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.
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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.