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]

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.

Members of this forum are not participating in a context of professional scholarship, are they? Surely you're not suggesting that constraints of an academic field should limit what we here are supposed to think?

Again, what you're saying might have some bearing on whether the academic discipline is justified in ruling out certain possibilities and presenting alternative theories as de facto truth. But that isn't the subject of this thread and in any case, as I've pointed out, the possibility of minor corrections by an editor sometime after the 6th century would be one which avoids this alleged problem of happenings beyond the nature of the world ('supernatural'). Vague and undated but still somewhat accurate guesswork by a 6th century author might, perhaps, be considered significantly more implausible than counter-productive and wildly counter-intuitive guesswork by a 2nd century author, but I would suggest that the ball is in your court on that issue

In the meantime, possible lines of evidence like...
a) its acceptance as prophetic in the Septuagint and at Qumran (in contrast with the likes of Enoch, thankyou Historia)
b) its thematic appropriateness in the 6th century and explanatory power regarding the later resurgence of prophetic literature in the 'apocalyptic' style
c) its reference to 'king Belshazzar' which makes little sense, as far as I can tell, in any competing theory
d) apparent pre-Maccabean allusion to the work by Jesus ben-Sira
...lead me for now to believe that substantial authenticity for the Hebrew section is favoured by the balance of evidence.

[historia]

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 . . . 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.

We should be careful here. Although the Torah was very likely translated into Greek in Alexandria in the 3rd or 2nd Century BCE, we don't know when (or even where) the other books of the Old Testament were translated. The number of books, their arrangement, and grouping is only known from much later authors (2nd and 3rd Century CE), as you'll see below.

That being said, it appears that Daniel was considered a prophet by Qumran (as we've seen), the early Christians, and Josephus. And Josephus and the Christians place Daniel among the Prophets, albeit 250-350 years later. We have no contrary example, as far as I can tell. That may suggest that this was the original location of the text once it had been accepted in the canon (in so far as we can even talk of the position of separate scrolls within a canon prior to the invention of the codex).

Anyway, here are the relevant texts. Josephus doesn't mention Daniel (or any other work) by name, but in his other works he definitely considers Daniel as one of the "greatest prophets." Since he lists thirteen books among the Prophets, and only four books in the 'Writings', it seems likely Daniel is in the former.

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.

The other two are Christian sources:

Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to you as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books. Such are the words of Melito.

[Origen] gives a catalogue of the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament as follows:

It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters. Farther on he says:

The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means, 'In the beginning'; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, 'These are the names'; Leviticus, Wikra, 'And he called'; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, 'These are the words'; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, 'The called of God'; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, 'The kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreamein, that is, 'Records of days'; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, 'An assistant'; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel. He gives these in the above-mentioned work.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

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.

Members of this forum are not participating in a context of professional scholarship, are they? Surely you're not suggesting that constraints of an academic field should limit what we here are supposed to think?

Surely I'm not. I thought we were talking about how professional scholars should present this issue?

Again, what you're saying might have some bearing on whether the academic discipline is justified in ruling out certain possibilities and presenting alternative theories as de facto truth. But that isn't the subject of this thread and in any case, as I've pointed out, the possibility of minor corrections by an editor sometime after the 6th century would be one which avoids this alleged problem of happenings beyond the nature of the world ('supernatural').

If that is chosen as the assumption to support an early date, it is problematic in that it is not based on any evidence. A phantom redactor is a less problematic assumption than an angel, but it's still an assumption that greatly undermines the theory. The 2nd century theory doesn't suffer from this.

Vague and undated but still somewhat accurate guesswork by a 6th century author might be considered substantially more implausible than counter-productive and wildly counter-intuitive guesswork by a 2nd century author, but I would suggest that the ball is in your court on that issue

No, I think this has been covered pretty adequately already. I can't see how you can really argue this as a significant problem. I mean we've been over this, but still, somebody writing something that seems counter-intuitive to us isn't an especially problematic assumption, because it happens every day. Positing a redactor not based on evidence, but simply to explain unlikely knowledge in Daniel is unnecessary complication. Positing somebody wrote something that sounds dumb to us is just an appeal to normal everyday human nature.

In the meantime, possible lines of evidence like...
a) its acceptance as prophetic in the Septuagint and at Qumran (in contrast with the likes of Enoch, thankyou Historia)

They accepted other then-recent works as well, this seems to not be a big deal.

b) its thematic appropriateness in the 6th century and explanatory power regarding the later resurgence of prophetic literature in the 'apocalyptic' style

It fits better, as far as genre goes, in the second century, as has been discussed.

c) its reference to 'king Belshazzar' which makes little sense, as far as I can tell, in any competing theory

A second century author having access to information now lost to us "makes little sense"? This is, again, something that happens all the time.

d) apparent pre-Maccabean allusion to the work by Jesus ben-Sira

This is an interesting one, but it doesn't seem like a very substantial parallel. "Called by your name" and "hear the prayer of your servant" appear elsewhere in the bible. This isn't very solid evidence of intertextuality, never mind influence one way or the other.

http://biblez.com/search.php?q=called+by+your+name
http://biblez.com/search.php?q=hear+the ... ur+servant

[Mithrae]

Members of this forum are not participating in a context of professional scholarship, are they? Surely you're not suggesting that constraints of an academic field should limit what we here are supposed to think?

Surely I'm not. I thought we were talking about how professional scholars should present this issue?

