Introduction
The book of Daniel presents exegetes with unique interpretive challenges. In virtually every field “problems” exist, whether they are historical “anomalies”, or problems regarding philology, morphology, semantics or dating. The relatively recent discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the increasing understanding of intertestamental socio-religious movements can help illuminate some of these challenges. However, this necessitates an inter-disciplinary approach across specialized fields of study and demands an exegetical method devoid of a priori assumptions. The prophecy of Daniel has been used by Jews and Christians for over two millennia, often in a literalist fashion that discredits the book. It has been employed as a battle ground between liberal critics and fundamentalist conservatives. It has been trivialised as a book of children’s stories. The book of Daniel is subject to as many preconceptions as its NT counterpart, the Apocalypse. It is not the intention of this article to resolve these problems (an impossible task in the available space) but simply to make the reader aware of textual and dating issues. Hopefully this will prepare the way for a future in depth analysis or commentary.
Textual problems
The main text of Daniel throws up many problems. For example, in the “Seventy Weeks” prophecy there are hapaxes,[1] difficult constructions,[2] uncharacteristic terms,[3] ambiguities,[4] as well as syntactic and semantic variants suggested by the Old Greek[5] (sometimes erroneously referred to as the LXX[6]). In addition, alongside the main Hebrew text, there are many variants in the Masora (the margins of the Hebrew text).
John Goldingay offers a consensus view of the Hebrew text,
“To the Jewish scholarship of the first millennium A.D, we owe the preservation and standardization of the Hebrew Bible, the consonantal text over the first five centuries, the pointing over the succeeding five. Generally this scribal work was concerned to preserve one standard text of the Bible, but a distinctive feature with regard to Daniel is the number of alternative readings retained. These appear in margins of extant manuscripts as the Masora (tradition) and are reproduced in the BHS: almost any verse, at least in the Aramaic chapters, provides examples. Some represent expansions or abbreviations of the text; most are matters of spelling, pronunciation or morphology, though even these reflect an instinct to keep the text up-to-date and readable. It is a priori likely that this instinct will also have affected matters of more substance in the text, for example, in the incorporation of explanatory glosses”.[7]
Eugene Nida observes that at times, translators purposely and consciously “attempted to change a message in order to make it conform to his own . . . religious predilections.” According to Nida, “These are particularly evident when a translator feels inclined to improve on the original, correct apparent errors, or defend a personal preference by slanting his choice of words”.[8]
Linguistically Daniel also presents an enigma with the central section (2:4b-7:28) in Aramaic and the beginning (1:1-2:4a) and last five chapters in Hebrew. On the bilingual divide Towner comments, “Why the text of Daniel switches so suddenly from Hebrew to Aramaic and back again, no one has been able to determine.”[9] Greek and Persian loan words further complicate the issue, as “Nebuchadnezzar’s music” is played on instruments with Greek, not Hebrew, names (including the first known use of the word symphonia, source of our symphony). Some scholars think that Daniel’s use of the word Chaldean to represent a caste of wise men, astrologers, and magicians rather than a nationality indicates a late authorship, because the word was not generally used in this sense in the 6th century, but others see no particular force to this argument. A further discussion surrounds the value of the Greek versions of Daniel, namely the Old Greek and the Theodotian as these versions contain “extra” Daniel material.[10]
Dating
Historical “anomalies” in Daniel are seen as evidence for late (and therefore inaccurate) pseudonymous authorship. For example, Babylonian records inform us that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon and not the son of Nebuchadnezzar. The identity of Darius the Mede has also been a problem. In 9:1, the writer of Daniel described the mysterious “Darius the Mede” (539 BC) as the “son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes,” but Ahasuerus (better known as Xerxes) was the king of Persia from 485-465 BC. Because of the chronological difficulties, S. R. Driver declared at the turn of the century: “the prophecy admits no explanation, consistent with history, whatever”.[11]
