Through an investigation of the hermeneutical and archeological evidence available, Yamauchi argues that there is little reason to doubt that Daniel should be attributed to the sixth century B.C.
Archaeological Background
The main idea of this article is to reason that the available archaeological evidence testifies to a sixth century dating of the book of Daniel. First, Yamauchi explores the considerations given to Nebuchadnezzar. Here, the author brings into question the idea of the historical validity of a Babylonian campaign against Jerusalem. Yamauchi points to Wiseman’s observation that “the Chaldean Chronicles…indicate that Nebuchadnezzar claims to have conquered ‘all Hatti land,’ that is, Palestine, in 605, proving that an actual …show more content…
The two reasons why are because he does presents quality evidence clearly and does not fail to acknowledge the other side properly and the refences Yamauchi utilizes are helpful, especially in the way of his Porphyry …show more content…
For example, in the article in which he addresses archaeological issues, he spends a large amount of time on the historical claims surrounding Nebuchadnezzar. In this section, Yamauchi gives roughly three arguments as to how the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and the events that took place during his rule all support a sixth century dating of Daniel. The strongest of which might be his discussion on the term Chaldean, regarded by many as an anachronism. He claims “underwent an evolution similar to the word Magi…and gradually came to mean “astrologer” or magician” (6). In this discussion, Yamauchi proves the term is not an anachronism and could have been used in the sixth century B.C. because the term Chaldean could also refer to astrologers by saying that “The Chaldeans…established their own kingdom under Nabopolassar and his great son, Nebuchadnezzar, must have inherited the established traditions of astronomical observation from Babylonian scholars”
Archaeological Background
The main idea of this article is to reason that the available archaeological evidence testifies to a sixth century dating of the book of Daniel. First, Yamauchi explores the considerations given to Nebuchadnezzar. Here, the author brings into question the idea of the historical validity of a Babylonian campaign against Jerusalem. Yamauchi points to Wiseman’s observation that “the Chaldean Chronicles…indicate that Nebuchadnezzar claims to have conquered ‘all Hatti land,’ that is, Palestine, in 605, proving that an actual …show more content…
The two reasons why are because he does presents quality evidence clearly and does not fail to acknowledge the other side properly and the refences Yamauchi utilizes are helpful, especially in the way of his Porphyry …show more content…
For example, in the article in which he addresses archaeological issues, he spends a large amount of time on the historical claims surrounding Nebuchadnezzar. In this section, Yamauchi gives roughly three arguments as to how the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and the events that took place during his rule all support a sixth century dating of Daniel. The strongest of which might be his discussion on the term Chaldean, regarded by many as an anachronism. He claims “underwent an evolution similar to the word Magi…and gradually came to mean “astrologer” or magician” (6). In this discussion, Yamauchi proves the term is not an anachronism and could have been used in the sixth century B.C. because the term Chaldean could also refer to astrologers by saying that “The Chaldeans…established their own kingdom under Nabopolassar and his great son, Nebuchadnezzar, must have inherited the established traditions of astronomical observation from Babylonian scholars”