How the Septuagint PROVES Early Authorship of Daniel.

In this video, we demonstrate how the Septuagint translation of Daniel 3 is evidence for early authorship.

The Old Testament started to be translated into Greek in 286 BC at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt for the Alexandrian Library.

If the Critics date of 165 BC for the original Daniel is true, then the LXX translation of it should be accurate, right? This video explores that period and puts the Critical View to the test.

Click Here to Support:

Music provided by No Copyright Music:

Epic Music provided by AShamaluevMusic
Track Info: Epic Motivation - AShamaluevMusic.

#justscripture #bookofdaniel #defendingthefaith

[JustScriptureMinistries]

Thanks for watching. Please leave a comment.

[karaluckton]

Excellent argument. Your video has answered a lot of questions I've been struggling to find solid answers to. Thanks for putting this together. And praise be to God for the amazing ways he reveals his glory!

[rakovsky]

Thanks for your Daniel videos. In the opening of your video, you noted that the Dead Sea Scrolls have Daniel chapters 1 to 11 in Semitic, but since they don't have the special Greek LXX parts in chapters 3, 13, and 14, then those parts must just have been written originally in Greek, not Semitic. This conclusion however, is unlikely for a few reasons. First, we have two major ancient Greek translations of Daniel, one called the Old Greek Version, from the BC era, and Theodotion's version, from the 2nd century AD. These two Greek translations are quite different from each other, including in the special LXX sections like chapters 13 to 14, implying that the translators were working from a Semitic original. This is because if the Greek translators were working from a Greek original for those special LXX chapters, then they would have just copied the same Greek words instead of producing different translations. Second, the DSS haven't been found to include Daniel 12 either, but we haven't concluded from this lack that there must not have been an original Semitic text for Daniel 12. The same logic applies to the special LXX chapters too.
You asserted later that the 3 special LXX sections (like "Susanna and the Elders") were added in ~100 BC, but where do you get this date for the addition? A guess based on your graph is that you could be thinking that the LXX was written in the period from the 3rd century BC up until 100 BC, that Daniel must have been written in Semitic by the time of 1 Macc in 134 BC, and that therefore the additions must have been made soon after 1 Macc, like in 100 BC. But conceivably, if Daniel was written in Semitic from c. 516 BC under Persia until c. 163 BC under the Greeks, then those special LXX chapters could have been written at that same time or later, that is, any time from c. 516 BC until 100 BC. Conceivably, Daniel even wrote a Semitic version without the special LXX chapters and then wrote those three special sections himself. Then, the DSS community could have just chosen to preserve the shorter version of Daniel, without either version being wrong. The NT is a bit like that. We actually have different versions of NT texts, and conceivably both versions are correct. For instance, we have both a short version of Mark 16 and a long one for Mark 16. Conceivably Mark or another approved apostle could have added the longer ending.
Third, you quote authoritatively Josephus at 10 minutes into your video as asserting that no additions were made to any Biblical books. This assertion goes in favor of the special LXX sections to Daniel as being original, not assertions. Jesus actually quoted from the Old Greek Version of Daniel 9, not the Masoretic, when he warned about the abomination of desolation standing in the temple or holy place. Only the Greek LXX version contains that specific reference in Daniel 9. The Old Greek Version of Daniel does not mark the three special LXX sections as being different or additions.

[vegetasapologetics]

I cant find your take on Daniel being in the lxx in 100 bc. It is also said that this true from online sources. If you can help...how do we know that Daniel was in the lxx by 100 bc? Thanks

[realmless]

Critics do include other books, particularly the five feast books (Esther, Ruth, Lamentations, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes) in the Greek period.

[RAJohns]

But what about "Seal up the words of this book until the end times" ? Daniel obeyed that, but somebody jumped the gun a little bit. However, I do believe that was generally obeyed because the words of the book were not compiled and written down until 165 BC, shortly before it was copied into the Septuagint. .I believe the end times was 33-70 AD: Matthew 16:28 You used John Walvoord who was so wrong about when Jesus' would return.

[Greyz]

So if the apparently failed part of Daniel 11:40 onwards is just about an evil anti Christ guy _like_ Antiochus and we're just in the middle of a 2000+ year gap in the prophecy waiting for it to happen, can you tell me how in the world youd know that a prophecy ever failed? Or can we just unfalsifiably push all of the ones without an explicit time limit into the future forever?

[luchofer]

That is not true. The book of Daniel is considered a forgery for many reasons. Fighting against faith is not one of them.

[servantofthelord.]

According to *The Bible Readers Encyclopaedia and Concordance* in my KJV Bible, the following is stated.

"Author. Conservative critics have never doubted that Daniel was the author, and the many recent findings of archaeology have verified the historicity of the book and confirmed the assurance that Daniel wrote it!"

So as Almighty God decided it was to be put into the Holy Oracles of God, in effect, it wouldn't really matter who was the author.


All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all
good works".
2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV)

As Christ might say to those who disagree and are endlessly seeking to find faults and "Strain at gnats".
"Oh! ye of little faith why do you doubt?"...

[stevenv]

Why would you assume the traditional account of how the Septuagint came about? Why wouldn't there be bad translations? The translations get progressively worse in the later books while earlier books' translation were corrected over time.