SOURCE: Redditt, Paul L. “Daniel 11 and the Sociohistorical Setting of the Book of Daniel.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 60, no. 3 (July 1998): 236-49.

[In the following essay, Redditt argues that The Book of Daniel was written by a group of Jewish courtier-scribes who were employed by the Seleucids.]

One of the issues in the study of the Book of Daniel is the book's origin. Where, and within what group, did it arise? The questions are not new, of course, though the pursuit of an answer has taken new twists in the last couple of decades. Scholars rightly warn that the book may have arisen in a group otherwise unknown to modern scholars, and that answers to the questions might not furnish really important clues to the meaning of the book. Even so, the questions remain among those most debated in contemporary studies of Daniel. In this study the question of the identity of the group responsible for the Book of Daniel will be addressed once again, with the conclusion that the group was comprised of Jewish courtiers employed by the Seleucids.

I. A BRIEF REVIEW OF PREVIOUS POSITIONS

For traditional scholars, of course, there is no problem: the book was written by Daniel, an exiled Judaean of royal or at least noble birth, for his companions in Babylon.¹ Among the factors that have led critical scholars to abandon this view are (1) the use of two languages, Hebrew (1:1-2:4a; 8:1-12:13) and Aramaic (2:4b-7:28),² (2) the use of different types of literature (court narratives, basically in Daniel 1-6, and vision narratives, basically in Daniel 7-12, though Daniel 7 has clear links with Daniel 2),³ (3) a number of historical errors about the exile, suggesting a later author,⁴ and (4) the treatment of Daniel in the third person in Daniel 1-6, but in the first person singular in Daniel 7-12.⁵

Critical scholars have made various suggestions about the author of the book and its origin. Two scholars of the previous generation framed the debate. On the one hand, H. H. Rowley argued for a single author who drew on, and shaped, traditions about Jews in exile, combining them with visions about the end of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.⁶ This author, who also drew on, but modified, Old Testament prophecy and borrowed Persian and other foreign ideas, ultimately wrote for persons in the Palestinian community suffering under Antiochus. (For Rowley, apocalyptic “owes more to the circumstances that gave it birth in the Maccabean Age” than it does to prophecy or to foreign ideas and influences.⁷) Rowley was answered by H. L. Ginsberg, who argued that Daniel 1-6 consists of a series of narratives by various authors, while Daniel 7-12 contains the visions of no fewer than four different apocalypticists from the time of Antiochus.⁸ Ginsberg's opinion that Daniel 1-6 is from an earlier period than Daniel 7-12 seems generally correct, though the number of different authors he postulated seems excessive.

Davies lists three groups sometimes identified as the group behind Daniel: the Hasideans, “those seeking righteousness and justice” mentioned in 1 Macc 2:29-38, and the scribes associated with Jesus ben Sira; he also reminds scholars that Daniel may have been written by a person, or persons, belonging to a distinct but hitherto unrecognized group.⁹ These options need further attention.

A. HASIDEANS?

The most popular suggestion is that the author and his group were Hasideans. On the basis of 1 Macc 2:29-42, Hasideans are often depicted as devout, pacifistic Jews, some of whom suffered martyrdom rather than defile themselves in the persecutions under Antiochus Epiphanes. The survivors are then said to have been persuaded to unite with the Maccabees to fight against the Seleucids.¹⁰ J. J. Collins has argued, however, that the Hasideans were probably far more militaristic and pro-Hasmonean than the group behind Daniel, which he refers to simply as the “wise.”¹¹

Further, one should note that in 1 Macc 2:42 the Hasideans are not specifically identified with the pacifists of 2:29-38. Indeed, the narrator seems to say that the pacifists were completely obliterated. The fate of the pacifists in 1 Macc 2:29-32 served as a negative object lesson for anyone who refused to fight on the Sabbath. The narrator reports that other Judaeans knew of the fate of the martyrs and drew the conclusion (2:41) that they must indeed fight or die, and the Hasideans are introduced as an example of pious persons who heeded the argument of the Maccabees and joined in their revolt. The Hebrew Vorlage of 2:42 probably contained a word or phrase meaning “mighty warriors” or “leading citizens”; the fact that the Hasideans indeed answered the Maccabees' call to battle suggests “mighty warriors.”¹² If Dan [Book of Daniel] 11:34, as is frequently supposed, alludes to the Maccabees as only “a little help” in the battle against the Seleucids, the verse reflects a view of the value of armed resistance contrary to that embodied by the Hasideans.

