Editorial synopsis. The presence of at least eight copies of the book of Daniel (preserved only in fragmentary form) among the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests that it was one of the popular books at Qumran (compare: 14 copies of Deuteronomy, 12 of Isaiah, and 10 of Psalms). The reference to “the book of Daniel
the prophet” by another document (4QFlor) indicates that Daniel was considered a canonical prophet. Two fragments show the same changes from Hebrew to Aramaic and back to Hebrew at the identical points found in our present Hebrew (Masoretic) Bible (2:4b and 8:1). No apocryphal additions appear in these fragmented materials. One copy of Daniel, written in a late second century B.C. script, poses a problem for proponents of a Maccabean date for composition. Such a manuscript narrows the time needed for any extensive distribution and for recognition of the book’s canonicity.
The position of Daniel in the third division of the present Hebrew canon is insufficient basis for inferring a late origin.
The evidence suggests that the Jews originally listed Daniel among the prophets. It appears that a shift to the third division occurred in the late second century A.D., prompted by a minority viewpoint. Daniel probably was omitted from the list of personnel presented in Ecclesiasticus (written about 180 B.C.) not because he or his book were unknown, but because he did not fit the writer’s criteria for Palestinian heroes of the past who had played a part in establishing and maintaining Jewish institutions.
The theology of Daniel on angels and the resurrection can be seen to fit a sixth-century setting. They provide no argument for a second century writing. Nor is it possible in the light of new evidence from Mesopotamia to argue that the author derived his four world-empire schema from Greek and Persian sources.
The major argument of historical-critical scholarship for a second century Maccabean date for the writing of Daniel is based on the prophecies of chapter 11. It can be demonstrated, however, that the data in the chapter is really in conflict with what is known about the times of Antiochus IV. Ultimately the issue over the dating of Daniel rests on the reader’s belief
regarding God and His claim to reveal the future through His servants the prophets.
Without overstating the case it can be said that whenever new evidence has surfaced in the last hundred years that impacted on the book of Daniel, it has supported a sixth century B.C. writing of the book.
Section Outline I. Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls II. Daniel and the Canon
III. Daniel and Ecclesiasticus
IV. Theology of Daniel and Its Date
V. Matters Related to the World Empire Sequence VI. Chapter 11 and the Date of Daniel
VII. Apocalyptic and Pseudonymity VIII. Conclusions
Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls
New light has been shed on the date of Daniel by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among them are fragments of no less than eight copies of Daniel. The first of the eleven caves at Qumran has provided fragments of two scrolls containing the book of Daniel. One of these includes Daniel 1:10–17 and 2:2–6 (1QDana), the other Daniel 3:22–30 (1QDanb). As noted above, the former fragment has the transition from Hebrew into Aramaic at 2:4b (1QDana).
To the present we have to be satisfied with the publication of the Daniel fragments from Caves 1 and 6. The fragments from Cave 6 all are written in a cursive hand on papyrus, in contrast to those from Cave 1 which are in the normal square script on leather (parchments). The Cave 6 fragments contain Daniel 8:16–17 (?); 8:20–21 (?); 10:8–16; 11:33–36, 38.
It is reported that fragments have been found in Cave 4 of no fewer than four different scrolls of the book of Daniel.
Unfortunately they are still unpublished. Nevertheless, some have been identified. One of the fragments contains Daniel 2:19–35 (4QDana). Another (4QDanb) contains the transition from Aramaic to Hebrew in Daniel 7:28–8:1, demonstrating, as noted earlier, the pattern of Hebrew-Aramaic-Hebrew which follows the ancient literary device of A:B:A.7
It is evident from these manuscript discoveries that the book of Daniel was one of the most popular biblical books among the Qumran covenanters. A comparison with the other biblical materials illustrates this. To date there are 14 known copies from Deuteronomy, 12 from Isaiah, 10 from the Psalms, and 8 from Daniel.9 To these must be added the so-called “Florilegium”
(4QFlor) from Cave 4 which contains biblical quotations introduced with the phrases, “written in the book of Isaiah the prophet,” “written in the book of Ezekiel the prophet,” and
“written in the book of Daniel the prophet.”
