[Draft May 16, 1998; 3rd revision Dec/2000.....Intro/Menu]
Literary References
Section
................................................................................................................
2. Do we have any literary references or clear allusions to the Book in other
pre-Maccabean extra-biblical literature?
We have a couple of obvious problems here:
1.
where is the pre-167 BC
literature?
2.
how would we identify references or 'clear allusions'?
3.
how will we determine the direction of borrowing (if it is
not obvious from other factors)?
........................................................................................................................................
Problem One: Where is
the pre-167 BC literature?
The obvious
places to look first are in the
Pseudepigrapha and the Apocrypha, but how much of this will be in the early 2nd
century?
A glance at the
table of contents of the Pseudepigrapha
in Charlesworth's OTP yields the following list:
OTP: Volume One
o
1
Enoch (2nd BC - 1st AD)
o
2 Enoch (late
1st AD)
o
3 Enoch (5-6th
AD)
o
Sibylline
Oracles (2nd BC - 7th AD)
o
Treatise of Shem
(1st BC)
o
Apocryphon of
Ezekiel (1st BC - 1st AD)
o
Apocalypse
of Zephaniah (1st BC - 1st AD)
o
4th Ezra (late
1st AD)
o
Greek Apocalypse
of Ezra (2-9th AD)
o
Vision of Ezra
(4-7th AD)
o
Questions of
Ezra (date unk.)
o
Revelation of Ezra
(prior to 9th AD)
o
Apocalypse of
Sedrach (2-5th AD)
o
2 Baruch (early
2nd AD)
o
3 Baruch (1-3rd
AD)
o
Apocalypse of
Abraham (1-2nd AD)
o
Apocalypse of
Adam (4-5th AD)
o
Apocalypse of
Elijah (1-4th AD)
o
Apocalypse of
Daniel (9th AD)
o
Testaments
of the Twelve Patriarchs (2nd BC)
o
Testament of Job
(1st BC - 1 AD)
o
Testament of
Abraham (1-2nd AD)
o
Testament of
Isaac (2nd AD)
o
Testament of
Jacob (2-3 AD)
o
Testament of
Moses (1st AD)
o
Testament of
Solomon (1-3rd AD)
o
Testament of
Adam (2-5th AD)
OTP: Volume Two:
o
Letter
of Aristeas (3rd BC - 1st AD)
o
Jubilees (2nd
BC)
o
Martyrdom and
Ascension of Isaiah (2nd BC - 4th AD)
o
Joseph and
Aseneth (1st BC - 2nd AD)
o
Life of Adam and
Eve (1st AD)
o
Pseudo-Philo
(1st AD)
o
The Lives of the
Prophets (1st AD)
o
Ladder of Jacob
(1st AD)
o
4 Baruch (1-2nd
AD)
o
Jannes and
Jambres (1-3rd AD)
o
History of the
Rechabites (1-4th AD)
o
Eldad and Modad
(prior to 2nd AD)
o
History of
Joseph (prior to 4th AD)
o
Ahiqar (7-6 BC)
[Not a Jewish work; would pre-date Daniel anyway]
o
3 Maccabees (1st
BC)
o
4 Maccabees (1st
AD)
o
Pseudo-Phocylides
(1st BC - 1st AD)
o
The Sentences of
the Syriac Menander (3rd AD)
o
More Psalms of
David (3rd BC - 1st AD)
o
Prayer of
Manasseh (2nd BC - 1st AD)
o
Psalms of
Solomon (1st BC)
o
Hellenistic
Synagogal Prayers (2-3rd AD)
o
Prayer of Joseph
(1st AD)
o
Prayer of Jacob
(1-4th AD)
o
Odes of Solomon
(late 1-2nd AD)
OTP: Supplement: Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works:
o
Philo the Epic
Poet (3-2nd BC)
o
Theodotus (2-1st
BC)
o
Orphica (2nd BC
- 1st AD)
o
Ezekiel
the Tragedian (2nd BC)
o
Fragments of Pseudo-Greek
Poets (3-2nd BC)
o
Aristobulus (2nd
BC)
o
Demetrius the
Chronographer (3rd BC)
o
Aristeas the
Exegete (prior to 1st BC)
o
Eupolemus (prior
to 1st BC)
o
Pseudo-Eupolemus
(prior to 1st BC)
o
Cleodemus
Malchus (prior to 1st BC)
o
Artapanus (3-2nd
BC)
o
Pseudo-Hecataeus
(2nd BC - 1 AD)
Apocrypha (dating from NWNTI:9-19; HCSB):
o
1 Esdras (2nd
BC)
o
2 Esdras = 4th
Ezra (1-3 AD)
o
Tobit (2nd BC)
o
Judith (2nd BC)
o
Additions to
Esther (2-1st BC)
o
Wisdom of
Solomon (1st BC)
o
Sirach/Ecclesiasticus (Hebrew 180 BC; Greek translate 132 BC)
o
Baruch = 1 Baruch (200-60 BC)
o
Letter of
Jeremiah (3rd BC)
o
Prayer of
Azariah and the Song of the Three Children (2-1st BC) [Additions to Daniel]
o
Susanna (3-1st BC)[Additions to
Daniel]
o
Bel and the
Dragon (3-1st BC)[Additions to Daniel]
o
1
Maccabees (late 2nd BC)
o
2
Maccabees (mid 2nd BC)
As you can probably tell, there is not a lot of literature that falls into the pre-Maccabean
period in the above lists. However, scholars have isolated sections from many
of these larger works, which are considered to be within our period. It is these that we
will try to examine.
Problem Two: how will be identify literary references and/or clear allusions?
This area can be notoriously difficult and
subjective, but lack of specificity in criteria cannot stop us from at least
trying. In philosophy, there is a type of fallacy called "the fallacy of
the beard". This fallacy deals with situations in which we cannot specify exactly when (and how we
will therefore know) facial hair 'stubble' becomes 'a beard'. We can recognize obvious beards and obvious stubble, and our inability to
articulate precisely the difference between two does not impair (or
"de-justify") our ability to spot/admit OBVIOUS cases of each.
As applied to allusion and quotation, we will
try to identify "plausibly obvious" cases (I will confine myself to
those recognized by scholars in print, so that my personal subjectivity will be
minimized). We will first note some of the approaches offered and concerns
voiced, by those who work in this area.
"First of all, 'verbal
parallels' is a term that will be used in this work to designate the occurrence
of two or more passages of distinctive
content, ranging in length from a few significant words to several sentences, which display
identical or minimally divergent wording.
The word 'verbal' distinguishes these passages from those which treat similar
themes or topoi but whose wording does not correspond.: [OT:SQVP:19]
"Allusions are identified
primarily on the basis of rare but
significant repeated words which often use the terms in a different
manner or for a different purpose." [OT:SQVP:49]
"More recently, another
case of inner-scriptural interpretation was examined by John Day who sought to
demonstrate the dependence of Isa. 26.13-27.11 on Hos. 13.4-14.10." Day
used a cumulative argument, noting that, of eight parallels, all but one occur in the same order in both
sources. He also considered it significant that both passages came at the end
of their respective compositions. Of the
eight parallels, only one consists of verbal similarities, the
others exhibiting thematic similarities, such as identical images (birth pangs,
east wind, dew, vineyard), or motifs (deliverance from Sheol, idolatry, need
for discernment). Day made a strong case for some type of dependence involving
Hosea and Isaiah, though he simply assumed that Isaiah is the borrower. Although one might
question the evidential value of some of his thematic parallels, one must agree
with him that verbal parallels are not
essential in order to claim literary borrowing." [OT:SQVP:93]
"Other than the
Jerusalem elders' citation of Micah in Jeremiah's day (Jer. 26.17-19), Daniel's
reference to Jeremiah's prophecy of the 70 years (Dan. 9.2), and some oblique
references to the words of earlier prophets in Ezekiel (Ezek. 38.17) and
Zechariah (Zech. 1.4), verbal parallels offer the only evidence that oracles were known to contemporary or later
prophets, or to the general populace-which is
also essential, since most scholars seem to imply that the employment of
quotation must be apparent to the audience in order for it to function as
intended. "
[OT:SQVP:109]
"Frequently the
resemblances are better to be explained as due either to dependence upon a common tradition or to the use of set phrases found in religious
compositions of almost any period of Old Testament History" (Ackroyd,
cited in [OT:SQVP:111]
"Because verbal and not
thematic parallels are his primary concern, he
sets down some minimum standards for the passages to be considered:
the texts must share at least two key words
(though one may suffice if it is particularly striking and central to the
phrase) and 'there must be some relationship between the development
of thought in the two texts.'"
[OT:SQVP:121]
"What is more
important, however, and much more difficult to determine, is how close and
extensive the verbal correspondence had to be for ancient readers to recognize
a quotation. Remarkably, the exact quotation
is virtually non-existent in Egyptian literature. Orthographic
changes, syntactical simplification, substitution of near synonyms, variations
in word order, grammatical updating, necessary adjustments in person, number
and verbal form, as well as extensive paraphrasing and expansions frequently
occur. Helck may be correct when he suggests that certain elements of a sentence (Brunner's 'catchwords'?) must remain basically intact in a quotation, but if
this requirement is met, a rather
extensive revision of the remaining elements can be tolerated." [OT:SQVP:123]
"In fact, a quotation may, through repeated usage, gradually
attain the currency of a popular proverb, whose historical or
literary origin becomes forgotten and even irrelevant to its proper
understanding." [OT:SQVP:196]
"the absence of introductory formulae in
prophetic quotation cannot mean that its
detection is not intended" [OT:SQVP:228:236]
"These passages
illustrate the problem of trying to distinguish between quotation and topos. In
quotation one is looking for the repetition
of significant words and syntactical structures; with topos one
simply seeks the repetition of various terms conceptually
related to a theme or topic. The topos of the highway in the
wilderness is an oft-repeated theme within Isaiah...and, as a result, several
of the Hebrew terms used to describe the highway, its construction and
maintenance, and travel upon it necessarily will be repeated several times.
This is, however, a case of reuse of
imagery, not of verbal dependence or quotation." [OT:SQVP:228:273]
"Yet the comparative material suggests that minimal
marking generally is the practice in literature contemporary to the
Old Testament and even later Jewish literature...One is forced to draw one of
two conclusions: either the readers or listeners are not expected to identify
the verbal parallel or they are
considered competent to recognize it despite
only minimal marking." [OT:SQVP:331]
"It is all too easy to
run eagerly after superficial parallels which cannot really be sustained under
a closer scrutiny. Accordingly, the parallels must have similar ideas
underlying them and, second, any suggestion of influence requires that the parallels be numerous, complex and detailed,
with a similar conceptual usage and, ideally, that they should point to a
specific myth or group of related myths in Mesopotamia." [HI:GMM:7]
"In other words,
allusion consists not only in the echoing of an earlier text but in the utilization of the marked material for some
rhetorical or strategic end." [OT:PRSA:15]
"allusions are distinct
from mere echo. The meaning of an alluding text is affected by the content of
the source text, while echoes do not suggest any altered understanding of the
passage in which they appear. Formally, however echoes resemble allusions in that
both borrow vocabulary, images, or other elements from the older text,
and many of the purpose or reasons for allusion apply equally well to
echo." [OT:PRSA:31]
"Markers (usually borrowed vocabulary) point the
reader to the older text, though only if the reader is familiar with them....In
this formal category, the new text reuses vocabulary
or imagery from the source...Probably the largest number of cases of
what scholars have generally called 'inner-biblical exegesis' belongs to this
category. For example, Mal 1.6-2.9 and Psalms 4 and 67 contain many vocabulary
items found in the ancient priestly benedictions known to us from Num 6.23-27. The abundance of markers point
back to the older text makes clear that Malachi and the psalmists borrow from
that text, even though none of these authors cites the older text by name"
[OT:PRSA:21]
"Another circumstantial
criterion would be the number of parallels from the same source fond in the
same author or in the same period."
[Tigay, in TS:250]
So, these observations might yield the
following guidelines for us:
It may be instructive to see how
"numerous, complex, and detailed" these parallels should be, for comparing with our
examples. Let's use the example of Psalm 4, given by Sommer and Fishbane:
"Ps. 4 contributes
another example of the impact of the Priestly Blessing on the liturgical life
of ancient Israel, as reflected in the Psalter. It is particularly significant
since it provides a literary form manifestly different from that found in Ps.
