Changes

W. Sibley Towner (''Harper's Bible Commentary'', p. 696) writes that Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In its current form (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form at some time in 167-164 B.C. Towner says this is based on two assumptions: first, that the authors lived near the end of the historical events characterizing Daniel 7-12; and second, that "prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray". Hence, the references to the Temple's desecration and the "abomination that makes desolate" in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events previously known to the author. He insists that the best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C.<ref name=11:45/> Dr. Towner suggests that the roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but that the entire work was probably given its final shape in 164 B.C..

W. Sibley Towner (''Harper's Bible Commentary'', p. 696) writes that Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In its current form (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form at some time in 167-164 B.C. Towner says this is based on two assumptions: first, that the authors lived near the end of the historical events characterizing Daniel 7-12; and second, that "prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray". Hence, the references to the Temple's desecration and the "abomination that makes desolate" in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events previously known to the author. He insists that the best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C.<ref name=11:45/> Dr. Towner suggests that the roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but that the entire work was probably given its final shape in 164 B.C..

Louis F. Hartman (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, p. 448) asserts that Jews and Christians, "having lost sight of these ancient modes of writing", until relatively recent years have "erroneously" considered Daniel to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. As chapters 7-12 are written in the first person, he says it was natural for them to assume that Daniel in chapters 1-6 was a truly historical character and that he was the author of the whole book. However, few modern biblical scholars, he insists, would now seriously defend such an opinion. Hartman says the arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming. the late Hebrew used in Daniel could hardly have written by An author living in the 6th century, and its Aramaic is certainly later than the Aramaic of the Elephantine papyri dating from the end of the 5th century. He points out that the theological outlook of the author, with his interest in angelology, "his apocalyptic rather than prophetic vision", and especially his belief in the resurrection of the dead, points inescapably to a period long after the Babylonian Exile. Hartman says the author's historical perspective, "often hazy for events in the time of the Babylonian and Persian kings but much clearer for the events during the Seleucid Dynasty", is characteristic of the Hellenistic age. Finally, his detailed description matching the details of the profanation of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 and the following persecution (9:27; 11:30-35), in contrast to his "merely general reference" to the evil end that would surely come to such a wicked man (11:45), indicates a composition date shortly before the death of this king in 164, therefore probably in 165.<ref name=11:45/>

Louis F. Hartman (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, p. 448) asserts that Jews and Christians, "having lost sight of these ancient modes of writing", until relatively recent years have "erroneously" considered Daniel to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. As chapters 7-12 are written in the first person, he says it was natural for them to assume that Daniel in chapters 1-6 was a truly historical character and that he was the author of the whole book. However, few modern biblical scholars, he insists, would now seriously defend such an opinion. Hartman says the arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming. the late Hebrew used in Daniel could hardly have written by An author living in the 6th century, and its Aramaic is certainly later than the Aramaic of the Elephantine papyri dating from the end of the 5th century. He points out that the theological outlook of the author, with his interest in angelology, "his apocalyptic rather than prophetic vision", and especially his belief in the resurrection of the dead, points inescapably to a period long after the Babylonian Exile. Hartman says the author's historical perspective, "often hazy for events in the time of the Babylonian and Persian kings but much clearer for the events during the Seleucid Dynasty", is characteristic of the Hellenistic age. Finally, his detailed description matching the details of the profanation of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 and the following persecution (9:27; 11:30-35), in contrast to his "merely general reference" to the evil end that would surely come to such a wicked man (11:45), indicates a composition date shortly before the death of this king in 164, therefore probably in 165.<ref name=11:45/> Hartman (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, p. 460) says that Daniel 14:1-22 is another folk tale of the "Daniel Cycle". It is a little Jewish "detective story" satire on the crudities of idolatry, although actually it is a caricature of pagan worship. He points out that the offering of food and drink in sacrifice to pagan gods did not differ substantially from similar offerings made to Yahweh in the Temple. In both cases, a certain amount of the sacrificial offerings went quite legitimately to the priests and their families. However, the Jews of the last pre-Christian centuries were so convinced of the folly of idolatry (see Wisdom 13:1-15:17) that this unfair ridicule of pagan worship is understandable. Hartman says the second story in Daniel 14:23-42 is another short story in the "Daniel Cycle", basically a variant of Daniel 6 (the lions' den). Here pagan worship is again satired by Daniel's "blowing up" (bowel blockage and hemorrhage) of the Babylonians' divine serpent. He says that although this was once an independent story, in its present form it has been edited to follow the preceding tale (see verse 28); and he acknowledges that in all the Greek manuscripts, the two stories appear together, and the LXX of the Jews even prefixes to the former tale the note, "From the prophecy of Habakkuk, son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi." However, neither Hartman nor fundamentalist Christians believe that this explicit pre-Christian rabbinical testimony in the LXX constitutes authentic inspired scriptural sanction of the book as being a genuine part of the Book of Daniel.

 

Hartman (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, p. 460) says that Daniel 14:1-22 is another folk tale of the "Daniel Cycle". It is a little Jewish "detective story" satire on the crudities of idolatry, although actually it is a caricature of pagan worship. He points out that the offering of food and drink in sacrifice to pagan gods did not differ substantially from similar offerings made to Yahweh in the Temple. In both cases, a certain amount of the sacrificial offerings went quite legitimately to the priests and their families. However, the Jews of the last pre-Christian centuries were so convinced of the folly of idolatry (see Wisdom 13:1-15:17) that this unfair ridicule of pagan worship is understandable.

 

Hartman (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, p. 460) says the second story in Daniel 14:23-42 is another short story in the "Daniel Cycle", basically a variant of Daniel 6 (the lions' den). Here pagan worship is again satired by Daniel's "blowing up" (bowel blockage and hemorrhage) of the Babylonians' divine serpent. He says that although this was once an independent story, in its present form it has been edited to follow the preceding tale (see verse 28); and he acknowledges that in all the Greek manuscripts, the two stories appear together, and the LXX of the Jews even prefixes to the former tale the note, "From the prophecy of Habakkuk, son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi." However, neither Hartman nor fundamentalist Christians believe that this explicit pre-Christian rabbinical testimony in the LXX constitutes authentic inspired scriptural sanction of the book as being a genuine part of the Book of Daniel.

