Part 1: When was the Book of Daniel Written? The Aramaic Evidence.

When was the book of Daniel written? Dr. Josh looks at the Aramaic evidence!
Selected Bibliography
Collins, John J. 1993. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Ed. Frank Moore Cross. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Goldingay, John. 1989. Daniel. WBC 30. Dallas: Word Books.
Hartman, Louis F. and Alexander A. DiLella, 1978. The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary. AB 23. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Newsom, Carol, 2014. Daniel: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.
Seow, Choon-Leong. 2003. Daniel. WestBC. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.
𒀭Support Digital Hammurabi!𒀭
Books by Digital Hammurabi Press:
NEW!
The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament
Joshua Bowen (2021)
(tinyurl.com/4jj2tcny)
Learn to Read Ancient Sumerian for the Absolute Beginner
Joshua Bowen & Megan Lewis (2020)
(tinyurl.com/yatg8ty3)
Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?
Joshua Bowen (2020)
(tinyurl.com/y6uytbkv)
Learning to Pray in a Dead Language: Education and Invocation in Ancient Sumerian
Joshua Bowen (2020)
(tinyurl.com/2f5rd7tc)
Patreon - bit.ly/2EJVEdj
PayPal - bit.ly/2PUp49A
Shirts and Swag - bit.ly/2QKAuSH
Amazon Wishlist - amzn.to/2CsDhak
Website - bit.ly/2V0ZaVw
Twitter - bit.ly/2T6uJLV
Contact - [e-mail]
----------
For general information and sources relating to the Ancient Near East, we recommend these websites:
ABZU - bit.ly/2Cr1A8u (collection of free and open-access data)
University of Chicago Oriental Institute - bit.ly/2RcIiMl (great collection of free books and articles)
Livius.org - bit.ly/2Gzj5rx (general encyclopedia on the ancient world)
ETCSL - bit.ly/2QJsAZS (Sumerian literature)
ORACC - bit.ly/2QJsL7u (collection of projects relating to Mesopotamia)
EPSD - bit.ly/2PY99aw (Online Sumerian dictionary)
CDLI - cdli.ucla.edu (Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative)
----------
Music: Brak Bnei Original Composition

[@chiritescuandrei6531]

I really love this approach! 😍😍😍😍 🌈

[@RealGGnoREEE]

it is the worst approach; much evidence directly contradicts his arguments.

[@colinc892]

@@RealGGnoREEE His approach reflects the majority opinion of experts in the field.

[@RealGGnoREEE]

@@colinc892 Blud considers the Digital Hammurabi Fanbase to be "experts" ☠☠💀💀😭😭😭

[@colinc892]

@@RealGGnoREEE Uh no. I consider the experts to be experts, like John J Collins, Philip R Davies, Raymond Hammer, and Paul L Redditt. But more importantly, the evidence speaks for itself. Most likely 2nd century BCE composition.

[@RealGGnoREEE]

@@colinc892 Tell me which evidence speaks for itself, because I do agree that this is most important.

[@durg8909]

This video series was the first thing in my life that convinced me apologists were wrong about something and ignorantly/dishonestly overstating their case. Four years later I’m pretty sure they’re wrong about basically everything. Thank you so much for combating indoctrination with education!

[@ramiroamaya7666]

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 1, p. 860) says: “When the Aramaic vocabulary of Daniel is examined, nine-tenths of it can be attested immediately from West Semitic inscriptions, or papyri from the 5th cent. B.C. or earlier. The remaining words have been found in sources such as Nabatean or Palmyrene Aramaic, which are later than the 5th cent. B.C. While it is at least theoretically possible that this small balance of vocabulary suddenly originated after the 5th cent. B.C., it is equally possible to argue from a fifth-century B.C. written form to an earlier oral one. By far the most probable explanation, however, is that the missing tenth represents nothing more serious than a gap in our current knowledge of the linguistic situation, which we may confidently expect to be filled in process of time.” Yes, Daniel has both old and new Aramaic. But as stated above, the vast majority of the Aramaic, matches earlier Aramaic, not late.

[@richardforster5394]

"How do you know that?" is the question of our times, I reckon.

[@user-xp7xj7gm2c]

I’m not a linguist so this is a genuine question, when you say that “the book of daniel uses *some word in aramaic*” I assume you’re using the dead sea scroll copy. Of course this copy is not the original text, so is it not possible that the copy just uses newer language? This happens with the current english translations of biblical texts, could it have been the case with aramaic then?

[@y11971alex]

One meaning of “tradition” is “what is handed down”. The authority of tradition in many ways is derived from the fact it is handed down, not that it was right in the first instance. Two common way to defend this is “if it is accepted by many generations of trained scholars before us, then their acceptance of it must have some merit” and “scholars of the past have access to materials now lost to us, so we must rely on some degree what they say”. Both frequently appear, but neither preclude further examination. The first argument naturally can be rejoined with “if the reasoning was valid under their methodology, then it should withstand modern methodologies; it should not fail just because it is examined again.” The second argument (as DH has recently taught me) can be examined if the missing source was a coherent source by filtering out statements attributed to this source and piecing together what it said. Both defences for tradition have their merits, but tradition does not prove an assertion per se.

[@pathendricksohn261]

Not that you shouldn't watch all of this... but see 7:10, 9:50, 10:50-11:50, 12:40, 13:10-14:40 for the highlights. Great video, Josh!

[@JCW7100]

Love your vids!! :)

[@criticalmetaphysician6652]

I really liked this video's approach. It was concise enough to not get lost without being overly familiar with the literature, but still seemed well cited. Very well done and looking forward to part 2.

[@daithiocinnsealach1982]

Ken Ham asks "Where you there? Because I know Someone Who was!"

[@dynamic9016]

Really enjoyed this video.

[@laurajarrell6187]

Dr. Josh! Well done. And thankyou, though I got to it late, it came on the 11th! My birthday! And how I wish people would ask "how do you know that?", of all info being pushed at them! 👏💖☮️🎃

[@Demolish_DoctrineRichardMadsen]

@Digital Hammurabi That was very understandable to a novice like myself. Excellent job of not assuming the knowledge of your viewership. I know very little of history and all that made sense to me. I look forward to the rest of these empowering me to argue with those "Locked-into" a mindset of historical accuracy within the Bible. Great Video, should be a very educational series. Thank you again!

[@Mefbuz]

Like it! Well done! Thanks

[@ryrez4478]

Great video!

