leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il
Thu Mar 16 02:53:49 EST 2006
----- Original Message -----
>> While you are correct in that there is no way to know whether the author
>> Daniel had any knowledge of the Ugaritic Dan'il (or a similar tradition),
>> and there does not seem to be any connection, Ezekiel seems to be a
>> different story. Ezekiel 14:14 and 20 mentions three "righteous men of
>> old": Noah, Daniel and Job. Ez. 28:3 asks the ruler of Tyre "are you
>> than Daniel?". EVEN if the Daniel of the book of Daniel was a historic
>> personality who lived during the 6th century BCE, he would have hardly
>> had the stature to be compared with Noah and Job as ancient righteous
>> and of course he was never a ruler of anything.
> Where do you get "of old"? Both verses say that even though these three
> were there, their righteousness would only deliver them. There's no "of
> in either verse of chapter 14. Considering the deeds and knowledge that
> ascribed to the prophet Daniel in the book bearing his name, I see no
> why such a one couldn't have had such stature, since there's no "ancient"
> qualification given. And it's true that Daniel was never a ruler, but
> doesn't say he was. It refers to having hidden knowledge and extreme
> It's not a comparison of rulers, but a sarcastic remark comparing this
> arrogant king with one who, according to the story, had real wisdom and
> understood deep secrets. So I see no reason why Ezekiel couldn't have
> referring to the man described in the book of Daniel.
You are right: no "of old". My interpolation. Sorry. But remember, most of
Daniel's exploits happened (if they happened), after Ezekiel's time. Daniel
was younger than Ezekiel. So my argument stands: to Ezekiel and his
audience, Daniel would have hardly had the stature of Noah and Job. What
Noah and Job have in common is that both were Gentiles, both lived in the
distant past. So would a distant past righteous Dan'el, but the child Daniel
of Nebuchadnezzar's' court would not.
And of course, you are ignoring the very good evidence, that the book of
Daniel is a much later (yes, Hellenistic) composition in any case. I won't
repeat the evidence - I'm sure that you're familiar with it. If not, read
any good introduction.
More information about the b-hebrew