J. Alberto Soggin (''Introduction to the Old Testament'', p. 408) observes that the first difficulties in the historical classification of the book begin with the deportation of Daniel and his companions, because historians do not in fact know anything of a deportation which took place in the third year of Jehoiakim, in 607 B.C.. Allowing its possibly basic historicity, the event might be connected with the conquest of Syria and Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar II after the battle of Carchemish in 605-4 and his victory over Egypt. Soggin sees King Jehoiakim as taking this occasion to move out of the sphere of Egyptian influence and into that of Babylon (see 2 Chronicles 36:5). Complex problems of foreign policy followed, to which he alludes in his discussion of Jeremiah. Soggins points out that until recently this notation in the text of Chronicles was considered spurious, since there was no external historical point of comparison, but discoveries during the 1950s of various unedited fragments of the ''[[Babylonian Chronicle]]'' have unexpectedly made sense of both this passage and 2 Kings 24:1ff. But even admitting the substantial historicity of the events narrated, Soggins emphasized that there remains the problem of chronology. He finds other elements no less perplexing: in 5:11 Belshazzar is implicitly called the son of Nebuchadnezzar and in 7:1 he appears as king of Babylon. However, according to historical records he was neither one nor the other, but the son of Nabonidus, one of Nebuchadnezzar's successors who came to the throne as the result of a plot. (The only other possibility is that "son of..." is intended in a generic sense, as "descendant of...", a usage which is attested in Akkadian.) Alternatively, Soggin says the statement that Belshazzar was king may simply be imprecise wording: towards 553 B.C. he was resident in Babylon as a kind of lieutenant-general for the king during his numerous absences, and could therefore have been called king, at least by the people. Again, in 5:31 a certain Darius the Mede appears, who is considered by many readers to be king of Persia after the fall of Babylon. In 9:1 "Darius" appears as son of Xerxes, whereas in 6:29 Cyrus succeeds a "Darius". Soggin affirms that, if we are to be precise, the question arises regarding why Daniel is at the court of the Medes before the Babylonian empire has fallen, always assuming that we take the term "Mede" seriously. He does not appear to entertain the real possibility that Cyrus assigned his own lieutenant and chief commander the whole province of Babylon to govern as a subordinate ruler. Soggin says this question has never been answered. He says we must therefore accept that Media in the Book of Daniel is in reality Persia. But the genealogy of the kings of Persia is well known: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I Hystaspes, Xerxes. Soggin asks, if the Darius mentioned here was Darius I Hystaspes from the last quarter of the sixth century, king of Persia 521–486 B.C., how old would Daniel be? He says these are features which were already pointed out by the anti-Christian polemicist [[Celsus]] at the end of the second century A.D. It is evident that they do not believe a prophet of God could live to the age of around 105 (about 17 years old, a "child/youth without blemish" 1:4 in 607 B.C. the third year of Jehoiakim living to 519 B.C. the first year of Darius I Hystaspes: 607 – 519 = 88 years + 17 = 105 years old).<ref>"about 17 years old". Daniel 1:4 "children" Strong's number 3206 '''ילד ''yeled''''' : The [[King James Version]] of Genesis 21:14 and Daniel 1:4 translates '''ילד ''yeled''''' as "child". According to Strong's Concordance of the Bible ''Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament'' (Strong's number 3206) this word also means "young man", ''a lad''.</ref>

J. Alberto Soggin (''Introduction to the Old Testament'', p. 408) observes that the first difficulties in the historical classification of the book begin with the deportation of Daniel and his companions, because historians do not in fact know anything of a deportation which took place in the third year of Jehoiakim, in 607 B.C.. Allowing its possibly basic historicity, the event might be connected with the conquest of Syria and Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar II after the battle of Carchemish in 605-4 and his victory over Egypt. Soggin sees King Jehoiakim as taking this occasion to move out of the sphere of Egyptian influence and into that of Babylon (see 2 Chronicles 36:5). Complex problems of foreign policy followed, to which he alludes in his discussion of Jeremiah. Soggins points out that until recently this notation in the text of Chronicles was considered spurious, since there was no external historical point of comparison, but discoveries during the 1950s of various unedited fragments of the ''[[Babylonian Chronicle]]'' have unexpectedly made sense of both this passage and 2 Kings 24:1ff. But even admitting the substantial historicity of the events narrated, Soggins emphasized that there remains the problem of chronology. He finds other elements no less perplexing: in 5:11 Belshazzar is implicitly called the son of Nebuchadnezzar and in 7:1 he appears as king of Babylon. However, according to historical records he was neither one nor the other, but the son of Nabonidus, one of Nebuchadnezzar's successors who came to the throne as the result of a plot. (The only other possibility is that "son of..." is intended in a generic sense, as "descendant of...", a usage which is attested in Akkadian.) Alternatively, Soggin says the statement that Belshazzar was king may simply be imprecise wording: towards 553 B.C. he was resident in Babylon as a kind of lieutenant-general for the king during his numerous absences, and could therefore have been called king, at least by the people. Again, in 5:31 a certain Darius the Mede appears, who is considered by many readers to be king of Persia after the fall of Babylon. In 9:1 "Darius" appears as son of Xerxes, whereas in 6:29 Cyrus succeeds a "Darius". Soggin affirms that, if we are to be precise, the question arises regarding why Daniel is at the court of the Medes before the Babylonian empire has fallen, always assuming that we take the term "Mede" seriously. He does not appear to entertain the real possibility that Cyrus assigned his own lieutenant and chief commander the whole province of Babylon to govern as a subordinate ruler. Soggin says this question has never been answered. He says we must therefore accept that Media in the Book of Daniel is in reality Persia. But the genealogy of the kings of Persia is well known: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I Hystaspes, Xerxes. Soggin asks, if the Darius mentioned here was Darius I Hystaspes from the last quarter of the sixth century, king of Persia 521–486 B.C., how old would Daniel be? He says these are features which were already pointed out by the anti-Christian polemicist [[Celsus]] at the end of the second century A.D. It is evident that they do not believe a prophet of God could live to the age of around 105 (about 17 years old, a "child/youth without blemish" 1:4 in 607 B.C. the third year of Jehoiakim living to 519 B.C. the first year of Darius I Hystaspes: 607 – 519 = 88 years + 17 = 105 years old).<ref>"about 17 years old". Daniel 1:4 "children" Strong's number 3206 '''ילד ''yeled''''' : The [[King James Version]] of Genesis 21:14 and Daniel 1:4 translates '''ילד ''yeled''''' as "child". According to Strong's Concordance of the Bible ''Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament'' (Strong's number 3206) this word also means "young man", ''a lad''.</ref>

===Date===

===Date===

The date of the writing of the book may be inferred from the following considerations: It was not written by one of the exiles, for many portions of the text could not have been composed by a contemporary of the second king of the Babylonian empire and his immediate successors. This is proved even by the form of that king's name as given in the book. His Assyrian name was "Nabu-kudurriuẓur" (Friedrich Delitzsch, "Assyrische Lesestücke," 1900, p. 192), which the Hebrews at first pronounced "Nebu-kadr-eẓẓar" (Jer. 21:2 et seq. [26 times]; Ezek. 26:7, 29:18 et seq., 30:10). The middle "r" was then dissimilated from the final "r," giving "Nebu-kadn-eẓẓar," a form which is found in Jeremiah only in 27:6-29:3, but which is the usual form in all later writings (2 Kings 24:1 et seq.; 2 Chronicles 36:6 et seq.; Ezra 1:7; Esther 2:6; Daniel 1:18 et seq.; Soferim 14:7; Seder 'Olam R. 24 et seq.; and Septuagint, Ναβουχοδονόσορ).

Historical-critical analysis considers textual evidence for inferring the date of the writing of the book. Many portions of the extant text could not have been composed or written by one of the exiles contemporary with the second king of the Babylonian empire and his immediate successors. This is proved even by the form of that king's name as given in the book. His Assyrian name was "Nabu-kudurriuẓur" (Friedrich Delitzsch, "''Assyrische Lesestücke''", 1900, p. 192), which the Hebrews at first pronounced "Nebu-kadr-eẓẓar" (Jeremiah 21:2 and following [26 times]; Ezekiel 26:7, 29:18 and following, 30:10). The middle "r" was then dissimilated from the final "r," giving "Nebu-kadn-eẓẓar," a form which is found in Jeremiah only in 27:6–29:3, but which is the usual form in all later writings (2 Kings 24:1 and following; 2 Chronicles 36:6 and following; Ezra 1:7; Esther 2:6; Daniel 1:18 and following; Soferim 14:7; Seder 'Olam R. 24 et seq.; and Septuagint, Ναβουχοδονόσορ ''Nabuchodonosor'').

===Anonymous author: the historical milieu===

===The historical milieu===

The Book of Daniel was not written immediately after the Exile. The post-exilic prophets did not know it, for the four horns to which Israel's enemies are compared in Zechariah 1:21, have a local meaning, representing the four points of the compass, and do not refer to the successive kingdoms, as in Daniel 2:29 and following. The same is the case with the four chariots in Zechariah 6:1 et seq. These passages are not exactly parallel with the predictions in Daniel, but it is also stated in Haggai 2:6-9 et seq., that within "a little while" the Messianic time will come. And even Ben Sira says expressly (Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 49:15) that he has never found a man who resembled Joseph, a statement he could not have made had he known the extant Book of Daniel, since Daniel is there drawn as a man who, like Joseph, rose to be prime minister by virtue of his ability to interpret dreams.

