Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Yes.  Daniel places his deportation in the third year of Jehoiakim, which 
means that Jehoiakim was on the throne for another 8 years after that (2 
Kings 23:36).  At the beginning of chapter 2, he places Nebuchadnezzar's 
dream in that king's second year, which actually seems to put the dream 
before Daniel's deportation.  So it would appear that his problem was already 
in place - and his magicians etc. in deep trouble - at the time of Daniel's 
arrival and acclimation as described in Daniel 1.

Ezekiel, OTOH, says his first vision came in the fifth year of Jehoiachin's 
captivity.  Jehoiachin came after Jehoiakim and was deported after just 3 
months.  So if we have 8 years between Daniel's deportation and Jehoiachin's 
accession, and another 5 years or so between Jehoiachin's exile and the 
beginning of Ezekiel's prophetic ministry, that's 13 years, more than enough 
time for Daniel's reputation to be established, particularly if we consider 
the events ascribed to him.  Word of a man (youth) not just interpreting a 
dream but *telling* it first, then his friends surviving being thrown into a 
furnace, further dream interpretation, etc. etc. etc. would get around fast, 
especially in a place like Babylon.

This, plus the absence of any qualification that the three men mentioned were 
"ancients" or even from the distant past, suggests that the simplest, most 
Occam-ish answer is that Ezekiel was talking about his contemporary, Daniel.  
Speculating about an ancient legendary hero a la Ugarit appears to introduce 
an unnecessary complication into the mix.

On Thursday 16 March 2006 10:09, Bryant J. Williams III wrote:
> Yigal,
>
> If the dating of Daniel 1 about Daniel and his three friends is correct and
> is combined with what we know about the first deportation of 605 BCE, then
> that would place Daniel at about 25-30 yrs of age at the time of Ezekiel's
> deportation to Babylon in 597 BCE, plenty of time for one to know how
> "righteous" Daniel would be to be equated with Noah and Job.
>
> Furthermore, it appears that by the time of this prophecy regarding the
> destruction and deportation of Judah it would be another 10-12 years later
> that Daniel is well-known within the exilic community in Babylon for his
> "righteousness." Remember, it is God who is making the declaration
> regarding Daniel. Ezekiel is just declaring what God has told him to speak.
> God is NOT happy with Judah. She is NOT repentant, rebellious,
> stiff-necked, etc. (you get the picture). It reached the point of no
> return. Thus, God's declaration about Daniel, Job and Noah.
>
> Bryant
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 07:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel
>
> > On Thursday 16 March 2006 00:53, Yigal Levin wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > Yigal:
> > > >> While you are correct in that there is no way to know whether the
> > > >> author of
> > > >> 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 wiser
> > > >> 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 have
> > > >> had the stature to be compared with Noah and Job as ancient
> > > >> righteous men,
> > > >> and of course he was never a ruler of anything.
> > >
> > > Dave Washburn:
> > > > Where do you get "of old"?  Both verses say that even though these
> > > > three men
> > > > were there, their righteousness would only deliver them.  There's no
> > > > "of old"
> > > > in either verse of chapter 14.  Considering the deeds and knowledge
> > > > that are
> > > > ascribed to the prophet Daniel in the book bearing his name, I see no
> > > > reason
> > > > 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 28:3
> > > > doesn't say he was.  It refers to having hidden knowledge and extreme
> > > > wisdom.
> > > > 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 been
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Actually, the text tells us what they had in common.  For Ezekiel, what
> > they have in common is a reputation for righteousness, nothing more. 
> > Anything beyond that is more interpolation.  For this particular context,
> > it doesn't matter whether they were Gentiles or how far in the distant
> > past they lived. The point is HOW they lived, period.  So I don't think
> > your argument stands.
> >
> > I agree that the matter of Daniel's age vis a vis Ezekiel presents a
> > problem, but it's been a long time since I paid much attention to
> > Ezekiel, so I'll have to look into that further before I can really say
> > much more about it. At the moment I would be relying on the seriously
> > faulty LTMLV.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I'm familiar with it.  I just don't buy it, for several good reasons that
> > other introductions have set forth.  This is clearly a case of "you pays
> > your money and you takes your pick."  You choose one, I choose the other.
> >  That's one of the true beauties of this field.
> >
> > --
> > Dave Washburn
> > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> > Fame is fleeing, as good old Whatsisname used to say.
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy
> > of
>
> Com-Pair Services!
>
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 03/10/2006
>
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy
> of Com-Pair Services!

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Fame is fleeing, as good old Whatsisname used to say.