The Torah Network

1 w

BIBLE STUDY --- TANAKH --- HISTORICAL BOOKS

THE BOOK OF DANIEL --- PART 1

A Book of history and hope but also, the fourth book of the Major Prophets in the Old Testament, characterized by vivid symbolism and reflecting heroic historical events during the Babylonian exile of the Jewish people. Because Daniel is not an easy book to understand, its interpretation requires careful study and reflection. Daniel himself wrote, when reflecting on the meaning of one of his visions, “I was greatly troubled by the vision and could not understand it” {Daniel 8:27}. In the old Jewish division of the Old Testament, Daniel is part of the third section, called the Writings, along with such books as Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. It was not included in the second section of the Old Testament, called the Prophets. Although portions of his book may be interpreted from a prophetic perspective, Daniel is never explicitly identified as a prophet. The book’s two major divisions are narratives about Daniel’s life {1–6} and Daniel’s visions {7–12}.

AUTHOR

In terms of having a known author, the book of Daniel is anonymous, as are many books coming from the ancient world. The existing text bears only a title, “Daniel,” identifying the key subject matter of the book: the man himself. The first six chapters of the book contain information about Daniel written in the third person; beginning in Daniel 7:2, however, the book purports to contain words written by Daniel in the first person. Although the traditional view within Judaism, later adopted by Christianity, was that Daniel wrote the entire book named for him, there is little confirming evidence. Yeshua’ words about things “spoken of by the prophet Daniel” {Matthew 24:15} do not clarify who wrote the whole book, since the words in question appear in the second half of the book of Daniel, explicitly identified as his words. Thus, the problem of who wrote the first part remains. Whether or not Daniel wrote the entire book, he is definitely the key character. The only source of information about him is the book itself. Daniel was a Hebrew from Judah, probably of royal lineage, born late in the seventh century BC. As a young boy, he was taken from his homeland to Babylon {in what is now southern Iraq} around 605 BC. There, after three years of formal education in language and literature {Daniel 1:4-5}, he became an official in the royal household. The first six chapters tell of particular incidents in Daniel’s life but do not provide a comprehensive biography of his life and times. Daniel’s name means “YHVH is my judge.” As a foreign resident in Babylon, he was given another name, Belteshazzar, which may have meant “may Bel {YHVH} protect his life” in the Babylonian language.

DATE

Uncertainty about the authorship of the book of Daniel naturally contributes to uncertainty about the date of its writing. If Daniel was the author of the whole book, a date in the second half of the sixth century BC is likely. If he was not the author, a later date is possible. The conservative interpretation has usually been that the book was written in the sixth century BC. An alternative position is that the book was written about 165 BC. Evidence exists to support both the early and late dates of Daniel. Those who argue for a late date and an author besides Daniel normally use two lines of argument, one historical and the other linguistic. But those espousing an earlier date have counterarguments, all of which are discussed below.

HISTORICAL ARGUMENT

According to the historical argument, the writer was thoroughly familiar with the history of Near Eastern imperial power from the sixth to the second centuries, but had an incomplete, erroneous view of the historical details in the second half of the sixth century, Daniel’s era. Such an imbalance in knowledge implies a late date of writing. The first part of the historical argument must be conceded by those holding a more conservative view. The book of Daniel does present a remarkable knowledge of Near Eastern history. The critical question is whether that knowledge was normal human knowledge, gained after the events, or special knowledge revealed to Daniel beforehand. That question is answered in different ways by different people, depending on their view of prophecy and other factors. The second part of the historical argument is technically more complex. Was the writer’s knowledge of history in the late sixth century BC really erroneous? The most significant problem is that of the identity of Darius the Mede {Daniel 5:30-31}. The book of Daniel says that Darius the Mede conquered Babylon and was succeeded at a later date by Cyrus. External historical sources contain no reference to a Darius at the time, but show clearly that it was Cyrus who conquered Babylon. Advocates of a late date consider that strong evidence. Those who advocate an early date have no simple solution to the problem. One proposed solution is that Darius and Cyrus are two names for the same person. A basis for that hypothesis is that Daniel 6:28 can be translated: “Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even [that is] the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” An analogy appears in the use of the names Pul and Tiglath-pileser in 1 Chronicles 5:26. In summary, the dating of Daniel on the basis of the writer’s historical knowledge is difficult, whether one suggests an early or late date.

LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT

The linguistic arguments for the date of Daniel are also complex, especially for a person not familiar with the original languages of the book {Hebrew and Aramaic}. Advocates of a late date use three related arguments:

1 -- the Aramaic language of the book is typical of late Aramaic {second century BC and later};

2 -- the presence of Persian loan words is a further indication of the late date of the book’s Aramaic;

3 -- the presence of Greek loan words in the Aramaic shows that the language must be dated after the time of Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Orient {c. 330 BC}.

For the advocates of a late date for the book’s composition, the last argument is most compelling. It would be impossible, they affirm, to find Greek loan words in Aramaic two centuries before Alexander’s time. Although the arguments are at first convincing, on closer examination they are less persuasive to those who hold the conservative view. Each of the three parts of the argument has been answered.

