Introduction
The eleventh chapter of Daniel, as J. A. Montgomery correctly judged, “is the greatest stumbling-block to the ‘traditionalist’ interpretation of the bk”.[1] The difficulty presented by the chapter is not so much the accuracy of its predictions but its focus. The consensus of the majority of scholars, critical and conservative, is that larger part of this chapter refers to the Hellenistic age, and more specifically, those events leading up to the Maccabean crisis. This difficulty is not lost on conservative commentators:
This prophecy presents a problem the like of which occurs nowhere else in the Bible. In its detail it is too exact, too specific – and apparently too pointless. Verses 3-39, and possibly to the end of the chapter, read for all the world like a history written in the language of prophecy. For a short and otherwise unimportant period in Bible history, it deals with the inter-relations of the kings of the south (the Ptolemys of Egypt) and the kings of the north (the Seleucids of Syria), with only very slight mention of the consequent sufferings of the attenuated Judean state.[2]
It was, perhaps, considerations of this kind that led the Rev. C. Wright to propose that Daniel 11 in its present form is an interpolation, comparable with the later Targums. He theorizes that the original (Aramaic) was lost when holy books were destroyed during the Maccabean crisis and so the ending was replaced with the only extant copy, a (Hebrew) paraphrase.[3] C. Boutflower embraced Wright’s thesis and thus criticized those scholars who used Daniel 11 as the mould for the interpretation of Daniel’s other visions.[4] Montgomery, however, rejected Wright’s thesis as “pure assumption”.[5] Since then Wright’s thesis has received little consideration. Conservative commentators generally reject the thesis (and other interpolation theories), although it can be found amongst a handful.[6]
The consensus of critical scholars views the eleventh chapter of Daniel as an addition to a later recension of the book (one of many), and scholars are not encumbered by the view that the book was in some way complete in the sixth century B.C.E. One plausible theory, proposed by a number of scholars, is that the main portion of Daniel 11 derives from another text, a historical document that was rewritten into a prophetic format and embedded within the Danielic material.[7] This view draws plausibility from the richness of the historical material contained therein, such that scholars often use Daniel 11 as a primary source for the period. L. L. Grabbe writes:
It is unthinkable that this [i.e. Daniel 11] is based on anything but a sophisticated historical document (or documents) of some sort.[8]
If, for instance, a short historical account of the affairs of the Didachoi were used as the basis of vv. 5-19 then this might explain the focus on marriage alliances and the like, rather than the ill-treatment of the Jewish people. This might also explain sudden appearance of ‘the King of the South’ in v. 5.
Grabbe’s hypothesis allows for “some sort of documents”, and while vv. 5-19 may be based upon a non-Jewish historical source, vv. 30b-35 is certainly a Judeo-centric consideration of the period of the Maccabean crisis. The following section, vv. 36-39, is a general description of an ungodly nemesis—a description that would be linked to the Antichrist in later Christian interpretation. And the final section, vv. 40-45, demonstrates clear parallels with Ezekiel 38-39 and is in some sense a prophetic document.
It might be tempting to dismiss interpolation theories as an apologetic device. However Wright himself believes that interpolations are demonstrable from close analysis of the text.[9] In this analysis he draws attention to many particulars:
- many verses contain phrases which either have no clear referent or, according to Wright, are demonstrably unhistorical
- other phrases are “corrected” in Old Greek versions of Daniel to bring them into line with known history
- significant events and other relevant details are omitted from the passage
- particular characters or events that would have upset or enraged the Jews are ignored, while other details, seemingly irrelevant to a Jewish audience, are included
This detailed “cumulative” argument is worthy of critical examination. Wright’s further proposition of how these interpolations were incorporated into the text may be too simple, yet it is not integral to the thesis as other (more subtle) explanations can and have been proposed.
General Considerations
In this section, we will explain the general arguments of Wright (and others) in favour of the view that Daniel 11 is an interpolation.
1) Irrelevance
The principal difficulty with the prophecy, particularly vv. 5-20, is that it has no direct relevance either to Daniel’s situation or the culmination of the prophecy. If, as futurist interpreters have claimed, vv. 40-45 refers to the Antichrist, or some other future aggressor, then the rest of the chapter becomes, at best, tangential. Even if this aggressor is identified with Antiochus Epiphanes, the relevance of vv. 5-20 is questionable; comparison with Daniel 8 indicates that the level of detail in these verses is far greater than that required to set the scene. Rather this section almost has the feel of prophetic showboating.
