Dating first date second date
Dating first date second date - www finddating com
They too agreed with Porphyry, that such long-range prophecies were impossible, so the book must have been written during the Maccabean age (second century BC; Baldwin, pg. Then in 1980, Klaus Koch wrote a powerful book questioning the Exilic date of writing (sixth century BC), and describing the Maccabean theory (Ferch, pg. However, I will attempt to show that the evidence points to an early date for the writing of Daniel, placing it in the sixth century BC.
Why would he have strayed from such an important and well-known prophet to use another, obscure dating system, which would appear to contradict Jeremiah, to his readers who read from, and knew the prophets work well (Waltke, pg. The second main historical argument concerns Belshazzar.
The first, if the author of Daniel lived in the second century during the persecution, therefore in Palestine, one would naturally assume that he would use his native system of dating, and not the ancient, relatively unknown system of Babylonian dating.
This would be especially true if the author's purpose was to encourage the people of his day who were currently suffering persecution also, as the proponents of the second century date of writing believe.
The second part of this argument says that if Daniel were an unknown, but well knowledgeable Jew (as he would have had to have been to know Babylonian history as well as he does) he would have certainly followed in the footsteps of a well respected prophet.
In writing his book he presumes to appear as a prophet himself, encouraging his people to persevere through persecution, he would undoubtedly try to make his work seem as Scriptural as possible.
The literary arguments, for the most part, stem from contentions that many of the words used in Daniel are from an era much later than the sixth century, therefore the book couldn't have been written at that time.
The counter-arguments for this type also uses recent findings to prove that the words used by Daniel can definitely have come from the sixth century, therefore their contentions are invalid.289), until the discovery of the Nabonidus Chronicle.The only conclusion that one can reach, other than some other information which has been lost to us today, is that the author was indeed alive during the events, in 539 BC (Waltke, pg. The third main historical argument concerns the identity of Darius the Mede, mentioned in chapters five, six, nine, and eleven.In the verse account of Nabonidus, it is said that Nabonidus "entrusted the 'camp' to his eldest son ['Belshazzar] ...entrusted the kingship to him (Hasel, pg.155) and himself ..turned towards Tema in the West." This is fairly strong evidence that Belshazzar was indeed the coregent of Babylon in his father's absence, and was there when Babylon fell in 539 BC The mystery here, if one accepts the second century date of writing, is how the author knew of Nabonidus' leaving Belshazzar in charge, when all knowledge of Belshazzar was lost by at least 450 BC (Archer, pg.The mention of him as the last king of Babylon in Daniel seemed to be an unreconcilable error to historians and critics.