Traditionally, the Book of Daniel was believed to have been written by its namesake during and shortly after the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century BC. Although this view continues to be held by traditionalist Christians and conservative Jews, it has been rejected by most of the scholarly community since the end of the nineteenth century[citation needed]. While a number of conservative scholars accept a sixth century date, "for mainline scholarship... these issues were decided at least a century ago"[citation needed] Even leading evangelical scholars have recently adopted this position, while in the Roman Catholic community it has been the norm since World War II. [29] Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated and looted the Jerusalem Temple around 167 BC, outlawed the Jewish religion, massacred observant Jews and precipitated a national crisis that is commemorated to this day in the Feast of Hanukkah (which recalls the rededication of the temple). The Book of Daniel (in its final form) is written, according to the liberal view, in response to that crisis. Even when the fourth kingdom of chapters two and seven began to be reapplied to Rome in pre-Christian and early Christian times the memory of Antiochus was still vivid. This is evidenced by the fact that leading Jewish and patristic commentators such as Josephus, Hippolytus, and Jerome continued to apply sections of Daniel (especially chapter 8 ) to the activities of Antiochus.
Traditionalists, making a case for an earlier date for the Book of Daniel, make reference to Josephus, who states that upon Alexander the Great's approach, a small party met him outside of Jerusalem with a copy of the book of Daniel, telling him that his presence was ordained by scripture. However, most scholars agree that this story is not true.[30] Harvard scholar Shaye J. D. Cohen denies the historicity of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem and suggests that the Alexander story is a combination of several sources.[31] the earliest copies og the book of Daniel are among the Dead Sea scrolls found at Qumran dating from the 2nd century BC. These scrolls include several manuscript fragments and three substantial manuscripts of Daniel dating from the late 2nd-cent BC[32] to the first century AD. The premise is that there must have been much time between the original writing and the copying of the manuscripts found at Qumran, since it would have taken time for the book to have gained acceptance and be made available for copying.[33] However, the relatively large number of copies at Qumran can be explained as due to the current (at the time) popularity of this perhaps recently "published" book. Of considerable significance, is the fact that the Book of Daniel was originally grouped with the Hebrew Nevi'im (the Prophets) and ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ belonged to the Ketuvim (the writings) many centuries afterward, reaffirming an early date. 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. [34] In addition, the canon of the Prophets (Nevi'im) was closed by about 200 BC with the composition of Malachi[35]. The apocryphal book of Sirach, written about 180 BC, contains a long section (chapters 44-50) in praise of "famous men" from Jewish history that does not include Daniel nor does it contain Ezra and a number of other people. However I Maccabees, composed about 100 BC, repeats much of that list with the addition of Daniel and the three youths in the fiery furnace, leading to the conclusion that these stories were likely added to Hebrew literature sometime after 180 BC.[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Da ... nd_content
Traditionalists, making a case for an earlier date for the Book of Daniel, make reference to Josephus, who states that upon Alexander the Great's approach, a small party met him outside of Jerusalem with a copy of the book of Daniel, telling him that his presence was ordained by scripture. However, most scholars agree that this story is not true.[30] Harvard scholar Shaye J. D. Cohen denies the historicity of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem and suggests that the Alexander story is a combination of several sources.[31] the earliest copies og the book of Daniel are among the Dead Sea scrolls found at Qumran dating from the 2nd century BC. These scrolls include several manuscript fragments and three substantial manuscripts of Daniel dating from the late 2nd-cent BC[32] to the first century AD. The premise is that there must have been much time between the original writing and the copying of the manuscripts found at Qumran, since it would have taken time for the book to have gained acceptance and be made available for copying.[33] However, the relatively large number of copies at Qumran can be explained as due to the current (at the time) popularity of this perhaps recently "published" book. Of considerable significance, is the fact that the Book of Daniel was originally grouped with the Hebrew Nevi'im (the Prophets) and ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ belonged to the Ketuvim (the writings) many centuries afterward, reaffirming an early date. 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. [34] In addition, the canon of the Prophets (Nevi'im) was closed by about 200 BC with the composition of Malachi[35]. The apocryphal book of Sirach, written about 180 BC, contains a long section (chapters 44-50) in praise of "famous men" from Jewish history that does not include Daniel nor does it contain Ezra and a number of other people. However I Maccabees, composed about 100 BC, repeats much of that list with the addition of Daniel and the three youths in the fiery furnace, leading to the conclusion that these stories were likely added to Hebrew literature sometime after 180 BC.[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Da ... nd_content