2) Character
Several scholars have commented that the prophecy of chapter 11 is uncharacteristic of other OT texts. J. G. Baldwin comments “nowhere else is prediction as specific and detailed as here”.[10] While uniqueness is not a firm basis for accusations of fraud, these considerations have led many to conclude that this prophecy is really history-writing.
3) Discontinuity
Several of the features displayed in Daniel 10-12 are absent from Daniel 11.
i) First, in Daniel 10 the prophecy is manifested to Daniel through the medium of the angelic dramas personae—the ‘princes’. The power-play between Persia and Greece is acted out by the angel-princes (Dan 10:12-14; 10:20-11:1). The angel-prince motif is repeated in Daniel 12 when Michael the prince “stands up” (Dan 12:1). Yet between Dan 11:2 and Dan 11:45 this motif is entirely missing, the prophecy being conveyed solely by direct speech.
ii) Secondly, there is the angelus interpreter – the man clothed in linen (Dan 10:4-6), who comforts Daniel and is sent to cause Daniel to understand (Dan 10:14). This figure recurs in Daniel 12, with two other figures, to foretell the time-periods and to close the vision (Dan 12:5-13). Again these figures are absent from Daniel 11. Though it may be noted that it is the man clothed in linen who utters the prophecy (Dan 10:20-12:4), it is odd that he is allowed such an extended speech without interruption from Daniel, either collapsing (Dan 10:8, 15) or responding (Dan 10:16-17, 19; 12:8).
iii) Thirdly, Daniel’s action (and reactions) are absent from Daniel 11, where elsewhere he describes how he felt and his failure to understand (Dan 10:2, 7, 11, 15, 19; 12:5, 8).
All these features, (i)-(iii), may be explained by the fact that the section in question is all in direct speech. Yet it is this very feature that makes it discontinuous with the surrounding material.
4) The Vision of the Ram and the Goat
The comparison between Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12 is significant. In both sections we find presented the struggle between Persia and Greece, the notable career of Alexander, the division of his empire, the culmination of the vision in the Maccabean crisis, and the figure of Antiochus Epiphanes. The principal difference between the two sections, in terms of prophesied-events, is the discourse in Daniel 11 regarding the King of the North and the King of the South. Though we should be careful of imposing our own expectations upon the text, we may question the addition of the two-kingdom discourse since, seemingly, it adds little to the purpose of the text. Why describe the fortunes of the King of the South if he does not feature in the crux of the prophecy?
Specific Considerations
In this section, we will outline the specific points in Daniel 11 that are highlighted by Wright in developing the “interpolation” theory and offer some possible responses.
1) v. 5 – Capture of Jerusalem (omitted)[11]
Josephus records that, after the division of Alexander’s empire, Jerusalem was captured by means of “deceit and treachery” (c. 320 B.C.E.). Ptolemy I Soter entered the city on the Sabbath day on the pretense of offering a sacrifice and the citizens of Jerusalem allowed him entry unawares. Josephus also records that “he reigned over it in a cruel manner”.[12]
Though this event was probably incidental in the fortunes of the Didachoi, the capture and the subsequent treatment of Jerusalem by Ptolemy I must have been of particular significance to the Jewish people. The fact that this event is omitted, while the marriage-alliance between Berenice (daughter of Ptolemy II) and Antiochus II is included, indicates a particularly partiality in the text.
2) vv. 5-6 – Seleucus I & Antiochus I (omitted)[13]
While v. 5 informs us about the reign and dominion of Ptolemy I (‘King of the South’), the accession and career of Seleucus I Nicator and his son Antiochus I Soter are entirely omitted. This cannot be because nothing of note occurred during their reigns—quite the contrary. Wright proposes that these events were omitted because they were of direct concern to the Jews.
3) v. 6 Impiety of Antiochus II (omitted)[14]
Another significant event omitted by the author is the assumption of the title ‘Antiochus II Theos’ by the King of the North. One might imagine that such impiety would be frankly condemned by a Jewish author, but only his marriage is considered to be significant.