Historical critics observe that the Book of Daniel was not written immediately after the Exile. Some of them say the post-exilic prophets do not appear to know this book, for the four horns, to which Israel's enemies are compared in Zechariah 1:21, are read as having a local meaning, representing the four points of the compass, and do not appear to them to refer to the successive kingdoms, as in Daniel 2:29 and following. The same is the case with the four chariots in Zechariah 6:1 and following. These passages are not exactly parallel with the predictions in Daniel, but it is also stated in Haggai 2:6-9 and following, that within "a little while" the Messianic time will come. And even Ben Sira says expressly (Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 49:15) that he has never found a man who resembled Joseph, "a statement he could not have made had he known the Book of Daniel", since Daniel is there in the book of his name drawn as a man who, like Joseph, rose to be prime minister by virtue of his ability to interpret dreams. However, this observation overlooks the fact that Ben Sira in the same chapter of praise of Joseph (49) also omits Jeremiah and the Twelve (Minor Prophets). In the chapters of praise of famous men, Ben Sira (Sirach 44–50) speaks of Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, David, Joshua son of Nun, Caleb the son of Jephunneh, the Judges, Samuel, Nathan, David again, Solomon, Elijah, Hezekiah, Josiah, Ezekiel, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, Joseph, Shem and Seth, and Adam, and of Simon the high priest son of Onias, and even of himself, Jesus the son of Sirach, son of Eleazar, of Jerusalem. Ben Sira does not mention ''the Twelve'' (the Minor Prophets, Hosea through Malachi), he does not mention ''Jeremiah'', and he does not mention ''Daniel''. The fact he does not mention them is no evidence that he "could not have known" the books of the Prophets Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

This work was composed during the bitter persecution carried on by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167–164 B.C.) and was written to strengthen and comfort the Jewish people in their ordeal. The persecution was occasioned by Antiochus’s efforts to unify his kingdom, in face of the rising power of Rome, by continuing the hellenization begun by Alexander the Great; Antiochus tried to force Jews to adopt Greek ways, including religious practices. Severe penalties, including death, were exacted against those who refused (cf., e.g., 1 Maccabees 1:41–63). The stories bristle with historical problems and have the character of historical novels rather than factual records. What is more important than the question of historicity, and closer to the intention of the author, is the fact that persecuted Jews of the second century B.C. would quickly see the application of these stories to their own plight.

Many historical-critics maintain that this work was composed during the bitter persecution carried on by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167–164 B.C.) and was written to strengthen and comfort the Jewish people in their ordeal. The persecution was occasioned by Antiochus’s efforts to unify his kingdom, in face of the rising power of Rome, by continuing the hellenization begun by Alexander the Great; Antiochus tried to force Jews to adopt Greek ways, including religious practices. Severe penalties, including death, were exacted against those who refused (see, for example, 1 Maccabees 1:41–63). The stories appear to them to bristle with historical problems and have the character of historical novels rather than factual records. They assure us that what is more important than the question of historicity, and closer to the intention of the author, is the fact that persecuted Jews of the second century B.C. would quickly see the application of these stories to their own plight.

Nor would a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors have written the stories of the Book of Daniel in the form in which they exist, since they contain many details that can not be harmonized with the data furnished in other historical sources. The first verse, for instance, contradicts other passages of the O. T. in saying that King Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, and besieged it. For the verb means here, as elsewhere, "come," "arrive," and can not be equivalent to "break up"; this is also proved by the context of 1:1. But Jeremiah announced the coming of the Chaldeans only in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, a year that is expressly designated, in Jeremiah 25:1, 46:2, as the first year of King Nebuchadnezzar. The date, "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim" (Daniel 1:1), is probably derived from 2 Kings 24:1 et seq., where it is said that Jehoiakim, after having been subject to Nebuchadnezzar three years, turned and rebelled, and was attacked by predatory bands of the Chaldeans and their vassals. As no date is given for the beginning of this period of three years, it might be supposed that it began with the accession of Jehoiakim. The supposition being made, it could be said that the Chaldeans besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, when Nebuchadnezzar would naturally be their leader. But these statements in Daniel 1:1 are erroneously drawn from 2 Kings 24:1 et seq., and contradict those found in Jeremiah 25:1, 9, and 46:2. Such discrepancies are not unparalleled in the O. T. (compare Eduard König, "Einleitung ins Alte Testament," pages 172 et seq.). Nor can Nebuchadnezzar's madness (Daniel 4:12 et seq.) during seven years be taken literally. Belshazzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar, is mentioned again (5:11, 13, 18, 22) in a way which compels the inference that he really was such. This may be explained on the ground that during the long period of oral tradition the unimportant kings of Babylon might easily have been forgotten, and the last king, who was vanquished by Cyrus, would have been taken as the successor of the well-known Nebuchadnezzar. The same thing occurred in Baruch 1:11, and Sennacherib is mentioned as the son of Enemessar (i.e. Shalmaneser) in Tobit 1:15, Sargon (Isaiah 20:1) being passed over. It is also well known that the period 516-331 B.C., of which only a few events are recorded, was contracted to thirty-four years in computing the time elapsed since the Creation (Seder 'Olam R. 30).

Nor would a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors have written the stories of the Book of Daniel in the form in which they exist, since they contain many details that can not be harmonized with the data furnished in other historical sources. The first verse, for instance, appears to them to contradict other passages of the O. T. in saying that King Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, and besieged it. For the verb means here, as elsewhere, "come," "arrive," and cannot be equivalent to "break up"; this is also apparently proved by the context of 1:1. But Jeremiah announced the coming of the Chaldeans only in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, a year that is expressly designated, in Jeremiah 25:1, 46:2, as the first year of King Nebuchadnezzar. The date, "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim" (Daniel 1:1), is seen as probably derived from 2 Kings 24:1 and following, where it is said that Jehoiakim, after having been subject to Nebuchadnezzar three years, turned and rebelled, and was attacked by predatory bands of the Chaldeans and their vassals. As no date is given for the beginning of this period of three years, it might be supposed that it began with the accession of Jehoiakim. The supposition being made, it could be said that the Chaldeans besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, when Nebuchadnezzar would naturally be their leader. But these statements in Daniel 1:1 are seen as erroneously drawn from 2 Kings 24:1 and following, and as contradicting those found in Jeremiah 25:1, 9, and 46:2. Such discrepancies are not unparalleled in the O. T. (compare Eduard König, "Einleitung ins Alte Testament," pages 172 et seq.). Nor can Nebuchadnezzar's madness (Daniel 4:12 et seq.) during seven years be taken literally by many of them. Belshazzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar, is mentioned again (5:11, 13, 18, 22) in a way which historical critics say compels the inference that he really was such. This is tentatively explained on the ground that during the long period of oral tradition it is possible that the unimportant kings of Babylon might easily have been forgotten, and the last king, who was vanquished by Cyrus, would have been taken as the successor of the well-known Nebuchadnezzar. The same thing occurred in Baruch 1:11, and Sennacherib is mentioned as the son of Enemessar (i.e. Shalmaneser) in Tobit 1:15, Sargon (Isaiah 20:1) being passed over. It is also well known that the period 516-331 B.C., of which only a few events are recorded, was contracted to thirty-four years in computing the time elapsed since the Creation (Seder 'Olam R. 30).