In the “Florilegium” we not only find the designation “Daniel the prophet” (just as Jesus designated the author of the book in Matthew 24:15), but we also discover short quotations from Daniel 12:10 and 11:32. The “Florilegium” (4QFlor) belongs to the pre-New Testament period.
The frequent appearance of Daniel scrolls (dated from the second century B.C. and down to the NT period) and the fact that none of the apocryphal additions to the book (Susanna and the Two Elders, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Azariah, and the Song of the Three Young Men) have appeared at Qumran indicate that the book of Daniel was considered canonical.
Surprising facts surface regarding the date, textual affinity, and canonical status of the book of Daniel as these materials are examined. For example, various fragments of Daniel described above are considered to belong to the first century B.C. This
presents an unusually difficult problem for those scholars who hold to a date in the Maccabean period of about 167–164 B.C.
for the composition of the book. As a matter of fact, the famous British scholar G. R. Driver has pointed out that the standard consensus for dating the Qumran scrolls (from the third century B.C. to about A.D. 67) would force an earlier dating for the book of Daniel than the Maccabean period.
This problem is heightened for historical-critical scholarship by the conclusion of a recent study which indicates that the OT canon was closed in Maccabean times and not, as is often asserted, at the end of the first century A.D. Note the surprising statement by Professor Frank M. Cross, Jr., of Harvard University, an authority on the Qumran materials who is in charge of publishing the fragments from Cave 4: “One copy of Daniel [4QDanc] is inscribed in a script of the late second century B.C.” He adds to this the remarkable clause, “In some ways its antiquity is more striking than that of the oldest manuscripts from Qumran, since it is no more than half a century younger than the autograph of Daniel.” The oldest manuscripts from Qumran date to “the last quarter of the third century B.C.”
This poses a serious problem for a Maccabean date for the book of Daniel. Consequently, the Qumran materials on Daniel really suggest an earlier date for the writing of Daniel on account of (1) the large number of copies available (eight different manuscripts of the book), (b) the unusually early date of one of the copies from Cave 4, and (c) the fact that the
“Florilegium” quotes from Daniel in a way that indicates its early canonical status.
Summary
The importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for the book of Daniel can hardly be overemphasized for the following reasons:
1. The published fragments of three different scrolls of Daniel which date to pre-Christian times have substantially the same text as the traditional one preserved in the Hebrew (Masoretic) text from which all of our Bibles are translated. We may have high confidence in the essential accuracy of the preserved text, both Hebrew and Aramaic, of the canonical book of Daniel.
2. The early, pre-Christian canonical status of the book of Daniel seems certain on account of the “Florilegium” quoting Daniel as Scripture on the same level as the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel. It raises very serious questions about the alleged second century date for the book of Daniel.
3. The suggested early date for yet unpublished parts of a scroll from Cave 4 (4QDanc) raises further questions about a late second century date for the book. An earlier pre-Maccabean date may more adequately account for the archaic script used.
4. The fact that eight separate scrolls of Daniel appear at Qumran seems to require more time for the copying and distribution of the book than a Maccabean date would allow.
5. Although the Hebrew canon has placed the book of Daniel in the third division of “Writings,” the Qumran community—as does Jesus (Matt 24:15)—speaks of Daniel as “the prophet,” the writer of the book.
6. The apocryphal additions to the book of Daniel are absent at Qumran. This points again to Daniel’s canonical status and to the fact that these additions written in Greek are later productions, built upon aspects of the canonical Daniel.
7. The transition from Hebrew to Aramaic to Hebrew in Daniel 2:4b and 8:1 is preserved in the Qumran fragments, indicating that the book was composed in this manner.
Daniel and the Canon
In all ancient and modern translations of the Bible the book of Daniel is placed behind (rarely before) the book of Ezekiel, that is, within the prophetic part of the canon. Since this arrangement is represented in the Septuagintal, Theodotionic, and Syriac versions of ancient times, it is generally assumed that this location had a pre-Christian origin. This is supported by the fact that in Qumran (4QFlor), in the NT (Matt 24:15), and by Josephus, Daniel is designated as “prophet.”
The Masoretic-rabbinic tradition with its so-called Palestinian canon places the book of Daniel in the division called
“Writings” (Kethubim), preceded by the Law and the Prophets.