67. In the later, Num. 6:24-26 is first (partially) cited and only then applied
(cf. v.3). By contrast, in Ps. 4 the key terms of the Priestly Blessing are
spread throughout the piece, serving simultaneously as its theological
touchstone and its ideological matrix. The psalmist first calls upon YHWH to
'favour me' and hear his prayer (v. 2); then, after citing those disbelievers
'who say: 'who will show us any good?'", the psalmist calls upon YHWH to
'raise over us the light of your presence' (v.7). The psalmist concludes with a
reference to Shalom, peace or well-being (v.9)...." [BIAI:303-331]
Here are the passages, with the common words (in the underlying Hebrew)
in bold:
The Lord
bless you and keep you; 25 the Lord make his
face to shine upon you, and be
gracious to you; 26 the Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and
give you peace. 27 So they shall
put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them. [NRSV]
Answer me
when I call to you, O my righteous God. Give me relief from my distress; be merciful to me and hear my prayer. 2 How long, O men, will you turn my
glory into shame? How long will you love delusions and seek false gods? Selah 3 Know that the LORD has set
apart the godly for himself; the LORD will hear when I call to him. 4 In your anger do not sin; when you
are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent. Selah 5 Offer right sacrifices and trust in the LORD. 6 Many are asking, “Who can show us any
good?” Let the light of your face shine upon
us, O LORD. 7 You have filled my heart with greater joy than when
their grain and new wine abound. 8 I will lie down and sleep in peace, for you alone, O LORD, make me dwell
in safety. [NIV]
Now, these are not very technical terms, but
they do show up in a highly used liturgical formula, which would have been very
familiar to the people. The original saying would have become part of the
liturgical 'background', against which Psalm 4 would have sounded. This would
have evoked the liturgical tradition and situated the psalmist in that stream
of memory and tradition. So Sommer,
"The presence of the
familiar vocabulary does, however, affect the reader, who experiences the
pleasure of recognition and realizes that the psalm is part of a particular
liturgical tradition. Further, the reuse of the vocabulary may represent a
claim to authority by the psalms or an attempt by them to reinforce the
authority of the ancient benediction." [OT:PRSA:31]
This is a an example of what I personally
would consider 'borderline', since these terms are used widely in the culture,
but it will function as a 'test case' by which we can compare any cases of
possible verbal parallels below.]--just to see if I am being too 'generous' or
speculative...(smile)
.............................................................................................................
Pushback:
"Why would we look for a specific document, Glenn, for a source, when
'common tradition' would always be a safer bet? To go beyond assuming a writer
used phrases and images from some
common stock of 'now anonymous'
religious phrases or images, to assuming a writer used phrases from a specific source seems inherently more
risky."
Excellent question...I personally don't find
the notion of a large body of
'anonymous authoritative common tradition' (as opposed to, say, folklore
and fable) to be very meaningful for ancient cultures, especially Israel.
Phrases, images, and concepts enter some common literary
parlance in a society only via
extraordinary events (with a linguistic aspect). These outstanding events may
be speeches of highly visible leaders (e.g. "I have a dream...",
"ask not what your country can do for you..."), highly visible
"news events" (e.g., "He ain't heavy, he's my brother...",
"sputnik"), or highly visible and provocative literary works (e.g.
the KJV bible and Shakespeare in Western Culture). In the case of specialized and technical phraseology, there
literally has to be argumentation of force
and influence creating/using these terms in this "new
way", for the subject-matter audience to begin using it in this way. These
don't just 'pop up'--they look more like micro-sized paradigm shifts. In
technical areas, we can (and do) trace the origination of key phrases and
terms, and in the 'review of the literature' section of monographs, discuss the
originating author(s).
In other words, you don't get technical
phrases and "re-usable" images, useful to the literary 'producers' of a culture, without some generative event [we will talk
about the non-literary 'consumers' in a moment]. In the ancient world, this
event could be a war speech, famous legal brief, literary composition, or
foreign messenger report. But it always started somewhere, and 'somewhere' was always known at first.
In these cultures, though, 'known at first'
meant 'known forever'...
In traditional cultures such as in the ANE,
there was tremendous solidarity with the past. Tradition was supremely valued,
and especially in Israel, the closer one could stay to the 'traditions of the
elders' the safer and more authoritative one's own works were. This can be seen
even in the OT/Tanakh, where prophetic oracles are repeated over and over, from
one generation of prophets to the next. Authority in the ANE was always tied to
either antiquity (e.g. dynastic leaders always tried to show their 'genealogy')
or to power (e.g., conquest, sorcery, access to the gods). Literature was
constantly re-used, and as Schultz notes:
"Finally, if most of the
passages examined above constitute genuine quotations, then literary borrowing was an acknowledged and relatively
widespread rhetorical device in the ancient New East. It indicates
both a continued knowledge of literature for
as long as one to two millennia and its continued authority." [OT:SQVP:143]
And yet, we have already noted that the
comparative literature in the ANE only
infrequently marked this author-conscious literary borrowing by
authorial reference.
In these cultures, too, we must recognize the
relative [to media-rich, modern cultures] scarcity of 'formative' literary
works. Although literacy among the common Israelite might have been better than
among other peoples of the same period, there would still have only been a
relative few who could read the literary 'canon' (in the sense of culturally
'important' books) and even fewer who could generate literary works. The value
placed on these works (due to rarity, connections with authority, potential
usefulness--especially in the case of religious/magical texts--and often,
brilliance and vividness) would guarantee frequent copying and protection, and
hence, increase dramatically our chances of finding these in our 'digs'. They,
of course, also generated hours of 'discussion and argument' among the
leadership, and tons of literary references (and even explicit citation), from
which we know about these as well (see [OT:SQVP] and [BTM] for numerous
examples).
Indeed, the very process of learning how to
read and write (for these later literary 'producers') was one of constant
immersion in these author-noted texts! The process of scribal education was one
of tedious and incessant copying of these
formative texts, and often involved complete memorization and classification:
After having
"argued that in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece, and in the Hellenistic
world that engulfed all these areas, we have
evidence of canons...", Davies lists the main factors that
created 'canonical' literature (i.e., author-linked, well-known, often recited,
source of allusions, basis of education literature) in [HI:SSCHS:33ff, emphasis mine]:
We owe, of course,
the very preservation of these 'canonical' texts to this scribal education, but
it is correlative with it that literary allusions/echoes/references are made to these same works. The notion of
'common tradition' simply does not apply to the literary producers of these
cultures. Works that survive were either 'canonical' or 'very useful'.
So, technical terminology and less-organic
phrases (i.e. non-topoi, or
image-implied language) can be expected
to be found somewhere in the antecedent formative/transformative literature,
especially of the immediately preceding period or two. We will sometimes be
disappointed, but in the period of Jewish history under discussion here--from
the Babylonian Exile to Qumran--our confidence that we have the 'bulk' of the major formative
literary documents of Jewish thought is high. [It should also be
remembered that beginning in this period, Israel will become more 'closed' and
'in-bred' in literary development, restricting the number of books in the
'literary canon' to those produced by Israel and to a lesser extent, by those
at the "edges" of Israel.]
One
comment about 'common parlance' in
non-literary circles: "Author-conscious
tradition" can become "anonymous tradition" in literary circles only over vast periods of time and in cases
of increased discipline fragmentation of the 'expertise' base. (But note that
we have evidence that this did NOT occur in the ANE, and that there are
definite social forces against
this process!). But
"author-conscious tradition" can
become "anonymous popular tradition"
much faster. We know from socio-linguistics, for example, that a major force in
language change is the 'Social prestige' associated with the source. The
'higher status' the source, the faster/more likely the change will be adopted
by the other speakers in that language group ["People come to talk like
those they identify with or admire.", Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Language, p. 333; also Spolsky, Sociolinguistics, Oxford:1998, pp.39ff].
And, in the cases of metaphors/conceptual images, they can be adopted from one
discipline to another discipline, without 'author-conscious connections' (e.g.
Management Science use of 'paradigm shift'; genetics use of 'information
models' for DNA). And, at the popular level, many older 'allusions' will become 'echoes' (e.g., many will
recognize "the face that launched a thousand ships", but few will
know where it came from [example taken from OT:PRSA:17] but many more recent 'allusions' will retain the
author-conscious element (e.g. that Martin Luther King, Jr. and JFK uttered the
quotes used earlier).
But this modern process of de-coupling the
author from the content will not
be operative in our case, for we are talking about the literature 'producers'
(not merely 'consumers'), who in the ANE
learned to read and write by incessant copying of these formative
and 'canonical' texts..."Anonymous common literary tradition" then,
will be concept to 'fall back on' only in
cases where we have no plausible exemplar that can function as a
source (assuming, of course, that there is a plausible channel of transmission
of the textual content between the two).
...................................................................................
We will also need to be alert to possible
'motivations' for borrowing, since obvious cases of this might also
tip us off to suspect it.
"Like Hammill, he
[James Zink] suggest that many Old Testament
phrases which appear in the Apocrypha are not purposeful citations
but are simply an indication that the writer
has saturated his mind with biblical terminology and has sought to imitate its style." [OT:SQVP:149]
"The reasons for this
dependence on utterances of the past vary. It simply may be that the quoter recognizes
the continuing validity of the earlier statement, a validity of the statement
which may be due to the speaker's status as a sage or divine spokesperson. This status may endow the words with an authority with
the quoter hopes to transfer to his or her work, as in the extensive quotation
of the Old Testament in the Qumran Manual of Discipline and Zadokite Document." [OT:SQVP:228]
"many would see in the
reuse of earlier oracles for interpretive purposes at least 'the rise of a canonical consciousness'" [OT:SQVP:106]
"an author may seek to gain entry into a canon...In such a
case, allusion represents an attempt to bolster the authority of the
work." [OT:PRSA:18]
"Biblical writers may
use an older text to bolster their own text
or to help make some claim." [OT:PRSA:29]
"Influence may also
include the repetition of an older text's verbal content. Such cases may be
examples of inclusion from a formal point of view (e.g., the influence of
Samuel and Kings on Chronicles). Alternatively, they may involve a less
word-for-word reliance on the source as the new text restates the older material largely in its own words. For
example, Jubilees and the Temple Scroll
repeat with various changes the stories and laws found in the Pentateuch.
Influence in these cases usually
incorporates one of two thematic relationships, revision or polemic."
[OT:SQVP:25]
"James Kugel characterizes the role of allusion within the bible particularly well: examples of this category serve as "an evocation, an argument by analogy, and...an appropriation of divine law and its authority in order to make" a new point not necessarily related to the topic of the older text." [OT:PRSA:30]
Finally, we should note the various possible
explanations for possible parallels.
Caspari, over a century
ago, generated this list, which is still useful:
To this list--to accommodate for 'common
tradition'--we might add a:
4B. The prophecies of an older prophet were
so pervasively accepted in the literary and popular culture that they became
proverbial (no longer giving rise the question of origination or authorship,
when used by A or B).
Under these possible scenarios, items 2 and 3
would represent 'borrowing'; 4 and 4B would not (at least not from A to B or B
to A); 1 would NOT (since the similarity is due to a restriction in the
language, including topoi); 5 & 6 are editorial functions (includes
borrowing, of course), but 6 could
throw quite a wrinkle into the issue...
For example, number 6 in our case might mean
that someone at Qumran--while copying the book of Daniel--added content to it
from some later work, such as Wisdom of Solomon. This would make it look like
Wis.Sol borrowed from Daniel, when it fact it did not. We KNOW this happened in
the post-apostolic transmission of some of the Jewish intertestamental works
(esp. by Christian copyists, who inserted Christian 'details' into the
explanations, although there is no reason to believe it was done in order to be
able to 'backward reference' a text!), so we will need to be alert to this
possibility. The main difficulty in establishing this type of event, for our
case, will be (a) motive; (b) opportunity to modify Daniel in such a
way; and, of course, (c) evidence
that it occurred. But, we might need to ask the question as we go along.
..................................................................................................................................
Problem three: How will we determine the direction of borrowing (if it is not
obvious from other factors)?
Direction of borrowing is likewise difficult.
Normally one depends on the dating of two documents to be able to establish
this (but notice how #6 above would complicate the matter somewhat), but in our
case, we are trying to establish these dates (or at least ranges of dates).
This area is known to be abused by those with
'leanings toward' a given position
(as I have toward the dating of Daniel), but this need not invalidate the
investigative process and discussion, AS LONG AS the rigors of analysis are
done in a "more than fair" method. In other words, admitting my
position requires me to use more rigor than I would perhaps if I were perfectly neutral (which, of
course, no one is on this issue...) and/or be more
self-critical than I might be on other "less-flammable"
issues (smile)...
Apart from possible question-begging dating
considerations, what types of indications might we look for to establish
direction of borrowing?
Caspari suggested these [Cited at
OT:SQVP:24]:
In many cases, #4 will be a major giveaway,
since "revision" and "polemic" will be indicative of this.
Number 5 has to be carefully applied, since abbreviation and summary are possible
(though infrequent) ways of citation. The general rule of 'uni-linear' growth
is given by Kitchen in HI:AOOT:89 (drawing on Oppenheimer and others):
"In the Ancient Near
East, the rule is that simple accounts or
traditions may give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends,
but not vice versa."
However, as we have noted, there are cases in
which summary/abbreviation may be operative, and there are known cases in the
ANE of where abridgements occurred (e.g. the Amarna version of the Gilgamesh
Epic). But these abridgements and summaries are shortening of the text/story
itself--NOT of details in the text. Passages and details may be omitted, but if
they remain in the text, they never 'shrink' in content. Quoted numbers, for
example, never go 'down' (unless the story is being retold in a context
"unfriendly to" the larger number of course--polemic and politics
always seem to have such license...).
