SOURCE: LaCocque, André. The Book of Daniel, translated by David Pellauer, pp. I-XX. Atlanta, Ga.: John Knox Press, 1979.

[In the following essay, LaCocque explores problematic issues relating to The Book of Daniel, discussing its authorship, status as apocalyptic literature, chronology, composition, canonical status, bilingualism, and structure.]

In the wide variety of literature which makes up Scripture, the Book of Daniel occupies a unique place.¹ Its twelve chapters—in its present form—are divided into two major parts: the first six are ‘midrashim’ and the last five are ‘apocalypses’, while chapter seven serves as a transition between these two genres and participates in both of them.

Manifestly, with the Book of Daniel we are in a period of exploitation of ‘canonized’ material (or, in any case, material which is considered as having authority) and not in a time of pure creation. ‘Midrash’ is an expansion of a known text, a series of variations on a central and fundamental biblical theme. ‘Apocalypse’ is a prolongation of prophecy and, in a way, its replacement by a transhistorical speculation on the basis of contemporary events. In both cases, it is clear that one biblical period has ended and that a new era has begun. The first has laid the foundation for the second, which refers to it as recognized and uncontested authority, something unique and divine in relation to which it situates itself. It is not an accident that Daniel was not placed among the ‘Prophets’ by Jewish tradition, but among the ‘Writings’, that is, in the collection of books which the Synagogue considers as a third series resting upon the group of Nebiim, which were themselves founded upon the Torah.²

The problems the Book of Daniel poses to the critic are incredibly numerous and complex. Not only is apocalyptic language intentionally obscure and its historical allusions deliberately cryptic, but, what is more, the work is pseudepigraphic, antedated, bilingual, and affected by literary and spiritual influences of diverse foreign origins, as well as being represented by Greek versions of greater amplitude and often of a divergent character in relation to the Semitic text, etc. As for the message, it is presented in a form full of traps and snares for the reader. The Author uses already existing material which he reworks to make it fit his own purpose. He wants to be both obscure—for that is how he conceives the prophetic form—and comprehensible at the same time, in view of the urgency for Israel to grasp the lesson of a history that is about to arrive at its end. He is a man of his time who sees himself, as a religious thinker, compelled to opt for the proclamation of a ‘prophetic’ message,³ but also as constrained to speak a language appropriate to the culture of his contemporaries. In one sense, the passage from Hebrew to Aramaic and then back to Hebrew again is already an indication of the difficulties the Author experienced on a technical level. Should he speak the holy language at the risk of appearing artificial, or the vernacular at the risk of imitating foreign writings?⁴

‘Daniel’ faced still more decisive alternatives. Does history have a meaning, as the prophets believed? Why then did contemporary events seem to deny this assurance? Is the signification of history jealously guarded by God, with the result that human freedom is negated and we are playthings in his hands? Or—dizzying thought—is God himself capable of being defied by self-divinized human tyrants?⁵ Is Israel, in the second century b.c.e., the powerless victim of a cosmic battle between two contrary and opposed powers? Were the prophets mistaken in protesting against Babylonian dualism?⁶ And if they were correct, what role then does evil play in the dialogue between God and his People? How long will God use it? How will he lead us out of this tunnel? Is the end of our tribulations in sight? In what form? Eschatological? Messianic? A new life after death?

As one can see, the whole problematic of the Book of Daniel is influenced by the epoch of its redaction. Here, more than ever, the Sitz im Leben question must be resolved and its solution must serve as a constant point of reference for any reading of this document throughout its twelve chapters. By having not been aware of this elementary approach, ancient and modern commentators (but not exegetes) have attempted to speculate about the pretended previsions of a mysterious future contained in this book. They have given themselves over to calculations as vain as they are extravagant in order to know the date of the ‘end of time’.

THE NAME DANIEL

Daniel is the name of a mythical personage mentioned along with Noah and Job in Ezek. 14.14 and 20.⁷ He is counted among the wisest men the world has known (Ezek. 28.3).⁸ We know now, thanks to the Canaanite literature from Ugarit, that there existed a popular hero, King Dan(i)el.⁹ He reappears (with his name spelled without yod) in Enoch 6, 7, and 69.2.¹⁰

It is true that Daniel is a relatively frequent name in the Bible.¹¹ See 1 Chron. 3.1 (a son of David and Abigail); in Ezra 8.2 and Neh. 10.7, it is the name of a priest who returns to Jerusalem from exile. The punctuation or vocalization is uniformly strange for it obscures the divine element in the name.¹² In Hebrew, it signifies ‘God is the defender of my right’ (see Gen. 30.6).¹³ It seems evident that the Author of our book has taken something from the legends circulating about the incomparably wise hero Daniel, while making ‘Daniel’ one of the Judean exiles at Babylon in the sixth century b.c.e.

This pseudonymic process responds to two conditions. On the one hand, the conviction that the prophetic spirit was exhausted after Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi, a conviction which has been maintained up to this day in Rabbinic Judaism.¹⁴ According to Ecclus. 49.10, for example, ‘the twelve prophets’ constitute a closed category.

On the other hand, following the mentality of the ancient Near East, Israel always considered it perfectly legitimate to put writings which expressed—even if fictionally—her own thought under the name of a hero from the distant past.¹⁵ We have here one of the most important literary phenomena for biblical criticism. The later Jewish tradition will say, in the same spirit, that any true teaching of a ‘disciple of sages’ can only repeat what Moses received in the revelation on Mt. Sinai.¹⁶ This is an ancient principle. It explains why, for example, it is possible to have two or three works by different authors brought together under the name Isaiah or Zechariah. Above all, it affirms the unity of divine inspiration in authors of various epochs.

