Book of Daniel

[Mithrae]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04621b.htm
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/daniel.html
I'll try to keep the OP brief, while giving at least an overview of some of the main issues and arguments on the topic. Obviously there'll be plenty of things still left for discussion.


Content and background
The book claims to have been written by a Jewish noble during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BCE. It is written partly in Aramaic (2:4b to 7:28) and partly in Hebrew. The first six chapters are mostly narrative content and the last six are mostly vision/prophetic content. Based largely on one or both of those divisions in content, many theories of the origin of the work involve authorship by writers at different periods in history. Many scholars believe that the Aramaic/narrative sections (chapter 2-6) were written, together or separately, in the 3rd century BCE or earlier - possibly with chapters 1 or 7 also, or not.

The most common view of mainstream scholarship is that the Hebrew/prophetic portion (chapters 8-12) was written in a very specific time-frame around 168-165 BCE. The primary reason is simple: Chapters 8 and 11 accurately 'predict' events under the reign of Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (notably his defiling of the temple in 167BCE), but don't accurately predict his death in 164BCE or any subsequent events of the period.

Other evidence that the book wasn't written in the 6th century include things like historical inaccuracies, Greek loan-words, theological views and so on. From what I've learned so far, I believe these may provide sound reason for believing the Aramaic/narrative to be later works. However I also believe that aside from anti-supernatural presuppositions, there is little or no good reason for a 2nd-century date of the Hebrew/prophetic section - and indeed good reasons to believe it was written earlier (perhaps even in the 6th century).


Mainstream scholars' view
As a starting-point for discussion, let's pretend this is more of a parody. Essentially the theory is that around 168-165 BCE, the period in which Antiochus IV Epiphanes was enforcing policies in Judea aimed at Hellenizing the Jewish population and the Jewish Maccabean resistance movement was growing, a Jew wrote this work which shows God's power and foreknowledge in order to encourage his compatriots and offer hope for the future.

Notable components include God's foreknowledge of Alexander's conquest of Persia, the division of his kingdom and the persecution of Antiochus IV (chapter 8); a prediction in chapter 9 most obviously interpreted as saying that some 70 'sevens' after the end of the Babylonian exile God would make everything hunky-dory for his people (that is, around 50 BCE give or take); God's foreknowledge of the interactions between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Greek kingdoms (ch11); and the prediction that after Antiochus IV's determined efforts to impose Greek culture on the Jews, at "the time of the end" he would abandon the gods of his fathers, exalt himself above every god and honour a foreign 'god of fortresses' (11:35ff). These genuine predictions were known to be obviously and blatantly irrelevant within less than a decade of writing, yet the Jewish community still valued the work so highly that it became part of the official canon of scripture.

Needless to say, while I can appreciate that accurate predictions of the future by an earlier-date Daniel might be considered 'supernatural' and thus not acceptable according to some philosophies, the alternative theory does not on face value seem very compelling.


Alleged evidence for later date
Historical inaccuracies - To my knowledge these are all in the Aramaic/narrative section, and include things such as the 7 years of Nebuchadnezzar's madness (ch4, which may be based on the illness of the later king Nabonidus); naming Belshazzar as the 'son' of Nebuchadnezzar; naming Belshazzar as the last king of Babylon (ch5 - not sure how valid this one is, since he was co-regent with his father Nabonidus); and having Darius the Mede as a king and conqueror of Babylon for the Medo-Persian empire (ch6), rather than Cyrus the Great. But in the later chapters of the book the only issues I know of, such as they are, are that Belshazzar is again called 'king' (8:1, which I'll argue is actually evidence for authenticity), and Darius the Mede is said to have been "made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom" (9:1) - strange, but not quite the same as being king of the Persian empire, especially since after leaving Babylon Daniel more conventionally dates the year by the reign of Cyrus (10:1).

Exclusion from the Nevi'im - The Tanakh is divided into the Torah (law), Nevi'im (prophets) and Ketuvim (writings), which many scholars believe represent successive stages of canonisation. The Nevi'im include the 'former prophets' (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) and the 'later prophets' (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Treisar, the twelve minor prophets). Unlike the Christian bible, the Jews place Daniel amongst the Ketuvim rather than the prophets. However the simple fact is that Daniel was not a prophet by Hebrew standards - he didn't pass on the 'word of the Lord' to the people, he simply had his own predictive visions. Even assuming some validity to the notion that the Nevi'im were 'canonised' at some point before the Ketuvim, it's hard to imagine why Daniel should have been included amongst the former or later Prophets rather than kept aside for another designation like Psalms, Proverbs, Ruth or Lamentations.

Theology/genre - Some argue that elements like belief in a resurrection (ch12) or the general vision/apocalyptic nature of the work are evidence for a later date. There are precursors (if not definite examples) of resurrection-type theology in Ezekiel and even Isaiah, and in any case the concept was important in the Persian culture with which a historical Daniel would have become acquainted. Likewise, while still prophets in the traditional sense Ezekiel and Zechariah are solid evidence for 6th century Jewish apocalyptic-type visions and content, so the argument is weak against Daniel.

Exclusion from Sirach's list - Around 190-180 BCE, Jesus ben-Sirach's work includes a list of the great figures of Jewish history, but with no mention of Daniel. The simple response is that the list doesn't include Ezra either, and Ezra is universally acknowledged as a pre-Maccabean figure. We can certainly speculate on the reasons for these omissions, be they theological, polemical or even simply forgetful, but the omission of Daniel clearly is not a significant or strong argument from silence.


Alleged evidence for earlier date
Widespread acceptance - Implied earlier, it's hard to imagine Daniel would be widely embraced by Jews if the most significant 'prophetic' sections had been written early in the 160s BCE and found to be useless later in that decade. Yet we can easily confirm from later in that same century that the book is used/referred to in 1 Maccabees, and by the contrasting perspective of the author/s of 2 Maccabees, and even by the separatist group with founded the Qumran community c. 150BCE. Others also; anyone impatient for more detail can have a read of this site. With inaccurate or at least irrelevant 'predictions' from 164BCE onwards, and only a year or three before that in which to supposedly gain acceptance, it's inconceivable that this supposedly 2nd century work would be embraced by any wide sampling of later 2nd century Jews. Yet this is what the evidence shows. This suggests the work was well-known before Maccabean times and had gained enough 'authority' that the divergence of the predictions after 164 was merely strange, rather than being proof of false prophecy.

Thematic incongruencies - It's not so much positive evidence for an earlier date as the problems, mentioned above, with a 2nd century theory for date of authorship. Why would a king who was devoting his efforts to imposing Greek culture on the Jews be predicted as abandoning the gods of his fathers and honouring a foreign god (11:35ff)? Why would a Jew under Antiochus IV's oppression write the vision of chapter 9, suggesting that more than a century into the future God will finally make everything wonderful? Many 'scholars' dismiss this as being a product of the author's extreme ignorance of the historical time-frame since the exile, and he'd actually meant to refer to his own day.

Knowledge of Belshazzar - Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, who was the last king of Babylon. Many 19th century scholars believed he was fictitious, since known history from the likes of Herodotus, Xenophon, Ctesias and so on make no reference to him. It was only with the discovery of a couple of cuneiform inscriptions in Mesopotamia (the Nabonidus cylinder and the Nabonidus chronicle, if memory serves) that it was discovered not only was Belshazzar an historical figure, but he was actually ruler or co-regent in his father's place while Nabonidus was ill for almost all of the last decade of his reign. More on this later, including references once I re-discover them: But the central point is that while 'king' Belshazzar makes a lot of sense for a 6th century Babylonian court official, without authentic information from Hebrew Daniel even the name Belshazzar would probably have been unknown to a 2nd century Jew, never mind considering him royalty!



While this is just an opening overview, I think it's a good basis on which to wonder: How reliably can we conclude that Hebrew/prophetic Daniel was written sometime before the 2nd century?

For that matter, what can we reasonably conclude about the Aramaic/narrative portions? Were they written separately or as part of the whole? Were they written in the 6th century, the 4th or 3rd, or were they added to an older Hebrew predictive work during Maccabean times, when so many of the predictions were fulfilled?

[historia]

Still soldiering on from above . . .

3. Reception and Canonization

Yet we can easily confirm from later in that same century that the book is used/referred to in 1 Maccabees, and by the contrasting perspective of the author/s of 2 Maccabees, and even by the separatist group with founded the Qumran community c. 150BCE.