The Book of Daniel was written during the persecutions of Israel by the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes. This assertion is supported by the following data: The kingdom which is symbolized by the he goat (8:5 et seq.) is expressly named as the "kingdom of Yawan"—that is, the Grecian kingdom (8:21) the great horn being its first king, Alexander the Great (definitely stated in Seder "Olam R. 30), and the little horn Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.). This kingdom was to persecute the host of the saints "unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings" (8:14, R. V.); that is, "half-days," or 1,150 days; and Epiphanes did, in fact, profane the sanctuary in Jerusalem for about that length of time, from Kislew 15, 168, to Kislew 25,165 (I Maccabees 1:57, 4:52). The little horn described in Daniel 8:9-12, 23-25 has the same general characteristics as the little horn in 7:8, 20; hence the same ruler is designated in both passages. The well-known passage 9:23-27 also points to the same period. The first and imperative rule in interpreting it is to begin the period of the seventy times seven units (A. V. "seventy weeks") with the first period of seven (9:25), and to let the second period, the "sixty-two times seven units," follow this; for if this second period (the sixty-two weeks) be reckoned as beginning again from the very beginning, the third period, the "one week," must be carried back in the same way. The context demands, furthermore, that the origin of the prediction concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem be sought in Jeremiah 25:11-13 and the parallel passage, ib. 29:10. The "anointed," the "prince," mentioned after the first seven times seven units, must be Cyrus, who is called the anointed of the Lord in Isaiah 45:1 also. He concluded the first seven weeks of years by issuing the decree of liberation, and the time that elapsed between the Chaldean destruction of Jerusalem (586) and the year 538 was just about forty-nine years. The duration of the sixty-two times seven units (434 years) does not correspond with the time 538-171 (367 years); but the chronological knowledge of that age was not very exact. The Seder 'Olam Zuṭa (ed. Meyer, p. 104) computed the Persian rule to have lasted fifty-two years. This is all the more evident as the last period of seven units must include the seven years 171-165 (see "Rev. Et. Juives," xix. 202 et seq.). This week of years began with the murder of an anointed one (compare Leviticus 4:3 et seq. on the anointing of the priest)—namely, the legitimate high priest Onias III.—and it was in the second half of this week of years that the Temple of the Lord was desecrated by an abomination—the silver altar erected by Antiochus Epiphanes in place of the Lord's altar for burnt offering (see 1 Maccabees 1:54).

This assertion that the Book of Daniel was written during the persecutions of Israel by the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes appears to them to be supported by the following data: The kingdom which is symbolized by the he goat (8:5 and following) is expressly named as the "kingdom of Yawan [Javan]"—that is, the Grecian kingdom (8:21) the great horn being its first king, Alexander the Great (definitely stated in Seder "Olam R. 30), and the little horn being Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.). This kingdom was to persecute the host of the saints "unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings" (8:14, R.V.); that is, "half-days," or 1,150 days; and Epiphanes did, in fact, profane the sanctuary in Jerusalem for about that length of time, from Kislew 15, 168, to Kislew 25,165 (1 Maccabees 1:57, 4:52). The little horn described in Daniel 8:9-12, 23-25 has the same general characteristics as the little horn in 7:8, 20; hence the same ruler is designated in both passages. The well-known passage 9:23-27 also points to the same period. They emphasize that the first and imperative rule in interpreting it is to begin the period of the seventy times seven units (A.V. "seventy weeks") with the first period of seven (9:25), and to let the second period, the "sixty-two times seven units," follow this; for if this second period (the sixty-two weeks) is reckoned as beginning again from the very beginning, the third period, the "one week," must be carried back in the same way. Furthermore, the context appears to them to demand that the origin of the prediction concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem be sought in Jeremiah 25:11-13 and the parallel passage in Jeremiah 29:10. The "anointed," the "prince," mentioned after the first seven times seven units, "must be Cyrus" (not Onias), who is called the anointed of the Lord in Isaiah 45:1 also. He concluded the first seven weeks of years by issuing the decree of liberation, and the time that elapsed between the Chaldean destruction of Jerusalem (586) and the year 538 was just about forty-nine years (7 × 7 = 49). The duration of the sixty-two times seven units (434 years) does not correspond with the time 538–171 (367 years); but the chronological knowledge of that age was not very exact. The Seder 'Olam Zuṭa (ed. Meyer, p. 104) computed the Persian rule to have lasted fifty-two years. This is all the more evident as the last period of seven units must include the seven years 171–165 (see "''Rev. Et. Juives''," xix. 202 et seq.). This week of years began with the murder of an anointed one (compare Leviticus 4:3 et seq. on the anointing of the priest)—namely, the legitimate high priest Onias III—and it was in the second half of this week of years that the Temple of the Lord was desecrated by an abomination—the silver altar erected by Antiochus Epiphanes in place of the Lord's altar for burnt offering (see 1 Maccabees 1:54).

===Qumran manuscripts: Dead Sea Scrolls and the Original Hebrew/Aramaic Text of Daniel===

===Qumran manuscripts: Dead Sea Scrolls and the Original Hebrew/Aramaic Text of Daniel===

   

   

Before the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, many scholars questioned the faithfulness of the Hebrew text and took great freedom in amending, changing, and adjusting the Hebrew text. This freedom has been significantly curtailed by the Qumran findings.

The Qumran findings significantly curtailed the great freedom many liberalist scholars took in questioning the faithfulness of the Hebrew text and in amending, changing, and adjusting the Hebrew text before the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.

With regard to Daniel, many scholars have regarded the Hebrew and Aramaic text as of no greater authority than other ancient translations such as the Septuagint (the oldest Greek translation of the Old Testament) and the version attributed to Theodotion.<ref name=OriginalHebrew/> Among the reasons given is that the Septuagint treatment of Daniel is less literal, less closely related to the MT, than the treatment given to the rest of the Old Testament. This fact has led some to assume that the MT of Daniel is of relatively little value.

Many scholars have regarded the Hebrew and Aramaic text of Daniel, as of no greater authority than other ancient translations such as the Septuagint (the oldest Greek translation of the Old Testament) and the version attributed to Theodotion.<ref name=OriginalHebrew/> Among the reasons they have given is that the Septuagint treatment of Daniel is less literal, less closely related to the MT, than the treatment given to the rest of the Old Testament. This fact has led some to assume that the MT of Daniel is of relatively little value.

   

   

Moreover, the Septuagint version of the book of Daniel, available in only two ancient manuscripts, is said to be periphrastic [use of many words] and expansionistic, containing considerably more material than the MT, aside from such deuterocanonical additions as the Story of Susanna, the Prayer of Azariah, and the Song of the Three Young Men (Moore 1977).

Moreover, the Septuagint version of the book of Daniel, available in only two ancient manuscripts, is said by them to be periphrastic [use of many words] and expansionistic, containing considerably more material than the MT, aside from such deuterocanonical additions as the Story of Susanna, the Prayer of Azariah, and the Song of the Three Young Men (Moore 1977).

   

   

The official Greek translation of Daniel used in ancient times was that of Theodotion, an Ephesian (ca. 180 AD). His translation, which has antecedents (Schmitt 1966), has "the distinction of having supplanted the current version of the book of Daniel" (Jellicoe 1968:84). Further, around 400 AD Jerome ventured the opinion that the Septuagint "differs widely from the original [Hebrew], and is rightly rejected."

