Daniel was apparently taken by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon along with other Judean hostages in 605 b.c., following a Babylonian attempt to subjugate Judah.
#DATING THE BOOK OF DANIEL FULL#
The period of time covered by the historical and visionary sections of the book is slightly in excess of the full period of Heb. VSS it occurs as the fourth major composition in the prophetic writings, following the order of the Alexandrian canon.ġ. This book was placed in the Ketuḇim or third section of the Heb. Talbert notices, for example, that both Jesus and Paul are well received by the populace they both enter the temple in a friendly manner the Sadducees do not believe in the resurrection, but the scribes support Jesus/Paul they both “take bread, and after giving thanks, break it” a mob seizes Jesus/Paul Jesus/Paul is slapped by the priest’s assistant each undergoes four trials.Since the same source adds other, and other secure epistles with the information about Paul given in Acts.Three alleged discrepancies are particularly striking: (1) the number of visits Paul made to Jerusalem given in Acts and that given in Galatians and (3) Paul’s attitude toward the OT Law.This is all the more reason to accept Lukan authorship, for this is the unanimous testimony from the fathers: “Granted that an ancient scholar might have deduced from the prologue to the Gospel that the author was not an apostle and from the ‘we’ sections of Acts that he was a companion of Paul, he still would have had no means of putting a name to the author if there had not been a valid tradition connecting the books with the name of Luke.” Assuming that Luke penned the gospel which bears his name, what do we know about him (apart from his occupation)?First, he was probably a Gentile since he is mentioned separately from the “men of the circumcision” in Colossians 4.It would also mean that the author could not be any of those companions of Paul who are mentioned by name in these sections (Silas, Timothy, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, Trophimus).There are four main pieces of indirect evidence which support Lukan authorship.DANIEL, BOOK OF Dăn’ yĕl ( דָּֽנִיֵּ֜אל), LXX Δανιήλ, G1248. Surely he received many first person reports (both written and oral) for the composition of both books.Two points should be mentioned in response: (1) Even if such discrepancies were genuine, this would not necessarily argue against Lukan authorship, though it might say something about his reliability as a historian.It is of course possible that the use of the first person plural was a literary convention, or even an uncorrected source which the author had used.This view suggests that he was careful to change the first person plural all the way through both Luke and Acts until Acts 16!Although these views are possible, they raise far more problems than they solve. ” person, and that a physician would fit this picture well.īeyond this there is very little information within the NT. As Caird quips, if we should now appeal to Hobart’s tome, “this would make doctors of almost all the writers of antiquity. In which he argued that where Matthew and Mark use common, everyday terms, Luke often used medical terms in describing Jesus’ healings.
Cadbury three decades later (1920), who pointed out that Luke’s language was no different than that of any educated person. Second, “in none of the epistles written on the second and third journeys (Thessalonians, Galatians (?Īssuming Markan priority for the synoptic problem, this might explain how Luke got access to Mark’s gospel.
Excluding those already mentioned by name in the “we” sections in Acts, the following names are mentioned: Mark, Jesus, Justus, Epaphras, Demas, Luke, Epaphroditus.