Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Dating the book of Daniel (was Re: Aramaic in Babylonia)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Dating the book of Daniel (was Re: Aramaic in Babylonia)
  • Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 22:17:20 +0100

Dear Chris,

The book of Daniel has been a part of our curriculum in Oslo for many years, and I have gone through it with my students backwards and forwards, so to speak. I will not argue for a certain date of the book or of parts of it. But I find your words a little strange. If the book of Daniel was composed around 160 B.C.E., which apocalyptic literature can we date with certainty before this year? And how can such works tell us anything about the book of Daniel and the date of its composition? And further, if the apocalyptic literature is dated after 160 B.C.E., how can it have any bearing on Daniel?

It is extremely difficult to date the Hebrew texts of the Tanakh on linguistic grounds, and I am not aware of any traits of the Hebrew parts of Daniel that would exclude that they were written in the sixth century B.C.E. The Aramaic of Daniel is very similar to Imperical Aramaic, which was used in Assyria (and probably in Babel) in the sixth century B.C.E., and the Aramaic language of the DSS is very different from that of Daniel. So linguistically speaking the case for a sixth century writing is much stronger than the case for a second century writing.

As far as a know, there are two basic arguments for a second century writing of Daniel. First, we have the old argument of Porphyry in the fifteenth volume of his "Against the Christians" that Daniel gives a detailed account of Antiochus IV Epihanes, and this is so accurate that it cannot have been written beforehand. Second, we have the modern scientific version of Porphyry`s argument: Metaphysical concepts such as God and God`s intervention is foreign to science. Therefore the future cannot be predicted, and when the book of Daniel does this, it must be written after the events.

It seems to me that "textual analyses of Daniel 7-12 in light of the well-attested workings of apocalyptic literature" in a way are circular. They build on the premises mentioned above, and cannot stand on their own feet. This means that the real basis for the second century date of Daniel is the axiom that God is irrelevant for science. This may be the view of many list-members, and this should of course be respected. But at the same time we should be ready to admit that it is not the linguistic nature of the text of Daniel that causes most modern scholars to date the book to around 160 B.C.E., but rather the a priori view that there is no God, or if s/he exists, s/he does not inspire the writing of books.

If my analysis is wrong you should be able to, not only to point to scholars who argue for a second century writing, but to give clear examples of how accurately dated apocalyptic literature clearly show that the book of Daniel was composed in the second century B.C.E.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli Ph.D
University of Oslo




----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Heard" <Christopher.Heard AT pepperdine.edu>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 8:29 PM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Dating the book of Daniel (was Re: Aramaic in Babylonia)


Karl wrote:
To get the peripheral subject out of the way first: as for the dating
of Daniel, there are the internal claims and the external
“conclusions” of the scholars. Seeing as the
scholars’ conclusion is based solely on philosophical
presuppositions which I reject, there are no historical sources to
back
them up, I prefer to go with the historical claims internal to the
book.

Karl, you seem to be stretching your point a bit here. The text of the
book of Daniel makes no claims about the authorship of the book of
Daniel. The angelic mediator featured in chapters 10-12 does tell
Daniel to "keep the book sealed," but the only "book" that mediator has
otherwise mentioned is the "book of truth," a heavenly book already
written before Daniel learns anything about it. Unlike, say, Jeremiah
(Jer 36) or John (Rev 1:11), Daniel is not instructed to write, tell,
or make known the contents of any of his visions. I suppose one might
wish to argue that the first-person narration in chapters 7-12
constitutes an implicit claim to Danielic authorship. However, to be
consistent, one would also have to hold that the third-person narration
in chapters 1-6 constitutes an implicit claim against Danielic
authorship, which also detaches the composition of those stories from
the Babylonian-Persian time frame.

As for the scholarly arguments dating the composition of the book of
Daniel to the second century BCE, they are most certainly not "based
solely on philosophical presuppositions." They are based, chiefly, on
textual analyses of Daniel 7-12 in light of the well-attested workings
of apocalyptic literature in general.

Chris H.

-------------------------------
--
R. Christopher Heard
Assistant Professor of Religion
Pepperdine University
Malibu, CA 90263-4352
http://www.heardworld.com
http://www.iTanakh.org
_______________________________________________





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page