[@pinball1970]

This is great thanks

[@rafoageaeatef4169]

This evidence presented in this video is very shakey, and depends on differences often of one letter. Is it not possible that a later scribe updated הם to הום to make the text more readable (this just supplies the reader with more information about the vowel)? The same can be said about ין, where the yod just provides information about the vowel. As for המון, a scribe could have updated this to make it fit the modern dialect. It is not clear if all the texts of the Hebrew Bible were given the same treatment in terms of preservation. Also as for the ז to ד. It is generally agreed that originally ז represented two phonemes /z/ and /ð/. The second phoneme /ð/ later merged with /d/ causing the begedkefet spirantization (which later spread to hebrew). In terms of writing, writers tried to preserve the older form but often made mistakes. It is already clear in the elephantine papiri that these two sounds have merged as in the same texts, the letter ד is used for what was originally /ð/ occasionally like in the word /maðbaħ/ -> /madbaħ/ spelling it מדבח, the letter ז is also used for what was originally /ð/ like in the word /ði:/ -> /di:/ spelling it as זי (this one is consistantly spelled like it should be in older times because it was a very common word and was easy to remember, yet in the Bible, throughout both Daniel and Ezra, it is spelled די with the later spelling), and finally, the letter ז occasionally for what was originally /d/ due to overcorrection. The confusion of these letters implies that at the time of writing, there was no longer a pronounced difference between /ð/ -> /d/ and /d/. Thus it is clear that lingustically by the time of Elephanite papiri (the first text used for comparison in the video), the ז spelling no longer matched the spoken language. It is not hard to imagine that at some later date, people found the text difficult to read and scribes changed the spelling to match the later spelling. (I think this is definately the case with /ð/ -> /d/ being written as a ז as this is not found throughout the book of Ezra either). The rest of the spelling changes are simply one letter which could easily have been changed for clarity (though this argument is not as strong as the one for not spelling words with a ז).

[@mishagriffith5518]

Home Run, Digital Hammurabi! (uh, Megan, that is a good thing in American slang) Very understandable and fluid argument with a good structure. Thank you very much for this.

[@prof.platypus2103]

Pardon my naïveté. Is it possible there’s a difference between when it was originally written and when it came to a commonly-used semi-standardized form? For instance: In the event of a global apocalypse, any surviving copies of Beowulf and The Canterbury Tales discovered by explorers in the distant future will likely be printed in Modern English, rather than their original Old and Middle English. Being ignorant of their history, and with most source material destroyed in the catastrophe and/or deteriorated with time, the future explorers who stumbled across a few intact libraries would likely conclude the books were written closer to today. I don’t know enough about the subject to have an opinion on the dating of Daniel. I’ll trust your judgment. But I couldn’t help but think of a scenario in which the extant copies are not necessarily the original draft, but the version that people decided to reproduce for their contemporaries to understand.

[@olympus258]

The variations in pronouncing “them” could be regional, for example until today the local dialects in the Levant and Iraq, which are heavily influenced by Aramaic and Syriac use different words, in Syria and Lebanon they use “honi” or “heni”, but in Iraq they use “homa” or or “hom”, that means it depends on who written or copied the text and where and for whom the text it was written

[@danielgrotz6599]

Nice video!

[@trevorlunn8442]

Really liked the balance between the technical and vernacular explanations in the linguistic analysis... *_transl._* "I understood it." [Maybe in future videos when introducing linguistic analyses - for those of us not familiar with the scholarship - the *_'scale'_* of general terms like *_corpora_* could be indicated; eg. "20 papyrus fragments containing 16,000 text letters/elements..." ?] _I think this would inform without adding confusion... just a suggestion._

[@southernknight9983]

How would any of this prove actually when the original version of the books were written, as these are obviously translations from earlier works of this story or events? When books are translated, they would carry over the current people's dialect and lose some of the original dialect, if not all of it. I don't see how this approach would determine when a book was originally written. Do the books, themselves, make a claim when they are written? If so, Is there any reason why we shouldn't trust that?

[@ryuxfx52]

There are some obvious fakes in history when it comes to religious texts. It sucks but some people forge texts in order to push a narrative.

[@skepticreviews9159]

I was having trouble finding a detailed linguistic analysis for Daniel, thanks Dr Bowen!

[@davidfrisken1617]

"a detailed linguistic" of any Biblical text especially the New Testament is a rare as hens teeth. Generally the archaeology is based on "Church Tradition" and quoting the oldest end of the scale. eg John is dated from the early 2nd to the mid fourth century apparently, but we only hear of the early dates to fit with Church Tradition. That is, willful distortion of the history to fit the claims of an organisation with an extremely long history of fraud. The C4 dating of just one of our early bibles may help with the historical picture. Yet the christians fear this to much and we the cultures that own the material have been held from any truths.

[@jamiee7367]

David Frisken where are you getting “mid fourth century”? I’ve never heard of any scholar dating the _terminus ad quem_ for John’s composition _that_ late. All scholarship I’m aware of places the writing of John around the very late 1st Century or the early 2nd Century.

[@michaelbradley7621]

The Aramaic in there is eastern, this supports an earlier dating period. Further, the fact that Daniel was found in the dead sea scrolls all but excludes the 2nd century dating. Daniel was clearly being circulated as accepted canon around 150 BC. Are we really to believe that these Jews saw a prophetic book appear out of nowhere claiming to be from 500 BC and describing events that they were going through and they didn't question it and they just immediately canonized it? Yea pretty sure that's not how that worked. This 2nd century date didn't appear until modern times when secular theologians became a thing. The fact that no one, including those who lived much closer to the events, set the date as 2nd century until modern times practically proves the 2nd century date as inaccurate.

[@Kyeudo]

_[" Are we really to believe that these Jews saw a prophetic book appear out of nowhere claiming to be from 500 BC and describing events that they were going through and they didn't question it and they just immediately canonized it?"]_ They didn't immediately canonize it. The Ketuvim wasn't canonized until late in the 2nd century. The later parts of Daniel date to 167-163 BC. There's about forty years for it to come out of obscurity, probably by someone claiming to have uncovered ancient prophecies of Daniel, and then get paired with the court tales, written centuries earlier. _["This 2nd century date didn't appear until modern times when secular theologians became a thing."]_ Secular historians. Christian theologians are credulous and took the book at its word because they wanted the prophecies to be real, especially the ones that the gospel writers had coopted as signs of Jesus's divinity. _["The fact that no one, including those who lived much closer to the events, set the date as 2nd century until modern times practically proves the 2nd century date as inaccurate."]_ So, your only argument is that earlier peoples who had incredibly poor literacy rates, terrible means of transmitting information, and no forensic tools weren't able to realize that the text wasn't as old as it was claimed to be? These are people who are living in a world where the Earth being round is one of the latest scientific discoveries. They still believe lightning is Zeus practicing his aim.

[@JimMajors]

I can't believe I'm just now seeing this. Yet another smashing video. I've spent the last week in and out of the doctor, so I'm still catching up on everything. This was a nice surprise. Have you read P.W. Flint's book on the Danielic texts at Qumran?

