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]

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!

A mere seven months later, I've got 'round to getting some references for this!

I'm bumping this thread for possible contributions following related discussion in my thread Bias in biblical scholarship.



Mithrae wrote:
Short of decisive manuscript evidence of inserted sections, a difference in the text's language is possibly the best face-value reason to suppose multiple authorship there could be. As you'd know and I mentioned earlier, the gross historical problems with Aramaic Daniel (notably Darius the Mede as king of the Persian empire at the time of Babylon's fall, and the madness and monotheistic conversion of Nebuchadnezzar) are a very good reason to suppose that it isn't a 6th century work.

The beginning of the main Hebrew section reads (1984 NIV):
Daniel 8:1 In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me. 2 In my vision I saw myself in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam; in the vision I was beside the Ulai Canal.

This accounts for why the linguistic division does not match the division in content (narrative vs. prophetic/visionary); if there were two authors, whichever came later presumably would have added either that first vision or the reference to it.

It also suggests that the author was familiar enough with Babylonian history to know that Elam was under their control, and perhaps even implies that the author was familiar with Susa itself. But most importantly, it implies a knowledge of the rulership in Babylon which it seems very unlikely that a 2nd century Jew would have.

This is what I've been able to discover of the sources pertaining to pre-Achaemenid Babylon from before the early/mid 2nd century BCE:

• Written histories (too lazy atm to confirm if they're all in Greek)
  The 5th century Greek Herodotus (Histories, 1.188-191) called both the last king of Babylon and his father Labynetos. According to Wikipedia "Labynetos is generally understood to be a garbled form of the name Nabonidus and the younger Labynetos is often identified with Belshazzar. Opinions differ however on how best to reconcile Herodotus with the Babylonian sources and an alternative view is that the younger Labynetos is Nabonidus."
  
  The 4th century Greek Xenophon (Cyropedia, 7.5.28-30) does not name the last king of Babylon or, of course, his son.
  
  The late 5th/early 4th century Ctesias of Cnidus recounted the reign of Cyrus the Great, but "From what we know of Ctesias' work, he did not describe Cyrus' greatest deed: the capture of Babylon." So it's safe to presume that his Persica did not mention the final Babylonian rulers.
  
  The 3rd century Babylonian Berossus - not extant, but quoted in Josephus (Against Apion, 1.20) - names 'Nabonnedus' as the last king of Babylon, and does not mention his son.
  
  Cuneiform inscriptions
  The Nabonidus Chronicle (fairly neutral religious account of his reign) names Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon, and says that for much of his reign he was in Temâ while "the crown prince, his officials and his army were in Akkad" (Babylonia). It does not name Belshazzar, although there are considerable gaps in the account.
  
  The Cyrus Cylinder (pro-Cyrus) names Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon, but doesn't mention his son.
  
  The Verse account of Nabonidus (pro-Cyrus, anti-Nabonidus) says that in Nabonidus' third year, he entrusted his army and kingship to his first son while he himself went to Temâ. There's a large gap, though given the emphasis on Nabonidus there seems little reason to believe that it names Belshazzar.
  
  The Nabonidus Cylinder (Nabonidus' own inscription) does name his son Belshazzar, though it doesn't mention his co-regency.

We might expect an educated 2nd century Jew to know of the works by Herodotus or Xenophon. But given the absence of any known literary references or knowledge of them, the Nabonidus Chronicle and Verse account and particularly the Nabonidus Cylinder naming Belshazzar seem unlikely to have been known by this speculated late-date author. If his knowledge of rulership in Babylon at the end of its autonomy went beyond that of Herodotus, Xenophon or Ctesias, this would seem to be as compelling evidence for an early date as the inaccuracies in the Aramaic section are of a late date.

[Flail]

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?

For those of us who are not Biblical scholars would you mind telling us the import of Daniel? What important passages have current significance in Christian faith? Why is the Book of Daniel and it's messages and possible discrepancies an important topic to discuss in your opinion?

[Mithrae]

For those of us who are not Biblical scholars would you mind telling us the import of Daniel? What important passages have current significance in Christian faith? Why is the Book of Daniel and it's messages and possible discrepancies an important topic to discuss in your opinion?