So, we will try to apply these criteria when
called for in our evaluation,
Okay, now let's look at
the literature...
Much of our dating will be rather imprecise on this, so let's
start by surveying most of the major
literature around that
period.
First, we have the Prologue to Sirach (The Wisdom
of Jesus ben Sira).
This book was written in Hebrew somewhere around 190 BC in
Jerusalem [HI:JWSTP:291], and was translated into Greek by the grandson of the
author around 132 BC. [The translated form of the book is part of the OT
Apocrypha.] Hayward states [HI:JTANS:38]: "we may be confident that ben
Sira represents Jewish society as it was before the Hellenistic crisis, which
erupted in the reign of Antiochus IV..."
Sirach is wisdom literature, so we would not expect much of Daniel
to be found there, but scholars have noted some possible allusions or
references.
First, are there any verbal parallels? (Do any scholars recognize verbal parallels between the two?)
Argall points to at least three in the Greek translation [IES:88, 174, 217]
a. The metaphor of 'wisdom shining forth' from the God-inspired
wise:
Sirach 39.8a-b :"When the great Lord will, he shall be filled
with the spirit of understanding: he shall pour out wise sentences, and give
thanks unto the Lord in his prayer. 7 He shall direct his counsel and
knowledge, and in his secrets shall he meditate. 8 He shall shew forth (ekphaino) that which
he hath learned, and shall glory in the law of the covenant of the Lord. 9 Many
shall commend his understanding; and so long as the world endureth, it shall
not be blotted out; his memorial shall not depart away")
with Daniel
12.3: "And those who have insight
will shine brightly (ekphaino) like
the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to
righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. "
Argall notes: "The
metaphor has an eschatological cast in Daniel 12:3".
b. The same idea:
Sirach 24.32: " I will yet make doctrine to shine (ekphaino) as the
morning, and will send forth her light afar off."
with Daniel
12.3: "And those who have insight
will shine brightly (ekphaino)
like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to
righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. "
Argall notes the connection
between these passages, and links them also to the book of Enoch and 1QS
(p.174)
c. "hastening the end" and "appointed time" (
Ben Sira asks God to "hasten the end" and "appoint
the designated time" (Sirach 36.10b)
With Daniel
11.27, 35: "for the end is still to come at the appointed time." And "And some of those who have insight will fall, in
order to refine, purge, and make them pure, until the end time; because it is still to come at
the appointed time."
Argall notes: "Ben Sira
asks God to 'hasten the end' and 'appoint the designated time' (vs 10a) when
these 'mighty (= war-like) deeds' will take place and be acknowledged (vs 10b).
The verbs 'hasten' and 'appoint' are also significant in ben Sira's doctrine of
opposites (40.10; 39.30d). But, in the present context the terms are used
solely with reference to the eschatological battle among the nations." And
then footnotes "Box and Oesterley note that the terms the 'end' and
'appointed time' are used 'almost in a
technical sense' in Dan 11:25, 27".
But much stronger parallels can be
seen in the Hebrew version of Ben Sira.
Douglas Fox, in an article
in 1987, describes the importance of the Hebrew version of Sira to this
question ("Ben Sira on OT Canon Again: The Date of
Daniel", Westminster
Theological Jour., 49 (Fall 87) p.342ff:
"Now the claim that
Daniel is not mentioned in Ben Sira would lose all of its force (and would in
fact be turned on its head) if it could be demonstrated that Ben Sira does
indeed refer to passages in the Book of Daniel, and surprisingly enough, this
now appears to be the case. C. C. Torrey recognized that the Geniza Hebrew
manuscript B of Ben Sira referred to a passage in the Book of Daniel and noted
this in his 1950 essay, “The Hebrew of the Geniza Sirah.” He said that this
Hebrew Ben Sira manuscript is “plainly dependent on the Hebrew of Daniel” and
he gave as evidence “cp 36:10 with Dan 8:19, 11:27, 35.” Torrey’s interesting
observation calls for closer examination.
"In chap. 8 of the Book
of Daniel, the angel Gabriel is called upon to provide Daniel with the meaning
of his vision. The first thing the angel tells Daniel is, “Son of man,
understand that the vision concerns the time of the end”. Later in chap. 11 two
of the same key Hebrew words are used again in a slightly different order. Here
Daniel is receiving an explanation of what will happen to his people in the
future (10:14). In 11:27 the speaker says “for the end is still to come at the
appointed time” . Later in this chapter once again the same words are used a
third time in a similar manner in verse 35, “until the end time, because it is
still to come at the appointed time”.
"The Hebrew words qes
(“time”) and mo'ed (“appointed
time”) are found in collocation on all three of these occasions and they become
almost a technical phrase to refer
to the eschatological end of time.
"Sir 36:8 (which
corresponds to v 10 in the Greek translation, and 33:8 in Segal’s Hebrew
edition) occurs in the middle of an eschatological battle prayer. In v 8 Ben
Sira writes, “Hasten the end, and ordain the appointed time” . Ben Sira’s use
of precisely the same words (again in collocation) with the very same meaning
must be seen as exceedingly strong evidence
of literary dependence, as Torrey had noted.
"But this was only one
of three different passages in Schechter’s list which seemed to refer to the
Book of Daniel. Two other passages in his list paired Sir 3:30 ("doing
right atones for sin") with
Dan 4:24 ("renounce your sins by doing right") , and Sir 36:17 ("O Lord, hear the
prayer of thy servants") with Dan 9:17 ("hear, O God, the prayer of
your servant").
Indeed, the verbal dependency was
admitted by 'hostile witness', Th. Noldeke ("One must acknowledge that one
of these two passages here is dependent on the other."), but he asserted
that it was Daniel who was dependent on Ben Sira...
Boccaccini (also holding to Daniel's
dependence on ben Sira) notes:
"The link with Sirach is once again evident, as
demonstrated also by the vocabulary. The expression in [chapter 2]
verse 22 (gl' mstrt': "[God] reveals the hidden things"] is the
Aramaic equivalent of the formula found in the Hebrew text of Sir 4:18 (glyty
mstry: "I [wisdom] reveal my hidden things"; cf. Sir 3:22). The
terminological coincidence is all the more significant inasmuch as in Daniel
the formula constitutes a hapax, interrupting a context in which another
similar Aramaic expression (gl' rzyn: "God reveals the mysteries [the
enigmas]"; Dan 2:19, 28, 29, 30, 47 [bis]; cf. 2:18, 27; 4:6) is repeated
constantly. The latter is a formula of Persian origin, much less pregnant with
meaning and certainly much nearer to the popular tradition." [MJJT:138]
To these parallels we might add those
listed in the margin of CASA, at Sir 36.17:
"Incline your ear, O my
God, and hear. Open your eyes and look at our desolation and the city that bears your name. We do not
present our supplication before you on the ground of our righteousness, but on
the ground of your great mercies. 19 O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord,
listen and act and do not delay! For your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people bear your name!” [Dan 9.18,19]
Have mercy, O Lord, on the people called by your name, on Israel, whom
you have named your firstborn, [Sir 36.17]
Assessment: Some of these parallels are reasonable
(i.e., the technical terms), but the more generic ones I do not find convincing
(e.g., the 'hear the prayer' also is found in Neh 1). Scholars on both sides admit some literary dependence,
especially with reference to Sirach 36. The fact that some of these terms are
considered 'specialist' terms moves them away from 'common vocab' to the 'rare'
and 'striking' category. So our basic criteria lead us to accept what the
various scholars advance her.
Then: which is the most likely direction of
borrowing (given
that we cannot use an assumption of priority of date)?
Let's go through Caspari's list, noting
those that might apply here:
1. For which prophet is literary borrowing more typical?
This is very obvious--Ben
Sira!
"Ben Sira is unique
within the genre of wisdom literature in that it “is sprinkled with explicit
references and recognizable allusions to biblical persons and events…and the
actual quotation of scripture.” Solomon Schechter, whose name has been closely
associated with Ben Sira studies because he was the first to identify the
recovered Hebrew version of the book, said in his classic (but now hard to
find) work The Wisdom of Ben Sira
that “Ben Sira, though not entirely devoid of original ideas, was, as is well
known, a conscious imitator both
as to form and as to matter, his chief model being the book of Proverbs.”
Schechter then proved this assertion by providing a list of 340 phrases,
idioms, typical expressions, and even whole verses from the OT of which he said
that “there can be no reasonable doubt that they
were either suggested to Ben Sira by, or directly copied from the Scriptures.”
A. Eberharter, a decade later, also searched Ben Sira for the same information
and found 66 allusions and 67 references to the Pentateuch, 21 allusions and 48
references to the former prophets, and 171 allusions and 125 references to the
hagiographa—all totaled 327 allusions and 275 references to the OT. T.
Middendorp conducted his own search of Ben Sira in 1973 and found 70 allusions
to the Pentateuch, 46 allusions to the historical books, 51 allusions to the
prophetical books, and over 160 allusions to the hagiographa—altogether 330
allusions to the OT. Schechter had expressed the view, later confirmed by these
independent investigations, that “the impression produced by the perusal of Ben
Sira’s original on the student who is at all familiar with the Hebrew
Scriptures is that of reading the work of a post-canonical author, who already
knew his Bible and was constantly quoting it.” [Douglas Fox, ibid.]
And, although Daniel does
have some inner-biblical allusions and references itself (e.g. Jeremiah!), it
is so obviously more independent (so Fox, ibid):
"In addition, it should
be recalled, as Schechter and others have emphasized, that Ben Sira was a
conscious imitator, while the author of the Book of Daniel must be seen as a highly creative and original thinker. We expect Ben
Sira to rely on others, but not the author of the Book of Daniel.
So, the "typical pattern"
criteria would support a Sira-from-Daniel view.
4. Can any plausible motivation for this borrowing be
suggested?
It is easy to come up with a
motivation for ben Sira to allude to Daniel--to simply 'show off' his command
of the biblical literature (like the rest of his work does)--but the opposite
direction is not obvious at all:
(a) The main section of
Daniel under discussion (i.e. Daniel 8-11) is generally classed as
"apocalyptic", and this genre doesn't appeal to 'scribal wisdom' authority
very often at all. Sirach is quoted extensively by later Rabbinical writers (in
that same 'scribal wisdom' model), but the later apocalypses do not do so.
There would not be any motivation or reason for this (nor historically
observable pattern to suggest this ever occurred).
(b) There is also the
problem of polemical clash. In this comparative study of Enochian tradition and
Sirach, Argill notes:
"Ben Sira maintains
that wisdom comes through study of the Torah in his school. He explicitly warns against the revelatory claims of
those who study esoteric traditions or rely on visions and dreams
(Sir 3:17-29; 34:1-8). Of course, this is precisely what the bearers of Enochic
literature do" [IES:3]
"There is evidence to
suggest that ben Sira and the authors of 1 Enoch were aware of one another and
that their respective views were formulated, at least in part, over against one another." [IES:8]
"Such differences are the stuff of conflict. In
the comparative sections of Parts I-III, the
evidence for polemics was stated. It is not conclusive, but it is
enough to make a case that each tradition
views the other among its rivals. Much of the polemic that occurs,
including the charge of idolatry, is standard rhetoric for opposing teachers
and traditions. However, ben Sira uses specific vocabulary that indicates his rivals teach esoteric wisdom. His
vocabulary brings Enochic tradition to mind. Ben Sira warns his students not to
study "things too marvelous," "secret things," "what
is beyond you" and "what is too great for you" (Sir 3:21-23). He
criticizes the parabolic interpretations of "dream-visions" (Sir
34[31]:1-8). This is the language that the authors of I Enoch use to characterize their wisdom
("beyond their thought," I En 82:2;
"great wisdom," 32:3; "dreams ... and visions," 13:8;
"mystery," 103:2a; 104:10a, 12a). Moreover, the author of the Epistle
of Enoch is aware of opponents who claim his wisdom is "evil"
(94:5)-the very charge ben Sira leveled against esoteric wisdom (Sir 3:21b,
24b, 28c)." [IES:250]
Ben Sira goes to great pains
in his work to equate 'wisdom' with 'study of the Torah' and to restrict the
authority claims of other types of wisdom (esp. Enochian/Danielic and probably,
Hellenistic). A late-date Daniel would be at polar opposites from this
worldview and would not likely 'legitimize' it by borrowing (without major
revision and/or polemic). So Chester [HI:IIW:160]:
"[T]hus once again it
is evident that Ben Sira, for apologetic and polemical reasons, ties wisdom almost exclusively to the law,
in a deliberate development and change from the wisdom tradition,
especially Proverbs..." [i.e., bears of the 'universal wisdom' approach]
So, the "motivation" criteria
would support a Sira-from-Daniel view.