The process of pseudonymity implies a certain esotericism. The eschatological secrets have never been known during the course of history except by a few particularly enlightened saints. They are only now revealed (ἀποκαλύπτειν) openly and publicly to work, among humanity and the People, the final sorting of the elect and the damned. In this sense, the revelation remains ‘hidden’, impenetrable to those whose eyes have not been opened (see Dan. [Book of Daniel] 8.26; 12.4, 9).¹⁷ This is what makes Daniel, not only an apocalypse (see infra), but also the first known example of apocrypha, if we thereby understand, following the definition given this word by Montgomery, ‘a volume of alleged antiquity that had been purposely “hidden away” until the emergency arrived for publication’.¹⁸

THE APOCALYPTIC GENRE IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL

Use of the term ‘apocalypse’ (ἀποκάλυψιs) to designate the literary character of a book has its origin in the Greek name for the last book in the New Testament. The term has been extended to cover a whole type of literature whose existence stretches, broadly speaking, over the period from the fifth century b.c.e. through the first century c.e. These works generally consist of a compendium of visions which an angel interprets for the visionary, who is often a hero from antediluvian times, or from the beginnings of history. The vision bears upon the succession of historical epochs from the time of the legendary author up to the moment of crisis experienced by the real author. When the authentically historical character of the text fades away, it is the sign that the author is moving from chronological retrospection to mystical speculation.¹⁹

What does the word ἀποκάλυψιs signify within the context of Daniel? Theodotion²⁰ understood God as ἀποκαλύπτων μυsτήρια. He clearly understood the Aramaic root … as signifying ‘the manifestation by God of secrets unknowable by natural means’ (see T Dan. 2.19, 28, 30, 47; 10.1). This conception is found in all the Apocrypha. The Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, for example, feature the intervention of angels as interpreters of divine mysteries (see Test. of Reuben 3.15; Test. of Joseph 6.6); see also Enoch 1.2; 72.1; 74.2; 75.3; 79.2-6; 81.1. In Enoch 46.3 this role is assumed by the Son of Man.²¹

Such revelations bear on the divisions of history:

—The Past: great events are presented as still to come and their unfolding is predicted. See Jubilees 2ff.; Enoch 85-90; Slavonic Enoch 23-5; Baruch 53; 56-69; Sibylline Oracles III.819ff.; Apocalypse of Abraham 23-38.

—The Present: visions concerning superterrestrial things. See Enoch 14.8–36.4; 64-9; Test. of Levi 2.7–3.8; Baruch 2.17; etc.

—The Future (eschatology): Messianic events, the final victory of the righteous, the conversion of surviving Gentiles, the New Jerusalem, the resurrection, the individual judgement, the dividing of the righteous and the wicked, the end of the world.²²

It is therefore a veritable theology of history that apocalyptic seeks to depict. It is a question of showing that every event since the ‘beginning’ is perfectly embedded in a majestic and, in a word, divine construction. Nothing there is superfluous and nothing is lacking.

Before Daniel, other apocalyptic texts had been written which are retained in the biblical canon: Ezekiel 38–9; Zechariah (1–8); 9–14; Joel 3; and Isaiah 24–7. Most apocalypses, however, were left out of the sacred Writings because they were considered with suspicion by the Pharisees who were responsible for the fixation of the Canon during the first century of our era. According to Rabbi Akiba, consulting an apocalypse would cost the reader his part in the world to come. Hence, some books, though written in Aramaic or even in Hebrew, and for some written before 70 c.e.,²³ were rejected as ‘not defiling one's hands’.²⁴ But this did not prevent the production of other apocalypses after the year 70.²⁵

There is therefore a veritable apocalyptic literature which saw the light of day during the Hellenistic period of the Near East. Being situated in that culture is a fundamental element of the Sitz im Leben of the apocalyptic of the time. It is, in effect, a negative reaction to Hellenism, in which Judaism²⁶ has always seen the most grave menace to its history. Inaugurated by Alexander the Great and his astonishing conquests in the fourth century b.c.e., the Macedonian dream of a worldwide empire enjoying a unity of culture was widely prevalent in the Mediterranean world. The existence of Judea, especially given its geographical position at the nexus of areas encompassing Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria, created political unrest. It was unthinkable by general agreement that any population would persist in having particular, not to say particularist, laws and customs. The οἰκουμἐνη could suffer no exceptions. At the moment one heard ‘the sound of the horn, the flute, the lyre, the sambuca, the bagpipe, and of every sort of instrument’, every people of every nation and language had to prostrate themselves and worship the golden statue erected by the universal sovereign.²⁷ There was no other choice for the central power, invested as it was with the most noble of missions, since it was the most generally human and humanist force, than to throw into a crematory oven any one who would not prostrate himself and worship.²⁸

CHRONOLOGY OF THE BOOK

The Book of Daniel opens with a chronological indication: ‘In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim,²⁹ king of Juda, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem and besieged it’ (1.1). Yet already in the third century of our era, the pagan critic Porphyry³⁰ attacked the authenticity of this chronology. He saw in Daniel the work of a forger writing at the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 b.c.e.,).

His solution may lack nuance, but it is correct. Numerous elements prove it. We will consider them rapidly: Not only was the book not received as belonging among the Prophets,³¹ but it is necessary to go all the way to the Sibylline Oracles (Book III) to find any trace of it (between 145 and 140 b.c.e.) 1 Macc. 1.54, which is even later (134-104), offers one text which parallels Dan. 9.27 and 11.31. We also find Daniel mentioned in the Book of Jubilees (written about 110 b.c.e.). It is not named in Ben Sira (190-180), even though we would expect to find it, for example, in 48.22 or in 49.7, 8, 10. And it is only in the most recent literary strata of the Book of Enoch that we find any certain traces of it; see 104.2 (end of the first century b.c.e.) and the ‘Book of Parables’ (which is still later).