A couple of thoughts here.

First, I don’t see an explicit reference to Daniel in 2 Maccabees. Perhaps you can point me to it?

Second, it’s not, of course, surprising to see copies of Daniel among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Qumran sect was, in many respects, the ‘target audience’ for Daniel.

Let’s look at another example in that regard. Several copies of The Dream Visions, an apocalyptic work that is now incorporated in 1 Enoch 83-90, were also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. This text was written about the same time as Daniel, and likewise traces Jewish history down to the time of the Maccabean revolt. One of the manuscripts of The Dream Visions at Qumran dates to the late 2nd Century, just as with Daniel, which means it, too, must have been quickly accepted at Qumran -- or, at least, early copies of both works were preserved at Qumran.

So, we see a reference to Daniel in 1 Maccabees, a text about the very conflict that Daniel is writing about. And we see copies of Daniel (and derivative works) among a Jewish group that was very much into apocalyptic writing. This doesn’t seem terribly surprising, no?

Daniel would, eventually, make its way into the canon, but, as you pointed out above, in the Writings rather than the Prophets, at least in the Hebrew Bible. This may, as you also pointed out, reflect the fact that the prophetic portion of the canon was already closed.

However, in the Septuagint, Daniel was listed among the Prophets, and there may be good reason to think this was original. It appears that later Jews may have relocated (I want to say ‘demoted’) Daniel to the Writings. Much like Revelation in the formation of the New Testament canon, I wonder if Daniel was perhaps seen as controversial. This may reflect its late acceptance in the Jewish community, compared to (much) older, established prophetic writings.

This suggests the work was well-known before Maccabean times and had gained enough 'authority' that the divergence of the predictions after 164 was merely strange, rather than being proof of false prophecy.

It seems to me that the author of Daniel himself tells us otherwise. At the end of his final vision, the angel tells Daniel, “But you, Daniel, keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end.� (Daniel 12:4).

This is a common literary feature of apocalyptic writing. The author is basically explaining to his audience why they have not heard of this book -- ostensibly written 400 years ago -- until now. The text was apparently ‘sealed’ and kept ‘secret’; only now, the ‘time of the end’ (i.e., in the second century), is it being published.

[Mithrae]

Still soldiering on from above . . .

3. Reception and Canonization

Yet we can easily confirm from later in that same century that the book is used/referred to in 1 Maccabees, and by the contrasting perspective of the author/s of 2 Maccabees, and even by the separatist group with founded the Qumran community c. 150BCE.

A couple of thoughts here.

First, I don’t see an explicit reference to Daniel in 2 Maccabees. Perhaps you can point me to it?

Checking up with my original source for this claim, the reference is supposed to be in 2 Maccabees 7:9 and 14. I'll admit that I didn't look it up at the time, and it is a very weak comparison.

Second, it’s not, of course, surprising to see copies of Daniel among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Qumran sect was, in many respects, the ‘target audience’ for Daniel.

Let’s look at another example in that regard. Several copies of The Dream Visions, an apocalyptic work that is now incorporated in 1 Enoch 83-90, were also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. This text was written about the same time as Daniel, and likewise traces Jewish history down to the time of the Maccabean revolt. One of the manuscripts of The Dream Visions at Qumran dates to the late 2nd Century, just as with Daniel, which means it, too, must have been quickly accepted at Qumran -- or, at least, early copies of both works were preserved at Qumran.

I wonder did the Qumran community refer to this as the writings of a prophet? I'll admit again that my argument here was not thoroughly researched nor as compelling as I might have imagined on first thought, but that's a distinction which might be significant.

I don't know when it's guessed to have been written (you may be able to help), but the DSS scroll 4QFlorilegium (4Q174) appears to say "written in the book of Daniel the prophet." In a rare semi-scholarly moment I've consulted my Folio copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls (a selection of Geza Vermes' The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (c) 1997) which supports that translation, compared with some online versions which don't. I'd actually be inclined to trust the apparently less editted online versions, but my original source offers a bit of transliteration (Jour. Of the Evang. Theol. Soc., 23/1 (March 1980)) -
In 4Q174 2:3 we read [ásŒ]r ktwb bspr dnyál hnbyá (“[whi]ch is written in the book of Daniel the prophet�)
- from which I may or may not be correct in making out ktwb (akin to ketubim, writings), dnyal (Daniel) and nbya (akin to nebiim, prophets - ha- being a prefix for 'the,' I suspect (ha-shem, ha-mashiach)). But if it's true that Daniel was relatively early considered a prophet at Qumran, and if it's also true that 'Enoch' was not, I'd say that somewhat lessens the value of the comparison and retains some support for an earlier date of Daniel.

So, we see a reference to Daniel in 1 Maccabees, a text about the very conflict that Daniel is writing about. And we see copies of Daniel (and derivative works) among a Jewish group that was very much into apocalyptic writing. This doesn’t seem terribly surprising, no?

Daniel would, eventually, make its way into the canon, but, as you pointed out above, in the Writings rather than the Prophets, at least in the Hebrew Bible. This may, as you also pointed out, reflect the fact that the prophetic portion of the canon was already closed.

However, in the Septuagint, Daniel was listed among the Prophets, and there may be good reason to think this was original. It appears that later Jews may have relocated (I want to say ‘demoted’) Daniel to the Writings. Much like Revelation in the formation of the New Testament canon, I wonder if Daniel was perhaps seen as controversial. This may reflect its late acceptance in the Jewish community, compared to (much) older, established prophetic writings.

Now that you mention it I think I've seen a reference to Daniel's place in the Septuagint before, but didn't consider it important at the time. The 'Prophets' consist of four historical works and 'four' prophetic works (3 + 12), and quite aside from the numerical symmetry such as it is (it could hardly be 3+13), Daniel doesn't actually purport to give the word of the Lord to the people. I think that's a valid reason to consider its exclusion regardless of when the Nevi'im were officially or unofficially grouped; but if Daniel might have initially been included, this would obviously further weaken that argument for a late date and perhaps provide some support for an earlier date - not only at Qumran, but in Egypt also it was believed to be a work of genuine prophecy.

This suggests the work was well-known before Maccabean times and had gained enough 'authority' that the divergence of the predictions after 164 was merely strange, rather than being proof of false prophecy.

It seems to me that the author of Daniel himself tells us otherwise. At the end of his final vision, the angel tells Daniel, “But you, Daniel, keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end.� (Daniel 12:4).

This is a common literary feature of apocalyptic writing. The author is basically explaining to his audience why they have not heard of this book -- ostensibly written 400 years ago -- until now. The text was apparently ‘sealed’ and kept ‘secret’; only now, the ‘time of the end’ (i.e., in the second century), is it being published.

That's a possible way of viewing it of course, but it's not without precedent:
Isaiah 29:10 For the Lord has poured out on you
The spirit of deep sleep,
And has closed your eyes, namely, the prophets;
And He has covered your heads, namely, the seers.
11 The whole vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is literate, saying, “Read this, please.�
And he says, “I cannot, for it is sealed.�
12 Then the book is delivered to one who is illiterate, saying, “Read this, please.�
And he says, “I am not literate.�

But a point which I had not mentioned 'til now is the possibility of references to Hebrew Daniel from even before Maccabean times. Quoting from what I think is a translation from the Greek of Sirach:

• Sirach 36:17 Have mercy, O Lord, on the people called by your name, on Israel, whom you have named your firstborn, 18 Have pity on the city of your sanctuary, Jerusalem, the place of your dwelling. . . . 22 Hear, O Lord, the prayer of your servants...
  
  Compare with
  Daniel 9:17 Now therefore, our God, hear the prayer of Your servant, and his supplications, and for the Lord’s sake cause Your face to shine on Your sanctuary, which is desolate. 18 O my God, incline Your ear and hear; open Your eyes and see our desolations, and the city which is called by Your name; for we do not present our supplications before You because of our righteous deeds, but because of Your great mercies. 19 O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and act! Do not delay for Your own sake, my God, for Your city and Your people are called by Your name.�

The parallel there is quite strong, I imagine you'd agree; further emphasised by Sirach's use in verse 10 (v8 in the Hebrew version, apparently) of qes (“time� or end) and mo'ed (“appointed time�) which are used together in Daniel 8:19, 11:27 and 11:35. (Again, this is from the second page of my original source for the 'widespread acceptance' paragraph, but I figured I should do my own research this time )

Given that, is it more likely that Sirach was drawing on Daniel or that Daniel was drawing on Sirach? Admittedly it's been many moons since I read Sirach (I suspect I didn't even finish it; I was a Protestant, after all), but the impression I'm getting is that this notion of an 'appointed time' is much more at home in Daniel's work than in ben-Sira's. The pleas for mercy towards Jerusalem and the temple also, while perhaps relevant in the setting of an eschatalogical prayer, don't seem as fitting if original to Sirach as they would be if original to Daniel.