'''Theta''', the translation of Theodotion, an Ephesian (A.D. ca. 180) was the official Greek translation of Daniel used in ancient times. His translation, which has antecedents (Schmitt 1966), has "the distinction of having supplanted the current version of the book of Daniel" (Jellicoe 1968:84). In addition, around A.D. 400 Jerome ventured the opinion that the Septuagint "differs widely from the original [Hebrew], and is rightly rejected."<ref name=OriginalHebrew/>

   

   

Thus we have two ancient Greek versions of Daniel, and only the one by Theodotion has a close affinity with the MT. These, along with some other considerations, have caused leading modern scholars to have little confidence in the MT. Professor Klaus Koch is a supporter of the hypothesis that there is no authoritative, original text for the book of Daniel available. He suggests that while we have a Hebrew/Aramaic text and two Greek versions, none of these three is original, and that an original text is to be reconstructed with the best tools available (Koch et al. 1980:22, 23; Koch 1986:16–21). This essentially is also the view of L. Hartman and A.A. Di Lella, who point out that there are “no iron rules or golden rules” in this process of textual reconstruction (Hartman and Di Lella 1978:75). These and other scholars assume that the book of Daniel in its entirety was written originally in the Aramaic language and that the Hebrew parts of the book are translations from Aramaic into Hebrew.

Of the two ancient Greek versions of Daniel we have, only the one by Theodotion has a close affinity with the MT. These considerations, along with some others, have persuaded leading modern scholars to have little confidence in the MT. Professor Klaus Koch supports the hypothesis that there is no available authoritative, original text for the book of Daniel. While we do have a Hebrew/Aramaic text and two Greek versions, Professor Koch suggests that none of these three is original, and that an original text is to be reconstructed with the best tools available (Koch et al. 1980:22, 23; Koch 1986:16–21). This is also essentially the view of L. Hartman and A.A. Di Lella, who point out that there are "no iron rules or golden rules" in this process of textual reconstruction (Hartman and Di Lella 1978:75). These and other scholars assume that the book of Daniel in its entirety was written originally in the Aramaic language and that the Hebrew parts of the book are translations from Aramaic into Hebrew. Other scholars, however, oppose this hypothesis.

Other scholars, however, oppose this hypothesis.

Evidently this is a complex picture. The newly published Daniel materials from Qumran appear to throw important new light on the issue of the original text of Daniel. We say this because there is great harmony between the MT and the Cave 4 finds of the book of Daniel. Thus it no longer seems permissible to dismiss the Hebrew-Aramaic text as unreliable.

This clearly presents a complex picture. The Daniel materials newly published from Qumran appear to throw important new light on the issue of the original text of Daniel. Historical critics say this because there is great harmony between the MT and the Cave 4 finds of the book of Daniel. Thus it no longer seems permissible to dismiss the Hebrew-Aramaic text of the book as unreliable.

   

   

We need to note the following:

We need to note the following:

1. When it comes to variants, the eight Dead Sea scroll Daniel manuscripts, for the most part, are very close to each other.

1. The variants of the eight Dead Sea scroll Daniel manuscripts, for the most part, are very close to each other.

2. There is no significant abbreviation and no lengthy expansion in any of the manuscript fragments. “The text of Daniel in these [Cave 4] Daniel scrolls conforms closely to later Masoretic tradition; there are to be found, however, some rare variants which side with the Alexandrian Greek [Septuagint] against the MT and Theodotion” (Cross 1956:86).

2. None of the manuscript fragments presents any significant abbreviation and no lengthy expansion. "The text of Daniel in these [Cave 4] Daniel scrolls conforms closely to later Masoretic tradition; '''there are to be found, however, some rare variants which side with the Alexandrian Greek [Septuagint] against the MT and Theodotion'''" (Cross 1956:86). (''boldface emphasis added'')

3. These manuscript fragments do not contain any of the additions that are in all the Greek manuscripts, such as the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, and the Story of Susanna.

3. The Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, and the Story of Susanna that are in all the Greek manuscripts are not contained in these manuscript fragments.

4. The change from Hebrew into Aramaic is preserved for Daniel 2:4b in 4QDana as it was previously in 1QDana. Thus two different manuscripts give evidence to this change. The change from Aramaic into Hebrew in Daniel 8:1 is clearly manifested in both 4QDana and 4QDanb, just as in the MT.

4. As it was previously in 1QDana, the change from Hebrew into Aramaic is preserved for Daniel 2:4b in 4QDana. Thus two different manuscripts give evidence to this change in language. The change from Aramaic into Hebrew in Daniel 8:1 is clearly manifested in both 4QDana and 4QDanb, just as in the MT.

   

   

Based on the overwhelming conformity of these Qumran Daniel manuscripts with each other and with the MT, despite the few insignificant variants that agree with the Septuagint, it is evident that the MT is the well-preserved key text for the book of Daniel. An eclectic approach, using the Hebrew/Aramaic text, the Greek, and other versions as if they were all on the same level without giving priority to the Hebrew text is no longer supportable, if it ever was previously. The Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic text of the book of Daniel now has stronger support than at any other time in the history of the interpretation of the book of Daniel.

Despite the few insignificant variants that agree with the Septuagint, and based on the overwhelming conformity of these Qumran Daniel manuscripts with each other and with the MT, it is evident that the MT is the well-preserved key text for the Hebrew/Aramaic version of the book of Daniel. An eclectic approach, using the Hebrew/Aramaic text, the Greek, and other versions as if they were all on the same level without giving priority to the Hebrew text is no longer seen to be supportable, if it ever was previously. The Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic text of the book of Daniel now has stronger support than at any other time in the history of the interpretation of the book of Daniel.

   

   

The Daniel Dead Sea Scrolls and the Protocanonical Book of Daniel

====The Daniel Dead Sea Scrolls and the Protocanonical Book of Daniel====

   

   

When Professor D. Barthélemy published in 1955 the first fragmentary Daniel manuscripts from Cave 1 of Qumran, that is, 1QDana and 1QDanb, he ventured the opinion that “certain indications permit the thought that Daniel had perhaps not yet been considered at Qumran as a canonical book” (Barthélemy and Milik 1955:250). This idea perpetuated itself for years afterward. In 1964, however, F.F. Bruce stated that the book of Daniel “may well have enjoyed canonical status among them [the Qumran sectaries]” (Bruce 1964:57). In his 1989 Daniel commentary, written before the newest publications of the Qumran Daniel manuscripts were accessible, John Goldingay stated, “There are no real grounds for suggesting that the form of the Qumran manuscripts of Daniel indicates that the book was not regarded as canonical there, though neither for affirming that it was (Goldingay 1989:xxvii).

In 1955 when Professor D. Barthélemy published the first fragmentary Daniel manuscripts from Cave 1 of Qumran, 1QDana and 1QDanb, he put forth the opinion that "certain indications permit the thought that Daniel had perhaps not yet been considered at Qumran as a canonical book" (Barthélemy and Milik 1955:250). This idea perpetuated itself for years afterward. However, in 1964 F.F. Bruce stated that the book of Daniel "may well have enjoyed canonical status among them [the Qumran sectaries]" (Bruce 1964:57). John Goldingay stated in his 1989 Daniel commentary, written before the newest publications of the Qumran Daniel manuscripts were accessible, "There are no real grounds for suggesting that the form of the Qumran manuscripts of Daniel indicates that the book was not regarded as canonical there, though neither for affirming that it was (Goldingay 1989:xxvii).

   

   

These doubts and uncertainties about the canonicity of Daniel among the Qumran people can now be laid aside for good. They have been based largely on the “roughly square proportions of the columns of 1QDana and because Pap6QDan is written on papyrus” (Ulrich 1987:19). But professor Ulrich now says,

These doubts and uncertainties about the canonicity of Daniel among the Qumran people can now be laid aside for good. They have been based largely on the "roughly square proportions of the columns of 1QDana and because Pap6QDan is written on papyrus" (Ulrich 1987:19). But professor Ulrich now says,

   

   

From Cave 4 we now have overriding evidence on both points from manuscripts of books indisputably authoritative or ‘canonical,’ including Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, and Psalms.. .. However one uses in relation to Qumran the category of what is later explicitly termed ‘canonical,’ the book of Daniel was certainly in that category (Ulrich 1987:19).