[@Zaza-eq4ss]

Dr. Josh, can you please narrate your next book, if you’re willing and able?

[@DigitalHammurabi]

I narrated the first slavery book, but Seth’s voice is just so lovely!! 😂

[@southernsuccubus420]

I absolutely love watching your videos, I wish that you, seth andrews, or ThereminTrees should do a reading of the bible where you read a section, then give explanation as to what is going on in that section based on historical facts and also taking into account what the new version says versus the original. I know that it is a big ask, but I have never been able to read the bible because I don't understand most of it, and I would love to hear it all from a scholarly perspective and not a priest trying to coax me into "bible study" I want to go through the bible with someone who can break down the linguistics of it into terms that I can understand, without trying to push it on me and make it sound better to fit their narrative. Love you guys. Keep doing the great work that you do!

[@incredulouspasta3304]

"Introduction to the Old Testament with Christine Hayes". It's a free lecture series from Yale. She doesn't read the entire thing line by line, but the course provides a fantastic base for understanding it through your own readings.

[@southernsuccubus420]

@@incredulouspasta3304 ooh, ty I will look them up!

[@thehigherevolutionary]

Megan and Josh, I love your videos. Great presentation. Looking forward to part 2.

[@DigitalHammurabi]

Thank you so much - and thank you again for the superchat, we really appreciate it!

[@parker17]

It just looks cartoon Josh is a guy on yoga ball making me realized that I’ve never seen his legs so maybe he’s just a guy with a yoga ball instead of legs

[@kayb9979]

He is a Daruma.

[@rchuso]

Of course, I'd be quite interested in learning if there was any Sumerian, Akkadian, or Babylonian influence on the folk-tales themselves.

[@Tareltonlives]

Being fascinated with the Persian and Greek periods of Middle Eastern and Jewish history, I'm really loving this series. As a kid, I just remembered the whole lion den story, but Daniel's got a lot of different narratives that people forget about, and like a lot of the Bible, it's a patchwork of stories and traditions over a long period. I actually find that more interesting, especially if you think about the scope of Jewish theology, history, and legend.

[@shizanketsuga8696]

When I hear "Resist bad scholarship!" I involuntarily think of SJ Thomason. Excellent video!

[@adm0iii]

I agree that precise dating based on linguistics is hazardous. Besides the possibility that dated linguistics could be preserved for formal or religious use, as seen in recent times for English use of "thou" and such, different regions could adopt newer linguistics while others preserve older ones for many generations. A modern example would be the English found in Scots compared to common English. In times long before any sort of mass communication, linguistic changes would be sporadic, and could only be used to accurately date writings when the whole of the linguistic and cultural historical landscape is very well known; we lack such knowledge for these ancient writings. I appreciate this being presented as "probably before this and probably after that" rather than giving an exact date. Not _all_ scholars are so inclined.

[@southernsuccubus420]

You can however date something relatively based on whether it has newer linguistics than the original date that the text is said to have come from. IE the text says it is from 500 BC, but the linguistics show terms that were not even in use until 200 BC or later. I that case, you can relatively date that text as having come from sometime after the first use of the linguistic terms used in the text. You may not be able to date it as having come from a certain time during the use of those linguistic terms, but you can say fairly confidently that it was not written before the use of those terms came about Edited to say, this comment was in response to the first half of your comment, idk what happened, but I missed the last 2 sentences in your comment, and I am inclined to agree with you on that.

[@baberoot1998]

Yes Bear Mro...exactly. Nail. On. Head. I don't mind someone telling me, their opinion...but when they try to 'blur' the 'facts' with their 'opinion', they lose all credibility with me. Regardless of their position. Bravo...comment.

[@ronester1]

if Daniel was written so late how could it have been accepted as authentic scripture by the Israelites as opposed to just another apocryphal work during the second temple period or ancient writing not accepted as scripture like the book of Enoch

[@Justinsatiable]

Daniel was not written as a literary unit. Some portions are quite late and some clearly not by Daniel.

[@danbreeden8738]

Great series and thorough explanation I wont ask for a shrubbery its unnecessary 😅

[@daviddavies4902]

Hi my name is David Davies I know Raymond Howard Lear. I he lived with me after he got out of prison

[@mjt532]

14:08 I suspect that the folk tales in ch's 1 through 6 were not well known in Judah. Many scholars have said that these texts were written to show Jews in Babylon how to live in the diaspora... and if so, they would not have been written in Judah... but in, or near Babylon. If these texts WERE in fact known in Judah before (and during) the 2nd century BC, it would seem to be very hard to produce a forgery with the added texts in ch's 7 through 12... at the end of ch's 1-6. (Which again, would be well-known in the 2nd century BC.) Likely, no people would have been fooled. (Or maybe I'm underestimating how easy it is to fool a lot of people.)

[@dpollard5286]

Have you read the 2021 article by Jonathan Mclatchie? It is very interesting.

[@Kyeudo]

Jonathan McLatchie is a known fraud.

[@mamamheus7751]

My two favourite subjects covered in one fascinating video: history and linguistics. Absolutely riveting viewing (I am such a geek lol). Am looking forward to the next vids in the series! I always question dating based on linguistics for a few reasons (although please understand that in general I do know how the process works - my area is more classical Greek and old English and I know some "tricks of the trade" so to speak), but my strongest reason for withholding "belief" is this: imagine that a text - maybe a story along the lines of Beowulf or some other epic tale - was written and became well known. However, over time, because of the natural changes in language, it became less understood. So that day's scholars "translate" it into the modern-day form of the language (say, mediaeval English as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon). More time passes and *all* physical evidence of the original text is gone. So now you have only the "modern" version telling an ancient story, but in itself is "old". Only its reputation of being a "very old story" remains, but there is no physical evidence. How could someone new to the story be expected to believe that what they see in front of them isn't just a folk tale or whatever written originally at the time of the only text that's available? If the "rewrite" was written in the contemporary English (in this case) but still in the epic poem style, who can *prove* that the translation isn't just a clever fiction written in the style of an ancient epic rather than what it was, an updating of the language but not of the style? I think it would be incredibly hard to prove that the original tale was ever written down or even existed before the "rewrite". Ok, this is an extreme example. Having other versions of the text etc can make the dating (at least tentatively) based on linguistics possible. But can we ever know for absolute certainty that the story we read was really from the date that the linguistics suggest? Ach, my brain is still in the process of rebooting - nowhere near enough caffeine in my system yet, so if the above is a pile of cr@p, please forgive me. I usually know what I'm talking about in this subject (in general rather than being an expert). I just have a "story-teller's mind" so do the "what if...?" thing a lot. It used to be "why?" Drove my family nuts. Still does 50+ years on... 😂

[@baberoot1998]