But based on a somewhat more scholarly list of criteria, my source above suggests:
1. For which prophet is literary borrowing more typical?
This is very obvious--Ben Sira!

4. Can any plausible motivation for this borrowing be suggested?
It is easy to come up with a motivation for ben Sira to allude to Daniel--to simply 'show off' his command of the biblical literature (like the rest of his work does)--but the opposite direction is not obvious at all

Does this clinch the argument? Obviously not. But pending further information, it does seem to me more probable than not that not only did Hebrew Daniel have some surprising information about the late Babylonian period, but appears to have been known and alluded to even before the reign of Antiochus IV.

[historia]

The latest prophetic works in the Tankah - Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi - are all believed to be late 6th century works. Yet the earliest non-canonical prophetic works that I've found seem to be from the 2nd century or late 3rd century. I may be wrong on that of course, so let me know.

The big caveat here, of course, is that many of the prophetic books appear to have undergone extensive editing.

Although Ezekiel and Zechariah were clearly 6th Century prophets, the books we now have in their names include not only their original oracles, but also the works of later authors -- perhaps disciples of the original prophets.

Unfortunately, historians are all over the map in dating these later additions. What scholars call '2 Zechariah', for example, has been dated from the mid-5th Century all the way down to the 2nd Century. Many date the final editing for Ezekiel to about 300 BCE.

For our purposes, it's important to note that the more apocalyptic-like sections of these works appear in these later additions. Ezekiel 38-39, for example, is classified in this way, and yet we read, "You are the one I spoke of in former days by my servants the prophets of Israel" (38:17), clearly showing that this is an author writing long after the 'former days of the prophets'.

Indeed - assuming for now that my knowledge is not too faulty - I wonder what the reason was for this later resurgence of prophetic literature?

This is actually an important point, so I'm glad you brought it up.

I think we can agree that prophetic writing (of all stripes) emerges in response to social and political events. The change in style from 'prophetic' to 'apocalyptic' is not simply a matter of taste or preference. Rather, apocalyptic writing emerges as a direct result of the changing social conditions and political fortunes of Israel.

Here I'll turn to Tom Wright in The New Testament and the People of God (1992) for a good explanation:

It has often enough, and plausibly enough, been suggested that apocalyptic reflects a context of social deprivation. It is the literature of the powerless . . . They are claiming to have insight into the divine plan that is normally hidden from view; this enables a discontented or rebellious group to steal a march on their opponents, and to fortify themselves in the struggle . . .

We may expect to find it where intense longing for a reversal of current ill-fortune merges with intense devotion to the god who reveals secrets to his servants in former times and might be expected to do so again. Apocalyptic, in other words, might be expected to flourish in Israel in the Hasmonean and Roman periods, which is of course where we find a good deal of it.

In other words, the 6th Century doesn’t provide the social and political context that would have given rise to a fully apocalyptic work like Daniel.

Ultimately it seems to me that Nabonidus was a not very noteworthy king, little more to the Jews or others in later years than a footnote in the conquests of Cyrus - and his son Belshazzar was even less significant.

But if that inaccuracy in major details of possibly propagandistic value is considered evidence of a later date, what I cannot understand is why accuracy in specific minor details which no other later source knew is not considered even better evidence for an early date.

It seems to me these rulers might very well have stuck out in the minds of postexilic Jews. We have the Babylonian king who sent them into Exile (Nebuchadnezzar) and those who were on the throne (Nabonidus and Belshazzar) when Cyrus (the anointed of the Lord after all) freed them. It’s certainly not out of the realm of probability.

We need to be careful here, too, not to assume that the ancient works that we now possess are the only ones that were written, or that knowledge of these rulers could not have been preserved among the Jews in oral traditions. Just because we were largely ignorant of Nabonidus until recent archeological discoveries, doesn’t mean Jews of the Hellenistic period were as well.

It seems to me the problem with Darius the Mede is more than just a little strange. What are we to make of the fact that there is no mention of such a king in any Persian, Babylonian, or Greek sources? He is described in 9:1 as the "son of Ahasuerus" (Xerxes) which may only confuse matters. It appears the author of Daniel has mistakenly placed the later Persian King Darius I into this earlier period.

These are, of course, mistakes only a much later author would make.

You appear to be taking it for a certainty that chapters 9 and 10 are in chronological order, possibly because Aramaic Daniel wrote it that way also.

If the visions are to be taken chronologically, then Cyrus appearing after Darius would also be a problem. But that’s not my critique above.

Rather, my argument is that, if the author here really does mean Darius I, then he has a couple of facts wrong. First, Darius was a Persian not a Mede. And Xerxes was his son, not his father.

Alternatively this 'Darius son of Xerxes' fellow may have been (as Aramaic Daniel appears to have taken him) Cyaxeres the Median king who Xenophon apparently said became ruler of Babylon after its conquest.

To be honest, I’ve never totally understood these arguments -- and you see them a lot among conservative commentators. If the author really meant someone else, then why did he not simply use that other person’s name? Why call him Darius?

I think it’s more likely the author has simply confused a couple of traditions. He knows from the Book of Tobit that there was a Median king named Ahasuerus, who we now call Cyaxares. His son was named Astyages. But our author may have confused the later Xerxes with this earlier Cyaxares. And knowing the family connection to Darius, has accidentally inverted the relationship so that we now have “Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent).�

[Mithrae]

The latest prophetic works in the Tankah - Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi - are all believed to be late 6th century works. Yet the earliest non-canonical prophetic works that I've found seem to be from the 2nd century or late 3rd century. I may be wrong on that of course, so let me know.

The big caveat here, of course, is that many of the prophetic books appear to have undergone extensive editing.

Although Ezekiel and Zechariah were clearly 6th Century prophets, the books we now have in their names include not only their original oracles, but also the works of later authors -- perhaps disciples of the original prophets.

Unfortunately, historians are all over the map in dating these later additions. What scholars call '2 Zechariah', for example, has been dated from the mid-5th Century all the way down to the 2nd Century. Many date the final editing for Ezekiel to about 300 BCE.

For our purposes, it's important to note that the more apocalyptic-like sections of these works appear in these later additions. Ezekiel 38-39, for example, is classified in this way, and yet we read, "You are the one I spoke of in former days by my servants the prophets of Israel" (38:17), clearly showing that this is an author writing long after the 'former days of the prophets'.

Without wanting to be too sceptical on the subject, if scholars are all over the map in dating these sections - implying that only a few of them can be right - can we reasonably exclude the scholars who don't consider them to be later additions? Obviously I'm a little more familiar with New Testament/gospel scholarship, but in that field I've found a great deal of useful background information, plenty of good methodology and perspective, and no small amount of shoddy reasoning or invalid presumptions to go with them. Does Ezekiel 38:17 "clearly show" to all readers that it's a much later addition, or was 6th century Ezekiel invoking/inventing some indefinite prior authority from Isaiah, Hosea or the like for his own prophecies?

While I'm not at all well-versed in the subject, the examples I've encountered which to my mind suggest a good probability of later additions are Aramaic Daniel and Deutero-Isaiah - the latter (revealing my own anti-supernatural bias) in some part because it names Cyrus, but it does at least show a noticeable difference in style and theme following something of a conclusion to the earlier section. But when it comes to breaking down what on face value seems a more or less unified work into three or four 'stages' based on a few choice phrases, I have to wonder how valid we can possibly consider those conclusions - even from folk paid to consider them! If they looked at my writings over the past few years, I wonder how many centuries of thought, or how many different redactorial hands, they'd get out of them? C. S. Lewis, hardly a conservative for his day, commented along similar lines from experience as a personal subject of literary criticism:

• All this sort of criticism attempts to reconstruct the genesis of the texts it studies; what vanished documents each author used, when and where he wrote, with what purposes, under what influences -- the whole Sitz im Leben [8] of the text. This is done with immense erudition and great ingenuity. And at first sight it is very convincing. I think I should be convinced by it myself, but that I carry about with me a charm – the herb moly [9] -- against it. You must excuse me if I now speak for a while of myself. The value of what I say depends on its being first-hand evidence.
  
