How to respond to critics who look at similarities of Ugartic texts and the book of Daniel

[Amigo42]

I'm a Christian who loves the Lord, but I also like to be informed.  Does anyone have any good arguments to rebuff critics who claim that some texts or motifs from the book of Daniel were influenced by Ugartic texts.  To me, this is not too significant especially considering that the Canaanites and Hebrews were a Semitic people group who interacted and had vocabulary and language that was very similar. Now, it's possible that the Hebrew influenced the other, but scholars claim the Ugartic text is older, but of course it was written on stone.  We don't know for certain which is older.  It's speculation.  

[Who me]

1 hour ago, Amigo42 said:

Does anyone have any good arguments to rebuff critics who claim that some texts or motifs from the book of Daniel were influenced by Ugartic texts.

Basicly if you are fluent in hebrew and the other relevant semitic languages, with papers publish then you will have the knowledge to make a case, as would the skeptics you are listening to on utube.

Ignore them. 

[Justin Adams]

Much of the older writings in the scripture are polemics and poke fun at other deities. They may even hijack some texts and put YHWH in place of the Baal deity or whatever. It is quite obvious to Christian scholars what was going on. Even one of the psalms mimics the Baal cycle in certain places. The ungodly purveyors of misinformation are to be expected and suitably ignored for their literary ignorance.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Justin Adams

[Amigo42]

36 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Much of the older writings in the scripture are polemics and poke fun at other deities. They may even hijack some texts and put YHWH in place of the Baal deity or whatever. It is quite obvious to Christian scholars what was going on. Even one of the psalms mimics the Baal cycle in certain places. The ungodly purveyors of misinformation are to be expected and suitably ignored for their literary ignorance.

I agree with your point exactly, and to me that is logical vs Hebrew scribes just repeating pagan theological points.  I'd like to add for all we know in some cases, it could be the opposite that the pagans borrowed from the Hebrews.  Nonetheless, if that is true that the Hebrew scribes were mocking the pagans, then what does it say about certain passages that appear prophetic in nature?  Can the respective passages in Hebrew be true prophecies if they are just designed to mock the pagans, or did God just to honor them as prophecies regardless of how they came about?  This is a puzzling question.  Either way God is sovreign and in control.  I think that even as Christians there is so much that we grew up learning and thinking were literal that may have been simply literary devices.  This doesn't detract from the truth of God's existence and his Son's existence.  It's just something that I think most Christians will usually just gloss over.  However, the truth will set us free.  God is good.

[Tristen]

I honestly do not think there is anything here to "rebuff". I assume you are referring to the tenuous claims of similarity between the Ugartic text and the vision of Daniel (Daniel 7).

Anti-Christians are so addicted to the argument that Christianity stole from other beliefs, that they are trying to make something out of nothing. Most of the imagery in Daniel 7 is reflected to some degree in earlier Hebrew texts. I even found a paper that tried to argue that the author of Daniel did not borrow from anyone, but rather the Psalmist did the initial borrowing, and Daniel 7 simply continued the tradition received via the Psalmist.

Anyone claiming one belief borrowed from another is obligated to support their claim through demonstrating a direct line of evidence from one belief to the other. That, of course, is never provided.

So this is 'much ado about nothing'. The anti-Christians have far better examples to revert to if this is their aim - though none are particularly strong arguments.