Dating the book of daniel

18-May-2019 21:24

The book covers the activities of Daniel under successive rulers including Belshazzar and Darius the Mede.

As a result the Book of Daniel contained a number of historical errors because of its distance in time from the original events.Yet, concurrent with theories of multiple authorship have been staunch avowals of the unity of Daniel from both liberal and conservative sources.The wide diversity of opinion regarding the unity of the book is unfortunately self-defeating, and reflects unfavorably upon the critical methods employed. As the result of archeological discoveries it is now known that the ancient Mesopotamian writers not infrequently enclosed the main body of a unified literary work within a linguistic form of a contrasting nature in order to heighten the general effect.This division indicates that the Book of Daniel was compiled as a literary bifid, furnishing in effect a two-volume work whose parts could circulate independently if necessary and still provide an adequate understanding of the prophet’s activities and outlook.The compilation of works in bifid form was by no means uncommon in antiquity, and in the case of large books like Isaiah it served to reduce the composition to more manageable proportions without at the same time losing any of the essential teachings of the author concerned.

As a result the Book of Daniel contained a number of historical errors because of its distance in time from the original events.

Yet, concurrent with theories of multiple authorship have been staunch avowals of the unity of Daniel from both liberal and conservative sources.

The wide diversity of opinion regarding the unity of the book is unfortunately self-defeating, and reflects unfavorably upon the critical methods employed. As the result of archeological discoveries it is now known that the ancient Mesopotamian writers not infrequently enclosed the main body of a unified literary work within a linguistic form of a contrasting nature in order to heighten the general effect.

This division indicates that the Book of Daniel was compiled as a literary bifid, furnishing in effect a two-volume work whose parts could circulate independently if necessary and still provide an adequate understanding of the prophet’s activities and outlook.

The compilation of works in bifid form was by no means uncommon in antiquity, and in the case of large books like Isaiah it served to reduce the composition to more manageable proportions without at the same time losing any of the essential teachings of the author concerned.

So diametrically opposed are these views of authorship that the problems which they raise must be given some consideration.