From Cave 4 we now have overriding evidence on both points from manuscripts of books indisputably authoritative or "canonical", including Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, and Psalms.. .. However one uses in relation to Qumran the category of what is later explicitly termed "canonical", the book of Daniel was certainly in that category (Ulrich 1987:19).

   

   

Canonicity is supported also by the so called 4QFlorilegium, a fragment that employs the quotation formula “which written in the book of Daniel the prophet.” Such a formula is typical of quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran. It is similar also to Matthew 24:15, where Jesus refers to "Daniel the prophet."

The so called 4QFlorilegium, a fragment that employs the quotation formula "which written in the book of Daniel the prophet", also supports canonicity. Such a formula is typical of quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran. It is similar also to Matthew 24:15, where Jesus refers to "Daniel the prophet."

   

   

Inasmuch as Daniel was already canonical at Qumran at about 100 BC, how could it have become so quickly canonical if it had just been produced a mere half century before? While we do not know exactly how long it took for books to become canonical, it may be surmised that insofar as Daniel was reckoned to belong to the canonical books, it had a longer existence than a mere five decades, as the Maccabean dating hypothesis suggests. Both the canonical status and the fact that Daniel was considered a “prophet” speak for the antiquity of the book of Daniel. An existence of a mere five decades between the production of a Biblical book in its final form and canonization does not seem reasonable.

It is reasonable to ask how Daniel could have become so quickly canonical if it had just been produced about 150 B.C. a mere half century before Daniel was already accepted as canonical at Qumran at about 100 B.C.? While scholars do not know exactly how long it took for books to become accepted as canonical, they allow that it may be surmised that to the degree that Daniel was reckoned as among the canonical books, it therefore had a longer existence than the mere five decades suggested by the Maccabean dating hypothesis. Both the evidential canonical status and the fact that Daniel was considered a "prophet" speak for the antiquity of the book of Daniel. An existence of a mere five decades between the production of a Biblical book in its final form and canonization does not seem reasonable.

   

   

Thus the canonical acceptance of the book of Daniel at Qumran suggests an earlier origin of the book than the second century BC. 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 because 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" (Harrison 1969:1127).

The obvious canonical acceptance of the book of Daniel at Qumran therefore suggests an earlier origin of the book than the second century B.C.. Based on the evidence available at the time in 1969 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 because 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" (Harrison 1969:1127). And soon afterward, he stated that based on the Qumran manuscripts, "there can no longer be any possible reason for considering the book as a Maccabean product" (Harrison 1979:862). The most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts confirm this conclusion.

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" (Harrison 1979:862). The most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts confirm this conclusion.

Physical evidence supporting the 165 B.C. date comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Eight copies of Daniel were found at the Dead Sea Scrolls site. The oldest copy has been scientifically dated to 125 B.C. using carbon dating techniques. Since it is a copy, the original was written long before 125 B.C. But how do we know that the Dead Sea Scrolls are credible?

Physical evidence supporting the 165 B.C. date comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Eight copies of Daniel were found at the Dead Sea Scrolls site. The oldest copy has been scientifically dated to 125 B.C. using carbon dating techniques. Since it is a copy, the original was written long before 125 B.C.  

Four trustworthy methods have been used to unerringly date when the Dead Sea Scrolls were written. These methods are:

Four trustworthy methods have been used to show that the Dead Sea Scrolls are credible and to unerringly date when the Dead Sea Scrolls were written.

Carbon dating techniques using two independent systems that agree. These are the AMS Laboratory at the University of Arizona and the ETH laboratory in Zurich, Switzerland. [AMS means Accelerator Mass Spectrometry]

*1. Carbon dating techniques using two independent systems that agree. These are the AMS Laboratory at the University of Arizona and the ETH laboratory in Zurich, Switzerland. [AMS means Accelerator Mass Spectrometry]

The carbon dating techniques were verified to be accurate based on dating three scrolls with known dates {the known written dates are from the post Dead Sea Scrolls era of Bar Kokhba, dated A.D. April 16, 128, A.D. Sept 11, 130, and A.D. 135}. (If you want to learn about the methods and supporting evidence, you will have to download the pdf file at the referenced site).

*2. The carbon dating techniques were verified to be accurate based on dating three scrolls with known dates {the known written dates are from the post Dead Sea Scrolls era of Bar Kokhba, dated A.D. April 16, 128, A.D. Sept 11, 130, and A.D. 135}. (If you want to learn about the methods and supporting evidence, you will have to download the pdf file at the referenced site).

The style of the text (think of various FONTs you can use on a computer) used by Scribes to copy the scrolls permits Paleographers to date when the scrolls were copied. Carbon dating techniques agreed with the paleographic dates.

*3. The style of the text used by Scribes to copy the scrolls permits Paleographers to date when the scrolls were copied. Carbon dating techniques agreed with the paleographic dates.

Silver coins found at the Dead Sea Scrolls Community were minted between 136 B.C. to 9 B.C..

*4. Silver coins found at the Dead Sea Scrolls Community were minted between 136 B.C. to 9 B.C..

Carbon Dating Techniques from Two Systems Agree

=====Carbon Dating Techniques from Two Systems Agree=====

The University of Arizona used advanced methods to carbon date various Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, researchers concluded at the 95% confidence level that the Habakkuk scroll was written between 150 B.C. to 5 B.C.. Other Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts analyzed by the University of Arizona agree with the dating done at a lab in Zurich, Switzerland.

The University of Arizona used advanced methods to carbon date various Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, researchers concluded at the 95% confidence level that the Habakkuk scroll was written between 150 B.C. to 5 B.C.. Other Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts analyzed by the University of Arizona agree with the dating done at a lab in Zurich, Switzerland.

In support of the carbon dating done by independent labs, the Israel Antiquities Authority stated in a news release that "Some of the papyrus samples bear exact written dates within the text itself. These dates match those determined by the carbon-14 measurements. The reliability of paleography as a dating method is thus confirmed.

In support of the carbon dating done by independent labs, the Israel Antiquities Authority stated in a news release that "Some of the papyrus samples bear exact written dates within the text itself. These dates match those determined by the carbon-14 measurements. The reliability of paleography as a dating method is thus confirmed.

Dates from Coins at the Dead Sea Scrolls

=====Dates from Coins at the Dead Sea Scrolls=====

More than 550 silver coins were found at the Dead Sea Scrolls site. The coins were used to date when people lived at the site. The silver coins were minted between 136 B.C. to 9 B.C..

More than 550 silver coins were found at the Dead Sea Scrolls site. The coins were used to date when people lived at the site. The silver coins were minted between 136 B.C. to 9 B.C..

In the 1980's, two articles of vital interest on the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the book of Daniel were published from among the Dead Sea scroll textual finds made originally in 1952 in Cave 4 at Qumran. The publication by Professor Eugene Ulrich, “Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran” (1989), gives us full insight into these pivotal textual finds and follows the one published two years earlier on other parts of these finds (Ulrich 1987).

 

Two articles of vital interest on the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the book of Daniel were published in the 1980's, from among the Dead Sea scroll textual finds made originally in 1952 in Cave 4 at Qumran. The publication by Professor Eugene Ulrich, "Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran" (1989), gives us full insight into these pivotal textual finds and follows the one published two years earlier on other parts of these finds (Ulrich 1987).

   

   

Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) has played a major role in pushing for publication in a number of articles over the past few years, especially in 1989 and 1990 (Shanks 1989a, 1989b, 1989c, 1989d, 1990). There have been charges of a scandal because there are about "400 separate unpublished texts arranged on 1,200 different [photographic] plates" hidden for some 40 years from the scrutiny of the scholars. Hershel Shanks, the editor of BAR, says that "a reasonable guess is that 100 of these [unpublished texts] are Biblical texts on 200 plates" (1989c:20).