As far as significance to Christianity goes, I imagine that ranking right up there with Isaiah 53 in it's importance to apologetics is Daniel 9. It says that from the word to rebuild Jerusalem there'd be 7 and 62 'sevens'; then a messiah would be 'cut off'; the people of a prince to come would destroy the city and the sanctuary; desolation would continue to 'til the end of the war; a convenant would be confirmed for a 'seven,' but halfway through it sacrifices and offering would be stopped; and all kinds of abominations and suchlike would happen.

Starting from the presumption that it was written in the 2nd century BCE, some interpretations force out of the passage a reference to the death of the Jewish high priest Onias III. For example, by starting the 7 sevens from the destruction of the old temple and desolation of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in c.586 BCE rather than commencement of rebuilding, they become a reference to Cyrus in 538 BCE (cf. Isaiah 45, which calls Cyrus God's anointed); and by starting 62 sevens from the beginning of Nebuchanezzar's rule (c.605 BCE) it amazingly matches the time-frame of Onias' possible death (c.171 BCE)!

Christian interpretations appeal to the Tanakh's claim of an instruction by Persian king Artaxerxes regarding the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2, c.446 BCE), which gives just over 1% margin of error (5-6 years) for the death of Jesus and the 49 years prior in which Herod's temple had been built (cf. John 2:20). Some time after which the city and the sanctuary were destroyed by the Romans, of course, without having yet been rebuilt in order to accomodate the cessation of sacrifice in the supposed final 'seven'


My own interest in Daniel is also a little more personal - it was while researching this subject that I first began to reject the notion of biblical inerrancy, when I was 17 - but hopefully that illustrates how positions on the authorship of Daniel can influence views of Christianity and apologetics

[Flail]

For those of us who are not Biblical scholars would you mind telling us the import of Daniel? What important passages have current significance in Christian faith? Why is the Book of Daniel and it's messages and possible discrepancies an important topic to discuss in your opinion?

As far as significance to Christianity goes, I imagine that ranking right up there with Isaiah 53 in it's importance to apologetics is Daniel 9. It says that from the word to rebuild Jerusalem there'd be 7 and 62 'sevens'; then a messiah would be 'cut off'; the people of a prince to come would destroy the city and the sanctuary; desolation would continue to 'til the end of the war; a convenant would be confirmed for a 'seven,' but halfway through it sacrifices and offering would be stopped; and all kinds of abominations and suchlike would happen.

Starting from the presumption that it was written in the 2nd century BCE, some interpretations force out of the passage a reference to the death of the Jewish high priest Onias III. For example, by starting the 7 sevens from the destruction of the old temple and desolation of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in c.586 BCE rather than commencement of rebuilding, they become a reference to Cyrus in 538 BCE (cf. Isaiah 45, which calls Cyrus God's anointed); and by starting 62 sevens from the beginning of Nebuchanezzar's rule (c.605 BCE) it amazingly matches the time-frame of Onias' possible death (c.171 BCE)!

Christian interpretations appeal to the Tanakh's claim of an instruction by Persian king Artaxerxes regarding the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2, c.446 BCE), which gives just over 1% margin of error (5-6 years) for the death of Jesus and the 49 years prior in which Herod's temple had been built (cf. John 2:20). Some time after which the city and the sanctuary were destroyed by the Romans, of course, without having yet been rebuilt in order to accomodate the cessation of sacrifice in the supposed final 'seven'


My own interest in Daniel is also a little more personal - it was while researching this subject that I first began to reject the notion of biblical inerrancy, when I was 17 - but hopefully that illustrates how positions on the authorship of Daniel can influence views of Christianity and apologetics

Do you suppose that first century religious writers were familiar with previous texts and lore so as to 'match them up'?

[Goat]

For those of us who are not Biblical scholars would you mind telling us the import of Daniel? What important passages have current significance in Christian faith? Why is the Book of Daniel and it's messages and possible discrepancies an important topic to discuss in your opinion?