External criticism is confirmed by internal criticism. The vision of chapters 10–11 leads us step by step up to the events of 165 (11.39), but before those of 164. The Author knows of the profanation of the Temple at Jerusalem by Antiochus IV (7 December, 167; see Dan. 11.31). He alludes to the revolt of the Maccabees and the first victories of Judas (166). But he is unaware of the death of Antiochus (autumn 164; see Dan. 11.40ff.) and the purification of the Temple by Judas on 14 December 164. We can at least situate the second part of the Book of Daniel (chapters 7–12), therefore, with a very comfortable certainty, in 164 b.c.e. As for chapters 1–6, they are of another type of composition and belong to the literary genre Midrash. However, their final redaction cannot, for any good reason, be situated much before that of the other chapters. We find in them allusions to the problems of Judaism during the second century b.c.e., such as respect for the Levitic dietary prescriptions (see Dan. 1.5-8; cf. 2 Macc. 6.18-31), resistance to idolatry imposed by coercion (Dan. 3.1-12), divinization of a human king (6.6-10),³² and martyrdom (3.19-21; 6.17-18). We are not surprised therefore to find throughout the book the theme of feverish expectation of the tyrant's death: 5.22, 30; 7.11, 24-6; 8.25; 9.26-7; 11.45.

The terrain seems sufficiently clear now for us to turn to the question of the origin of the materials employed by the author. This problem is complex for they are of highly different natures. A first distinction must be drawn between chapters 1–6, on the one hand, and 7–12, on the other. The former are edifying stories, parenetic and apologetic homilies, in short, agadoth.³³ The latter chapters are eschatological visions or apocalypses also presented with an exhortative goal in mind.

LITERARY COMPOSITION

For Y. Kaufmann, Daniel A (chapters 1–6) is a mirror of exilic Judaism. The Jews are apparently living in peace in the midst of pagan and idolatrous nations. Some of them even become princes at the Babylonian royal court. However, beneath this surface, there is an incompatibility between Judaism and the idolatry of the nations. It is with this inevitable collision that the Book of Daniel opens. Its result is visible in advance: no adversary can successfully oppose the living God,³⁴ even if it is one of the powerful Babylonian or Medo-Persian kings. This is the motif for the six stories (History of Israel's Faith (in Hebrew) p. 432). The kings are forced to recognize that they owe their sovereignty to the ‘living God’ of Israel (Dan. 6.26). There is no parallel in the Bible to the optimism of these chapters concerning the nations.³⁵

The atmosphere is totally different in Daniel B (chapters 7–12). The initiative in events, which belonged to the Jews in the first part of the book, now passes over to the enemies of their faith and nation. It is no longer a question of the apparently tranquil existence of the Jews in the midst of pagans, but of religious persecution and martyrdom. The sovereigns no longer benefit from prophetic dreams, now Daniel himself has visions of a divine origin. There is, however, one common point with Daniel A: the final triumph is assured. This element permits a rereading which actualizes the popular tales about the hero Daniel. Above all, what is now seen is his triumph over the idolaters. This process of reinterpretation of the agadoth reported in Daniel 1–6 is confirmed in 1 Macc. 2.58-9, where Mattathias recalls these stories to galvanize resistance against the Seleucids. Thus Daniel A and Daniel B were bound into a single book with a precise goal in mind: to render courage to the Jews persecuted by Antiochus Epiphanes.

There is no consensus among critics regarding the unity of the Book of Daniel. Y. Kaufmann, for example,³⁶ rejects the opinion of H. H. Rowley³⁷ that there is a fundamental unity to the book. True, he says, the same literary circle is responsible for the final redaction of the two parts of the book, but their differences remain more important than the elements they have in common. The change in atmosphere between Daniel A and Daniel B is too pronounced to be ignored.

Finally, the decisive argument probably pertains to the comparison of chapters 2 and 7. If the kingdoms in both chapters are the same and are presented in the same chronological succession, there is a strong presumption in favour of a single author and date for the whole book. In fact, the majority of modern critics discern in both cases the following four kingdoms: Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece. As Y. Kaufmann himself says, it is remarkable that in chapter 2, the four kingdoms taken ensemble have a single symbol (the statue) and the ruin of the fourth kingdom brings about the ruin of the others. Consequently, there is only one empire, considered in four different epochs, a ‘universal kingdom’ (op. cit., p. 423).

Our conclusion is that in the second half of the second century b.c.e., the redactor and veritable Author of Daniel availed himself of the tales belonging to a popular cycle about Daniel. His project was to galvanize the spiritual resistance of the Pious against the persecution of Antiochus IV and the Hellenists. He therefore gave a twist appropriate to his own ends to the agadoth associated with the name of Daniel. These are chapters 1–6 or ‘Daniel A’. Chapters 7–12 are a more original work of this Author. Here the genre is apocalyptic and the message is more directly conceived with the martyrs of 167-164 in mind.

As such, the book presents a ‘dualistic’ composition which raises problems for the critic and exegete. However, we should not conclude that two originally independent works were more or less artificially juxtaposed. In itself, it is true, agadah is not apocalyptic, nor is apocalyptic necessarily agadic. Yet as we wrote with Professor P. Grelot in our introduction to the Book of Daniel for La Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible,³⁸ ‘The literary form of a text is always the consequence of two elements: the function it fulfilled in the community for which it was written, and the conventions in use in its cultural milieu. Seen within the context of its time, the Book of Daniel presents an original combination of two genres which Jewish literature favoured at that time: the didactic story (agadah) and the apocalypse.’