No...your analysis is very well thought out. Bravo. The problem I see with both, 'believers' and 'non-believers', (we both know what I mean...😎), is just how difficult it is...to be unbiased. There it is. The white elephant in the room. We all know it is there...yet, depending on ones bias...it is impossible to give a conclusion without a slant. People...even dedicated and educated people...work that way. In general. That is why...when I read your comment...I see 'unbiasness'. Which is the way it should be. I don't know if Daniel was written before or after, its alledged prophetic ancient writings. However...if...something is 'possible', it is still possible. Reason is good. Educated guesses is good. But the truth is...both sides, (the believers and the non-believers), still do not know for sure. So I raise an eyebrow...at either side...when they do not make it clear, that their 'opinion', 'conclusions', 'educated guesses' could still be wrong. Both sides...do this. Truth is...no one knows. Either side could be true. If one who 'believed' Daniel was earlier; used the author of this videos, logic...I could easily make an argument, using ideas like, 'Well there are so many other things pointing to God's existence, (Ontological argument, the idea, that to have creation, there must be a Creator, etc), that Daniel 'likely' was written before its prophecies. People...who have even the slightest bias...tend not to be honest with themselves. That...is the real problem, on both sides. All of that aside, I say bravo...to your thought process, and comment...I too think in terms such as you. I thoroughly enjoy reading someone's text...that draws conclusions, based on people and their tendencies... Great job. 👍☀️👍

[@matheussalespinheiro1428]

Hartman says the greek words are not antedate alexander but 2 words are found before that time one in homer works, only one are not found i don't have the book but seems wrong

[@deluxeassortment]

Is it possible for the Hebrew of Daniel be a translation from an earlier hebrew?

[@deluxeassortment]

@Hilmar Zonneveld Thanks, didnt realize there was another video on the topic. Definitely will.

[@tuejtn9734]

Ezra and Daniel were written in imperial Aramaic. It was more formal and very different. It makes sense considering they were both very high up in the Persian government. Based on this I believe you are wrong.

[@DrVictorVasconcelos]

How do you know that? Reject bad, sourceless scholarship from people who don't actually know Aramaic.

[@tuejtn9734]

@@DrVictorVasconcelos K A Kitchen, H H Rowley, and G R Driver. If you look unbiased at other Aramaic manuscripts at the time you’ll see the discrepancies.

[@stephaniewilson3955]

Why the silly mu sic in the background? It just makes it harder to hear what you are saying.

[@DigitalHammurabi]

We wanted to try something new, so we did. The music doesn't last past the introduction.

[@criticalmetaphysician6652]

@@DigitalHammurabi I liked the music in the intro!

[@TheProphetofLogic]

Click Bait, when I read the thumbnail, I said "Who's the lucky girl gonna be?".

[@livealive3323]

I'm going to push back in some statements above. John Collins is not a good model to follow regarding the Aramaic of Daniel. In his Hermeneia commentary Collins consistently attempts to resurrect the linguistic arguments of H.H. Rowley, which were refuted by K.A. Kitchen and later by E.Y. Kutscher. The latter arguments have now achieved broad consensus. Collins also misdates the terminus of Imperial Aramaic to 200 BC when most scholars recognize its terminus in 300 BC. Regarding Schaeder in Collins 1994:14, Kitchen (unlike Collins) correctly notes how Schaeder observes that, "in the transmission of Ezra and Daniel the later forms of current speech and of everyday writing (i.e. of the third century BC and later) have begun to make an impact on Ezra, and have replaced wholly the older form in Daniel, giving Old Testament scholars the superficial impression that the Aramaic of Daniel is ‘younger’ than that of Ezra. The change in pronominal forms has gone further in Daniel than in Ezra, but this does not automatically prove that such was already the case when the Aramaic parts of these books were actually composed." Kitchen also addresses the notion that the shift of d/z demonstrates any lateness in Daniel, and identifies it as an extraordinary faux pas by Rowley: "by the fifth century BC (as is illustrated by the Aramaic documents from Egypt) and beginning rather earlier, certain phonetic changes occurred in the spoken language, and occasionally appeared in the written documents. In speech, d [read with underline] was now pronounced as d, t [read with underline] â as t, ‘q’ as ‘. etc., and occasionally a scribe lapsed into actually writing these consonants instead of ‘historical’ z, š, q, etc., thus betraying the true state of affairs" (Kitchen, p. 53). Et al.

[@falnica]

Why is dating the book of Daniel more controversial than other ancient books?

[@jamiee7367]

Because it’s in the Bible.

[@falnica]

ancient books *in the bible?

[@jamiee7367]

Fernando Franco Félix ah. In that case, the dating of Daniel seems less controversial than for other biblical books, in that most of the only controversy comes from fundamentalists/biblical literalists supporting an early date. Other Biblical books have much less scholarly consensus than Daniel (Job, for example).

[@deluxeassortment]

Because the text of Daniel purports itself to be a book of prophecy, and proponents of the self-authentication of the Bible rely on fulfillment of prophecy and historicity as the only evidence of its authority.

[@Cat_Woods]

"Why is dating the book of Daniel more controversial than other ancient books?" Because of the interpretation games that were played by the believers in OT prophecy who wrote the NT. Their dating of Jesus' life was designed based on 70 "weeks of years" in prophecy. (It was 70 years in the original prophecy in Jeremiah that failed, so the book of Daniel reinterpreted the prophecy to mean 70 weeks of years to give it more time for it to be "fulfilled" despite being clearly false in the original sense.) If it was actually written hundreds of years after it says it's written, it shows that the "fulfilled" prophecies used to give Daniel credence were actually backdated from knowing what actually happened, and it totally screws up the prophetic numbers game that says that Daniel prophesied Jesus. The literalists hate that they are incorrect, so they deny the historical facts that contradict their belief, just like they deny biological, phylogenetic, paleontological, astronomical, cosmological, and all the other scientific facts that contradict a literalist reading of Genesis.

[@23uvas]

Cartoon Dr Josh!

[@olabaskerville]

Thank you so much for this video! As exJW I was taught about inspired Scriptures and 6th century B.C. book of Daniel as well as many others "teachings". So thanks again!

[@scintillam_dei]

JWs are heretics who deny the Trinity.

[@michaelsommers2356]

How different are Aramaic and Hebrew? If you know one, can you read the other?

[@DigitalHammurabi]

They are fairly similar, and knowing Hebrew definitely sets you well on your way, but it is a different language that has to be learned on its own. :-(

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@DigitalHammurabi That's what I expected, but I was hoping otherwise, that they'd be more like, say, Danish and Norwegian. Those guys who built the Tower of Babel have a lot to answer for.

[@johnrathbun2943]

I am no scholar nor am I educated in the subjects that were mentioned. But I find that the different written languages are perplexing. I'm wondering that not only did this text have different writers, but also at different times. Scholars back then and still to this date study certain books and are what you would call professionals in that book. I'm thinking that a later scholar noticed a prediction that hasn't come true and when it finally came true he finished the book. This would explain the discrepancies in different languages and the no author acknowledged.

