The subtlety and fragility of an ecumenical process such as this requires the better stewardship of a thread on UA-cam by those who invited Rabbi Scolnic to speak. The Rabbi was earnest, enlightened and well spoken. Can't the Christian fundamentalists who react here remember that once Jesus said to such a rabbi, "You are not far from the Kingdom of God."? Better to eliminate an unruly thread than perpetuate the sadly predictable reactions here. On the other hand, maybe the Lanier Library folks think a "warts and all" approach to ecumenical dialogue is better?
Thank you. You seem to get the positive intentions of Mark Lanier, The Lanier Theological Library and myself. Rabbi Benjamin was not sure his lecture would be well received. I am thankful to be able to offer his perspective on Daniel. It would be good to have a thoughtful dialogue. there was a bit of that at the lecture and the seminar that proceeded it the day before. Further in allowing comments we are open to have the warts and all on display. But it is not hard to see these comments for what they are.
you wrote "The Rabbi was earnest, enlightened and well spoken." I would add my support to these assertions. we had some fine dialogue during that weekend.
Rabbi Benjamin likely does not read these but I will pass on your comment to him by email. I am curious which Southern where he taught and you were a student? does it have a fuller name?
"Biblical writers did not write everything down exactly right!!" 34:22 This is where we part ways Because then the logical question becomes what amount of scripture can I trust? Can I trust any of it?
Dr Bill Cooper in his book 'The authenticity of the book of Daniel' notes a fatal objection to the idea that Daniel was a 2nd century BC hoax. He observes that none of the older rabbis during the 2nd century BC Maccabean uprising asked "what is this book of Daniel?? When we were young - none of us ever heard of this book of Daniel. ." In other words, at a time when Jews were fighting to the death for the right to read the Old Testament - None of the older generation said their teachers had never heard of the book of Daniel BEFORE 165 AD. . In other words. .the whole book of Daniel was already in the Old Testament before 165 BC.
it has been a while since I heard both this talk and the Panel discussion that proceeded it. My understanding of the Rabbi was not that Daniel had not been written earlier, but that editorial work may have been done on this section of Daniel because it is so profoundly correct in much of the minute details up to a certain point. then it turns prophetic with Generalities that are still yet future. Rabbi Benjamin did expect a backlash to this type of reasoning. However there are Christians who see God's purpose in scripture as revealing himself. Editorial work such as giving details of Moses death in a book he is regarded as being the author is not contrary to God's purpose of revealing himself so it makes little difference. I like the thought: "God is not on trial in His Word." He uses mankind a sinful human element in the transmission of his word so that it is not without some flaw. However as regards his revealing himself and his purposes it is flawless.
Difficult to accept that Daniel was written in 160BC, just 40 years before it's found in complete form as a prophetic book in the Dead sea scrolls. That's just not enough time.
I think the content rather than the timeline is the most important contribution. When he gave the lecture Rabbi Benjamin confided with me that he did not think many Christians would agree. He even thought we would not want to post the video for consideration. Mark Lanier gives a good response afterward showing not all Christians hold to a fundamentalist view of inspiration.
Am watching this video again today 20 December 2018 and recently noted the stunning comment by the Encyclopedia Brittanica - a publication that does not believe in the paranormal/supernatural - which says regarding Antiochus Epiphanies IV that "he is the monarch described in the pseudoprophetic chapters of Daniel"(!) So it ADMITS that Daniel 8 Is describing Antiochus Epiphanies IV - but doesn't believe Dan 8 was written in the 6th century BC.
Where is the contradiction? It is assumed that the chapters 7-12 of the book of Daniel were written during the time of Antiochus Epiphanies IV (sometime between 167 and 164 BCE to be precise). Still they were written in a way as to make Daniel (living in the Babylonian exile during the 6th century) appear as the author. That's a perfectly logical claim that agrees with historical facts.
second part of chapter 11 is from different text. king that attacked the egypt is Saladin. and Book of Daniel is the prophecy of Untill end of Rome. 1 to 4th beast= rome. And,probably,,, the resurrection part 1 was over.
