Celsus

Hi all,

I'm wondering if anyone can point me towards some references that argue for the multiple authorship of Daniel. Right now, I've only read the arguments against this, and was fairly certain that this is the consensus. However, I recently came across an argument somewhere that a growing number of scholars consider Daniel to be the work of more than one author (sorry I can't find it right now). The only evidence to point to this is the use of Hebrew and Aramaic, but I don't find this compelling. Anyone with further references?

Cheers,
Joel

Old Man

Most people these days argue for a single authorship. Both languages were current in those days, and many people would have been versed in both:

From http://www.bible.org/docs/ot/books/dan/danotl.htm

Freeman (Old Testament Prophecies, 263-64):

". . . the key to the book is its linguistic structure. Hebrew is used in Daniel 1:1-2:4a; 8:1-12:13, while Aramaic is found in 2:4b-7:28. The reason for this peculiarity would seem to stem from the fact that Daniel had two distinct, although related, messages to deliver. One was a message of judgment concerning the defeat and final overthrow of the Gentile world powers of whom Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius and Cyrus were at present the chief representatives. The other was a message of consolation and hope concerning the future deliverance for God's people, the nation of Israel. The first passage Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Near East, was appropriate for the prophet's message concerning the future history of the Gentile kingdoms. The second message, which is exclusively directed to the Hebrew people, is appropriately in Hebrew. What concerned the Gentiles was written Aramaic, the commercial and diplomatic language of the time. That which concerned the people of Israel was written in Hebrew, although on the basis of chpater 1, which is an introduction to the book, the entire prophecy would, when written down by Daniel, be addressed to the Jewish people."

Vorkosigan

The leading expert is John J Collins. See his 1977 book The Apolcalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel. (NY: Crossroads). Also Daniel 1993 Fortress Press. Did you read the debates between Till and Hatcher in TSR a couple of years ago? Daniel was the centerpiece and it went on and on for two years. Look over the 2000-2001-2002 issues here at Infidels. And if you can find the Anchor Bible COmmentary, I think Collins wrote the entry for Daniel.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Whoops! Think I am off with the dates in TSR. Here's one article from Till:

Review of Daneiel by Till

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Also, Bernard Muller, an excellent and detailed observer of things Biblical who used to post to JM a lot, has a page on Daniel here that is well worth reading. You should bop through all his stuff.

http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/daniel.shtml

He really has some interesting observations, especially about the dating and links between the various books of the NT.

Vorkosigan

Old Man

Atheists should not think they are being clever by claiming Daniel in not 6th century. The consensus of the vast majority of scholars is that it is 2nd century, and is of the same theological school as Enoch.

I myself believe this, and anyway that much is obvious from it being left out of Sirach's canon circa 200BC.

Apikorus

The ABC of Daniel was by Hartman and DiLella. (I don't recall who authored the entry in the ABD.) Collins' commentary in the Hermeneia series is outstanding. Collins is perhaps the foremost modern authority on Jewish apocalyptic literature.

MortalWombat

Oops. Never mind.

[edited because I didn't read a post carefully the first time]

Vorkosigan

That's what I was thinking of. Thanks, Apikorus. You should hang out here more often.

Vorkosigan

Old Man

Whilst Daniel can be accepted by everyone as 2nd century, the atheist gloss from
http://www.atheists.org/church/daniel.html
is a trifle absurd;

That Daniel was written in the second century does not detract from its value, which was as a theological book to inspire the Jews to belief in God. It was to put into context their sufferings under Epiphanes and point them towards their eternal (as opposed to temporal) destiny. The "son of man" teaching is also seen in the book of Enoch. It is unlikely that the book of Daniel was ever intended to deceive anyone. Like Enoch, it is merely part of the pseudepigraphic literature written in the Macabbean era, under the name of righteous men of old.

That the book of Daniel was quoted in the gospels is not indicative of Christ making any mistake. Enoch is also quoted in the epistle of Jude. Theologically speaking, both Enoch and Daniel are in perfect harmony with the gospels and general NT teaching, and both books were regarded as authoratative theology in Christ's era.

In Daniel is the theological explanation given of the defilement of the temple, and it was fitting that Christ refer to it in his prophecy regarding the 2nd defilement. Alternatively, the phrase "of which the prophet Daniel spoke" in Matt. 24: 15-16 is nothing more than an insertion by the gospel writer to refer the reader to an explanantion to what Christ was talking about. This has been advocated by some Christian scholars and is feasible, since Matthew was fond of pointing to prophetic fulfillment, and the phrase is not mentioned in the other gospels.