The Book Of Daniel And The Second-Temple Period
1. Introduction
2. Authorship and Authenticity
2.1. Introduction
In spite of explicit claims in the text to the contrary, most modern scholars deny that Dan 7-12 is prophecy from the sixth century describing events from the later Persian period to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, with a special emphasis on the Antiochan crisis of the second century BCE. (In Dan 7-12, Daniel is identified as the one who receives the revelation and speaks in the first person; in Dan 12:4, he is instructed to preserve what he has written for the time of the end.) (Some conservative interpreters also see predictions of a much later period, the period of the Antichrist.) Rather, they assume that these sections of the Book of Daniel originate in the early Maccabean period before the rededication of the Temple by Judas. The true author(s) is supposed to have written under the cloak of pseudonymity, similar to other pseudepigraphic texts, such as the Enochan literature or the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Likewise, the narrative in Dan 2 in which Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream, is dated to Hellenistic period some time before the appearance of Antiochus IV (The assumption is that, if the author would have referred to Antiochus' persecution if it had occurred.) (The narratives about Daniel in Dan 1-6 are often assumed to be once independent legends about Daniel originating much later than the sixth century, the historicity of which is questionable.) Thus, according to most scholars, what is ostensibly prophecy is actually recent history. In fact, they claim that when the author(s) do prophesy, they are invariably off the mark, especially as they believed that the eschatological kingdom would arise after the death of Antiochus IV. In addition, such scholars assume that the text is composite and not a unity; in other words, the work of several authors has been incorporated into it. They also allow for the possibility of re-interpretation of earlier "prophecies" by means of interpolations. Methodologically, those who hold the Book of Daniel to be a literary product of the early Maccabean period begin from the presupposition that all historical references in it are no later than the early second century BCE, so that prediction of the rise of the Roman empire and the destruction of the Temple by the Romans is denied. Thus, the "fourth kingdom" (Dan 2) is not the Roman empire but Alexander's kingdom; likewise the "fourth beast" is Antiochus IV, not some distant supreme ruler.
2.1. The Denial of the Possibility of Prophecy
The major reason for holding the view of the late date for the Book of Daniel is that its “prophecy” is so detailed and accurate that it is assumed that it could only have been written after the fact (a vaticinium ex eventu); this is especially true of Dan 11, where the history of the conflict between the Ptolemaic kingdom ("King of the South") and the Seleucid kingdom ("King of the North") is described accurately and in detail. Other pseudonymous writings attributed to authors from an earlier period also date from this period, although they, unlike the Book of Daniel, are attributed to well-known figures from Jewish tradition, like Moses or Enoch. There are other examples from the second-Temple period of the genre of history as prophecy (1 Enoch 83-90 [Animal Apocalypse]; 93:1-10; 91:11-17 [The Apocalypse of Weeks]; Jub. 23:14-31). Nevertheless, assuming that God could reveal accurate and detailed knowledge of the future, there is no reason to deny that the sixth-century Daniel wrote the book or at least provided the raw materials from which the book that bears his name was composed.
2.2. Alleged Historical Inaccuracies
Another reason for rejecting the sixth-century date of the Book of Daniel is its alleged historical inaccuracies. It is argued that, if he was really writing in the sixth century, the author would not have made the historical errors that he is thought to have made. Although, due to a lack of historical data, many of these issues are not fully resolvable, nevertheless, a reasonable explanation for each alleged historical inaccuracy is possible (see R. Dillard and T. Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 329-52; see also the older but still useful work of E. J. Young, Introduction to the Old Testament, 360-77 and R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1103-34). There is no denying that conservative scholars usually assume a priori that the Book of Daniel originates in the sixth-century, usually for dogmatic reasons relating to their views on the inspiration of scripture. Nevertheless, such a position is not blind faith, but can supported by reasonable historical arguments, even if the data are often insufficient to conclude firmly.
- Dan 1:1. It is argued that the author of Dan 1 erred in claiming that in the third year of the reign of Jehoiachim Nebuchadnezzar lay siege to Jerusalem, subdued and plundered the city. According to Jer 25:1, 9; 46:2, this event occurred during the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim said to be the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. It is possible, however, that two different systems for the dating the beginning of the reign of a king are in use. By the Babylonian reckoning, the year in which a king was crowned was the year of accession, whereas the next full year was the first year of his reign. In Israel, however, the year of accession is the first year of the reign of a king. It is arguable that Daniel is using the Babylonian system of dating, whereas Jeremiah is using the other system (see Bruce, "The Chronology of Daniel 1:1"; Goldingay, Daniel, 14-15). If so, then Dan 1:1 actually supports an early date, because an anonymous Jew writing in the second century would not use the obsolete Babylonian system of dating the reign of a king and thereby bring himself in contradiction with the prophet Jeremiah.