I can understand Benjamin's reluctance to believe Daniel 10 thru 12. This is an eschatological prophecy that concludes at the consummation, not the in the middle of the second century regarding an unimportant king. It is the enlargement of Daniel 7, 8 and 9. Itself a unit. Two visions and an audition regarding one thing. God's judgment and the freeing of His people from the bondage of those who would usurp God's authority.
interesting Question. I do not know if you are posing it to the Rabbi or to the moderator of the channel which would be myself? I asked the Rabbi about some other passage in Daniel after the lecture and he said he has spent 30 years plumbing the depths of this chapter he deals with in the lecture which is Chapter 8 of Daniel. i doubt this very good question of yours would reach him. However In my search I consulted a "New" English Translation of the Hebrew Bible a close friend of the Rabbi recommended Authored by Robert Alter. it said the Hebrew noun for Book is ketav which means anything written down. and he thought his translation "the writ of truth"' captures the mysterious nature intended. The NIV Study Bible which I find usually has excellent insights believes it is connected to the Book in 12:1 and both texts reference Michael a guardian Angel of God's people Israel. their thought was it is possibly a record of all the redeemed throughout history. my thoughts were perhaps like the book of life found in Revelation. the English Translation of the Hebrews scriptures renders this Book rather than writ but adds a note saying many commentators associate this book in 12:1 as the book of life which confirms my inclination to do the same. He adds there are hints at such a book in earlier Hebrew literature but this in Daniel 12:1 is more explicit. I hope this information is of help.
@@fleetwd1 I believe the Holy Spirit answered my question. The book of Truth that Daniel 10:21 is talking about is none other than the Book of Jeremiah. In Daniel 9:2 you see Daniel reading the scroll of the book of Jeremiah the book God told Jeremiah to write on Jeremiah 30:2. God and the angels called the book of Jeremiah, the book of Truth which makes sense because no one in Jeremiah's time believe he was speaking truth since most false prophets were speaking peace. What is interesting is something happens like it with the book of the Law if you do a bible pdf search of the book of the law you will see that this is how God calls what we know as the book of Deuteronomy which in Hebrew is called the book of "Words". See also that for God Solomon was really "Jedidiah" (beloved or friend of God) 2 Samuel 12:25 . Jesus does it too.. he called Simon, Cephas. John 1:42. About the book of life that shows up on Psalm 69:28, Philiphians 4:3, Revelation 3:5, Revelation 13:8, Revelation 17:8, Revelation 20:12, Revelation 20:15 adn Revelation 21:27 is like a name record ledge of Jesus of all those who belong to him.
@@thegamerwaa i know Daniel pondered the scroll of Jeremiah and questioned the 70 years and God gave him instead 70 sevens 490 years in Daniel 9. So your theory is plausible
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. For....."16 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?"...
@@fleetwd1 hes saying another Daniel wrote history as prophecy. Correct? I can pretty much prove otherwise. They key is the way the book is sealed until the end until the last leader. The chapters are divided on purpose as are the 70 weeks. This is how the vision was sealed.
@@Genalpahagirl he says that there could have been editors as we find evidence of in the books of Moses where they record his death. not a problem when you understand textual criticism. it does not negate Inspiration when editing occurs. There are things recorded that do not have the remarkable accuracy which some of the earlier verses do. These are yet to be fulfilled. if the texts did have some additional edit it does not nullify that the basic prophecy done earlier did point to this event some and a later fulfillment which is yet to come.. When Revelation pronounces a curse upon anyone who adds or subtracts from what is written may indicate that it was understood that this practice likely had happened throughout Israel's history. You may be thinking with a rigid view of inspiration that would not allow for what Rabbi Scolnic is presenting here but most of the scholars in the audience are aware of the problems textually and it should not effect how God's intent will be understood. Scolnic thought most of the Christian audience would have problems with what he said in the way of textual criticism but Mark Lanier explains the view of inspiration most scholars would agree with. Some Christian fundamentalist have a more rigid view. But that does not mean that they are correct. there are too many evidences that show God is not on trial in the Word. It has both a Divine and a human element and the human element does not negate the Divine. This is why the Word is often expressed in paradoxes (verses that appear contradictory) but instead reveal the Divine mind. Jesus himself resolves these paradoxes and He is God's intent the Word is meant to reveal.