  What forearms me against all these reconstructions is the fact that I have seen it all from the other end of the stick. I have watched reviewers reconstructing the genesis of my own books in just this way.

Indeed - assuming for now that my knowledge is not too faulty - I wonder what the reason was for this later resurgence of prophetic literature?

This is actually an important point, so I'm glad you brought it up.

I think we can agree that prophetic writing (of all stripes) emerges in response to social and political events. The change in style from 'prophetic' to 'apocalyptic' is not simply a matter of taste or preference. Rather, apocalyptic writing emerges as a direct result of the changing social conditions and political fortunes of Israel.

Here I'll turn to Tom Wright in The New Testament and the People of God (1992) for a good explanation:

It has often enough, and plausibly enough, been suggested that apocalyptic reflects a context of social deprivation. It is the literature of the powerless . . . They are claiming to have insight into the divine plan that is normally hidden from view; this enables a discontented or rebellious group to steal a march on their opponents, and to fortify themselves in the struggle . . .

We may expect to find it where intense longing for a reversal of current ill-fortune merges with intense devotion to the god who reveals secrets to his servants in former times and might be expected to do so again. Apocalyptic, in other words, might be expected to flourish in Israel in the Hasmonean and Roman periods, which is of course where we find a good deal of it.

In other words, the 6th Century doesn’t provide the social and political context that would have given rise to a fully apocalyptic work like Daniel.

Does it not? The end of the Exile had finally come, and the Jews were still subject to a foreign power, still at the possible whim of cruel and callous kings with little care or regard for their Yahweh. Any hoped-for miraculous deliverance from the hands of their enemies had essentially failed; if they'd wanted another Moses or David, what they got was Zerubabel the appointed governor of Judah. Whereas persecution and oppression might indeed be interpreted in terms of punishment or some great, perhaps eschatological struggle, the stark realities of power and politics offer scant opportunity for such delusion whilst obviously denying any idealism also - arguably the very best conditions in which the long-term plans of God might be stressed.

This is the same context in which Zechariah, offering probably the closest comparisons to Daniel in the Tanakh, also purports to have been written. The apocalypse you mentioned in Isaiah was purportedly written shortly after the conquest and final deportation of the northern kingdom, with Assyria's threat looming large over the nascent rule of a king who'd been hoped-for as their salvation (Isaiah 9). If it's true that apocalyptic-type elements must be associated with circumstances which require insight into the divine plan - and given that the genre extended for centuries after the Seleucid period - do we really need to relocate these allegedly earlier passages to the Seleucid period in order to meet that criterion? I rather suspect not.

Ultimately it seems to me that Nabonidus was a not very noteworthy king, little more to the Jews or others in later years than a footnote in the conquests of Cyrus - and his son Belshazzar was even less significant.

But if that inaccuracy in major details of possibly propagandistic value is considered evidence of a later date, what I cannot understand is why accuracy in specific minor details which no other later source knew is not considered even better evidence for an early date.

It seems to me these rulers might very well have stuck out in the minds of postexilic Jews. We have the Babylonian king who sent them into Exile (Nebuchadnezzar) and those who were on the throne (Nabonidus and Belshazzar) when Cyrus (the anointed of the Lord after all) freed them. It’s certainly not out of the realm of probability.

We need to be careful here, too, not to assume that the ancient works that we now possess are the only ones that were written, or that knowledge of these rulers could not have been preserved among the Jews in oral traditions. Just because we were largely ignorant of Nabonidus until recent archeological discoveries, doesn’t mean Jews of the Hellenistic period were as well.

I don't disagree that any of these things are possible. Just as it's possible that a 6th century author wrote of the madness of Nebuchanezzar the destroyer for greater impact than the madness of Nabonidus; and perhaps even emphasised 'Darius the Mede' (the Cyaxares of Xenophon and Gubaru of the Nabonidus Chronicle) over Cyrus simply out of personal acquaintance and loyalty - though indeed, let us recall that it was not the Medes who dictated the final histories

Those, to my mind, are the two strongest evidences (with the possible exception of Greek loan-words in ch3) against the authenticity of the Aramaic section, and yet given their possible or even probable grains of historical truth, we can readily speculate from available information on how they might plausibly be authentic 6th century material. In the case of Belshazzar I agree that his name might be remembered, but in contrast to the above the available information is that Nabonidus was the actual king of Babylon the whole time and the present, direct ruler in the months before its fall. We have no basis on which to speculate that his son would be remembered as 'king' Belshazzar, unless by someone who'd actually known him as such.

I agree that those historical inaccuracies provide significant basis to doubt the authenticity of Aramaic Daniel. But, particularly since it coincides with the other points I've mentioned, it seems to me that this example of historical accuracy in Hebrew Daniel must in consistency be considered significant basis to support its authenticity.

You appear to be taking it for a certainty that chapters 9 and 10 are in chronological order, possibly because Aramaic Daniel wrote it that way also.

If the visions are to be taken chronologically, then Cyrus appearing after Darius would also be a problem. But that’s not my critique above.

Rather, my argument is that, if the author here really does mean Darius I, then he has a couple of facts wrong. First, Darius was a Persian not a Mede. And Xerxes was his son, not his father.

You would know a lot better than I do what information, and how reliable, we have regarding the descent of Darius - how much of it is Herodotus, how much is 6th century inscription, and how much of that is royal propaganda? Again, I'm simply pointing out that speculation and the incompleteness of our information are swords which can cut both ways. Cyrus for one apparently had a son with the same name as his father (as did his father!), and since there appears to have been some inter-marriage between the Medes and Persians, are we to take a record of Persian ancestry (or Median for that matter) as comprehensive gospel truth?

Alternatively this 'Darius son of Xerxes' fellow may have been (as Aramaic Daniel appears to have taken him) Cyaxeres the Median king who Xenophon apparently said became ruler of Babylon after its conquest.

To be honest, I’ve never totally understood these arguments -- and you see them a lot among conservative commentators. If the author really meant someone else, then why did he not simply use that other person’s name? Why call him Darius?

I think it’s more likely the author has simply confused a couple of traditions. He knows from the Book of Tobit that there was a Median king named Ahasuerus, who we now call Cyaxares. His son was named Astyages. But our author may have confused the later Xerxes with this earlier Cyaxares. And knowing the family connection to Darius, has accidentally inverted the relationship so that we now have “Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent).�

Again it's not something I know much about, but it seems that Ahasuerus can be equated with Xerxes, which can be equated with Cyaxares, which can be equated with Gubaru... which cannot be equated with Darius.

Was Buddhism founded by Siddhartha, or Gautama? Was the first Roman emperor Augustus, or Octavian? Was early Christianity propagated by Saul and Simon, or Paul and Peter? Was the Jewish nation descended from Jacob or Israel? If a source mentioned 'Epiphanes' or 'Philadelphus,' would we assume that they're not talking about Antiochus IV and Ptolemy II?

Why call him Darius? I don't know. Why call him Gubaru, or Cyaxares? Which is the 'correct' name, and which of them should be excluded from consideration? I would probably lean towards this latter theory for the identity of 'Darius the Mede' simply because that's what the Aramaic author apparently thought and it fits with the chronological notion of composition. But while neither theory can be considered a perfect fit with other historical data, could you really claim that in this regard Hebrew Daniel can be considered historically incorrect against more reliable data?

[historia]

Without wanting to be too sceptical on the subject, if scholars are all over the map in dating these sections - implying that only a few of them can be right - can we reasonably exclude the scholars who don't consider them to be later additions?

While I'm not at all well-versed in the subject, the examples I've encountered which to my mind suggest a good probability of later additions are Aramaic Daniel and Deutero-Isaiah - the latter (revealing my own anti-supernatural bias) in some part because it names Cyrus, but it does at least show a noticeable difference in style and theme following something of a conclusion to the earlier section.

I, too, am more familiar with New Testament scholarship, and personally like to follow the "consensus scholarship," eschewing scholars at the extremes, either very conservative or very liberal.

