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?

[Mithrae]

As I've pointed out, by that criterion the whole 2nd century composition theory is an 'assumption' to fill holes. The 'analysis of the evidence' which you support is not a different type of approach in any way

Which "holes" do you think the 2nd century "assumption" fills? If we are discussing the date of authorship, we aren't assuming our conclusions. We are looking at some evidence and deciding which date best explains it.

- though the theory does have more difficulties, it seems. Later redaction is not a solution to any problematic verses, it's a possible solution to the supposition that Daniel wasn't really told the future by an angel.

It's exactly a solution to problematic verses. There are verses that contain information about second century events. That makes them problematic to a 6th century theory. How are you going to solve this problem?

- assume the existence of an angel, or

- assume the interference of a redactor in the problematic verses

I notice that you're careful to put only two of the 'assumptions,' as you call them, side by side for comparison. An ancient Hebrew text says that it was written in the 6th century, containing predictions about the future from visions of angels. We can:

1 > Theorise that the text's claims are not valid and thus not honest
- - - A > Theorise that the account is wholly fabricated (not 6th century, no hallucinations and little genuine guesswork)

- - - B > Theorise that the account is partly fabricated (6th century guesses which, given their considerable accuracy to the end of the 3rd century, were probably touched up a bit by the Aramaic author)

2 > Theorise that the text's claims are honest and possibly valid (6th century visions/predictions with considerable accuracy but some problems like the omission of Seleucus IV and failure of the 70 sevens)


1A involves more divergence from our ancient source, and hence more of our own speculation and educated guesswork as to precisely when, by whom and why it was written. Given that, I feel obliged to again point out that your use of 'assume' above to describe only the positions closer to the ancient source is not a very objective rhetorical approach

1A also has the problems I've mentioned several times already: The 70 sevens predicting over a century of further oppression for the Jews, the strange omission of Seleucus IV from the vaticinium ex eventu 'predictions,' the implication that the evil king was not royalty which would be false if applied to Antiochus IV, and the policy reversal of 11:36-38 which would be absurd if applied to Antiochus IV. Your only responses appear to be along the lines that your preferred theory can't "say with much confidence what his exact mindset was or ought to have been," so things which seem dumb to us should not be considered particularly problematic!

You've basically acknowledged that there is no evidence suggesting that the text is wholly fabricated or wholly 2nd century. So could an author during Antiochus' persecution have predicted that during the century and more of oppression still to come, he or a successor would abandon Greek gods and honour a foreign god? Sure, it's possible. But since these are great vistas of speculation which neither of the options admitting the general plausibility of 6th century predictions needs to indulge in, I really have to wonder why you not only support it, but engage in these rhetorical ploys to belittle those alternatives?

Is the possibility that an earlier author predicted a desecration of the temple really so unpalatable?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

As I've pointed out, by that criterion the whole 2nd century composition theory is an 'assumption' to fill holes. The 'analysis of the evidence' which you support is not a different type of approach in any way

Which "holes" do you think the 2nd century "assumption" fills? If we are discussing the date of authorship, we aren't assuming our conclusions. We are looking at some evidence and deciding which date best explains it.

- though the theory does have more difficulties, it seems. Later redaction is not a solution to any problematic verses, it's a possible solution to the supposition that Daniel wasn't really told the future by an angel.

It's exactly a solution to problematic verses. There are verses that contain information about second century events. That makes them problematic to a 6th century theory. How are you going to solve this problem?

- assume the existence of an angel, or

- assume the interference of a redactor in the problematic verses

I notice that you're careful to put only two of the 'assumptions,' as you call them, side by side for comparison. An ancient Hebrew text says that it was written in the 6th century, containing predictions about the future from visions of angels. We can:

1 > Theorise that the text's claims are not valid and thus not honest
- - - A > Theorise that the account is wholly fabricated (not 6th century, no hallucinations and little genuine guesswork)

- - - B > Theorise that the account is partly fabricated (6th century guesses which, given their considerable accuracy to the end of the 3rd century, were probably touched up a bit by the Aramaic author)

2 > Theorise that the text's claims are honest and possibly valid (6th century visions/predictions with considerable accuracy but some problems like the omission of Seleucus IV and failure of the 70 sevens)


1A involves more divergence from our ancient source, and hence more of our own speculation and educated guesswork as to precisely when, by whom and why it was written. Given that, I feel obliged to again point out that your use of 'assume' above to describe only the positions closer to the ancient source is not a very objective rhetorical approach

It's not a rhetorical approach. It's the objective historical approach. We are asking the question "when was Daniel written?" We then compare the assumptions that are required to hold up different conclusions as more or less probable than others.

