[Draft May 16, 1998; 3rd revision draft Dec/2000.................Intro/Menu]
Section One: The Dead Sea Scrolls Manuscript Data
...............................................................................................................................
1. Do we have any copies of the Book of Daniel
that either date BEFORE 165 BC, or somewhat later ones that virtually require the existence of the Book of
Daniel before that time?
Yes, we very probably have the latter.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have an extensive collection of both
manuscripts of the biblical book of Daniel, as well as discussions and
references to his work in other works.
There are now
eight mss. of Daniel from Qumran (1QDan/a, 1QDan/b, 4QDan/a, 4QDan/b, 4QDan/c,
4QDan/d, 4QDan/e, pap6QDan). This represents every chapter of Daniel, as Flint
observes [HI:EMDSS:43]:
"Every chapter of Daniel is represented in these manuscripts,
except for Daniel 12. However, this does not mean that the book lacked the
final chapter at Qumran, since Dan 12:10 is quoted in the Florilegium (4Q174), which explicitly
tells us that it is written in 'the book of Daniel, the Prophet.'"
This group of
documents represents the largest representation of ANY biblical book at Qumran,
exceeding even the number of Jeremiah scrolls.
In a more recent
work, Flint gives this table of the major Daniel mss [HI:DSS50B:53]:
|
Item |
Manuscript |
Number |
Content Range |
Date Copied |
|
1 |
1QDan(a) |
1Q71 |
1:10 to 2:6 |
Herodian |
|
2 |
1QDan(b) |
1Q72 |
3:22-30 |
Herodian |
|
3 |
4QDan(a) |
4Q112 |
1:16 to 11:16 |
Mid-1st c. BCE |
|
4 |
4QDan(b) |
4Q113 |
5:10 to 8:16 |
Ca. 20-50 CE |
|
5 |
4QDan(c) |
4Q114 |
10:5 to 11:29 |
Late 2nd c.
BCE (note: Ulrich, DJD 16) |
|
6 |
4QDan(d) |
4Q115 |
3:23 to 7:23? |
Ca. mid-1st c.
BCE |
|
7 |
4QDan(e) |
4Q116 |
9:12-17? |
1st half of 2nd c. BCE
(but this is presumably a typo; it is dated elsewhere to Late 2nd c.) |
|
8 |
Pap6QDan |
6Q7 |
8:16? To 11:38 |
Ca. 50 CE |
Please notice Items #5 and #7, portions from
the last half of the Book of Daniel, which were COPIED (not
"WRITTEN"!) between 150 and 100 BC...
If these mss were COPIES of some antecedent
mss, what might we reasonably infer about its exemplar?
Think about this for a second. Let's say you
are part of the team that is excavating the site, and you find this scroll. You
look at the handwriting/layout/etc. and recognize it to be that customary to 150-100
B.C. What are the possible dates of the origination of the content of that scroll?
1.
Whoever wrote the scroll, invented the content as they wrote it
(making the date of the scroll IDENTICAL TO the date of the content, and making
the copy the autograph itself).
2.
Whoever wrote the scroll, made a copy from an antecedent
scroll--a scroll itself older
than the one YOU found, by definition. (Making the content even
older than the antecedent scroll, assuming THAT scroll-writer didn't invent the
content).
3.
[Number 2, but the copy is made from someone reading
orally the antecedent scroll.]
What this would mean for
dating, of course, is that UNLESS THEY WERE MAKING DANIEL UP ON THE FLY, this scroll would presuppose an earlier scroll
(pushing the content, again, earlier also).
And since the antecedent
copy could also be a copy of a copy, this cycle would need to be
repeated back to the original acceptance
(not its writing, btw) of the
document as being "worthy of copying". In other words, the content
must be worthy of the expense/cost of copying, and the HIGHER the expense (and
correlatively, the HIGHER the number of copies found), the more valuable the content must be
considered.
For example, take a couple
of other manuscripts of Daniel from there: 4QDan(a) and 4QDan(b). The latter is
dated 20-50 AD, and the former is dated a century earlier (50 BC). Ulrich
studied the orthography and writes:
"Given this pair of
facts, the fertile suggestion arises that 4Qdan(b)
may have been copied from 4Qdan(a)...by a scribe who was intent upon
reproducing the text in the more
contemporary, more full and clear and interpretative orthography of
the late Second Temple period." [DSSOB:162]
This, of course, makes
Dan(b) a century younger than its
exemplar Dan(a). If we had only found Dan(b)--with
its date of 20-50ad--would we have been correct in ascribing the content of
Dan(a) to that time period? Of course not--in that case the content was at least a century older.
Scribal copies (mss) are not
like other archeological data. Other data may not require an 'antecedent'
dating. For example, a monument celebrating a specific event may only witness
to the date of that event (plus whatever time it took to create the monument,
get enough breathing room to do so, etc.). But a manuscript copy, always
(except in the miniscule probability that we have an actual autograph) requires the prior existence of an
exemplar, and requires some period
for that exemplar to have become 'worthy enough' (to whoever funded the
copying) to copy. In the case of economic and legal texts, this period may be
short; and in the case of 'claiming authority' texts, a good bit longer.
Therefore, a manuscript copy dated at 100 BC, for example, witnesses to far more than the simple fact that its
contents were existence at that date--it rather represents an end-point to an
earlier (and generally much longer) process of conception, origination,
distribution, social acceptance, "canonizing" (in the secular sense
of literature that becomes the "important to read" lit), and then
copying.
And, that these copies are themselves copies of copies can be seen
from the fact that it is generally accepted that Daniel was not written at
Qumran:
"But not all texts
found at Qumran were composed by the sect; many, like the books of Enoch and
Daniel, were part of the wider literary heritage of Judaism...There is no clear case of an apocalypse actually
authored within the Qumran community. " [Collins, HI:DSS50B:404]
"Further, not a single document which has been identified as an apocalypse
appears to have originated within the Qumran community...none of these
documents was produced by the Qumran community." [Aune, HI:DSS50B:626]
In other words, unless the
Qumran community somehow had the "original, final, canonical" copy of
Daniel from which to make Dan(c) and Dan(e), then these manuscripts were made
from copies themselves--again pushing the date back. Since the Qumran community
is generally understood to have originated in 150 BC, this means that Daniel
(as we have it today) was in existence at that time (see the remarks by Collins
and Aune above).
Ulrich notes that the Daniel
manuscripts in Qumran reflect a different textual tradition than the Masoretic
text:
"Moreover, since
neither Qumran manuscript agrees with the MT in a single reading against the
other Qumran manuscript, we can conclude that 4Qdan(a) and 4Qdan(b) stand in one text tradition over against that
exemplified in the Masoretic textus receptus."
[DSSOB:162]
What this entails (since 60%
of the DSS are proto-Masoretic) is that Daniel had already circulated widely
enough and been copied enough--prior to 150 BC-- to have created (at least) two
textual "families". Minor textual variants, of course, might mean
very little for dating purposes, but textual 'traditions' presuppose a
"point of divergence" somewhere in the past. [This is a bit
oversimplified, since "cross-fertilization" of traditions is known to
have occurred.] To create a 'tradition' the document has to create multiple "generations"
of copying (not just lots of copying of the original), and to believe this occurred
within some 15 years of the date of authorship (i.e., written in 165, and
having been copied many, many times--along separate linear paths-- by 150) is
quite a stretch.
To understand why this
growth of two textual families within 15 years is highly doubtful, one need
only consider the "useful life" of a scroll. Since most literature at
the time was used for oral performance/reading, one didn't need a lot of
copies. Accordingly, copies were made on an as-needed basis (and for personal
library reasons). Since scrolls might exist and be used for a century or more (we have mss at
Qumran that are dated 3rd century--a century
before the Qumran community came into existence), the need to make
'generational' copies simply wouldn't exist--the exemplar itself would have
been available (and in good shape). [Older scholarship believed in strong
definitions of textual 'families', in which geographical isolation factors
would ensure that the generational copying processes would not interact with
other, but this has been largely discounted.] What the existence of two textual
traditions before Qumran/150 means, is that the origination date of the
"original original" would most likely be much earlier than a miniscule
15 years.
So, if an early copy/ text were found at Qumran
at all (and we were sure the content wasn't written there), how far back could
we safely infer its origination?
What is strange here, is
that even non-conservative scholars will say
'Pre-Maccabean' to this question (because of the time requirement for 'literary
diffusion')--EXCEPT FOR DANIEL!
Waltke complains out this inconsistency
[BibSac—V133 #532,Oct 1976,p.322; emphasis
mine]:
"The discovery of
manuscripts of Daniel at Qumran dating from the Maccabean period renders it highly improbable that the book was composed during
the time of the Maccabees.
"In Apercus preliminaires Dupont-Sommer
reports that “The owners of seventeen different fragments of Daniel are known,
but there are certainly several others.” This evidence demonstrates the
popularity of Daniel with the Qumran Covenanteers. One Dead Sea scroll cannot
be dated later than 120 B.C. on the basis of its paleography.
"Equivalent manuscript
finds at Qumran of other books
where the issue of predictive prophecy is not in question have led scholars to repudiate a Maccabean date for
their compositions. For example, Brownlee, professor of religion at
the Claremont Graduate School, writes:
'Frank Cross has indicated
that one of the Psalms manuscripts
from Cave Four attests so-called Maccabean psalms at a period which is roughly
contemporary with their supposed composition.
If this is true, it would seem that we should abandon the idea of any of the
canonical psalms being of Maccabean date, for each song had to win its way in
the esteem of the people before it could be included in the sacred compilation
of the Psalter. Immediate entrée for any of them is highly improbable.'
"Burrows follows the
same line of reasoning with respect to the date of Ecclesiastes:
'The script [of two scrolls
of Ecclesiastes found in Cave Four] indicates
a date near the middle of the second century B.C. This is not much later than
the time at which many scholars have thought the book was originally written.
We cannot tell, of course, how old the book was when this particular copy was
made, but the probability of its composition
in the third century, if not earlier, is somewhat enhanced by finding the
manuscript probably not written much after 150 B.C.
"Likewise, Myers,
professor of Old Testament at the Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg,
Pennsylvania, wrote, “The discovery of a fragment of Chronicles at Qumran renders
a Maccabean date virtually impossible for any part of Chronicles.”
"But critical scholars have refused to draw the same
conclusion in the case of Daniel even
though the evidence is identical. For example, in the work cited
above by Brownlee, he avers the 165 B.C. date in
spite of the evidence. His refusal to allow the evidence to lead him
to the more probable conclusion that Daniel was composed before the Maccabean
era is the more astonishing because along with others he thinks that the late
pious forger of Daniel made a mistake in one
of his predictions. He reasoned, “The predicted end of Antiochus in
11:40–45 differs from the stories
of his death in I and II Maccabees and hence it presumably represents real
prediction on the part of the author of Daniel which was never fulfilled.” But if this be so, it seems incredible that the
alleged contemporaries would have held his work in such high regard referring
to him as “Daniel the prophet,” a title bestowed on him in a
florilegium found in 4Q."
In fact, in the case of the
Psalms, they were re-dated from post-Maccabean to Persian period dates, because
of this 'literary diffusion time' requirement!:
"The literary criticism of Daniel must now be
reassessed against the manuscript discoveries at Qumran, where several copies
of the work were found. In addition, two fragments located in Cave 1 have
proved on examination to be related palaeographically to the large Isaiah
scroll (1QIsaa), dated by Millar Burrows about 100 B.C. All these documents, of
course, are copies from the Maccabean age or later, making it necessary to
remark, as Burrows has observed, that the
originals came from a period several centuries in advance of the earliest date
to which these manuscripts and fragments can be assigned on any basis of
reckoning. [M. Burrows, The Dead
Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking, 1955), p. 118
] Part of the reason for this is that the ancient Hebrews generally allowed an interval of
time to elapse between the autograph and its recognition as canonical Scripture
by its readers. This process had the effect of ensuring the
consonance of the particular work with the ethos of the Torah, which
constituted the standard of revelation and spirituality.
"In support of this position, as noted above, is
the fragmentary copy of the Psalter from Qumran (4QPsaa), which shows quite
clearly on the same grounds that the collection of canonical psalms had already
been fixed by the Maccabean period. [F.M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Study
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961), p. 165.] As a result, scholars have advanced those compositions formerly
regarded as "Maccabean psalms" to the Persian period. All
future literary-critical studies of Daniel will have to take proper account of
this objective evidence.
"Although the literary criticism of certain other
OT books is inconclusive in some areas, it is now evident from the findings at
Qumran that no canonical writing can be dated
later than the end of the Persian period, i.e., much beyond 350 B.C.
Compilations of material such as the Psalter must also be governed by this
principle, as noted above, even though individual compositions may come from
widely separated periods." [R.K. Harrison, "Historical and Literary Criticism
of the New Testament", in EBC, vol. 1]
Now, if the playing field
were really level, we could pack up and go home, confident that the manuscript
evidence was allowed to speak, but it's not quite that easy. As long as we have
Daniel commentators starting out with frameworks like this:
"We need to assume that the vision [of Daniel
8] as a whole is a prophecy after the fact.
Why? Because human beings are unable accurately to predict future events
centuries in advance and to say that Daniel could do so, even on the
basic of a symbolic revelation vouchsafed to him by God and interpreted by an
angel, is to fly in the face of the
certainties of human nature. So what we have here is in fact not a
road map of the future laid down in the sixth century B.C. but an
interpretation of the events of the author's own time, 167-164 B.C..."
[Towner, Daniel, Interpeter's Bible,
John Knox:1984, p. 115, cited in [DLIOT:332]]
Or even careful scholarly
statements like this:
"Dan. 11.40-45
describes the military campaign of Antiochus Epiphanes against Egypt in the
form of a prophecy, and attaches to the events a genuine prophecy about the
'end of times'. The text then,
with the exception of the concluding v. 45, is a vaticinium ex eventu, that is
a record of the events of the recent past in the form of a prophecy for the
future. The concluding verse, however--the foretelling of the death
of Antiochus Epiphanes--is a genuine prophecy,
from a time before this death. The
genuineness of the prophecy is guaranteed by the subsequent unfolding of
events. The events prophesied in Dan. 11.45 do not happen, or rather
do not happen in the manner foretold." [HI:TTHT:80; in other words, if the
prediction is TRUE, then it is not
prophecy; if it is FALSE, then it IS prophecy...btw, most evangelical
commentators don't believe 11.40-45 is prophecy about Antiochus at all--but
rather that this refers to an eschatological Anti-Christ figure instead]
then the manuscript evidence
will not be allowed to speak (as it is allowed to speak in cases not involving predictive
prophecy).
(Is it any wonder the conservative evangelical feels
frustration at this apparent double-standard, this Procrustean approach to the
manuscript evidence?)
This is not, of course, to
assert that all who hold to a late-date of Daniel are anti-supernaturalists!
There are many good, "moderate" evangelicals who hold to this
view--although I suspect it is more often due to the realities of controlling
paradigms in scholarly discussion. Controlling paradigms are necessary for
extended research, and actually for finding the holes in the paradigm. For
specialists outside of a specific field (e.g. paleography), trying to utilize
insights and results from a different field (e.g., Danielic studies),
dependence on the latter's controlling paradigms may be the only option--there
being no practical way for them to validate it outside of their specialty. So, by themselves, they are not 'evil'.
But when the paradigm becomes a 'social force' against renewal, innovation, new
paradigm suggestion, and self-critical analysis, it takes its place in the hall
of "stifling and oppressive traditions"...In the final section of
this series, I will show how I think a late-date view can be harmonized (in
good conscience) with high-views of Scripture and Jesus' words in the Gospels.
I think the position is difficult to maintain, but I do feel that it can be
granted as possible/reasonable.
Let's try to see further WHY
the presence of a MSS of Daniel at Qumran would normally imply a pre-Maccabean date.
[The non-conservative quotes above already pointed this out--the issue of 'time
for acceptance' requirements.]
Let's couple this gap of 15 years (maximum, from authorship to
copy), between the alleged date of Daniel and this existing copy, with the status of Daniel
at Qumran [Flint, HI:EMDSS:44]:
"The fourth issue: What was the status of the book of Daniel
at Qumran? Was it regarded as Scripture, or
only as an important writing alongside many others? We may conclude
that Daniel was regarded as a scriptural book at Qumran for two reasons. First,
the large number of preserved copies is a clear indication of Daniel's
importance among the Qumran covenanters. Second, the way in which Daniel was
used at Qumran is indicative of its authoritative status; for instance, the Florilegium (4Q174) quotes Dan 12:10
as 'written in the book of Daniel, the Prophet' (frgs. 1-3 ii 3-4a). This reference has two implications: that Daniel was
regarded by the writer as Scripture and that it may have belonged among the
'Prophets'."
And
11QMelch:15ff:
"This is
the day of peace about which God spoke of old through the words of Isaiah the
prophet, who said: How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the
messenger who announces peace, of the messenger of good who announces salvation,
saying to Zion: 'your God reigns'. Its interpretation: the mountains are the
prophets...And the messenger is the anointed
of the spirit about whom Daniel spoke...and the messenger of good who announces salvation is the one
about whom it is written that he will send him to comfort the afflicted, to
watch over the afflicted ones of Zion"
Now, let's
consider the timing of this carefully.
The later-dater scholars would have to have Daniel written (1)
during the Revolt--VERY QUICKLY!; or (2) after the revolt, when the gentile
powers had been overcome. Since this last option is much more probable (given
the generally time-consuming nature of an armed revolt), this would put the
pseudonymous composition somewhere no earlier than 165 BC. [But this removes,
by the way, some of the argument as to WHY the book was composed. If it was
composed to 'encourage' the resistance, it would have been produced during the
revolt, somehow given authoritative/scriptural status--in spite of its unknown
authorship, and widely distributed, ALL WITHIN A PERIOD OF MONTHS!]
The Qumran community probably moved to the Dead Sea area around
150 BC. Interaction with the religious community outside it at that point would
have been very limited, and largely polemical. This would have meant that
Daniel would have had to have been accepted as FULLY INSPIRED Scripture (not
just 'likeable') by the event of
separation--some 10-15 years after its alleged origination! What kind of social
forces could have produced such a miracle?! It was an allegedly pseudonymous
work, chapters 1-6 were even supportive of cooperation with foreign rule(!!!!),
and it even contained a 'prediction' (or many, depending on the commentator)
which was patently false (under the normal interpretation of the text)--how
could this possibly have been overwhelming to a separatist group? To all
Israel? And especially so quickly?
These folk at Qumran called Daniel a 'prophet'. They--eyewitnesses
of these events--considered his words prophetic of the times/events. They 'were
there' and they did not consider Daniel's words to have been merely a
'description' of the past; He was describing THEIR future. And this is NOT a
group removed in time from the Revolt, remember.
The numbers simply don't add up. You just cannot get from
questionable authorship and dubious milieu to full acceptance (of the WHOLE
BOOK) as a codified piece of Scripture(!)
by a contemporary, rigorist, separatist group in 10-15 years [this, of course,
is what the non-conservative scholars are conceding in the above quotes]. It MUST
have been considered scriptural LONG before the break, and anything long enough
to create this authority puts the window earlier than the events in
question--and we are back to 'real, predictive prophecy'.
Remember, too, that this was
not simply a matter of they 'liked Daniel, because they liked apocalyptic
literature'. There were tons of books and writings they "liked", but
they never ascribed 'prophetic status' to these. There were tons of works they
considered "authoritative", but they never ascribed 'prophetic
status' to these.
........................................................................................................................................................................
Pushback:
"Whoa, whoa, whoa, Glenn...what about the Book of Jubilees? It was written
160 BC, and was accepted by Qumran as scripture, being used in prooftexts,
even. This could support the 'within 15 years' possibility..."
Good question, but the 'rub'
is in the difference between 'authoritative' and 'scripture'...they are NOT the
same, and the difference is very important.
Take, for example, the
structure of "authority" in traditional Protestantism. We begin with
sacrosanct Scripture, which everyone (every traditional Protestant, that is)
has to ascribe "primary" or "ultimate" authority to. The
various sub-groups (i.e., denominational bodies), however, have somewhat
different interpretations of the
Scripture, and these interpretations are set forth in "Creeds". For
that denomination, those Creeds are 'authoritative'--to disagree with the Creed
is to relinquish membership in that sub-group. The authority of the Creed,
however binding it may be for the sub-group constituted by it, is "secondary"
to the "primary" authority. The Creed's (secondary, but 'real')
authority is derived from the primary/ultimate authority of Scripture. The
theoretical difference between the two is clearly understood within the
sub-group. The secondary character of the Creed's authority can be seen in its
usage of the Primary authority: it will use the scripture as proof texts,
exemplars, warrants in arguments, etc. The Creed attempts to explain or interpret the primary
authority, in an 'authoritative' way for that tradition. [Often,
the Creeds will begin with a statement to this effect--that Scripture is the
'sole authority' and that the Creed is the 'authoritative understanding' of
Scripture. This often explicit, sometimes implicit, referral makes the
qualitative difference between the types of "authority" manifest.]
But typically, the authority
structure doesn't stop at just these two levels (ultimate, derived), but
additional levels can appear. Certain 'interpretations' of the Creeds themselves can appear (as is
common in ALL world religious traditions!), and certain 'teachers' can assert
their authority to interpret both Scripture and Creeds (common in cults and
sects).
What this means is that just
because a Creed or a specific teacher's interpretation (or even just doctrine)
is cited as an authority, this does NOT mean it has 'primary' authority at all.
This is true even in the case where the teacher claims that "God revealed
to him/her the meaning of this scripture passage"--the resulting
interpretation is authoritative (if the teacher can 'sell this'...) and
'revealed', but it is still the scripture that will be "used" in
'advancing the cause'. The interpretation will simply become the 'inspired'
interpretation and will be no longer questioned, and only the scripture passage
itself will be used as proof-text. [Milder forms of this exist, of course, as
when a famous/popular author is cited, without making exalted claims for his or
her teaching.]
Another way of saying this
is that primary, authoritative documents tend to generate secondary
'interpretative' or expansive documents. For example, Prophetic texts often
generate commentaries (e.g., Isaiah generated pesher-commentaries on Isaiah),
and in those days, famous heroes/authors "generated" pseudepigraphical
works/expansions/legends attached to their names (e.g., Moses/Joshua/Samuel
generate spurious/devotional titles bearing their names).
Primary documents take a
long, long time to be accepted, whereas secondary documents are 'instantly'
accepted--by the group that produced them, or by a group in 'kinship' with that
group. For example, if some one in Protestantism came forth with a book and
said that it was a 'lost' book of
the Sacred Scriptures, how long do you think it would take for Protestantism to
accept it (if ever)? Right--forever! If, on the other hand, a group of Reformed
theologians decided they didn't like the current dominant creed and then
decided to craft a NEW 'sub-creed', how long would it take the membership of
that sub-group (and closely aligned sub-groups) to accept that new sub-creed?
Right, very little time at all. The differences between the two types of
authorities make massive differences in canonical/scriptural acceptance rates.
In our case, we will see all of these elements at play: original
primary scripture, interpretations/retelling/commentary on those documents,
pseudo-titles, and 'revealed' interpretations, given to teachers. And, the only
way we will know which of all of these (if any) are the original authority will
be by examining 'what interprets what'. If document X professes to
authoritatively expound/explain document Y, then document Y has a 'higher'
authority and X's authority derives from Y.
So, in the case of Qumran,
Daniel, and Jubilees:
·
First of all, notice that the supposed founder of
Qumran (the Teacher of Righteousness) specifically made such "only I can
interpret the Law" types of claims. Consider Martinez' reconstructions of
the origin of the site (notice as you read this the distinctions between the "biblical
legislation" [primary authority] and "interpretation"
[derivative]):
"Of particular concern
was a certain way of interpreting biblical
legislation concerning the temple, worship, and the purity of
persons and of objects. This special halakhah [tn: oral law, especially about
rules of purity and practice] is based on the Teacher of Righteousness being aware of having received through
divine revelation the correct interpretation of the biblical text.
It is also based on his followers seeing this
interpretation as revealed and binding. This awareness of having
received revelation would induce the Teacher of Righteousness to proclaim the
end of time as imminent, the awareness of divine selection and predestination,
the inadequacy of the temple and current worship, etc., In addition he was led
to suggest a whole string of special halakhot conditioning daily life, and attempt to force the practice of this interpretation
on all the members of the Essene movement. The rejection of these pretensions by the majority of the
members of the Essene movement, and their disapproval of this halakhah,
were to end in forcing the group of the Teacher of Righteousness and his
disciples to retreat to the isolation of the wilderness." [DSSTQTE:lii+]
In other words, this Teacher
told the community, in which he was a member (i.e., Essenes), that his interpretation of
the biblical law was correct. Those that actually believed him ended up leaving
with him and forming a smaller sub-group. Within this sub-group His
interpretations were authoritative (and could be appealed to). Outside of that
group, obviously, such an appeal would be worthless. Any arguments between the
Qumranites and non-Qumranites would have to fall back on primary authority
(something they BOTH agreed was authoritative) to get anywhere.
·
Secondly, let' notice that the existence of secondary literature (e.g.,
re-tellings, paraphrases, commentaries, halakhot) presuppose a difference in status from the primary literature:
"Biblical
interpretation, as we have come to understand better in recent years, is bound
up with the transmission of the biblical text. There is no firm distinction
between variant readings in the biblical text, biblical paraphrases, such as
the so-called 4QReworked Pentateuch and elaborated
works of "the rewritten Bible" which include implicit exegesis and
longer additions to the biblical narrative, such as the Book of Jubilees.
In this sense, it seems that no clear-cut border can be established between the
Bible and its reworkings....On the other hand (and this has perhaps not been
granted enough attention) it seems to me that the
very existence of biblical commentaries as well as implicit biblical
interpretations and re-use of biblical phrases in the Qumran texts, to the
extent that many of them are a mosaic of quotations and allusions, clearly show
that the world of the Qumran sect is distinct from that of the Bible,
in spite of the high degree of resemblance between them, a resemblance
under-scored by the use of biblical language and biblical motifs in the sect's
writings. Despite all this, the world of the
sect is a post-classical world in which the entire classical oeuvre - the Bible
- is available and can be alluded to, interpreted, reworked and actualized.
It is true that interpretation of ancient passages exists already in the Hebrew
Bible itself, but the considerable volume of
allusions in Qumran to many books of the Hebrew Bible clearly distinguishes the
Qumran writings (as well as other writings of the period) from those of the
classical period. Moreover, many
interpretations of explicit quotations of the Hebrew Bible are found in Qumran,
but scarcely of any other work. This fact by itself shows that post-biblical and sectarian works were not
considered as equal in rank to the classical ones. Typically,
eschatological mysteries, so essential for the Qumran sect, can only be revealed by re-interpreting the ancient,
classical writings of the prophets (lQpHab 7:4-5: "The Teacher
of Righteousness, to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of His servants the prophets"...),
and not by prophecy. [HI:BPEUIB:101-2]
And this will end up being a
main differentiator between primary (i.e., 'classical') authorities and
secondary (i.e., 'derivative') ones.
So, was Daniel considered primary
authority at Qumran?
Well, by just about any
measurement or method, the answer is unequivocally 'yes';
1.
Daniel is said specifically to be a Prophet (this
title is only given to Ezekiel, Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel, the eschatological Prophet
'like unto Moses', Habakkuk, Jeremiah, Samuel. And David is said to write the
Psalms 'by prophecy' in 11QPs(a) 27:11).
2.
This work (all 12 chapters) is referred to a
"the book of Daniel" (i.e., written and complete)
3.
This work is present essentially in the MT form we
have today.
4.
It is cited as a full authority, including with the
'as is written' formula [ "as is written in the book of Daniel, the
prophet: (Dan 12.3 here)"]
5.
It generated extra, transitory works associated with
his name (e.g., the Pseudo-Danielic mss, 4Q243-245) and was itself the subject of
interpretation (e.g., pesher, midrash, or expansions).
There are 5 or 6
extra-biblical texts 'associated' with Daniel, and some of these 'look like'
re-telling, dependency, or explanation of the canonical Daniel:
·
Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242) has a
tale that bears some resemblance to Daniel 4. Although many scholars see some
kind of dependence here (in spite of some huge differences), with this text
being older than the canonical Daniel, I find that to be very hard to have
confidence in. Scholars argue back and forth whether any dependence can be
assumed or shown [cf. David N. Freedman, “The Prayer of Nabonidus,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
145 (1957): 31-32, who argues for 'no literary dependence']. It looks more like someone is trying to
'fill in the gaps' of what happened during the 10-year absence of Nabonidus
from his capital, by using a Daniel-type motif. He seems to try to 'cram' or
'smuggle' the entire narrative into the prayer! It's even written in Aramaic
(this is unusual), perhaps in emulation of Daniel. In any case, it just a easy
to understand it as being 'inspired' by the canonical Daniel. Vasholz notes:
"In addition, more
attention should be given to the “Prayer of Nabonidus” (150 B.C.?) from Qumran cave
four. It is not necessary to hold that Daniel is dependent on this prayer as a
literary source. “It is not necessary to think of the Prayer of Nabonidus as a
literary source of the canonical Daniel, or even to give the prayer priority in
terms of its written composition.”
The evidence either way is sparse, but without the a priori that Daniel must be
second-century there is no more reason to believe that Daniel is dependent on
the “Prayer” than that the “Prayer” is dependent on Daniel. We have no precedent, however, of a canonical Jewish
book dependent on an intertestamental noncanonical literary source, while there is abundant evidence that the reverse is
true. The “Prayer” too, of course, is uncomfortably close to the
alleged date for the canonical Daniel. Finally, A. York has pointed out that
11QtgJob corresponds to MT 40:10–11 and reflects indisputably the vocabulary of
Dan 3:13, 19; 4:33, 34; 5:20. “The numerous resemblances to the Daniel passages
can hardly be coincidental.” Can these be allusions to the Nebuchadnezzar so
described in the canonical Daniel? Though we cannot be conclusive, the
possibility of such an allusion to the Aramaic portion of Daniel would be
remarkable.[Journ. of Evang. Theol. Soc, 21/4 (December 1978) 323-328]
·
The two related Pseudo-Daniel scrolls [4Q243-244] look
like an expanded Daniel story, in which Daniel is 'dropped into' a sweeping
historical review. It goes back to Enoch, and forward into the Hellenistic Age
(mentioning a Greek Balakros by name). There are several suggestions for
who/what this refers to [HI:EMDSS:49f], but any of the more plausible
suggestions put this into the post-Maccabean period [later than we have already
seen for Dan(e)]. Plus, 4Q245 mentions the Hasmonean priests of Jonathan and
Simon, the later of whom held office 142-135 BC. This, of course, requires a
content dating much later than
our Dan(e) fragment. These docs look like a re-telling and large-scale
expansion of the biblical Daniel motif.
·
The only other substantial piece is 4Q246--the
Daniel Apocryphon. Daniel is actually not mentioned, but some commentators see
'similarities' between this and Daniel, esp. in a couple of suggestive phrases.
The interpretation is altogether unsure, with the original editor's suggestions
of Seleucid and Ptolemaic violence delimiting its historical range. The copy
itself is dated 50-0 BCE. It's connections with Daniel are very loose and might
not be modeled after Daniel at all.
Daniel was also the subject of interpreting work, as
opposed to being an 'interpretation' itself [i.e., primary authority instead of
secondary/derivative authority]. Although we do not find pesher-style
commentaries on Daniel at Qumran, there is at least one passage in the Damascus
Document which appears to be a midrash on Daniel. Chaim Rabin [The Zadokite Documents: I. The admonition. II. The
laws., Oxford/Clarendon:1954, 1958 (2nd Rev), page 34] identifies at
8.11ff what he calls a 'midrash on Daniel 8.23ff". ONLY scripture (not
'authorized interpretations') were legitimate sources upon which to 'do
midrash' or 'do pesher'.
6.
It doesn't present itself as something that
interprets other scripture (apart from the possible reference to the prophecy
of Jeremiah, but this is more in keeping with Daniel's 'insight' abilities,
than with 'authoritative interpretation'. Interpretation can, of course, appear
in different forms--"Instead of the expected sectarian halakhic
commentaries on the Pentateuch, we find in Qumran the very ancient technique of
paraphrasing and modifying authoritative
texts as a mode of representing implicit exegesis" [Kister,
HI:BPEUIB:107]. Kister mentions this as one of "two ways of handling a
biblical text, interpreting the
literal meaning by paraphrasing it
or revealing its inner eschatological sense through pesher-exegesis" [ibid].
In other words, re-telling and paraphrasing are forms of "commentary" or
"interpretation". Daniel does neither of these, and even his handling
of the Jeremiah prophecy of the Return has almost nothing in common with pesher
methods of approaching the text.
7.
It was accepted as authoritative by all of Judaism.
It was certainly considered
to be prophetic by all (cf. Ulrich, "The book of Daniel, for example, was
considered prophetic at Qumran, in the New Testament, by Josephus, by Melito,
and indeed, to judge by the evidence, by all." [HI:DSSOB:91]). None of
those closest to the data--including eyewitnesses--considered Daniel to be
describing the past via vaticinium ex eventu.
Let's be clear about this-- every
Jewish sect that spoke of Daniel, or these passages by Daniel (by name), for
the next 500 years saw something in his work that was still considered future prophecy (as opposed to only past events).
·
First, the Qumran Community explicitly refers to the
'book of Daniel the prophet':
"It is incontestably
clear that the people of Qumran regarded Daniel as a prophet. In 4Q174 2:3 we
read [--] (“[whi]ch
is written in the book of Daniel the
prophet”). The passage, called a florilegium
by J. M. Allegro, contains a quotation of Dan 11:32 and 12:10. [Edwin M. Yamauchi , Jour. Of the Evang. Theol.
Soc., 23/1 (March
1980) 15]
·
Next in time
would be the New Testament references:
Christians, under the guidance of Jesus in Matthew 24.15, speaking of some
future manifestation of the 'abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel',
saw this event as typological of a later, eschatological event.
·
Then Josephus (from [HI:PFLST]:
"Josephus even believed
that the ancient prophets had predicted things that would occur in what was still the future from his own
perspective...'And Daniel also
revealed to the king the meaning of the stone, but I have not thought it proper
to relate this, since I am expected to write of what is past and done and not
of what is to be; if, however, there is anyone who has so keen a desire for
exact information that he will not stop short of inquiring more closely but
wishes to learn about the hidden things that
are to come, let him take the trouble to read the Book of Daniel, which he will find among the sacred writings (Ant.
10.210)'" [p.32]
"Josephus was
extraordinarily impressed by this sort of long-range prediction--in another
affront to our modern sensibilities--thought that such predictions were
especially impressive if they were detailed and specific. It is once again with reference to Daniel that he writes:
'Not it is fitting to relate certain things about this man which one many
greatly wonder at hearing, namely that all things happened to him in a
marvellously fortunate way as to one of the
greatest prophets, and during his lifetime he received honour and
esteem from kings and people, and, since his death, his memory lives on
eternally. For the books which he wrote and
left behind are still read by us even now, and we are convinced by
them that Daniel spoke with God, for he was not only wont to prophesy future things, as did the other prophets,
but he also fixed the time at which these would come to pass (Ant. 10.266-67)'" [p.32]
"Though these dreams
and visions all concern events in the future, there is considerable variation
both in the timescale involved and in the scope of the events predicted. Some
dreams predict events for the immediate future, some for the more distant
future, and some for the very distant future. The dream of Pharaoh's butler
indicated that he would be release from prison 'within three days' (Ant. 2.65). Events under Antiochus Epiphanes, on the other hand,
had been predicted 'many years' in advance by Daniel, on the basis
of his visions (10.276). As we saw in chapter 1, Josephus believed that Daniel had predicted events that occurred in the
Roman period, and even events that were still to come from his own
(Josephus') point of view" [p.63]
·
Then the rabbinics:
"The Qumran sects use
of the last chapters of Daniel is instructive. Dan. 12 is of major importance
for the eschatological setting of the War Scroll; explicit and implicit
citations of Dan. 12 are found elsewhere in the sect's literature. Outside the
sect, an allusion to Dan. 11:31 is found in 1 Macc. 1:54; the rabbis cite and interpret these chapters are part
of their Bible, probably reflecting the Pharisaic acceptance of these visions
as authoritative. (Matt. 24:15, Mark 13:14 and Josephus, Ant.
10:269-276, treat Dan. 8, which is from the same period, as an authoritative
text.) The last chapters of Daniel were thus
accepted as sacred and worthy of interpretation and midrash in all streams of
Judaism relatively shortly after they were composed [Menahem Kister,
in HI:BPEUIB:102]
The force of Kister's last
point needs to be appreciated, especially with the rise of Sectarianism in
pre-Qumran Israel. He goes on to point out:
"The interpretation of the
Book of Daniel in the Sect's writings seems to provide a valuable historical
datum about the relationship between the different Jewish streams during the
Hasmonean period and their common ground. It
may indicate that the splitting-up into sects took place after the
last chapters of Daniel were composed..., and that Judaism before the Hasmonean
period was more unified (though
certainly not homogeneous) than is sometimes
hypothesized." (op.cit.)
Kister's point is simple:
the sect's should NOT have agreed on Daniel (since it was allegedly so late!),
unless they were ideologically closer together than we normally believe. Since the date of Daniel cannot be
made earlier (in his view), we have to make the theological schism
"later". But our data for the theological schism is pretty strong,
and it supports an early date for the development of the disagreements (see
Albert Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish
Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation. Brill:1997). Under
the relationship-logic of Kister (which I find insightful), this would require
us to move the date of Daniel earlier instead,
at least into the "pre-disagreement period" of
mid/early-3rd century BC (c. 250 BC).
So, the Book of Daniel shows
itself to be Primary/Classical "Scripture" for Qumran...
Now, what about "Jubilees"? How does its profile
compare on those criteria?
There are three
references/allusions (?) to Jubilees that are commonly advanced as evidence for
its authority at Qumran [Vanderkam, DSST:153f]:
"Jubilees is also cited as an authority at
Qumran. Damascus Document 16.2-3 says: "As for the exact determination of
their times to which Israel turns a blind eye, behold it is strictly defined in
the Book of the Divisions of the Times into
their Jubilees and Weeks." The italicized title of the book is
the name given to jubilees in a number of ancient sources, including itself.
For the writer of the Damascus Document, Jubilees, which claims to be revealed,
is the place in which to find exact, predictive statements about historical periods.
That the word perush ("the
exact determinations") is employed is probably also significant: elsewhere
it is associated with biblical books. The term translated "strictly
defined" is used in the first line of the same column in connection with
the Law of Moses.
"The Damascus Document may base another point on
Jubilees. In the tenth column, the age limits for judges are defined as between
twenty-five and sixty years. "No man over the age of sixty shall hold
office as judge of the Congregation, for 'because man sinned his days have been
shortened, and in the heat of His anger against the inhabitants of the earth
God ordained that their understanding should depart even before their days are
completed" (10.7-10). The writer may have Jub 23:11 in mind here, although
he does not quote it exactly.
"One other possible appeal to jubilees as an
authority has now come to light. The text (4Q228) uses some of the language
characteristic of Jubilees: "for this is the way it is written in the
divisions of the days." Elsewhere the fragment has two other references to
"the division of its time" both of which could also be allusions to
Jubilees."
So, given these, let's go
through our criteria above:
1. Was the unknown author of
Jubilees considered a prophet?
Unless they believed somehow
that Moses wrote it(!), the answer is 'no'. The individuals recognized as
prophets were listed above, and there is no reference to the author of Jubilees
there (again, unless they believed somehow that Moses actually wrote this.) Had
Moses been believed to have been the actual author, we might have expected it
to be cited as such ("as spoken by Moses" or "as written by
Moses") as is frequent throughout the Qumran lit. Accordingly, we have no
evidence to support a belief that (a) they really believed Moses wrote this;
and (b) that they considered it by a prophet. [They may have, but we just have
no reason to postulate or believe it at this point.]
The function of ascribing a
later document to an ancient Israelite hero such as Moses, Enoch, and Joshua is
known as pseudepigrapha (or, more properly, pseudonymity), and scholars today
are still unsure of exactly why
the authors did this...It is not at all clear that they actually intended their
audience to believe that, in the case of Jubilees,
that Moses actually contradicted himself or omitted portions of his 'earlier'
work the Pentateuch.
2. Is Jubilees referred to
as a book?
Yes.
3. Is this document present
is the form it is in the Hebrew Bible (MT)?
Obviously not, since it is
not even included in the Hebrew Bible. It was not considered as
"scripture" by Formative Judaism of the first century.
4. Is it cited as a full
authority, with the "as is written" formula? Yes, although apparently
only as an interpretation of
biblical (primary) authority. [Remember, the interpretations of the Teacher of
Righteousness were dependent on the written scripture, but were claimed to be
'revealed' and 'authoritative']
The verse that is used to
demonstrate its authority (which I think is demonstrated there) also indicates,
by the word used--perush, that it
is interpretative authority
rather than primary
authority that is being claimed. Oddly enough, it is Vanderkam's point about perush that indicates this (instead of the
conclusion he seems to arrive at). Vanderkam is obviously correct that perush is 'elsewhere associated with
biblical books' but only in contexts of
interpretation or explanation of the biblical texts. Let's look at some examples, before looking
at the main citation. [Translations from Martinez [DSSTQTE], unless otherwise
noted]:
·
"in order to act according to the exact interpretation [perush]
of the law in which the very first were instructed until the period of these years is complete.
[CD-A, 4.8f]
·
"Unless they are careful to act in accordance
with the exact interpretation [perush] of the law for the age
of wickedness: to separate themselves 15 from the sons of the pit; to abstain
from wicked wealth which defiles, either by promise or by vow, 16 and from the
wealth of the temple and from stealing from the poor of the people, from making
their widows their spoils 17 and from murdering orphans; to separate unclean
from clean and differentiate between 18 the holy and the common; to keep the
Sabbath day according to the exact
interpretation [perush],
and the festivals 19 and the day of fasting, according to what they had
discovered, those who entered the new covenant in the land of Damascus; 20 to
set apart holy portions according to their exact
interpretation [perush];
for each to love his brother 21 like himself; to strengthen the hand of the
poor, the needy and the foreigner; Blank for each to seek the peace"
[CD-A, 6.14ff]
·
"there is a judgment against anyone about the law
of leprosy, the priest shall take his place in the camp 6 and the Inspector
shall instruct him in the exact
interpretation [perush]
of the law [CD-A, 13.5f]
·
"This is the rule of the Many, to provide for
all 6 [their needs: the salary] of two [days] at least. They shall place it [in
the hand] of the Inspector and of the judges. 7 [From it they shall g]ive to
the woun[ded, and with it they shall] strengthen the hand of the needy and the
poor, 8 [and to the elder] who is dying, and to the vagabond, and to the
prisoner of a foreign people, 9 [and to the girl who] has no protector, and to
the unma[rried woman] who has no suitor; and for all 10 [the works of the
company,] and the house of the company shall not be deprived of its means. This
is the exact interpretation [perush] 12 [of the regulations
by which] they shall be ruled until there arises the messiah of Aaron and
Israel. 13 [He shall atone for their sins
par]don, and guilt [4QDamascus Document(b), frg.18, col iii v5f]
·
11 [The sons of Levi and the men of the camps will
meet in] the third month and will cu[rse] 12 [whoever tends to the right or to
the left of the law. And th]is is the precise
interpretation [perush]
of the regulations which 13 [they are to observe in every age of ] who remained
firm in all the ages of anger 14 and in their steps, to all those who dwell in
their camps and all [] in their cities. And so, then, all this is 15 with
regard to the last interpretation of [the law.] [4QDamascus Document (e), Frag
11, col 2, v11]
Notice how perush is used in "association"
with biblical texts, but only as 'interpretation' of those biblical
texts--never as a biblical text itself. It therefore has derived authority.
Another major usage of perush is for 'detailed list' or
'structured explanation'. This can be seen in the Damascus Document as well:
1 Zadok who maintained the
service of my temple when the children of Israel strayed 2 far away from me,
shall offer the fat and the blood». The priests are the converts of Israel 3
who left the land of Judah; and ‹the levites› are those who joined them; and
the sons of Zadok are the chosen of 4 Israel, «those called by name» who stood
up at the end of days. This is the detailed
list [perush] 5 of
their names, according to their genealogies and the age of their existence and
the number of their miseries and the years of 6 their residence, and the detailed list [perush]
of their deeds of holiness. ‹These are the very› first, for whom 7 God atoned,
and who declared the just man as just, and declared the wicked as wicked, and
all those who entered after them 8 in order to act according to the exact interpretation [perush]
of the law in which the very first were instructed until 9 the period of these
years is complete. According to the covenant which God established with the
very first, in order to atone 10 for their sins, so will God atone for them.
But when the period corresponding to the number of these years is complete, 11
there will no longer be any joining with the house of Judah but rather each one
standing up on 12 his watchtower. [CD-a, col IV]
In these contexts, perush functions like a 'presentation' or
'structured explanation' of some phenomena.
The passage cited by
Vanderkam reveals this same flavor. Let me give the translation of Vanderkam,
Rabin, and Martinez, but placing "perush"
into the translation:
·
"...As for the [perush]
of their times to which Israel turns a blind eye, behold it is strictly defined
in the Book.. ." (V, gives perush as "exact determination")
·
"with you a covenant and with all Israel'.
Therefore a man shall impose upon himself by oath to return to the law of
Moses, for in it everything can be learnt. And the [perush] of the epochs of Israel's blindness to all these,
behold it can be learnt in the Book of..."
(R, gives it as "exact statement")
·
"with you a covenant and with all Israel.
Therefore, the man will make binding upon ‹his› soul to return to 2 the law of
Moses, for in it all is defined. Blank And the [perush]
of their ages about the blindness 3 of Israel in all these matters, behold, it
is defined in the book «of the divisions of the periods" (M, gives it as
"exact interpretation")
Of these, the one that fits
the usage pattern best for perush
is that of (M): "exact interpretation". This would mean that Jubilees
was being referred to as an 'authoritative interpretation' of Israel's failure
to recognize the 'true' halakah--a common theme at Qumran! Jubilees is being
used as an authority, but not on a par with Moses (i.e., "for in it ALL is
defined"), and it concerns more a condemnation-commentary on Israel's
history of non-compliance to the Law (as understood 'authoritatively' by the
Qumranites). So, the passage makes perfectly good sense with perush being used in the customary
"authoritative interpretation" way.
[Alternatively, perush could be understood in the above
passage as referring to a 'structured explanation' or 'structured exposition'.
Since Jubilees forces an
interpretative chronological grid onto the pre-existing biblical narratives,
the above reference could be tantamount to pointing out that the
correct/authoritative chronological list/schema is found in Jubilees. We will see below that Jubilees
is a 're-telling of the bible' document anyway, and that genre was expected to
add an 'interpretative layer' on top of biblical narrative. This would, of
course, be another way of saying 'authoritative interpretation', so the two
different semantic possibilities are very close, and both support the
'interpretation, not original revelation' position.]
Let me just add one more
piece of data on perush, and that
is the definition given to it in Jastrow [DTX]. It is not a biblical form, but
first shows up in this time period and in Mishnaic contexts. The various meanings
listed are three: (1) distinct expression/directness; (2) explanation; (3)
commentary. It is derived from prsh
(in biblical Hebrew), which has the basic meaning of "to explain
clearly". The word group is essentially about explanation, exposition, translation, interpretation of some previous
content--NOT about 'revelation' of new content (primary
authority) itself.
So, I think I can agree that
Jubilees is cited as an 'authority', but that this authority is NOT 'scriptural
authority' per se--it is a
derived perush-al type of
authority.
5. Did it generate any
"pseudo-" types of works, or expansions on itself?
None that we can find. There
is one fragment family (4Q225-227) that was originally named
"pseudo-Jubilees" by Milik, but this is generally considered a
misnomer (so Vanderkam, in [HI:QCM:242]). It does not seem to function as a
'primary' work in this way. [I should mention that Jubilees, as with just about
all ancient Jewish works, there are 'shared stories' that show up in both
Jubilees and in other Jewish writings. These stories are generally not
considered cases of 'borrowing' but in many cases represent a 'shared stock of
cultural memory'. There are a few stories in Jubilees that are shared by
Josephus and the Rabbi's, but this is not the type of 'shared-ness' we are
discussing here.]
6. Does it have the
character of an interpretation of Scripture (derivative work), or of Scripture
itself (primary work)?
It is clearly seen as a
secondary work (derivative) and is uniformly classed in the category of
"re-written bible" and/or "narrative midrash".
Midrash can be understood as
interpretation and exposition of sacred Scripture, and the deriving of
principles of doctrine and practice from the text:
"With regard to the
literary structure of Midrashim, A.G. Wright has written 'there are several
rather diverse forms of literature that are designated as midrash. There are
the exegetical, homiletic, and narrative midrashim." The exegetical
Midrash sets forth the biblical text and discusses it phrase by phrase.
Homiletical Midrashim, on the other hand, begin with a portion of text which
forms the basis for a thematic treatment of a specific subject which the
Scripture evokes. The theme is frequently repeated and supported by texts drawn
from various parts of the Old Testament. Finally, the narrative Midrash scarcely distinguishes between text and comment,
but interweaves them to form a continuous narrative. In terms of
overall structure, Jubilees is similar to the
narrative Midrashim." [OTP:2:40]
This, of course, makes
Jubilees 'secondary', 'interpretive', and 'derived' by definition.
Nickelsburg, in
[HI:JWSTP:97ff] gives this summary:
"The
Book of Jubilees is a rewritten
version of Genesis 1 - Exodus 14, purportedly dictated to Moses on
Mount Sinai by an angel of the presence. The order of the book follows, with
few exceptions, that of the Bible itself, however, the author's treatment of
the wording of the biblical text varies widely. Often he reproduces that text
verbatim. On occasion he deletes what he does not find useful. Most typically, however, he recasts the narrative or makes additions to it in
line with his interests and purpose. Especially noteworthy is the
book's chronological framework, which divides history into weeks and jubilees
of years, dating events in Israelite history to specific times in these cycles.
The chronology culminates in the jubilee of jubilees, A nno Mundi 2451, with the entrance into
the Land (or the giving of the Torah, according to one resolution of certain
critical problems).
"The largest group of additions to the biblical text
are halakhic. They appear in several forms. 1) The establishment of
religious festivals are dated according to the solar calendar of 364 days that
structures the book's chronology. 2) Additions within the narratives themselves
depict the patriarchs properly observing the Torah. Most often these additions
portray the celebration of a festival, again witnessing to the author's
calendrical interest (e.g., 15: If.; 16:20-31). 3) The author places in the
mouth of the patriarchs the commands and admonitions that he himself wishes to
make to his readers. The most striking example of this occurs in Abraham's
three testaments in chapters 20, 2 1, and 22. Similarly, in a long addition,
Rebecca admonishes Jacob not to marry a Canaanite woman. 4) The author adds to
biblical stories halakhic commentaries, which often begin with the expression, 'For this reason it is
written (or ordained) in the heavenly tablets that.. .' In these commentaries
the author utilizes some element in the biblical narrative as the springboard
for his exposition on a point of law: nakedness is prohibited (3:31); feasts
are to be observed according to the solar calendar (6:17-22); blood must not be
consumed (7:28-33); circumcision must be performed, and only on the eighth day
(15:25-34); one must not marry a foreign spouse (30:7-23); incest is forbidden
(33:10-20; 41:23-27)...our author's pervading interest and emphasis is
halakhic."
Like many of the re-written
bible texts, the author's purpose is to challenge the 'established' halakah, by
setting forth an alternate set of rules for daily life. These rules, their
'justification', and their exemplification are 'found' in the Sacred Scriptural
text. These works--like their pesher
and related commentary counterparts--are interpretive and derivative. They make
claims to authority, and if a group accepts that authority, they can be and are
used in 'citations'.
So, its character is
manifestly that of a secondary, derivative work--in spite of its claims to
'revealed' status of its interpretation and understanding of the (primary)
biblical text. [Remember, the Teacher also claimed this "only authorized
interpreter" status/role.]
7. Was it accepted as
authoritative for all of Judaism?
Not even close. It was very
popular at Qumran, but was rejected from 'primary status' by Rabbinical
Judaism, Christianity (but it is still printed in Ethiopic Bibles). It's
halakah differs from Pharisaic, Sadducee, and even Qumranic systems, although
it is much closer to Qumran than the others. Some of its stipulations and
interpretations were considered 'binding' (and thus authoritative) at Qumran.
However...Even though the
Teacher told them that it was the authoritative system of interpretation and
rules for living, Vanderkam points out that not everybody agreed [DSST:154f]:
"One complicating fact
in the discussion of the status of Jubilees at Qumran is that a newly published
text, 4Q252, shows that Jubilees' chronology of the flood was not accepted in all the pertinent documents at Qumran.
Moreover, some calendrical texts
set forth the schematic lunar calendar that Jubilees condemns. Consequently,
while most indicators demonstrate that Jubilees was a highly regarded source,
not everyone at Qumran agreed with
all the details of it."
So, not only was Jubilees
not considered authoritative for pan-Jewry, it was not consistently revered
within the Qumran community. This makes its secondary status definite.
So, when we try to apply this
to the original pushback (from so long ago now, it seems...smile), we come up
with the following conclusions:
Daniel had membership in
'high scripture', fully authoritative in a primary and non-derivative sense. It
was itself 'interpreted' (via midrash) and was 'emulated' by other works. It
enjoyed pan-Jewish acceptance--as only the 'high scripture' books did--and this
indicates pre-sectarian antiquity for its origination/acceptance by Israel. It
is clearly primary and Classical prophetic scripture for Qumran and the rest of
Israel.
Jubilees seemed to function
as 'authoritative interpretation' of scripture, although it was apparently not
followed consistently by the members. It was 'perush'--exact
interpretation (largely halakhic)--and was to be obeyed. Although it was
popular, it did not evince the primary or classical prophetic character--it
was, after all, "only" interpretation. Its form was that of
'narrative midrash' (i.e., interpretation through re-telling, paraphrasing,
embellishment, extension of primary narrative texts). It was definitely a
derivative work, focused largely on "rules for living right" (i.e.,
halakah). It was not accepted by majority Israel, and indeed, maybe not by all
of Qumran. It is generally considered originating in a proto-Essene context
(pre-Qumran) and so its "acceptance" would have been axiomatic--it
was literally one of the 'generative documents' that created the community.
Under that scenario, it would have been actually created by the
"pre-community community" and hence not had a problem with 'earning
its way in'.
Thus, the acceptance of
late-date Jubilees as 'authoritative' (or mostly so) 'interpretation', created
by the founding Teacher(s) would not pose a problem to the position defended
above.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Summary of our findings on Daniel in the Dead Sea Scroll
manuscript data:
1.
The presence
of mss of Daniel--esp. the early ones--when coupled with the 'high view' of
Daniel as a 'prophet' (primary, Classical authority) would indicate a
pre-Maccabean date (by a methodology admitted by non-conservatives).
2.
The fact that Daniel is admitted to have been
written before Qumran places it minimally pre-150, and, in light of the dual
textual tradition, "canonical prophetic status", and pre-sectarian
origins, would support a date of origination much, much earlier than 165 BC.
3.
The use of Jubilees as authoritative interpretation
at Qumran cannot be used successfully to undermine the argument (and the
scholars making the "literary diffusion requirement" argument) in #2.
Accordingly, it looks like the manuscript data is very supportive that Daniel is
at least pre-Maccabean, and therefore one of the prophetic sections of Daniel
was written before the events.
Notice that if this
conclusion is true, all the historical and linguistic 'problems' in the Book of
Daniel are irrelevant to a discussion of this "Maccabean or
Pre-Maccabean" question. Historical and linguistic 'difficulties' become
either (a) interpretive issues;
(b) methods of dating/locating the text within the pre-Maccabean period;
and/or methods for assessing the 'accuracy' of the writer.
In other words, these kinds
of problems could be used to argue for a 3rd century BC date versus a 6th
century BC date, or for an uninformed writer versus an eyewitness writer, or
for a fictional versus historical genre, perhaps, but NEVER for a
post-Maccabean dating...Let's be clear about this...The predictive prophecy
relative to Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel--for good or ill--will have to stand.
This doesn't even remotely
answer the question of 'when was it written?', nor does it indicate that the
other passages in Daniel are authentic/reliable, but the presence of
supernaturalism-implying predictive prophecy (written 5 days, 5 years, or 500
years before the events wouldn't matter in this case) could/might be a bit
incongruous in a possible forgery--but this will have to wait...smile.
So, at least in one case, we
probably have the prophecy written before the events--predictive prophecy of a
surprisingly detailed nature.
[ Back
to Intro // on to Next
Section ]
[qwhendan3a.html]