A major role has been played by ''Biblical Archaeology Review'' (BAR) in pushing for publication in a number of articles over the past few years, especially in 1989 and 1990 (Shanks 1989a, 1989b, 1989c, 1989d, 1990). There have been charges of a scandal because there are about "400 separate unpublished texts arranged on 1,200 different [photographic] plates" hidden for some 40 years away from the scrutiny of the scholars. Hershel Shanks, the editor of BAR, says that "a reasonable guess is that 100 of these [unpublished texts] are Biblical texts on 200 plates" (1989c:20).

                          

                          

The charges regarding the non-publication of these Dead Sea scroll texts were taken up in the summer of 1989 by the public press. For example, the New York Times in a July 9, 1989, editorial, "The Vanity of Scholars", complained that "the scrolls were discovered in 1947, but many that are in fragments remain unpublished. More than 40 years later a coterie of dawdling scholars is still spinning out the work while the world waits and the precious pieces lapse into dust."

The charges regarding the non-publication of these Dead Sea scroll texts were taken up in the summer of 1989 by the public press. For example, the New York Times in a July 9, 1989, editorial, "The Vanity of Scholars", complained that "the scrolls were discovered in 1947, but many that are in fragments remain unpublished. More than 40 years later a coterie of dawdling scholars is still spinning out the work while the world waits and the precious pieces lapse into dust."

   

   

Fortunately, various encouraging developments have taken place since the summer of 1991, and we can look forward to a speedy publication of the remaining scroll fragments and texts.

Various encouraging developments have taken place since the summer of 1991, and scholars can look forward to a speedy publication of the remaining scroll fragments and texts.

   

   

The significance of the Daniel fragments of the Dead Sea scrolls was voiced first in 1958 when professor Frank M. Cross of Harvard University published The Ancient Library of Qumran, a comprehensive survey of the scrolls. In the second edition of the book (1961), Professor Cross refers to the fragments of the Daniel scrolls: "One copy of Daniel is inscribed in the script of the late second century BC; in some ways it is more striking than that of the oldest manuscripts from Qumran" (43).

Professor Frank M. Cross of Harvard University first voiced the significance of the Daniel fragments of the Dead Sea scrolls in 1958 when he published ''The Ancient Library of Qumran'', a comprehensive survey of the scrolls. In the 1961 second edition of the book, Professor Cross refers to the fragments of the Daniel scrolls: "One copy of Daniel is inscribed in the script of the late second century BC; in some ways it is more striking than that of the oldest manuscripts from Qumran" (43).

   

   

This was fantastic news from a scholarly point of view, for the text of Daniel has long been considered suspect by many scholars on various grounds we’ll be discussing below. The question now was: How much of the book of Daniel is on this scroll, and precisely what sections are preserved and how does it compare with the rest of the Hebrew text of the book of Daniel?

From a scholarly point of view this was very welcome news, for many scholars on various grounds have long considered the text of Daniel suspect. The question then became: How much of the book of Daniel is on this scroll, and precisely what sections are preserved and how does it compare with the rest of the Hebrew text of the book of Daniel?

   

   

In November 1989, more than 35 years after its discovery and more than 25 years after Cross made his astounding declaration, this text, along with others from Cave 4 on the book of Daniel, were finally published. Only a few scraps of fragments from Cave 4, which contain but “five tiny fragments, all from the prayer in chapter 9 but none with more than one complete word” (Ulrich 1989:3), remain to be published (i.e., the fragments of the scroll designated 4QDane).

More than 35 years after its discovery and more than 25 years after Cross made his astounding declaration, this text and others from Cave 4 on the book of Daniel, were finally published, in November 1989. Only a few scraps of fragments from Cave 4, which contain only "five tiny fragments, all from the prayer in chapter 9 but none with more than one complete word" (Ulrich 1989:3), remain to be published (the fragments of the scroll designated 4QDane).

   

   

The fragments of the Daniel scrolls from Cave 4 were assigned for publication to Cross (Cross 1956:86) as long ago as 1951 (Benoit 1956:76). He was a member of the original group of editors of the Dead Sea scrolls appointed in 1953 (Shanks 1989c:18). But some time ago Cross entrusted the Daniel materials from Cave 4 to Eugene Ulrich of the University of Notre Dame (Shanks 1989a:57), a former student of his. In 1987 Ulrich published the materials from one scroll of Cave 4, namely, 4QDana. Now he has published the materials of the two other major scrolls, 4QDanb and 4QDanc.

Cross was assigned the fragments of the Daniel scrolls from Cave 4 for publication (Cross 1956:86) as long ago as 1951 (Benoit 1956:76). He was a member of the original group of editors of the Dead Sea scrolls appointed in 1953 (Shanks 1989c:18). But some time ago Cross entrusted to Eugene Ulrich of the University of Notre Dame, a former student of his, the Daniel materials from Cave 4 (Shanks 1989a:57). In 1987 Ulrich published the materials from one scroll of Cave 4, 4QDana. He has subsequently published the materials of the two other major scrolls, 4QDanb and 4QDanc.

   

   

In 1955 D. Barthélemy published two scroll fragments: 1QDana and 1QDanb (Barthélemy and Milik 1955:150–52). These contain parts of 22 verses from Daniel 1–3, that is, Daniel 1:10–17; 2:2–6 (1QDana) and 3:22–30 (1QDanb).

D. Barthélemy in 1955 published two scroll fragments: 1QDana and 1QDanb (Barthélemy and Milik 1955:150–52). These contain parts of 22 verses from Daniel 1–3, that is, Daniel 1:10–17; 2:2–6 (1QDana) and 3:22–30 (1QDanb).

In 1962 Maurice Baillet published a papyrus fragment from Cave 6, containing possibly parts of Daniel 8:16, 17, 21, 22; and clearly 10:8–16; 11:33–36, 38 (Baillet and Milik 1962:114, 115; pl. 23).

Maurice Baillet in 1962 published a papyrus fragment from Cave 6, containing possibly parts of Daniel 8:16, 17, 21, 22; and clearly 10:8–16; 11:33–36, 38 (Baillet and Milik 1962:114, 115; pl. 23).

The most extensively preserved scroll of the book of Daniel from Qumran is one from Cave 4: 4QDana, which contains large portions of Daniel. Preserved are parts of Daniel 1:16–20; 2:9–11, 19–49; 3:1, 2; 4:29, 30; 5:5–7, 12–14, 16–19; 7:5–7, 25–28; 8:1–5; 10:16–20; 11:13–16. Scroll 4QDanb contains Daniel 5:10–12, 14–16, 19–22; 6:8–22, 27–29; 7:1–6, 11(?), 26–28; 8:1–8, 13–16; and 4QDanc has Daniel 10:5–9, 11–16, 21; 11:1, 2, 13–17, 25–29 (Ulrich 1987:18).

The book of Daniel from Qumran from Cave 4 is the most extensively preserved scroll of the book: 4QDana, which contains large portions of Daniel. Preserved are parts of Daniel 1:16–20; 2:9–11, 19–49; 3:1, 2; 4:29, 30; 5:5–7, 12–14, 16–19; 7:5–7, 25–28; 8:1–5; 10:16–20; 11:13–16. Scroll 4QDanb contains Daniel 5:10–12, 14–16, 19–22; 6:8–22, 27–29; 7:1–6, 11(?), 26–28; 8:1–8, 13–16; and 4QDanc has Daniel 10:5–9, 11–16, 21; 11:1, 2, 13–17, 25–29 (Ulrich 1987:18). This means that scholars have at their disposal from the Dead Sea scrolls parts of all chapters, except Daniel 9 and 12. The unpublished 4QDane is certainly expected to have a few words of various parts of Daniel 9. There is also an overlap of a number of passages in Daniel 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11. Reference to Daniel 12 is made in 4QFlorilegium, which is an anthology of midrashic materials [rabbinical commentaries] on 2 Samuel and Psalms 1, 2.