THE FORMATIVE MILIEU OF THE APOCALYPSES

To paraphrase S. Schechter, it is clear that it is among the sects separated from the great body of Judaism that we must seek the origin of works such as Daniel, not in the Judaism of the Pharisees.³⁹ The question is then to know which Jewish sect gave birth to a religious philosophy of history where universal events have their assigned place in God's cosmic design,⁴⁰ and where the present time, which is always dramatic, is the summit of this history, for it constitutes the birthplace of a ‘Son of Man’ whose empire will not pass away.⁴¹

One may think of the Essenes. We know of their speculations about angels and the other world, their tendency toward magic, their asceticism, and their esoteric⁴² teachings. But another milieu is more probable, that of the 'Αsιδαι̑οι (the Asideans, the Hassidim, the pious, the faithful), or also the Anawim, the poor of Israel who were assimilated to the perfect and righteous ones (see Ps. 34.3, 16; 37.11, 17, 18, 29, 37).⁴³ Like the Essenes, they also seem to have lived in confraternities to resist the pressure of Hellenism (see 1 Macc. 2.42: συναγωγὴ 'Ασιδαίων).⁴⁴ These monasteries were of a military type (see Ps. 149).⁴⁵ There were numerous scribes among the members (1 Macc. 7.12-13) and, as is to be expected, they were very attached to the priesthood (ibid.). Like them, Daniel shows his faithfulness to the Levitic rites (see Daniel 1 and 6). What is more, we can see in the ‘anointed chief’ of 9.25 the personage of the High Priest of the Restoration, Joshua. This is probably the best interpretation of this allusive text for in the following verse another High Priest, probably Onias III, is also designated (similarly in 11.22). It is evidently not by accident that for the Author history is punctuated by supreme pontiffs.⁴⁶

The decisive detail from our perspective is Daniel's attitude toward the Maccabees. The participation of the Asideans (Hassidim) in the resistance against the Seleucids was strictly limited to the conquest of religious freedom (see 1 Macc. 6.59). In the same way, for Daniel all human help appears as ‘little’ (11.34). In Adolphe Lods' terms, ‘The attitude recommended by Daniel is in no way armed struggle, but expectation (12.12), patience even unto death if necessary: God reserves the resurrection for martyrs. … The author awaits the destruction of the oppressor solely by a miracle; the tyrant will perish and the kingdom of the saints will be established, without the intervention of any human hand (2.44-5; 8.25).’⁴⁷ Following the peace of Lysias (163 b.c.e.), the Hassidim left it to the Hasmoneans to win the nation's independence without them (see 1 Macc. 7.4-18).⁴⁸

The similarities to Qumran are numerous and enlightening. It is certain that Daniel was much read among the sectarians. Seven different manuscripts of the book have been recovered. One of these seems to have been written only a half century after the completion of the original work. However, it is not certain that it was considered as a canonical text. The format of the columns of writing and, sometimes, the material employed (Caves 1 and 6) are different from that habitually employed by the Essene library for biblical books.⁴⁹

The points of spiritual and literary contact between the sectarians and Daniel are interesting. The Judean recluses called themselves ‘the men of the vision’ (I QH 14.7), or ‘those who see the angels of holiness, whose ears are open, and who hear profound things’ (I QM 10.10-11). I QM 1.3-7 is visibly inspired by Daniel 11.40-5. What is more, in a work from Cave IV, three fragments are ‘supposed to account for the revelations of Daniel’.⁵⁰ Also, five fragments from Cave IV form ‘The Prayer of Nabonidus’ which parallels Daniel 3.31—4.34. Daniel is here presented as an anonymous Jewish exorcist.

THE PLACE OF DANIEL IN THE CANON

In the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Daniel found its place among the ‘Writings’, instead of in the ‘Prophets’ as in the Alexandrian Canon. The latter is responsible for an unfortunate confusion. The Book of Daniel is not oracular, nor does it pretend to be.⁵¹ Moreover, it is easy to differentiate Daniel with respect to the prophets. What for them was preaching calling the people to repentance here becomes a visionary description of the coming of the divine Kingdom. What had been based upon the ‘memory’ of God's saving acts in history is now turned toward an imminent future. What had had the purpose of influencing the divine plan is now the revelation of God's unalterable plot, whether in its final end (Daniel) or its totality (Enoch).⁵²

Differing from the Masoreti text, the Alexandrian version includes five additions:⁵³

1. The Prayer of Azariah
2. The Song of the Three Young Men
3. Susanna
4. Bel
5. The Dragon.

It should also be noted that Daniel is the only biblical book in whose case the Greek of the LXX has been replaced by that of ‘Theodotion’. These two versions represent two different phases in the history of the Alexandrian Bible. The LXX precedes the redaction of 1 Maccabees (about the end of the second century b.c.e.; 1 Macc. 1.54 = LXX Dan. 9.27) and is a paraphrase. ‘Theodotion’, on the contrary, closely follows the Hebrew and Aramaic text. That his text contains the five additions mentioned above seems to indicate that they were inserted in the book at an early age, before the first century of our era. The following commentary will adhere solely to the Masoretic text.

BILINGUALISM IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL

One of the more difficult problems encountered by anyone who studies the Book of Daniel is the unexpected shift from Hebrew to Aramaic at 2.4 and then back again to Hebrew at 8.1. The Aramaic passages are certainly not translated from Hebrew; on the contrary, it seems likely that the Hebrew depends on an original Aramaic version. This point is crucial. If it is not recognized, one ends up in an impasse.

For Otto Plöger,⁵⁴ the languages correspond to the book's fundamental structures. The ‘Aramaic’ mentioned in Daniel 2.4b, at the place where the book abandons Hebrew, symbolizes the foreign language Daniel learned at the royal court. The kinship of chapters 2 and 4, 3 and 6, and 2 and 7, indicates why these chapters were written in a common tongue. True, chapter 7 is intimately linked to chapter 8, but in the latter, for the first time really, Israel moves into the foreground and therefore the use of Hebrew is legitimate.