That Zechariah is a composite work is well established, though -- on par with multiple authorship in Isaiah, and for similar reasons. The second half of Zechariah, chapters 9-14, shows a marked difference in style (a switch from prose to mostly poetry), form (visions to a more straight forward account), and theme (a focus on the temple versus other concerns).

Ezekiel is admittedly more unified.

Does Ezekiel 38:17 "clearly show" to all readers that it's a much later addition, or was 6th century Ezekiel invoking/inventing some indefinite prior authority from Isaiah, Hosea or the like for his own prophecies?

By itself, perhaps not. But there are other clues in the text as well. For example, Chapter 38 assumes a time when Jews have returned to Israel from many nations, the land is long settled, and the people are prosperous (v. 8, 11-12). In other words, this is not the early, fitfull days just after the return from Exile. This is, of course, presented as a propecy, which may circle us back into issues of 'anti-supernatural bias'.

I'm not sure I can do complete justice to these arguments, to be honest, and they may not be particularly critical to our present concerns anyway. So I'll just make some vague appeal to authority here -- scholars say so, yo! -- and move on.

I think we can agree that prophetic writing (of all stripes) emerges in response to social and political events. The change in style from 'prophetic' to 'apocalyptic' is not simply a matter of taste or preference. Rather, apocalyptic writing emerges as a direct result of the changing social conditions and political fortunes of Israel.

Here I'll turn to Tom Wright in The New Testament and the People of God (1992) for a good explanation:

It has often enough, and plausibly enough, been suggested that apocalyptic reflects a context of social deprivation. It is the literature of the powerless . . . They are claiming to have insight into the divine plan that is normally hidden from view; this enables a discontented or rebellious group to steal a march on their opponents, and to fortify themselves in the struggle . . .

We may expect to find it where intense longing for a reversal of current ill-fortune merges with intense devotion to the god who reveals secrets to his servants in former times and might be expected to do so again. Apocalyptic, in other words, might be expected to flourish in Israel in the Hasmonean and Roman periods, which is of course where we find a good deal of it.

In other words, the 6th Century doesn’t provide the social and political context that would have given rise to a fully apocalyptic work like Daniel.

Does it not? The end of the Exile had finally come, and the Jews were still subject to a foreign power, still at the possible whim of cruel and callous kings with little care or regard for their Yahweh.

I think that's exactly right.

And yet, in the 6th Century, it was still only the possible whim of cruel and callous kings. As it turned out, the Persians were not altogether bad. They at least respected the religious freedoms of their conquered peoples: the Jews were allowed to return to the Land, the Law was reinstated, and the Temple was (eventually) rebuilt. It wasn't everything the prophets had promised, to be sure. And, to that end, we see in this period the beginnings of apocalyptic writings like Zechariah and Ezekiel.

But it wasn't until the Hellenistic period that things turned from possibly cruel and callous to definitely so. If the late-6th Century was something of a let-down, the 2nd Century was a time of long-simmering frustration, now turned to desperation. This, it seems, is the proper time and place that would give rise to fully developed apocalyptic writings -- which is, of course, where we find them.

If it's true that apocalyptic-type elements must be associated with circumstances which require insight into the divine plan - and given that the genre extended for centuries after the Seleucid period - do we really need to relocate these allegedly earlier passages to the Seleucid period in order to meet that criterion? I rather suspect not.

This may be oversimplifying Wright's point above. In both the older 'prophecy' and the newer 'apocalyptic' you have revelation of the divine plan. It's really the form and scope that that revelation takes that delineates the two genres. And the degree to which we see it in Daniel that separates it from proto-apocalytpic writings in (parts of) Isaiah, Zechariah, and Ezekiel.

We might note some of these: 'Prophecy' is first spoken (by the prophet to the people) and written down later; 'apocalyptic' is always written. Prophecy is more direct; apocalyptic is more cryptic, more eschatological, more dualistic, and so on. And (keeping in mind this is the very point of our debate, but true of the genre as a whole) prophecy concerns current (or near future) events, where apocalyptic is ostensibly written by a great figure of the distant past 'predicting' the events of the far-flung future, although actually the present.

Each of these features can be seen as directly emerging from the social and polical context in which these works were written. Apocalyptic emmerges in a time long after the classical prophets, in a political situation where it was far more dangerous to speak out, and even when writing one had to be exceedingly cryptic. That's the 2nd Century far more than the 6th.

Does that, in and of itself, mean Daniel must have been written in the 2nd Century? No, but it fits there better. And when taken with other considerations, I think makes a strong case.

[Mithrae]

Without wanting to be too sceptical on the subject, if scholars are all over the map in dating these sections - implying that only a few of them can be right - can we reasonably exclude the scholars who don't consider them to be later additions?

While I'm not at all well-versed in the subject, the examples I've encountered which to my mind suggest a good probability of later additions are Aramaic Daniel and Deutero-Isaiah - the latter (revealing my own anti-supernatural bias) in some part because it names Cyrus, but it does at least show a noticeable difference in style and theme following something of a conclusion to the earlier section.

I, too, am more familiar with New Testament scholarship, and personally like to follow the "consensus scholarship," eschewing scholars at the extremes, either very conservative or very liberal.

There's certainly merit in that and since, as I commented to Flail, the book of Daniel was essentially my first attempt to learn something beyond the biblical inerrancy dogma, it's possible that I'm a little more attached to my views than I should be. Then again, considering the possibility that four of twelve chapters might be authentic isn't what I'd call very conservative, and I'm not sure if there are any more 'liberal' positions out there than the view that it's wholly inauthentic and completed in the 2nd century.

That Zechariah is a composite work is well established, though -- on par with multiple authorship in Isaiah, and for similar reasons. The second half of Zechariah, chapters 9-14, shows a marked difference in style (a switch from prose to mostly poetry), form (visions to a more straight forward account), and theme (a focus on the temple versus other concerns).

Ezekiel is admittedly more unified.

Does Ezekiel 38:17 "clearly show" to all readers that it's a much later addition, or was 6th century Ezekiel invoking/inventing some indefinite prior authority from Isaiah, Hosea or the like for his own prophecies?

By itself, perhaps not. But there are other clues in the text as well. For example, Chapter 38 assumes a time when Jews have returned to Israel from many nations, the land is long settled, and the people are prosperous (v. 8, 11-12). In other words, this is not the early, fitfull days just after the return from Exile. This is, of course, presented as a propecy, which may circle us back into issues of 'anti-supernatural bias'.

I'm not sure I can do complete justice to these arguments, to be honest, and they may not be particularly critical to our present concerns anyway. So I'll just make some vague appeal to authority here -- scholars say so, yo! -- and move on.

Fair enough - I obviously wouldn't be able to discuss them very competently in any case. For the purposes of this thread, I think the relevance of these issues just goes back to my question about how validly we can place Daniel at the later end of the 'evolution' of the prophetic genre, rather than as a primary exemplar for later works in the genre. The later dating which some scholars propose for these apocalyptic sections of Isaiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah might make that theory of development in the genre more cohesive, but since it seems to tread dangerously close to matching the data to a theory, I wouldn't say that the theory is then evidence for a later date of Daniel.

It has often enough, and plausibly enough, been suggested that apocalyptic reflects a context of social deprivation. It is the literature of the powerless . . . They are claiming to have insight into the divine plan that is normally hidden from view; this enables a discontented or rebellious group to steal a march on their opponents, and to fortify themselves in the struggle . . .

We may expect to find it where intense longing for a reversal of current ill-fortune merges with intense devotion to the god who reveals secrets to his servants in former times and might be expected to do so again. Apocalyptic, in other words, might be expected to flourish in Israel in the Hasmonean and Roman periods, which is of course where we find a good deal of it.

In other words, the 6th Century doesn’t provide the social and political context that would have given rise to a fully apocalyptic work like Daniel.

Does it not? The end of the Exile had finally come, and the Jews were still subject to a foreign power, still at the possible whim of cruel and callous kings with little care or regard for their Yahweh.

I think that's exactly right.

And yet, in the 6th Century, it was still only the possible whim of cruel and callous kings. As it turned out, the Persians were not altogether bad. They at least respected the religious freedoms of their conquered peoples: the Jews were allowed to return to the Land, the Law was reinstated, and the Temple was (eventually) rebuilt. It wasn't everything the prophets had promised, to be sure. And, to that end, we see in this period the beginnings of apocalyptic writings like Zechariah and Ezekiel.