As far as significance to Christianity goes, I imagine that ranking right up there with Isaiah 53 in it's importance to apologetics is Daniel 9. It says that from the word to rebuild Jerusalem there'd be 7 and 62 'sevens'; then a messiah would be 'cut off'; the people of a prince to come would destroy the city and the sanctuary; desolation would continue to 'til the end of the war; a convenant would be confirmed for a 'seven,' but halfway through it sacrifices and offering would be stopped; and all kinds of abominations and suchlike would happen.

Starting from the presumption that it was written in the 2nd century BCE, some interpretations force out of the passage a reference to the death of the Jewish high priest Onias III. For example, by starting the 7 sevens from the destruction of the old temple and desolation of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in c.586 BCE rather than commencement of rebuilding, they become a reference to Cyrus in 538 BCE (cf. Isaiah 45, which calls Cyrus God's anointed); and by starting 62 sevens from the beginning of Nebuchanezzar's rule (c.605 BCE) it amazingly matches the time-frame of Onias' possible death (c.171 BCE)!

Christian interpretations appeal to the Tanakh's claim of an instruction by Persian king Artaxerxes regarding the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2, c.446 BCE), which gives just over 1% margin of error (5-6 years) for the death of Jesus and the 49 years prior in which Herod's temple had been built (cf. John 2:20). Some time after which the city and the sanctuary were destroyed by the Romans, of course, without having yet been rebuilt in order to accomodate the cessation of sacrifice in the supposed final 'seven'


My own interest in Daniel is also a little more personal - it was while researching this subject that I first began to reject the notion of biblical inerrancy, when I was 17 - but hopefully that illustrates how positions on the authorship of Daniel can influence views of Christianity and apologetics

Do you suppose that first century religious writers were familiar with previous texts and lore so as to 'match them up'?

Well, I don't see why the incident with king Artaxerxes should be part of the prophecy, except to retrofit the prophecy into the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. There is nothing in the writing of Daniel to indicate that. It sort of is like taking the desired end, and then looking backwards to see what can be made to fit INTO a prophecy.

[historia]

How reliably can we conclude that Hebrew/prophetic Daniel was written sometime before the 2nd century?

I think you've done a good job laying out the arguments against a 6th Century BCE date for Daniel (either in whole or in part), Mithrae. What I would like to do here is clarify, expand, and defend some of those arguments.

In this post, I'd like to clarify the basic hypothesis, and show how this accounts for the historical information you've observed in the text. In a second post, I'd like to take-up the argument of literary genre and reception of Daniel. And then in a third tackle the 'thematic incongruencies' you've suggested.

1. Historical in/accuracies

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 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!

I think it's important here to clarify the mainstream view on Daniel. For that I'll turn to one of the foremost scholars in the field, John Joseph Collins, here taken from The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (vol. 1, 2001):

It is generally agreed that the tales in Daniel 1-6 are older than the visions in chapter 7-12, and are traditional tales that may have evolved over centuries . . . The visions of Daniel, in chapters 7-12, are generally attributed to the Maccabean period, although some scholars suppose that a form of chapter 7 is older than this.

In other words, chapters 1-6 contain legendary tales, which developed in the post-Exilic period, surrounding a figure named Daniel, who the author/editor of the book of Daniel has written down (or copied from an earlier written source) and used as a kind of literary vehicle, and pseudonym, for his own apocalyptic writings in chapters 7-12.

This hypothesis -- particularly the "evolved over centuries" part -- I think, makes good sense of the observations you've noted above both for and against a 6th Century date.

On the one hand, as these Danielic stories developed and evolved, various historical details appear to have gotten blurred and confused (e.g., Nabonidus being confused with Nebuchadnezzar). On the other hand, oral tradition may well have preserved some accurate historical information in the stories (e.g., Belshazzar as 'king'), and transmitted that down to the time of their writing.

Since the 2nd Century author/editor of Daniel received his information from these folk tales, all of it (right and wrong) would have been "known" to him. Again, from Collins:

The survival of authentic Babylonian details in Daniel does not require that the book was written in the Exile, as conservatives have been wont to claim. Rather these details attest to the persistent cultural legacy of Assyria and Babylon in the Hellenistic period, a phenomenon that is only now being explored in a systematic way.

Now that was principally for the 'narrative' section. But I think these issues spill over into the 'prophetic' section as well, which is really your chief concern:

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).

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.