We think that this solution by Otto Plöger combined with results of H. L. Ginsberg's Studies in Daniel,⁵⁵ is a good one. It explains by which criteria the opening of the book (1—2.4a) and its second part (8–12) were translated into Hebrew from an Aramaic original.⁵⁶ We will indicate in the course of our critical notes mistakes made in the translation and transmission of the Hebrew texts of Daniel.

One will recall that Aramaic became an international language beginning in the eighth century b.c.e. in the Near East from India to southern Egypt (Elephantine) and from Asia Minor to the north of Arabia, which included the Assyrian and Persian empires. Other passages of the Bible, outside Dan. 2.4b-7, are in Aramaic: Ezra 4.8—6.18; 7.12-26; Jer. 10.11; and Gen. 31.47 (two words).

THE PLAN OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL

We saw above that the Book of Daniel is divided into two parts, each of a different genre. In the first half there are six stories or agadoth (= Daniel A). Daniel is there spoken of in the third person singular.⁵⁷

• Ch. 1: The arrival of Daniel and three other young Judeans at the court of the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. Their education to prepare them for official service.
• Ch. 2: Nebuchadnezzar's dream—the statue made of materials with a decreasing value. Daniel's interpretation.
• Ch. 3: The erection of a statue by the same king which serves as an idol for the whole empire. Daniel's three companions are thrown into a fiery furnace. Their miraculous survival.
• Ch. 4: A new dream of Nebuchadnezzar: the tree which is struck down. Its interpretation by Daniel.
• Ch. 5: King Belshazzar's banquet in Babylon. The inscription ‘Mene, Tekel, Parsin’, on the wall. Daniel's interpretation.
• Ch. 6: On the order of King Darius ‘the Mede’, Daniel is thrown into a lions' den.

The second part of the book consists of four apocalyptic visions (= Daniel B). Here Daniel is designated in the first person singular. He is no longer the interpreter of other people's dreams, but is himself the dreamer and visionary. He needs the help of an angel to understand what he sees.

• Ch. 7: The increasing bestiality of the empires and God's judgement delegated to ‘someone like a son of man’.
• Ch. 8: The ram and the he-goat.
• Ch. 9: Daniel's prayer of intercession.
• —The explication of Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy years.
• Ch. 10: The man clothed in linen.
• —The apparition of the angel.
• Ch. 11: Historical recapitulation from the Median-Persian empire up to Antiochus Epiphanes.
• Ch. 12: Resurrection and final retribution.

The unity of the book is assured by the omnipresent shadow of Antiochus Epiphanes, as much in the first part as in the second. He who monstrously incarnates the ungodly empire will be judged and chastised (7.9-11, 26; 8.25; 11.45). At the zenith of his power, he will suddenly be overthrown and this will be the signal for God's universal triumph (2.44; 7.13, 14, 18, 22, 27). The ‘seventy weeks’ (of years) have elapsed (= 490 years): 9.24-7. There only remains a half-week before the end. The final crisis will certainly be appalling, but it will suffice to have been inscribed in the Book. Then the resurrection will come (12.1ff.). …

ABBREVIATIONS

• ANET: Pritchard, J. B., The Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the O.T. Princeton.
• Ant. Bibl.: Kisch, G., Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo.
• ARM: Archives royales de Mari. Paris.
• ATD: Das Alte Testament Deutsch. Göttingen.
• BASOR: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. New Haven.
• Bib.: Biblica. Rome.
• BJRL: Bulletin of the John Rylands Library. Manchester.
• BLea: Bauer, H., and Leander, P., Historische Grammatik der Hebräischen Sprache des A.T. Halle 1922 = Hildesheim 1962.
• BZ: Biblische Zeitschrift. Paderborn.
• CBQ: Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Washington.
• CIS: Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum.
• C.T.A.: Virolleaud, C., Textes en Cunéiformes. … Paris.
• EB: Encyclopaedia Biblica. New York.
• Ency. Bibl.: Encyclopedia Mikraït (Hebrew). Jerusalem.
• ETL: Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. Louvain.
• E.T.: The Expository Times. Edinburgh.
• Ges.-Kau.: Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hebräische Grammatik. Leipzig. 1909 = Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, 2nd Eng. edn, A. E. Cowley. Oxford 1910.
• Ges.St.z.A.T.: Noth, M., Gesammelte Studien zum A.T. Munich.
• HAT: Handbuch zum Alten Testament. Tübingen.
• HUCA: Hebrew Union College Annual.
• ICC: International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh.
• IDB: Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Nashville.
• Jastrow, Dict.: Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumin, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, 2 vols. New York.
• JBL: Journal of Biblical Literature. New Haven.
• JNES: Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Beirut.
• Journ. of Phil.: Journal of Philosophy. New York.
• JTS: Journal of Theological Studies. London; Oxford; n.s., Oxford.
• KAT: Kommentar zum Alten Testament, ed. E. Sellin. Leipzig.
• MGWJ: Monatschrift zur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums. Breslau.
• Migne, PG: Patrologia Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne. Paris.
• Migne, PL: Patrologia Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne. Paris.
• NRTh: Nouvelle Revue Théologique. Louvain.
• OTL: Old Testament Library. Philadelphia.
• OTS: Oudtestamentische Studien. Leyden.
• RB: Revue Biblique. Paris.
• RES: Répertoire d'épigraphie sémitique.
• RHPR: Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses. Strasbourg; Paris.
• RQ: Revue de Qumran. Paris.
• Schrader KB: Schrader, E., Keilinschriftliche Bibliotheek, 6 vols. 1889-1901.
• Str. Bill.: Strack, H. L., & Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum N.T. aus Talmud und Midrasch, 5 vols. Munich.
• Syria Revue d'art oriental et d'archéologie. Paris.
• ThR: Theologische Rundschau. Tübingen.
• ThZ: Theologische Zeitschrift. Basle.
• T.O.B.: Lacocque, A. and Grelot, P., La Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible, Daniel.
• T.S.K.: Theologische Studien und Kritiken. Stuttgart-Gotha-Berlin.
• TWNT: Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Stuttgart.
• V. Dom.: Verbum Domini. Rome.
• VT: Vetus Testamentum (and Supplements = SVT). Leyden.
• ZATW: Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Giessen; Berlin.
• ZDMG: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Leipzig; Wiesbaden.
• ZDPV: Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins. Leipzig; Wiesbaden.
• ZNTW: Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. Giessen; Berlin.
• ZSTh: Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie. Gütersloh; Berlin.
• ZThK: Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche. Tübingen.