That was the subject of the other thread

Again, what you're saying might have some bearing on whether the academic discipline is justified in ruling out certain possibilities and presenting alternative theories as de facto truth. But that isn't the subject of this thread and in any case, as I've pointed out, the possibility of minor corrections by an editor sometime after the 6th century would be one which avoids this alleged problem of happenings beyond the nature of the world ('supernatural').

If that is chosen as the assumption to support an early date, it is problematic in that it is not based on any evidence. A phantom redactor is a less problematic assumption than an angel, but it's still an assumption that greatly undermines the theory. The 2nd century theory doesn't suffer from this.

What positive evidence is the 2nd century theory based on?

Vague and undated but still somewhat accurate guesswork by a 6th century author might be considered substantially more implausible than counter-productive and wildly counter-intuitive guesswork by a 2nd century author, but I would suggest that the ball is in your court on that issue

No, I think this has been covered pretty adequately already. I can't see how you can really argue this as a significant problem. I mean we've been over this, but still, somebody writing something that seems counter-intuitive to us isn't an especially problematic assumption, because it happens every day. Positing a redactor not based on evidence, but simply to explain unlikely knowledge in Daniel is unnecessary complication. Positing somebody wrote something that sounds dumb to us is just an appeal to normal everyday human nature.

That's certainly a valid opinion. Another valid opinion is that the claim made by Daniel could possibly be true. As I initially replied to you, 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. You're obviously welcome to your opinion, but pending something more substantial I don't think it provides fertile ground for discussion in this thread.

In the meantime, possible lines of evidence like...
a) its acceptance as prophetic in the Septuagint and at Qumran (in contrast with the likes of Enoch, thankyou Historia)

They accepted other then-recent works as well, this seems to not be a big deal.

I'm always keen to learn. What other recent (pseudo)predictive work did they state or categorise as the work of a prophet?

b) its thematic appropriateness in the 6th century and explanatory power regarding the later resurgence of prophetic literature in the 'apocalyptic' style

It fits better, as far as genre goes, in the second century, as has been discussed.

While I'm no expert what I see is a theory which is solely observational ('apocalyptic' works occur later) and appears to alter the data to fit the pattern/theory (bits from the end of Zechariah & Ezekiel and even the middle of Isaiah were really written later on). If there were an alternative which didn't require matching data to the theory (Isaiah's "well-developed apocalypse" being, I suspect, the worst case of this) and which actually offered some explanatory power (the apparent late 3rd/early 2nd century resurgence of prophetic literature, primarily in the 'apocalyptic' style of Daniel), I personally would find the latter more compelling. Naturally I don't consider those issues closed yet, and even then it would obviously be a matter of opinion.

c) its reference to 'king Belshazzar' which makes little sense, as far as I can tell, in any competing theory

A second century author having access to information now lost to us "makes little sense"? This is, again, something that happens all the time.

Presumably you have other examples in mind where a much later author used an apellation which would be incorrect except perhaps in a close or familiar context, concerning a figure otherwise all but lost to history?

d) apparent pre-Maccabean allusion to the work by Jesus ben-Sira

This is an interesting one, but it doesn't seem like a very substantial parallel. "Called by your name" and "hear the prayer of your servant" appear elsewhere in the bible. This isn't very solid evidence of intertextuality, never mind influence one way or the other.

http://biblez.com/search.php?q=called+by+your+name
http://biblez.com/search.php?q=hear+the ... ur+servant

That's two of the four points of comparison which I suggested:
- verbal parallel; people called by your name
- verbal parallel; hear the prayer of your servant
- thematic parallel; mercy for the city and the sanctuary
- unusual words; qes (time or end) and mo'ed (appointed time) used together in Daniel 8:19, 11:27 and 11:35, as in v8 of Sirach's chapter

In fairness (thankyou for your links) the two verbal parallels are also found in Solomon's prayer of dedication for the temple, in 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chronicles 6. But in those passages the temple is the focus and a source of blessing, not the subject of a plea for mercy alongside the city (which, obviously, makes sense in Daniel's 6th century context but rather less so in ben-Sira's). Either Daniel or Sirach (or both) may have drawn from Kings, of course. Having looked it up I also ought to note that qes and mo'ed are used in that sense in Habakkuk 2:3 as well. I concede that these points weaken the comparison between Sirach and Daniel, but it remains the case that Daniel is the only perfect match for two verbal parallels, an unusual thematic approach and an unusual choice of words. The source I referenced in my earlier post quotes several works implying, with scholarly caution and reserve, that borrowing is all but definite here (though naturally they suggest it's Sirach to Daniel).

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

That was the subject of the other thread

It's fine if you don't want to discuss the issue. It will have to be dealt with, however, if a 6th century date is ever to be taken as a serious possibility.

What positive evidence is the 2nd century theory based on?

The presence of information about 2nd century events would be the obvious one.

That's certainly a valid opinion. Another valid opinion is that the claim made by Daniel could possibly be true. As I initially replied to you, 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. You're obviously welcome to your opinion, but pending something more substantial I don't think it provides fertile ground for discussion in this thread.

You really can't be saying that the idea that the idea that angels or prophecy are improbable compared to everyday events isn't based on actual available evidence? It's really simple. You look at the evidence. You note that we have mountains of evidence for everyday events. You note that we have no confirmed case of angels anywhere, ever, likewise for predictive prophecy.

I'm always keen to learn. What other recent (pseudo)predictive work did they state or categorise as the work of a prophet?