4) v. 6 “she shall be given up and … he who fathered her”[15]
The phrase “she shall be given up” refers to the killing of Berenice. However, “he who fathered her” would refer to Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who was not put to death by the Seleucids. Old Greek versions of Daniel omit reference to the father.
5) v. 7 “a branch from her roots”[16]
This phrase would most naturally refer to a child of Berenice, implying that her child became King of the South. In reality, the one who became king of Egypt was her brother, not her son. Old Greek versions of Daniel amend this phrase to “a plant from his root”. This difficulty may simply result from pedantry on the part of Wright; most commentators allow that a brother is from the same ‘roots’.[17]
6) v. 10 “his sons shall wage war”[18]
This phrase refers to the sons of Seleucus II, namely, Seleucus III (= Ceranus) and Antiochus III. Yet Seleucus III only reigned for three years and did not wage war against Egypt. Old Greek versions of Daniel amend the plural to a singular. At best this is an argument from silence and some commentators allow that the Biblical author was party to better information than modern historians.[19] E. J. Young notes that while the first part of the verse is in plural, the latter part is singular; only one son ‘overwhelms and passes through’.[20]
7) v. 17 “with upright ones”[21]
On the basis that the phrase ‘upright one’ would most naturally refer to a Jew, this verse implies that the King of the North would invade Egypt aided by a contingent of Jewish warriors, yet this is contrary to known history. On the other hand, “upright ones” may not refer to a group of people but may also be rendered “fair terms”.[22]
8) v. 21 “they shall not give him the glory of the kingdom”[23]
This verse would imply that Antiochus IV Epiphanes was not given the status of king, contrary to history. Old Greek versions of Daniel give “the royal honour will not be granted to him”, perhaps amending the text to imply that it is the honour, rather than the status, that was denied. It may be that this phrase points to the fact that Antiochus was not the legal heir to the throne, but conspired against his brother Demetrius.[24]
9) v. 22 “the prince of the covenant”[25]
Wright asserts that this phrase has no clear referent; it is omitted from Old Greek versions of Daniel. Commentators identify this “prince” as a high priest, usually Onias III,[26] though few are definite on this point.[27]
10) v. 28 Desecration of the Temple (omitted)[28]
In v. 28 it is stated that “his heart shall be moved against the holy covenant, so he shall do damage”. This is generally interpreted as Antiochus’ desecration of the Temple on his return from his campaign in Egypt.[29] However, it is odd that this event is so lightly glossed over, especially when it is considered that not only did Antiochus remove the holy articles but massacred the people.
11) vv. 33-35 The Cleansing of the Sanctuary (omitted)[30]
The reaction of the author to the defilement of the sanctuary is, perhaps, quite unexpected. He does not concentrate on the uprising of the Maccabees (usually identified as the “little help” v. 34), but rather speaks of “the wise” teaching the people, whilst some of “the wise” stumble or fall “to refine them”. Particularly unexpected is the omission of any reference to the cleansing of the sanctuary, especially when this very thing is predicted elsewhere in the book (Dan 8:14).
On the basis of these observations, (1)-(11), Wright supports an “interpolation” view of Daniel 11.
Evaluation
Wright claims that the historical discrepancies he identifies signify that the full text cannot have been written in the 2c. B. C. E. Rather he proposes that the original prophecy was overwritten by the later author. Those phrases without clear historical reference are seen as vestiges of the original preserved by the interpolator; why else would the author include inaccurate statements? The description of Antiochus (vv. 36-39) is a case in point:
The text … does not contain any clear or distinct description of Antiochus. It does not possess those marked features which might well have been expected from a prophetic history written later than the events described. There are phrases which lead us to regard the prophecy as ‘touched up’ by a later parapharist.[31]
Yet, as we have seen, most of the historical issues raised by Wright are plausibly explained by other commentators; in some cases, it may be our limited knowledge of the period that is at fault. Also, Wright’s thesis does not adequately explain the omission of events of Jewish significance which he highlights. The first section (vv. 5-19) especially seems full of historical allusions, but missing the events upon which one might have expected a Jewish mind to focus. These (seemingly) irrelevant historical details cannot easily be explained either as original prophecy, for they are too accurate, or interpolations, for they are too irrelevant.
