VI. Relation of Book of Daniel to Old Testament Canon
1. FOURFOLD ATTACK ON THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Having traced some of the important features in the background history of Daniel, the prophet, and the book of Daniel, let us now note the place this book occupied in the sacred writings of the Jews, and its relationship to the Old Testament canon. In our Bibles today we find the book of Daniel classified among the major prophets, following Ezekiel. But such was not the place assigned to Daniel in the Jewish sacred scrolls. This difference in position, together with the singularity of its prophecies which differ markedly from the other prophetic writings of the Old Testament—have encouraged modern critical scholars to make most persistent attacks (1) against the Daniel authorship of the book, (2) against its authenticity, (3) against an early composition, and (4) against its prophetic value in general.PFF1 54.6
2. THE ARGUMENT FOR A LATE COMPOSITION
These attacks against the book of Daniel are in no sense a purely modern invention, but were first made by Porphyry the Syrian sophist (c. A.D. 233—304), head of the Syrian school of Neoplatonism. In his extensive work against Christianity, Porphyry discussed the book of Daniel and placed its composition much later, in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, in the second century, B.C., giving citations from certain Greek authors to sustain his position. This was a distinct innovation. But his work—exerted no particular influence at the time, and the, patristic view of Daniel dominated the Middle Ages. Christians and Jews, Catholics and Protestants, were generally agreed that the book was written during the exile, in the sixth century B.C. Only in modern times has the question been raised again, introduced by Johann S. Semler (d. 1791) and Wilhelm A. Corrodi (d. 1793).PFF1 55.1
Only a few of the leading criticisms will be pointed out, because a discussion of this question is not a primary objective in this work. The general attack against the early date long claimed for the writing of the book of Daniel, and its authorship by the saintly Jewish captive and statesman, Daniel, is centered chiefly on chapter 11 which, it is widely assumed, offers a detailed description of the period of Antiochus Epiphanes and the wars of the Maccabees, in the second century B.C.PFF1 55.2
No one, the critics claim, except a compatriot of that ruler, would be able to refer with such exactitude to actual events of the time. Therefore the writer of the book of Daniel must evidently have been a learned man, or one whose heart was filled with a holy desire to impart strength and fortitude to his people, living in those exacting times of war and persecution during the Maccabean period. He must, they aver, have been a man who took the name Daniel, a well—known figure of earlier times, as his pseudonym, to give greater weight to his exhortations and predictions.PFF1 56.1
Added plausibility for this view has been claimed through the fact that the book of Daniel is not mentioned among the “prophets” in the Jewish canon; nor is Daniel mentioned in the list of important men in the book of Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), which was written about 190—170 B.C. The conclusion is therefore drawn that the book of Daniel must have been written at a later date, probably about 16 B.C. PFF1 56.2
Modern criticism came into its own, and today a great number of expositors accept the late date for the redaction of the book of Daniel. But these attacks on Daniel, like most of the modern attacks on the sacred books, are built upon the assumption that religious ideas and conceptions were a natural development in human thinking. Under such a basic premise the direct intervention of a supernatural force—that is, a revelation of the divine will as it is represented in prophecyhas, of course, no place. Books which contain prophetic elements, say the critics, or are of an apocalyptic nature, are at best considered pious fiction, in which the writer designedly uses the future tense to convey the impression of prediction; whereas in reality he is simply relating past and contemporary events. PFF1 56.3
If that contention were actually true, it would be inconceivable that Christ, who was Truth incarnate, should put His approval in a signal way upon the book of Daniel Matthew 24:15.), Christ admonished the people to read and understand the book of “Daniel the prophet”; and the special name that He cherished more than any other—the “Son of man,” because it expressed His very mission—is taken in this connection from the same book. (Daniel 7:13.)PFF1 57.1
3. THE ARGUMENT FROM THE ARAMAIC
The book of Daniel was written partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic—chapter 1:1 to 2:3 and chapter 8 to the end of chapter 12 being in Hebrew, but the section from chapter 2:4 to 7:28 is in Aramaic. This point has often been played up, and has led to numerous conjectures. Although closely related to Hebrew, the Aramaic was considered by the Hebrews to be a foreign tongue. However, in the postexilic period it became the vernacular of the people and their customary idiom. The claim that Daniel is of rather late origin is based in part upon the language employed in the book. This Aramaic section, it is held, corresponds to the Aramaic used in the second and third centuries B.C., and not to that used, in the sixth century B.C.PFF1 57.2
Yet the mere form of the language in itself is no definite proof in establishing the age of any text, or time of writing, for the copyist of that—time were accustomed to “modernize” the style of spelling or wording.PFF1 57.3
4. RECENT DISCOVERIES THROW LIGHT ON DANIEL
It may be well to refer here to the bearing upon this subject of recent archaeological finds which tend to confirm the authenticity of the book and to jar the skepticism of the critics. For example, fragments of the book of Daniel were found among the group of Hebrew manuscripts which were taken from a cave near the Dead Sea in 1947, among which were rolls of the complete book of Isaiah and several non—Biblical works, including previously unknown apocalyptic writings.PFF1 57.4
Picture 6: APPROXIMATE TIMING OF OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS SYNCHRONIZED WITH SUCCESSIVE WORLD POWERS
Above the century scale is given the sequence of near eastern world powers, with periods of Israelitish history below. Below the century scale is given the approximate dating and distribution of national leaders and ministry of the Hebrew prophets; on bottom line are the minor leaders and oral prophets. Authorities differ widely on Biblical chronology prior to the time of David and Solomon, at least, and in some later details. This chart is not meant to be dogmatic but rather intended to indicate the relative chronological placement of Daniel and the prior and subsequent prophets of the old testament Canon.
Page 58PFF1 58
This sensational find was announced in 1948 as “the most important discovery ever made in Old Testament manuscripts.” If the early estimates of the scholars are justified, the Isaiah scroll is very old—dated by `’V. F. Albright as of the second century B.C. “This is amazing,” says the editor of the Biblical Archaeologist, “for complete Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah, or for that matter of any part of the Old Testament, have hitherto been unknown before the ninth century A.D.” The Daniel fragments, tentatively dated somewhere near the Isaiah scroll, were a surprise to scholars, because Biblical critics have been wont to give a second—century date to the writing or at least to the finished form of the book. This discovery of parts of two rolls of Daniel—containing the names Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and including the point where the Aramaic portion of the book begins—in such an early text was “something that no one had dared to hope for in Old Testament study.” PFF1 58.1
Biblical scholars tell us that it will take years of research to evaluate and utilize the material in these manuscripts, but the first reports on the Isaiah and Daniel texts are very interesting.PFF1 59.1
“From this point of view, the most significant fact about the Isaiah manuscript is the degree to which it agrees with our traditional Hebrew text. The agreement is by no means exact in every detail. In the spelling of the words there are a great many differences .... In some cases ‘the grammatical forms are different from those to which we are accustomed in our Hebrew Old Testament.” Even in wording “there are differences, as always, for manuscripts are never perfect copies of their originals .... The remarkable fact is that there is nothing which can be called a major addition or omission, comparable to the additions and omissions to be found in the Septuagint, for example.” PFF1 59.2
“The text [of Daniel] is substantially the same as that of our current Hebrew Bibles (the Masoretic text). The chief differences, like those in the Isaiah manuscript, have to do with the spelling of words.” PFF1 59.3
Another side light on the language of Daniel is furnished by a papyrus fragment, a letter written in Aramaic. A Palestinian or Syrian kinglet, perhaps from Ashkelon, appeals to the Pharaoh of Egypt for help against the invading king of Babylon, presumably Nebuchadnezzar. The principal value of the fragment is its indication “that Aramaic was already before the end of the 7th century becoming the international language of state.” PFF1 59.4
“It has long been known that Aramaic became the official language of the Persian empire, at least in its western part, almost a century later. But until now it had not been dreamed that this development had begun so early. It is true that Aramaic had begun to enjoy wide use as a commercial language in the Assyrian empire since the Sargonids .... But this letter of Adon is the first evidence that Aramaic had begun to oust Akkadian as the language of official diplomatic correspondence before the Persian period. The horizon of this development is thus pushed back the best part of a century. Indeed it is probable, though not proved, that the Babylonians administered the western part, at least, of their empire in Aramaic and that the Persians merely took over the existing custom together with much of its machinery.” PFF1 60.1
This letter will serve as a “warning against overmuch skepticism,” such as that which formerly branded as a forgery the Aramaic of Ezra, which, however, “takes on a more authentic flavor with each such discovery.” If scholars will admit that the Aramaic portions of Ezra, presented as diplomatic correspondence, could have been taken from authentic fifth—century records and afterward put into later language form, then there is no valid objection to the idea that the similar Aramaic sections of Daniel could have come from sixth century originals in the language then used in international administration, and afterward passed through the same process. The differences in language form between the second century and the time of the Masoretic text would lead one to expect just such a situation. As the report concludes, “That courtiers should address Nebuchadnezzar in Aramaic as the story in Daniel 2:4 has it, no longer appears at all surprising.” PFF1 60.2
Thus we find language objections fading in the light of fuller knowledge. It is well known that the language of the Hebrew Bible was definitely fixed, word by word and letter by letter, under the influence of Rabbi Akiba, A.D. 50—134. Previous to Akiba’s time spelling was not considered sacred and fixed, and many variant versions of the holy text existed. Hence, later copies may well have used the spelling current at the time of copying, and not have followed the more ancient forms. It is not, therefore, at all conclusive to attempt to prove the age of the text from the form of language employed.PFF1 60.3
“Later redactors and learned scribes until the time of the Massoretes readjusted the old text—and probably several times—to the language of their times. The idea that they could be suspected of being fakers by their compatriots or certain scientists of the twentieth century never entered their minds. Their intention was solely to replace the ancient expressions and orthography which had become obsolete in their time by such as gave their contemporary readers the chance to understand these texts, and to get the feeling of the original....PFF1 61.1
“Taking all the facts together without bias, one is led to the conclusion, as I believe, that the assertion that the manuscripts of the Book of Ezra cannot be older than the present Aramaic Ezra because of linguistic reasons, will not stand a thorough and scrupulous investigation which takes all the facts into consideration.”’ PFF1 61.2
The afore—mentioned recent discovery of the remnants of a second century B.C. Hebrew library in a cave near the Dead Sea provides the proof for the assumption that the text of Biblical books was modernized in form by copyists from time to time. Four of the preserved manuscripts show four different copying practices.—earlier and later types of script, earlier and later forms of spelling—existing in the same library. Fragments of the book of Leviticus showed that book written in a script a good deal like the alphabet used in the Siloam inscription, in use before the exile. The Habakkuk commentary and some other fragments are written in the postexilic square script with the exception of divine names, for which the old venerated script was still used. The now—famous complete Isaiah scroll has different spelling and grammar from that of the Masoretic text; it uses the plene, or full, spelling which adds letters, perhaps to aid in pronunciation. But another Isaiah manuscript, of which only chapters 44—66 are preserved, found also in the same cave, uses the later, “defective,” or abbreviated, form, representing a text almost identical with the traditional Hebrew text still in use today. Everyone will readily admit that the orthographical and grammatical differences of the two Isaiah manuscripts, for instance, reveal at most the period of their respective copyists, but that they do not give any clue to the date of the original composition of the book. By analogy one can safely say that any third—century forms of language found in the present Aramaic portion of Daniel are no proof that the book was written as late as the third century. If on other grounds a sixth century authorship can be established, the linguistic variations can be easily explained.PFF1 61.3
5. THE ARGUMENT CONCERNING BELSHAZZAR AS KING
Formerly, the mention of Belshazzar as king in Babylon was held as definite proof that the writer of the book of Daniel could not have been a contemporary of this “king”; otherwise he would have known that Belshazzar was never king of Babylon. Today, however, through the painstaking work of many archaeologists, that opinion has been definitely reversed. For example, Dr. Raymond Philip Dougherty, in his most thoroughgoing study reaches the following impressive and highly significant conclusions as to the historicity of Belshazzar:PFF1 62.1
“The foregoing summary of information concerning Belshazzar, when judged in the light of data obtained from the texts discussed in this monograph, indicates that of all non—Babylonian records dealing with the situation at the close of the Neo—Babylonian empire the fifth chapter of Daniel ranks next to cuneiform literature in accuracy so far as outstanding events are concerned. The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling, because it employs the name Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom. Babylonian cuneiform documents of the sixth century B.C. furnish dear—cut evidence of the correctness of these three basic historical nuclei contained in the Biblical narrative dealing with the fall of Babylon. Cuneiform texts written under Persian influence in the sixth century B.C. have not preserved the name Belshazzar, but his role as a crown prince entrusted with royal power during Nabonidus’ stay in Arabia is depicted convincingly. Two famous Greek historians of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. (Herodotus and Xenophon] do not mention Belshazzar by name and hint only vaguely at the actual political situation which existed in the time of Nabonidus. Annals in the Greek language ranging from about the beginning of the third century B.C. to the first century B.C. are absolutely silent concerning Belshazzar and the prominence which he had during the last reign of the Neo—Babylonian empire. The total information found in all available chronologically—fixed documents later than the cuneiform texts of the sixth century B.C. and prior to the writings of Josephus of the first century A.D. could not have provided the necessary material for the historical framework of the fifth chapter of Daniel.” PFF1 62.2
The essential point, of course, is that a writer in a late period could not have given such exact statements concerning a prevailing situation which was no longer correctly recorded even only a century later.PFF1 63.1