So, the two criteria that would apply here
would both argue for a Sira-from-Daniel view
Pushback: "Glenn, you
overlook the strongest argument against your position (typical!)...in the
section of Sirach called 'In Praise of Ancient Heroes', ben Sira mentions
'everybody who's anybody' in OT history--and he leaves out Daniel!!! He
mentions all the other prophets, and even the Minor prophets...every major
(positive) figure is listed--except Daniel. This has got to be stronger
evidence against Daniel being written by 190 BC, than your puny
parallels..."
Actually, there are two major problems
with taking this view:
1. He doesn't mention Ezra either, and
in the scribal tradition, this is almost incomprehensible. Various reasons are
given (e.g., Ezra was not the leader--Nehemiah was), but it's all conjectural.
As long as Ezra is pre-Sirach and is not mentioned, then Daniel could be
pre-Sirach and not be mentioned. The argument cannot stand, given this Ezra
omission. [Of course, Daniel was not a 'leader' either, and so this reason for
Ezra's exclusion could explain
Daniel's, but Jeremiah is included and HE is not a 'leader'. But then again,
Daniel actually "had a real job" unlike the Classical prophets, and
so might not have been treated in the same way. In any case, we don't have
convincing reasons so far as to why either Daniel or Ezra were left out.]
2. The anti-Enochian polemic/instruction
might also be at play in this. If ben Sira is 'selling against'
Enoch/Daniel/esoteric wisdom models, it would make sense for him to 'ignore'
Daniel, and even to 'downplay' Enoch. If you look at the mention of Enoch in
44.16 (he gets one verse there, and one at 49.14), he gets a 'backhanded
compliment'. Unlike most of the other heroes, Enoch is not an example of
"perfection and righteousness" (compare Noah in the next verse,
44.17), but of "repentance"--an explicit reference to sin!
One additional piece of data that tends
to support this almost anti-futurist position of ben Sira's comes from his
treatment of Isaiah. He definitely recognizes and utilizes Isaiah frequently,
but is highly selective in that:
"According to
Middendorp, although Sirach was familiar with the entire book [of Isaiah], his
process of selection is remarkable for its
omissions: no emphasis on the 'servant' or 'the day of the Lord', little attention to
social and theocratic concerns, minimal
actualization of promises and futuristic visions for his own day.
'The actual prophetic concern, that God speaks, shapes the history of his people, and supports justice in
their corporate life, is not taken up." [OT:SQVP:153]
I don't want to make too much out of the
anti-esoteric point, but the reality is that the inexplicable Ezra-omission
renders the Daniel-omission essentially forceless. If the polemic is present, it is against the method of getting wisdom in the
Danielic/Enochian tradition (via esoteric wisdom, instead of via study of
Torah) and NOT against apocalyptic views (since Sir 36 is essentially filled
with apocalyptic materials). Hence, Sirach could borrow apocalyptic terminology
and truths from Daniel, but not hold him up as a 'role model' for his readers.
Additional Data: There is one other piece of argument here that
needs to be considered, and it is the influence relationship between Sirach,
Daniel, the War Scroll, and the Damascus Rule of Qumran. We noted above that
Noldeke admitted literary dependence between Sirach and Daniel, but argued that
Daniel was dependent on Sirah. I have given argument above about why this is
less plausible, but an additional argument against this is given by Fox:
"In answer to Nöldeke’s
claim, it is interesting that these two words qes and mo'ed
are used extensively in the Qumran literature. B. Roberts noted the use of qes 15 times in the Damascus Rule (CD) and
he commented that the word often takes on an apocalyptic nuance. Yigael Yadin
in his study of the War Scroll (IQM) noted the “enormous influence of Daniel”
both in style and in apocalyptic and eschatological terminology, including the
words qes and mo'ed.
"In a similar vein, M.
R. Lehman compared this passage in Ben Sira 36:1–17 (he followed Segal’s
numbering system) with the four battle prayers in IQM and noted such similarity
that he was led to postulate that either
the Qumran author was influenced by Ben Sira or
that both “paraphrased a common source.” Scholars such as Y. Yadin,
J. van der Ploeg, and G. Vermes have recognized that Daniel is the source for
the War Rule. Thus the common source for the
War Rule and Ben Sira, which Lehman recognized, must also be the Book of
Daniel.
Any question that either texts were
edited in 'post-production' to create the appearance of parallels? No evidence whatsoever
exists for this, and actually I cannot think of a conscious motive to do so. I
can see a motive for Sira using Daniel (to display his knowledge), but no
reason for modifying Daniel in those few details to reflect Sira. [BTW, this
"objection" is generally restricted to places where the 'conspiracy
element' is very pronounced--e.g. Christian additions to Jewish literature--and
even some suggestions of these are pure speculation.]
So, I think the data can be understood
honestly, easily, and confidently that ben Sira drew terminology from the Book
of Daniel.
Secondly, we have The
Apocalypse of Zephaniah (1st century BC - 1st century AD, Greek-speaking
Jew, probably in Alexandria):
This work has numerous, numerous parallels to Daniel (ones below
are identified by Wintermute in OTP:1), and yet is entirely free of Christian
interpolation [OTP:1:501]. Some of these include:
·
"You saved Susanna from the hand of the elders of
injustice. You saved the three holy men, Shadrach,
Meshach, Abednego, from the furnace of burning fire." (6:10)
·
"Then I walked with the angel of the Lord. I
looked before me and I saw a place there. [Thousands]
of thousands and myriads of myriads of an[gels] entered" [4.1f
and 8.1, paral2 Dan 7.10]
·
"Then I thought that the Lord Almighty had come
to visit me. Then when I saw, I fell upon my face before him in order that I
might worship him. I was very much afraid..." [6.4ff, paral2 Dan 10.10;
8.17]
·
"And he was girded as if a golden girdle were
upon his breast. His feet were like bronze
which is melted with fire." [6.13, paral2 Dan 10.5f]
Wintermute concludes:
·
"In the Apocalypse of Zephaniah the angel who
is worshiped is both identified and described (6:11-15) in a passage that is
strikingly similar to Revelation 1:13-18. The
passage is obviously based on the description of a figure appearing in Daniel
10:5-14. The fact that the figure in Daniel is not identified undoubtedly
generated a considerable amount of speculation...The author, or the source on
which he relies, has both edited and expanded Daniel's vision at points. "
[OTP:1:505]
·
"The
author's interest in angels, thrones, and apocalyptic judgment represents a more
direct influence from the later Old Testament collection of writings, particularly Daniel and Psalms."
[OPT:1:504]
Although this
work is clearly later than our period, it may be important for a couple of
reasons:
1.
It witnesses to
the acceptance of Daniel by non-Qumranites (reminding us of the pre-sectarian
argument earlier).
2.
The reference to
the story of Susanna, which was an add-on to the original Daniel. This would
push the actual dating of Daniel even further forward, based on this quote. Susanna
was "probably composed between the third and first centuries BCE"
(HCSB). If Susanna is somehow in the front-half of that time period (and
depending on the date of the LXX of Daniel, which could easily be before 165 BC), it would
constitute evidence for pre-Maccabean existence of parts of Daniel. If ApocZeph
is dated to the 1st century BC, this would push the acceptance of Susanna (for the Alexandrian community, or for
whatever Greek-speaking area the author was in) most likely into the early-mid
2nd century, which in turn, would push the date of the translation of Daniel into Greek (to which
Susanna was 'attached') even further back. Thus, the importance of ApocZeph
might lie chiefly in its early witness to "Daniel plus" as 'scriptural' for Diaspora Judaism. [Note that attempts to
date Susanna around the latter part of the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (c.80ish
BC) are obviously way too late--if the story is alluded to by use of the
name/theme of the main character simultaneously
with the story's origination (smile), we obviously have a problem...And the
earlier we have to push Susanna, in order to make sense of this positive
literary use, the earlier the 'base station' of the Book of Daniel will have to
be situated as well.]
3.
At least chapters 3, 7, and 10 are referred to (both
the allegedly 'early' and the 'late' sections).
So, even though ApocZeph is
later than Daniel, it still provides some
support for early-dating Daniel (largely through the early reference to
Susanna).
...................................................................................................
Third, we have the work of Ezekiel
the Tragedian (early 2nd Century BC, Greek, probably in Egypt), the Exagoge 68:
"...the dream
which was seen by Moses and interpreted by his father-in-law. Moses himself
speaks to his father-in-law in dialogue: 'On Sinai's peak I saw what seemed a throne so great in size it touched the clouds of heaven. Upon it sat a man of noble mien, becrowned, and
with a scepter in one hand while with the other he did beckon me. I made approach and stood
before the throne. He handed o'er the scepter
and he bade me mount the throne, and gave to me the crown; then he himself withdrew from off the
throne'"
In this passage, Moses sees God in the form of a man (phos, poetic for aner), and then God transfers sovereignty from Himself to
Moses, seating Moses on His own throne.
Robertson, the translator in OTP, says this about this passage
(OTP:II:812, n.b2):
"In terms of content there are some remarkable coincidences between Moses'
dream and that of Joseph (cf. Gen 37:9) and
the vision of Daniel (cf. Dan 7:13, 14)." [OTP:1:811, n.z]
"Its significance lies in the fact that Ezekiel would
represent God as a man, an image which is
surely rooted in the figures of 'the son of man' and 'the Ancient of Days' in
Daniel's vision."
Daniel 7 reads:
In
the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel saw a dream and visions in his mind as he lay
on his bed; then he wrote the dream
down and related the following summary
of it....I kept looking Until thrones
were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His
seat;... I kept looking
in the night visions, And behold, with the
clouds of heaven One like a Son of
Man was coming, And He came up to
the Ancient of Days And was presented
before Him. 14 “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations, and men of
every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting
dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be
destroyed.
...................................................................................................
Pushback: "I don't get it--why did the Robertson
scholar identify this with Daniel, instead of
with Ezekiel 1.26? This latter passage is just as similar, so why
would you (and Robertson) believe it to refer only to Daniel?"
Let's look at the Ezekiel passage:
"Above
the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high
above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. 27 I saw that from what appeared to be
his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from
there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in
the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the
LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown..."
Notice the similarities between Ezekiel the Tragedian and Ezekiel the Prophet:
1.
there is a
throne
2.
on the throne is
a human-like form
3.
this figure is
identified with the 'glory of the Lord'
Notice the similarities between Ezekiel the Tragedian and Daniel's passage:
1.
it is a dream
2.
there is a throne
3.
on the throne is
"the Ancient of Days"
4.
the reference to
the 'clouds of heaven'
5.
a human figure
(Moses, Son of Man) advances to before the throne
6.
authority and a
kingdom is given to
a human vice-regent (son of man, and Moses)
7.
the character of
this kingdom/authority is that of God's kingdom/authority itself
The main reason the Daniel link is to be preferred is NOT
primarily due to the "7 similarities versus 3 similarities", but
rather to the "dynamic versus static" aspect. In other words, the
Daniel passage is about the granting of divine
authority to a human vice-regent, just like the EzekTrad passage is.
In EzekTrad it is Moses, in Daniel it is the Son of Man. It is this core
movement that corresponds better to the EzekTrad passage that is the likely
reason Robertson picked Daniel ["Moses is portrayed as having been chosen
by God to represent him as divine vizier."]. (And, the likely reason
EzekTrad picked the Daniel 7 passage--a perfect way to portray the power and
grandeur of Moses to a pagan world.)
So, the identification with Daniel is more compelling...
Robertson then places the work in the pre-150 BC period:
"Perhaps a more significant indication of the actual
situation from which Ezekiel's work evolved is the polemic found in the Letter of Aristeas 312-316, where the author
addresses himself to the question of certain tragic poets who sought to adapt
some of the incidents recorded in the Bible for their plays. The situation
described here presupposes literature such as Ezekiel's Exagoge. This, combined with the fact that
Ezekiel's work may have been based on a recension of the Septuagint text, seems
to point to a somewhat later date than that suggested by Kuiper [note: Kuiper
had argued for a pre-221 BC!], perhaps the
first part of the second century BC."
[OTP:II.804]
Notice that the data
confronts us again with a 200-150
BCE spread, and that the "odds" are 2:1 that the piece itself is
WRITTEN before the Maccabean Revolt. And therefore, that this allusion to
Daniel 7 (remember, Robertson's "rooted in" phrase) would therefore
require a date for Daniel much earlier. If either (a) Exagoge was written before 165; or (b)
written after, but basing the allusion on pre-165 familiarity with Daniel 7; we
have a pre-165 date again.
This image is obviously
'rare' and 'striking', as well as detailed and vivid, and not something 'to be
expected' from Jewry!
Do we need to ask the direction of borrowing question on this
one?
From Ezek-to-Daniel: Would a Maccabean
Jerusalemite, in the middle of the Maccabean revolt, pick a couple of phrases
from a couple of iambic trimeter verses from a Greek Tragedy (probably prepared
for the Alexandrian stage, and probably unknown--or despised as being way too
"Hellenistic"--in Jerusalem at the time, cf. the polemic in Aristeas) to use in his apocalyptic
section? This would be hugely counter-productive, in writing for the 'wise' of
the second half of the book! [This, of course, assumes that he would have even
had access to such a literary work in Jerusalem, which would be very
questionable in itself.]
From Daniel-to-Ezek: This direction is entirely
plausible, for the Danielic image is the only image in biblical Judaism that
would 'work' to exalt a human so highly. The only image that could accommodate
such 'almost divine' honors for a human like Moses would be the same passage
that would later be seen to refer to the Son of God. It would be a literary
vehicle for Ezekiel, only, since he was not playing off the 'evocative force'
of allusion, but merely using a 'sanctioned motif' to express his point. Even
though his work was designed for Hellenistic audiences, it would still have
been important for his Jewish audience to respect his 'orthodoxy'...
So, the EzekTrad reference
confirms our pre-Maccabean date, but doesn't give us much more clarity on how much
earlier Daniel might have been.
.......................................................................................................
Fourth would be 1 Enoch,
the first 36 chapters of which is dated to the
third century BC:
"The chapters [1 Enoch 1-36] are a collection of traditions
that have accreted over a period of time...Our earliest Aramaic manuscript
evidence indicates that chaps. 1-11 were already a literary unit in the first
half of the second century BCE. As we shall see, chaps. 1-5 are the
introduction to a longer number of chapters--either 6-19 or 6-36. Evidence in 1
Enoch 85-90 indicates that 1 Enoch 1-36 was known before the death of Judas
Maccabeus in 160 BCE. Hence we are justified in treating these chapters as a product of the period before
175 BCE." [JLBBM:48]
How much earlier than 175 BC? More recent assessments of the date
actually place it much earlier (van der Woude, in [HI:DSS50A:26]):
"The thesis that the
Book of Watchers as we have it dates to the
3rd century BCE is now widely accepted...
This section of 1 Enoch
is known as "The Book of Watchers" (BW), named after the
angel-watchers in 1:5. The "book of Enoch"(1 Enoch) is composed of
five sections, most of which are dated to different periods. For example, the
chapters which follow the Book of Watchers (37-71) is known as the Book of
Similitudes, and is dated to the first century BC. [The Book of Similitudes is
famous for its 'Son of Man' figure, which figure doesn't appear in any of the other sections.]
This manifests some close language/image parallels with Daniel:
I Enoch 1.5:
the "Watchers" terminology (with Dan 4.13,17,23--no other precedents
in biblical literature)
I
Enoch 14.17-21:
"As for its
floor, it was of fire and above it was lightning and the path of the stars; and
as for the ceiling, it was flaming fire. And I observed and saw inside it a lofty throne--its appearance was like crystal and its wheels like the shining sun; and (I heard?) the voice of
the cherubim; and from beneath the throne were
issuing streams of flaming fire. It was difficult to look at it. And
the Great Glory was sitting upon it--as
for his gown, which was shining
more brightly than the sun, it was whiter
than any snow...No one could come near unto him from among those
that surrounded the tens of millions (that
stood) before him",
with Dan 7.9-10:
"
"I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His vesture
was like white snow, And the hair of His head like pure wool.
His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels
were a burning fire. "A river
of fire was flowing And coming out from before Him; Thousands upon thousands were attending
Him, And ten thousands upon ten thousands were standing before Him;
The court sat, And the books were opened.
Now, the "Watchers" connection is pretty strong, since
there are no other biblical candidates for
the term. The terms are used somewhat differently in Daniel
(Watchers can be good or bad, whereas in Enoch they are 'bad'). And, as a very
'rare' and technical term, this is a definite point of parallelism.
The second case (the Throne image) is more controversial, with
many scholars claiming that Enoch was dependent on Ezekiel 1 for this image, so
we will need to evaluate that alternative parallel-source.
Let's try this in tabular
comparison format (red highlight*
indicates exact/very-close match):
|
Item |
1 Enoch |
Ezek |
Daniel |
|
1 |
Lofty
throne |
something
resembling a throne (1.26), 'high
up'* |
Thrones
[no mention of 'height'] |
|
2 |
"I
looked..." |
"I
saw..." (1.27) |
"I
kept looking..." |
|
3 |
Like
crystal |
like lapis lazuli in appearance (1.26)* |
Throne
is flames of fire (not crystal?) |
|
4 |
Wheels
like shining sun |
[no
wheels on the throne] |
Wheels were blazing fire* |
|
5 |
Voice
of cherubim |
[cherubim
noise is only from wings, no voices] |
[no
mention of cherubim] |
|
6 |
Streams
of fire from
under the throne |
[only
the figure is glowing] |
River of fire flowing from under the throne* |
|
7 |
"Great
Glory" on the throne |
a
figure with the appearance of a man (later
called 'the appearance of the likeness
of the glory of the Lord') |
"Ancient of Days" on the throne* |
|
8 |
Gown,
incandescent |
[Figure
itself glows, no detail about clothing] |
[hair
of head bright white?] |
|
9 |
Gown,
whiter than snow |
[nothing
about white, but 'shining rainbow'?] |
Clothing, white AS snow* |
|
10 |
Tens
of millions before Him |
[only
the four creatures below the throne] |
"thousands upon thousands...etc."* |
Now, apart from Item 1
(which would easily be an 'organic' detail, and therefore not distinctive,
striking, or rare), only Item 3 is "only/better explained" by
dependence on Ezekiel, than by dependence on Daniel, whereas Items 4,6,7,9, and
10 are "only/better explained" by dependence on Daniel.
And the Daniel parallels
include items that are quite striking and memorable: flaming wheels (unlike
even the crystal wheels of the Creatures of Ezek 1), river of fire from throne,
the massive crowd before the throne, and the brilliant clothing. The match
between Daniel and Enoch must be admitted to be so much better than the match
between Ezekiel and Enoch (and between Ezekiel and Daniel also, I might point
out, since there are some who argue that Daniel 7 was primarily based on this
Ezek 1 passage). Of course, there is no reason that the author of 1 Enoch
couldn't have known/used both sources (in fact, that is the best explanation
for the one "Ezekiel-ism"), but knowledge of Ezekiel and the other
Classical prophets are inadequate to explain the source of the Daniel-only
images in 1 Enoch.
So, we have a very definite
case of verbal parallels here, but the BIG QUESTION will be 'what is the
direction of borrowing?'...
The direction of borrowing question (if we are
trying to suspend making judgments on 'controlling paradigm' bases for this
discussion) is a fascinating one.
There are a number of
considerations that argue that Daniel is the source and Enoch the borrower:
1. The first is the obvious
direction of embellishment/expansion (generally, the rule is "from the
less to the more"). In our case, the expansion of "as white as
snow" to "whiter than
snow" and "from thousands upon thousands and tens of thousands upon
tens of thousands" to "tens of millions" is strong evidence [but not conclusive] that
Enoch is the 'embellisher'.
2. 1 Enoch (our BW section) is also a very 'borrowing author' (unlike the biblical book of Daniel,
noted above):
·
"Recent studies have disclosed how completely the theophany in 1.3b-9 and
the eschatological curses and blessings of 5:4-9 rest upon biblical foundations. In fact, it is safe to say
that there is no clear evidence that the
author has advanced beyond his biblical models in expressing his
eschatological convictions." [HI:EGAT:119]
·
"Although 1 Enoch 6-11 is a composite narrative
in which at least two strands have been imperfectly interwoven, it is unmistakably based on Gen
6:1-2,4--the terse paragraph about the sons of God and the daughters of men. It
is, however, no less apparent that the writers have made extensive changes in
and additions to the biblical model." [HI:EGAT:125]
·
"In many ways I Enoch 14:8-25 is a pastiche of biblical phrases and motifs
that have been drawn primarily from 1 Kgs 22:19-22, Isaiah 6, and Ezekiel 1
(also 8 and 10)..." [HI:EGAT:134, but note, as above, there are still
'striking' elements in the passage that cannot be found in these proposed
sources--Daniel is the only biblical source for some of those]
·
"In the BW Enoch plays the part of a magnet that attracts heterogeneous mythological
materials apparently from a variety of sources including the Bible."
[HI:EGAT:140]
3. The motivation element is
very telling in this case...
The 3rd century BC shows evidence
of a power struggle between various theological groups. The forces that led to
sectarian Judaism are all in evidence in this period: Hellenization,
esoteric/Mesopotamian approaches, "Torah-only" scribal/sage
paradigms, even magical elements. We have noted above that Ben Sira and
"Enoch" represent rival methodologies vis-à-vis wisdom, with perhaps ben Sira representing more of
the 'status quo' [IES:249ff], and what will later emerge as 'a scribal
worldview'. Enochic tradition and much of the follow-on literature (e.g.,
Jubilees) can easily be seen as attempts to 'wrest dominance' from the
'traditional' power-bearers of the religious/local authorities. This is clearly
the case with rival systems of Halakah (e.g., Qumran, Essene), and some of the
documents known as 're-told
bibles' can be seen as attempts to authenticate rival systems of halakah (by
'grounding' new systems and interpretations in alleged 'ancient' revelations or
interpretations).
With the Enochian literature
this 'assault' mentality--in its explicit
claim to superior revelatory
authority--is even more obvious. Nickelsburg observes:
"[I]t is noteworthy
that the authors of I Enoch do not simply attribute their writings to a
pre-Mosaic author. They also present them in
a manner that devalues the Mosaic Pentateuch. The initial oracle in
chapters 1-5 is a paraphrase of part of Deut. 33 and some of the
content and testamentary language is chapter 91 is reminiscent of Moses'
farewell discourse in Deut. 29-32. In effect,
this casts Moses into the role of a "me-too." In addition,
the account of the events at Mount Sinai in the Animal Vision, while it allows
Moses an important role as a leader of Israel and even grants him a vision of
the Deity, never states that he received the Torah on Mount Sinai (89:29-34).
Revelation came to Israel at Marah (89:28; cf. Exod 15:25-26). Thus, I Enoch leapfrogs the Mosaic Torah and assumes for
itself a prophetic authority that precedes Moses...Finally, I Enoch claims revelatory authority for material that
may well have been created through more "normal" processes.
The Book of the Luminaries seems to reflect empirical observation. Similarly,
the decisive interpretations of the Torah that are implied in the Epistle may
well have developed through the kind of exegesis suggested by Ben Sira. That the Enochic authors knew most of the Tanakh is clear.
Of course, their use of biblical material, not through citation, but by appeal
to ancient (really new) revelation, is a corollary of the fictitious date of
the writing. However, it also makes a
theological point. This is revelation. [HI:PPAPLDSS:101]
The implication for our
discussion should be obvious: a post-165 Danielic author (very status quo, from most scholarly
estimates)would have had more
to lose by being associated with a 'subversive element' like
"Enoch" than
would an Enochian writer by alluding to canonical works--evoking
feelings of authority, legitimacy, antiquity. And, if this canonical source had
elements that looked-a-little-like Enochian method (e.g., dreams/visions), all
the better...
4. This motivation issue is
highlighted a little more clearly when we look at the huge differences in
outlook between the 'more anciently Jewish' Daniel and the 'more anciently
syncretistic' Enoch.
Daniel represents the simpler,
OT/Tanakh view that the plight of Israel is related to her lack of fidelity to
the covenant--NOT to some astrological or angelic super-forces. Boccacinni
documents these major differences in worldview for us:
"In
the Book of Dream Visions [Enoch],
corruption is brought about in creation because the angels' sin directly
influences the very possibility of human resistance to evil. It drastically
limits human freedom of choice and responsibility. Humankind is thus more the victim than the doer of evil. The
degeneration of history is the collective manifestation of a corruption at work
against individuals on the ontological level...In Daniel, on the other hand, history degenerates because God
has made it the instrument of punishment of
the people of Israel who, fully exercising their freedom, failed to meet the
commitments of the covenant. Nothing intervened to modify human
ability to choose; human beings were and remain free." [MJJT:149]
"In
Daniel we find the same degenerative conception of history that we have seen in
the Dream Visions, as well as the same anticipation of the eschatological
reign; however, these elements do not have
the same meaning for the two authors. The entire course of history
is revealed to Enoch, from the creation until the eschatological reign. History
is a drama that unfolds with humankind as both protagonist and victim.
"All of the men's deeds were shown to me, each in all of their parts"
(I Enoch 90:41), states Enoch at the book's conclusion. The explanation of
everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen is contained in the
Book of Dream Visions, which explains the origin of evil, sets the limits of
human freedom, and indicates the characteristics of future salvation....The
idea of causality within the unfolding of history corresponds to the
apocalyptic idea of a world corrupted by an original sin. For Dream Visions
this sin effects its degenerative action in the succession of increasingly
iniquitous kingdoms up until the cathartic intervention of God. This concept appears completely extraneous to the
author of Daniel, who organizes his thought, as well as the literary
structure of the book, around two fundamental ideas: first, sovereignty belongs to God, who grants it and revokes
it according to God's will and established times (chaps. 2-7); second, the cause of history's degeneration is the breaking
of the covenant, which has brought down upon the people the curse
contained therein (chaps. 8-12). " [MJJT:141]
"As
for the retributory criteria of individual
judgment, it is clear from the whole of Daniel that it is based on the covenant.