One plausible theory, proposed by a number of scholars, is that the main portion of Daniel 11 derives from another text, a historical document that was rewritten into a prophetic format and embedded within the Danielic material.[32] This view draws plausibility from the richness of the historical material contained therein, such that historians use Daniel 11 as a primary source for the period. Grabbe declares,
…it is unthinkable that this [i.e. Daniel 11] is based on anything but a sophisticated historical document (or documents) of some sort.[33]
If, for instance, a short historical account of the affairs of the Didachoi were used as the basis of vv. 5-19, then this might explain the focus on marriage alliances and the like, rather than the ill-treatment of the Jewish people. The interpolation of this historical account into the text may also explain the apparent discontinuity caused by the sudden appearance of the King of the South in v. 5.
This, however, cannot be the whole story for while vv. 5-19 (perhaps vv. 5-30a) may be based upon a non-Jewish historical source, vv. 30b-35 is Judeo-centric in outlook and likely of Jewish origin. The following section (vv. 36-39) also is not historical in character, lacking the specificity of the earlier sections. Many commentators interpret this section as a description of the archetypal “antichrist”, and it has been applied to various individuals including Herod the Great, Constantine, Napoleon and the Pope.[34] It is possible that this description was only secondarily applied to Antiochus IV and predates the composition of the text.
The final section (vv. 40-45) is inaccurate, if intended as a continuation of the events of the reign of Antiochus, and is interpreted by most scholars as a failed prediction of the author, thus pinpointing the date of composition (c.164 B.C.E.). A. S. van der Woude proposes that this prediction was not mere guesswork, but based upon contemporary rumours of a future Egyptian campaign and upon the eschatological framework provided by the OT prophets.[35] Certainly, this section demonstrates parallels with Ezekiel 38-39:[36]
| Ezekiel 38-39 | Daniel 11 | |
| northern invader | 38:6, 15; 39:2, | 11:40 |
| allies: Ethiopia and Libya[37] | 38:5 | 11:43 |
| horsemen and chariots | 38:4; 39:20 | 11:40 |
| gathering spoils | 38:13; 39:10 | 11:43 |
| destroyed on the mountains of Israel | 38:21; 39:4; | 11:45 |
If Wright’s central proposition is correct, that the current text of Daniel 11 is an interpolation of the original prophecy, then we may have some clues as to its form. We may tentatively propose that the original prophecy paralleled other OT prophecies of the eschatological battle over Israel; vv. 36-45 would represent a vestige of this prophecy. It is conceivable that in reaction to severe persecution, this prophecy was actualized by many textual additions to portray Antiochus as the eschatological antagonist; a non-Jewish account of the Didachoi was interpolated into the text to bridge the gap between Alexander and Antiochus.
Here, however, we reach the limits of the historico-critical method. While this explanation of the present form for the Daniel 11 is plausible, it is based entirely upon internal evidence. It is incumbent on proponents of such theories to provide some adequate explanation of how such interpolation arose and, if possible, provide manuscript evidence for the textual alteration. We shall see that in this case both these requirements are difficult to fulfill.
Textual History
Generally, critical scholars presume that the textual transmission of texts like the book of Daniel was quite free, allowing for interpolations, expansions and additions. The textual history of the book of Enoch seems indicative of this kind of transmission; various forms of the book are witnessed from disparate sources. On the other hand, the comparison between the MT and DSS demonstrates that once a book was accepted as sacred and canonical its textual transmission was closed and it was no longer subject to intentional alteration; this comparison holds true for the book of Daniel. If by the 2c. B.C.E. the book of Daniel was regarded as sacred scripture – and there are some good reasons to suppose this was the case – then it is difficult to explain how such an interpolation as proposed above could have occurred.