The Hasideans are also mentioned in 1 Macc 7:13, in which they are said to have been the first to seek peace with the Seleucids. In the previous verse, however, there is mention of a group of scribes who appeared in a body before Alcimus and Bacchides to petition for a just settlement of the warfare. The question is whether the scribes in 7:12 are related to the Hasideans in 7:13, and the answer is apparently yes.¹³ The Hasideans, then, appear to be a group of scribes (or a group containing scribes) who joined with the Maccabees at the start of their revolt but were prepared to seek peace with the Seleucids as early as 161 b.c. It seems clear from these observations that the Hasideans were militarists, not pacifists like the author(s) of Daniel, though they may not have shared all the political aspirations of the Hasmoneans.

B. “THOSE SEEKING RIGHTEOUSNESS AND JUSTICE”?

The second group nominated as the community of the Book of Daniel is the group of those “seeking righteousness and justice” mentioned in 1 Macc 2:29-38, the group ambushed on the Sabbath. The author(s) of Daniel resembled them more than they did the Hasideans. It is difficult to argue that members of this group composed Daniel, however, since the narrative stresses their obliteration. Even if the narrator engaged in hyperbole, and some, or many, of them escaped, there is nothing, apart from their pacifism, to link them to the Book of Daniel.

C. SCRIBES ASSOCIATED WITH JESUS BEN SIRA?

The third group, that of the scribes associated with the Book of Sirach, should then be considered. As early as the edict of Antiochus III in 197, scribes were mentioned alongside priests, temple singers, and persons to be exempt from paying taxes for three years.¹⁴ Rainer Albertz argues plausibly that under Simon the Just a number of temple scribes joined one another to form the Hasideans,¹⁵ but other scribes would have flourished beside them.

One such group was that of the scribes associated with Sirach, who also do not seem to have written the Book of Daniel. Davies offers two pieces of evidence for that conclusion: (1) Sirach does not teach the resurrection of the dead, and even seems to discourage speculation about such matters (Sir 3:21-24); (2) his term for scribe is sōpēr, not maśkîl as in Daniel.¹⁶

D. A HITHERTO UNKNOWN GROUP?

Since neither the Hasideans, nor those “seeking righteousness and justice,” nor the scribes associated with Sirach seem to have been associated with the production of the Book of Daniel, we return to Davies's observation that the book may have been written by a hitherto unknown group of people who identified with Daniel the wise man and called themselves “the wise” in Dan 12:3,10. What can be said about the identity of that group? R. R. Wilson argues plausibly that the people most likely to cultivate narratives about Judaean wise men succeeding in the courts of foreign kings were persons attempting to do just that.¹⁷ Since the setting of the narratives in Daniel 1-6 is the Babylon court, and since that city was the home of many Judaeans in the diaspora, one may probably assume that the collectors of those narratives lived in the diaspora, probably in Babylon, though nearby Seleucia in Mesopotamia, or even the western Seleucid capital of Antioch in Syria, are possible.¹⁸ The group harbored hopes of serving in the Seleucid court, or at least found the thought attractive.

The vision narratives in Daniel 7-12, by contrast, betray an overwhelming interest in Jerusalem and the events of the Maccabean period. This suggests that the group responsible for those chapters lived in Jerusalem during the second century, as the overwhelming majority of critical scholars concludes. The persecution that had always been possible in a foreign land came to full fruition in Judah itself at the hands of the foreign king Antiochus IV. Davies thinks that court narratives took on new life in second century Judah, and that the vision narratives were composed as complementary applications of the court narratives.¹⁹ He notes the significance of books, writing, and secrets in Daniel and argues that these emphases suggest a literary elite, albeit a fallen one, for whose members knowing the secrets was an acceptable temporary substitute for holding political power.²⁰ H.-P. Müller and S. B. Reid conclude that the group may be called “mantic” because its particular type of wisdom is divinatory.²¹ R. R. Wilson notes a shift in Daniel 7-12 toward the prophetic tradition, particularly toward the Book of Ezekiel (in Dan 8:2; 10:2-9,20-14), but also toward Isa 11:6-7; Hos 13:7-8; Jer 5:6, 15:3; 51:38; Hab 1:6-10; Joel 1:6 (in Daniel 7).²²

Further, the wise Daniel can no longer interpret dreams but requires an interpreting angel to aid him. R. R. Wilson suggests, therefore, that the group no longer was limited to upper-class bureaucrats but also included people with closer links to prophecy.²³ It is also possible that the change in the portrayal of Daniel simply mirrors the failing confidence of the “wise” in their ability to understand what was going on, that it does not signal a change in the composition of the group.