This means that we have at our disposal from the Dead Sea scrolls parts of all chapters, except Daniel 9 and 12. Of course, the unpublished 4QDane is to have a few words of various parts of Daniel 9. There is also an overlap of a number of passages in Daniel 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11. Reference to Daniel 12 is made in 4QFlorilegium, an anthology of midrashic materials [rabbinical commentaries] on 2 Samuel and Psalms 1, 2.

   

   

It is a highly surprising phenomenon that no fewer than eight manuscripts of Daniel have been identified among the materials discovered in three of the 11 caves of Qumran. In order to appreciate the significance of this fact, we need to compare it with the manuscript finds of other Biblical books from the same caves.

No fewer than eight manuscripts of Daniel have been identified among the materials discovered in three of the 11 caves of Qumran. The significance of this fact is appreciated by comparing it with the manuscript finds of other Biblical books from the same caves.

   

   

To my knowledge, the most recent listing of published materials (as of 1992) from the Dead Sea scrolls appeared in 1977. The listing speaks of 13 fragments of scrolls from the Psalms; nine from Exodus; eight from Deuteronomy; five from Leviticus; four each from Genesis and Isaiah (Fitzmyer 1977:11–39); and no fewer than eight scrolls representing Daniel. Although we have no sure knowledge yet of the total scrolls that have been preserved from the Bible at Qumran, it is evident from this comparison that the book of Daniel was a favorite book among the Qumran covenantors.

In 1992 a very recent listing appeared of published materials from the Dead Sea scrolls in 1977. The listing mentions 13 fragments of scrolls from the Psalms; nine from Exodus; eight from Deuteronomy; five from Leviticus; four each from Genesis and Isaiah (Fitzmyer 1977:11–39); and no fewer than eight scrolls representing Daniel. Although scholars have no sure knowledge yet of the total scrolls that have been preserved from the Bible at Qumran, it is evident from this comparison that the book of Daniel was a favorite book among the Qumran covenantors.

   

   

   

   

Dates for the Daniel scrolls, published in 1955, were given by John C. Trever as the Herodian period for 1QDana and late Herodian period for 1QDanb (1964-1966:323–36). In other words, these manuscripts could come from about 60 A.D. or earlier (Hartman and Di Lella 1978:72).

This date is still very significant because the Masoretic text (MT) from which our Bibles are translated comes from a major manuscript that is dated to A.D. 1008 (Wurthwein 1979:35). In other words, for the first time in history scholars are able to compare the Hebrew and Aramaic of the book of Daniel with manuscripts of the same book about 1,000 years older. Based on a careful study of the variants and relationships with the MT, a comparison between the MT and the earlier manuscripts contained in 1QDana, 1QDanb, and 6QDan, reveals that "the Daniel fragments from Caves 1 and 6 reveal, on the whole, that the later Masoretic text is preserved in a good, hardly changed form. They are thus a valuable witness to the great faithfulness with which the sacred text has been transmitted" (Mertens 1971:31). In other words, these textual witnesses demonstrate that the MT was faithfully preserved and confirm that the Hebrew and Aramaic text of Daniel is reliable.

   

   

This date is still very significant because the Masoretic text (MT) from which our Bibles are translated comes from a major manuscript that is dated to 1008 AD (Wurthwein 1979:35). In other words, we are able to compare for the first time in history the Hebrew and Aramaic of the book of Daniel with manuscripts of the same book that are about 1,000 years older. A comparison between the MT and the earlier manuscripts contained in 1QDana, 1QDanb, and 6QDan, based upon a careful study of the variants and relationships with the MT, reveals that "the Daniel fragments from Caves 1 and 6 reveal, on the whole, that the later Masoretic text is preserved in a good, hardly changed form. They are thus a valuable witness to the great faithfulness with which the sacred text has been transmitted" (Mertens 1971:31).

Along with the dates of the earlier publications, the date for the three Daniel manuscripts published by 1989 is also of great importance. Some of the recently published scrolls on Daniel are even older than the previously published ones. The date of 4QDana is assigned to about 60 B.C. and 4QDanb to about A.D. 60 (Ulrich 1987:17). The oldest manuscript of Daniel by far is 4QDanc, which Cross dated in 1961 to the "late second century BC" (Cross 1961:43). Scholars who support a date for the writing of the book of Daniel in the Maccabean crisis at about the middle of the second century B.C. will be able to say that 4QDanc is "only a half century later than the composition of the book of Daniel" (Ulrich 1987:17). For supporters of this dating this means that the manuscript evidence for Daniel is as close to the autograph as the Rylands Papyrus is to the Gospel of John. "It is thus, for the Hebrew Bible, comparable to the Rylands manuscript of the Johannine Gospel for the New Testament" (Ulrich 1989:3). This comparison means that the papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John, published in 1935, Rylands 457, dated in the first half of A.D. the second century, effectively refuted claims of scholars who had attempted to date the Gospel of John to the latter part of A.D. the second century. The Rylands papyrus was within 25 to 50 years of the writing of the Gospel of John.

These textual witnesses demonstrate that the MT was faithfully preserved and confirm that the Hebrew and Aramaic text of Daniel is reliable.

The date for the three Daniel manuscripts published by 1989 is also of great importance, along with those of the earlier publications. Some of the recently published scrolls on Daniel are even older than the previously published ones. The date of 4QDana is assigned to about 60 BC and 4QDanb to about 60 AD (Ulrich 1987:17). The oldest manuscript of Daniel by far is 4QDanc, which Cross dated in 1961 to the “late second century BC” (Cross 1961:43). Scholars who support a date for the writing of the book of Daniel in the Maccabean crisis at about the middle of the second century BC will be able to say that 4QDanc is “only a half century later than the composition of the book of Daniel” (Ulrich 1987:17). This means for supporters of this dating that the manuscript evidence for Daniel is as close to the autograph as the Rylands Papyrus is to the Gospel of John. I quote: “It is thus, for the Hebrew Bible, comparable to the Rylands manuscript of the Johannine Gospel for the New Testament” (Ulrich 1989:3). The latter comparison means that the papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John, published in 1935, that is, Rylands 457, which was dated in the first half of the second century AD, effectively refuted claims of scholars who had attempted to date the Gospel of John to the latter part of the second century AD. The Rylands papyrus was within 25 to 50 years of the writing of the Gospel of John.

 

 

   

   

For those supporting the historical-critical date of the book of Daniel new issues are being raised. Since there is a manuscript of Daniel that supposedly dates within 50 years of the autograph, is there enough time for the supposed traditio-historical and redaction-critical developments allegedly needed for the growth of the book? Supporters of the Maccabean dating hypothesis of Daniel will be hard put to explain all of this in their reconstructions. To express it differently, do the early dates of the fragments from Cave 4 leave enough room for the developments, editorial and redactional as well as others, that are so often proposed (e.g., Koch 1986:20–24)? The verdict seems to be negative, and an earlier date for Daniel than the second century is unavoidable.

New issues are being raised for those supporting the late historical-critical date of the book of Daniel. Is there enough time for the supposed traditio-historical and redaction-critical developments allegedly needed for the growth of the book, since there is a manuscript of Daniel that supposedly dates within 50 years of the autograph? Supporters of the Maccabean dating hypothesis of Daniel will be hard put to explain all of this in their reconstructions. To express it differently, do the early dates of the fragments from Cave 4 leave enough room for the developments, editorial and redactional as well as others, that are so often proposed (e.g., Koch 1986:20–24)? The verdict seems to be negative, and an earlier date for Daniel than the second century is unavoidable when all the available evidence is objectively considered.

==Message==

==Message==