[@oddsavage]

The cartoon guy with a ball on his lower half is kinda freaky. I keep thinking what happened to him and how did he get a roller ball attached, and can he go up steps and what if he has to pee?.... excellent video tho, I'm very much looking forward to parts 2 & 3.

[@theotheoth]

where is the transcript?

[@morielrorschach8090]

So... Because the dead sea scrolls were written using the correct spellings of words at the time they dead sea scrolls were written... He assumes the story itself could not predate the earliest copy found. ... This would be like finding an NIV, and concluding that the book of Genesis was written in the 20th century because of the language in that particular printing. ... This leaves you with asserting that "Daniel can't have been written before the events it predicts, because that would be evidence of explicit prophecy, and since we assume prophecy to be impossible, it must be assumed to be." Which isn't convincing.

[@ronaldlogan3525]

not at all. In the last of it, (see 14:16 ) he states that the story it's self would have been well known. He is not talking about the content of the story itself, only of the dating of the earliest materials found to contain the story. But you do make a good point, in that over the years, some writings can be found from earliler periods, some from later periods, and the prevelence does not tell us which was which.

[@jonbickle8815]

The word order of Daniel is consistent with 6th century BC Aramaic. And skeptics claim that daniel was written only 15 years before the date of the Dead Sea scrolls. There’s no way a book like that would have circulated that fast and become canonical

[@scintillam_dei]

By moving the goalpost to the Maccabean era, he misses one of the things he has the agenda to deny: that DaniEL corrrectly prophesied.... that Europe would conquer the world, based on Roman civilization.

[@morielrorschach8090]

​@@scintillam_dei More impressive, in my opinion: The Jehovah's Witnesses got a lot of flack at the turn of the 19th century because brother Russell believed that "the time of the gentiles" and "Israel being trampled underfoot" was related to the prophecy of Daniel 4, where a "tree" is chopped down and banded for "seven times" and then suddenly restored. If you presume each "time" were a 360 year period, modeled after a "360 day prophetic year," you get 2520 years. And if you presume a start date of the beginning of the BABYLONIAN captivity (607), 2520 years later would point to 1914. And since Israel had been destroyed for so long, there must be some other application, some major prophetic event. HOWEVER, 2 kings 22 also seems relevant. That's where you find the prophecy that, because Israel had forsaken their covenant, God would bring calamity (often translated "evil") upon that place. But, because Josiah was faithful, it would not start until after his death. Josiah died in 609 BCE (at the battle of Megiddo), at which point Israel lost sovereignty over the land (although they became a vassal state to Egypt for a couple years before Babylon came through the first time in 607, taking the first slaves (2 kings 25, 2 Chronicles 35-36, Daniel 1, Jeremiah 46, Ezekiel 1-10). If the "tree" Nebuchadnezzar dreamed of referred to the promised land belonging to Israel, that was taken away in 609. And if these are 7 periods of 365 years (rather than 360 ones), that means the "Tree" should be chopped down and banded for 2555 years. And 2555 years after Josiah's death would be 1947. The next year, Israel became an independent state again (1948). Israel was trampled by other nations for precisely 2555 years. They could claim that's a coincidence ... or try to claim that this proves Daniel wasn't written until after 1948?

[@metaldisciple]

@@jonbickle8815Jews also scrapped many scrolls they found to be a fraud. They were extremely strict

[@hermione3muller674]

please refrain from background music. i cannot understand a word you are saying.

[@moshemyym4627]

Townsley quotes Waltke as saying, "Rosenthal's studies have led him to conclude that the ‘Aramaic employed in Daniel was that which grew up in the courts and chancellors from the seventh century BC, and subsequently became widespread in the Near East’ (Waltke, pg. 322-323). ...Further, some syntactical forms found in Daniel did not survive past the fifth century BC, for example the preposition Ie before a king's name, and the Assur Ostracon (seventh century BC) which agrees with the word order in Daniel”. (Townsley 22nd paragraph) Aramaic is generally classified as follows (as recorded in Stefanovic p17): Old Aramaic (900-700 BC) Official Aramaic (700-300 BC) Middle Aramaic (300 BC - 200 AD) Late Aramaic (200 AD - 700 AD) Modern Aramaic (700 AD -the present) Stefanovic states in his conclusion “The text of DA (Daniel Aramaic) in its present form (including ch. 7) contains a significant amount of material similar to OA (Old Aramaic) texts.” (Stefanovic p108). He shows that Daniel’s Aramaic is similar on many levels to Old Aramaic or to the transitional period from Old Aramaic to Official Aramaic. His work takes into account literary correlations, grammatical correlations and syntactical correlations to other ancient Aramaic finds. Perhaps most surprising is the similarities between DA and the Tell Fakhriyah inscription (9th century). This inscription is both in Aramaic and Akkadian. Of the 95 different words found in it, 65 are also found in DA. (Stefanovic p61) The word-order of DA, is eastern in character and ‘comes closer to the Akkadian version of Tell Fakhriyah than to its Aramaic version’ (Stefanovic p106) www.markhaughwout.com/Bible/Dating_Daniel.pdf

[@osr4152]

Love this. How lucky we are to have actual scholars presenting scholarly opinions in a fun and easy to understand format.

[@RealGGnoREEE]

Blud shoulda done his research before making this video 💀💀💀

[@DigitalHammurabi]

Yeah, it's not like a decade of grad school, reading biblical Hebrew, and then hours researching for this video really counts...

[@RealGGnoREEE]

@@DigitalHammurabi Mr.Hammurabi, my concern isn’t necessarily your lack of research, because I understand that you have extensively examined various aspects of the book of Daniel. My concern is associated more with a lack of attention towards the common Christian responses to the linguistic and historical attacks on the books of Daniel. An article I would suggest reading is “The Authenticity of the Book of Daniel: A Survey of the Evidence,” so that some of your questions may be answered. Also, I saw your video on the prophecy of the destruction of Tyre, and I am curious, why would Daniel mention a few chapters later that Nebuchadnezzar would fail to take over tyre if the “many nations” was only talking about Nebuchadnezzar?

[@jonbickle8815]

The Aramaic in Daniel was written SOV, which is consistent with Imperial Aramaic. Aramaic from antiquity is written SVO. Funny how that isn’t mentioned in this video

[@calumbutter8959]

DH are clearly trying to distract us from the Jewish space lasers .

[@anthonyosorio1719]

that makes sense considering Daniels job... much is overlooked in this video, bad scholarship.

[@jonduke4748]

There are only 3 greek words all of which are instruments and these are located in a verse that describes many other instruments some from other far off cultures. Furthermore the words are not written greek but aramaic transliteration. Culture got around even back then. These very instruments have had their names used in documents that pre-date the estimation of this video.