II. A GROUP ON THE MOVE

It is a plausible hypothesis that the court narratives in Daniel 1-6 originated among a group of Judaeans in the diaspora who thought of themselves as wise, regardless of whether they would be called wise persons by today's scholars. Three of those narratives (Daniel 2, 4, and 5) have been classified as “tales of court contest,” and two (Daniel 3 and 6) as “tales of court conflict.”²⁴ In a tale of court contest, the heroes in the foreign court outperform the locals and are rewarded for doing so. In those narratives, the key to success is fidelity to Yahweh. Only in the Tales of Court Conflict are the heroes threatened with death, and it is their faith that keeps them alive. One might infer that such heroes were subject to flare-ups of persecution, but that does not seem to have been their general lot.

Both the vision narratives of Daniel 7-12 and the court narratives of Daniel 1-6 seem to have originated within the same group (so Wilson and Davies). Its members continued to think of themselves as “the wise,” though their membership may have broadened (as Wilson argued), or their confidence may have been challenged by the events of the persecution under Antiochus IV. In either case, the visionary narrator's overwhelming interest in Jerusalem and the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes seems to demand the conclusion that the group, in whole or part, had moved to Jerusalem and its environs.

When might that move have occurred? It almost certainly took place before the so-called abomination of desolation, since the persecutions of Antiochus, the “little horn,” are mentioned in Daniel 7, but not the abomination itself. How much earlier the group moved to Jerusalem is a matter of conjecture. One possibility comes to mind. When control of Judah passed from the Ptolemies to the Seleucids in 198, Judaeans in the Diaspora might have seen that the time was opportune for moving to Jerusalem.²⁵

Josephus (Ant. 12.3.3 §143) speaks of an incitement to such relocations in a letter of King Antiochus to Ptolemy, a letter which Elias J. Bickerman has called the “Seleucid charter.” The incitement took the form of three years of relief from taxation for all citizens of Jerusalem and any Jew who moved there, with the right to live according to the laws of the fathers. That right was already theirs, so the “charter” may also carry a veiled threat to remove that right if the Judaeans prove obstreperous.²⁶ It might be easy to dismiss the letter as a creation of Josephus, but a Greek inscription records a number of memoranda from Antiochus III written between 202/1 and 195 in which Judaeans are rewarded by Antiochus for their help and are recompensed for losses which they had sustained.²⁷ These memoranda, of course, are not the edict itself, but they do report the same kind of concessions contained in the edict reported by Josephus.

Josephus (Ant. 12.3.4 §149) also reports Antiochus III's transfer of two thousand families of pious Jews from Babylon to Phrygia to serve as caretakers for threatened royal property. They were eventually given homes of their own, and they were allowed to live by their own laws.²⁸ The reliability of this second account is likewise uncertain, but Paul Trebilco has made a good case for its authenticity.²⁹ This was not the only case of Jews settled in Asia Minor. First Macc 15:16-23 records a circular letter from the Roman Senate listing areas and cities in Asia Minor where Jews were living by 139/8.³⁰ Hence, transfer of a group from Babylon was not out of the question.

III. AN INFERENCE FROM DANIEL 11

What more can one say about this group of Judaeans in the diaspora? A clue lies in the observation of U. Rappaport that in Daniel 11 details in Greek history are reported which are not reported in other extant Jewish literature from the time (Sirach and 1 and 2 Maccabees).³¹ The difference between those books and the Book of Daniel seems to lie in Daniel's interest in Seleucid and Ptolemaic affairs, not simply in the relations of those kingdoms with Judah. Rappaport, noting that the details are reported not in a straightforward manner but in a disguised or coded form, suggests that the author may either have adopted an already existing narrative of those events, integrating it into his vision, or have assembled the sequence from Greek sources, molding it into his vision. Either way, his contemporaries showed very little interest in many of those events. For the most part, the text was understood as prediction of the future, not as memory of the past.³²