I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

While I'm no expert what I see is a theory which is solely observational ('apocalyptic' works occur later) and appears to alter the data to fit the pattern/theory (bits from the end of Zechariah & Ezekiel and even the middle of Isaiah were really written later on). If there were an alternative which didn't require matching data to the theory (Isaiah's "well-developed apocalypse" being, I suspect, the worst case of this) and which actually offered some explanatory power (the apparent late 3rd/early 2nd century resurgence of prophetic literature, primarily in the 'apocalyptic' style of Daniel), I personally would find the latter more compelling. Naturally I don't consider those issues closed yet, and even then it would obviously be a matter of opinion.

This being the case I'm not sure how you've come to decide this is better evidence for the 6th than 2nd century.

Presumably you have other examples in mind where a much later author used an apellation which would be incorrect except perhaps in a close or familiar context, concerning a figure otherwise all but lost to history?

I'm not sure why that would be relevant. All the 2nd century theory requires is the author to have access to a document or tradition with the guy's name on it.

And "all but lost to history"? For all we know the name was still common knowledge.

That's two of the four points of comparison which I suggested:
- verbal parallel; people called by your name
- verbal parallel; hear the prayer of your servant
- thematic parallel; mercy for the city and the sanctuary
- unusual words; qes (time or end) and mo'ed (appointed time) used together in Daniel 8:19, 11:27 and 11:35, as in v8 of Sirach's chapter

In fairness (thankyou for your links) the two verbal parallels are also found in Solomon's prayer of dedication for the temple, in 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chronicles 6. But in those passages the temple is the focus and a source of blessing, not the subject of a plea for mercy alongside the city (which, obviously, makes sense in Daniel's 6th century context but rather less so in ben-Sira's). Either Daniel or Sirach (or both) may have drawn from Kings, of course. Having looked it up I also ought to note that qes and mo'ed are used in that sense in Habakkuk 2:3 as well. I concede that these points weaken the comparison between Sirach and Daniel, but it remains the case that Daniel is the only perfect match for two verbal parallels, an unusual thematic approach and an unusual choice of words. The source I referenced in my earlier post quotes several works implying, with scholarly caution and reserve, that borrowing is all but definite here (though naturally they suggest it's Sirach to Daniel).

The "unusual choice of words" being the ones appearing in all these different documents? Given that it is uncertain whether there even is a textual connection, and that assuming there is it is uncertain which came first, this seems to be a pretty negligible point in favour of either a 6th or 2nd century date.

[Mithrae]

I've just been distracted from the task of matching ch11 with the historical record (something I should have done long ago). Apparently the phrase 'line in the sand' might be traced back to an event of Antiochus IV's life, but I was distracted by a similar incident at the Alamo

Members of this forum are not participating in a context of professional scholarship, are they? Surely you're not suggesting that constraints of an academic field should limit what we here are supposed to think?

Surely I'm not. I thought we were talking about how professional scholars should present this issue?

That was the subject of the other thread

It's fine if you don't want to discuss the issue. It will have to be dealt with, however, if a 6th century date is ever to be taken as a serious possibility.

What positive evidence is the 2nd century theory based on?

The presence of information about 2nd century events would be the obvious one.

And...?

Once again, this forum involves non-professional discussion of Christianity and the possible arguments/evidence for it, which we can approach from numerous different angles - what scholars say, what philosophers say, ethical aspects, social aspects and so on. Regarding a proto-Christian work which purports to contain revealed information about future centuries, you appear in the above to be saying that information about future centuries is positive evidence for the falsehood of that claim!

Surely you can see the circularity of that argument, in this context? Especially since you have already dismissed as "an assumption" "not based on any evidence" the possibility of redaction in an older work, which accounts (albeit with fewer difficulties IMO) for precisely the same data in precisely the same manner! Is there any positive evidence that you know of for the 2nd century date, or only what you have characterised as assumptions based on no evidence?

That's certainly a valid opinion. Another valid opinion is that the claim made by Daniel could possibly be true. As I initially replied to you, 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. You're obviously welcome to your opinion, but pending something more substantial I don't think it provides fertile ground for discussion in this thread.

You really can't be saying that the idea that the idea that angels or prophecy are improbable compared to everyday events isn't based on actual available evidence? It's really simple. You look at the evidence. You note that we have mountains of evidence for everyday events. You note that we have no confirmed case of angels anywhere, ever, likewise for predictive prophecy.

I suspect that a quick Google search would reveal more than a couple of multiple-witness accounts of angels or demons. I myself have never encountered such things, but there've been three people I've known quite well and respected as intelligent and sensible folk who have claimed such; one of revealed knowledge, the other two of spiritual encounters, though only one of them was Christian (or should I say, became Christian as a result).

For your part you may have certain criteria by which you consider something 'confirmed,' and thus you state that "we have no confirmed case of angels anywhere, ever." But that is not a particularly strong argument. Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly convinced by any of these accounts myself. However I don't think it's a valid argument to draw a line in the sand this side of all angelic or prophetic claims, and consider that to be evidence applicable to another such claim. Probability for the purposes of forming opinions? Certainly. But it's not evidence about Daniel's composition, is it?

I'm always keen to learn. What other recent (pseudo)predictive work did they state or categorise as the work of a prophet?