INTERTESTAMENTAL LITERATURE

• Add. Dan.: Additions to Daniel
• Apoc. Ab.: Apocalypse of Abraham
• Asc. Is.: Ascension of Isaiah
• Ass. Mos.: Assumption of Moses
• 1, 2 En.: 1, 2 Enoch
• Jub.: Jubilees
• 1, 2, 3, 4 Macc.: 1, 2, 3, 4 Maccabees
• Odes of Sol.: Odes of Solomon
• Or. Sib.: Sibylline Oracles
• Ps. Sol.: Psalms of Solomon
• Test. XII Pat. : Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
• T. Benj.: Testament of Benjamin
• T. Jos.: Testament of Joseph
• T. Jud.: Testament of Judah
• T. Napht.: Testament of Naphtali
• T. Reu.: Testament of Reuben
• T. Sim.: Testament of Simeon
• T. Zab.: Testament of Zabulon
• Vit. Ad. et Ev.: Life of Adam and Eve

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

• Q: Qumran
• CD (C): The Damascus Document
• 1 QS: Manual of Discipline
• 1 QS b: Supplement to the Manual of Discipline
• 1 QM: War of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness
• 1 QH: Hymns of Thanksgiving
• 1 Qp Hab.: Pesher, Habakkuk
• 1 Q Is.: Isaiah Scroll
• 1 Q Gen.: Ap. Genesis Apocryphon
• 3 Q 4 An: Isaiah Text
• 4 Q or. Nab.: The Prayer of Nabonidus
• 4 Q p Nah.: Pesher, Nahum
• 4 Q p Mic.: Pesher, Micah
• 4 Q p Is.: Pesher, Isaiah
• 4 Q Dib.: Ham. Dibre ha-Me'oroth; prayer of intercession
• 6 Q Dan.: Fragments of manuscript of Daniel found in Qumran Cave 6
• 11 Q Ps.: A Psalms Text

THE TEXT

• A: Aquila
• T: Theodotion
• Σ: Symmachus
• Kt: Ketib
• Lu: Lucianic recension of the LXX
• LXX: Septuagint
• MT: Masoretic Text
• NT: New Testament
• OT: Old Testament
• Pesh: Peshitta
• Qr: Qere
• RSV: Revised Standard Version
• Samar.: Samaritan
• Targ.: Targum
• Targ. Jon.: Targum Jonathan
• Targ. Onk.: Targum Onkelos
• Vss.: Versions
• Vul.: Vulgate

RABBINIC LITERATURE

• Talm.: Talmud
• Mid.: Midrash
• m.: Mishnah
• b.: Babylonian
• j.: Jerusalem
• R. Rabba: (Gen R = Genesis Rabba; etc.)
• Tanḥ.: Tanḥuma (midrash)
• Psik R: Pesikta Rabbati (midrash)
• ARN: Aboth of Rabbi Nathan
• AZ: Abodah Zarah
• BB: Baba Bathra
• Ber.: Berachobh
• Hag.: Hagigah
• Kidd.: Kiddushin
• Maaser Sh.: Maaser Sheni
• Meg.: Megillah
• Ned.: Nedarim
• PA(both): Pirke Aboth
• Pes.: Pesachim
• RhSh: Rosh ha-Shanah
• Sanh.: Sanhedrin
• Shab.: Shabbat
• Sheq.: Sheqalin
• Taan.: Taanith
• Yebam.: Yebamoth

Notes

1. Despite the numerous parallels with other literary genres known from the Bible, including the use of anthology. See G. von Rad, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (New York 1965), p. 314, n. 29: ‘Might not the presentation in Dan. II [i.e., part 2 of the Book] actually be described as a pesher of Isaiah?’ The same opinion is found in J. L. Seeligmann, ‘Midraschexegese’, Suppl. VT I, p. 171.

2. See the judgement of Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed, III, ch. 45. There are, he says, eleven degrees of prophecy of which the lowest is a (simple) communication from the Spirit of the Lord. ‘Daniel is placed among the Hagiographa, and not among the prophets, because he was only inspired by the spirit of the Lord which often manifests itself through dreams, proverbs, psalms, etc …, even if the authors call themselves prophets, using the term in a general sense.’

   We also note that Daniel never employs the prophets' authoritative formula: ‘Thus says the Lord. …’

3. In the sense indicated above of fidelity to models such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Habakkuk.

4. The Author lifts himself out of this impasse by suggesting that the discourse of the ‘Chaldeans’ is in Aramaic. See Dan. 2.4. We consider the phrase ‘in Aramaic’ authentic and not a gloss. See below, p. 39.

5. See Dan. 8.10.

6. See Isa. 45.7.

7. Always spelled without the yod in Ezekiel. But it was read ‘Daniel’ however; see the Greek transcription and the attestation of a Mari text of the 18th cent. (ARM, VII, No. 263, col. III, 23. Communicated to me by Prof. E. Lipinski of Louvain.)

8. See Martin Noth, ‘Noah, Daniel und Hiob in Ezekiel XIV’, VT, 1 (1951), pp. 251-60.

9. See Syria, 12 (1931), pp. 21-2, 77, 193; W. Albright, JBL, 51 (1932), pp. 99-100; BASOR, 46 (1932), p. 19; ibid., 63 (1936), p. 27.

