the late
> dating of Daniel based, inter alia, on the use of Aramaic, the use of Greek
> words (sumponia, psalterion, etc.), the inaccuracies in the Judaean and
> Persian chronology in the text?
> Sincerely,
> Jonathan D. Safren

Yes it is true that arguments for a late date for Daniel are based on internal
evidence only.  The material in Daniel 11 especially and the 2300 day 
prophecy of
chapter 8 is too detailed to be anything other than the truth or a clever 
literary
device (a fraud) written after the facts.  There is plenty of HISTORICAL 
reference
evidence to date Daniel earlier than the Macabbean period but no empirical 
evidence,
nor quotations of the book of Daniel in literature that can be dated before 
Antiochus
Epiphanes, about 165 BCE, which is the critical date.  The only historical 
references
to the book or to the LXX which without doubt contained the translation of 
Daniel are
ignored.  The only reason for ignoring them is the internal content of the 
book which
is indeed miraculous if an early date is confirmed.

The presence of Aramaic in portions of Ezra and Daniel should confirm the use 
of
Aramaic in Babylon before 400 BCE rather than being a proof for a late date 
for
Daniel.

Fred P Miller