The following article is not new. But it is new to me. And anything that adds credibility to sacred scripture should be given as widespread coverage as humanly possible.
The Ministry Magazine article was the January 1992 issue. It is copied from the website
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/
where you can read the 13 page article.
"Thus the canonical acceptance of the book of Daniel at Qumran suggests an earlier origin of the book than the second century B.C. In 1969, based on the evidence available at that time regarding the Qumran Daniel texts, Roland K. Harrison had already concluded that the second century dating of the book of Daniel was 'absolutely precluded by the evidence from Qumran, partly because there are no indications whatever that the sectaries compiled any of the biblical manuscripts recovered from the site, and partly be cause there would, in the latter event, have been insufficient time for Maccabean compositions to be circulated, venerated, and accepted as canonical Scripture by a Maccabean sect.'45
Subsequent to this, he stated that based on the Qumran manuscripts, 'there can no longer be any possible reason for considering the book as a Maccabean product.' 46 The most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts confirm this conclusion.47"
No comments:
Post a Comment