[historia]

Continuing from above . . .

2. Genre

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.

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.

Before answering this point, we need to first take note of the fact that Jewish prophetic writing underwent an evolution in style and from between the 7th and 2nd Century BCE. The older ‘prophecy’ of the pre-Exilic period gradually gave way to a newer style of prophetic writing that came to dominate in the Second Temple period, which scholars call ‘apocalyptic’. It’s still recognizably prophetic literature, but in form and outlook it's different.

From Britannica:

The earliest apocalypses are Jewish works that date from about 200 BCE to about 165 BCE. Whereas earlier Jewish writers, the Prophets, had foretold the coming of disasters, often in esoteric language, they neither placed these disasters in a narrative framework nor conceived of them in eschatological terms. During the time of the Hellenistic domination of Palestine and the revolt of the Maccabees, however, a pessimistic view of the present became coupled with an expectation of an apocalyptic scenario, which is characterized by an imminent crisis, a universal judgment, and a supernatural resolution.

The transition from prophecy to apocalyptic (aποκαλυπτειν, to reveal something hidden) was gradual and already accomplished within the limits of the Old Testament. Beginning in the bosom of prophecy, and steadily differentiating itself from it in its successive developments, it never came to stand in absolute contrast to it. Apocalyptical elements disclose themselves in the prophetical books of Ezekiel, Joel, Zechariah, while in Isaiah 24-27 and 33 we find well-developed apocalypses; but it is not until we come to Daniel that we have a fully matured and classical example of this class of literature.

We might draw an analogy here with musical genres. Rock n’ Roll clearly draws upon earlier genres, like blues, country, and gospel. In the 1940’s and 50’s it evolved and matured into a distinctive genre of its own, becoming wildly popular from the 1960’s onward.

The argument here, then, is not simply that the presence of apocalyptic material in Daniel marks it as a later work, but rather the degree to which that style is present shows it cannot be a work of the 6th Century. While texts like Ezekiel and Zechariah exhibit some elements of apocalyptic writing -- the proverbial transitional species in the evolution of our genre -- Daniel is thoroughly in the new apocalyptic style. Daniel is not blues and country. Daniel is Rock n’ Roll.

From a purely literary point of view, Daniel has much more in common with works of the Second Temple period like 1 Enoch (c. 200 BCE), 4 Ezra (c. 100 CE), and 2 and 3 Baruch (c. 100 CE) than it does prophetic works of the 6th Century BCE. And so, again from a purely literary point of view, it appears to be from that later time period.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Just going to continue on in this thread...

I said in my November 2011 comments that "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." So no, a totally original 2nd century text is not what I think I'm arguing against.

Could you show (here or in the other thread) which parts of chapters 8-12 are identified by scholars as belonging to these older traditions? The impression I've had is that this Hebrew section is viewed as wholly 2nd century, but I'm open to correction.

Sorry, I was a bit confused as to what we were talking about. Scholars do seem to take a 2nd century author as the best explanation for the Hebrew part of Daniel. Going back to address earlier comments in light of this:

You are correct that the possibility of later redaction further illustrates the problems with your various claims regarding violation of the "laws of the universe," 'magic' and so on. Yet again I will recall your attention to the fact that I have several times said that a 6th century date does not preclude naturalistic explanations and that historians should not assert the angelic theory. It is you who brought up these objections, attempting to show the supposed impossibility of a 6th century date. While I contend that your arguments suggesting impossibility in Daniel's angelic account rather than mere improbability are dubious questions of philosophy which should not form the foundation of historical enquiry in any case, I think you've further confirmed here that as a reason for supposing a 2nd century date such arguments are extremely limited in scope and value.

Later redaction is possible, but there doesn't seem to be any textual evidence to clearly indicate it, making it a weaker explanation than the 2nd century composition explanation.

I am not attempting to show that a 6th century date is impossible. I'm arguing that a 6th century date is very unlikely, so unlikely that it doesn't merit serious consideration or discussion by historians.

- To my knowledge there is only one form of 'evidence' for inauthencity in the Hebrew section, which involves the view that all of the following are impossible or very improbable:
* Daniel's claim of angelic visitation

This explanation invokes magic, more or less. Yes, you could argue it was some sort of natural angel rather than a supernatural one, much like you could argue for a natural ghost. But assuming the existence of mythical beings is a serious weakness for any theory.