I'm hearing, but at the moment the lecture becomes an exhortation (followed by the different tone of voice), you lost my interest considerably as a non believer. I'm really no longer convinced by the use of a different tone of voice, I'm interested in the details of the argument. Interesting to cite the errors of history from the critics, but it would be more interesting to point out what is then the history considering all the sources of evidence. That seems to be more important than elevating tone of voice (31:00 to the climax). Other points are very good.
Woww, rabbi, you anti French you, you can believe, you can worship until you're blue in the face, but do you really need to fight me? I am just a peaceful non-believer!
hmmm... Let's see? Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 reads "...here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil." This conclusion of the matter definitely squares with with the rest of Scripture. Sorry the very move it self vindicates Rabbi rather than captures him.
@@fleetwd1 The message is basically nihilistic-that life is meaningless, there is no afterlife, so enjoy each moment. And you know that perfectly well. It doesn't matter in the least if there's an insincere nod towards the standard boilerplate Biblical nonsense at its end. How exactly will "God" bring each deed into judgment? In a world with no afterlife, in which the wicked flourish? You're grasping at straws.
@@frankfeldman6657 you have to take the book as a whole (as your statement above had) and not cherry pick in it just what you like. the conclusion of the matter is at the heart of what he learned through wisdom. it could be an awakening to you to discover what he had. since you think of yourself as more wise than Rabbi Benjamin, or myself. have a good day and a bright future my friend. you are entitled to believe what you want. just do not think we can not respond with insight you fail to notice.
I have absolutely no idea where you got that idea from. Have you ever heard the best selling LP album of all time by Dylan? it is called "Slow Train Coming" released in 1979. I suggest you listen to that before you come to any judgmental conclusions about Dylan.
Claims to believe in God's Word, then denies it, specifically by claiming there was someone he calls a "second Daniel". Blasphemy. "Ye shall not surely die." Satan himself when tempting Christ always started with "it is written" before attempting to cause Jesus to sin, specifically by denying who He Himself was. Likewise this "rabbi" denies who Daniel was.
In defense of Rabbi Benjamin there are many who understand some editing took place. The best example of this is Deuteronomy. Moses wrote the book. However his death is written about in the ending chapter It would be a mistake for us to impose our ideas of authorship back upon Israel. It may be that Daniel alone authored the whole book attributed to him. But it is not without some evidence that editorial assistance happened at times. To suggest the Rabbi does not take serious his belief in God's word based upon the fact he suggests some additional editorial work by another is unfounded. It only reflects your limited view of the written word.
i can tell you are not really open to any possibility of your being wrong about this, but for those who may want to know more about the difficulties of assuming authorship in Hebrew scriptures which would include Daniel. I recommend this video that begins to explain these difficulties with the books of Moses. ua-cam.com/video/IxuHkozO2hg/v-deo.html
Second Daniel is very obvious, you don't need to be told by someone else to notice it. The first half is a 3rd person narrative and the second half is a 1st person account. Completely different writing styles, so much so that it's clear even from translations
The subtlety and fragility of an ecumenical process such as this requires the better stewardship of a thread on UA-cam by those who invited Rabbi Scolnic to speak. The Rabbi was earnest, enlightened and well spoken. Can't the Christian fundamentalists who react here remember that once Jesus said to such a rabbi, "You are not far from the Kingdom of God."? Better to eliminate an unruly thread than perpetuate the sadly predictable reactions here. On the other hand, maybe the Lanier Library folks think a "warts and all" approach to ecumenical dialogue is better?
Thank you. You seem to get the positive intentions of Mark Lanier, The Lanier Theological Library and myself. Rabbi Benjamin was not sure his lecture would be well received. I am thankful to be able to offer his perspective on Daniel. It would be good to have a thoughtful dialogue. there was a bit of that at the lecture and the seminar that proceeded it the day before.