Hartman and DiLella argue that the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim would be 606 BCE, but correctly point out that Nebuchadnezzar could not have besieged Jerusalem in that year, for he was nowhere near Judea in that year (The Book of Daniel, 47-48). Nebuchadnezzar succeeded his father, Nabopolassar, as king in September, 605 BCE upon the latter's death in August, 605 BCE (see D. J. Wiseman, The Chronicles of Chaldean Kings). Earlier in 605 BCE, before his accession as king, Nebuchadnezzar had successfully led the Babylonian forces against the Egyptians at the battle of Carchemish; the result was that the Babylonians had control of the whole territory of "Hatti," which included all of Palestine (see Jer 46:2). If "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim" in Dan 1:1 means the fourth year of his reign by the Palestinian method of calculation, then Nebuchadnezzar made appearance in Jerusalem in 605 BCE, which is historically plausible since this would place it after the the battle of Carchemesh. This explains his presence in Jerusalem. It follows that the reference to Nebuchadnezzar as "king" in Dan 1:1 is slightly anachronistic, since when he besieged Jerusalem he was not yet king (see Josephus' quotation of Berosus, History of Chaldaea [Ant. 10.219-27; Apion 1.128-32].) Jeremiah's statement that Nebuchadnezzar's siege of the city was in the first year of his reign (and the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign) (25:1) is correct because later that year he became king: 605 BCE was his year of accession. Hartman and DiLella also argue for a chronological discrepancy between Dan 1:5, 18-19 and Dan 2:1. They assume that chronologically the events in Dan 1 precede those in Dan 2. On this assumption, the three-year training period of the exiles from the Jewish nobility has been completed in 603 BCE, three years after their arrival in Babylon in 606 BCE. The incident in Dan 2:1, however, is dated in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, which is 603 BCE (the first year being 604 BCE). Thus there is a contradiction: "The year 603 turns out to be both the third year (1:5, 18-19) and the second year (2:1) of Nebuchadnezzar" (48). If Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in 605 BCE, then the reference in Dan 2:1 would place the event described in this chapter in 603 BCE. There is no contradiction with the three years of schooling, unless one assumes that Dan 1 chronologically precedes Dan 2; but is is equally possible, however, that the event in Dan 2 occurred during that three-year training period. |
- Jehoiakim as Captive. It is objected that the author wrongly implies that Jehoiakim was taken captive to Babylon in the third year of his reign, when, in fact, this was the fate of his son Jehoiachim (2 Kgs 24). After Nebuchadnezzar's initial invasion, Jehoiakim remained in Jerusalem as a vassal king, but rebelled against his overlord three years later (2 Kgs 24:1). It is doubtful that a second century Jew would make such a historical error, but actually there was no error at all, for Dan 1:1 does not assert or even imply that Jehoiakim was taken into exile. Rather, Nebuchadnezzar took hostages from the nobility, including Daniel, as an incentive to Jehoiakim to remain loyal, which was standard practice in the ancient world. (Although 2 Chron 36:5-7 says that he put Jehoiakim in shackles in order to take him to Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, it seems, did not carry through with his plan.)
- Use of Term "Chaldean". Scholars argue that the reference to the Chaldeans as a class of Babylonian sages is historically late and therefore anachronistic (see Dan 2:10; 3:8; 4:7; 5:7, 11). Such a usage betrays a late date for the authorship of Daniel. (In the Old Testament it is used with an ethnic sense, to refer to the Babylonian people.) The first known use of the term Chaldeans to refer to this class of sages occurs in Herodotus's writings c. 450 BCE (Hist. 1.181-83). To argue that the term "Chaldeans" could not be used with this meaning before Herodotus is to argue from silence, which is a very weak argument. (See Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1113-14; Goldingay, Daniel, 16).
- Belshazzar and Nabonidus. Modern scholars often query the claim made in Dan 5:2, 11, 18, 22 that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar, when he was in fact the son of Nabonidus. Strictly speaking, Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but may have been a grandson: Nabonidus was the son of his daughter Nitocris (Herodotus, Hist. 1.188). If so, it would not be inappropriate to call Belshazzar the son Nebuchadnezzar, for the term "son" can mean descendant. Another historical problem that is raised is the fact that, according to extra-biblical sources, it was Nabonidus who was the king of the neo-Babylonian empire, before its fall to Cyrus; this is contrary to the scene depicted in Dan 5, in which Belshazzar is portrayed as king. This apparent discrepancy is resolved by the recognition that Belshazzar was de facto king in his father's ten-year absence, so that the portrayal of him as king in Dan 5 is understandable (ANET 313; 560-63) (see Goldingay, Daniel, 106).