* Daniel made very lucky guesses (in the bits which aren't vague or inaccurate)

Possible, but the odds against it would be massive. Assuming a spectacular series of coincidences is also a serious weakness for any theory.

* Daniel belonged to a secret group of wealthy ninjas or other wild naturalisms

Also extremely unlikely, I think we would agree.

* Daniel's work was editted a bit by a later (Aramaic) author

This requires more assumptions than a single 2nd century author. Also there is the lack of obvious evidence of such editing.

So beyond this, are there any good explanations concluding 6th century composition? To me, it seems perfectly clear to me that these are improbable, much more improbable than the problems with the second century date. The problems you point out are all solved if we simply assume humans behaved as humans have often been known to behave. This assumption is more favoured by historical inquiry than assumptions that require the existence of mythical beings, or a series of coincidences, or gods, or powerful yet natural god-like beings.

As to "whether any of the predictions were actually made before the events they describe," that's certainly an interesting question. An historical Daniel would presumably have known that the Assyrians were once the great Mesopotamian power, having threatened Jerusalem, conquered the northern kingdom of Israel and indeed Babylon itself (cf. Isaiah 13-14, against Tiglath Pileser from memory). He then would have seen the Babylonian kingdom fall to the Persians and (believing that only a kingdom of David could last forever) would no doubt have expected the Persians to fall in their turn. To whom? Egypt, who'd already had their heyday? India, if he'd even known more than rumours of it? Greece? Is the division of some later kingdom to the four winds such a remarkable guess? Is it your claim that the vision of Daniel 8 could not have been written almost entirely by an historical Daniel?

No, I wouldn't even claim the whole book could not have been written by a historical Daniel. It's a question of weighing the probability of different explanations.

The exercise of analyzing verse by verse which predictions could reasonably have been said guessed by Daniel doesn't really accomplish anything in and of itself. I think it needs to correspond with some other textual evidence for us to reasonably say much about what fragments Daniel's voice remain in the text. Besides, a 2nd century redactor runs into many of the same criticisms you have against a wholly 2nd century text.

I'm not sure if you've done this yet, but since you don't think the angel theory could be supported, could you lay out which theory you think should? If historians are going to acknowledge a real possibility of 6th century composition, how should they present it?

[Mithrae]

I'm not sure if you've done this yet, but since you don't think the angel theory could be supported, could you lay out which theory you think should? If historians are going to acknowledge a real possibility of 6th century composition, how should they present it?

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.

--

Before answering this point, we need to first take note of the fact that Jewish prophetic writing underwent an evolution in style and from between the 7th and 2nd Century BCE. The older ‘prophecy’ of the pre-Exilic period gradually gave way to a newer style of prophetic writing that came to dominate in the Second Temple period, which scholars call ‘apocalyptic’. It’s still recognizably prophetic literature, but in form and outlook it's different.

From Britannica:

The earliest apocalypses are Jewish works that date from about 200 BCE to about 165 BCE. Whereas earlier Jewish writers, the Prophets, had foretold the coming of disasters, often in esoteric language, they neither placed these disasters in a narrative framework nor conceived of them in eschatological terms. During the time of the Hellenistic domination of Palestine and the revolt of the Maccabees, however, a pessimistic view of the present became coupled with an expectation of an apocalyptic scenario, which is characterized by an imminent crisis, a universal judgment, and a supernatural resolution.

The transition from prophecy to apocalyptic (aποκαλυπτειν, to reveal something hidden) was gradual and already accomplished within the limits of the Old Testament. Beginning in the bosom of prophecy, and steadily differentiating itself from it in its successive developments, it never came to stand in absolute contrast to it. Apocalyptical elements disclose themselves in the prophetical books of Ezekiel, Joel, Zechariah, while in Isaiah 24-27 and 33 we find well-developed apocalypses; but it is not until we come to Daniel that we have a fully matured and classical example of this class of literature.

We might draw an analogy here with musical genres. Rock n’ Roll clearly draws upon earlier genres, like blues, country, and gospel. In the 1940’s and 50’s it evolved and matured into a distinctive genre of its own, becoming wildly popular from the 1960’s onward.