Wright answers this difficulty by proposing that the interpolation was not due to intentional alteration but was necessitated by the loss of the original text. Wright asserts that the original text of Daniel 10-12 was written in Aramaic and that later a Targum was written of this text in Hebrew. During the “wholesale destruction of the sacred books” that occurred during the Maccabean period,[38] the original book of Daniel was lost or damaged, and the missing portions were restored from a Hebrew Targum.[39]
Though the extant Targums are generally later and in Aramaic, the concept of periphrastic and interpretative text based upon the scriptures is well evidenced, and were the sacred books destroyed, these interpretative texts would have been the closest record of their original text. In addition, the proposition that Daniel 10-12 are a Hebrew translation from an Aramaic original derives some support the detailed considerations of F. Zimmermann.[40] However, the interpolations identified above are not Targumic in character and there is no way to confirm whether such a text ever existed. Also, the completion of this Daniel-Targum would date after the destruction of the sacred texts, since it “predicts” the events of Maccabean period.
E. Ellis updates Wright’s explanation as it facilitates his own hypothesis of the canonization process of the book of Daniel. He proposes that it is “intrinsically improbable” that the book of Daniel should have been composed in its entirety in the 2c. B.C.E. and then, within a century, accepted as canonical without opposition.[41] Thus he proposes that the book of Daniel was already regarded as canonical by the second century and that those elements that may reflect a second-century origin should be explained as the contemporization of the book which took place during the recopying of the Old Testament books after the widespread destruction of sacred books (see above). He proposes that this contemporization not only included updating orthography and terminology, but also “explanatory elaboration”. The Septuagint is cited as an example of such “elaboration” during textual transmission. Ellis argues that the canonical status of the book of Daniel would not have precluded this “elaboration”, stating that such the same sort of elaboration was committed by the writers at Qumran and the New Testament writers.[42]
Ellis’ examples of textual elaboration are problematic. Whilst earlier scholars viewed Old Greek versions of Daniel as elaborative, the growing consensus is that the errors of translation in Old Greek versions of Daniel are “mechanical” rather than apologetic or contrived.[43] The New Testament writers are not an analogous example because they paraphrase the OT to satisfy the requirements of their own writings, not (it must be assumed) with the intention of altering the received text. Again, the Qumran texts are not analogous since, while the Dead Sea Covenanters felt free to compose a plethora of para-Danielic material, they did not take liberties with the book itself; their own copies of the book are largely consistent with MT. Even Wright’s own analogy with the later Jewish Targums betrays his purpose, since the Targums were intentionally kept separate from the textual-transmission of the sacred texts. If the book of Daniel were regarded as canonical, it is difficult to imagine that any pious Jew would consent to the drastic interpolations hypothesized above. Even if the text were damaged it is improbable that it should have been restored using a suspect text; the few comparable examples we have suggest the lacuna would have preserved.[44]
Perhaps the greatest difficulty for the hypothesized interpolations is the absence of any textual variation. We do not possess a single variant manuscript that does not witness to the present form of Daniel 11.[45] Wright and Ellis require a watershed in the textual transmission of the book of Daniel such that all subsequent variants of the book originated from a single (hypothesized) elaborated version. The destruction of the sacred books during the Antiochene persecution would not have been such a watershed. First, it is likely that the dissemination of the book of Daniel had already expanded beyond the borders of the Seleucid Empire; the Alexandrian origin of Old Greek versions of Daniel demonstrates that the book was present in Egypt by the end of the second century. Secondly, it is unlikely that all copies of the book would have been destroyed during the crisis; pious Jews would have sought to preserve their sacred books from destruction.[46] It is certainly significant that no similar watershed has been discerned in the transmission of the other OT books.
Not only are there no extant textual variants to indicate the presence of interpolations, there is also no recorded dispute regarding the form of the text. Memories are long and even if the texts themselves were destroyed, it is probable that people would have remembered the original form of the book. Therefore it is difficult to accept that these individuals would have accepted a corrupted (!) form of a sacred book, especially if its key prediction regarding the death of Antiochus had proved false (Dan 11:40-45). The interpolated text should have been rejected but instead it was universally accepted as Scripture.
We are admittedly dependent on later analogies in our efforts to conceive of the realistic treatment of sacred books by second century Jews; however, these analogies are not so late so as to render our conceptions implausible. Unless we are to concede that second century Jews took a dynamic, rather than a static, view of their scriptures, then it seems impossible that the hypothesized interpolations would have been accepted.