- Nebuchazezzar's Illness. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar's"illness" as detailed in Dan 3:31-4:34 is not mentioned in any other source, nor the seven-year interruption of his kingship, is taken as evidence that this story is a historical fabrication, which is consistent with its being a product of the pious imagination of a a second-century Jew. A historical argument based on the datum that there are no extra-biblical references to Nebuchadnezzar's"illness," however, is an argument from silence and therefore not very persuasive.
The Prayer of Nabonidus (4QprNab) is similar to Dan 3:31-4:34 and is taken by some scholars to be an earlier version of the latter. This text is the prayer of Nabuani the king of Babylon offered after he had been healed of an ulcer with which he had been been afflicted for seven years. (He was healed by a Jewish exorcist, who pardoned his sins.) (See J. T. Milik, "Prière de Nabonide et autres écrits d'un cycle de Daniel: Fragments araméens de Qumrân," 411.) Given an early date for Daniel, the opposite conclusion is possible. - Darius the Mede. An argument against the historicity and therefore early date of Daniel is the figure of Darius the Mede (Dan 5:30-6:1, 28; 9:1). According to Dan 5:30, Darius the Mede assumed the kingdom formerly ruled by Belshazzar. The problem for historians is that there is no other evidence for the existence of Darius the Mede, so that the critical consensus is that he is a historical fiction, perhaps based on Old Testament prophecies of a Median conquest of Babylon (Isa 13:17; 21:2; Jer 51:11, 28). It is incredible, however, that a second-century Jew would create the historical figure of Darius the Mede either intentionally or through confusion over the Persian kings and their succession. (Some argue that the author mistakenly thought that the Persian king Darius I [see Hag 1:1, 15; 2:10; Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1] was the father of Cyrus.) It is more believable the Darius the Mede is another name for a Mede who ruled under the authority of Cyrus, perhaps Gubaru, mentioned in the Nabonidus Chronicle, as J. C. Whitcomb has argued (Darius the Mede). At any rate, the historical data at present are insufficient to untangle this problem, but it is unnecessarily extreme to conclude that Dan 5:30-6:28 is historical fiction.
- Sira 44:1-50:21. Against an early date for the Book of Daniel, it is pointed out Jesus ben Sira, writing before the Maccabean period, does not list the historical figure of Daniel in his list of famous Israelites (44:1-50:21). This could be interpreted as evidence that the Book of Daniel was not yet in existence. Again, this is an argument from silence, for other equally famous Israelites are omitted, such as Job, all the judges except Samuel, the kings Asa and Jehoshaphat as well as Mordecai and Ezra. In fact, the statement of the belief in the resurrection in Dan 12:1-2 may have been a factor in the decision not to mention Daniel, since Jesus ben Sira denied such a post-mortem hope.
| Even if the book of Daniel was written by an otherwise unknown Jew of the early Maccabean period, one would still have to attribute to him prophetic ability, since he appears to predict the rise of the Roman empire and the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70. These historical realities still lay in the future for a second-century BCE author, and, from a second-century perspective, the rise of the Roman empire was by no means certain and inevitable. To interpret the “fourth kingdom” [Dan 2] as that of Alexander the Great requires the postulation of a Median kingdom (chest and arms) as the successor of the neo-Babylonian kingdom and predecessor of the Persian (midsection and thighs), which historically is incorrect. This would mean that the author has erred. Similarly, to interpret the "fourth beast" [Dan 7] as the Seleucid kingdom is scarcely appropriate, for, even if Jews suffered under his persecution, Antiochus could hardly be described as a world ruler (see 7:23). To say that the author erroneously thought the Seleucid kingdom would become a worldwide kingdom begs the question. Likewise, the interpretation of the destruction of the Temple by the "people of the ruler" [Dan 9] as referring to the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus IV is unconvincing, because according to the prophetic timetable (490 years from the rebuilding of Jerusalem), Antiochus' reign as Seleucid king is excluded as historically too early. |
- Greek Loan Words. In the Book of Daniel, there are three musical instruments that have Greek names: qayteros (= Gk. kitharis) (Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15), pesanterîn (Gk. psaltirion) (3:5, 7, 10, 15), and sumponeyâ (Gk. symphonia) (3:5, 7, 10, 15). It is argued that the presence of three Greek names for musical instruments are anachronisms and therefore evidence that the Book of Daniel was composed in the Maccabean period, after the spread of Hellenistic culture into the Near East. But even before Alexander the Great, there is evidence of the penetration of Greek culture into Near East. If Greeks travelled or settled in the Near East in a early period and brought with them their musical instruments then in all likelihood they would become known to the inhabitants of these regions by their Greek names. Moreover, the fact that there are no other Greek loan words used in the Book of Daniel, especially relating to the government and political administration, suggests an early date, because surely such loan words would have made their way into the Aramaic venacular of second-century BCE Palestine after a century and a half of Greek rule.