Further in allowing comments we are open to have the warts and all on display. But it is not hard to see these comments for what they are.
you wrote "The Rabbi was earnest, enlightened and well spoken." I would add my support to these assertions. we had some fine dialogue during that weekend.
One of the greatest Mensch's walking the face of the Earth in the 21st Century, Rabbi Scolnic! :)
Yes he is a great, honorable, decent, stand-up person.
God is who, His truth is what. I agree.
Rabbi Scolnic, Nice to hear and see you. I took your class at Southern years ago.May God bless you.
Rabbi Benjamin likely does not read these but I will pass on your comment to him by email. I am curious which Southern where he taught and you were a student? does it have a fuller name?
"Biblical writers did not write everything down exactly right!!" 34:22
This is where we part ways
Because then the logical question becomes what amount of scripture can I trust?
Can I trust any of it?
Dr Bill Cooper in his book 'The authenticity of the book of Daniel' notes a fatal objection to the idea that Daniel was a 2nd century BC hoax. He observes that none of the older rabbis during the 2nd century BC Maccabean uprising asked "what is this book of Daniel?? When we were young - none of us ever heard of this book of Daniel. ." In other words, at a time when Jews were fighting to the death for the right to read the Old Testament - None of the older generation said their teachers had never heard of the book of Daniel BEFORE 165 AD. . In other words. .the whole book of Daniel was already in the Old Testament before 165 BC.
it has been a while since I heard both this talk and the Panel discussion that proceeded it. My understanding of the Rabbi was not that Daniel had not been written earlier, but that editorial work may have been done on this section of Daniel because it is so profoundly correct in much of the minute details up to a certain point. then it turns prophetic with Generalities that are still yet future. Rabbi Benjamin did expect a backlash to this type of reasoning. However there are Christians who see God's purpose in scripture as revealing himself. Editorial work such as giving details of Moses death in a book he is regarded as being the author is not contrary to God's purpose of revealing himself so it makes little difference. I like the thought: "God is not on trial in His Word." He uses mankind a sinful human element in the transmission of his word so that it is not without some flaw. However as regards his revealing himself and his purposes it is flawless.
I bet lots of copies are still in persia waiting to be found.
Christians ❤Jews
true they should..
Difficult to accept that Daniel was written in 160BC, just 40 years before it's found in complete form as a prophetic book in the Dead sea scrolls. That's just not enough time.
I think the content rather than the timeline is the most important contribution. When he gave the lecture Rabbi Benjamin confided with me that he did not think many Christians would agree. He even thought we would not want to post the video for consideration. Mark Lanier gives a good response afterward showing not all Christians hold to a fundamentalist view of inspiration.
You're only giving an argument from personal incredulity.
Am watching this video again today 20 December 2018 and recently noted the stunning comment by the Encyclopedia Brittanica - a publication that does not believe in the paranormal/supernatural - which says regarding Antiochus Epiphanies IV that "he is the monarch described in the pseudoprophetic chapters of Daniel"(!) So it ADMITS that Daniel 8 Is describing Antiochus Epiphanies IV - but doesn't believe Dan 8 was written in the 6th century BC.
Where is the contradiction? It is assumed that the chapters 7-12 of the book of Daniel were written during the time of Antiochus Epiphanies IV (sometime between 167 and 164 BCE to be precise). Still they were written in a way as to make Daniel (living in the Babylonian exile during the 6th century) appear as the author. That's a perfectly logical claim that agrees with historical facts.
second part of chapter 11 is from different text. king that attacked the egypt is Saladin. and Book of Daniel is the prophecy of Untill end of Rome. 1 to 4th beast= rome. And,probably,,, the resurrection part 1 was over.