An Alternative Explanation
In his Ethel M. Wood lecture, “The Background of Jewish Apocalyptic, W. G. Lambert proposed that Daniel 11 parallels in style the genre of Babylonian Dynastic prophecy.[47] This proposition has been widely accepted amongst commentators.[48]
There are a number of cuneiform texts which record historical events as vaticinia ex eventu. These include several examples of annalistic history presented in the future tense and in veiled language. Lambert presents three texts, two whose composition date c. 6-7th century B.C.E.[49] and one which probably dates from the Hellenistic period.[50] Each text uses phraseology reminiscent of Daniel 11. For instance, the phrases “a prince will arise and will exercise kingship for 13 years”, “after him a king will arise and will not judge the judgment of the land”, “after him a king will arise from Uruk”, “a rebel prince will arise”, find parallels in Daniel (Dan 11:2, 3, 7, 20, 21; cf. 9:26).[51] Lambert concludes “it is certainly possible, perhaps even probable, that the author of Daniel adapted the style of a traditional Babylonian genre for his own purposes”.[52]
If Lambert’s conclusion is correct then Daniel 11 was written to conform to a specific genre; it takes the form of a Dynastic Prophecy – from Alexander to Antiochus – including political details characteristic of the genre, though seemingly irrelevant to the modern reader. Thus, the fact that Daniel 11 is uncharacteristic of other OT prophecies is explicable. The apparent discontinuity with the surrounding text (Dan 10:1-19; 12:5-13) is probably best explained by the desire to make a distinction from the Babylonian texts by putting the Dynastic Prophecy in the mouth of an angel.
Conclusion
The eleventh chapter of Daniel provides traditionalists with a difficult problem: here in a book purporting to be a sixth century composition we find a chapter that is concerned with the political events of Hellenistic era and the Maccabean crisis, culminating with a predicted invasion of Egypt that never took place. Why should a sixth century Jew concern himself with such political minutiae? And how can an inspired prophet make erroneous predictions? This chapter is the strongest argument in favour of late pseudonymous authorship.
The explanation advocated by Wright, though based upon critical analysis, was proposed in order to remove the foundation of the critical case for a late-date. The inconvenient aspects of Daniel 11 could be dismissed as later interpolations and thereby the majority of the book could be retained for “Daniel”. Though this explanation seems plausible, it lacks positive evidence and is difficult to reconcile with our understanding of the textual transmission of the Scriptures.
Aided by Lambert’s parallels, a form-critical approach indicates that the idiosyncrasies of Daniel 11 should be regarded as intentional. Though Lambert argues in favour of second-century date, the date and provenance of Babylonian Dynastic Prophecy may be taken as strong indicators of an early, and eastern, authorship. The purpose behind adopting this form would be a demonstration of the superiority of the God of Israel over the Babylonian gods, as in the earlier of chapters of the book.
This alternative explanation still leaves many questions unexplained, including: ‘Why the emphasis on the Maccabean period?’ and ‘Are vv. 40-45 really an erroneous prediction?’ Nevertheless perhaps it provides us with a strong foundation upon which to approach these questions.
[1] J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1927), 59.
[2] H. A. Whittaker, Visions in Daniel (Cannock: Biblia, 1991), 24.
[3] C. H. H. Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies (London: Williams and Norgate, 1906), 242ff.
[4] C. Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel (repr. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1977; London: SPCK, 1923), 4-8. Boutflower proposes the Pseudepigrapha, rather than the Targums as a better model for the interpolations in Daniel 11 (8).
[5] Daniel, 60.
[6] For example, Whittaker, Daniel, 24.
[7] R. G. Kratz, affirms, “It is widely-held now that an older source was incorporated into chapter 11” in “The Visions of Daniel” in The Book of Daniel (eds. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint; 2 vols; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001), 1:91-113 (108).
[8] L. L. Grabbe, “A Dan(iel) For All Seasons: From Whom Was Daniel Important?” in “The Visions of Daniel” in The Book of Daniel (eds. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint; 2 vols; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001), 1:229-246 (234). Compare J. J. Collins, Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) 100.
[9] Daniel and His Prophecies, 252.
[10] J. G. Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978), 184.
[11] Wright Daniel and His Prophecies, 249.
[12] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews XII.1.4, (trans., H. St. J. Thackeray et al; 10 vols; Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926-1965).
[13] Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies, 249.