I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

The Jews counted among their most sacred scriptures a command that false prophets should be put to death (Deuteronomy 18). Yet the Qumran community (founded c.150BCE), which though they preserved it did not name the late 3rd/early 2nd century apocalyptic 'book of Enoch' or its sections to be prophetic, did refer to Daniel as a prophet. Countering this point, you stated that "They accepted other then-recent works as well" - I'm simply curious which ones you were referring to.

While I'm no expert what I see is a theory which is solely observational ('apocalyptic' works occur later) and appears to alter the data to fit the pattern/theory (bits from the end of Zechariah & Ezekiel and even the middle of Isaiah were really written later on). If there were an alternative which didn't require matching data to the theory (Isaiah's "well-developed apocalypse" being, I suspect, the worst case of this) and which actually offered some explanatory power (the apparent late 3rd/early 2nd century resurgence of prophetic literature, primarily in the 'apocalyptic' style of Daniel), I personally would find the latter more compelling. Naturally I don't consider those issues closed yet, and even then it would obviously be a matter of opinion.

This being the case I'm not sure how you've come to decide this is better evidence for the 6th than 2nd century.

You're correct that a theory which merely fits better doesn't necessarily have much, if any, positive evidentiary value for an early date. I admit that on this point my thinking was skewed by the claim that the alternative, and in my current opinion weaker, theory constituted evidence for the later date. I may have misunderstood what you're getting at with your comment, however.

Presumably you have other examples in mind where a much later author used an apellation which would be incorrect except perhaps in a close or familiar context, concerning a figure otherwise all but lost to history?

I'm not sure why that would be relevant. All the 2nd century theory requires is the author to have access to a document or tradition with the guy's name on it.

And "all but lost to history"? For all we know the name was still common knowledge.

And for all we know angels visit dozens of people every year, all dismissed as hallucination or fraud. It's an interesting approach to probability which you're adopting: The actual presence of numerous angelic accounts are dismissed as 'unconfirmed,' whereas the absense of any Greek or Hebrew reference to Belshazzar invites speculation that the knowledge may have been common.

My question is relevant because you stated that "This is, again, something that happens all the time." Did you make that claim without even a single example in mind?

That's two of the four points of comparison which I suggested:
- verbal parallel; people called by your name
- verbal parallel; hear the prayer of your servant
- thematic parallel; mercy for the city and the sanctuary
- unusual words; qes (time or end) and mo'ed (appointed time) used together in Daniel 8:19, 11:27 and 11:35, as in v8 of Sirach's chapter

In fairness (thankyou for your links) the two verbal parallels are also found in Solomon's prayer of dedication for the temple, in 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chronicles 6. But in those passages the temple is the focus and a source of blessing, not the subject of a plea for mercy alongside the city (which, obviously, makes sense in Daniel's 6th century context but rather less so in ben-Sira's). Either Daniel or Sirach (or both) may have drawn from Kings, of course. Having looked it up I also ought to note that qes and mo'ed are used in that sense in Habakkuk 2:3 as well. I concede that these points weaken the comparison between Sirach and Daniel, but it remains the case that Daniel is the only perfect match for two verbal parallels, an unusual thematic approach and an unusual choice of words. The source I referenced in my earlier post quotes several works implying, with scholarly caution and reserve, that borrowing is all but definite here (though naturally they suggest it's Sirach to Daniel).

The "unusual choice of words" being the ones appearing in all these different documents? Given that it is uncertain whether there even is a textual connection, and that assuming there is it is uncertain which came first, this seems to be a pretty negligible point in favour of either a 6th or 2nd century date.

I'd say that borrowing does seem more plausible, and that Daniel to Sirach is the less problematic direction, and thus that it is a point in favour of an earlier date. I agree that it's not a strong one however.

[historia]

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.

I think we are both arguing fairly nuanced points here. For you (as I undertsand it), the argument is that Belshazzar as 'king' is surprisingly accurate information for a (much) later author. For me, the argument about genre is that the degree of apocalyptic elements in Daniel would be surprising for a 6th Century text.

These are perhaps only convincing arguments when taken with other lines of evidence.

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?

I wonder, would a religious community like Qumran copy and preserve a text (at great expense) that it didn't consider to be authoritative?

And not just a handful of copies, either. Only Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Isaiah and Psalms are represented in more manuscripts than 1 Enoch at Qumran (there are more even than Daniel). That alone, I think, shows the Enoch literature was highly valued and authoritative.

Jubilees, which is also present in many manuscripts at Qumran, already draws some of it's own material from the earliest sections of 1 Enoch.

Of course I'm not even certain yet that DSS text 4Q174 calls Daniel a prophet, nor when it was written

From George Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran : 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (1985):

Palaeography, archeology and style show the date of the actual manuscript to be somewhere in the first century A.D.; study of the content enables that date to be fixed with a great degree of probability in the second or third quarter of the the first century

So quite late. We've already seen that Daniel was considered a prophet among Christians and Josephus at this time, too, so it seems that, by the middle of the 1st Century CE, this was a fairly common view.

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?

An interesting question. I suspect that there were many folk tales like that of Daniel in circulation among Jews at this time, which are not captured in Sirach. His survey of heroes is really a survey of the scripture of his day, so oral traditions may simply not figure into his purposes. And, since the stories of Daniel likely developed among diaspora Jews, and since Sirach is a text likely written in Palestine, he may simply not know about it.

Even if he did, as we've both already noted, he may simply not approve of it.

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.

Indeed, it seems to me that the idea of God's plan, as symbolized by a text, being hidden and then revealed by a prophet is a not uncommon theme in prophetic writing (e.g., Ezekiel and the scroll).

But Daniel here is told to do nearly the opposite -- to essentially hide the text, keeping it secret and sealed. So I don't see this text from Isaiah or that of Ezekiel being terribly relevant. What does the author mean by this if this is not, in fact, a confession that his work is really from the 2nd Century?

Revelation provides an interesting counter-point here, and allows me to circle back to one of your previous comments:

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.

Indeed, there are always exceptions to the (genre) rule.

But notice here that the author of Revelation is quite cognizant of this difference. He tells us: "And [the angel] said to me, 'Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near'" (Revelation 22:10).

The parallel here to Daniel 12:4 is undeniable. I think this shows two things: (1) the author of Revelation understands Daniel 12:4 in precisely the way I (and scholars) interpret it above, and (2) he knows his own work concerns current events, and so relays that fact to his audience.

Here I think the authors of both texts have given us strong clues as to when they wrote their respective texts.

[Mithrae]

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.

I think we are both arguing fairly nuanced points here. For you (as I undertsand it), the argument is that Belshazzar as 'king' is surprisingly accurate information for a (much) later author. For me, the argument about genre is that the degree of apocalyptic elements in Daniel would be surprising for a 6th Century text.

These are perhaps only convincing arguments when taken with other lines of evidence.

Agreed.

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?

I wonder, would a religious community like Qumran copy and preserve a text (at great expense) that it didn't consider to be authoritative?

And not just a handful of copies, either. Only Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Isaiah and Psalms are represented in more manuscripts than 1 Enoch at Qumran (there are more even than Daniel). That alone, I think, shows the Enoch literature was highly valued and authoritative.

Jubilees, which is also present in many manuscripts at Qumran, already draws some of it's own material from the earliest sections of 1 Enoch.

Of course I'm not even certain yet that DSS text 4Q174 calls Daniel a prophet, nor when it was written

From George Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran : 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (1985):

Palaeography, archeology and style show the date of the actual manuscript to be somewhere in the first century A.D.; study of the content enables that date to be fixed with a great degree of probability in the second or third quarter of the the first century

So quite late. We've already seen that Daniel was considered a prophet among Christians and Josephus at this time, too, so it seems that, by the middle of the 1st Century CE, this was a fairly common view.

Thanks The later date for known references to Daniel as a 'prophet' alone would invalidate this point of mine of course (alongside the information you've provided about the Septuagint's development), but the prevalence of Enoch manuscripts at Qumran doubly so.

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.

Indeed, it seems to me that the idea of God's plan, as symbolized by a text, being hidden and then revealed by a prophet is a not uncommon theme in prophetic writing (e.g., Ezekiel and the scroll).

But Daniel here is told to do nearly the opposite -- to essentially hide the text, keeping it secret and sealed. So I don't see this text from Isaiah or that of Ezekiel being terribly relevant. What does the author mean by this if this is not, in fact, a confession that his work is really from the 2nd Century?

Revelation provides an interesting counter-point here, and allows me to circle back to one of your previous comments:

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.

Indeed, there are always exceptions to the (genre) rule.

But notice here that the author of Revelation is quite cognizant of this difference. He tells us: "And [the angel] said to me, 'Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near'" (Revelation 22:10).

The parallel here to Daniel 12:4 is undeniable. I think this shows two things: (1) the author of Revelation understands Daniel 12:4 in precisely the way I (and scholars) interpret it above, and (2) he knows his own work concerns current events, and so relays that fact to his audience.

Here I think the authors of both texts have given us strong clues as to when they wrote their respective texts.

I'm not sure I agree with these points, though they're not invalid.

Primarily I disagree that we can infer Revelation's author understood Daniel 12:4 to mean that it'd been written in hindsight. If anything the contrast implies that he did not believe that Daniel (unlike his own work) had been intended as reference to the author's own time. Obviously considering Daniel to be sacred Scripture, our friend John was not likely to have been saying that the fellow was mostly writing from hindsight. Far more likely, the command "Do not seal up the words" was intended (along with the obvious allusions and parallels to Daniel) to imply that Daniel's prophecies were being fulfilled now, in the John's own day.

I agree that the passage in Isaiah 29 (and Ezekiel 3) aren't the same as what's found in Daniel, but I don't think they're as different as you're suggesting. Both Ezekiel and Isaiah are saying God's message through his prophets (and associated writings) are hidden from the people - or that the people refuse to see them. In neither case, far as I can tell, is it suggested that these two prophets will be very successful in changing that; quite the opposite, in fact. Isaiah 29 even implies that God to some extent contributes to the people's blindness, until some future time:

• 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. . . . .
  
  18 In that day the deaf shall hear the words of the book,
  And the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity and out of darkness.

The difference, as far as I can tell, is that Isaiah is a prophet delivering a message which to some extent will be sealed up and hidden, partly by the people's obstinacy and partly by God's will, until some future time. Daniel is a visionary who is told to seal up his visions until some future time. While we might interpret different themes or emphases from the two works, from what is written it seems to be a difference simply between passively and actively hidden truths; and if Isaiah's came first, in a chapter referencing a seige and humbling of Jerusalem (29:1-4), I'm not sure how persuasively we could argue that Daniel's comments are out of place in the 6th century.

In fairness this point is a slightly more persuasive one for a late date than the possible allusion by Sirach is for an earlier date, but not by much, I'm thinking.

[Mithrae]

After a mere 11 years' on and off interest in the book, I've finally written up my own match-up between Daniel 11 and the events of known history. I pretty much just used various Wikipedia articles to confirm or contradict the 'fulfillments' suggested by this Christian site, so there may be points of inaccuracy or incompleteness to be corrected. But it's interesting and instructive to me, and perhaps to some of our readers also. I've used the NKJV, though I understand that Kittim in v30 is more accurate than Cyprus, as the NKJV has.



Daniel 11:1 Also in the first year of Darius the Mede, I, even I, stood up to confirm and strengthen him.) 2 And now I will tell you the truth: Behold, three more kings will arise in Persia, and the fourth shall be far richer than them all; by his strength, through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece.
Cyrus was followed by Cambyses - followed by the usurper Bardiya (1yr)? - followed by Darius, followed by Xerxes (480-465BCE). Darius unsuccessfully invaded Greece and was planning a second invasion, but died quelling uprisings in Egypt and it was left to Xerxes to launch the second, more famous attempt.

3 Then a mighty king shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.
Alexander the Great was crowned in 336, conquered Persepolis in 331 and died in 323 BCE.

4 And when he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken up and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not among his posterity nor according to his dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be uprooted, even for others besides these.
Presumably the kingdoms of Ptolemy, Seleucus, Cassander and Lysimachus. Seleucus' was the easternmost of these (and to the east of Antigonus' kingdom, if he were considered one of the four instead), yet his is considered the 'kingdom of the north.'

5 Also the king of the South shall become strong, as well as one of his princes; and he shall gain power over him and have dominion. His dominion shall be a great dominion.
Earlier on Seleucus fled from Babylon and became Ptolemy's admiral (314-312), but regained Babylon and by 301BCE controlled the largest part of Alexander's empire.

6 And at the end of some years they shall join forces, for the daughter of the king of the South shall go to the king of the North to make an agreement; but she shall not retain the power of her authority, and neither he nor his authority shall stand; but she shall be given up, with those who brought her, and with him who begot her, and with him who strengthened her in those times.
Seleucus (ruled 305-281), Antiochus I (281-261), Antiochus II (261-246).
Antiochus II married Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II (c250BCE); Antiochus went back to his old wife Laodice when Ptolemy died (246), but she had him, Berenice and their child killed and replaced by her son Seleucus II.

7 But from a branch of her roots one shall arise in his place, who shall come with an army, enter the fortress of the king of the North, and deal with them and prevail. 8 And he shall also carry their gods captive to Egypt, with their princes and their precious articles of silver and gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the North. 9 Also the king of the North shall come to the kingdom of the king of the South, but shall return to his own land.
Ptolemy III avenged his sister's death by invasion, conquering Antioch and even Babylon. Much of the territory was reclaimed by Seleucus, who died in 225BCE, three years before Ptolemy.

10 However his sons shall stir up strife, and assemble a multitude of great forces; and one shall certainly come and overwhelm and pass through; then he shall return to his fortress and stir up strife. 11 And the king of the South shall be moved with rage, and go out and fight with him, with the king of the North, who shall muster a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into the hand of his enemy. 12 When he has taken away the multitude, his heart will be lifted up; and he will cast down tens of thousands, but he will not prevail.
Seleucus II was succeeded by his son Seleucus III, whose reign was cut short in 222BCE while on campaign in Anatolia. His brother Antiochus III (the Great) made advances into Judea, but in the battle of Raphia some 14 thousand (of 62k) infantry and most of his 102 elephants were killed or captured by the forces of Ptolemy IV.

13 For the king of the North will return and muster a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come at the end of some years with a great army and much equipment.
After the death of Ptolemy IV (204BCE), with Egypt struggling from internal concerns, Antiochus III lead another invasion, successfully capturing Judea and other regions.

14 Now in those times many shall rise up against the king of the South. Also, violent men of your people shall exalt themselves in fulfillment of the vision, but they shall fall. 15 So the king of the North shall come and build a siege mound, and take a fortified city; and the forces of the South shall not withstand him. Even his choice troops shall have no strength to resist. 16 But he who comes against him shall do according to his own will, and no one shall stand against him. He shall stand in the Glorious Land with destruction in his power.
14a might be taken as reference to the Egyptian Revolt, though that occured c205BCE under Ptolemy IV and Antiochus' invasion did not begin until 202BCE against Ptolemy V. I haven't yet found any clear reference to Jewish support for Antiochus or for independance at this time. Besides the obvious conquest of Judea, I'm not sure about historical matches here.

17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do. And he shall give him the daughter of women to destroy it; but she shall not stand with him, or be for him.
Possible reference to the treaty-sealing marriage of Antiochus III's daughter Cleopatra (age 10) to Ptolemy V (age 16) in 193BCE? Dubious historical match.

18 After this he shall turn his face to the coastlands, and shall take many. But a ruler shall bring the reproach against them to an end; and with the reproach removed, he shall turn back on him. 19 Then he shall turn his face toward the fortress of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.
After final subjugation of Judea and Coele-Syria in 198BCE, Antiochus moved against Ptolemaic and independant coastal cities of Asia Minor, Thrace (196) and eventually Greece (192). However he was pushed back by Roman forces and submitted to heavy tribute. Many of the eastern provinces he'd reconquered were lost after this blow to his power and, on a campaign to reclaim Luristan, he died.

20 There shall arise in his place one who imposes taxes on the glorious kingdom; but within a few days he shall be destroyed, but not in anger or in battle. 21 And in his place shall arise a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty; but he shall come in peaceably, and seize the kingdom by intrigue. 22 With the force of a flood they shall be swept away from before him and be broken, and also the prince of the covenant.
Seleucus IV (187-175BCE) appears to be missed here, else the prediction is inaccurate. Assuming the 'vile person' to be Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the brief reign which preceded him must have been that of Heliodorus, who was appointed to collect taxes from Jerusalem and the temple. According to some sources, he assassinated Seleucus IV and ruled briefly, before being ousted in turn by Antiochus IV (son of Antiochus III and brother of Seleucus). Alternatively the vile usurper who didn't have the honour of royalty may have been Heliodorus - but since it was Antiochus who replaced the high priest Onias with his brother Jason, that seems less likely. Antiochus was later bribed to replace Jason with Menelaus.

23 And after the league is made with him he shall act deceitfully, for he shall come up and become strong with a small number of people. 24 He shall enter peaceably, even into the richest places of the province; and he shall do what his fathers have not done, nor his forefathers: he shall disperse among them the plunder, spoil, and riches; and he shall devise his plans against the strongholds, but only for a time.
Not sure about specific historical matches for this.

25 He shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the South with a great army. And the king of the South shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand, for they shall devise plans against him. 26 Yes, those who eat of the portion of his delicacies shall destroy him; his army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain. 27 Both these kings hearts shall be bent on evil, and they shall speak lies at the same table; but it shall not prosper, for the end will still be at the appointed time. 28 While returning to his land with great riches, his heart shall be moved against the holy covenant; so he shall do damage and return to his own land.
In 170BCE the regents of Ptolemy VI demanded the return Coele-Syria/Judea from Antiochus (possibly claiming that those regions conquered by Antiochus III had been a dowry for his daughter's marriage to Ptolemy V). Refusing, Antiochus advanced far into Egypt in 169 and, after capturing his nephew, allowed him to rule as his client king. Rumours of Antiochus' death in the invasion prompted Jason to re-sieze the Jewish high priest-hood from Menelaus; verse 28 may refer to Antiochus' violent restoration of Menelaus.

29 At the appointed time he shall return and go toward the south; but it shall not be like the former or the latter. 30 For ships from Kittim shall come against him; therefore he shall be grieved, and return in rage against the holy covenant, and do damage. So he shall return and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant.
The Alexandrians had appointed the brother of Ptolemy VI as their king (Ptolemy VIII Euergetes, died 116BCE). After Antiochus' departure from Egypt the two brothers agreed to rule jointly, and Antiochus invaded again in 168 in response to his loss of control over Ptolemy VI. The Ptolemies had sent to Rome for aid and, on threat of war with Rome, Antiochus was forced to withdraw from Egypt.

31 And forces shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation. 32 Those who do wickedly against the covenant he shall corrupt with flattery; but the people who know their God shall be strong, and carry out great exploits.
Seeking to eliminate the traditional Jewish religion and ensure the hellenization of his Jewish subjects - supporting or with the support of many of the more ubanised, wealthier Jews - Antiochus forbid possession of the Torah, other Jewish religious practices, set up an altar to Zeus in the temple and so on.

33 And those of the people who understand shall instruct many; yet for many days they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plundering. 34 Now when they fall, they shall be aided with a little help; but many shall join with them by intrigue. 35 And some of those of understanding shall fall, to refine them, purify them, and make them white, until the time of the end; because it is still for the appointed time.
References to the beginnings of the Maccabean revolt.

36 Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done. 37 He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all. 38 But in their place he shall honor a god of fortresses; and a god which his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things. 39 Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god, which he shall acknowledge, and advance its glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and divide the land for gain.

40 At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them, and pass through. 41 He shall also enter the Glorious Land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape from his hand: Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon. 42 He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; also the Libyans and Ethiopians shall follow at his heels. 44 But news from the east and the north shall trouble him; therefore he shall go out with great fury to destroy and annihilate many. 45 And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and no one will help him.

[Mithrae]

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.

Chapter 7 is an interesting one to place, and especially with some better knowledge of the historical background from chapter 11, I feel I ought to comment here on my views why I'm not inclined to consider it from the same author as the Hebrew section.


The first point, which I noticed when I was first learning about this aged 17, is that along with the difference in language the two sections of the book are distinguished by the fact that the later prophetic/Hebrew sections appear to be written in first person, whereas the earlier narrative/Aramaic section are written in the third person:

• Daniel 1:8 But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself...
  2:16 So Daniel went in and asked the king to give him time...
  6:21 Then Daniel said to the king...
  7:1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and visions of his head while on his bed. Then he wrote down the dream, telling the main facts. 2 Daniel spoke, saying, I saw in my vision by night...
  
  Daniel 8:1 In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me"to me, Daniel"after the one that appeared to me the first time. 2 I saw in the vision...
  8:27 And I, Daniel, fainted and was sick for days...
  9:1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the lineage of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans" 2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by the books...
  10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar. The message was true, but the appointed time was long; and he understood the message, and had understanding of the vision. 2 In those days I, Daniel, was mourning three full weeks.
  10:4 Now on the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, that is, the Tigris...
  12:5 Then I, Daniel, looked; and there stood two others...

Chapter 7 diverges somewhat from the pattern of the earlier chapters, in that from verse 2 onwards it's presented as a record of Daniel's speech about the vision. Chapter 10 curiously begins in third person also, though it doesn't have the same transition into speech as ch7. I think it's easy to see why, in supplying the missing dream mentioned in 8:1, a later/Aramaic author might mimic the first person perspective of the Hebrew chapters by presenting it as Daniel's speech. It's less easy to understand if the Aramaic vision were written by the same author as the Hebrew visions.


Moreover if chapter 7 were written by the same hand as the later chapters, I'd suggest that the evidence for pre-Maccabean authorship appears to be very strong. There appear to be two additional literary parallels from the early/mid second or even late third centuries BCE (same source), both of which seem more compelling than the one found in Sirach.

• Daniel 7:9-14:
  I watched till thrones were put in place, and the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, its wheels a burning fire; a fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, and the books were opened. . . .
  I was watching in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before Him. Then to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom...
  
  1 Enoch 14:17-24 (Book of Watchers):
  As for its floor, it was of fire and above it was lightning and the path of the stars; and as for the ceiling, it was flaming fire. And I observed and saw inside it a lofty throne--its appearance was like crystal and its wheels like the shining sun; and (I heard?) the voice of the cherubim; and from beneath the throne were issuing streams of flaming fire. It was difficult to look at it. And the Great Glory was sitting upon it--as for his gown, which was shining more brightly than the sun, it was whiter than any snow. No angel was capable of penetrating to view the face of Him, the Glorious and the Effulgent; nor could any mortal behold Him. A fire was flaming around Him. No one could come near unto him from among those that surrounded the myriads of myriads (that stood) before him. . . . Then the Lord with his own mouth called me, saying, Approach hither, Enoch, at my holy word.
  
  Ezekiel the Tragedian, Exagoge 68:
  ...the dream which was seen by Moses and interpreted by his father-in-law. Moses himself speaks to his father-in-law in dialogue: 'On Sinai's peak I saw what seemed a throne so great in size it touched the clouds of heaven. Upon it sat a man of noble mien, becrowned, and with a scepter in one hand while with the other he did beckon me. I made approach and stood before the throne. He handed o'er the scepter and he bade me mount the throne, and gave to me the crown; then he himself withdrew from off the throne'

The direction of borrowing question for 1 Enoch is a little beyond me, though my source offers several citations in support of his view, and I gather that the pre-Maccabean date of the Book of Watchers is generally agreed.

In the case of Ezekiel the Tragedian it seems very clear that a dramatist for the Alexandrian stage would not be a source of inspiration for our supposed Daniel writing to encourage the Maccabean Jews. One of the citations in my source suggests, plausibly I think, that the Letter of Aristeas includes (314-316) some polemic condemning the adaption of scripture into plays.
Emil Schrer writes: "The most remarkable phenomenon in the department of Judaeo-Hellenistic poetry is the manufacture of scriptural matter into Greek dramas. We know indeed of only one such Jewish dramatist, Ezekiel; and it must be left uncertain whether he had either successor or predecessor."
Leonhard Rost writes: "The author [of Letter of Aristeas] claims to be a Greek"that is, non-Jewish"official in the court of King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246). . . . It is therefore best to follow M. Hadas and date the Letter around the year 130 B.C."
Emil Schrer writes: "No consensus concerning the date of this book [Letter of Aristeas] has been arrived at by critics. It seems however tolerably certain to me, that it originated not later than about 200 years before Christ."

While some even later dates are suggested, supposing a date for the Letter of Aristeas around 130BCE would somewhat imply an earlier date for Ezekiel the Tragedian (some scholars suggesting as early as 221BCE), and it's hard to imagine Maccabean literature giving rise to allusions in Alexandrian drama so rapidly. I think that this, along with the parallel from 1 Enoch, implies a pre-Maccabean date for Daniel 7 quite strongly. That would suggest a difference in authorship for those who support Maccabean origins for the Hebrew section.


Finally it seems to me that the vision of ch7 doesn't match the vision of Seleucid history in ch11. In chapter 7 the fourth, terrifying beast is presumably intended as a reference to the Seleucid kingdom and the ten horns as its kings - followed by the oppressive and boastful 'small horn.' Yet the actual list of Seleucid kings covered by Daniel 11's time-line is:
1 - Seleucus I (305-281 BCE)
2 - Antiochus I (281-261, skipped over in 11:6)
3 - Antiochus II (261-246, married Ptolemy II's daughter)
4 - Seleucus II (246-225, son of Antiochus' first wife)
5 - Seleucus III (225-222 BCE) - verse 10
6 - Antiochus III the Great (222-187, brother of Seleucus III)
7 - Seleucus IV (187-175 BCE) or Heliodorus (175) - verse 20
8 - followed by the "vile person" who sweeps away the "prince of the covenant" (v21-22) and invades Egypt (v25), Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164)

Where, if the two visions were written by the same author, did these 10 horns come from? They seem more akin to 10 toes on a statue in chapter 2 than to anything in the Hebrew section.

For these reasons I'm inclined to believe that chapter 7, like the rest of the Aramaic portions of the work, was not written by the same author as the Hebrew portions. Furthermore I'd suggest that since there's obvious points of comparison between the two, chapter 7 seems more likely as a candidate for expansion of the animals/horns vision of chapter 8 than vice versa - and thus, presumably, written later.