2.3. Some Support for an Early Date
Some support for an earlier date for the Book of Daniel is the fact that several copies of the Book of Daniel have been discovered at Qumran, indicating the popularity of the text (1QDan a, b; 6QDan; 4QDan a, b, c, d, e) and that, in the text 4Q174 (Flor), while interpreting Daniel 12:20 in pesher fashion, the author refers to Daniel as "the prophet," indicating the community's belief that Daniel was not only a real person, but a prophet like Isaiah or Jeremiah. To call Daniel a prophet further implies that, in the view of the Qumran community, the Book of Daniel is a prophetic book having the same status as the other prophetic books. The manuscript 4Q174 (Flor) dates from the end of the first century BCE, but the work itself is probably older than this. If so, then it seems impossible that a text put together in its final form during or after the Antiochan persecution could have been accepted as canonical so quickly, especially given its spurious origin. Its status as scripture at Qumran implies that the Book of Daniel predates the second century, and may even reach back to the sixth century. It must be conceded, however, that the use of the Book of Daniel in the Qumran community does not necessarily prove its antiquity, because works from the second century BCE, such as the Book of Jubilees and four of the five books of 1 Enoch were also found in the Qumran library. (There are allusions to the Book of Daniel in Sib. Or. 3.396-400 [= Dan 7:7-8]; 1 Macc 2:59-60 [= Dan 3, 6] Bar 1:15-18 [= Dan 9:7-11] , but, since these texts are relatively late, these allusions to the Book of Daniel cannot serve as proof for its pre-Maccabean provenance and certainly not for a sixth-century origin.)
Other evidence suggesting an early date for the Book of Daniel is the the probability that Wisdom of Ben Sira is literarily dependent upon the Book of Daniel, even though the man Daniel is not mentioned in Sir 44:1-50:21. The Greek translation of Ben Sira has parallels to LXX Daniel (Sir 24.32; 39:8a-b; = Dan 12:3). More importantly, in the Hebrew original of Wisdom of Ben Sira, Sir 36:10 ("Hasten the end and remember the appointed time) has parallels with Dan 8:19, 11:27, 35. Likewise, in both the Hebrew terms "end" (qes) and “appointed time” (mo'ed) occur together and refer to the eschaton (Sir 36:10; Dan 8:19, 11:27, 35). Similarly, Sir 4:18 ("God reveals the hidden things") is parallel to the Aramaic Dan 2:22 ("He reveals deep and hidden things"). Finally, Sir 36:17 ("Have mercy, O Lord, on the people called by your name, on Israel, whom you have named your firstborn") has parallels with Dan 9.18-19. Since he wrote his wisdom text c. 190 BC in Jerusalem, a few decades before the appearance of Antiochus IV, if Jesus ben Sira was dependent upon the Book of Daniel (as opposed to the alleged anonymous author of the Daniel Apocalypse being dependent upon Ben Sira), then the Book of Daniel would not be vaticinia ex eventu, and could be from the sixth century. It seems more likely that Jesus ben Sira was literarily dependent upon the Book of Daniel rather than the reverse, because his work is interspersed with Old Testament allusions and quotations, whereas the Book of Daniel is original and unique among the canonical texts. (See Douglas E. Fox, "Ben Sira on OT Canon Again: The Date of Daniel," Westminster Theological Journal 49 [1987] 335-350.)
For what it is worth, Josephus, reflecting the accepted view of his day (first century) holds that the Book of Daniel is prophetic, having been written by the sixth century Daniel (Ant. 10.266-81; see 12.322). In his opinion, the accurate predictions of the Book of Daniel are proof that Providence (pronoia) directs human affairs, contrary to Epicureanism. Josephus also claims that when Alexander arrived in Jerusalem, in the process of defeating and dismantling the Persian empire, the Book of Daniel was shown to him, “in which he [Daniel] had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians.” Alexander took this one described in the Book of Daniel to be himself (Ant. 11.337). (Supposedly, Alexander had a vision while in Macedonia indicating that he would defeat the Persians by God’s help.) If this is true, then a second-century date for the book of Daniel obviously is excluded. Jesus also interpreted Daniel as predicting the destruction of the Temple by the Romans (Matt 24:15), as did the early rabbis. Modern scholars, however, view such ancient testimony as naive; the only enlightened ancient was Porphery, who alone recognized that Daniel was history and not prophecy. As Jerome writes, "Porphyry wrote his 20th book against the prophecy of Daniel, denying that it was written by the individual to whom it is ascribed in its title, but rather by some person living in Judea at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; he further alleged that Daniel did not prophesy the future so much as he related the past, and lastly whatever he spoke of up until the time of Antiochus contained genuine history, whereas anything he may have conjectured beyond that point was false inasmuch as he would have not foreknown the future" (Commentary on Daniel). |
