Book Of Daniel, Book Of Daniel

John J. Collins, Book of Daniel, Anchor Bible Dictionary 2 (1992), p. 30.

The book of Daniel states that he was king (Ar. ) the night that Babylon fell (chap. 5) and says that his father (Ar. ) was Nebuchadnezzar (5:2, 11, 13, 18). Prior to 1854, archeologists and historians knew nothing of Belshazzar outside the book of Daniel. Indeed, while the deuterocanonical Book of Baruch (Baruch 1:11, 12) and the writings of Josephus (Antiquities 10.11.2-4 231-247) do mention Belshazzar, the references to Belshazzar in these works are ultimately dependent on the book of Daniel (Collins, p. 32). Both Xenophon (Cyropaedia, 7.5.28-30 Xenophon, Cyropaedia ) and Herodotus (The Histories, 1.191) recount the fall of Babylon to Cyrus the Great, yet neither of these writers give the name of the king of Babylon. Additionally, both Berossus and Ptolemys king lists have Nabonidus (Akk.

A. Steinmann, The Chicken and the Egg: A New Proposal for the Relationship between the Prayer of Nabonidus and the Book of Daniel, Revue de Qumran 20:4 (December 2002) 557-570; T. E. Gaston, Historical Issues in the Book of Daniel , (2009), 47-52.

The Book of Daniel (in its final form) is written, according to the mainstream view, in response to that crisis.

Christian Thinktank; http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3a.html; Was Daniel Written After the Events he Foretold? ; December 2000 However, the relatively large number of copies at Qumran can be explained as due to the current (at the time) popularity of this recently "published" book. Of considerable significance, is the fact that the Book of Daniel was never grouped with the Hebrew Nevi'im (the Prophets) but has always belonged to the Ketuvim (the writings). If the author had been accepted to be a sixth century Jew of the Exile his work would have pre-dated Ezra and Nehemiah and would certainly have been considered authoritative enough to group it with the other prophets.

The identification of Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel, however, is a much older Casey P.M, Porphyry and the origin of the Book of Daniel, Journal of Theological Studies , 1976, pp. 15-33 interpretation which seems to be reflected, for example, in 1 Maccabees 1:54 (c100 BC), where an idol set up upon the altar of burnt offering under Antiochus is referred to as an "abomination of desolation" (cf. Dan. 9:27, 11:31). This identification is made explicit in Josephus' exposition of Daniel chapter eight ( Antiquities 10:11, c94 AD) where he almost certainly cites a common Jewish interpretative tradition by identifying the "little horn" as Antiochus. According to British historian Bryan Rennie, the conclusion that the Book of Daniel was written at the time of the profanation of the Temple by Antiochus IV would explain why the author is not very precise about sixth century events, why he is so precise about the time of Antiochus, and why he was never counted among the prophets.

Berthold, Collins, and H. L. Ginsberg. Some historians who support that the book was a unified whole include J.A. Montgomery, S.R. Driver, R. H. Pfeiffer, and H.H. Rowley in the latter's aptly titled essay "The Unity of the Book of Daniel" (1952).

Source: Wikipedia > Book Of Daniel