As mentioned, I don’t in principle object to the idea that the final composition of the book could have been assembled at a much later date, or even that the book was re-written and updated at that time. But every Scholarly study I have read that argues for a late date of the origin of the material simply depends far too much on anti-supernatural presuppositions. The disbelief in accurate predictions is part of it. The same argument is used to argue late composition for the Gospels, because Jesus could never have predicted with such accuracy the fall of Jerusalem. And his discussions certainly had a certain apocalyptic style to them.
, some of the “historical problems“ strike me as a bit labored, they give me the impression of someone determined to find an error whether or not it is actually there, and give no benefit of doubt or academic caution… . Reminds me of the egg on the face of previous generations of scholars that critiqued the book of Daniel because it had invented wholesale this completely fictional Belshazzer character…
You mean its lack of reference from any extant pre-Maccabean literature, of course.
But even so, this seems a selective or arbitrary standard, if we are going to exclude Ezekiel’s references to Daniel… Daniel’s character and ministry must have been significant, familiar, and famous enough in Ezekiel’s day for Daniel to be referenced alongside Job and Noah, and for Ezekiel to reference his wisdom. Granted it is not an explicit reference to anything contained in the book, but there must have been some significant extant information about Daniel and his ministry in Ezekiel’s day for him to make a passing reference and assume his audience would understand the reference, no?
Linguistic anachronisms would be easily explained by a later redactor.
But, for what it is worth, I have trouble with any argument based on when God did or did not choose to reveal transcendent truth about resurrection. The idea that resurrection is anachronistic, I find problematic. Elisha witnessed an actual resurrection, Ezekiel saw a valley of bones resurrected, I cannot help but see hints of resurrection in Job. If there is no afterlife and/or resurrection, then what sense Do we make of Enoch’s departure, or that of Elijah? They Simply departed into sheol by a different route?
To some degree it reminds me of the arguments against Paul’s authorship of the pastoral’s, because they exhibit “anachronistic” theology, And here, like elsewhere, I remain extremely skeptical of search methods. To borrow from Lewis one more time (granted he was speaking about NT criticism, but I find the principle applies also to OT criticism as well)…
The sort of statement that arouses our deepest scepticism is the statement that something in a Gospel cannot be historical because it shows a theology or an ecclesiology too developed for so early a date. For this implies that we know, first of all, that there was any development in the matter, and secondly, how quickly it proceeded. It even implies an extraordinary homogeneity and continuity of development: implicitly denies that anyone could greatly have anticipated anyone else. This seems to involve knowing about a number of long dead people…things of which I believe few of us could have given an accurate account if we had lived among them; all the forward and backward surge of discussion, preaching, and individual religious experience. I could not speak with similar confidence about the circle I have chiefly lived in myself. I could not describe the history even of my own thought as confidently as these men describe the history of the early Church’s mind.
As mentioned earlier, I don’t have any significant issue with a late or Maccabean final redaction, perhaps even one that selected and arranged and retold Daniels ministry or prophecies specifically for the needs of the current community.
However, I pray you will forgive me, but I have always been skeptical of this kind of thinking in general. I have run into the same rationale when people argue against Paul’s authorship of the epistles of Timothy and Titus. Each link in a long chain, i have been told, is more consistent with a late or second century date for those letters, and thus the cumulative affect is to argue for a late date. But then, when I examine each link of the chain, I find problems with each individual link. Thus my confidence in the overall theory is to that degree undermined.