[14] Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies, 250.
[15] Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies, 251.
[16] Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies, 252.
[17] E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 236; N. W. Porteous, Daniel (London: SCM Press, 1965), 160; Baldwin, Daniel, 187.
[18] Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies, 258.
[19] Porteous, Daniel, 161.
[20] Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, 237.
[21] Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies, 269.
[22] Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, 240; Baldwin, Daniel, 188.
[23] Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies, 279.
[24] Porteous, Daniel, 165.
[25] Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies, 283.
[26] Baldwin, Daniel, 192.
[27] Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, 242.
[28] Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies, 292.
[29] I Maccabees 1:20-28.
[30] Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies, 293.
[31] Daniel and His Prophecies, 278.
[32] R. G. Kratz, affirms, “It is widely-held now that an older source was incorporated into chapter 11” in “The Visions of Daniel” in The Book of Daniel (eds. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint; 2 vols; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001), 1:91-113 (108).
[33] L. L. Grabbe, “A Dan(iel) For All Seasons: From Whom Was Daniel Important?” in “The Visions of Daniel” in The Book of Daniel (eds. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint; 2 vols; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001), 1:229-246 (234). Compare J. J. Collins, Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) 100.
[34] For a good summary of the various interpretations of this section see: G. M. Harton, “An Interpretation of Daniel 11:36-45”, Grace Theological Journal 4.2 (1983): 205-231.
[35] A. S. van der Woude, “Prophetic Prediction, Political Prognostication, and Firm Belief Reflections on Daniel 11:40-12:3” in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sander, (eds. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), 63-73 (64-66).
[36] Collins, Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 100.
[37] It is perhaps significant that when these two accounts are integrated a geographical pattern emerges: the allies of Gog encircle those nations mentioned in Daniel 11. While Egypt is not named in Ezekiel, the bordering nations of Ethiopia and Libya are named as allies. Assuming that the King of the North is identified as Seleucid Syria, then Togarmah borders it to the north and Persia to the east. Sheba and Dedan (Arabia) complete the circle, enclosing Edom, Moab and Ammon, who escape invasion.
[38] I Maccabees 1:56f; II Maccabees 2:14f; Josephus, Contra Apion 1.35f.
[39] Daniel and His Prophecies, xix-xx, 46, 242.
[40] F. Zimmermann, “Some Verses in Daniel in the Light of a Translation Hypothesis”, JBL 58.4 (1939): 349-354; “Hebrew Translation in Daniel”, JQR 51.3 (1961): 198-208.
[41] E. E Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 43.
[42] Ellis, Canon, 44.
[43] A. A. Di Lella, “The Textual History of Septuagint-Daniel and Theodotion-Daniel” in The Book of Daniel (eds. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint; 2 vols; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001), 2:591-2.
[44] Comparison between MT and 4QSama indicate that a paragraph has been omitted from the MT between I Samuel 10:27 & 11:1 in which King Nahash is introduced. Rather than repair the lacuna, the Masoretes preserved the text as extant even though it results in the abrupt entry of Nahash into the text at 1 Sam 11:1. For a discussion of the DSS and the text of the OT see A. Perry “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Text of the Old Testament” in Which Translation (ed. S. Green; Norwich: The Testimony, 2000), 37-54.
[45] The Dead Sea Scrolls witness to vv. 1-2, 11-39: 4QDana, 4QDanc, pap6qDan. Old Greek versions of Daniel contain Daniel 11 in its present form with variants.
[46] The obvious analogy with the texts preserved at Qumran is indicative of the way zealous Jews are likely to have reacted in regard to the safety of their Scriptures.
[47] W. G. Lambert, The Background of Jewish Apocalyptic (London: The Athlone Press, 1978).
[48] e.g. Collins, 99; P. R. Davies 1985, 71-72; etc.
[49] A. K. Grayson and W. G. Lambert, “Akkadian Prophecies” JCS 18 (1964): 7-30 (12-16); H. Hunger and S. A. Kaufman, “A New Akkadian Prophecy Text” JAOS 95 (1975): 371-375.
[50] A. K. Grayson, Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975), 33.
[51] Lambert, Jewish Apocalyptic, 9-13.
[52] Lambert, Jewish Apocalyptic, 16.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One