The resolution to the problem of the relationship between good and bad deeds,
however, is not made explicit. The image of the "steelyard" used in
Dan 5:27 is traditional and in itself does not imply a weighing of the quantity
of actions. Daniel's words to Nebuchadnezzar are more significant: Daniel
advises him to "redeem his sins by practicing righteousness, and his
iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed" (Dan 4:24). These words echo
analogous expressions of Ben Sira (cf. Sir 3:3, 14, 30; 35:3), who drew the
idea of God's comprehensive evaluation of an individual's actions from the
expiatory value of righteous deeds in relation to transgressions. ...In the Dream Visions, judgment has a completely different value. It is more a reestablishment of a corrupted order through an
indistinctly operated elimination of both those who are responsible
and those who have been involved against their will. Judgment, therefore, is
made primarily against the rebellious angels (cf. I Enoch 90:2 1-2 5) and, only
by association, human beings and their institutions (cf. I Enoch
90:26-28)." [MJJT:155]
"As
we have seen, even in the judgment
of contemporary events Daniel and the Dream
Visions take different positions, for anything but marginal reasons.
This is an effect, and yet another proof, of
the distance that separates them ideologically and makes them witnesses of two independent currents of thought within
middle Judaism." [MJJT:159]
Daniel is thus much, much more "orthodox" than
Enochic writings, and the 'political advantage' of borrowing would be on
Enoch's side...(Not to get off the subject, but one can trace a progression in
the Enochian literature from the more astrological/Mesopotamian beginnings to
the 'intrusion and infusion' of Jewish elements. See [HI:EGAT])
Let me hasten to add that it
is not necessarily Enochian 'traditions'
that are suspect, but Enochian literature.
Ben Sira, for example, doesn't argue against Enoch himself, but against the methods in the Enochian literature. As "more Jewish" Enochian
tradition increasingly found its way into "more Mesopotamian"
Enochian literature, some of the
elements in the resulting literature were bound to be historically true. There
are clear indications that very ancient oral traditions could accurately
preserve historical detail (cf. [NT:TMP:154-167], in which Jacobs documents
some very ancient ANE mythological terms--not preserved in the biblical
documents, but preserved in late midrash).
So, in the issue of direction
of borrowing: the textual data, borrowing-patterns, and historical motivation
all support the view that the author of 1
Enoch 1-36 borrowed from Daniel.
Now, if this is indeed the
case, then the dating of Daniel
(or at least Daniel 4 and Daniel 7, representing both sections of the
final edition) is pushed back even earlier than our other 200 BC date. For 1 Enoch to "use" Daniel in this
way requires a fully-"canonical" Daniel--one that would be recognized
as having "authority, legitimacy, antiquity" by all the 'controlling' theological
authorities...We could easily advance a conservative 'Jewish acceptance' date in the late 4th /early 3rd century
(allowing only 100-150 years for 'stabilizing'--e.g., Chronicles was likely
written no later than 300 BC, and was being circulated and cited by 150 BC, cf.
Ulrich, [ DSSOB:208]), and this, of course, would push the date of final
writing/edits somewhat before this. We plausibly could make a case for
origination of most/much of Daniel (under this approach) by no later than
mid-4th century. [This would also correspond with the 'literary diffusion' and
Persian-date 're-dating' done by scholars on the basis of the Qumran
finds--noted in the first section of this series.]
........................................................................................................................
Pushback::
"I think you just tripped yourself up, glenn, with this 'from less to
more' argument on borrowing direction. At Qumran, we have manuscripts of the
Book of Giants that have a throne-theophany very similar to Daniel, in which it
looks like Daniel is the one who 'inflates' the numbers! [See HI:SASQ50:216ff,
where this is documented even.] This would make Daniel the borrower and the
"semi-Enochian" BG the source. And, since BG is fairly late, this
would make Daniel even later."
Interestingly, I believe the
author you mentioned makes an compelling case for literary dependence between Daniel and BG, but I think he "mis-counted"
in his argument about the 'numbers'. Here are the relevant texts from that
article:
BG: "Behold, the ruler
of the heavens descended to the earth, and thrones
were erected and the Great Holy One sat down. A hundred hundreds
(were) serving him; a thousand thousands [(were) worshipping?] him. [A]ll stood
[be]fore him. And behold the books
were opened and judgment was spoken; and the judgment of [The Great
One] (was) [wr]itten [in a book] and (was) sealed in an ascription...[ ] for
every living being and (all) flesh and upon..."
Dan 7.9-10: "I was
looking until thrones were set up
and an Ancient of Days sat down.
His clothing (was) like snow-white. And the hair of his head (was) like white
wool. His throne (was) flames of fire; its wheels (were) a burning fire. A
river of fire flowed and went forth from before it. A thousand thousands served him, and a myriad myriads stood before him.
The court sat down, and books were opened."
The author you mention
explicitly refers to the phenomena of Daniel turning "hundreds" into
"thousands" (twice, p.218 and 210), but this is a faulty comparison,
involving the incorrect terms in
the comparison. Notice the structure in the passage:
|
Book of Giants |
Daniel |
|
A
hundred hundreds |
(none) |
|
A
thousand thousands |
A
thousand thousands |
|
All |
A
myriad myriads |
|
Stood before Him |
Stood before Him |
As can be seen from this
chart, the BG has added another phrase
"a hundred hundreds" and expanded
"a myriad myriads" to "all". The "thousand
thousands" was unchanged. The BG--at least in this case--has clearly
expanded on Daniel, and not vice versa.
Also, the author there notes
that BG has three verbs (serving, worshipping, standing) while Daniel has only
two (serving, standing).
The BG has some elements not
included in Daniel (e.g., the judgment at the end) as does Daniel (e.g., the
appearance of the throne figure). Inclusion and exclusion of larger passages by
authors are quite legitimate and not as objective of criteria of borrowing as
is expansion of numbers ("myriad myriads" to all) and expansion of
series (the addition of "hundred hundreds" at the beginning of the
series).
Accordingly, I think the
actual data supports BG borrowing from Daniel and not vice versa. I think the
rule stated by Kitchen holds in this case.
..........................................................................................................................
Fifth, we have the Testaments of
the Twelve Patriarchs (2nd century BC, pre-Maccabean most probably).
A number of passages in these show dependence on Danielic imagery (especially
Dan 7-12):
Testament of Levi
(2nd century BC):
"Therefore the sanctuary
which the Lord chose shall become desolate through your uncleanness,
and you will be captives in all the nations" (15.1)...
"Now I have come to know
that for seventy weeks you shall wander astray and profane the
priesthood and defile the sacrificial altars" (16.1)...
"Because you have heard
about the seventy weeks, listen also concerning the
priesthood." (17.1)
The footnote in OTP [OTP:I.793, n15a]: "Both the predictions
of the pollution of the Temple and the announcement of the divinely ordained
chronology of seventy cycles of seven years leading up to the appearance of the
eschatological priest show kinship with Dan
9:1-27."
....................................................................................................................................
Pushback:
"Gotca, glenn! Caught you red-handed, ignoring contrary data and only
using the data that supports your position! You 'forgot to mention' that this
document has been subject to 'Christian reworking' and 'interpolations'--even
the OTP source you cite so confidently here says that--Ha!..."
I didn't "forget to
mention" it--I decided that it was altogether irrelevant to our
discussion, friend...According to OTP, there are only 10-12 Christian 'mods'
made in this book (all in messianic contexts) and none of them are in the passages in which the verbal parallels
occur...there was simply no need to mention them, for two reasons:
1. The closest one comes is
at TLevi 16.3 (not the 16.1 passage I cite above). The theme of the
'degeneration of the priesthood' is NOT a "Christian thing"--it is a
Maccabean Jewish thing (e.g. Qumran!). The Christian elements have to do more
specifically, as the footnote at the passage mentions, with the
"complicity of the Jewish priests in the death of Jesus". In other words,
the interpolations don't occur in the texts I cite; and
2. The verbal parallels are
not "Christian" in motivation anyway. Nobody was trying to make
"Daniel" look 'older' by fabricating and pre-dating literary
references! Everybody already knew that Daniel was a pre-Maccabean
composition(!). This was not an area of Jewish-Christian argument or an area of
Bible-Pagan argument at this point in time. None of the cases I advance have
the slightest connection to "Christian credibility" at the time.
3. BTW, this interpolation
issue never stops scholars from using the data, they just have to use it
critically...for someone to hide behind 'it all could be wrong' is falsely
motivated and based on false premises...we CAN know about the past, and we CAN
learn and sift and analyze historical data...we just have to be careful and
honest, that's all.
As a writer, I have to make
a judgment call on the mass of available data to drag you all through, and I
try to avoid answering EVERY possible objection...I am verbose and long-winded
enough as it is...consider it an act of mercy...(smile)...
................................................................................................................
Other passages
with recognized parallels include (from the margin of OTP, again):
·
Testament
of Judah 25.4--"be wakened to life" with Dan 12.2 ("And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground
will awake, these to everlasting
life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.")
·
Testament
of Benjamin 10.8--"some to glory, some
to dishonor" with Dan 12.2: ("And
many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others
to disgrace and everlasting contempt.")
·
Testament
of Joseph 3.5 "For those seven years
I fasted, and yet seemed to the Egyptians like someone who was living
luxuriously, for those who fast for the sake
of God receive graciousness of countenance." With the story in
Dan 1.8-16: ("But Daniel made up his
mind that he would not defile himself with the king's choice food or with the
wine which he drank; so he sought permission from the commander of the
officials that he might not defile himself. 9 Now God granted Daniel favor and
compassion in the sight of the commander of the officials, 10 and the commander
of the officials said to Daniel, "I am afraid of my lord the king, who has
appointed your food and your drink; for why should he see your faces looking
more haggard than the youths who are your own age? Then you would make me
forfeit my head to the king." 11 But Daniel said to the overseer whom the
commander of the officials had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and
Azariah, 12 "Please test your servants for ten days, and let us be given
some vegetables to eat and water to drink. 13 "Then let our appearance be
observed in your presence, and the appearance of the youths who are eating the
king's choice food; and deal with your servants according to what you
see." So he listened to
them in this matter and tested them for ten days. 15 And at the end of ten days their appearance seemed better and they were fatter
than all the youths who had been eating the king's choice food. 16
So the overseer continued to withhold their choice food and the wine they were
to drink, and kept giving them vegetables.")
How 'rare' and 'distinctive' might these be? Even though
OTP recognizes all of these, I think the least persuasive ones are (a) the
"awake to life" [it could be from Is 26.19 although the notion of
obedience/righteousness is only present in Daniel] and the "graciousness
of countenance" one [this is too thematic for me, and less 'verbal']. The
ones dealing with "seventy weeks" and a dual-resurrection, however,
are quite strong. These are unique to Daniel in the biblical canon as they are
worded here, and if by some chance these were taken as being from some
'anonymous tradition', it would STILL witness to Daniel, since there are no
other 'originating documents' with these distinct concepts in them. [We have
already made our case that the other
possible candidate for these references--the Enochian lit--was dependent on
Daniel, and that any use of the Danielic material in Enoch, would also count as
a witness to Daniel.]
Direction of Borrowing: This is a bit murky. This
document was probably written in Greek (only vaguely related to the documents
by the same name at Qumran) in Syria, by a very open-minded Jew. It documents
"the openness of one of
several segments of Judaism during the period of the second Temple to non-Jewish cultural insights and
influences" [OTP:1:778]. It has strong Hellenistic tendencies in
it--especially in ethics and its view of the Law. In many ways, this view is what was 'rejected' in the Maccabean
revolt, and it would make little sense for an author 'inside the
Maccabean revolt' to use such a source. Conversely, it would be entirely
reasonable for an open-minded and Hellenism-friendly Jewish writer to draw
images and concepts from such a 'cosmopolitan' figure/role-model as the
biblical Daniel (i.e., both solidly Jewish and yet a success in matters of
world government and statesmanship). Additionally, there is a ton of borrowing
by Test*.*, but this is more related to the genre of "death-bed"
autobiographical 'reminiscence' than any other factor, IMO. I think the
motivational argument would be very much in favor of the author borrowing
(casually) from Daniel.
.................................................................................................................................................................
Sixth, is Baruch.
"Baruch
1.15-3.8 is widely recognized as being very
similar to Daniel 9.4-19" [REF:ABD, s.v.
"Baruch, book of"], and the relationship extends even to verbal identities in Baruch 2.2 [HI:IIW:35n1].
Mendels (ABD)
gives some of the dating data:
"Four positive determinations can be made concerning the date
of Baruch. First, if the LXX of Jeremiah can be approximately dated, then at
least Bar 1:1-3:8 can be fixed to some point before the end of the 2d century
BC. (116 BC.). Second, throughout the book the Jews seem to have religious
freedom, but not political independence. Moreover, the mood of the entire book excludes the possibility of dating it to the Hasmonean
independent state (140-67 BC.). Third, despite the prevalent mood
of desolation and despair, hope is expressed for redemption and complete return
of the people of Israel to their land. Fourth, the insistent plea to serve the
Babylonian king and his "son" may refer-taken together with the other
points mentioned-either to the period of ca.
200 b.c., when much
hope was placed in Antiochus III (who had conquered Palestine from the
Ptolemies), or to the period after AD 70,
when it was hoped that many would return to the land of Israel from all parts
of the Roman Empire (4:37):"See, your sons whom you sent away are coming!
They are coming, gathered from east and west at the Holy One's command,
rejoicing in God's glory." At the present stage of research, the question
of dating must remain open."
Now, it is interesting to note that in the above quote the author
does not draw the obvious implication. IF
it is EITHER 200 BCE OR after 70 AD, AND AT THE SAME TIME it is in the translation of the LXX before 116 BC, THEN it MUST be dated at the earlier alternative. [Kee dates
it around 150 BC (but only on the basis of its dependence on the allegedly late
date of Daniel) in CASA and Newsom gives the 200-60 BCE range in HCSB.]
The book shows internal
evidence of being a composite work, allowing for the individual sections to
have originated and/or circulated separately. Some of these could easily go back
to the time of writing as presented in the book. For our purposes here, we need
only to note that the finished work--the
one after all the compiling and editing was allegedly done--is the work dated by its translation into the LXX
and by Mendels' dilemma-logic above.
Note then, that
if Mendels' dilemma of "circa 200 BCE" or "after 70 AD" is
valid, then the issue is resolved
conclusively by the translation (of the composite work as we have it
today) into the LXX ,
and when this data is 'fed into' Mendels' 'dilemma', then we come out at
Mendel's pre-200 BC date--regardless of the dates of the individual sections of
the book. And, once again, we are well into pre-Maccabean territory...
Direction of borrowing?
The first thing to note is
that Baruch makes the same "mistake" as Daniel [REF:ABD: "Second,
they are asked to pray for Nebuchadnezzar and “his son” Belshazzar (an error
also found in Dan 5:2, 13, 18, 22; Belshazzar was the son of
Nabonidus)..."]--making this a 'very
striking' parallel, so if we have other reasons to suspect
"Baruch" borrowed from Daniel, then this will be strong additional
data!
Note ABD's analysis of the
relevant section:
"The prayer [3.1-3.8]
shares much of its language and ideas with Dan 9:4–19, Jeremiah, and
Deuteronomy 28–32, but Bar 1:15–3:8
is 47 percent longer than Dan
9:4–19 and differs from it in mood. Both prayers have the elements of
confession and repentance in common and show a resemblance to liturgical texts
from Qumran (4QDibHam.)... Whereas in Daniel 9 the desolate temple and the
deserted city are central, in Bar 1:15–3:8 this is not the case [TN: I
radically disagree with this--the temple is only mentioned once in the Daniel
prayer, and also once in Baruch 2.26!]. Moreover, it seems that Daniel prays in
Palestine, whereas Baruch prays in the Diaspora. [TN: Again, this is not at all obvious from the text--I find
nothing like that in Daniel at all.] There are two significant additions in Baruch’s prayer: first, an
emphasis on the transgression of God’s command to serve the king of Babylonia;
second, God’s forgiveness and the Return motif (2:30–35). It is difficult to
decide which prayer derives from the other."
Now, one strong indicator of
'direction' is expansion. And, on
that criteria, Baruch is more likely to be the borrower and Daniel the source.
Another indicator we
discussed was 'who borrows more?', and in this case,
Baruch is clearly indicated (especially by the use of multiple sources in this
prayer--a pastiche approach, in many ways). Emil Schurer goes so far as to say:
"That so thoroughly original and creative a mind however as the author of
the Book of Daniel should have copied from the Book of Baruch is certainly not
to be admitted." [History,
II.II,p191]
These two factors would
argue clearly for Baruch as the borrower and Daniel as the source, and once the
evidence seems to 'lean' in that direction, the supposed 'error' on Belshazzer
becomes another strong indicator of copying.
So, this nets out at a
pre-Maccabean date again--indeed around the turn of the century, c. 200-- with
witness to Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9 (the same as in Dan(e), by the way).
...................................................................................................................................
Seventh is the obviously post-Maccabean work of 1 Maccabees.
1 Maccabees
refers explicitly to Daniel and his three pals in 2.59-60:
" Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, by believing were saved out
of the flame. Daniel for his innocence was delivered from the mouth of lions."
And to the "abomination of desolation" of Daniel 11.31
at 1.54:
"Now the fifteenth day
of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar...
I Maccabees
was written somewhere in 134-104 BCE [Harrington, HCSB; Kee, CASA]. This is
later than our 165 date, by some 40-70 years, but is witness to how well-known
the stories of Daniel 2 were, and how tight the connection was between the
words of Daniel in 11.31 and their experience.
Its importance to our question is circumstantially supportive:
since literary allusions of this specificity are meant to be recognized (even
in a speech in the narrative set BEFORE the actual revolt!) by the readership,
how long would Daniel have had to have been circulating and read (carefully)
for this literary allusion to be 'attempted'? How much discussion about the
'abomination of desolation' would have had to precede this allusion, for it to
have its force?
Again, the historian doesn't stop at "all we have is a
mention of this material at 100BC"--she goes on to ask what conclusions
can be drawn about the 'antecedent conditions' in which this event is
meaningful. What intertextual connections must
exist for an author to decide to include examples like Daniel &
Co.? If all we had was this one book, we could still
likely make a historical case (based on the slow speed of literary diffusion in
ancient cultures, generally gated by manual copy technologies, distribution
dynamics, expense, 'barriers to entry' for inclusion in schools/canons,
religious conservatism, and the practical necessity/bottleneck of oral
'readings' for diffusion to the less-literate masses ) that it would have to
have been circulating within the literati of Jewry for 75-100 years at least, for the narrative depicted in
2.59 and phrase-choice in 1.54 to have been created by an author--in
expectations of reader/listener recognition.
So, although this does not count as a 'pre-Maccabean
allusion/reference', it will still--because of its proximity in date to the
alleged authorship of Daniel--provide some support for the early, antecedent
authorship and cultural acceptance of Daniel.
Eight, is the poorly-named 2
Maccabees.
This also is a post-Maccabean composition.
This document shows dependence on Daniel in a couple of
ways/places:
"The developed themes of resurrection and immortality are
particularly important, and the language used to depict them at v. 9,
especially, and v. 14, is clearly intended as
an allusion to Dan. 12:2 (and, at least indirectly, to Isa.
26:19)." [HI:IIW:153]
Chester is referring here to 7.9 (And when
he was at his last breath, he said, “You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from
this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died
for his laws.”) and 7.14 ("When he was near death, he said, “One cannot but choose to die at the hands
of mortals and to cherish the hope God gives
of being raised again by him. But
for you there will be no
resurrection to life!”")
and Daniel 12.2 (Many of those who sleep in
the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life, and some to
shame and everlasting contempt."). Cf. also 7.23
("Therefore the Creator of the world,
who shaped the beginning of humankind and devised the origin of all things,
will in his mercy give life and breath back
to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws.”)
Goldstein in the Anchor Bible commentary series, sees a deeper
influence (and actually believes it is a rebuttal of I Macc):
"According to Goldstein, the author not only (at 7:9,14) explicitly
confirms the belief in resurrection and immortality of Dan. 12:2, but is also at pains throughout to show, at least
implicitly, that the prophecies of Daniel 7-11 hold true, over
against I Maccabees, which constantly implies
that they are false. This is to a large extent an argument from
silence, although it is certainly clear that
2 Maccabees sees Daniel as an inspired and authoritative work, and takes up
important themes from it." [HI:IIW:154]
So, dependency on Daniel
seems clear, but what do we know about the date?
2 Maccabees
as we have it today is a composite document, consisting of a "core
document" (2.19-15.39) with two 'cover letters' prefixed to it [REF:ABD]:
"2 Maccabees gives the
obvious impression of being a mixtum
compositum with a sort of introduction, two letters (1:1–10 and
1:10–2:18) and a foreword by the epitomizer himself (2:19–32), with an excerpt
from the (assuredly originally Greek-composed) history by Jason of Cyrene,
which is not elsewhere attested (3:1–15:36), and with the epitomizer’s own
epilogue (15:37–39).
The composite letter is
dated, of course, at the time of the "youngest" section, and in this
case, it will be around 124BC. But for our purposes, this date is irrelevant, for the correspondences we will see
with Daniel are in the "main" section. However, since "cover
letters" to a document are generally written after the main work(!), the dating of these two letters may indicate the "at least no later
than" dates for our "core" document. [In other words, when someone
is trying to 'accomplish' something with a letter, they FIND SOMETHING to
attach to it--implying the "pre-existence" of the attachment.] But
what are the dates attached to the two 'cover letters', and what can be said
about the core document?:
·
The first is our "outermost" letter:
"It appears that the
first letter (1:1–10), from the year 124/3 b.c.—which is dated to the Seleucid era (on the
Judeo-Babylonian reckoning)—is actually the second (!) injunction of the
Judeans to their compatriots in Egypt to celebrate “the (eight-day) festival in
the month of Chislev according to (!) the manner of booths [Sukkoth]”"
[REF:ABD]. This is, of course, the date of the final "assembly" of the
document, and doesn't concern us.
·
The second or "inner-most" cover letter
[Thomas Fischer, Anchor Bible Dictionary,
s.v. "MACCABEES, BOOKS OF"]:
"Then follows
(1:10–2:18) the earlier communication of “those in Jerusalem and those in Judea
and the council and Judas” to Aristobulus (...this well-known sage, tutor of
princes at the Ptolemaic court, and probably also political leader of the
Jewish Diaspora then dwelling in Egypt..). Apparently, this letter to
Aristobulus is actually a companion-piece giving the deeper motivation of the
first letter; of course, such an appendix is undated, following the archival
custom of the time. However, the first (!) adhortatory letter from 143/2 BC—which is only mentioned in 1:7–8
—has not been preserved.
"On the other hand, the
second letter (1:10–2:18) is still generally considered to be a forgery. However, the allegedly historical argument against its
authenticity (which derives ultimately from Holleaux) is unconvincing: Antiochus III did in fact
plunder the temple of Bel in Elam and was only subsequently (tachy) cut to pieces there in the
sanctuary of Nanaia (1:13; cf. Dan 11:19!), where his son Antiochus IV was
later to fail, dying shortly afterward in Tabai in Persia. Evidence is
concealed in the Babylonian Talmud (Šabb.
21b) which expressly and independently
confirms the date of the letter toward the end of 163 b.c. Thus it
appears that this document is really the sole authentic surviving record of
Judas Maccabeus himself.
This is an interesting piece of data, for if this 'intro letter' is younger than the
core document (which is not likely, in our case!), we have a core document
dated very close to the end of the Maccabean Revolt.
·
The core section
is an abridgement of the work of Jason of Cyrene, describing events which occur
in the period 175-160 BCE, ending with the victory of Judas over Nicanor
(161BC) [Schurer]. There is no
mention of the later defeat and death of Judas, which could be either the
author's desire for a 'happy ending' or an indication of time of writing
(shortly after 161). Several
scholars believe that Philo was familiar with this book (indicating a 2nd
century BC authorship, 150-100 BC):
o
"Philo of Alexandria seems to have been familiar with the book, as was the Assumption of Moses. [Fischer, ABD]
o
"In Philo's
work, Quod omnis probus liber
(XIII), is described the manner in which many tyrants have persecuted the pious
and virtuous. The several features of this description so greatly recall that of Antiochus
Epiphanes in the second Book of Maccabees,
that an acquaintance with this book on the part of Philo can scarcely be
doubted" [Emil Schurer, A
History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, 2.iii,
p.214.; note: section XII deals with the Essenes, and verse 89 specifically
describes the violent persecutions as being against this group--the only
historical referent this could have been, before Philo, would have been
Antiochus, and Philo's knowledge and even some word choices lead many to
believe as Fischer and Schurer do.]
The 'core' work is only an abridgement or epitome (of Jason's 5-volume
work), and it may have been written earlier
than 1 Maccabees [Kee CASA].
