11/12/2022 0 Comments Dating the book of danielĮven though no other position is known earlier than the Hebrew tradition, it has not remained unchallenged by critical scholars. He writes:īoth the rabbis of the Talmudic Age and the Christian Church Fathers accepted the book’s own statements that the four apocalypses of Daniel B were written by a man named Daniel in the last years of the Babylonian Age and in the first ones of the Persian Age, and they did not question the historicity of any part of Daniel A. Harold Ginsberg, who is in favor the critical approach, concedes in the Encyclopaedia Judaica that the traditional view is the earliest position concerning the date of composition for Daniel. This view is the earliest extant view held between Hebrew and Christian writings to date. The historical setting of the book and its composition, then, is in Babylonian captivity and subsequently into the early years of Medo-Persian imperial rule (c. According to this approach, the story is both a historical and a prophetic document consequently, it is not a mythological book of imagery. The traditional approach for ascertaining the date of composition for the book of Daniel argues that the book is a literary product of the 6 th century B.C., composed by Daniel (the book’s hero) by the inspiration and guidance of the God of Israel. In general, though, the two basic approaches can be condensed with some generalizations. The approaches for dating the composition of the book of Daniel are composed of numerous methods of argumentation, with varying degrees of complexity. composition is adequately supported by the linguistic and historical evidence. The proposition under discussion here is that although the critical position of a late Maccabean period for the date of composition of the book of Daniel is predominately accepted by biblical scholars, the traditional position that the book of Daniel is of an early 6 th century B.C. Ultimately, one is false and the other is the correct approach. The two approaches are diametrically opposed. Issues such as predictive prophecy and inspiration are therefore readily accepted by traditionalists, but this is denied by the critics, for they take a naturalistic (or rationalistic) approach because they view supernatural intervention as incapable of occurring. Meanwhile, traditionalists usually believe that Divine guidance and revelatory intervention coupled with the utility of man are possible and the means by which God makes his will known to humanity. This view is in practical terms, deistic. Generally speaking, the critical approach brings to the evaluation of the evidence the supposition that the production of Biblical books is solely the product of human enterprise to the exclusion of Divine guidance and revelatory intervention. While each view will be given consideration below, here it seems necessary to make mention of this because it plays such a vital role in evaluating the available evidence. The roots of each model run deep into certain presuppositions relative to supernaturalism. The controversy, though, still wages and the effects of the implications of each model are felt in biblical academia. Traditionalists have combated further by exploiting the weaknesses of critical approaches to date the composition of Daniel. the critics, agree that the traditional view is saturated with egregious errors (interpretive and historical) and consequently is not a feasible alternative. Yet, it appears to be the case that the majority of biblical scholars, i.e. Supporters of the traditional view, however, have responded in numerous scholarly ways. On the surface, it seems that critical scholars have removed any thought of retaining a traditional view towards the composition of the book of Daniel. origin, while the critical view argues for a late 2 nd century B.C. The traditional view is that it is of 6 th century B.C. Discussion concerning the date for the composition of Daniel is controversial.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |