4. Place of Composition, Audience, and Purpose
10. Canonicity (and the Additions)
11. Daniel and the New Testament
The book of Daniel is one of the most contested books in OT scholarship. Issues of historical and chronological accuracy, literary genre and biblical interpretation, and the nature of OT prophecy continue to stir debate among scholars.
The book is an enigma—written in two languages (Aramaic and Hebrew), composed of two genres (narrative and visionary literature), narrated in two voices (third-person court stories and first-person visions embedded in third-person narrative), and organized in a two-part structure (stories, chs. 1–6; visions, chs. 7–12). Quite naturally, these features have led to two rather distinct understandings of the book.
Interestingly, the interpretive alternatives have so polarized the scholarship on Daniel that some recent commentators have resorted to incorporating materials typically associated with the critical introduction of biblical books (e.g., authorship, date, structure, genre, etc.) as an epilogue or appendix to the analysis of the text of Daniel in an effort to focus attention on the message and theology of the book.1 Some even suggest that whether the stories of Daniel are history or fiction and whether the visions are actual prophecies or historical reports after the fact make little difference to the exegesis of the book.2 There is some truth in such a statement, since in the end each reader understands the book of Daniel on the basis of what the text says. Yet the reader’s assumptions about the nature of divine revelation, the dynamics of the historical process, and the character of literary genres deeply color the theology derived from any study of the biblical documents. At what point, if any, are the original audience of Daniel’s message and today’s audience of this preserved tradition “children of a lesser God” if the stories of Daniel are fiction and the visions of Daniel are not prophecy?
The conventional labels “traditional” and “mainline” are the tags employed for the two basic interpretive views of the book of Daniel. The “traditional” or conservative approach typically understands the book as a sixth-century BC composition, while the “mainline” or critical approach typically considers the book largely a second-century BC work. According to Collins, the last gasp of the “fundamentalist” reading of Daniel was the work of Robert D. Wilson (although he notes conservative scholars continue to fight “rear-guard” actions in defense of the book’s reliability).3
Collins further confidently asserts that in academic circles the fundamentalist view of Daniel was defeated at the beginning of the twentieth century. Today the triumph of the critical understanding of Daniel is widely recognized.4 This does not mean, however, that voices championing the traditional view of Daniel ceased, as the scholarship of the likes of E. J. Young, J. G. Baldwin, K. A. Kitchen, and D. J. Wiseman attest. The history of biblical scholarship reveals that “post-mortems” are rarely final, and such may be the case with Daniel.
Naturally, these rubrics are not necessarily meant to reflect any particular “theological camp” with respect to a “view” of Scripture or prejudge any certain ideological posture regarding the realm of the supernatural. As Longman has recognized, “faithful interpreters find themselves on two sides of the debate.”5 And further, Lucas reminds us that “on both sides of the argument there are those who see their conclusions as compatible with acceptance of the inspiration and authority of Scripture.”6 In the end, “let God be true, and every human being a liar” (Ro 3:4).
The book of Daniel contains nine date formulas (1:1, 21; 2:1; 5:30; 7:1; 8:1; 9:1; 10:1, [cf. v.21]; 11:1). The earliest formula refers to the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim (i.e., 605 BC) and reports the first Babylonian invasion of Judah by King Nebuchadnezzar (1:1).7 This means Daniel was among the first of the Hebrews taken captive by the Babylonians and deported to Mesopotamia, a fact that has significance for his later prayer (cf. 9:2–3). The latest date formula places Daniel in the Persian royal court during the third year of the Persian king Cyrus (537 or 536 BC; 10:1). This means the historical setting for Daniel is the Babylonian exile in the royal courts of Babylonian, Median, and Persian kings between 605 and 536 BC. The dated portions of Daniel may be outlined as follows:
King Josiah of Judah died in battle near Megiddo in 609 BC (2Ki 23:30). Perhaps obligations to the Babylonians motivated his attempt to intercept the Egyptian forces of Pharaoh Neco en route to Carchemish (23:29).8 Josiah was the last reformer and “good” king of Judah, and his death precipitated the rapid decline of the southern Hebrew monarchy. The last twenty-plus years of the Judahite monarchy saw four kings ascend to the throne. Two of these kings, Jehoahaz (609 BC) and Jehoiachin (597 BC), each ruled for but three months (23:31–34; 24:8–17). The other two were puppet kings of the superpowers competing for control of the land bridge of Syro-Palestine.
Eliakim/Jehoiakim (609–597 BC) was installed by Pharaoh Neco of Egypt (2Ki 23:34). He later surrendered to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia but rebelled three years later (ca. 603 BC; 24:1–7). Nebuchadnezzar was unable to resume his military campaigns in Syro-Palestine until 598 BC but then moved swiftly to punish the disloyal vassal. By the time Nebuchadnezzar reached Jerusalem, Jehoiakim had died and Jehoiachin succeeded him as king of Judah (24:8). As a result of the second Babylonian invasion of Judah, King Jehoiachin was deposed and exiled along with ten thousand citizens of Jerusalem (including Ezekiel; cf. 2Ki 24:10–17; Eze 1:1–2).
Mattaniah/Zedekiah was installed by King Nebuchadnezzar as a puppet king of Babylonia after the exile of Jehoiachin (2Ki 24:17). Zedekiah foolishly rebelled against the Babylonian overlord and allied Judah with Pharaoh Hophra of Egypt in 589 BC. The third Babylonian invasion of Judah was swift and decisive. Nebuchadnezzar surrounded Jerusalem in 588 BC, and after a lengthy siege the city was sacked, Yahweh’s temple was destroyed, and Davidic kingship in Judah ceased (24:18–25:21).9
For centuries traditional Jewish and Christian scholarship ascribed the book of Daniel to the sixth-century BC Hebrew courtier of the same name employed in the service of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia (Da 1:3). Daniel was among the first Hebrews taken captive from Judah and was conscripted into the civil service corps of the Babylonian government (1:6). Internal evidence in the second half of the book (the visions of chs. 7–12) is usually cited in support of this view. This includes the first-person reporting (of personal memoirs or journal accounts [?]; cf. 7:2–28; 8:1–27; 9:1–27; 10:2–12:4; 12:5–13) and the angelic command to Daniel himself to “seal up the book.”10 The court stories of the first half of the book (chs. 1–6) are written in the third person (except the first-person report of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream about a tree; 4:4–18). Yet the presumed eyewitness detail of these accounts is considered indirect evidence of Daniel’s authorship of this section of the book as well.11 Lastly, proponents of the traditional view for the authorship and date of the book of Daniel appeal to the testimony of Jesus, who credits the prophet Daniel with the authorship of the prophecy concerning “the abomination that causes desolation” (Mt 24:15; Mk 13:14).
Biblical scholarship of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century challenged the traditional understanding of the origin of the book of Daniel. The views of Porphyry (AD 233–304), a Neoplationist philosopher, are frequently cited as precursors of the critical assessment of this book.12 As an early dissenting voice in the scholarship on Daniel, Porphyry questioned the historicity of the figure of Daniel and dismissed the idea of prophecy in Daniel. Instead, he argued that Daniel was written by a Palestinian Jew living at the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who related the past but did not foretell the future.13
Such analysis represents the dominant view of the book of Daniel today. A number of historical, literary, theological, and canonical trajectories have converged to shape this understanding of the book. Primary among them was the perceived inferiority of postexilic prophecy and apocalyptic literature when compared to preexilic prophecy according to the canons of nineteenth-century literary criticism.14 The traditional view of Daniel was further eroded by the Enlightenment’s antisupernaturalist assumptions of biblical scholarship rooted in the elevation of reason over revelation—thus dismissing a priori such categories as “miracle” and “predictive prophecy” in the biblical record.15
Today the discussion extends beyond the issue of vaticinium ex eventu (or “prophecy after the fact”) to the nature and character of the apocalyptic genre that comprises portions of Daniel. Collins states that the “issue is not ‘a dogmatic rejection of predictive prophecy’ as conservatives like to assert, but a calculation of probability” (since for him the weight of the literary, linguistic, historical, and textual evidence points to a second-century BC date for Daniel).16 One feature of apocalyptic literature—pseudonymity (ascribing a writing to someone other than its actual author)—is of particular importance. Pseudonymity was a known literary practice in the ancient world, particularly in the Hellenistic age. Despite the fact that such a literary device is rarer in our own culture, Goldingay cautions that we should not “infer that God could not use it in another culture.”17
As a result, mainline scholars now consider the book of Daniel the product of one or more unknown Jewish pseudepigraphers writing shortly after the Maccabean crisis (ca. 160 BC).18 In fact, some scholars date the final compilation of the book to shortly before 163 BC since the person(s) responsible for the book erroneously place Antiochus’s death in Palestine, not Syria (as recorded in Polybius, Histories 33.9). This critical approach to the book also assumes that the anonymous author(s) incorporated the court stories about Daniel (chs. 1–6) in the book since these earlier materials were already circulating in a relatively fixed form.19 Beyond this, a growing number of biblical scholars who might be categorized broadly as conservative or evangelical in persuasion adhere to this view.20
In summary, the book of Daniel is a blend of third-person report and first-person memoir, divided into a narrative section (chs. 1–6) and an apocalyptic section (chs. 7–12). The internal evidence demands that only the first-person visions of the second half of the book be ascribed directly to Daniel.21 And in some cases even these visions are framed by third-person introductions (e.g., 7:1; 9:1; 10:1). Given this two-part (or bifid) structure, it seems likely that the book represents an anthology or edited collection of selections of Daniel’s personal journal or memoirs and adaptations of more formal chronicles documenting his service in the Babylonian royal court. The book was probably composed in the Babylonian Diaspora by Daniel, or more likely by associates who outlived him, sometime after 536 BC (the last date formula in the book; 10:1) and before 515 BC (since the composition makes no reference to the rebuilding of the second temple in Jerusalem). This places the current study in what Collins calls “an ongoing tradition of conservative scholarship that holds to the exilic date.”22
Two basic methods for determining structure have been applied to the book of Daniel. One is based on the two languages utilized in the composition of the book. For example, while acknowledging the bifid structure of the book on the basis of genre, Wood states that “the employment of two languages points to an equally valid division, which has to do with the people concerned, rather than with literary criteria.”23 The organization of the content of Daniel as determined by the language patterns of the book may be outlined as follows:24
This approach to the structure of Daniel assumes a bilingual audience for the book and that chs. 2–7 were in some way made available to the Gentile public. The widely recognized chiastic arrangement of the Aramaic section of the book (see below) is often cited in support of a language-based approach to the structure of Daniel.25
More commonly, the literary structure of Daniel is determined by appealing to the two types of literature found in the book: the court stories of Daniel composed in a narrative genre (chs. 1–6) and the visions of Daniel composed in an apocalyptic genre (chs. 7–12). Beyond this, the two halves of the book each share a chronological scheme that sequences Babylonian, Median, and Persian rulers.
Redditt goes so far as to identify a “plot” in the book of Daniel that extends from the Babylonian invasion of Judah and the beginning of the Hebrew exile to the fall of the “fourth kingdom” and establishment of the kingdom of God. He identifies the plot shape as essentially “comedic” in that the events of the story line turn out “happily” or for the good rather than tragically for the Hebrews.26
The traditional approach to Daniel understands the book as a literary unity composed by Daniel himself or compiled by associates who outlived him sometime during the last quarter of the sixth century BC (see Authorship and Date). Beckwith has summarized:
The book of Daniel gives every appearance of being a unity. Its material is carefully organized, with six chapters of narrative chronologically arranged . . . followed by six chapters of visions, again chronologically arranged. The two halves are connected . . . by the close parallels between the dream of ch. 2 and the vision of ch. 7, and by the continuance of the Aramaic language from Dan. 2:4–7:28, though the book begins and ends in Hebrew.27
H. H. Rowley espoused the early critical view that Daniel was the product of a single author of the Maccabean era (see Place of Composition, Audience, and Purpose).28 More recent critical scholarship considers the book of Daniel a diverse collection of materials put together in several stages over the course of two or three centuries. Redditt is representative of the contemporary critical approach, theorizing that the book of Daniel underwent three recensions: the first edition of the book (R1 = chs. 4–6) was compiled by the “wise teachers” either before or after they moved to Jerusalem from Babylonia (a date is unspecified); the second edition of the book (R2 = chs. 2–7, along with ch. 1 as an introduction) was published sometime between 169 and 167 BC; and the third edition of the book (R3 = chs. 8–9, 10–12) was published before the death of Antiochus IV Ephiphanes and the cleansing of the second temple in 164 BC (with the exception of 12:5–12, which was added shortly after the rededication of the temple).29 Naturally the later Greek Additions to Daniel constitute yet another edition of the book. This study adheres to the traditional approach, namely, assuming the book is a literary unity compiled sometime during the last quarter of the sixth century BC by associates who outlived Daniel.
Scholars adhering to a sixth century BC date for the entirety of Daniel assume a Babylonian provenance best accounts for the Aramaic core of book30 and the convincing (albeit subtle) unity of the book.31 In addition, the Persian loanwords for administrative terms and officers suggest a final form for the book when Persian rule in Mesopotamia was firmly established.32 The apparent misunderstanding of these terms by the later Greek translators of the versions of the LXX further substantiates a pre-Hellenistic date for the book.33 Thus the primary audience of the book of Daniel was the Hebrew population of the Babylonian Diaspora. The book was both theological instruction in the faithfulness of God to his covenantal people and an exhortation to the Hebrew captives to imitate the faithfulness, wisdom, and piety of Daniel and his three friends.34
Rowley championed the view that Daniel was the product of a single author of Maccabean times (who may have borrowed and reworked earlier traditions).35 Thus the primary audience of the book was the Jewish population of second-century BC Palestine suffering intense persecution under Seleucid rule. Daniel may be considered a sort of “Hasidic manifesto” composed and circulated in order “to urge and encourage the faithful Jews to remain steadfast in the practice of the religion of their fathers during the brutal persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.”36 The weight of the linguistic data (i.e., both the Aramaic of Daniel and the Persian loanwords included in the book) and the textual evidence (i.e., the Prayer of Nabonidus and the Qumran documents) now suggest that chs. 1–6 may have had a lengthy prehistory.37 This makes the position of holding to a single author of Maccabean times less tenable, although it is still espoused (with variations) by Porteous and Hartman and Di Lella.38
Today most critical scholars recognize that the court stories of chs. 1–6 (“tales” or “legends,” as categorized form-critically by Collins)39 may have circulated independently during the Hellenistic era. Thus the court stories about Daniel reflect the setting of the Mesopotamian Jewish Diaspora and were intended to encourage the Jews to resist compromising their religion. The stories also teach that Jews might advance in the Gentile world while remaining faithful to Yahweh.40
The visions of Daniel (chs. 7–12) are determined to presuppose a Jewish audience in second-century BC Jerusalem since the setting of the visions is the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (168–164 BC).41 The purpose of the visions is not so much a call to arms in revolt against the Seleucid oppressors as a call to ethical living in adherence to the law of Moses in the face of persecution.42 The visions assure the Jews of God’s final victory over evil and the nations doing the bidding of the Evil One, but with the recognition that martyrdom is a reality and deliverance will only come later with the resurrection of the dead.43
The traditional understanding of the social setting of Daniel accepts the prima facie report that the Jewish Diaspora of the Babylonian and early Persian periods is the backdrop of the book. The conditions for the Hebrews in exile were far from ideal, but they provided a “comfortable” setting for getting on with life (Jer 29:5–7), some freedom of movement (Eze 8:1; 14:1), and permitted advancement for Jews faithful to Yahweh in a somewhat “tolerant” Gentile world (Da 1:6–17). Hence the primary audience of the book was the Hebrew population of the Babylonian captivity. The book was both a theological treatise on God’s faithfulness to his covenantal people and his sovereign rule of the nations (1:1–5). In addition, the document was an exhortation to the displaced Hebrews to imitate the faithfulness, wisdom, and piety of Daniel and his three friends while awaiting the inbreaking of God’s heavenly kingdom (2:44–45).
Collins flatly states that the social setting of the book of Daniel is difficult to reconstruct because the book is pseudepigraphic, “so the explicit setting in the Babylonian exile is known to be fictional.”44 A majority of critical scholars assign the so-called “court tales” (chs. 1–6) to unknown authors or editors living in Syro-Palestine during the Hellenistic era. The favorable treatment of the Jews, including opportunities for advancement under Gentile rule, may reflect the more benign rule of early Seleucid kings such as Seleucus I Nicator (312–280 BC) and Antiochus III (222–187 BC). Redditt extends this back to early Greek and later Persian periods.45 It is possible the composers of the court stories even worked in the service of these foreign kings.46
By contrast, the visions of Daniel (chs. 7–12) are understood to reflect the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes during the Maccabean era.47 Thus the visions were a type of “resistance literature,” calling the Jews to ethical living in adherence to the law of Moses in the face of Seleucid persecution. Some scholars connect this resistance movement with the Hasidim.48 In fact, Towner identifies this group as containing the likely authors and audience of Daniel.49 The Hasidim were scribes and teachers of the Mosaic law but were also militant supporters of the Maccabees (cf. 1 Macc 2:42; 7:12–13; 2 Macc 14:6).50 Collins, however, finds no evidence of such militancy in the book of Daniel.51
Still others have connected the visions with the wisdom teachings of the maśkilîm. The maśkilîm were expert teachers, schooled in the ways of wisdom broadly defined.52 Their duties included instructing the common people in the ways of wisdom that lead to righteousness, especially in times of crisis (Da 11:33–35). Daniel and his friends are connected to this learned guild (1:3–5, 18–20), and the association of the visions in Daniel with a highly educated intellectual elite or “upper class” seems a better fit with the social context of the Maccabean era. This helps explain the “passive” resistance encouraged by the “wise teachers” (many of whom themselves will be martyred during the times of persecution; 11:33–34). Collins rightly discounts the supposed ties between the maśkilîm and the Hasidim proposed by some scholars such as Lacocque.53
Smith-Christopher takes an even more extreme stance, suggesting that the court tales are also the product of a later period reflecting the circumstances of Gentile oppression of the Jews. He categorizes the court stories (at least chs. 2 and 4) as “oppositional literature,” the subversive dreams of the disenfranchised. Rationale offered in support of the Daniel tales as a “folklore of resistance” includes the notion that the dream reports portray the Babylonian kings as arrogant buffoons.54 The point of the court stories is to “re-negotiate” Jewish identity in the periods from 587 to 163 BC by inculcating the subversive strategy that wisdom is a greater force than power or wealth for ensuring the survival of the minority culture.
Thus Smith-Christopher concludes, “the Daniel tales teach that knowledge of Jewish identity as the people of Yahweh’s light and wisdom is the key not only to survival, but also to the eventual defeat of the Imperial rule of ‘the nations’ on earth.”55 Despite this elaborate socio-literary reconstruction, Collins reminds that the attitude toward Gentile rule in the two halves of Daniel is still very different: the court stories allow “for the viability of Gentile rule in the present,” while “the visions portray Gentile rule as utterly unacceptable.”56
The book of Daniel is composed in two literary genres and predominantly narrated in two voices (with the first-person voice typically embedded in third-person narration). In literary form, the first half of the book (chs. 1–6) is largely third-person narrative, and the second half (chs. 7–12) essentially first-person visionary or apocalyptic prophecy. Numerous subgenres within these broad literary categories are often identified. For example, according to Goldingay Daniel consists of such types of material as romance, legend, myth, midrash, court tale, vision, quasi-prophecy, and apocalyptic.57 Despite this consensus recognizing both narrative and visionary literature in Daniel, there remains considerable debate in biblical scholarship as to exactly what is meant by these form-critical designations.
There is general agreement that Daniel 1–6 is “story” by way of literary form. A story is defined as “a narrative which creates interest by arousing tension or suspense and resolving it.”58 The chapters concerning Daniel and his friends are usually labeled “court stories,” since they comprise a series of narratives about the experiences of Hebrew captives in a foreign royal court.59 Comparisons between Daniel and the stories of Joseph in Pharaoh’s court (e.g., Ge 41–47) and Esther in Xerxes’ court (e.g., Est 2–6) are commonly drawn as illustrative of the court-narrative subgenre (e.g., Lacocque, 1979: 26).60
Scholars dating Daniel to the Maccabean era prefer the rubric “court tale” for these narratives since they do not recognize this subgenre as reporting history. Instead, the court tales are considered fictive since they adhere to stereotypical literary patterns characteristic of folklore and legendary literature.61 In addition, they introduce “marvelous” or miraculous elements, another indicator of the ahistorical nature of the Daniel court tales for the mainline scholar.62
The court stories of Daniel are often further subdivided into court stories of conflict and court stories of contest. The stereotypical plot of the “court conflict” tells the story of a hero figure living in a state of prosperity and suddenly endangered by a conspiracy. The hero eventually gains release and is elevated to a position of honor as a result of the virtue or wisdom demonstrated through the trial (e.g., chs. 3, 6). The stereotypical plot of the “court contest” tells of a person of lower status who is called on by a person of higher status to answer a difficult question or solve an acute problem. The person of higher status poses the problem that has baffled others, and the person of lower status solves the puzzle and is rewarded (e.g., ch. 2).63
Those espousing the traditional view of Daniel naturally emphasize the court stories of Daniel 1–6 as a reliable reporting of history, a recounting of actual events situated in the Jewish Diaspora of the Babylonian and Persian periods.64 Although important, it is not enough simply to affirm the didactic function of the stories as ethical instruction for Diaspora Jews living under foreign oppression.65 Nor is it adequate to speak only of the historical intentions of Daniel as “fictive” literature;66 rather, the traditional view of Daniel upholds the historical knowledge of the writer of the book and “still finds a sixth-century date defensible.”67
All biblical scholars agree on the genre shift from court narrative (chs. 1–6) to apocalyptic vision or prophecy in second half of Daniel (chs. 7–12). The origin and nature of Jewish apocalyptic literature, however, remain a matter of debate. The roots of biblical apocalyptic may be traced to the Hebrew prophetic tradition.68 Daniel not only knew the writings of the earlier Hebrew prophets (cf. 9:2), but he also shared their theological understanding of Yahweh as the Lord of history (see Theological Emphases).
In addition, it is apparent that Hebrew wisdom tradition influenced the development of biblical apocalyptic. Like the practical or utilitarian wisdom of Proverbs, the book of Daniel shares an emphasis on ethical behavior and prudence and tact in leadership.69 This book is considered “mantic wisdom” rather than “proverbial wisdom” since Daniel’s wisdom is revelatory and is attached to dreams and visions, not empirical observation.70
According to Collins,71 at issue in identifying a text (or group of texts) as apocalyptic is whether or not these texts “share a significant cluster of traits that distinguish them from other works.” Numerous literary, temporal, and eschatological elements comprising the genre of biblical apocalyptic have been identified, including: symbolism, dualism, pseudonymity, persecution of the righteous, cosmic transformation, resurrection from the dead, and ex eventu prophecy.72 Collins distills the essence of the apocalyptic genre to three characteristics: narrative framework, mediated revelation, and eschatological content.73
Despite the diagnostic analysis of biblical and extrabiblical documents according to a shared “cluster of traits,” there is no consensus on what constitutes the genre of apocalyptic literature as distinct from biblical prophecy. Beyond this, sorting out the difference(s) between an “apocalypse” (as a literary genre) and “apocalyptic eschatology” (as a theological perspective in biblical prophetic literature) proves equally difficult. Finally, according to Lucas, “apocalypticism” as a sociopolitical and religious movement must be distinguished from the apocalypse and apocalyptic eschatology in the analysis of so-called apocalyptic literature.74
Based on the presence of the foregoing shared cluster of characteristics common to apocalyptic prophecy, the book of Daniel is identified as an apocalypse.75 Daniel is further classified as an “historical” apocalypse (i.e., characterized by visions and an interest in the development of history), in contrast to the “otherworldly journey” type of apocalypse (i.e., marked by the heavenly ascent of a hero figure and an interest in cosmological speculation). According to the grid published by the SBL Genres Project, Daniel shares seven traits with other historical apocalypses, such as the extrabiblical books of 2 Baruch, 4 Esdras, and Jubilees. The seven apocalyptic elements discerned in Daniel include: recollection of the past, ex eventu prophecy, persecution, eschatological upheavals, judgment of the wicked, judgment of otherworldly beings, cosmic transformation, and resurrection.76
Typically, apocalypses are considered “crisis literature,” tractates composed during times of oppression and persecution of the people of God by foreign powers. According to Murphy, two crises in the second temple period led to the production of apocalypses: the persecution by Antiochus IV Epiphanes beginning in 167 BC, and the Roman sacking of Jerusalem in AD 70.77 By definition, apocalypses differ from prophetic texts in their heavy use of symbolic visions, pseudonymity, the periodization of history, and ex eventu prophecy.78 The idea of resurrection from the dead (12:3)—one of the book’s major contributions to Jewish and Christian theology—is also regarded as a key trait of the genre of apocalypse and a signal of a late date for the document.79
It should be noted, however, that Daniel is the only OT canonical book included in the catalog of Jewish intertestamental documents determined apocalypses by the SBL Genres Project. Yet Collins insists that the inclusion of Daniel in the Hebrew canon “does not negate the fact that its closest literary relationships are with noncanonical Jewish writings of the Hellenistic age.”80 Adherents to the traditional understanding of Daniel admit the Seleucid period parallels but protest the equation of apocalyptic with a late date for Daniel, since protoapocalyptic texts have a long history in the ancient Near East.81
Others are less rigid in defining the differences between apocalyptic and prophecy and recognize that genres “are fluid literary characterizations that have overlapping boundaries.”82 For example, Niditch traces the development of the form of the symbolic visions in Daniel (especially chs. 7–8) in stages to similar literary types in the earlier Hebrew prophets (e.g., the visions of Am 7–8 and especially Zec 1–6).83 Appropriately understood, genre identification provides a larger context for the study of biblical and extrabiblical documents than many critical scholars are willing to admit. Serious study of intertestamental apocalyptic literature must take into consideration the other biblical examples of so-called “proto-apocalyptic” literature such as Isaiah 24–27, Ezekiel 36–39, Joel 2, Zechariah, and the relationship of Daniel in the OT and the book of Revelation in the NT.
One case study serves to illustrate the point of the interrelationship of the prophetic and apocalyptic genres in the OT. Collins has identified a cluster of eight apocalyptic traits (including ex eventu prophecy) in the book of Daniel that place the book in the category of second-century BC apocalypses as noted above.84 Yet analysis of the visions of Zechariah 1–6 by the same criteria shows that this series of early postexilic prophetic revelations also contains seven apocalyptic traits or eschatological elements. This list contains seven of the twelve apocalyptic traits or eschatological elements (apart from ex eventu prophecy) cataloged by Collins: mediated revelation (Zec 1:9), recollection of the past (1:18–21), persecution (2:8), other eschatological upheavals (4:7), judgment of the wicked (1:21), judgment of other worldly beings (5:5), and cosmic transformation (1:16–18; 2:5).
Beyond this, analysis of so-called “Second Zechariah” (Zec 9–14) yields similar results in that these eschatological oracles contain six of the diagnostic apocalyptic traits used to categorize the (presumably) late genre of apocalypse. Here the list of eschatological elements (following Collins’ order) includes: recollection of the past (Zec 12:10), persecution (13:7), other eschatological upheavals (14:6, 12), judgment of the wicked (9:1–8; 14:12), judgment of other worldly beings (13:2), and cosmic transformation (14:6–9).85 Clearly, the distinctions between the later genre of the apocalypse and the proto-apocalyptic genre of the earlier Hebrew prophets are less dramatic than many critical studies of Daniel acknowledge.
Mention must be made of Daniel and the issue of predictive prophecy since ex eventu prophecy is one of the twelve assumed traits of the genre of apocalypse identified by Collins. The visions of Daniel focus on the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, prompting Collins to ask why a Hebrew prophet of the sixth century BC would have such preoccupation with events of the second century BC.86 Goldingay concurs, arguing that such far-reaching detailed prediction of the future is not consistent with the portrayal of God elsewhere in the Bible.87 The so-called “Akkadian Prophecies” are often cited as a parallel literary form since these texts, for the most part, appear to have been written after many of the events they describe.88
Adherents to the traditional understanding of Daniel counter that such prediction serves both to reinforce the message of God’s sovereignty central to the book and provide encouragement and assurance to the people of God who must endure the impending persecution.89 Rather than an inconsistency in the biblical portrayal of God, such foreknowledge is basic to his divine character and one of the attributes that distinguishes him as the true God over all false deities (cf. Isa 41:22; 45:21; 46:10). Neither should the fact that Daniel represents an unusual or even unique narrative in the OT discount its credibility given the many other “one-time” experiences recorded in the Bible (e.g., Moses’ encounter with God in the burning bush, the story of Jonah and the great fish, Hosea’s marriage to the prostitute Gomer, etc.). Finally, there are numerous examples of God’s forecasting of coming events (e.g., Joseph’s dreams, Ge 37; Zechariah’s visions, Zec 1:7–6:8) or warning the righteous of impending peril (e.g., the Magi, Mt 2:12; Mary and Joseph, Mt 2:19, 22). Certainly this is in keeping with his character as a God consistently depicted as merciful and compassionate (Ex 34:6; Dt 4:31; Pss 86:16; 103:8).
In the end, mainline biblical scholarship desires to assess the book of Daniel on the “balance of probabilities.”90 Depending on one’s assumptions about the character of God, the nature of biblical revelation, and the development of biblical literary genres, the “balance of probability” may be understood in different ways.91 Certainly, lumping Daniel with the late Jewish apocalypses is one option—but not the only option. Given the foregoing analysis of Zechariah 1–6 and 9–14, it is possible to place Daniel on a continuum of “proto-apocalyptic literature emerging from the early post-exilic period of Hebrew history.”92
Such a conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the apocalyptic portions of Daniel (chs. 7–12) continue the themes found in the court stories of chs. 1–6.93 Moreover, it is recognized that only Daniel 10–12 fits the definition of the apocalypse genre well. In addition, Daniel is a “child of prophecy,”94 so it is only natural to look for the origins of biblical apocalyptic in the prophetic tradition of the OT.95 Lucas’s cautious summary statement is insightful:
It seems that Daniel does lie somewhere on a line of development between the later Hebrew prophets and the Jewish apocalypses and, on balance Daniel appears to be closer in form and content to the apocalypses. Exactly what this means in terms of the date of the final form of the book is hard to judge, since the line of development may not have been straight, and the rate of development was probably not uniform.96
The book of Daniel presents a “theology of history.” Theology is understood as the portrayal of the person and work of God as revealed in the Bible. History is considered the chronological record of significant events affecting a nation or institution (and often including an explanation of their causes). In one sense, God is always both “cause” and “effect” in biblical history since he “acts” in history so that Israel and the nations might know that he is the Lord (e.g., Eze 5:5, 13). The specific historical referent here is the nation of Israel as the people of God and the Hebrew institutions of Yahweh’s temple and the Davidic monarchy.
Naturally this study of history spills over to include other nations since biblical Israel existed in a particular time and space continuum (cf. Dt 7:6–8). Beyond this, the destinies of Israel and all other people groups are entwined because God chose one nation to bless all nations (Ge 12:1–3). Daniel’s “theology of history” is summarized in Nebuchadnezzar’s confession that God lives forever, his dominion is eternal, he rules the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth, and nothing can prevent him from accomplishing his purposes in the world (Da 4:3, 34–35).
A theology of history was essential for the Israelites exiled in Babylonia because they suffered from “an intense condition of theological shock.”97 The four pillars of divine promise that undergirded Israel’s confidence in Yahweh have been identified as: the irrevocability of God’s (Sinaitic) covenant with Israel, Yahweh’s ownership of the land of Canaan, Yahweh’s eternal covenant with David, and Yahweh’s residence in Jerusalem.98 How were the captive Hebrews to understand the reality that Jerusalem had been sacked, Yahweh’s temple razed, the Davidic dynasty terminated, and a substantial population of Israelites deported to Babylonia?
The several distinct components comprising Daniel’s theology of history may be outlined as follows:
Overall, the Hebrew and Aramaic of Daniel as represented in the Masoretic Test (MT) have been well preserved—a conclusion supported by the evidence of the LXX and other ancient versions. Montgomery has noted that the MT of Daniel contains an unusual amount of variation both in the Kethib and Qere and in the variant readings of the manuscripts.100 Generally speaking, the Qumran fragments of Daniel support the MT and offer testimony to the faithful transmission of the text over the centuries. Baldwin has commented that the range of individual variants found in the Qumran manuscripts suggest that when these texts were written the Qumran community had no standardized “canonical” text.101 We have no Aramaic Targum of the book of Daniel.102
According to Lucas, the primary witnesses to the original Hebrew and Aramaic text of Daniel beyond the MT are the Qumran manuscripts, the Greek versions, the Latin Vulgate, and the Syriac Peshitta.103
The Qumran evidence is especially important for the study of Daniel since it attests the changes from Hebrew to Aramaic and back at 2:4b and 8:1. Further, the prayers of the Additions to Daniel in the ancient Greek version of the book are not contained in the text of ch. 3 in the Qumran manuscripts.104 Collins summarizes by saying that “on the whole, the Qumran discoveries provide powerful evidence of the antiquity of the textual tradition of the MT.”105
The textual history of the Greek versions of Daniel is complex, and little consensus has emerged in the scholarly debate. Two distinct textual traditions of Daniel have been preserved: the Old Greek (or LXX) and the Greek version of Theodotion. The relationship between the two Greek versions remains a puzzle. Both of the Greek textual traditions include the Additions to Daniel. Di Lella concludes that the Greek forms of the text of Daniel are valuable to study for their own sake quite apart from their relationship to parent text(s) since they represent an early interpretation of the book.106
Jerome translated the book of Daniel into Latin between AD 389 and 392. His Latin Vulgate version was based on the Hebrew and Aramaic text, but he was clearly aware of the earlier versions through the Hexapla. The Old Latin version, which predates Jerome’s Vulgate, is known only from patristic citations and a few fragmentary manuscripts.107
The Old Syriac or Peshitta is a translation of the Bible dating to the third century AD and has been preserved in three versions (the Peshitta, the Syro-Hexapla, and the revision of Jacob of Edessa). There is some question as to exactly when the OT was translated into Syriac and whether or not the translation was made by non-Christian Jews or Jewish Christians. The Peshitta was translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic text but also shows dependency on the Greek version of Theodotion.108
The book of Daniel is written in two languages, Hebrew (1–2:4a; 8–12) and Aramaic (2:4b–7:28). Daniel shares with the book of Ezra this feature of composition in dual languages; Ezra includes portions of four chapters written in Aramaic (4:8–6:18; 7:12–26). Beyond this, only two other verses in the OT contain Aramaic (Ge 31:47; Jer 10:11).
Aramaic is a west-Semitic language closely related to Hebrew and is associated with the Arameans, who lived in northwestern Mesopotamia. Aramaic has a long history of usage in the biblical world, attested by inscriptions written in the Old Aramaic dialect dating back to the ninth century BC. Imperial Aramaic became the dominant language of the ancient Near East, supplanting Akkadian as the lingua franca of the region during the Neo-Assyrian Empire (ca. 1100–600 BC) and the Neo-Babylonian Empire (ca. 600–540 BC). Aramaic reached its zenith as the official language of the Persian Empire (ca. 500–300 BC) but was then replaced by Greek as the lingua franca of the Hellenistic era.