The earliest date cited in the text is the third year of Judah’s king Jehoiakim (1:1), 605 BC, when Nebuchadnezzar first made a military expedition as far west as Syria-Palestine (cf. 2 Kgs 24:1). The last date is the third year of Cyrus (Dan 10:1), 537 BC, whose Persian empire replaced that of Babylon. The sixth century BC dating of Daniel was called into question as early as the third century AD (ca. 270-300) by the pagan Neo-Platonist philosopher Porphyry of Tyros, whose fifteen-volume work Against the Christians is only known to us through Jerome. Porphyry remarked that Daniel’s accurate knowledge stopped abruptly in 167 BC – the book then must have been written at that time as the prophecies (according to Porphyry) were inaccurate after 167 BC. Essentially, the same conclusion was reached by Norman Porteous, “…the end predicted by the author of the book of Daniel did not come true”.[12] The historian Robin Lane Fox is scathing in his assessment of Daniel (Fox’s work is tendentious): “The author [of Daniel] put a time limit to this extremely turbulent future: from the ending of the Temple cult to the Last Judgement there would be 1,290 days (in a postscript, a later author extended it to 1,335). They ran therefore, from December 167 to spring 163: the author, presumably, was writing in early 164 (perhaps when the first prophecy of ‘three times and a half’ was looking too optimistic). Undeterred, he foresaw mayhem with Michael, victory, appalling suffering and then the rewards for those in the virtuous columns of God’s heavenly book….Daniel’s four visions of history (the first in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew) were then connected together and attached to the six older stories of Daniel in Babylon (the first in Hebrew, the others in Aramaic)”.[13]
Although many modern scholars accept a late Epiphanian date for Daniel they do not share Fox’s biased assessment. Accordingly many modern scholars find that the prophecies in the Book of Daniel reflect the persecutions of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC), and his desecration of the altar as foretold by Daniel, consequently date its composition to that period. In particular, the vision in Chapter 11, which focuses on a series of wars between the “King of the North” and the “King of the South,” is generally interpreted as a record of Levantine history from the time of Alexander the Great down to the era of Antiochus IV, with the “Kings of the North” being the Seleucid kings of Syria and the “Kings of the South” being the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt. Even conservative scholars such as Boutflower believe that Midrash has been incorporated into chapter 11 during the Maccabean period.[14] It seems that scholarship has established a consensus that while chapters 1-6 are early,[15] the remainder of the book is a late Maccabean creation, or that it at least contains substantial glosses. However, we have not brought the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the table yet.
Since 1947 finds of exceptional importance have been discovered in caves near the ruined site of Qumran, just south of Jericho and near the western shore of the Dead Sea. Texts were written on papyrus and on animal skins – we now have the evidence of 175 manuscript copies of books known in our Old Testament which range in date from ca. 225 BC to AD 50: only four of them are more or less complete. They are not the only texts found at Qumran, but they include fragments of all our biblical books except Esther. The Danielic fragments[16] can be tabulated as below.
The fact that Daniel is admitted to have been written before Qumran places it minimally pre-150, and, in light of the dual textual tradition, “canonical prophetic status”, and pre-sectarian origins, would support a date of origination much, much earlier than 165 BC. Although this does not necessarily support a 6th century date (or rule it out), nevertheless it demonstrates that it was written before the time of Antiochus.
The reason for this is textual diffusion – the copying and distribution of texts, the evolution of textual variants and lastly the acceptance as canon all takes time. It is wholly implausible that a text (cf. 4Q114 ca.150) that was written about 165 BC was immediately considered authoritative cannon and therefore worth preserving and copying. It is normal to assume a period of at least 100 years before copies are distributed. The ancient Hebrews generally allowed an interval of time to elapse between the autograph and its recognition as canonical Scripture by its readers. This process had the effect of ensuring the consonance of the particular work with the ethos of the Torah, which constituted the standard of revelation and spirituality.
| Item | Manuscript | Number | Content Range | Date Copied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1QDan(a) | 1Q71 | 1:10 to 2:6 | Herodian |
| 2 | 1QDan(b) | 1Q72 | 3:22-30 | Herodian |
| 3 | 4QDan(a) | 4Q112 | 1:16 to 11:16 | Mid-1st c. BCE |
| 4 | 4QDan(b) | 4Q113 | 5:10 to 8:16 | Ca. 20-50 CE |
| 5 | 4QDan(c) | 4Q114 | 10:5 to 11:29 | Late 2nd c. BCE |
| 6 | 4QDan(d) | 4Q115 | 3:23 to 7:23? | Ca. mid-1st c. BCE |
| 7 | 4QDan(e) | 4Q116 | 9:12-17? | 2nd c. BCE |
| 8 | Pap6QDan | 6Q7 | 8:16? To 11:38 | Ca. 50 CE |
The literary criticism of Daniel must now be reassessed against the manuscript discoveries at Qumran, where several copies of the work were found. In addition, two fragments located in Cave 1 have proved on examination to be related palaeographically to the large Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa), dated by Millar Burrows about 100 B.C. All these documents, of course, are copies from the Maccabean age or later, making it necessary to remark, as Burrows has observed, that “the originals came from a period several centuries in advance of the earliest date to which these manuscripts and fragments can be assigned on any basis of reckoning”. [17]
Another avenue for investigation is the relationship between the different streams of literature and the type of Judaism that they represent. During the Persian and Greek era there had been developing a substantial literature connected with the name of Enoch. Goldingay summarizes the situation as follows: “[Enochic literature] may be dependent on Daniel at a number of points, but current opinion dates much of 1 Enoch 1-36; 72-108 earlier than Daniel or within the same period, so that in principle it is as likely that Daniel is dependent on 1 Enoch as vice versa; indeed, many of the parallels (e.g., the use of animal imagery in 1 Enoch 90) need not require dependence of either on the other. With 1 Enoch 37-41 (the Parables) the situation is different. The Parables are uninstanced at Qumran, and current opinion regards them as belonging to the Roman period. Their most interesting parallel to Daniel (more likely suggesting dependence on Daniel than on a common source) is their taking up the humanlike and the one advanced in days of 7:13. “That Son of Man” (1 Enoch 46-48, alongside the “head of days” with hair like wool; see also chaps. 62; 69), God’s elect and righteous one, is eventually identified with Enoch (71.14).”[18]
Conclusion
It was the intention of this article to raise awareness of the complex issues surrounding Danielic Studies, not necessarily to offer answers. It is important to ask the right questions. However, Danielic studies should not be merely concerned with the resolution of a number of puzzles – even though Daniel raises all the central questions about scriptural authority and inspiration, about history and faith, about pseudonymity and inerrancy, about criticism and hermeneutics. We must be prepared to understand the theology behind Daniel and to develop new approaches and perspectives on the prophecy. A preoccupation with merely historical questions (important as they are) or the accuracy or otherwise will prevent Daniel from being properly heard. It is long overdue that a new hermeneutic be brought to bear.
[1] A hapax legomenon (pl. hapax legomena, though sometimes called hapaxes for short) is a word which occurs only once in the written record of a language, in the works of an author, or in a single text. Many hapax legomena appear in the Seventy Weeks prophecy: nechettak, “determined” (9:24); charutz, “moat,” (9:25); tzoq, “trouble” (9:25); as well as terms, e.g.,;, and terms: kenaf, “wing” (9:27).
[2] For example, in the Seventy Weeks prophecy—shiqutzim meshomem, “desolating abominations” (9:27) is difficult.
[3] For example, again in the Seventy Weeks prophecy, berit, “covenant” (9:24; cf. 9:4; 11:22, 28, 30, 32), [ha]rabbim, “the many” (9:27), and even the term mashiach, “anointed, Messiah” (9:26) are uncharacteristic terms.
[4] So, in the Seventy Weeks prophecy, the Hebrew term shavua’, usually translated as “week”, is a deliberately ambiguous term denoting “sevens”.
[5] The Septuagint and Theodotian imply many textual variants on the Masoretic text. For example, in the Seventy Weeks prophecy, the presence of the athnah accent in Dan 9:25 causes problems. In Hebrew there are two types of accents and they act as punctuation marks. The strong accents serve as stops (periods), colons, and semicolons. One of these accents is called the athnah. The function of the athnah is to mark the first half of a verse and serves as a strong break within a sentence. The Hebrew text contains an athnah under the Hebrew word for “seven”, which in the text closes the first period of sevens. Thus, in Hebrew, the accent makes a separation between the two periods of weeks. Translations (e.g. RSV) following the Hebrew Masoretic text accents take the athnah into account and adopt a disjunction, with “a messiah” appearing after the initial 7 weeks. (7 weeks…….. Then after 62 weeks). However, the KJV is influenced by Theodotian which does not reflect such an accent, and has “until the Messiah” shall come after 69 weeks (7 weeks and 62 weeks).
