(4th Qumran cave where most Dead Sea Scrolls came from)
… Conclusion at the end of this article in the above link.
Now, if:
1. We have early manuscripts from DSS that virtually require a pre-Maccabean date for their exemplar (under commonly accepted 'literary diffusion' time requirements);
2. ALL the major pre-Maccabean literature--regardless of provenance(!)--utilize elements from Daniel;
3. All the "possibly" to "quite probably" pre-Maccabean literature--regardless of provenance--utilize elements from Daniel;
4. The Maccabean and post-Maccabean works of significance--regardless of sectarian perspective--utilize Daniel;
5. ALL of the sources closest in time, expertise, and eyewitness-access to the situation [i.e., Qumran, NT, Josephus, Rabbinics] describe Daniel's writings as prophecies of the future(NOT the past!);
6. ALL of the sectarian groups accept Daniel as canonical;
7. Several of the documents discussed suggest a date for Daniel around the end of the 4th/start of the 3rd century BCD;
And
8. The most probable direction of borrowing, in each case, is FROM Daniel...
Then, isn't the discussion over? Isn't that a strong enough case to demonstrate that Daniel is at least pre-Maccabean?
These references are what's called 'external evidence' and it vastly outweighs as historical evidence that subjective area we call 'internal evidence'. We have not settled a date for Daniel, or its character (that will be assessed in discussions of the problems associated with internal evidence [i.e., historical and linguistic considerations]), but the data we have reviewed should be recognized as being quite strong that the controlling paradigm of a late-date for Daniel needs 'adjusting'...
Where this leaves us is quite clear: ALL the external, manuscript, and literary data we have supports a pre-Maccabean date for the material in Daniel.
Click the links below for related posts.
Click the links below for related posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment