Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel

Comments please.

rob117

This is well-known, and has been since the mid-19th century.

Jane H

I wouldn't argue with the general C2 BC conclusion, but would raise the question of whether it is (in part at least) a redaction of much older material.

Secondly, there are a number of predictions that are properly 'future', rather than vaticinia ex eventu. It is generally agreed that from Daniel 11:40 onwards, the 'after the event' predictions stop, with 12:2,3 being important for the doctrine of resurrection. (Bear in mind that resurrection and national rebirth of Israel are two sides of the same coin here.)

Further on that, Daniel 7 with its “Son of Man” reference is tremendously important for reading the gospels/Revelation. The use of the phrase is much debated, but most agree in broad terms that Jesus use of the phrase to describe himself was partially a reference to Daniel 7. Whilst I hardly expect folk on FRDB to accept the account in Jesus trial as a Jesus-cam verbatim transcript; (Matthew 26:64-66 parr,) the use of it in this way, and the subsequent claim of blasphemy represent an interesting take on how Daniel 7 was viewed as a future prophecy in C1 AD.

Certainly to my mind, if someone claimed in front of the C1 religious authorities that they are fulfilling the “Son of Man” role from Daniel 7, it would be enough to see them moved to the next stage of execution rapidly- it makes good sense historically.

rob117

None of the specific prophecies in Daniel fit anywhere other than the time of Antiochus-- specifically, it is agreed that the ex eventu prophecies stop at 11:40 precisely because the events predicted after this point never happened.

There is disagreement whether the Son of Man prophecy in its original context was messianic, although the general trend of scholarship these days (at least according to the Anchor Bible volume on the Gospel of Mark) is that it was not, and the "one like of a son of man" in Daniel 7 refers to a restored Israel. This serves to form an ironic contrast-- the four kingdoms are "like wild beasts," whereas the restored Israel is like a son of man (i.e. a human being).

However, you'd be correct that by the time of Jesus the prophecy in Daniel 7 was taken as messianic, at least in some circles. This is especially clear in chapters 37-71 of the Book of Enoch, which probably date to the 1st century BC and explicitly identify the Son of Man as the Messiah.

With regard to whether the author of Daniel used older written material, it is possible, although the is no general agreement on this, and this older material would have to be limited to the non-prophetic section of the book (chapters 1-6). However, the term "older material" would be relative here, as none of it can date to the exilic period (the purported lifetime of Daniel)-- it's simply too inaccurate in its details to have come from that period. The earliest any of this material could be is the latter 3rd century BC.

The books of Daniel and Enoch are actually very similar-- both are apocalypses, and both seem to have been written partially in Hebrew and partially in Aramaic. Enoch is generally recognized as a composite work, so it is not unlikely that Daniel is as well.

On Enoch, see here.

Jane H

I wouldn't want to argue against any of your post. And this is a little gem. Allow me to indulge in something more suited to a Xian website.

I wish I'd spotted this three weeks ago, when I preached on image of God. There is a clear comparison between themes in the OT with its creation of Adam, and the NT creation of the new Adam. It becomes very explicit when Genesis 1 and John 1 are compared- the climax of both being the creation in humanity of the divine image/ coming to humanness of the Logos. Throw in the OT/NT concept of a human as a representative of a nation, and we're set.

Because as you've pointed out, Daniel is pulling the same trick. Here is a human surrounded by wild beasts in the OT style, but is also a passage telling of the rescue of humanity in the NT style. No surprise Jesus insisted on the phrase “Son of Man” in such a distinctive way. No surprise the early church/ NT used the same comparison of human/ new human creation in all sorts of ways.

When we see the Bible as a continuously flowing river, rather than a canal with locks that rarely open, it looks really different.

Johnny Skeptic

What national rebirth of Israel?

rob117

In the Jewish apocalyptic tradition, the coming of the Davidic messiah, and the rebirth of a Davidic Israel, are immediately followed by the resurrection of the dead. I believe there are extensive discussions on this in the Talmud and Kabbalah. This is the case in Daniel as well, although in this instance it's simply a case of national rebirth-->resurrection (since Daniel seems to lack a messiah-concept).

What this speaks to is a continuous reinterpretation of the biblical texts and imagery on the human level, something that is profoundly interesting from a historical and anthropological point of view, but, to me, not at all indicative of divine origin. Note that this continuity in the tradition of interpretation and reinterpretation flows right through non-canonical books like Enoch just as much as it does through the Bible itself; indeed, Enoch is in many ways a forgotten link between late OT theology and early NT theology. Certain concepts such as the Son of Man as the Messiah, and said figure's pre-existence since before the creation of the world-- features which are totally absent from mainstream Judaism but extremely important in mainstream Christianity-- find their earliest home in the Book of Enoch. The more I read on the subject, the more I come to realize that the earliest Christians were profoundly influenced by this book, probably more so than any other Jewish sect of the time. Yet they (with the notable exception of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church) chose not to include it in the canon. Which goes onto a whole other topic, which is how the early rabbis and church leaders decided what was canonical and what wasn't...

Oh, and I'd be willing to bet that if you took a look at the Hindu Scriptures, you'd find just as much of a continuously flowing river of meaning as you find in the Bible. Interpreting and reinterpreting religious texts is simply what people do.

ramoss

The 'Son of Man' phrases in Daniel 7 do point to a mid 2nd century theology that was developing... however, the thrust of the Book of Daniel was not
events that occurred in the Jesus time frame, but rather was referring to the tribulations that the Jewish people were going through under the rule of Antioch.

DCHindley

I think it is very much in question what period to ascribe 1 Enoch 37-71 (the Similitudes, which is preserved only in Ethiopic). No fragments of it were found among the DSS, not even a tiny one. While there are some who think it may have sprung from early Christianity, others think it originated with Jews of Egypt (2nd century CE) or maybe even Ethiopia, which could have been written several centuries into the Christian era.

As for the component sources of Daniel, find below an analysis of the various parts of the book of Daniel as the text exists in manuscripts today.

Then I give an alternate chronology that I came up with about 10 years ago.

Finally, the DSS fragments of Daniel and the fragment of the "Prayer of Nabonidus" which apparently was the source for the story of Nebuchadnezzar being stark raving mad in Dan 4:1-27.

BOOK OF DANIEL

Dating: Years shown are the beginning and ending Julian years of each Babylonian year (which begin in spring each year). For example, Nabonidus’ year 1 begins in spring 555 BCE and ended in spring 554 BCE, and is designated 555/4 BCE.

The exceptions are years in the reign of Jehoikim, which are given in a year beginning in fall of each year. If Daniel’s author intended the year to coincide with the Babylonian year, then the actual Julian year may be one year earlier than indicated below.

Verse numbers: Per the MT and LXX. English numbering is in parentheses if different.

ORDER OF STORIES AS THEY EXIST IN PRESENT TEXT:

Jehoikim (Fall 609/8 - 598/7 BCE):

1:1-21 Hebrew
Setting: Unspecified. Probably June/July 604 BCE.
Subject: The submission of Jehoikim to Nebuchadnezzar. Story of the 4 boys.

Nebuchadnezzar (Spring 604/3 - 562/1 BCE):

2:1-4a Hebrew
Setting: Yr 2 (603/2 BCE).
Subject: Introduction to 2:4b-49.

2:4b-49 Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified (but see 2:1-4a).
Subject: Daniel interprets king’s “statue dream.”

3:1-30 Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified in MT; 18th Yr (587/6 BCE) in LXX.
Subject: Drama of Shadrach, Mesach and Abednego.

Nabonidus (Spring 555/4 - 539/8 BCE. Text has Nebuchadnezzar):

3:31-4:34 (4:1-37) Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified. Probably Yr 5 (551/0 BCE) & Yr 14 (542/1 BCE).
Subject: The King’s dream; Belteshazzar’s interpretation; The King’s praise of “Most High” the King of heaven.”

5:1-30 Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified. Possibly final year (539/8 BCE)
Subject: Daniel interprets writing on the wall for Belshazzar (Nabonidus’ regent).

Gobyras (text has Darius the Mede), Persian Satrap of Babylon under Cyrus:

5:31-6:28 (6:1-29) Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified. Probably the 1st yr as Satrap = 1st yr of Cyrus (538/7 BCE).
Subject: Daniel in Lion’s Den.
Belshazzar, regent of Nabonidus:

7:1-28 Aramaic
Setting: Yr 1 of Belshazzar, regent (Yr 7 of Nabonidus, 549/8 BCE).
Subject: Vision of the Four Beasts.

Belshazzar, regent of Nabonidus (regent between spring of 549/8 & 539/8 BCE):

8:1-27 Hebrew
Setting: Yr 3 of Belshazzar, regent (Yr 9 of Nabonidus, 547/6 BCE).
Subject: Daniel’s vision of Ram & He-goat.

Gobyras (text has Darius the Mede), Persian Satrap of Babylon under Cyrus:

9:1-27 Hebrew
Setting: Yr 1 of Gobyras, Persian Satrap of Babylon (Yr 1 of Cyrus as King of Babylon, 538/7 BCE).
Subject: Gabriel explains the 70 Weeks of Jeremiah 29:10; 25:11.

Cyrus (Spring 538/7 - 522/1 BCE):

10:1-12:13 Hebrew
Setting: Yr 3 (536/5 BCE).
Subject: Vision of the Hellenistic Wars

ALTERNATIVE CHRONOLOGICAL LAYOUT:

BABYLONIAN PERIOD

Jehoikim, King of Israel (Fall 609/8 - 598/7 BCE):

1:1-21 Hebrew
Setting: Yr 3 (Fall 607/6 BCE)
Subject: Siege of Jerusalem by “King” Nebuchadnezzar, (actually, a general of Nabopolassar)

1:2-21 Hebrew
Setting: Unspecified. Probably June/July 604 BCE.
Subject: Submission of Jehoikim to Nebuchadnezzar and taking of hostages. Story of the 4 boys.

Nebuchadnezzar (Spring 604/3 - 562/1 BCE):

2:1-4a Hebrew
Setting: Yr 2 (603/2 BCE).
Subject: Introduction to 2:4b-49.

2:4b-49 Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified (but see 2:1-4a).
Subject: Daniel interprets king’s “statue dream.”

3:1-30 Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified in MT; 18th Yr (587/6 BCE) in LXX.
Subject: Drama of Shadrach, Mesach and Abednego.

Nabonidus (Spring 555/4 - 539/8 BCE. Text has Nebuchadnezzar):

(4:4-27) Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified. Probably Yr 5 (551/550 BCE).
Subject: The King’s dream & “Belteshazzar’s” interpretation;

7:1-28 Aramaic
Setting: Yr 1 of Belshazzar, regent (Yr 7 of Nabonidus, 549/8 BCE).
Subject: Vision of the Four Beasts.

8:1-27 Hebrew
Setting: Yr 3 of Belshazzar, regent (Yr 9 of Nabonidus, 547/6 BCE).
Subject: Daniel’s vision of Ram & He-goat.

3:31-33 (4:1-3) & 4-1-34 (4:28-37)
Setting: Unspecified. Probably Yr 14 of Nabonidus (542/1 BCE).
Subject: The King’s praise of “Most High” the King of heaven.” Compare to 4Q242 “Prayer of Nabonidus.”

5:1-30 Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified. Probably final year of Belshazzar, regent (Yr 17 of Nabonidus, 539/8 BCE)
Subject: Daniel interprets writing on the wall for Belshazzar (Nabonidus’ regent).

PERSIAN PERIOD

Cyrus, King of Persia (Spring 538/7 - 522/1 BCE):

5:31-6:28 (6:1-29) Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified. Possibly Yr 1 of Gobyras, Persian Satrap of Babylon (Yr 1 of Cyrus as King of Babylon, 538/7 BCE).
Subject: Daniel in Lion’s Den.