As further internal evidence, one must also consider the intimate knowledge of Babylonian mythology represented in the different prophetic terms and symbols used, considered in the earlier part o this chapter, which were easily understood in the Babylonian period, but which would be utterly foreign to the thought and phrasings of the Jews centuries later, in the time of the Maccabees. And though there are other points of difficulty in the book of Daniel, these may also be as effectively cleared when further material becomes available through excavations or other circumstances.PFF1 63.2
6. THE IMPLICATION OF CANONICITY
Let us now consider the position of the book of Daniel in the Old Testament canon, and in brief outline trace the canon in general. The word canon means primarily a straight staff, a rule, a measuring rod, then a list. But as applied to Scripture, it long ago came to have a special meaning. It designated the books of the Bible the books which were accepted as inspired and authoritative. It was first applied in this sense by the church fathers at the Council of Laodicea, about the middle of the fourth century. But the concept of the canonicity of a book had a much earlier origin. It was long prevalent among the Jews, although they did not use the same term. PFF1 63.3
The formation of the canon is, of course, of much later date than the writing of the different books which compose it. The idea of setting apart a certain number of books—of canonizing them for religious use—as having a divine and authoritative character, could only have been suggested when the amount of religious literature had increased to the extent that need of such a selection became imperative. We find a hint of this kind as early as in Ecclesiastes 12:12, where the writer warns that there is no end of the making of books, and that too much reading is a weariness to the flesh. That means, in other words, that one should concentrate on those books which are of accepted origin, as verse 11 might also indicate. In later times we find in the Mishnah that the canonicity of the Holy Books is expressed indirectly by the doctrine that those writings which are not canonical “render the hands unclean.” PFF1 64.1
Which books were considered among the Jews to possess this particular quality? And when was this determined? According to the traditional view, the greater part of the Old Testament canon was fixed in the time following the Exile, in the days of Ezra and the century or so following, by the Great Synagogue, the supposed body of learned scribes which compiled the collection of sacred books. The Old Testament contained “twenty—four books, the five of the Pentateuch, eight books of the Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets), and eleven Hagiographa (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra [including Nehemiah], and Chronicles). Samuel and Kings form but a single book each, as is seen in Aquila’s Greek translation. The `twelve’ prophets were known to Eccl[esiastic]us (Sirach) as one book (49:10), and the separation of Ezra from Nehemiah is not indicated in either the Talmud or the Masorah.” These are precisely the same books that we find in the canon of the Protestant Bible today, although they are arranged in a different sequence.PFF1 64.2
The well—known Jewish tripartite division of the Old Testament is made up of (1) the Law, or Torah; (2) the Prophets, or Nebiim; and (3) the Writings, or Kathubim, which in Greek were called Hagiographa. Just why this tripartite division was adopted by the Jews is difficult to explain. It is not continued in the Septuagint. Modern commentators seek to prove, in harmony with their theses, that it indicates a chronological order—which would, of course, mean that the books of the Torah were canonized earlier than those of the other two sections, and hence, that the Hagiographa (including Daniel) were the latest to be added to the canon.PFF1 65.1
However, the more conservative commentators hold to the concept that the division was made on the ground of difference in subject matter. These have a confirmatory witness in behalf of their view, in the passage in Josephus (Against Apion, book 1, chap. 8), in which the eminent Jewish historian, writing about A.D. 100, expresses his conviction, and that of his coreligionists, that the Scriptures of the Palestinian Hebrews formed a closed and sacred collection from the days of the Persian king Artaxerxes Longimanus (465—425 B.C.). A further reference is found in the Baba Bathra, 14.b, a Talmudic tractate (between A.D. 200 and 500) which mentions the aforenamed number of books under the same classification.PFF1 65.2
“it is more probable, that the book was placed in this part of the Heb. Canon, because Daniel is not called a nabhi (’prophet’), but was rather a hozeh (’seer’) and a hakham (’wise man’). None but the works of the nebhi’im were put in the second part of the Jewish Canon, the third being reserved for the heterogeneous works of seers, wise men, and priests, or for those that do not, mention the name or work of a prophet, or that are poetical in form....PFF1 66.1
“Some have attempted to explain the position of Daniel by assuming that he had the prophetic gift without holding the prophetic office. It must be kept in mind that all reasons given to account for the order and place of many of the books in the Canon are purely conjectural, since we have no historical evidence bearing upon the subject earlier than the time of Jesus ben Sirach, who wrote probably about 180 B.C.” PFF1 66.2