I can understand Benjamin's reluctance to believe Daniel 10 thru 12. This is an eschatological prophecy that concludes at the consummation, not the in the middle of the second century regarding an unimportant king. It is the enlargement of Daniel 7, 8 and 9. Itself a unit. Two visions and an audition regarding one thing. God's judgment and the freeing of His people from the bondage of those who would usurp God's authority.
what about the book of truth that is mention in Daniel. daniel 10:21
interesting Question. I do not know if you are posing it to the Rabbi or to the moderator of the channel which would be myself? I asked the Rabbi about some other passage in Daniel after the lecture and he said he has spent 30 years plumbing the depths of this chapter he deals with in the lecture which is Chapter 8 of Daniel. i doubt this very good question of yours would reach him. However In my search I consulted a "New" English Translation of the Hebrew Bible a close friend of the Rabbi recommended Authored by Robert Alter. it said the Hebrew noun for Book is ketav which means anything written down. and he thought his translation "the writ of truth"' captures the mysterious nature intended. The NIV Study Bible which I find usually has excellent insights believes it is connected to the Book in 12:1 and both texts reference Michael a guardian Angel of God's people Israel. their thought was it is possibly a record of all the redeemed throughout history. my thoughts were perhaps like the book of life found in Revelation. the English Translation of the Hebrews scriptures renders this Book rather than writ but adds a note saying many commentators associate this book in 12:1 as the book of life which confirms my inclination to do the same. He adds there are hints at such a book in earlier Hebrew literature but this in Daniel 12:1 is more explicit. I hope this information is of help.
@@fleetwd1 I believe the Holy Spirit answered my question. The book of Truth that Daniel 10:21 is talking about is none other than the Book of Jeremiah. In Daniel 9:2 you see Daniel reading the scroll of the book of Jeremiah the book God told Jeremiah to write on Jeremiah 30:2. God and the angels called the book of Jeremiah, the book of Truth which makes sense because no one in Jeremiah's time believe he was speaking truth since most false prophets were speaking peace. What is interesting is something happens like it with the book of the Law if you do a bible pdf search of the book of the law you will see that this is how God calls what we know as the book of Deuteronomy which in Hebrew is called the book of "Words". See also that for God Solomon was really "Jedidiah" (beloved or friend of God) 2 Samuel 12:25
. Jesus does it too.. he called Simon, Cephas. John 1:42. About the book of life that shows up on Psalm 69:28, Philiphians 4:3, Revelation 3:5, Revelation 13:8, Revelation 17:8, Revelation 20:12, Revelation 20:15 adn Revelation 21:27 is like a name record ledge of Jesus of all those who belong to him.
@@thegamerwaa i know Daniel pondered the scroll of Jeremiah and questioned the 70 years and God gave him instead 70 sevens 490 years in Daniel 9. So your theory is plausible
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.
For....."16
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?"...
At what point in time has God EVER pointed backwards in history to show prophecy? That makes zero sense.
I think you misunderstand what Rabbi Scolnic is saying.
@@fleetwd1 hes saying another Daniel wrote history as prophecy. Correct? I can pretty much prove otherwise. They key is the way the book is sealed until the end until the last leader. The chapters are divided on purpose as are the 70 weeks. This is how the vision was sealed.
They are sealed in 7s. You must rightfully divide them in order to read the correct story.
@@Genalpahagirl he says that there could have been editors as we find evidence of in the books of Moses where they record his death. not a problem when you understand textual criticism. it does not negate Inspiration when editing occurs. There are things recorded that do not have the remarkable accuracy which some of the earlier verses do. These are yet to be fulfilled. if the texts did have some additional edit it does not nullify that the basic prophecy done earlier did point to this event some and a later fulfillment which is yet to come.. When Revelation pronounces a curse upon anyone who adds or subtracts from what is written may indicate that it was understood that this practice likely had happened throughout Israel's history. You may be thinking with a rigid view of inspiration that would not allow for what Rabbi Scolnic is presenting here but most of the scholars in the audience are aware of the problems textually and it should not effect how God's intent will be understood. Scolnic thought most of the Christian audience would have problems with what he said in the way of textual criticism but Mark Lanier explains the view of inspiration most scholars would agree with. Some Christian fundamentalist have a more rigid view. But that does not mean that they are correct. there are too many evidences that show God is not on trial in the Word. It has both a Divine and a human element and the human element does not negate the Divine. This is why the Word is often expressed in paradoxes (verses that appear contradictory) but instead reveal the Divine mind. Jesus himself resolves these paradoxes and He is God's intent the Word is meant to reveal.