Your above rhetoric, on the other hand, is mistaken in suggesting that disagreeing with the ancient source involves "more of our own speculation" than agreeing with it. It doesn't. We can speculate that the source is correct, or speculate that it isn't. There's no difference, and that's why "divergence from our ancient source" isn't a useful standard for determining the probability of different composition theories. We can't simply assume that sources are more likely to be reliable than unreliable in general, that defeats the purpose of historical inquiry.

1A also has the problems I've mentioned several times already: The 70 sevens predicting over a century of further oppression for the Jews, the strange omission of Seleucus IV from the vaticinium ex eventu 'predictions,' the implication that the evil king was not royalty which would be false if applied to Antiochus IV, and the policy reversal of 11:36-38 which would be absurd if applied to Antiochus IV. Your only responses appear to be along the lines that your preferred theory can't "say with much confidence what his exact mindset was or ought to have been," so things which seem dumb to us should not be considered particularly problematic!

My other responses include pointing out that the problems with the 6th century date or unevidenced redactor are much much more significant than these minor points.

When I say that we cannot say with much confidence what his exact mindset was or ought to have been, I am pointing out the weakness with some of your criticisms. You have to pile on additional assumptions for them to hold much weight (and that's why they don't hold much weight). Information about 2nd century events in a 6th century text is an obvious problem. An author saying something that doesn't make perfect sense, on the other hand, isn't an obvious problem. It might be a problem, but only if we assume certain things about the author and the context in which he wrote. Given that we don't know who the author was, and that our knowledge of the cultural and historical contexts which produced these texts is far from comprehensive, these aren't the most solid assumptions to make.

You've basically acknowledged that there is no evidence suggesting that the text is wholly fabricated or wholly 2nd century.

There is very strong evidence suggesting the text is wholly 2nd century: it describes 2nd century events, and does not show signs of redaction.

So could an author during Antiochus' persecution have predicted that during the century and more of oppression still to come, he or a successor would abandon Greek gods and honour a foreign god? Sure, it's possible. But since these are great vistas of speculation which neither of the options admitting the general plausibility of 6th century predictions needs to indulge in, I really have to wonder why you not only support it, but engage in these rhetorical ploys to belittle those alternatives?

Is the possibility that an earlier author predicted a desecration of the temple really so unpalatable?

I am only trying to address the issues from a historical point of view and must plead innocence to accusations of rhetorical ploys. From a historical perspective, yes, these options are quite unpalatable. From a theological perspective, perhaps not.

[Mithrae]

Howdy again Fuzzy, thanks for the reply.

Your above rhetoric, on the other hand, is mistaken in suggesting that disagreeing with the ancient source involves "more of our own speculation" than agreeing with it. It doesn't. We can speculate that the source is correct, or speculate that it isn't.

"We can speculate that the source is correct, or speculate that" some alternative theory (whose content is not our own speculation) is correct instead, and describe only the former type of speculation as 'assumption.'

I think we're heading towards repeating ourselves at each other here. Some speculation occurred to me the other day about a possible motivation for the format of Daniel in the 6th century which might interest Historia, but I'll have to re-read Ezekiel and probably Isaiah before considering it properly. So it may never see the light of day

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

"We can speculate that the source is correct, or speculate that" some alternative theory (whose content is not our own speculation) is correct instead, and describe only the former type of speculation as 'assumption.'

Presumably this is an allusion to the historical method being "rhetoric" in your view? I had hoped I had sufficiently cleared up this misunderstanding in my previous post. Again you seem to suggest that believing a historical account wholesale is more parsimonious than not believing it wholesale, but I can't see where the justification for this view is coming from.

[historia]

[delete]

[JehovahsWitness]

I believe Daniel was written in the 6th century, those that opt for a later date do so largely because it contains prophecies that cannot be explained otherwise.

The book is very faith strengthening for those that wish to examine its contents,

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[Clownboat]

I believe Daniel was written in the 6th century, those that opt for a later date do so largely because it contains prophecies that cannot be explained otherwise.

The book is very faith strengthening for those that wish to examine its contents,

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

The book is only faith strengthening if you hold the presupposition that fortune telling is real it seems.

Simply a matter of preaching to the choir.
A person must literally believe an absurdity (some people can tell the future by some means) before the absurdity can strengthen their faith (look at this claim about how a person told the future!).

Believing that a god raised someone from the dead can also strengthen the faith of a person that already believes the gods raise humans from the dead.

Anyone outside the choir is left shaking their head wondering where fortune telling or resurrections beliefs came from in the first place. Until of course they realize that such absurdities are part of the belief system itself.