9:1-27 Hebrew
Setting: Yr 1 of Gobyras, Persian Satrap of Babylon (Yr 1 of Cyrus as King of Babylon, 538/7 BCE).
Subject: Gabriel explains the 70 Weeks of Jeremiah 29:10; 25:11.

10:1-12:13 Hebrew
Setting: Yr 3 of Cyrus (536/5 BCE).
Subject: Vision of the Hellenistic Wars

================================================== ===================

DSS fragments and their relation to the MT (no part seems to correspond to passages particular to the LXX version of Daniel):

1Q Dan a Dan 1:10-17; 2:2-6.
1Q Dan b Dan 3:22-30.
6Q Dan Dan 8:16-18, 20-21; 10:8-16; 11:33-36, 38.

Dan 3:31-4:24 (4:1-4:27): Nothing is known of Nebuchadnezzar being waylaid for 7 years in any manner. However, this -was- the case with Nabonidus for a period of 10 years. In the DSS, there is a fragment usually titled “The Prayer of Nabonidus” (4Q242) that may have served as the base for the story told in Daniel...

The words of the prayer of Nabunai king of the l[and of Ba]bylon, [the great] king, [when he was afflicted] with an evil ulcer in Teiman by decree of the [Most High God]. “I was afflicted [with an evil ulcer] for seven years ... and an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew from [among the children of the exile of Judah, and he said], ‘Recount this in writing to [glorify and exalt] the name of the [Most High God.’ And I wrote this]: ‘I was afflicted with an [evil] ulcer in Teiman [by decree of the Most High God]. For seven years [I] prayed to the gods of silver and gold, [bronze and iron], wood and stone and clay, because [I believed] that they were gods...'

DCH

rob117

You're correct that there has been debate about the exact date of the similitudes and it has been occasionally attributed to a Christian; however the most recent analyses tend to affirm its Jewish character. Certain elements of it directly contradict Christian theology, such as the revelation in chapters 70-71 that the Son of Man/Messiah is actually somehow a reincarnation of Enoch himself(!). A first century BC date seems to be as good as any, especially if it's Jewish character is affirmed.

With regards to your analysis of Daniel, your chronology is extremely speculative. I think you're taking the book too literally and looking too much for real history behind the stories. The Darius-Gobryas equation has no evidence to support it, and the gist of the book is manifestly against this equation. Darius the Mede is a fictional character produced by the author, loosely based on Darius I of Persia, but here depicted as ruling over a distinctly Median (rather than Persian) empire. The author depicted the Medes as ruling Babylon because several prophecies in Jeremiah and Isaiah predicted that Babylon would fall to them. These prophecies failed, and Babylon fell to the Persians instead. The author of Daniel dealt with this by simply falsifying history-- which he could get away with because he was writing long after the fact, in a culture where knowledge of the past was hazy. Note that in the book, the reign of Cyrus is clearly distinguished from that of Darius the Mede. Daniel's Darius is not a governor, he's a king.

The author's invented chronology is clear enough when you get to the visions of the four beasts. These represent Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. Greece is the final kingdom, after which God will intervene, restore Israel to power, and resurrect the dead.

Come to think of it, the whole issue of an independent Median Empire ruling Babylon before the Persians is an argument for the book's unity-- both the narrative sections and the prophecy depend on this fictive chronology.

Additionally, the author of Daniel gets his chronology off at the very beginning by attributing Daniel's exile to the third year of Jehoiakim, which would be 606/5 BC. This is before Nebuchadnezzar even took the throne (in 605/4 BC, counted as his accession year); this error is probably based on a misreading of 2 Kings (which notes that Jehoiakim paid tribute to Nebuchadnezzar for three years) combined with the later, inaccurate account in Chronicles which says Jehoiakim was taken captive to Babylon. In reality Nebuchadnezzar did not exile any Jews until 597 BC, and by this time Jehoiakim was already dead, his son Jehoiachin being the king who actually was taken to Babylon, along with the first Jewish exiles.

Daniel is a late text without any earlier sources, and seems to be largely a free composition. We should not expect it to be chronologically accurate when it deals with the earlier periods, so trying to twist the book's story in order to fit reality is a futile endeavor.