An analysis of Daniel 10-12 reveals that the author indeed molded an earlier narrative about the Seleucids and Ptolemies. His primary narrative was 10:(1)2-20 + 12:1-4a, 13; this is shown by the smooth connection between 10:20 and 12:1.³³ The incorporated narrative appears in 11:3-45, but he did not simply insert it as he found it; rather, he commented on it and supplemented it. He introduced it with 10:21-11:2. The first verse (10:21) is anti-climactic, coming after the “man” told Daniel he was leaving. In it the mention of Michael is an attempt to connect the vision to what followed next in the narrative: Michael's role in protecting Israel. Next, 11:1 connects Daniel 10-12 to Daniel 9 by the mention of Darius the Mede. Then 11:2 is a summary of two hundred years of Persian history.

In Daniel 11, vv. 3-20 are a history of the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, but vv. 14b and 16b look like Jewish notes and comments. The designations “king of the South” and “king of the North” probably betray the author's locus between Egypt and Mesopotamia rather than the relationship of those two nations to each other. Verses 21-45 have to do with Antiochus, but the hand of the author of Daniel 11 is much heavier here, in vv. 21-24, vv. 27-28, and vv. 30b-45. That leaves as the “borrowed” material in vv. 21-45 only vv. 25-26, and vv. 29-30a (withdraw). Hence, the borrowed narrative would include at most vv. 3-20 + 25-26 + 29-30a, and even vv. 3-20 seem to have undergone discernible modification.

It is possible now to push beyond Rappaport's observations in order to discover something more about the group behind Daniel 11. The fact that the historical information contained in Daniel 11 is disguised and molded for the author's own purposes shows that he was not attempting to convey to his readers new information about international politics explaining a situation in his own day. Instead, he assumed that his readers would understand the references to the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, and he showed that the future would lead to the downfall of Antiochus, with the concomitant rescue of the wise and resurrection of their martyrs.³⁴

If one asks, then, in what circle of people in ancient Judah or Jerusalem an author could presuppose such interest in the relationship between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies and such detailed knowledge of it, the answer probably is that they were Jews associated with the Seleucids in some kind of scribal capacity. If so, one can easily understand their interest in narratives about Jews in the employment of a foreign king and their abhorrence of Antiochus Epiphanes, by whose machinations their lifestyle had been disrupted. Consequently, their visions of the future in Daniel 7-8; 10-12 exhibited a perspective that was quietistic and revolutionist, or at least non-resistant.³⁵ The author(s) and readers expected a new world but declined to fight for it. Reid, describing the group as “anti-Seleucid” and “anti-Antiochene,” though not necessarily anti-Hellenistic, suggests that it may have been a “fallen elite,” in other words, that it had undergone a perceived loss of its former status.³⁶ One must be careful to say that members of the group functioned only as lower-level workers in the Seleucid governmental structure. This conclusion corresponds with what is known about Jews in the service of the Seleucids.³⁷

The term “scribe” was applied to persons engaged in several different activities in ancient Israel, as a quick review of Josephus reveals. Josephus used “scribes” to designate Israelites in official capacities with access to the king and with responsibility for the Law. He also thought of them as record keepers who helped David with the census (1 Sam 24:1), and as temple officials. In dealing with the Herodian period, he mentioned village scribes of low status (J.W. 1.24.3 §479), scribes of high status associated with Herod (J.W. 1.26.3 §529), and scribes who belonged to the Jewish council (J.W. 5.13.1 §532).³⁸

Documents from the Hellenistic period illustrate Seleucid administration and its use of scribes at various levels. The Seleucids organized their territories into satrapies, following the model of the Persians. Each satrapy had its own capital, where a royal treasury was located, and branch offices were established in other big towns. In 1 Macc 3:29 we read of the treasury of Antiochus IV in Syria-Palestine and of the scarcity of revenues there resulting from his generosity to his troops and his attacks on the Jewish populace. The capital city was the place of the central record office, but record keepers were scattered throughout a satrapy.³⁹

IV. THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF THE GROUP BEHIND DANIEL

It is not possible to say precisely what the group behind Daniel did in its service of Antiochus. It is possible, however, to tease a little more of the group's self-understanding from the larger context of Daniel 8-12. While members of the group explained calamity as a consequence of transgressing the Law of Moses (9:11-14), they showed little interest in offering their own interpretation.