[6] The Septuagint proper (LXX) is only the Pentateuch, in contrast the wider Old Greek text (which includes Daniel) is hereafter called ‘LXX’ in order to differentiate it from the LXX – see the article by John Adey, CeJBI October 2007
[7] J. E. Goldingay, Daniel (London: Nelson, 1989), xxxii.
[8] Eugene Nida, Toward a Science of Translation, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964), 155. Translators often employ Hebrew dictionaries and grammar written in English. Thus, the structure of the English language is bound to be an influence in any translation, “regardless of the translator’s wish to avoid ‘linguistic contamination’” (p. 148). Nida notes that one basic requirement for a translator is that s/he must have empathy for the original author. The words which translators must employ to translate a text are already set out for them by the original author. Using this empathetic spirit, translators must be like the original author; translators must not try to improve or to excel the original author. Nida wrote that the translator “must exert every effort to reduce to a minimum any intrusion of himself which is not in harmony with the intent of the original author and message” (p. 154).
[9] W. Sibley Towner, “Daniel” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (eds. B. M. Metzger and M. D. Coogan; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 150.
[10] The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Young Men (inserted after 3:23 of the Hebrew text); the story of Susanna and the elders (chapter 13 in the ‘LXX’), and the story of Bel and the Dragon (chapter 14 in the ‘LXX’). In addition a number of extra-canonical Danielic materials have appeared among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, the most interesting of which is the “Prayer of Nabonidus” which parallels Nebuchadnezzar’s madness found in Daniel.
[11] S. R. Driver, Daniel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), 8.
[12] Norman Porteous, Daniel (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), 144.
[13] Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version (London: Viking Press, 1991), 336.
[14] Boutflower discusses the work of C. H. H. Wright who examined this phenomenon, he comments as follows: “The eleventh chapter of Daniel is, then, in the first place, a translation from the original; and, in the second place, it is a translation that has been added to by way of interpolation; and to this is due the form which it has come down to us. What has happened to the Greek Septuagint translation has also happened to the Hebrew translation of chapter 11; it has been added to, and the nature of the additions resembles to some extent the expository comments which we meet in the Hebrew Targums. The writers of the Targums, or ancient Aramaic commentaries on the Scriptures of the Old Testament, loved to introduce into Scripture prophecies fulfillments, actual or supposed, in such a way that they appear as parts of the original prophecy. In such paraphrases, writes Dr. Wright, phrases of the original are retained, although often so modified and obscured by expository comments that if we possessed only the Targum it would be often impossible to restore the original text.” C. Boutflower, In and around the book of Daniel (London: SPCK, 1923), 5-7.
[15] “Modern scholars have argued that the first half of the book, dealing with the experiences of Daniel at the Babylonian court, dates to the third century B.C.E., while the remainder, describing the Maccabean period and its aftermath in apocalyptic terms, dates to the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 167-163 B.C.E.” H. Schiffman, From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple & Rabbinic Judaism (New York: KTAV Publishing, 1991), 123. “The date of the origins of these tales [Daniel 1-6] is open to surmise. A third or fourth century date might be suggested, but there is nothing to preclude that some of the material might be earlier, even going back to the events they describe. The collection, however, would be much later.” David G. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon, (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1986 ), 87-88.
[16] Notice Items #5 and #7, portions from the last half of the Book of Daniel, which were copied (not “written”!) between 150 and 100 BC. Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years,[vol. 2](eds., Peter W. Flint and James C. Vanderkam; Leiden: E. J. Brill,1999), 53.
[17] M. Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking, 1955), 118.
[18] J. E. Goldingay, Daniel (WBC; Nelson,1989), xxxviii.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One