The argument here, then, is not simply that the presence of apocalyptic material in Daniel marks it as a later work, but rather the degree to which that style is present shows it cannot be a work of the 6th Century. While texts like Ezekiel and Zechariah exhibit some elements of apocalyptic writing -- the proverbial transitional species in the evolution of our genre -- Daniel is thoroughly in the new apocalyptic style. Daniel is not blues and country. Daniel is Rock n’ Roll.

From a purely literary point of view, Daniel has much more in common with works of the Second Temple period like 1 Enoch (c. 200 BCE), 4 Ezra (c. 100 CE), and 2 and 3 Baruch (c. 100 CE) than it does prophetic works of the 6th Century BCE. And so, again from a purely literary point of view, it appears to be from that later time period.

Thanks for the replies Historia. I admit that I'm quite out of my depth discussing literary styles, but based on what you've said and a few minutes' extra research I do have to wonder whether there's any strong evidence for a smooth evolution of Jewish prophetic literature.

What I mean is that to my knowledge all of the Tanakh - with the possible exceptions of Esther, Ecclesiastes and Daniel - is believed to have been written in the 4th century BCE or (most of it) earlier. 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.

But if that's the case, then what we actually have as evidence are prophetic works from the 6th century or earlier, three or four of which display 'apocalyptic' elements; another alleged 6th century work which exemplifies those elements; and from the late 3rd/early 2nd century a resurgence of prophetic literature, in the 'apocalyptic' style. From this data, can we argue that Daniel must have belonged in the later group? Or is it just as plausible that the later form of literature was largely modelled on that earlier work?

Indeed - assuming for now that my knowledge is not too faulty - I wonder what the reason was for this later resurgence of prophetic literature? The authenticity of Hebrew Daniel would expain both the renewal of the genre and its particular form, since if it were genuine the conquests of Alexander and the emergence of the Macedonian, Egyptian, Seleucid and Bactrian Greek powers would no doubt provoke steadily growing interest in the work, particularly from the time of Antiochus IV.

This hypothesis -- particularly the "evolved over centuries" part -- I think, makes good sense of the observations you've noted above both for and against a 6th Century date.

On the one hand, as these Danielic stories developed and evolved, various historical details appear to have gotten blurred and confused (e.g., Nabonidus being confused with Nebuchadnezzar). On the other hand, oral tradition may well have preserved some accurate historical information in the stories (e.g., Belshazzar as 'king'), and transmitted that down to the time of their writing.

Since the 2nd Century author/editor of Daniel received his information from these folk tales, all of it (right and wrong) would have been "known" to him. Again, from Collins:

The survival of authentic Babylonian details in Daniel does not require that the book was written in the Exile, as conservatives have been wont to claim. Rather these details attest to the persistent cultural legacy of Assyria and Babylon in the Hellenistic period, a phenomenon that is only now being explored in a systematic way.

The problem I have with this is illustrated quite well by the examples you've chosen. Nabonidus apparently had strange religious preferences, and was absent for much of his reign (possibly ill), so his son Belshazzar largely ruled in his stead. Who's the main figure in this story? Nabonidus of course, especially since he apparently returned in time to witness the fall of Babylon to Cyrus.

The theory above requires that the major details become blurred or confused - the madness (real or not) of Nabonidus, the fall of his kingdom to Cyrus, and for that matter the moral tale of his pursuit of false gods against the possible monotheism (Zoroastrian) and tolerance of Judaism by Cyrus.

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. I can understand why the 'madness' of Nabonidus would later be attributed to the more famous Nebuchadnezzar; and in fairness, I can understand why that might occur a decade after the events about as easily as it would occur centuries afterwards. 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 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. But from the later Hebrew section only, what we've got regarding this Daniel character is a short vision from c.547 in the third year of Belshazzar (ch.8), a long vision in c.536 in the third year of Cyrus (ch.10-12), and a short vision in the first year of "Darius son of Xerxes, a Mede by descent" (ch.9). Surely you're not suggesting that a 6th century visionary could not have put his longest and most comprehensive vision last?

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.