"Jason of Cyrene may well have been an eyewitness of the
events he recorded. He probably wrote his history not too long after the last
events he recorded--that is, shortly after
160 BCE. In view of his enthusiasm both for Onias III, the last
legitimate high priest, and for Judas Maccabee, he probably wrote before the Maccabees usurped the high priest-hood
(Jonathan became high priest in 152 BCE)." [Martin McNamara, Intertestamental Literature, p.261]
Since the 'outside' cover
letter would have been written AFTER the 'core', this would date the core
between 124 BC and 161/0 (earliest date for Jason's work). Since the outside
letter is altogether unrelated to the core, and the final editor has simply
adopted the core for his/her own purposes, the core must have existed prior to the cover letter (124 BC) by
enough time as to foster SOME level of credibility with the intended
recipients. So, on one extreme, we
could have a date for the core [with the Daniel references and themes, a la Goldstein]as early as 160-159, with
Jason writing the work after
Judas' victory, but before his
death (explaining the silence/ending of the work), with the epitomizer tasked
with abridgment (and perhaps distribution and copying of the main work--a
common approach to publication then). And at the other extreme, we could have
the core later, with the abridgement no later than probably 130-135 BC, to
allow an initial level of circulation in Jerusalem literary circles, prior to
being used as a 'weapon' by the final compiler in 124 BC. ABD gives this same
sequence (i.e., Jason, then
epitome, then cover-letters and
assembly):
"As far as 2 Maccabees
is concerned, the following development in
chronological sequence may be assumed (otherwise Nickelsburg 1981:
118). First was the alleged
“Maccabean history” in Greek by Jason of Cyrene, now lost (which included a
prehistory of the revolt, and which was written from the point of view of the Hellenistic
imperial history). Later the epitome
of this history was composed by a possibly Alexandrian Judean, with alterations
and additions. It was strongly rhetorical, didactic, and emotionalizing; i.e.,
similar to the “pathetic” or “tragic” historiography according to the genuine
Hellenistic tradition (as perhaps was already the case with Jason’s work). The final stage was the entire book of 2
Maccabees, including the two
introductory letters which were translated from Semitic-language originals.
This final product was presented with the intention of introducing Hanukkah (or
whatever it was then called) into the Judean Diaspora in Egypt. The terminus post quem of the final version of the book, as we now
possess it, is the year 125 BC;
at least it was apparently known to Philo of Alexandria in the beginning of our
era.
So, although
this does not count as a 'pre-Maccabean allusion/reference' either, it will
still--because of its proximity in date to the alleged authorship of
Daniel--provide some support for the early, antecedent authorship and cultural
acceptance of Daniel. And, if Goldstein is correct in understanding the
conflict between 1st and 2nd Maccabees to include major Danielic 'vindication'
motifs, then the status of Daniel as a Classical/canonical prophet (instead of
a pseudepigraphic failure of massive proportions--cf Goldstein: "The
Seleucid empire did not fall in the 160s BCE, contrary to Daniel 7:11. Jews did
not gain imperial or cosmic power, contrary to Daniel 7:13-14, 27, 12:3. The
aftermath of the death of Antiochus IV did not fit Daniel 12:1. The chronology
of the events was far from fitting Daniel 7:25, 9:24-27, 12:7. There was no
resurrection, contrary to Daniel 12:2." [JTM:86]!) is the only explanation
on why he would still be taken seriously
enough to 'defend' by the author of 2 Maccabees. How people this
close to the events, the documents, the literary flow/channels, the history,
the key players, could be so hoodwinked by the within-Jerusalem author of
Daniel--without ANY prophetic credentials--strains belief. Their view of the
inviolability of Daniel implies a much 'higher' view of Daniel's status than
just that of a later pseudepigrapher--and an inaccurate one at that! Something
just doesn't compute here...
................................................
Ninth, is a book from Diaspora Jewry--Book 3 of the Sibylline Oracles:
"Much more plausible is Momigliano's thesis that Book 3 of
the Sibylline Oracles reflects a revival of Jewish nationalistic sentiment in
the wake of the Maccabean revolt. While the oracles make no reference to the
Maccabees or to their revolt (beyond a possible echo in 194-95), the dating to the reign of the seventh Egyptian king (Philometor, 180-145 BCE) would fit this context
admirably; moreover, the echoes of the book
of Daniel confirm this general ambience." [NT:JMD:223; this
dating is also supported by Nickelsburg in HI:JLBBM:164]
This book is a composite one, and so we will need to confine our
possible parallels to the main section of the book, which falls around our
basic time-window.
The book was written in Egypt, and is generally connected with the
priest Onias. Collins (OTP), argues that the book would be written prior to the founding of the temple at Leontopolis.
Collins puts this range into 160-150, but others place it earlier, based on a
better resolution of conflicting chronologies:
"There are some
problems concerning the date and purpose of Onias’ migration to Egypt.
According to Ant 12.387, this
took place in 162 BCE., after
the execution of Menelaus and the appointment of Alcimus to the high
priesthood. His motive for immigrating may have been despair of obtaining the
high priesthood in Jerusalem for himself....The chronology of his activities is
not confirmed by Ant 13.62, and
may be in conflict with CPJ 1 no.
132. This papyrus, dated to September 21, 164 BCE.,
is a letter from Heroides to a certain person whose name was restored by
Wilcken as Oni[ai] (Onias). If
the restoration (endorsed by Tcherikover in CPJ
1: 244–46) is correct, and the recipient was Onias IV, as seems probable, then Onias IV should have come to Egypt some time
before 164 BCE. This
chronology is in conflict with Ant
12.387, but not with Ant 13.62,
which supposes that a certain time elapsed between Onias IV’s arrival at
Alexandria and his request to build a temple....In view of this, we accept
Tcherikover’s opinion that Onias IV came to
Egypt about a decade before he requested permission from Philometor and
Cleopatra to build the temple; the temple
would then be dated about 160 BCE.
A reminiscence of Onias as founder of a temple in Egypt is preserved in b. Menah. 109:2. There Onias is a son of
Simon the Just (Simon II), who founded a temple in Alexandria."
[Rappaport, ABD, s.v. "Onias"]
This would put Onias migration to Egypt around 170 and the temple
founding at 160, and therefore the origination
of the Sybilline 3 materials in this 170-160 period. Additionally,
it might be argued that the material should be
toward the 170 end, since there are no references whatever to
Maccabean times/issues (some interpret this 'silence' as 'lack of sympathy', but the frequent
interest in the Macedonian wars of the early 2nd century situates Onias'
viewpoint prior to Maccabean issues). This creates some presumption for a pre-Maccabean
date, and even more so if Onias (as suggested by ABD) arrived there before the action
heated up in Palestine. Onias' work (or influence on the Syb. work) would reflect a pre-Maccabean perspective in that case,
and certainly not one that would be
influenced by a 'Maccabean messianic' prophecy (when Onias and
friends held to a Ptolemaic savior figure
instead!).
So, do we have any possible parallels?
Let's look at the two verses listed in the margins of OTP by
Collins:
·
3.767: "And then, indeed, he will raise up a kingdom for all ages among men"
with Dan 2.44: "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never
be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people;
it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever." and 7.27: "Then
the sovereignty, the dominion, and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the
whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom,
and all the dominions will serve and obey Him." [How 'rare' is an
"everlasting kingdom" phrase?! As it turns out, surprisingly rare in the biblical
materials! The phrase only occurs once
outside of Daniel, in Ps 145.13, but FOUR
times in Daniel (4.3, 34; 7.14, 27)! It does not occur in the Apocrypha (except
in Tobit, in 4Q200). The idea can be found as background to various
items--Davidic dynastic promise, for example--but the terminology is very
Daniel-specific. I suspect this is why Collins listed Daniel as the marginal
reference, rather than the Psalms passage.]
·
3.324: "and
you will all of necessity go to destruction because you have utterly destroyed
the great house of the Immortal and have chewed
it terribly with iron teeth." With Dan 7.7:" After this I kept looking in the night visions, and
behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had
large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed," [Even though 'iron teeth' could
logically be an 'organic' image, I find it very surprising that there are no precedents for this usage in all of the
OT, in all of the Apocrypha, and in all of the non-biblical scrolls of Qumran!
On the basis, therefore, of usage--this is an
exceedingly "rare" phrase!]
These are surprisingly strong (as measured by rarity), as it turns
out, and, with this material being roughly contemporary with the alleged date
of Daniel in Maccabean time, we will certainly need to ask the question of
direction.
The question
of direction is immediately problematic, for these documents are
supposedly being written in different countries at roughly the same time, and
by allegedly ideologically-antithetical authors! I cannot see any real way to
construct such a historical scenario. It just makes so much more intuitive
sense to see Onias as trying to pin Ptolemaic messianic ideas onto the more
'neutral' canonical Daniel (or even "common tradition derived solely from
Daniel"). Since canonical Daniel (under the traditional authorship view)
would have already been accepted for centuries and centuries by whole-Judaism, there would be no 'partisan' overtones to it,
as there would have been under the non-conservative model. This would strongly
suggest that the Daniel terminology must have been in existence/acceptance much
earlier than even Onias' departure for Egypt, and place the
origination-acceptance range for Daniel at least as early as late 4th/early 3rd
century BCE. (Which matches other estimates above, btw.)
.............................................................................
Okay, let's try
to overview the above data in table format (I have removed the parallels that I
consider two weak):
|
Item |
Source |
Date |
Chapters |
Elements |
|
1 |
ApZeph |
100-70a |
3,7,10 |
Susanna + Daniel's friends; "myriads+", molten
feet [main impact: LXX] |
|
2 |
1 Macc |
134-104 |
2,11 |
Daniel's friends, "abomination of desolation" |
|
3 |
2 Macc |
160-135 |
7-11,12 |
Resurrection phrases ("clearly intended") |
|
4 |
SibOr 3 |
170-160 |
2,7 |
"everlasting kingdom", "iron teeth" |
|
5 |
Test.Lev |
200-100 |
9 |
Seventy weeks
(weaker: temple pollution) |
|
6 |
Test.Ben |
200-100 |
12 |
Dual-resurrection |
|
7 |
Ezek the Trad. |
200-150 |
7 |
Throne-theophany, vice-regency |
|
8 |
Sirach |
pre-Macc, early 2nd |
2,9,11-12 |
"time/appointed time" "reveal hidden
things", "bear your name" |
|
9 |
1 Enoch BW
(1-36) |
pre-Macc, 3rd cent. |
4,7 |
"watchers", throne-theophany |
|
10 |
Baruch |
Pre-Macc, End 3rd/early 2nd |
9 |
Many elements of Daniel's prayer |
[BTW, if
somehow, someone still maintains that ALL of this is due to 'anonymous common
tradition', notice from the chart above how similar this 'tradition' must look like
to the book of Daniel's more memorable sections...smile]
Notice carefully
that this table lists several pre-Maccabean documents with various levels of
dependence on Danielic material! The three pre-Maccabean documents, at a
minimum, show strong dependence on items from chapters 2,4,7,9,11, and 12.
We have:
Now, Daniel 1-6
is already
considered to be pre-Maccabean:
"Modern scholars have argued that the first half of the book, dealing with the experiences of
Daniel at the Babylonian court, dates to the
third century B.C.E., while the remainder, describing the Maccabean
period and its aftermath in apocalyptic terms, dates to the reign of Antiochus
IV Epiphanes, 167-163 B.C.E." [Schiffman, FTT:123]
"The date
of the origins of these tales [Daniel 1-6]
is open to surmise. A third or fourth century
date might be suggested, but there is nothing to preclude that some of the material might be earlier, even going back
to the events they describe. The collection, however, would be much
later." [Meade, PsC:87-88]
"
The
precise delineation of the pre-Maccabean stratum is more
difficult and is bound up with the problem of the two languages. There is now a
widespread consensus that the tales in chaps. 2-6 are pre-Maccabean.
Since these stories are now bound together, but without any clear reference to
the period of Antiochus Epiphanes, it is probable that they already constituted
a collection before that time. (As we have noted above, some scholars suggest
that chaps. 3-6 circulated independently, because of the different character of
the OG translation of these chaps.). The collection, however, presupposes an
introduction such as we find in chap. 1, and so it is likely that chap. 1 was
composed in Aramaic as a prologue to the tales. Many German scholars, following G. Hölscher (1919), argue that the core of chap. 7 was also part of the
pre-Maccabean Aramaic collection. (So also, Gammie 1976). This view
draws support from the fact that chap.
7 is in Aramaic and that chaps. 2-7 exhibit a chiastic structure (2 and
7 contain "four kingdom" prophecies, 3 and 6 are tales of miraculous
deliverance, 4 and 5 illustrate divine judgment on two kings)." [Collins,
ABD, s.v. "Daniel, Book of"]
Now, if:
Then, isn't the
discussion over? Isn't that a strong enough case to demonstrate that Daniel is at least pre-Maccabean?
These references are what's called 'external evidence' and it vastly outweighs as historical evidence that subjective area we call
'internal evidence'. We have not settled a date for Daniel, or its character
(that will be assessed in discussions of the problems associated with internal
evidence [i.e., historical and linguistic considerations]), but the data we
have reviewed should be recognized as being quite strong that the controlling
paradigm of a late-date for Daniel needs 'adjusting'...
[ Back to Intro // On to Next
Section ]