I'm hearing, but at the moment the lecture becomes an exhortation (followed by the different tone of voice), you lost my interest considerably as a non believer. I'm really no longer convinced by the use of a different tone of voice, I'm interested in the details of the argument.
Interesting to cite the errors of history from the critics, but it would be more interesting to point out what is then the history considering all the sources of evidence. That seems to be more important than elevating tone of voice (31:00 to the climax). Other points are very good.
Woww, rabbi, you anti French you,
you can believe, you can worship until you're blue in the face, but do you really need to fight me? I am just a peaceful non-believer!
If everything in the Bible is true, then Ecclesiastes is true. If Ecclesiastes is true, then most of the rest of the Bible is false. Checkmate, Rabbi.
hmmm... Let's see?
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 reads
"...here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind.
For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil."
This conclusion of the matter definitely squares with with the rest of Scripture.
Sorry the very move it self vindicates Rabbi rather than captures him.
@@fleetwd1 The message is basically nihilistic-that life is meaningless, there is no afterlife, so enjoy each moment. And you know that perfectly well. It doesn't matter in the least if there's an insincere nod towards the standard boilerplate Biblical nonsense at its end. How exactly will "God" bring each deed into judgment? In a world with no afterlife, in which the wicked flourish? You're grasping at straws.
@@frankfeldman6657 you have to take the book as a whole (as your statement above had) and not cherry pick in it just what you like. the conclusion of the matter is at the heart of what he learned through wisdom. it could be an awakening to you to discover what he had. since you think of yourself as more wise than Rabbi Benjamin, or myself. have a good day and a bright future my friend. you are entitled to believe what you want. just do not think we can not respond with insight you fail to notice.
@@fleetwd1 The inerrant Bible, bwahaha-www.skeptically.org/bible/id8.html
Ecclesiastes is a philosophical wisdom commentary on the Torah. Ecclesiastes is also the writing of a sage, not a prophet.
"Much Ado About Nothing !"(Sorry)
well we know who bob dylan said god was and it isn't Jesus but lucifer. bob dylan said it not me. so while this rabbi sounds good i wonder i wonder
I have absolutely no idea where you got that idea from. Have you ever heard the best selling LP album of all time by Dylan? it is called "Slow Train Coming" released in 1979. I suggest you listen to that before you come to any judgmental conclusions about Dylan.
Opps, the moment I heard the name Jesus I had to turn it off!!
sorry we did not mean to offend. Rabbi Scolnic was lecturing to a Christian audience.
😂
Claims to believe in God's Word, then denies it, specifically by claiming there was someone he calls a "second Daniel". Blasphemy. "Ye shall not surely die." Satan himself when tempting Christ always started with "it is written" before attempting to cause Jesus to sin, specifically by denying who He Himself was. Likewise this "rabbi" denies who Daniel was.
In defense of Rabbi Benjamin there are many who understand some editing took place. The best example of this is Deuteronomy. Moses wrote the book. However his death is written about in the ending chapter It would be a mistake for us to impose our ideas of authorship back upon Israel. It may be that Daniel alone authored the whole book attributed to him. But it is not without some evidence that editorial assistance happened at times. To suggest the Rabbi does not take serious his belief in God's word based upon the fact he suggests some additional editorial work by another is unfounded. It only reflects your limited view of the written word.
No, it reflects the fact that I can recognize(and reject) a lie from the pit of hell when I see/hear one.
i can tell you are not really open to any possibility of your being wrong about this, but for those who may want to know more about the difficulties of assuming authorship in Hebrew scriptures which would include Daniel. I recommend this video that begins to explain these difficulties with the books of Moses. ua-cam.com/video/IxuHkozO2hg/v-deo.html
Second Daniel is very obvious, you don't need to be told by someone else to notice it. The first half is a 3rd person narrative and the second half is a 1st person account. Completely different writing styles, so much so that it's clear even from translations