Speculation persists as to why portions of Daniel were written in Aramaic. According to Archer, the subject matter of chs. 2–7 pertained directly to the citizenry of Babylonia and Persia.109 Hence the material was composed in Aramaic and perhaps made available to the Gentile public in some way. Others have suggested the entire book was originally composed in Aramaic but later portions were translated into Hebrew to ensure the book’s canonicity.110 Others consider the Aramaic section of Daniel a literary device on the part of the narrator for the purpose of lending authenticity to the dialogue.111
The reason for the shift from Hebrew to Aramaic and then back to Hebrew in the book of Daniel remains an open question. Maier’s proposal is as plausible as any of the several options offered by biblical interpreters. He suggests that Daniel 1:1–2:4a may reflect notes taken from the (Hebrew) journal of Daniel in his youth, while 2:4b–7:28 is based on more official Aramaic documents of the Babylonian royal archives. Daniel reverts to the Hebrew language of his youth in chs. 8–12—perhaps an indication of his more marginal status in the royal circles at this juncture in his career. The angelic command to “seal . . . the scroll” (12:4) prevented him (or anyone else) from rewriting the entire book in a single language.112
Scholars on both sides of the debate concerning the date of writing for the book of Daniel have marshaled impressive catalogs of linguistic and lexical data comparing the Aramaic of Daniel with other Aramaic documents, all in an effort to connect the Aramaic of Daniel with an earlier or later dialect of the language, depending on the predilection of the proponent assembling the data for an early or late date for the book.113 It is clear that the Aramaic portions of Daniel belong to the official or imperial Aramaic utilized between 700 and 200 BC. It appears distinct from the Aramaic used at Qumran, a later Middle Aramaic dialect in use between 200 BC and AD 200. There seems to be a growing consensus that Baldwin is correct in her observation that “the date of Daniel cannot be decided on linguistic grounds.”114
Two issues have emerged in the scholarly debate related to the canonicity of the book of Daniel. The first concerns that of Daniel’s position in the arrangement of books in the Hebrew Bible as represented by the MT. There Daniel is grouped among the Writings, being placed after the book of Esther and before the books of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles. Presumably, an emphasis on the court stories of the first half of the book (chs. 1–6) made it a logical parallel to the book of Esther as complementary stories about the experience of Jewish displacement during the exile.115 The LXX or Greek version of the OT and other ancient versions included Daniel as the last of the four books of the so-called Major Prophets (along with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel).116 It is assumed that the affinities of Daniel’s visions (chs. 7–12) with the book of Ezekiel made Daniel’s association with the Hebrew Prophets a logical one.117 The English Bible follows the convention of the Greek OT (LXX) in placing Daniel in the collection of the Major Prophets.
Generally, the collection of books known as the Writings (Ketubim or Hagiographa) is considered the latest addition to the canon of the Hebrew Bible (completed sometime between the second century BC and AD 90).118 Critical scholars infer that Daniel’s inclusion in the “third canon” (or Writings) of the Hebrew Bible was further evidence of a later (i.e., Maccabean era) date for the composition of the book.119 The omission of Daniel in the hymn honoring the faithful ancestors of the Israelites in Ben Sira is often cited as supporting evidence for this view.120 In addition, the literary device of pseudepigraphy is seen as a link connecting Daniel with Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon in the collection of the Writings.121
The rebuttal by proponents of the traditional view to the argument that the placement of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible signals a late date for the book is multifaceted.
The differences between the Hebrew and Greek texts of Daniel are not restricted to placement in the canon. The Greek version of Daniel contains three extra chapters of material: the Prayer of Azariah and the Hymn of the Three Young Men (inserted after 3:23); the story of Susanna (inserted before ch. 1 in some Greek versions and after ch. 12 in others); and the story of Bel and the Dragon (placed at the end of the book).125
The Prayer of Azariah and the Hymn of the Three Young Men is the only one of the Additions to Daniel that directly supplements the canonical book of Daniel. The document purports to record the prayer of Azariah (or Abednego) after he and his two friends were bound and thrown into a blazing furnace for refusing to worship the golden image erected by King Nebuchadnezzar (3:12, 21–23). The Hymn of the Three Young Men is the song of praise sung by the three Hebrews while they walked about in the furnace.
The story of Susanna is considered one of the finest short stories in world literature. It recounts the tale of how a young “hero” named Daniel rescues the “heroine” Susanna from false charges of adultery levied against her by two lecherous Jewish elders.
The stories of Bel and the Dragon combine two popular tales in which Daniel destroys the idol Bel and kills the Dragon, worshiped as a “living god” by the Babylonians. Both stories mock the false worship of the pagans and expose the folly of idolatry.
The Additions to Daniel belong to the collection of Jewish writings dating from the intertestamental period of Judaism known in the Protestant church as the Apocrypha. These fourteen (or fifteen, depending on enumeration) books were composed in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic during the intertestamental period of Judaism (ca. 200 BC to AD 100). The books have been preserved in Greek, Latin, Ethiopic, Coptic, Arabic, Syriac, and Armenian. The Apocrypha contains six different genres of literature: didactic, religious, historical, prophetic (epistolary and apocalyptic), and legendary writings.
The books of the Apocrypha were never incorporated into the canon of the Hebrew Bible. They were added one by one to later editions of the Greek versions of the OT. The early Christian church appealed to these additional Jewish documents in its preaching and teaching, to the point where the Synod of Hippo (AD 393) authorized the use of the Apocrypha as canon. The books of the Apocrypha were rejected as canon by the Protestant Reformers but affirmed by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (AD 1546) as part of the Roman Counter-Reformation.126
The NT makes direct appeal to the book of Daniel in only five instances (the citation of Da 7:13 in Mt 24:30; 26:64; Mk 13:26; 14:62; Lk 21:27 in reference to the sign of the coming of the “son of man”).127 Beyond this, allusions to the book of Daniel indexed in the major editions of the Greek NT number in the hundreds.128 The identification of such intertextual relationships between Daniel and the NT are dependent, in part, on one’s definition of what constitutes a NT allusion to an OT precursor text and the degree of imagination biblical scholars apply to the NT text in isolating such allusions.
Numerous NT allusions to the book of Daniel have been identified as a result of the comparative analysis of the two Testaments. For example, Jesus’ reference to the time of “great distress” before the second advent of the Messiah echoes the “distress” Daniel foresees in the end times (Mt 24:21; cf. Da 12:1). Paul appears to associate the “man of lawlessness” who exalts himself “over everything that is called God” (2Th 2:3–4) with the “king” described by Daniel who “speaks against the Most High” (Da 7:24–25). The ledger of the OT faithful in the book of Hebrews preserves the tradition of Daniel’s deliverance from the lions’ den (Heb 11:33; cf. Da 6:21). Additionally, James’s blessing of those who have “persevered” in the face of suffering (Jas 5:11) may be linked to Daniel’s blessing of those who “wait” until the end (Da 12:12).
Daniel’s influence on the NT is most prominent in the book of Revelation. For instance, more than fifty-five percent of the “Index of Quotations” citations in the UBS Greek NT are to the book of Revelation, while forty-two percent of the citations in the Nestle-Aland index are to the book of Revelation. Specific examples include the vision of a terrifying beast with seven heads and ten horns (Rev 12:3; cf. Da 7:7), the reference to the “beast” or “little horn” that speaks boastfully (Rev 13:5; cf. Da 7:8), the description of the Ancient of Days (Rev 1:14; cf. Da 7:9), the vision of the thrones of judgment (Rev 20:4; cf. Da 7:9), and the report of the casting down of the starry host of heaven to earth (Rev 12:4; cf. Da 8:10).129
Evans summarizes that the book of Daniel is important to the NT in terms of Christology, especially Jesus’ understanding of the kingdom of God, his suffering and his rule as Son of Man, the coregency of his disciples, and the day of judgment.130 The discussion of specific examples of intertextuality between the NT and Daniel is taken up in the commentary where pertinent.