[@NoName-fc3xe]

Nice Monty Python reference Dr Josh! Lol

[@NoName-fc3xe]

I just wanna know what he did to piss Dire Straits off so badly. He seems like a pretty chill guy.

[@gogreented]

I am a new subscriber 😀 I received this question from my religious friend “1- you are listening to one side of the story 2- the prophecies of Daniel go way to end of 20th century: is he arguing that Daniel was written in the 21st century? “ How should I respond? Thank you

[@anthonyosorio1719]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/a6uXlGd6rbl7nqc

[@kenmccracken5437]

Shouldn't any theory on the original date of Daniel also take into account elements in it that were long out of use or even lost by the Maccabean period? E.g; Quote _"The critics of the book of Daniel used to claim that the presence of the word "herald" in Dan. 3:4 meant that the book was of late origin. But, H. H. Schaeder was able to show that in fact this word was of Old Iranian origin. [Iranische Beitrage I (Halle, 1930) 56; Archer (1985): 20-21, Kitchen (1965): 144; Collins (1993): 14; see also the Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros by L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner (1958): 1087 -- cited by Baldwin (1978a): 102] Just the use of this word alone means that the book had to have been written long before the 2nd century (because knowledge of it had been lost) and that the book of Daniel was not written in Palestine."_ And, Quote _"Vasholz notes that certain syntactical forms did not survive past the 5th century B.C. (450 B.C.); such as the "preposition le- before a king's name in dates." [page 316; Kitchen (1965): 78; Coxon, (1977): 113-5, Emery, 71; contra Rowley The Aramaic of the Old Testament. (Oxford, 1929), 103]"_ www.tektonics.org/guest/danielblast.html www.learnassyrian.com/assyrianlibrary/assyrianbooks/Language/18%20The%20Aramaic%20of%20Daniel%20in%20the%20Light%20of%20Old%20Aramaic.pdf While your focus here is on the Aramaic of which I have zero knowledge, you also mentioned that the earlier chapters are "folktales". But this doesn't make sense of Ezekiel referencing Daniel to the Jews in Babylon as he was also an exile in Babylon at about the same time. And there is a big psychological/motivational problem if this was written down in the Macabbean period and tagged on to another collection of bogus writings purportedly by Daniel i.e. the later chapters. Daniel is not exactly a revolutionary zealot portrayed to inspire Macabbean insurrection, but a high official in these pagan kingdoms! Quote: _"They (Macabbean date proponents) have to show why Daniel paints such a positive picture of the relationship between the Hebrew captives and their foreign ruler in the days of the Maccabees. As J. G. Gammie wrote "the single, most outstanding weakness of the Maccabean theory of interpretation is that the king in chaps. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 is uncommonly friendly and sympathetic with the young Jewish members of his court. This portrait hardly suits the latter days of the hated Hellenizer, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. An acceptable interpretation of the book _*_must be able_*_ to provide an adequate explanation of so dominant a feature." [Gammie (1976): 191,_

[@DigitalHammurabi]

Patience, Ken. This is video #1. :-)

[@kenmccracken5437]

@@DigitalHammurabi Yes I understand your focus here is on the Aramaic which I have no competence in. As you say the earliest extant copies of Daniel are the Qumran ones. The difficulty is that the Aramaic here may involve some scribal updating of the language at the time of copying or progressively over a longer time. And linguistic elements such as I quoted earlier, which long ceased to be used or known by the Macabbean period need to be accounted for also. What's clear is that although the current scholarly majority consensus is Macabbean dating it's also true that scholars disagree among themselves about a lot of issues relating to the book of Daniel. I added a link to an article by Stefanovich to my original post which is not to say that this is somehow decisive, but to show that there is scholarly dissent when it comes to the linguistics, or more accurately when interpreting their significance. Of course this is just one element in the discussion and the arguments against a late date are various, though I accept you are only considering the Aramaic here.

[@VibrantlyBrantly]

Lieutenant Dan, you don't got no legs

[@Jesusexplains]

❤ 🤣 2Tim3:7 KJV Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Matt11:25 KJV … I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Ps12:6-7 6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. And God is well able to preserve his Word for the last generation in the KJV English.

[@acarpentersson8271]

Daniel is in the lxx, and in the dead sea scrolls. It would seem a bit forced to imagine it was added to both the Greek and Hebrew scriptures simultaneously. I don't think 50years is enough time for a new text to find its way into all copies and all languages like that. For this reason I would think it predates the Macabees. If the Jews were translating the Tanak into Greek a century earlier, I don't think they would just add a new text that wasn't already present in their Hebrew scripture. It would need to be there long enough to be accepted as scripture. This would put it back to around 350bc, minimum.

[@danielgrotz6599]

Most people do date the first 7 chapters of Daniel earlier, around that time. It's only the prophetic chapters that get dated close to Qumran and the septuagint.

[@Greyz174]

Septuagint Daniel has the greek additions in it, so it's not like they were super careful about not letting unoriginal texts into the septuagint

[@acarpentersson8271]

@@Greyz174 Unoriginal doesn't mean unaccepted. It takes time to get people to accept something and have that spread to various scribes who are all making copies by hand. People back then were set in their ways every bit as much as we are now. The people of the Middle East seem to be even more set in their ways and more resistant to change than the rest of humanity. If this is any indication to what it was like a couple to three millennials ago, then change is slow. Change almost always happens with the young. It's not until one generation of leaders due, and their dogma with them. It's typically nott a drastic change from 1 generation to another, but happens little by little.

[@Greyz174]

@@acarpentersson8271 it's not a law of the universe that everything that people accept must have been vetted by a few generations The text of the septuagint was evidently edited from the original in order to include (at least) the greek additions to Daniel. That means that additions were allowed after the 300s BC. A grand narrative about how people are "set in their ways" isn't supposed to be a law of human behavior that must be applied to every situation that can be used as a response that overrides specific evidence that the book was written as a response to the ongoing war and that people seemed to like it so they kept it

[@Solomon-Grundy76]

" Dating Daniel" Nah, I think we are better off as friends.

[@Dash_023]

How do you explain Josephus' reference to Alexander the Great's reading of Daniel in Antiquities? Around 332 BC, Alexander the Great was "shewed" the book of Daniel and he recognized the many passages that referred to his conquests. See Antiquities 10 and 11.

[@Dash_023]

How do you explain why Daniel, if written in the 2nd century BC, didn't write as "contemporary" Greeks wrote in the 2nd century? Why would a 2nd century Daniel refer to himself in the first person who wrote the book when he was serving Nebuchadnezzar in the time of Nebuchadnezzar? Are you saying the writer in the 2nd century lied? And why wouldn't more of the book be in Greek since Greek was the language of the 2nd century BC? Why is Daniel just like Ezra - and everyone acknowledges Ezra's early dating? Oh, and Daniel did get historical details correct. He especially got Jesus' crucifixion date correct in Daniel 9, which came 483 years after the Decree of Artaxerxes in 444 BC (360 day Jewish calendar).