10. For Norman W. Porteous, Daniel (Philadelphia 1965), p. 17, we should perhaps think less of the Daniel of Ras Shamra-Ugarit (the poem Aqhat) and more of the Danel of the Book of Jubilees (4.20): Enoch (the first sage) married Edmu, ‘the daughter of Danel’. The association of Daniel with Enoch the Sage would add credence to G. von Rad's contention that Apocalypsa derives from Wisdom (see below).

11. According to C. D. Ginsburg, the word appears 81 times, of which 30 are in Hebrew. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (New York 1966), p. 397.

12. But it is in accord with the Masoretic rule according to which ‘the tsere must be under the yod, following the celebrated codex from the country of Eden’. See Orient 2350, fol. 27a, British Museum; Ginsburg, op. cit., p. 397 and n. 2.

13. It must be distinguished from the Babylonian ‘Da-ni-li’ which means ‘My God is powerful’.

14. See 1 Macc. 9.27; Prayer of Azariah in the Greek text of Daniel, 3.28; 1 Macc. 4.46; Josephus, C. Apion., 1.8; Pirke Aboth 1.1. See Meg. 3a: ‘They (Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi) are prophets, but he (Daniel) is not a prophet.’ Rashi comments: ‘They are prophets because they prophesied to Israel as God's envoys, but he was not sent to Israel for the sake of prophecy.’ According to Meg. 14a and Seder Olam R., chs. 20—1, there were forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses in Israel. When the last prophet died, the Spirit withdrew from Israel (see Tos. Sotah 13.2: Sanh. 11a). Y. Kaufmann, History of Israel's Faith (Tel Aviv 1956 (in Hebrew)), vol. 8, pp. 409ff., comments that Daniel kept his revelations to himself (7.28) until the occurrence of the events (8.26; 12.4, 9). He performed no miracles. Daniel is an extraordinary human being, but only because of his wisdom (1.17, 20). In chapters 1–6, he does not dream. In 2.19, he only re-experiences the king's dream. Even in chapters 7–12, he is seeking understanding, … see 7.16; 8.15; 9.22-3; 10.1, 11-12. There is no parallel in biblical prophecy. Kaufmann concludes that classical prophecy ends in Mal. 3 and that apocalyptic prophecy begins in Dan. 7. The stories reported in chapters 1—6 constitute the transition between the two genres.

15. See D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (London 1964), pp. 127-39. The author accepts the opinion of H. H. Rowley, who says the Apocalypticists were aware of belonging to a line of descent, or a corporate personality, which included Enoch, Moses, Ezra, and Daniel. They were its heir and representatives.

16. See Ber. 26b; Dt. R. VIII, 6 (on Deut. 30.12); j. Meg. 1, 7, 70d; b. Hullin 124a; B.M. 58b; Ex. R. XXVIII, 4 (cited by S. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York 1952), vol. 2, p. 383 n. 14.

17. According to 4 Esdras 14, it appears that the apocryphal books were more excellent than the canonical ones. They were destined only for an élite. See J. B. Frey, ‘Apocalyptique’, Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, vol. 1 (Paris 1928).

18. J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, (ICC) (New York 1927), p. 76.

19. See G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), vol. 2, pp. 279ff.

20. Theodotion (T) was once thought to date from the second century c.e., but D. Barthélemy has demonstrated that he should be placed before Aquila, which is to say, before 50, and is to be identified with Jonathan ben Uzziel, a disciple of Hillel. The substitution of the T text of Daniel for that of the LXX took place between 30 and 50 (Les Devanciers d'Aquila, Suppl. VT, vol. 10 (Leyden 1963), pp. 148ff.). Barthélemy's position has been contested by Armin Schmitt, ‘Stammt der sogenammte “T”-Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion?’, in Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften, I, no. 8 (Göttingen 1966). The author responds negatively to his question.

    It should be noted that one papyrus of the LXX in the Chester Beatty Collection differs substantially from the version of Theodotion and is very close to the M. T. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho (about 150 c.e.), uses a Greek version of Dan. 7.9-28 which coincides with neither the LXX nor Theodotion. See P. J. de Menasce, ‘Daniel’, Bible de Jérusalem (Paris 1954), p. 19.

21. For these citations, see J. B. Frey, ‘Apocalyptique’. We have borrowed the following development on the object of apocalyptic revelations from this article (col. 329).

22. See Jean Steinmann, Daniel (Paris 1961), p. 24: ‘An apocalypse is a pseudonymous collection of allegorical visions depicting the destiny of the world in the form of a struggle between evil powers, a struggle which is cleared up abruptly by an impromptu triumph of God in a catastrophe which ends the world. The inauguration of this divine reign is accompanied by a general judgement of men and the resurrection of the righteous.’

23. E.g., the Book of Enoch (from after 163 b.c.e.), the Book of Jubilees (about 163-105 b.c.e.), etc.

24. A rabbinic expression indicating that the character of the book is not sacred, so there is no need to wash one's hands ritually before reading it.

25. E.g., 4 Esdras, Baruch, The Apocalypse of John (Revelation).

26. We can speak of Judaism as beginning with Ezekiel, or certainly with Haggai and Zechariah.

27. See Dan. 3.5; 4. E. Bickerman writes: ‘From its beginning Greek culture was supranational, because the Greeks never constituted a unified State … their culture was Panhellenic, and was the same on the Nile as on the Euphrates. … Greek culture, like modern European culture, was based upon education. A man became a ‘Hellene’ without at the same time forsaking his gods and his people, but merely by adopting Hellenic culture’ (The Maccabees (New York 1947), pp. 22-3).