The critical study of Daniel has raised numerous questions related to the book’s understanding of certain aspects of ancient Near Eastern chronology and history, as well as the use of select vocabulary items. Beyond this, the inclusion of the apocalyptic literary genre and Daniel’s place in the Hebrew canon are typically cited as further difficulties complicating the study of the book (see Literary Form, as well as Canonicity, above). The catalog of special problems associated with the book of Daniel includes, but is not necessarily restricted to:
These issues are addressed in the commentary as appropriate.
Anderson, Robert A. Daniel: Signs and Wonders. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.
Archer, G. L. “Daniel.” Pages 3–157 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 7. Edited by F. E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985.
Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 21. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1978.
Collins, John J. Daniel: with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. Forms of the Old Testament Literature 20. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.
———. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Davies, P. R. Daniel. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985.
Fewell, D. N. Circle of Sovereignty: Plotting Politics in the Book of Daniel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 72. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988.
Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary 30. Dallas: Word, 1989.
Gowan, Donald E. Daniel. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries 20. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001.
Hartman, Louis F., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Book of Daniel. Anchor Bible 23. New York: Doubleday, 1978.
Heaton, E. Daniel. Torch Bible Commentaries. London: SCM, 1956.
Humphreys, W. L. “A Life-style for Diaspora.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 211–23.
Keil, C. F., and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament: Ezekiel, Daniel. Vol. 9. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
Kraemer, R. S. “Women in Daniel.” Pages 340–44 in Women in Scripture. Edited by C. Meyers. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Lacocque, Andre. The Book of Daniel. Translated by D. Pellauer. Atlanta: John Knox, 1979.
Longman, Tremper. Daniel. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.
Lucas, E. C. Daniel. Apollos Old Testament Commentary. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. New American Commentary 18. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.
Montgomery, J. A. The Book of Daniel. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927.
Porteous, Norman W. Daniel. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965.
Redditt, P. L. Daniel. New Century Bible Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Russell, D. S. Daniel. Daily Study Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981.
Seow, C. L. Daniel. Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003.
Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. “The Book of Daniel.” Pages 19–152 in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 7. Edited by L. E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.
Towner, W. Sibley. Daniel. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1984.
Wallace, Ronald S. The Lord Is King: The Message of Daniel. The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1979.
Wills, L. M. The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 26. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
Wiseman, Donald J. Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. London: Tyndale, 1965.
———. Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Wood, L. J. A Commentary on Daniel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.
Young, E. J. The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949.
1. See, e.g., J. E. Goldingay, Daniel (WBC 30; Dallas: Word, 1989); E. C. Lucas, Daniel (Apollos Old Testament Commentary 2; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002).
2. See, e.g., Goldingay, Daniel, xl; cf. J. G. Baldwin, Daniel (TOTC 21; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1978), 499.
3. J. J. Collins, “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 1:1–2.
4. Cf. B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 612.
5. T. Longman III, Daniel (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 2.
6. Lucas, Daniel, 309.
7. On the Babylonian advance against the Egyptians see J. Bright, A History of Israel, 4th ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 326–27; I. Provan, V. P. Long, and T. Longman III, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 279–80.
8. See Provan, Long, and Longman, A Biblical History of Israel, 276–77.
9. See ibid., 279–85; Bright, A History of Israel, 324–31.
10. T. Longman III and R. B. Dillard, Introduction to the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 373–75.
11. S. R. Miller, Daniel (NAC 18; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 26–27.
12. See, e.g., J. J. Collins, “Daniel,” ABD, 2:30.
13. As cited in J. Braverman, Jerome’s Commentary of Daniel (CBQMS 7; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1978), 116. Jerome parts company with Porphyry at this juncture in Daniel 11:21 since Jerome believed “all these things are spoken prophetically of the AntiChrist who is to arise at the end of time.”
14. See Baldwin, Daniel, 14; on the history of the interpretation of Daniel, see Goldingay, Daniel, xxv–xxxviii.
15. So E. Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 30.
16. J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 88.
17. Goldingay, Daniel, xl.
18. Cf. Collins, “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel,” 1:2.
19. See, e.g., Collins, “Daniel,” ABD, 2:30–31.
20. E.g., Goldingay, Daniel, xxxix–xl; Lucas, Daniel, 309.
21. So Longman and Dillard, Introduction to the Old Testament, 373.
22. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 88.
23. L. J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 18.
24. Ibid., 18–19; cf. Miller, Daniel, 51.
25. See, e.g., P. L. Redditt, Daniel (NCBC; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 27.
26. Ibid., 34.
27. R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 416, n. 76.
28. H. H. Rowley, “The Unity of the Book of Daniel,” in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 264–67.
29. Redditt, Daniel, 33–34.
30. See, e.g., Miller, Daniel, 30–32.
31. See, e.g., R. S. Wallace, The Lord Is King: The Message of Daniel (BST; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1979), 20–22.
32. Cf. K. A. Kitchen, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” in Notes on Some Problems in The Book of Daniel, ed. D. J. Wiseman et al. (London: Tyndale, 1965), 35–44; see J. J. Collins, Daniel (Herm.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 18–120, in his discussion of “Foreign Words” in response to Kitchen.
33. See Kitchen, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” 42–43; cf. Collins (Daniel, 19), who notes this only weighs against the theory that the entire book of Daniel originated in the second century BC.
34. Wallace, The Lord Is King, 16.
35. Rowley, “The Unity of the Book of Daniel,” 264–67.
36. L. F. Hartman and A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel (AB 23; New York: Doubleday, 1978), 43.
37. So Collins, “Daniel,” ABD, 2:33.
38. N. W. Porteous, Daniel (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 20; Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 16.
39. J. J. Collins, Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (FOTL 20; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 42–43.
40. Collins, “Daniel,” ABD, 2:30.
41. Cf. R. Anderson, Daniel: Signs and Wonders (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), xiii.
42. On Daniel as wisdom literature, cf. Collins, “Daniel,” ABD, 2:35; L. L. Grabbe, “A Dan(iel) for All Seasons,” in The Book of Daniel, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 230.
43. Collins, “Daniel,” ABD, 2:35; also Porteous, Daniel, 20.
44. Collins, “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel,” 1:9.
45. Redditt, Daniel, 5–6.
46. See, e.g., Collins, “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel,” 1:10.
47. Ibid., 5–6; C. L. Seow, Daniel (Wycliffe Bible Commentary; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 6–7.
48. A. Lacocque, Daniel in His Time (Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament) (Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina Press, 1988), 27–28.
49. W. S. Towner, Daniel (Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1984), 7.
50. R. Albretz, “The Social Setting of the Aramaic and Hebrew Book of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 1:200–202.
51. Collins, “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel,” 1:10; see also P. R. Davies, Daniel (OTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985), 122.
52. Collins, Daniel, 66.
53. Collins, “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel,” 1:10; Lacocque, Daniel in His Time, 29–30.
54. D. L. Smith-Christopher, “The Book of Daniel,” NIB, 7:57; idem, “Prayers and Dreams: Power and Diaspora Identities in the Social Setting of the Daniel Tales,” in The Book of Daniel, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 1:285–86; see also H. I. Avalos, “The Comedic Function of the Enumerations of the Officials and Instruments in Daniel 3,” CBQ 53 (1991): 580–88.