In Jewish thought the threefold division of the OT into “Law, Prophets, and Writings” seems to reveal a lowering of status for each succeeding division. Supporters of the Maccabean date hypothesis have drawn the conclusion from its location in the third division (outside of the “Prophets” and before Ezra-Nehemiah) that (1) Daniel was not a truly prophetic book, and that (2) it was written so late it could not be incorporated into the division of the “Prophets.”
These arguments for a late date for the book of Daniel on account of its placement in the Palestinian canon are not compelling. First, there is the evidence (going into pre-Christian times) that Daniel was called a “prophet” and considered of similar rank as other prophets (Qumran, the NT and Josephus).
Second, R. D. Wilson’s investigation of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek lists of the canon indicate that they consistently place Daniel among the “Prophets.” This demonstrates that Daniel belonged at one stage to the “Prophets” even in the Hebrew canon. It appears that in post-Christian times, in the second century, the book of Daniel was moved from the “Prophets” to the “Writings.”
To be precise, the earliest witness in which the book of Daniel is placed in the third division of the canon (the “Writings” or
Hagiographa) is the late second century A.D. Babylonian Jewish work Baba Bathra. Palestinian rabbinic sources (both Tannaitic and Amoraic) consider Daniel a part of the second division of the canon, namely, as part of the Prophets, as all other ancient lists of OT books have it. This indicates that the book of Daniel originally belonged to the “Prophets,” and that only a Jewish minority opinion ascribed it in post-Christian times (late second century A.D.) to the third part where it is found at present in the printed Hebrew Bibles.
Third, there are strong suggestions that the canon of the
“Writings” was already closed by about 160–150 B.C. If such is the case, it hardly allows for Daniel to become canonical, even if it were to belong originally to the “Writings.”27
Fourth, the reason, or combination of reasons, why Daniel was placed at a later time in the “Writings” may have something to do with
A. The presence of the Aramaic language which was also found in Ezra.
B. The fact that it was not written in Palestine.
C. The distinct Messaianic predictions utilized by Christians.
D. A fear concerning the prediction about the world empires and their fall.
E. The fact that it contains much historical material as do the books Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 and 2 Chronicles before which it presently stands.
In actual truth one can only guess about the reason(s) Daniel was located among the “Writings.” In any case, an argument built for a late date of the book of Daniel on the basis of its present place in the Hebrew canon lacks foundation.
Daniel and Ecclesiasticus
A document called Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, dated to about 180 B.C., contains a section in the
“praise of the fathers” (Eccl 44–49). In this passage the author presents a list of OT worthies such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the twelve Minor Prophets, and Zerubabbel. However, Daniel is not mentioned. Because of this omission it is surmised that Daniel was unknown to this late writer. Therefore, the conclusion is reached that the book of Daniel was not yet in existence when Ecclesiasticus was written.34
An investigation of chapters 44–49 of Ecclesiasticus, which contains “the praises of the fathers,” reveals that not all Hebrew worthies known from the OT are mentioned. Among those mentioned prior to the time of Abraham are simply Enoch (Eccl 44:16) and Noah (Eccl 44:17–18). Does this mean that Adam, Cain, and Abel, aside from all the others including Shem, Ham, and Japheth did not exist? The author mentions Nehemiah (Eccl 49:13) but does not mention Ezra. Should one conclude that Ezra did not exist? Evidently the list of Hebrew famous men was not intended to be exhaustive and all-inclusive. One would also expect Job to be mentioned, but he is not in the Greek text of this apocryphal document. However, in the Syriac text Job appears by name in Eccl 49:9 (the latter is used in NAB but not in the Apocrypha of RSV).
It should be observed that all the “fathers” mentioned in this listing from Moses onward are persons who lived in Palestine
“and had to do with the establishment, defense, or renovation, of the laws, institutions, and polity of the Jews, …” Daniel, as he is known from his book, did not function in this way. Therefore the reason for his omission is not that he had not existed or that his book was not yet known. Daniel simply did not fall within the criteria established for selecting certain worthies for praise by the author of Ecclesiasticus.