[@DigitalHammurabi]

I am currently on vacation with Megan, but In light of the demands for immediate response by SJ Thomason, I have done a bit of research into what scholars in the field have said about Josephus’s description of Alexander the Great coming to Jerusalem and reading the Book of Daniel. Let me give a quick summary of what Josephus says, and then I will cite several scholars and their opinions. Again, this is the result of but a small amount of research, and I would be very excited for any scholars who specialize in the period to add to or correct what I write here. The story can be found in Josephus, Antiquities11, chapters 7-8. Yaddua was high priest when Alexander began his conquest. Yaddua’s brother, Manasseh, married the daughter of the governor of Samaria, Sanballat. The elders of Jerusalem ordered Manasseh to divorce her, or to step down from the priesthood. Sanballat offered to establish a temple on Mt. Gerizim, and that Manasseh would serve as high priest there. He also swore that he would get Darius III’s permission to do so. Others from Jerusalem who had intermarried followed Manasseh. Darius then squares off against Alexander at Issos, and thinking that Darius would defeat Alexander, Sanballat told Manasseh that he would approach him after the conflict. Alexander won, and moved south to Damascus, Sidon, and then to Tyre. From there, Alexander sent word to Yaddua, commanding him to provide assistance and tribute. Yaddua responded that he had sworn an oath to Darius, and he could not go back on it. Alexander then determined to attack Yaddua after taking Tyre. After Tyre, Alexander went to Gaza and besieged it. When Sanballat saw what happened between Alexander and Darius, he switched allegiance to Alexander and sent men to help with the siege against Tyre. He then requested permission to build the temple on Mt. Gerizim, which was granted. Sanballat died nine months later. When Alexander finally began to move toward Jerusalem, Yaddua sought God’s help and protection. God came to him in a dream and told him not to fear, but to welcome Alexander. When Alexander came, Yaddua and the priests met him on the way, outside of the city. Those with Alexander thought that he would destroy and plunder Jerusalem and kill Yaddua, but instead Alexander showed them favor, and ultimately entered Jerusalem, sacrificed to God, and was shown the Book of Daniel, which he interpreted as referring to himself. The argument here concerns the dating of Daniel. If it existed to be shown to Alexander at the time of his arrival, it must have been written much earlier than the second century. As a general note, we need to remember that Josephus is not simply an unbiased historian (should such a thing even exist), but has his own agenda in writing his accounts. Concerning Josephus’s representation of the Book of Daniel in Antiquities, Collins writes, “Joesphus follows the biblical account fairly closely, but with some interesting embellishments. Thus he reports that some of the Jewish youths were made eunuchs (§186) and that Daniel and his companions ‘resolved to live austerely’ (§190). He also attempts to resolve some historical problems. Thus Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2) is dated to the second year after the sacking of Egypt rather than to the second year of his reign (§195); Belshazzar (Baltasares) is ‘also called Naboandelos’ (Nabonidus; §231); and Darius the Mede is a son of Astyages and known by another name among the Greeks (§248)” (Collins 1993: 85). In other words, Josephus is doing something with his writing, and it would be unwise to simply take what he says at face value. It seems as though scholars take this approach when it comes to the story of Alexander and Jerusalem. I will quote from Peter Green, Celicia Peek, and Jonathan Goldstein below, but their overall opinions appear to be that, while it is possible that Alexander may have come to Jerusalem, it seems very unlikely. Instead, this fictional or legendary story may have served as an explanation and encouragement, showing how God remains in control, despite the ruler in power, and obeying such earthly powers is not necessarily in conflict with serving God. Concerning Alexander’s Trip to Jerusalem: “Alexander spent little time on Palestine, having other goals in mind, and late accounts (in particular that of Josephus), claiming that he made a special journey to Jerusalem, indeed offered sacrifice there, are mere ex post factolegends, put out by pious ideologues determined to show that the legendary world conqueror knew a true Holy City when he saw one.” Peter Green, Alexander to Actium(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990) 499 “Consider the visit of Alexander the Great to Jerusalem after his conquest of Tyre in 332 B.C. Greek historians make no mention of this visit; in fact, no surviving non-Jewish source mentions any connection between Alexander and the Jews. The Jewish historian Josephus is the earliest extant author to record a visit by Alexander to Jerusalem. The tradition behind Josephus’s narrative is obscure at best. It is possible that Alexander visited Jerusalem, but the preserved descriptions of his visit are almost certainly fictional, ‘mereex post factolegends.’” This is not to say that Josephus’s account is therefore without historical value. Albiet untrustworthy in reconstructing the facts of history, it does offer valuable insight into at least one Jewish view of the appropriate relationship between the Jews and a Greek ruler.” Celicia M. Peek, “Alexander the Great Comes to Jerusalem: The Jewish Response to Hellenism” BYU Studies36/3 (1996) 104-105 “None of these legends can be true. Pagan eye-witnesses chronicled Alexander’s career, and though their works have perished, later writers were able to draw upon them, particularly Arrian. The pagan authors took pains to record the king’s visits to the shrines of non-Greek deities and his participation in their rituals, especially during the years 333-331 B.C.E. when he was in the vicinity of Judaea. Throughout, the pagan Alexander historians tell how the king showed respect to deities, and there is no reason to assume that they would have suppressed a report that Alexander made obesience to the God of the Jews or even to His high priest. On the other hand, if Alexander had made obesience to any human being, as related in Josephus and in the rabbinic tale, the fact would have been so astounding that no biographer of the king would have passed over it in silence.” Jonathan Goldstein, “Alexander and the Jews” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research59 (1993) 70-71 Concerning Why Josephus Wrote the Story: “It is said that the account of Alexander’s arrival and that of his epiphany must originally have been two distinct narratives, which are thematically irreconciliable: the former demonstrates Jewish submission to Alexander, while the latter demonstrates Alexander’s submission to the God of the Jews. However, is it not the very disjunction between the narratives that accurately characterizes the tension in the relationship between Alexander and the Jewish people? The story as a whole represents an effort to clarify and relieve that tensin by defining the Jewish place in a world dominated by the Hellenistic world-conqueror. The hard fact is that the Jews must acknowledge the temporaloverlordship of the victorious Alexander and, by extension, whichever of his successors should control Palestine. But their lives are also governed by their God and the laws established by him, and He takes precedence.” Peek 1996: 106-107 “Fanciful though Josephus’s account of Alexander the Great’s visit to Jerusalem may be, it is powerful metaphor. It commemorates and contemplates the introduction of Hellenism to Judea.” Ibid., 107 “The legend in Josephus teaches multiple lessons. The author believes that normally Jews must be loyal to the pagan king God has placed over them, but also that signs from the LORD can indicate that Jews should switch their loyalty when He has replaced one such ruler by another. Furthermore, even in this age of their punitive servitude, God’s providence protects His chosen people. Even the greatest pagan potentate was a mere instrument of the LORD.” Goldstein 1993: 90

[@FrustratedAtheist]

@@DigitalHammurabi Very well researched. With so many citations, it's clear now about the Josephus account of Alexander the Great.