55. Smith-Christopher, “Prayers and Dreams,” 1:289.
56. Collins, “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel,” 1:11–12.
57. Goldingay, Daniel, 6–7, 320–22.
58. Collins, Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 41.
59. Seow, Daniel, 9,
60. See, e.g., A. Lacocque, The Book of Daniel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979), 26; W. L. Humphreys, “A Life-Style for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel,” JBL 92 (1973): 211–23.
61. Collins, Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 41.
62. E.g., Smith-Christopher, “The Book of Daniel”; Gowan, Daniel, 24–28.
63. For these two types of court stories, see Collins, Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 119.
64. Cf. Miller, Daniel, 26–28; Baldwin, Daniel, 19–29.
65. Cf. Gowan, Daniel, 38–39.
66. E.g., Towner, Daniel, 4–6; Frederick J. Murphy, “Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature,” NIB, 7:2.
67. Longman, Daniel, 24; cf. Baldwin, Daniel, 29, 46.
68. Longman and Dillard, Introduction to the Old Testament, 388–89.
69. Cf. Wallace, The Lord Is King, 27–29.
70. Collins, “Daniel,” ABD, 2:35.
71. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 4.
72. Cf. Collins, Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 6–23. On the characteristics of apocalyptic literature, see D. Aune, Revelation (WBC 52a; Dallas: Word, 1997), lxxvii–xc; J. J. Collins, ed., Apocalypse: Towards the Morphology of a Genre (Semeia 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1979); L. Morris, Apocalyptic (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972).
73. Collins, Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 4.
74. Lucas, Daniel, 310.
75. So Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 5, 7.
76. Ibid., 7.
77. Murphy, “Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature,” 6–7.
78. So Smith-Christopher, “The Book of Daniel,” 4.
79. Collins, “Daniel,” ABD, 2:35.
80. Collins, “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel,” 5.
81. Cf. Longman and Dillard, Introduction to the Old Testament, 389.
82. Ibid., 386.
83. S. Niditch, The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition (HSN 30; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983), 186–88, 243–48.
84. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 7. Collins’ complete list of twelve features characterizing the genre of apocalypse includes: cosmogony, primordial events, recollection of the past, ex eventu prophecy, persecution, other eschatological upheavals, judgment/destruction of the wicked, judgment/destruction of the world, judgment/destruction of otherworldly beings, cosmic transformation, resurrection, and others forms of afterlife.
85. Two independent studies employing differing methodologies place Zechariah 9–14 in the first half of the fifth century BC. See A. E. Hill, Malachi (AB 25D; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 80–84, 395–400 (utilizing a linguistic methodology); and C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Zechariah 9–14 (AB 24C; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 22–31 (utilizing archaeological and social scientific methodologies).
86. Collins, Daniel, 26.
87. J. E. Goldingay, “The Book of Daniel: Three Issues,” Themelios 3 (1977): 45.
88. Cf. Lucas, Daniel, 269–72; Goldingay, Daniel, 282. The texts cited in this collection typically include: the Marduk Prophecy, the Shulgi Prophecy, the Dynastic Prophecy, the Uruk Prophecy, and Text A (cf. Lucas notes that Text B and LBAT 1543 are also similar to this group). See A. K. Grayson and W. G. Lambert, “Akkadian Prophecies,” JCS 18 (1964): 7–30; A. K. Grayson, Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1975); H. Hunger and S. A. Kaufman, “A New Akkadian Prophecy Text,” JAOS 95 (1975): 371–75; W. G. Lambert, The Background of Jewish Apocalyptic (London: Athlone, 1978); T. Longman, “The Marduk Prophecy,” COS, 1:480–81; idem, “The Dynastic Prophecy,” COS, 1:481–82. Compare M. Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (WAW 12; Atlanta: SBL, 2003).
89. E.g., Baldwin, Daniel, 66–67; Miller, Daniel, 47.
90. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 87–88; Lucas, Daniel, 309.
91. Wallace, The Lord Is King, 23–27.
92. Cf. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 23–25, who admits postexilic prophecy as one matrix for biblical apocalyptic.
93. Cf. Wallace, The Lord Is King, 20–22; Longman and Dillard, Introduction to the Old Testament, 392–93.
94. E.g., Lucas, Daniel, 310–11.
95. Cf. Longman and Dillard, Introduction to the Old Testament, 389.
96. Lucas, Daniel, 311.
97. D. I. Block, “Ezekiel, Theology of,” NIDOTTE, 4:616.
98. Ibid.
99. Davies, Daniel, 86.
100. J. A. Montgomery, The Book of Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 12.
101. Baldwin, Daniel, 44–45.
102. See the discussions of the Hebrew text and ancient versions of Daniel in Collins, Daniel, 2–24; Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 72–84; Lucas, Daniel, 19–22; and Montgomery, The Book of Daniel, 11–57.
103. Lucas, Daniel, 21.
104. Ibid., 19.
105. Collins, Daniel, 3; cf. P. W. Flint, “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” in The Book of Daniel, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 2:329–67.
106. A. A. Di Lella, “The Textual History of Septuagint-Daniel and Theodotion-Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 2:604–5.
107. See Montgomery, The Book of Daniel, 29–32.
108. See K. D. Jenner, “Syriac Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 2:608–37; R. A. Taylor, The Peshitta of Daniel (Peshitta Institute Monograph 7; Leiden: Brill, 1994).
109. G. L. Archer, “Daniel,” EBC, 7:6.
110. Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 14.
111. See discussion in Longman and Dillard, Introduction to the Old Testament, 389.
112. G. Maier, Der Prophet Daniel (Wuppertaler Studienbibel; Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1982), 98–100.
113. Cf. Kitchen, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” 31–79; Collins, Daniel, 12–23.
114. Baldwin, Daniel, 35; cf. Lucas, Daniel, 308: “The evidence of the [Greek] loan-words is now seen to be quite indecisive with regard to dating. The character of the Hebrew and Aramaic could support a date in the fifth or fourth century for the extant written form of the book, but does not demand a second-century date.”
115. So Seow, Daniel, 2.
116. Cf. Baldwin, Daniel, 71.
117. So Seow, Daniel, 2.
118. Cf. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon, 138–53.
119. Ibid., 355.
120. Cf. A. Jeffery, “The Book of Daniel, Introduction and Exegesis,” IB, 6:349.
121. D. N. Freedman, “Canon of the Old Testament,” IDBSup, 133.
122. Miller, Daniel, 25.
123. Cf. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon, 157, 160.
124. E.g., W. S. LaSor, D. A. Hubbard, and F. W. Bush, Old Testament Survey, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 574.
125. See D. A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 222–43.
126. On the history of the canonical status of the OT Apocrypha, see ibid., 26–41.
127. According to the Scripture Index of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (26th ed.), 66–67. The 27th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece (796–98) includes citations to Daniel 3:6 [Mt 13:42, 50]; Daniel 9:27 [Mt 4:5; 24:15; Mk 13:14]; Daniel 11:31 [Mt 24:15; Mk 13:14]; Daniel 12:11 [Mk 13:14]; Maier (Der Prophet Daniel, 63) agrees with these.
128. E.g., the Scripture Index of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th ed.) lists more than 130 allusions to Daniel in the NT, while the tables in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.) list more than two hundred allusions to Daniel in the NT.
129. See G. K. Beale, “The Influence of Daniel on the Structure and Theology of John’s Apocalypse,” JETS 27 (1984): 413–23.
130. C. A. Evans, “Daniel in the New Testament: Visions of God’s Kingdom,” in The Book of Daniel, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 2:526; see also the discussion in Collins, Daniel, 90–113.