But it wasn't until the Hellenistic period that things turned from possibly cruel and callous to definitely so. If the late-6th Century was something of a let-down, the 2nd Century was a time of long-simmering frustration, now turned to desperation. This, it seems, is the proper time and place that would give rise to fully developed apocalyptic writings -- which is, of course, where we find them.

Given the caveat above of course. But as you initially mentioned, and I in my last post, what Britannica 1911 called "well-developed apocalypses" can be found even earlier than Zechariah and Ezekiel, in Isaiah's 8th century context following the conquest and deportation of the northern kingdom and looming Assyrian threat over Judah.

Particular points of interest are 70 years assigned to Tyre (ch24) and an apparent reference to resurrection (26:19), both from the 'apocalypse' section. But also of interest are the 'day of the Lord' with its heavenly signs of darkened sun, moon and stars in chapter 13, similar to what's found in Joel (no certainty which one was earlier). Isaiah also uses comments of celestial or theological significance in chapter 14, often interpreted as references to Satan, though likely both chapters were in reference to Tiglath-Pileser III's conquest of Babylon. Similarly in chapters 9 and 11 we see references to an everlasting kingdom in which the lion with lie down with the lamb and so on, obviously later interpreted with Messianic significance, though presumably written as (extreme) hyperbole regarding prince Hezekiah. If we were to discuss the later dating assigned to some of these apocalyptic works, I think Isaiah would be the one to look at since its "well developed apocalypse" occurs in the middle of generally-regarded 8th-century work, and seems very much in keeping with the work's earlier themes.

Seems to me that it would be either arbitrary or else fitting the data to the theory if we were to presume that Isaiah did not live in a very good context for the development of this type of sub-genre, 'apocalyptic.' From what little I know there certainly seems to be merit to the notion that the sub-genre is indeed associated mostly with certain unfavourable socio-political situations, but to a greater or lesser extent those are situations which can be found in the case of Isaiah (arguably at least as well as the 2nd century), as well as Ezekiel, Daniel and Zechariah who obviously gleaned some of their ideas and themes from the earlier prophet.

To be honest, now that I've thought about Isaiah and the content in chapters 9-14 a bit more, both the notion that chapters 24-27 are later additions and the notion that the 'apocalyptic' genre developed later and gradually are starting to seem very dubious to me: Those earlier chapters provide more than enough groundwork, and in comparable socio-political circumstances, both for the later "well developed apocalypse" and for the 6th century examples along similar lines.

If it's true that apocalyptic-type elements must be associated with circumstances which require insight into the divine plan - and given that the genre extended for centuries after the Seleucid period - do we really need to relocate these allegedly earlier passages to the Seleucid period in order to meet that criterion? I rather suspect not.

This may be oversimplifying Wright's point above. In both the older 'prophecy' and the newer 'apocalyptic' you have revelation of the divine plan. It's really the form and scope that that revelation takes that delineates the two genres. And the degree to which we see it in Daniel that separates it from proto-apocalytpic writings in (parts of) Isaiah, Zechariah, and Ezekiel.

We might note some of these: 'Prophecy' is first spoken (by the prophet to the people) and written down later; 'apocalyptic' is always written. Prophecy is more direct; apocalyptic is more cryptic, more eschatological, more dualistic, and so on. And (keeping in mind this is the very point of our debate, but true of the genre as a whole) prophecy concerns current (or near future) events, where apocalyptic is ostensibly written by a great figure of the distant past 'predicting' the events of the far-flung future, although actually the present.

There's merit to these points in general, especially the first one.

But the third point seems quite dubious as anything more than a generalisation: It's worth noting that the other great apocalypse of the canon, Revelation, is written by a possibly obscure 'John of Patmos' regarding current (1st century) and near-future events. Regarding Daniel of course it would be begging the question to say that it was written by a figure of the distant past - and even moreso to say that Daniel was a "great figure" of his era, since he's otherwise unknown except perhaps for a vague allusion to a Danel by Ezekiel. (Of course, given that allusion we might suggest that part of Ezekiel as a later addition or redaction...)

But more importantly, as noted, Isaiah for one (and the others) did speak of the far-flung future - in Isaiah's case, for example, that Babylon would always be desolate and that the righteous kingdom would last forever. And, as noted, in the failure or incompleteness of certain expectations about how the temple and kingdom of Judah would be restored, the views of Zechariah and particularly Daniel make a lot of sense to me. Knowing of the fall of the Assyrians and the Babylonians, surely it's entirely to be expected that some 6th century Jews would predict the fall of the Persians also? And if a kingdom of Israel/Judah were at last to be restored, would it not occur after some tumultuous period as so many earlier prophets had described?

While many of his predictions are quite vague, and whether we explain the specific and accurate ones as supernatural, extremely good luck, or later touch-ups, I don't think that this element of far-future prediction can be said to be indication of a later date of authorship. On the contrary, as my OP suggests, the points which would be near and present for a 2nd century author - the final seven of ch9 and the final years of ch11's brutal king of the north - are the points which seem most counter-productive and counter-intuitive in that context!

[historia]

I agree that those historical inaccuracies provide significant basis to doubt the authenticity of Aramaic Daniel. But, particularly since it coincides with the other points I've mentioned, it seems to me that this example of historical accuracy in Hebrew Daniel must in consistency be considered significant basis to support its authenticity.

I would say that, in fact, scholars do view this accuracy as evidence that authentic information has survivied in the text. But it would be going too far, I think, to then infer that the whole work (or just chapters 8-12) should be dated to the 6th Century.

Perhaps an anology is in order here. The stories of Abraham were long thought by scholars to be myth -- little more than the projections of later (9th to 5th century BCE) authors. But archeological finds in the 20th Century, particulary the discovery at Mari, led scholars to realize that the narratives in Genesis fit perfectly with what is known today of the early 2nd millennium BCE, but imperfectly with a later period.

Does the presence of accurate information in the Abrahamic stories of Genesis, then, mean they were written in the 19th Century BCE? Or simply that that information survived in oral tradition until the stories were written down, likely between 900–700 BCE?

Anachronisms are always going to be stronger evidence against an early date for a text than accurate information is evidence in favor of an earlier date, since accurate information can always be passed down from one generation to the next.

Was Buddhism founded by Siddhartha, or Gautama? Was the first Roman emperor Augustus, or Octavian? Was early Christianity propagated by Saul and Simon, or Paul and Peter? Was the Jewish nation descended from Jacob or Israel? If a source mentioned 'Epiphanes' or 'Philadelphus,' would we assume that they're not talking about Antiochus IV and Ptolemy II?

Why call him Darius? I don't know. Why call him Gubaru, or Cyaxares? Which is the 'correct' name, and which of them should be excluded from consideration?

This is a fair point. People in the ancient world did adopt different names.

But let's look at some of these examples in more detail. The founder of Buddhism was Siddhartha Gautama (the former his personal name, the latter his clan name). The designation Buddha itself is a title ('awakened one'), as is Augustus ('venerable') and Epiphanes ('god-manifest'). Peter is a nickname, or rather the Greek translation of the Aramaic nickname Cephas ('rock'). Paul is a Roman name that the Jewish Saul appears to have adopted. And the name Ahasuerus is the Hebrew translation of the Babylonian translation of the Old Persian name Uvaxštra (Greek: Cyaxares), which was also in this multi-step translation applied to Xšayarša (Greek: Xerxes).

How do we know all of this? We have texts that either explain the adoption of the new name or title, or we can trace the linguistic connections.

Now, maybe we simply lack the texts that connect the name 'Darius' to Gubaru or Astyages or Cyaxares II or any of the other half-dozen people conservative scholars have tried to equate with 'Darius the Mede'. But the fact that we have several candidates itself shows that we are not on solid ground here. Until we have some kind of evidence, this seems like grasping at straws.

[historia]

Second, it’s not, of course, surprising to see copies of Daniel among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Qumran sect was, in many respects, the ‘target audience’ for Daniel.