28. See Dan. 3.6.

29. That is, in 606; unless Jehoiachin must be substituted, which would place us around 594.

30. Saint Augustine called him ‘the most learned of philosophers’. Despising Judaism and Christianity, this Neoplatonist put forth the theory that Ezra rather than Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. He also declared that the Old Testament recognized the existence of other gods as proved by the Judeo-Christian belief in angels. This last point cannot fail to be of interest to the reader of Daniel! See S. W. Baron, A Social and Religious History …, vol. 2, pp. 158-9.

31. According to Y. Kaufmann, op. cit., pp. 405-8, this indicates that the canon of the Nebiim was formed before the appearance of pseudonymous prophecy.

32. The reader will recall that the title ‘Epiphanes’ means ‘manifestation of God’. To ridicule him his adversaries called him Antiochus ‘Epimanes’ (the fool or madman).

33. Agadoth, or with singular agadah. In contrast to the halachoth (laws, ordinances) in traditional Jewish literature, the agadoth designate everything that does not arise from the codification of rules. They are legends, stories, parables, sermons, exhortations, proverbs, and hagiography. They are closely related to the midrashim, although the midrash is based on a text of Scripture which it explicates, comments upon, amplifies, and actualizes.

34. See Dan. 6.20.

35. Ch. 1: triumph of the young Jews; ch. 2: Nebuchadnezzar falls on his face; ch. 3: he testifies to the glory of the living God; ch. 4: the same conclusion; ch. 5: Belshazzar receives the prediction of his death with humility; ch. 6: Darius glorifies Daniel's God.

36. Op. cit.

37. See ‘The Unity of the Book of Daniel,’ in HUCA, 23 part 1 (1951), pp. 233-72. Reprinted in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays (London 1952), pp. 237-68.

38. Henceforth referred to as T.O.B.

39. See S. Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries (Cambridge 1910), vol. 1; see pp. xxvi-xxix.

40. Cf. the lyrical declaration of M. J. Lagrange in Le Judaïsme avant Jésus-Christ (Paris 1931), p. 72: Daniel ‘was the first to envisage world history … as preparation for the reign of God, to soberly probe this splendid dawn of the hopes of Israel, and to extend God's plan for men to the threshold of eternity.’

41. See Dan. 8.19; 11.36; 8.17; 11.40; 8.25; 11.45; also Dan. 7.

42. See our discussion, infra, on Daniel and Qumran. Cf. A. Hilgenfeld, Die jüdische Apocalyptik in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung (Jena 1857), pp. 253ff.; J. E. H. Thomson, ‘Apocalyptic Literature’, in International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, vol. 1 (Chicago 1915), pp. 161-78.

43. This is the opinion, for example, of J. A. Montgomery, op. cit., p. 87, and A. Lods, Histoire de la littérature hébraique et juive (Paris 1950), p. 846. We do not press this issue, however, as the documentary evidence is fragmentary on the Hassidim (see 1 Macc. 2.42; 7.12-13; 2 Macc. 14.6). Daniel uses rather the term maskil but it is hardly the name of a party (cf. Dan. 11.33 and comm., 11.35; 12.3, 10).

44. It should be noted that in this text from 1 Maccabees, the Asideans are called ἑκουσιαζόμενοι (devotees of the law), the LXX term corresponding to the Hebrew words … characteristic of QS (see 1.7, 11; 5.1, 6, 8, 10, 21, 22; 6.13) which uses this term to designate ‘the members of the Community willingly and generously engaged in the service of the Torah’ (see M. Delcor, Le Livre de Daniel (Paris 1971), p. 17).

45. Only in the Masoretic Text where the term Hassidim appears in the plural absolute without a pronominal suffix.

46. See our commentary on chapters 7—12.

47. Op. cit., p. 846.

48. See G. von Rad, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 315: ‘Without any doubt, the writer of Daniel sides with those who endure persecution rather than those who take up arms against it, and in so doing he is only being true to his own basic conviction that what must be will be. He is far removed from the Maccabees and their policy of active resistance. …’

49. See D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik, Discoveries in the Judean Desert, vol. 1 (Oxford 1955), ‘Qumran Cave I’, Appendix III, no. 71, ‘Daniel (Premier Exemplaire)’ 1.10-17; 2.2-6. Cf. M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, ibid., III, ‘Les petites grottes de Qumrân’ (Oxford 1962). Fragments of Daniel 8.20-1(?); 11.33-6, 38.

50. J. Dupont-Sommer, Les Ecrits Esséniens Découverts près de la Mer Morte (Paris 1959), p. 336.

51. Note the absence of the Botenformel ‘thus says the Lord’, so characteristic of prophecy.

52. ‘(Daniel) did not only prophesy of future events, as did the other prophets, but he also determined the time of their accomplishment; and while the prophets used to foretell misfortunes, and on that account were disagreeable both to the kings and to the multitude, Daniel was to them a prophet of good things, and this to such a degree, that, by the agreeable nature of his predictions, he procured the good-will of all men; and by the accomplishment of them, he procured the belief of their truth; and the opinion of a sort of divinity for himself, among the multitude. He also wrote and left behind him what made manifest the accuracy and undeniable veracity of his predictions. …’ (Josephus' Complete Works, trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids 1960), p. 227).

53. Inserted or placed at 3.24-90; 13, 14. See J. Ziegler, Septuaginta, vol. xvi pars 2, ‘Susanna. Daniel. Bel et Draco’ (Göttingen 1954), pp. 119-32; 80-91; 215-23.

54. ‘Das Buch Daniel’, KAT (Gütersloh 1965), p. 26.

55. Studies in Daniel (New York 1948).

56. On the contrary, the argument, advanced to satiety, that the beginning and end of the book are in Hebrew to legitimate its insertion into the Canon of Scriptures—as though the ‘inspectors’ or customs officials would content themselves with a cursory examination of the merchandise—is a farce. Even H. L. Ginsberg falls into this trap, op. cit., pp. 38-9.

57. Except in chapter 3, where Daniel is not mentioned.