1 -- Aramaic was in common use in the Near East from about the ninth century BC, being recognized as an official language in Assyria from the eighth century BC. Ninety percent of the Aramaic words in Daniel were used in that older language, in both the Old and Imperial Aramaic dialects. The remaining 10 percent, known only in later texts in the light of present evidence, might indicate a late date, but they could equally be early uses of the words in question.

2 -- The evidence of Persian loan words in Aramaic can function like a boomerang. It is true that later Aramaic has many Persian loan words {about 19 appear in Daniel}, but one can give an alternative explanation for Persian loan words in Daniel at an early date. The story of Daniel is set, in part, in the context of life in a Persian-controlled court. The Persians used Aramaic in their administrative control of the empire, and their own language inevitably penetrated Aramaic. If one assumes an early date for the book of Daniel, then it was being written in precisely the period when Persian would be having its greatest influence on Aramaic.

3 -- The evidence of Greek words in Daniel’s Aramaic {a total of three} is not altogether compelling. Greek {or “Ionian”} traders travelled in various parts of the Near East from the eighth century BC onward. Greek mercenaries fought for Near Eastern states in and after the seventh century BC. In Daniel’s lifetime King Nebuchadnezzar is known to have employed Greek artisans in the city of Babylon. Thus, it is unnecessary to limit the possibilities of Greek penetration of the Aramaic language to the period after Alexander. The conqueror was by no means the first Greek to set foot in the Orient.

CONCLUSION

The historical and linguistic arguments for the date of Daniel are inconclusive for either an early or late date of writing. To a large extent, dating the book depends on other matters, such as authorship intention, and the extent to which one takes a “prophetic” interpretation of portions of the book. To postulate that Daniel was the author is consistent with the evidence currently available. Further, evidence provided by some of the Daniel material from the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran does not support a late date for the book. All Daniel manuscripts and fragments are second-century BC copies, thus requiring an earlier date for the original. One manuscript, related paleographically to the large Isaiah Scroll, must have come originally from the same period -- estimated to be several centuries before the Qumran copy of Isaiah. Other manuscripts from Qumran show that no Old Testament canonical material was composed later than the Persian period. Thus, no manuscript evidence exists for a second-century BC date for Daniel.

LANGUAGE

One of the most interesting features of the book of Daniel is not immediately evident to a reader of the English Bible. The book is bilingual. Daniel 1:1–2:4a and Daniel 8–12 is written in Hebrew, the language of the other Old Testament books. The middle section {Daniel 2:4b–7:28} however, is written in Aramaic, a different but related language. Various explanations have been offered for this phenomenon. Some have suggested that an original Aramaic book was expanded by a Hebrew writer, with additions to the original book at the beginning and the end. Others suggest that a portion of the original Hebrew book was lost, so the missing section was replaced from a surviving Aramaic translation. More complex and ingenious suggestions have also been made, but none has been commonly accepted. Another suggestion is possible. The book of Daniel {whatever date one prefers} may simply reflect the bilingual character of its cultural setting. {As a modern example, consider the many written materials in Canada that appear in both English and French.} Finally, one can regard the bilingual character as another of the mysterious aspects of the book that make its interpretation difficult.

BACKGROUND

The background of the book of Daniel can be examined from two perspectives. It may be viewed from the perspective of the Babylonian exile, of which Daniel was a part {early sixth century BC}, or in the light of future historical events {second century BC}, toward which the visions in the book’s second half seem to point.

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

Although Daniel himself was exiled about 605 BC, the major phase of the Babylonian exile began in 586 BC, following the defeat of the kingdom of Judah and the destruction of Jerusalem. The account extends through the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar {properly Nebuchadrezzar} and Belshazzar, culminating in the early years of the Persian king Cyrus, who took over the city of Babylon in 539 BC. For the Jews the exile was a time of hardship but also a time of renewed theological understanding. Both aspects are reflected in the book of Daniel.

THE SELEUCID PERIOD IN PALESTINE

Daniel’s visions in the latter half of the book appear to refer to the Seleucid period in Palestine, specifically the time when the Jews were ruled by Antiochus Epiphanes, a member of the Seleucid dynasty {175–163 BC}. Whether the visions were prophetic anticipations of future events or reflections of contemporary culture, the Seleucid period is important to a full understanding of the book. Under Antiochus, Palestinian Jews experienced a time of considerable hardship. The ancient faith was severely undermined, the high priesthood in Jerusalem was sold to the highest bidder, and the temple was desecrated in several ways. Pressure was exerted on the Jews to adapt their lives and faith to Hellenistic {Greek-influenced} culture. Although some capitulated, others refused and steadfastly held firm to the old faith. A rebellion against the oppressive measures of Antiochus began in 168 BC. By 164 the rebels had largely succeeded in getting rid of the objectionable practices. But the Seleucid period was generally a bad time for faithful Jews, when all the forces of history seemed to work against the true faith. Part of the book of Daniel’s greatness lies in its theological understanding of history, which enabled men and women to continue living in faith through a time of terrible crisis.