Let’s look at another example in that regard. Several copies of The Dream Visions, an apocalyptic work that is now incorporated in 1 Enoch 83-90, were also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. This text was written about the same time as Daniel, and likewise traces Jewish history down to the time of the Maccabean revolt. One of the manuscripts of The Dream Visions at Qumran dates to the late 2nd Century, just as with Daniel, which means it, too, must have been quickly accepted at Qumran -- or, at least, early copies of both works were preserved at Qumran.

I wonder did the Qumran community refer to this as the writings of a prophet? I'll admit again that my argument here was not thoroughly researched nor as compelling as I might have imagined on first thought, but that's a distinction which might be significant.

I don't believe so. Alex P. Jassen in Mediating the Divine (2007) seems to summarize this well:

While there is much that separates Enoch from classical Israelite prophets, there seems to be an attempt by the authors of 1 Enoch to highlight the points of contact. Enoch, however, is never identified as a prophet in 1 Enoch or in the closely related Enoch traditions found at Qumran. Though he may display certain 'prophetic' characteristics, the Qumran community and most segments of Second Temple Judiasm clearly did not think of him as a prophet.

The one possible exception here comes, not from Qumran, but from Christian sources:

It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Although that's not exactly calling him a prophet.

But if it's true that Daniel was relatively early considered a prophet at Qumran, and if it's also true that 'Enoch' was not, I'd say that somewhat lessens the value of the comparison and retains some support for an earlier date of Daniel.

Not an unfair argument. I would say that both works were seen, in some sense, as authoratative at Qumran, whether they were deemed prophets or not.

And my concern above was really to show that texts can be quickly adopted in specific communities before they are more widely accepted. We might expect that the letters of Paul were quickly adopted in the Pauline churches ahead of wider Christian adoption, for example. And so the relatively quick adoption of Daniel and 1 Enoch at Qumran is not altogether surprising, and doesn't necessarily require a (much) earlier date of composition.

It seems to me that the author of Daniel himself tells us otherwise. At the end of his final vision, the angel tells Daniel, “But you, Daniel, keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end.� (Daniel 12:4).

This is a common literary feature of apocalyptic writing. The author is basically explaining to his audience why they have not heard of this book -- ostensibly written 400 years ago -- until now. The text was apparently ‘sealed’ and kept ‘secret’; only now, the ‘time of the end’ (i.e., in the second century), is it being published.

That's a possible way of viewing it of course, but it's not without precedent: Isaiah 29:10

To be honest, I'm not sure I fully appreciate what Isaiah 29:10 was meant to show here. Is Isaiah being told to keep his revelation secret?

Around 190-180 BCE, Jesus ben-Sirach's work includes a list of the great figures of Jewish history, but with no mention of Daniel. The simple response is that the list doesn't include Ezra either, and Ezra is universally acknowledged as a pre-Maccabean figure. We can certainly speculate on the reasons for these omissions, be they theological, polemical or even simply forgetful, but the omission of Daniel clearly is not a significant or strong argument from silence.

But a point which I had not mentioned 'til now is the possibility of references to Hebrew Daniel from even before Maccabean times . . . Given that, is it more likely that Sirach was drawing on Daniel or that Daniel was drawing on Sirach?

Not to be too critical, but you seem to be having your cake and eating it too here. Earlier you argued that Sirach's exclusion of Daniel from his list of great figures -- which is clearly a survey of the scriptures of his day -- could have been for theological or polemical reasons. But here now you're arguing that Sirach is perhaps quoting from Daniel. If he knows and approves of it enough to quote it, should he not also mention it?

I actually agree with your first premise. I think Sirach is decidedly anti-apocalyptic. I don't think Daniel was written until after Sirach was written, of course. But, even if it had been written earlier, it's hard to imagine the author who wrote these words would approve of Daniel:

The senseless have vain and false hopes, and dreams give wings to fools. As one who catches at a shadow and pursues the wind, so is anyone who believes in dreams. What is seen in dreams is but a reflection, the likeness of a face looking at itself. From an unclean thing what can be clean? And from something false what can be true? Divinations and omens and dreams are unreal, and like a woman in labor, the mind has fantasies. Unless they are sent by intervention from the Most High, pay no attention to them. For dreams have deceived many, and those who put their hope in them have perished. Without such deceptions the law will be fulfilled, and wisdom is complete in the mouth of the faithful.

How then to explain the parallel text? I'm not sure.

[Mithrae]

I agree that those historical inaccuracies provide significant basis to doubt the authenticity of Aramaic Daniel. But, particularly since it coincides with the other points I've mentioned, it seems to me that this example of historical accuracy in Hebrew Daniel must in consistency be considered significant basis to support its authenticity.

I would say that, in fact, scholars do view this accuracy as evidence that authentic information has survivied in the text. But it would be going too far, I think, to then infer that the whole work (or just chapters 8-12) should be dated to the 6th Century.

Perhaps an anology is in order here. The stories of Abraham were long thought by scholars to be myth -- little more than the projections of later (9th to 5th century BCE) authors. But archeological finds in the 20th Century, particulary the discovery at Mari, led scholars to realize that the narratives in Genesis fit perfectly with what is known today of the early 2nd millennium BCE, but imperfectly with a later period.

Does the presence of accurate information in the Abrahamic stories of Genesis, then, mean they were written in the 19th Century BCE? Or simply that that information survived in oral tradition until the stories were written down, likely between 900–700 BCE?

Anachronisms are always going to be stronger evidence against an early date for a text than accurate information is evidence in favor of an earlier date, since accurate information can always be passed down from one generation to the next.

The differences there are that archaeology has confirmed little (if anything) specific about Genesis, merely elements of its social and cultural context, and Genesis is not ascribed to any writer in the 19th century BCE in any case (it doesn't even claim Mosaic authorship, if it comes to that). I understand the point you're making, but I don't think it's as simple as inaccuracies=good evidence of later date and accuracies=evidence of earlier date or transmission of ideas.

For starters, I'm not sure the inaccuracies in Aramaic Daniel could be considered anachronistic in the first place: Belshazzar as 'son' of Nebuchadnezzar perhaps, and while they're not inaccuracies the Greek words in ch3 seem anachronistic, but the biggest 'errors' of the conquest of Babylon by a Median king rather than Persian and especially Nebuchadnezzar's madness could as easily be propagandistic elements as anachronistic. While I obviously do think that they are from a later date, my point is that I think more of a case by case consideration is important. To use my own, less relevant analogy, we might suggest a very broad principle that contradictions imply doubt about an event, but in some specific cases such as Jesus' baptism, those divergences in the accounts are precisely what confirm that it likely occurred.

The question that we've asked in the case of Jesus' baptism is "What is the reason for these divergent accounts?" In the case of 'king' Belshazzar, the question must surely be "Why is he called king Belshazzar?" The record of his name is unusual in itself, though obviously far from impossible; but the fact that he's called 'king' seems to me to fit much better with someone who'd actually called him king. As we keep noting to each other, it's not a conclusive point by any means, but I do think it's a valid one.

Was Buddhism founded by Siddhartha, or Gautama? Was the first Roman emperor Augustus, or Octavian? Was early Christianity propagated by Saul and Simon, or Paul and Peter? Was the Jewish nation descended from Jacob or Israel? If a source mentioned 'Epiphanes' or 'Philadelphus,' would we assume that they're not talking about Antiochus IV and Ptolemy II?

Why call him Darius? I don't know. Why call him Gubaru, or Cyaxares? Which is the 'correct' name, and which of them should be excluded from consideration?

. . . . How do we know all of this? We have texts that either explain the adoption of the new name or title, or we can trace the linguistic connections.

Now, maybe we simply lack the texts that connect the name 'Darius' to Gubaru or Astyages or Cyaxares II or any of the other half-dozen people conservative scholars have tried to equate with 'Darius the Mede'. But the fact that we have several candidates itself shows that we are not on solid ground here. Until we have some kind of evidence, this seems like grasping at straws.

True enough. I found it helpful in considering the authorship of John to summarise and 'rate' all the various pro and con arguments; simply stacking up all the evidence for one side isn't very objective after all. If I did the same for Daniel, I'd probably match the problems which Darius poses for authenticity against the problems which Belshazzar poses for inauthenticity. In each case it comes down to speculation and guesswork about what the 'likely' truth of the matter is.

--

I wonder did the Qumran community refer to this as the writings of a prophet? I'll admit again that my argument here was not thoroughly researched nor as compelling as I might have imagined on first thought, but that's a distinction which might be significant.