In short, Ecclesiasticus (1) does not list comprehensively every Israelite worthy; (2) mentions those only that fit his criteria for special praise; and (3) affords its longest praise to the postbiblical high priest Simon, indicating the author’s interest in Palestinian affairs. This interest may explain why Daniel, whose book is universal in scope and outlook, is not mentioned. In any case an argument from silence is not a strong one. To assume the nonexistence of the book of Daniel on account of silence in Ecclesiasticus is like assuming Hosea did not write his book because he too is not mentioned in Ecclesiasticus.
Theology of Daniel and Its Date
Several theological themes of the book of Daniel are cited as indicators for a “late” date of the book. Some aspects are customarily singled out. For example, “a late date [of the book]
is supported by a rather developed angelology as is found in Daniel 8:16 and 9:21.”
Much could be said about the theme of angels in the OT.
Angels function in the OT as deliverers of messages to Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Isaiah, Zechariah, and Ezekiel. As early as in the Pentateuch angels protect God’s people, destroy their enemies, and reveal God’s will.
The book of Daniel has a more extended outlook in its view of angelic beings than other OT books; however, it is closest to the book of Zechariah. Daniel alone mentions an angel by name.
The interpreting angel (angelus interpres) of chapters 7, 8, 9, 10–12 (who is identified as Gabriel in 8:16; 9:21) is close to, if not identical with, the interpreting role of angels in Zechariah (1:9, 14, 19; 2:1–3; 4:4–6, 11–14; 5:5–11; 6:4–8). Thus there is an angelology throughout the OT. The unique feature in Daniel on this topic, the naming of Gabriel, surely does not introduce a novel doctrine of angels or make the book late. A comparison of
Daniel on angels and what is available from Qumran from the second century B.C. indicates that Daniel is older than the developments in Qumran.
The book of Daniel also contains an important belief in the resurrection (12:1–4). Uriel Acosta, an early critic, took the document’s reference to the resurrection and its angelology as keys for dating the book very late and for ascribing it to the Pharisees. The argument has continued that the Danielic belief in the resurrection is a mark of a date in the post-exilic period and even later than the second century.
The idea of the resurrection is present in various OT passages from a time before that of Daniel (Job 19:25–27; Pss 16:9–11;
73:23–28; Isa 25:8; 26:19; 53:10; Ezek 37:1–14; Hos 6:1–3;
13:14). Historical-critical scholarship has argued that most of these passages do not contain the idea of a resurrection. The critical opinion today holds that the idea of a physical resurrection is at best present only in Isaiah 26:19.
Our investigation of the resurrection passage of Daniel 12:1–4 reveals that there are unmistakable links to that of Isaiah 26:19.
Daniel 12:1–4 also has new emphases and novel factors, such as the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. A comparison of resurrection thought in intertestamental literature, including Qumran, reveals the vast difference between the motivation, purpose, and meaning of resurrection in that literature and that of Daniel 12:1–4. Concepts of assumption or resurrection of the spirit and ideas of immortality found in this extrabiblical literature are foreign to Daniel and the OT. Clearly, the belief in the resurrection cannot be called upon any longer to defend a late date of the book of Daniel.
Matters Related to the World Empire Sequence Four-World Empire Schema
The four-world empire schema (presented in chapter 2 and later repeated in chapter 7) was widely held to have been derived by the author from Greek and Persian thought. There are texts of Hellenistic and Persian origin respectively dated to the early second century and to Zoroastrian times that contain an empire sequence. This would mean that chapter 2, if not the entire book, could not have been written before that time.
However, there is the question whether one can prove that the four-world empire schema of chapter 2 (and by extension, chapter 7) is actually dependent on the alleged Greek and Iranian sources. Now there is new cuneiform evidence from texts of Babylonian provenance among the socalled “Akkadian prophecies” that allows us to trace the idea of “the rise and fall of dynasties and empires, including the fall of Assyria, the fall of Babylon, and the rise of Persia, the fall of Persia, and the rise of the Hellenistic monarchies”48 back to Babylonian
However, there is the question whether one can prove that the four-world empire schema of chapter 2 (and by extension, chapter 7) is actually dependent on the alleged Greek and Iranian sources. Now there is new cuneiform evidence from texts of Babylonian provenance among the socalled “Akkadian prophecies” that allows us to trace the idea of “the rise and fall of dynasties and empires, including the fall of Assyria, the fall of Babylon, and the rise of Persia, the fall of Persia, and the rise of the Hellenistic monarchies”48 back to Babylonian