By contrast, Daniel 9 contains the group's own interpretation of the seventy years of exile mentioned in Jer 25:11-12; 29:10, but with a major difference in the manner of most of the prophets and Daniel's manner. Typically, prophets speak directly, as persons to whom God has revealed his intentions (Amos 3:7). So does Daniel in the court narratives of Daniel 1-6, but in chap. 9 Daniel describes himself meditating on a received text. Such behavior manifests a scribe's interest in finding the interpretation or meaning of a text. In this particular case, however, Daniel is interested in the interpretation of the passage for the last days, that is, for the days of the readers. Here, as in the other vision narratives of Daniel 7-12, he does not understand what he sees and requires an interpreting angel. In 8:27, Daniel confesses that he does not understand the vision of the ram and the goat even after the angel has explained it. In his failure to understand he would stand in marked contrast with his readers, who would understand the vision perfectly.

This failure on Daniel's part sets up the final vision. The reader no longer needs the words of Daniel. In 10:1-12:4 he disappears as the narrator of the vision, his place being taken by the angel.⁴⁰ At that point, the readers, the community of the wise, are equipped to assume Daniel's role and lead the Jewish community in the last days.

V. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE BOOK OF DANIEL

If this reconstruction is correct, members of the group responsible for the Book of Daniel may well have known the years of royal favor when Antiochus III was attempting to court favor by reducing taxes. They may have seen their life in those years as the kind of good life possible even under foreign domination if people but remained faithful to God and obeyed Torah.

The persecutions under Antiochus IV must have “burst their balloon.” Their dream had become a nightmare. Their foreign benefactor had become their worst enemy. One can also understand why the Maccabees were seen as of “little help,” if, indeed, they are intended in 11:34.⁴¹ Neither they nor any other human agency could restore the previous relationship to the Seleucids. The only possibility for improvement lay in the hands of God, who would usher in God's own kingdom.⁴² In the midst of persecution, the wise could look ahead to the fall of Antiochus IV and of all foreign domination. They did not lay out a vision for life in God's kingdom or a program for future governance. Perhaps they did not have the leisure to do so, since their primary objective had become to hold on and survive under the government which they were experiencing.

Notes

1. Several scholars still support this view. Among them are J. Doukhan, “The Seventy Weeks of Dan 9: An Exegetical Study,” AUSS 17 (1979) 1-22; G. Hasel, “The Identity of ‘The Saints of the Most High’ in Daniel 7,” Bib 56 (1975) 173-92; W. H. Shea, “Wrestling with the Prince of Persia: A Study on Daniel 10,” AUSS 21 (1983) 225-50. Compare R. J. M. Gurney, “The Four Kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7,” Themelios 2 (1977) 39-45; B. K. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” BSac 133 (1976) 319-29; J. H. Walton, “The Four Kingdoms of Daniel,” JETS 29 (1986) 25-36. Recent commentators adopting the stance that Daniel is authentic are J. G. Baldwin, Daniel (TynOldTC; Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1978) 35-46; and S. R. Miller, Daniel (New American Commentary 18; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994) 22-43.

2. For a traditional rejoinder on this issue, see G. Hasel, “The Book of Daniel and Matters of Language: Evidences Relating to Names, Words, and the Aramaic Language,” AUSS 19 (1981) 211-25.

3. For the traditional view, see G. Hasel, “The Four World Empires of Daniel 2 against Its Near Eastern Environment,” JSOT 12 (1979) 17-30; W. H. Shea, “Further Literary Structures in Daniel 2-7: An Analysis of Daniel 5, and the Broader Relationships within Chapters 2-7,” AUSS 23 (1985) 277-95.

4. See traditionalist arguments by G. Hasel, “The Book of Daniel: Evidences Relating to Persons and Chronology,” AUSS 19 (1981) 37-49; M. K. Mercer, “Daniel 1:1 and Jehoiakim's Three Years of Servitude,” AUSS 27 (1989) 179-92; W. H. Shea, “Nabonidus, Belshazzar, and the Book of Daniel: An Update,” AUSS 20 (1982) 133-49; idem, “Darius the Mede: An Update,” AUSS 20 (1982) 229-47; idem, “Further Note on Daniel 6: Daniel as ‘Governor,’” AUSS 21 (1983) 169-71; idem, “Darius the Mede in his Persian-Babylonian Setting,” AUSS 29 (1991) 235-57.

5. Z. Stepanovic has dealt with this issue in two studies: “Daniel: A Book of Significant Reversals,” AUSS 30 (1992) 139-50; and “Thematic Links Between the Historical and Prophetic Sections of Daniel,” AUSS 27 (1989) 121-27, implying, but not actually saying, that he sees a common author of the two halves of the book.

6. H. H. Rowley, “The Unity of the Book of Daniel,” in his collected studies The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (2d ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1965) 249-80.

7. H. H. Rowley, The Relevance of Apocalyptic: A Study of Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (rev. ed.; New York: Harper, 1964) 43.

8. H. L. Ginsberg, “The Composition of the Book of Daniel,” VT 4 (1954) 246-75. See Rowley's rejoinder, “The Composition of the Book of Daniel: Some Comments on Professor Ginsberg's Article,” VT 5 (1955) 272-76.

9. P. R. Davies, Daniel (OTG 4; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985) 122-25.

10. See, for example, M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 1. 202-3; A. LaCocque, The Book of Daniel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979) 10-12; idem, Daniel in His Time (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1988) 27-31; idem, “The Socio-spiritual Formative Milieu of the Daniel Apocalypse,” The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (ed. A. S. van der Woude; BETL 106; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1993) 320-25; L. F. Hartman and A. A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel (AB 23; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978) 43-45; N. W. Porteous, Daniel, a Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965) 15; W. S. Towner, Daniel (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox, 1984) 6-8.

11. J. J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 67-69.

12. Ibid., 67.

13. J. Kampen, The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism: A Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees (SBLSCS 24; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988) 119; V. (A.) Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: Atheneum, 1970) 196-98.

14. Josephus Ant. 12.3.3 §142.

15. R. Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period 2: From the Exile to the Maccabees (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994) 539.

16. Davies, Daniel, 124.

17. R. R. Wilson, “From Prophecy to Apocalyptic: Reflections on the Shape of Israelite Religion,” Semeia 21 (1981) 88.

18. With the rise of Seleucus I Nicator, Babylon lost its political significance. Seleucus founded the city of Seleucia on the Tigris in 312 and built it largely with materials from Babylon. Its population included Jews. About 300, Seleucus had founded Antioch in Syria, which also had a significant Jewish population. See W. A. Meeks and R. L. Wilken, Jews and Christians in Antioch (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978).

19. P. R. Davies, “Eschatology in the Book of Daniel,” JSOT 17 (1980) 34.

20. P. R. Davies, “Reading Daniel Sociologically,” Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (ed. van der Woude), 352-57.

21. H.-P. Müller, “Mantische Weisheit und Apokalyptik,” Congress Volume, Uppsala, 1971 (VTSup 22; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 268-93; S. B. Reid, Enoch and Daniel: A Form Critical and Sociological Study of the Historical Apocalypses (BIBAL Monograph Series 2; Berkeley, CA: BIBAL, 1989) 132-36. G. H. Wilson (“Wisdom in Daniel and the Origin of Apocalyptic,” HAR 9 [1985] 373-80) objects that the references to wisdom and the wise are largely “window dressing” and will not bear the weight assigned them by recent scholars. In fact, though, wisdom and the role of the wise are major motifs in the entire book.

22. Wilson, “From Prophecy to Apocalyptic,” 92. On Daniel 11 alone, see the list of key words from Ezek 7:19-27 used in Daniel 11 compiled by J. E. Goldingay, Daniel (WBC 30; Dallas, TX: Word, 1989) 284.

23. Wilson, “From Prophecy to Apocalyptic,” 92.

24. W. L. Humphreys, “A Life-Style for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel,” JBL 92 (1973) 219-20. These titles have not won universal acceptance, but they are retained here because they call attention to the nature and degree of tension within those narratives.

25. M. Le Morvan (“Qumran: the community,” ScrB 26.1 [1996] 20-33) argues that the Essenes made just this kind of move from the Diaspora to Judah ca. 165-160. Antiochus III suffered a setback at the hands of Rome in Asia Minor in 190, and the peace treaty which followed in 189/8 barred the Seleucids from Asia Minor; see S. Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor 1: The Celts in Anatolia and the Impact of Roman Rule (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) 24. That setback would not have precluded moves within Seleucid areas, however.