[Mithrae]

I believe Daniel was written in the 6th century, those that opt for a later date do so largely because it contains prophecies that cannot be explained otherwise.

How do you account for historical inaccuracies if the Aramaic section were written in the 6th century, such as
- the claim that Nebuchadnezzar was absent from his throne for 7 years and then promoted Jewish monotheism in a letter to his whole kingdom (ch4) or
- the claim that Darius was king of the Persian empire at the conquest of Babylon rather than Cyrus the Great (ch6)?

#####
#####

A person must literally believe an absurdity (some people can tell the future by some means)

How do you account for thematic incongruities if the Hebrew section were written post hoc, such as
- predicting that Antiochus IV, whose efforts had been devoted to imposing Greek culture in his kingdom, would suddenly abandon "the gods of his fathers" and start promoting a foreign "god of fortresses" (11:31ff) or
- rather than offering hope for the presumed audience, predicting through the seventy sevens that it would be more than 100 years into the future before God would make everything good and right again (ch9)?


If the late-date theory cannot convincingly account for questions such as these, it is obviously a rather weak hypothesis. And as it seems I was discussing with Fuzzy Dunlop in those last 2012 posts, most of the content of the Hebrew section (ch 8, 9, 10 and 12) could be supposed to be lucky (albeit remarkable) guesses of a 6th century author. For the most part, even the presupposition of naturalism is not violated by the 6th century date, so if that is the more reasonable hypothesis, that is the one which should be preferred.

If our metaphysical presuppositions then compel us to suppose that the most detailed predictions (particularly in chapter 11) could not have been genuine, we can always invent an ad hoc supposition that a later Aramaic author touched up those sections. This would have the added advantage of 'explaining' details such as the complete omission of Seleucus IV (187-175BCE) from the record if the later author wrote before that time, in addition to the other incongruities. (Here's a breakdown of the prophecy/history match-up in chapter 11.)

Of course, not everyone is convinced that those metaphysical presuppositions are entirely justified in the first place, particularly when the argument goes "This prediction is not real, it has to have been written later, because no predictions are real!"

[JehovahsWitness]

How do you account for historical inaccuracies [...] such as the claim that Nebuchadnezzar was absent from his throne for 7 years"

First of all the account doesn't say 7 years it says "seven times". What "a time" was and how it applied to the King is largely down to interpretation. There is no way to prove whether the text meant seven minuites, seven days, seven months or seven years; thus there is no way to prove it was inaccurate. Even if it did, absence of proof is not evidence of absence.

Further the text does not say that Nebuchadnezzar was "absent from his throne" it simply says he lost his reason and was unable to perform his duties. There is no mention of abducting from his throne thus there is no reason why such a thing should be recorded in any official Babylonian records. If Nebuchanezzar was absent from his duties but but retained his thone, this would explain the lack of records on this point. (The British Royal family has a similar case in King George III who despite bouts of mental illness retained his throne for 60 years; however he was forced to withdraw from daily business for periods)

In any case critiques have their work cut out for them if they wish to prove a negative and you are welcome to try if you understand the difference of between not having a record of something and having proof that the information we do have is inaccurate. In short, not being able to prove what the text mean AND having no proof whatsoever that whatever it meant didn't happen, clearly does NOT amount to a proven "inaccuracy".

[JehovahsWitness]

How do you account for historical inaccuracies ... that Nebuchadnezzar ... promoted Jewish monotheism in a letter to his whole kingdom (ch4)

The account in Daniel 4 does NOT say Nebuchadnessar "promoted Jewish monotheism" this is a strawman argument.

The account reads "to all the peoples, nations, and language groups dwelling in all the earth: May your peace abound! I am pleased to declare the signs and wonders that the Most High God has performed toward me." - Daniel 4: 1, 2 and concludes "Now I, Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, am praising and exalting and glorifying the King of the heavens" (4:37)

At the most we have a personal statement Nebuchanezzar's experience and the effect that had on him at the time; I say "at the time" because there is not evidence in the book of Daniel that Nebuchadnezzar or his household, much less the his subjects were informed that Jewish monotheism was to be "promoted".

It is I think fair to conclude that the opening statement is a formality and even in the unlikely case it was addressed to literaly every person on the planet earth we don't know if it was SENT out to everyone on the planet. All we actually have is a statement (to whom it may concern) of Nebuchadnezzar's experience and the lessons he personaly drew from it. We don''t know if it was sent since there is no follow up, we don't know WHO it was sent to and it contains no instructions for any of his subjects.

JW