I don't believe so. Alex P. Jassen in Mediating the Divine (2007) seems to summarize this well:

While there is much that separates Enoch from classical Israelite prophets, there seems to be an attempt by the authors of 1 Enoch to highlight the points of contact. Enoch, however, is never identified as a prophet in 1 Enoch or in the closely related Enoch traditions found at Qumran. Though he may display certain 'prophetic' characteristics, the Qumran community and most segments of Second Temple Judiasm clearly did not think of him as a prophet.

Thanks

But if it's true that Daniel was relatively early considered a prophet at Qumran, and if it's also true that 'Enoch' was not, I'd say that somewhat lessens the value of the comparison and retains some support for an earlier date of Daniel.

Not an unfair argument. I would say that both works were seen, in some sense, as authoratative at Qumran, whether they were deemed prophets or not.

And my concern above was really to show that texts can be quickly adopted in specific communities before they are more widely accepted. We might expect that the letters of Paul were quickly adopted in the Pauline churches ahead of wider Christian adoption, for example. And so the relatively quick adoption of Daniel and 1 Enoch at Qumran is not altogether surprising, and doesn't necessarily require a (much) earlier date of composition.

It doesn't seem sporting to press the point after you've already done half my homework for me, but are 1 Enoch/The Dream Visions known to have been considered authoritative at Qumran, or merely present? It's not a great analogy, but if we found in a late 1st century Christian site copies of the pastorals as well as Romans, Corinthians and so on - and a text saying something to the effect that Paul wrote letters to Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Phillippi and Thessalonica - wouldn't that provide some significant basis for supposing one group to be more authentic than the other? Of course I'm not even certain yet that DSS text 4Q174 calls Daniel a prophet, nor when it was written, weaknesses in the point which you've brought to light; but if I ever confirm those points, the presence in the same location of a text similar to Daniel wouldn't invalidate that point. Arguably, the contrast in treatment between Daniel and Enoch would strengthen the case for Daniel being considerably older.

It seems to me that the author of Daniel himself tells us otherwise. At the end of his final vision, the angel tells Daniel, “But you, Daniel, keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end.� (Daniel 12:4).

That's a possible way of viewing it of course, but it's not without precedent: Isaiah 29:10

To be honest, I'm not sure I fully appreciate what Isaiah 29:10 was meant to show here. Is Isaiah being told to keep his revelation secret?

I don't think so, no. It looks like he's writing about the knowledge of God's plan being hidden from the people, and comparing it to a book which is sealed up. But particularly since the earlier part of the chapter talks about Jerusalem beseiged, I don't think it's hard to see why an author in the early Persian period (after the failure of certain kingdom restoration expectations) might take note and put their own spin on this manner in which God's plans can be hidden from his people.

Around 190-180 BCE, Jesus ben-Sirach's work includes a list of the great figures of Jewish history, but with no mention of Daniel. The simple response is that the list doesn't include Ezra either, and Ezra is universally acknowledged as a pre-Maccabean figure. We can certainly speculate on the reasons for these omissions, be they theological, polemical or even simply forgetful, but the omission of Daniel clearly is not a significant or strong argument from silence.

But a point which I had not mentioned 'til now is the possibility of references to Hebrew Daniel from even before Maccabean times . . . Given that, is it more likely that Sirach was drawing on Daniel or that Daniel was drawing on Sirach?

Not to be too critical, but you seem to be having your cake and eating it too here. Earlier you argued that Sirach's exclusion of Daniel from his list of great figures -- which is clearly a survey of the scriptures of his day -- could have been for theological or polemical reasons. But here now you're arguing that Sirach is perhaps quoting from Daniel. If he knows and approves of it enough to quote it, should he not also mention it?

I actually agree with your first premise. I think Sirach is decidedly anti-apocalyptic. I don't think Daniel was written until after Sirach was written, of course. But, even if it had been written earlier, it's hard to imagine the author who wrote these words would approve of Daniel:

The senseless have vain and false hopes, and dreams give wings to fools. As one who catches at a shadow and pursues the wind, so is anyone who believes in dreams. What is seen in dreams is but a reflection, the likeness of a face looking at itself. From an unclean thing what can be clean? And from something false what can be true? Divinations and omens and dreams are unreal, and like a woman in labor, the mind has fantasies. Unless they are sent by intervention from the Most High, pay no attention to them. For dreams have deceived many, and those who put their hope in them have perished. Without such deceptions the law will be fulfilled, and wisdom is complete in the mouth of the faithful.

How then to explain the parallel text? I'm not sure.

I'm not sure myself why ben-Sira (ch49 for our readers) names Zerubabel, Joshua ben Jozadak and Nehemiah, but not Ezra; nor why he doesn't name Daniel. He doesn't favour visions and the like, as you've noted, though he still mentions predictions by Jeremiah and visions of Ezekiel - those sent by God, as above. Being a more extreme example of such, his exclusion of Daniel is at least more understandable than his exclusion of Ezra; whether or not he thought Daniel's visions were from God, he might not have considered it prudent to hold him up as an example for others to follow.

In fact this might be an interesting point for consideration: It seems to me that the mainstream view would all but require the long-standing development of stories around Ezekiel's Danel (Aramaic Daniel), in order to explain both the character himself and the various historical accuracies and inaccuracies present. But surely in that view Sirach's exclusion of this long-time popular hero is just as strange as if parts of Daniel were authentic? But perhaps more important is the contrast between Daniel and Enoch; a (possible) genuine visionary known only for his visions, and an ancient figure recognised in Jewish myth long before the Exile who had in ben-Sira's own era become associated with visonary/apocalyptic writings.

The former can be almost ignored; there's no need for ben-Sira to draw attention to Daniel's visions, even if he placed them amongst those which were sent by God. And yet those writings are alluded to in the proper, eschatological context of his work. By contrast Enoch might not be so easily glossed over, especially with the recent works written in his name. So rather than being passed over with some minor tribute elsewhere, Enoch is given a somewhat left-handed compliment as "an example of repentance to all generations" (44:16). Alongside Joseph, who is canonically noted for his association with dreams and is not named in ch44, the rarity of the likes of Enoch is stressed in 49:14. Perhaps (based, again, largely on that same source) I'm reading too much into it, but it could be that Sirach initially downplays these established figures of Jewish legend who (in his day, for Enoch) were most associated with dream/visionary content, and later stresses that the likes of those people are very rare. That would be in keeping with his general mistrust of such content, I suspect. So surely in such a scenario we wouldn't expect him to explicitly endorse Daniel even if he considered him a true visionary like Joseph or Ezekiel; but allusion or very subtle endorsement would not be out of character.

His failure to mention Ezra is still quite a mystery, but if the above holds up to scrutiny I suspect it may be a more plausible explanation for the parallel than Sirach-to-Daniel or sheer coincidence.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

The field we're discussing involves, to a very significant degree, educated guesses. It includes a lot of education and specific knowledge of course, so as to recognise the various literary genres, historical references, cultural contexts and so on. My view is simply that so far as I have yet learned, the guess of substantial authenticity for Hebrew Daniel is better than the guess of inauthenticity. Consequently, in the other thread I raised it as a possible example that what majority scholarship presents as sound knowledge may not be so - as my alien analogy highlighted (your philosophical objections notwithstanding) I don't believe the 2nd century claim is sufficiently justified by the evidence to warrant presentation as fact.

This thread was intended to discuss (as much as possible) the extent and limits of what is known about Daniel, prior to the supposition that visitation by angels is impossible/extremely improbable. Your other comments seem to be continuing in that presumption. I'll respond if you'd like, but discussing the probability of angels vs. the probability of counter-productive and counter-intuitive 'prophecy' vs. the probability of redactorial correction of earlier visions is much more about our (or scholars') guesses than about actual available evidence.

That's not really the case. The presence of "prophecies" in Daniel is very strong evidence against an early date. I understand for this thread your purpose is more to set aside that evidence and focus on other arguments. But that's still the massive road block that you're going to run into. Scholars can't entertain the idea of an early Daniel without making at least one extremely problematic assumption, that is, at least one assumption that would be unacceptable in any other historical situation. Eventually, you're going to need at least one supernatural or psuedo-supernatural assumption, or at least on spectacular series of coincidences. Explanations relying on such are not acceptable anywhere else in history, so to actually consider a 6th century date requires the issue to be dealt with.