26. See N. Hyldahl, “The Maccabean Rebellion and the Question of ‘Hellenization,’” Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 1; ed. P. Bilde et al.; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1990) 189.

27. Y. H. Landau, “A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah,” IEJ 16 (1966) 54-70. While Greek was the official language of the Seleucid Empire, Aramaic remained the second language of Antioch and was the primary spoken language throughout Syria well after the Roman conquest; see Peter Green, Alexander to Actium (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990) 313. The main influence of Greek in the Book of Daniel was on the list of instruments in Daniel 3; see P. Grelot, “L'orchestre de Daniel 3:5,7,10,15,” VT 29 (1979) 23-38.

28. J. A. Goldstein (I Maccabees [AB 41; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976] 195-96) suggests that in this edict Jews may for the first time have been recognized officially as an ethnos.

29. P. R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (SNTSMS 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 5.

30. Ibid., 6.

31. U. Rappaport, “Apocalyptic Vision and Preservation of Historical Memory,” JSJ 23 (1992) 222-24.

32. Ibid., 224. One need only compare Josephus Ant. 12.7.6 §322, written, apparently, with Dan 9:24-27 in mind: “This desolation came to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel, which was given four hundred and eight years before; for he declared that the Macedonians would dissolve that worship.”

33. A. Jepsen (“Bemerkungen zum Danielbuch,” VT 11 [1961] 389-90) takes up a suggestion by H. Junker that Daniel 10 + 12 constituted the original narrative and that 11:2-45 was an addition. The view expressed in the present study is slightly different. In any case, 12:5-13 need not have been part of that narrative, since 12:10 presupposes, and perhaps modifies, 11:35 (see H. Gese, “Die dreieinhalb Jahre des Danielbuches,” Ernten was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991] 399-421).

34. Note this remark of E. J. Bickerman (The Jews in the Greek Age [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988] 122): “It is remarkable that a thorough knowledge of contemporary secular history could have been expected from readers in Seleucid Jerusalem.” Indeed so. The assumption is so remarkable, in fact, that it seems far better to suppose that a limited group within the city, rather than the populace at large, had such knowledge.

35. Reid, Enoch and Daniel, 131.

36. Ibid., 134-35. Reid also says that the group may have been pro-Ptolemaic, but that seems unlikely. Outside of the last vision (10:1-12:4) Egypt is not mentioned. In that vision the various kings of the South are depicted as warriors taking Seleucid images to Egypt as spoils of war (11:8), acting in rage and pride (11:11-12), the target of outlaws among the Judaeans (11:14), and, collectively, as a liar bent on evil (11:27). These details seem to preclude the possibility that the author of Daniel 11 was pro-Ptolemaic. Hartmut Gese (“Das Geschichtsbild des Danielbuches und Ägypten,” Fontes atque pontes: Eine Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner [Ägypten und Altes Testament 5; ed. M. Görg; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983] 151) shows that in fact 11:40-45 depicts the overthrow of the political polarities Mesopotamia and Egypt, which had dominated the prior history of Israel. Besides that, Jews in Alexandria were becoming less and less literate in Hebrew, and a book in Aramaic and Hebrew would fly in the face of that community's transition.

37. P. Frei (“Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im Achämenidenreich,” P. Frei and K. Koch, Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich [OBO 55; 2d ed.; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996] 62 n. 113) says that in contrast with the experience of Jews under the Ptolemies, “there were apparently no Jews who achieved a high-ranking position during the Seleucid period.” Cf. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1. 21-32.

38. See A. J. Saldarini, “Scribes,” ABD, 5. 1013-14.

39. M. Rostovtzeff, “Syria and the East,” The Cambridge Ancient History 7: The Hellenistic Monarchies and the Rise of Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954) 164-65.

40. See Davies, Daniel, 125.

41. Collins (Daniel, 386) points out that this identification goes back to Jerome but is not explicitly stated in the text. The verse may mean simply that the wise will receive little real help from any one.

42. In both 2:44-45 and 7:14,26-27 things are said about God's coming kingdom. If those passages represent the thinking of the group before the excesses of Antiochus IV, they express a traditional idea which members of the group could latch onto in their new setting. If the same passages are by the author(s) of the Maccabean period, they represent a rethinking in which older traditions are brought into line with the new political reality.