[@Dash_023]

@@DigitalHammurabi Thanks for taking time on your vacation. To sum up your response, it seems you think Josephus is "biased" with an "agenda" who felt it wise to perpetuate a "legend." You also make an argument from silence. I disagree. But I appreciate your time.

[@webdev2012jquery]

@@Dash_023 you nagged him for an answer and when he gave it to you. You can't even provide why you disagree? that's it?

[@RealGGnoREEE]

What a joke. Fails to mention that even if the book were written in second century BC, it would still contain a sizeable portion of fulfilled prophecy relating to the coming of Jesus and the Roman Empire. If bro has any experience studying these books he either didn’t listen or is purposefully ignoring certain facts 💀

[@user-vm7kv4yx8n]

Not Roman Empire but the Seleucid Empire.

[@RealGGnoREEE]

@@user-vm7kv4yx8n it literally predicts that it splits in two, and like other things that apply specifically to Rome. Even if what you say is true, there’s no ignoring the exact year provided for Jesus’ future ministry

[@mirandarogers1558]

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

[@calumbutter8959]

yawn.

[@tommythomas5970]

What does that even mean? It has nothing to do with this conversation.

[@billyb7465]

What is the relevance?

[@walkerflocker7811]

Hello from the future

[@calumbutter8959]

What? You're from the past, not future.

[@walkerflocker7811]

@@calumbutter8959 now I'm from the future again

[@danielmiller6605]

"A precises' dating is not possible" This is your best evidence? "It is impossible to pinpoint when, by whom theses passages were written and then edited" So I will take your advise and say how do you know that. Thank you for admitting you just don't know.

[@rainbowbright7031]

Dating/Daniel this. Is not good digital Ham....no way!!!! What's going on here???? And it's from a year ago,,,,,,wtf,,,,,,,

[@Amateur0Visionary]

He got the things wrong about the 6th century because he was using his falable human memory. He got the later things correct because he was using God's perfect revelation. (Not my belief, I'm just repeating apologetics I've heard. I would be surprised if you don't get more comments sincerely making the above claim.)

[@Amateur0Visionary]

Hey, you guys noticed me! How sweet :) Much love, and I'm looking forward to part two!

[@Amateur0Visionary]

@Hilmar Zonneveld I do agree. However, the point I'm parroting is that the parts that are less accurate are from his own memory and not part of the "divine revelation" of prophecy. But yes, there's no reason why it shouldn't all be precisely accurate. One would think a prophet of God could handle that.

[@Jesusexplains]

THIS IS ONE EXAMPLE WHY Jesus chose his disciples mostly from the unlearned and ignorant and not from the seminaries of his day. Imagine how their “learned pride” would have had them fighting 🥹 🤨

[@ronester1]

not to mention Jesus affirms Daniel as prophetic scripture surely he would have know differently if it were so

[@joecaner]

Dating Danial? No thank you. He's not my type.

[@dubosekapeluck8325]

Going to have to do a whole lot better than this.

[@lionofamos]

"belshazzar didn't exist." - this youtuber had this video set been made in the 19th century.

[@DigitalHammurabi]

Who said Belshazzar didn’t exist?

[@lionofamos]

@@DigitalHammurabi every scholar prior to the discovery of the cylinder of nabonidus.

[@jake2may1]

When I was an atheist I also thought this book consisted as “folk tales” since then I hold the book of Daniel up as absolutely the truth.

[@Esoteric.Autochthon]

You were never an atheist. There is nothing "truthful" about Daniel.

[@jake2may1]

@@Esoteric.Autochthon I use my real name you don’t

[@Esoteric.Autochthon]

@@jake2may1 You're still a fraud.

[@NoName-fc3xe]

I always like Daniel Better than Ezra. 🤪

[@southernsuccubus420]

Lol wish there was a laugh reaction on KZbin comments

[@NoName-fc3xe]

@@southernsuccubus420 😆🤣😆🤣😆🤣

[@chrisschroder3812]

😂🤣

[@AreJay_]

Ehhhh WRONG.

[@DigitalHammurabi]

Looking forward to your peer-reviewed publications that challenge the consensus position provided.

[@AreJay_]

@@DigitalHammurabi trying to disprove the authenticity of The Word of GOD is like trying to move an immovable object 😇 Its pointless

[@DigitalHammurabi]

@@AreJay_ Cool story bruh.

[@DigitalHammurabi]

@@AreJay_ And yet you chose to watch the video...

[@AreJay_]

@@DigitalHammurabi thought it was going to have useful and accurate information. The book of Daniel predicted the rise and fall of 3 empires following the Babylonian Empire. And if you read chapter 2 it actually describes the time we are in right now. The feet of iron and clay. But of course those who hate GOD will always find a way to excuse truth.

[@TheLocalChurchExperience]

Even if Daniel was written 30 years before the birth of Jesus, Daniel is still accurately predicting the Messiah and how He was cut off. Still predicting the 70 Ad desolation of Jerusalem, still predicted the rise and fall of the Roman empire. Still has yet to be fullfilled future suppression/persecution of believers.

[@anthonymarlowe6986]

No pagan jewish imaginary been Jesus never existed Warned peoples beware of false prophets. Yet falsely prophesied his return second coming of judgment day 2000 years ago CE never happened it's evil zionist lies from the pagan zionist bible. Daniel is a fictional characters who never existed. Abraham moses Joshua David Solomon Jesus all the old testament patriarch are fictional characters who never existed and never wrote the old testament. Old testament was written by anonymous authors Jesus his disciples Matthew mark luke and John Paul all fictional characters who never existed never wrote the new testament news testament was written by anonymous authors that says a lot you know what that means anonymous authors Luzuko not by imaginary been who never existed and supertious claims that never happened.

[@KC-GOD-IS.]

"Scholars" do not, on the hole, look at the book of Daniel in a spiritual stance. They see it in a physical means. To be a true scholar, you must ask and receive the Holy Spirit to understand any and all things. The book of Daniel was written all at one time during the Babylonion empire before the Hebrews returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple.

[@rc7625]

Oh please, stfu 🙄

[@metaldisciple]

Awful arguments

[@DigitalHammurabi]

Good one.