Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Dani T. (CE3)
Date
• Two possibilities date of composition has been hotly
disputed. Essentially two possible dates
o 6th Century BC
Suggests that book was written by Daniel himself
Traditional Jewish and Christian view
Now abandoned by nearly all scholars except some
conservatives
• The argument therefore is that those who propose the 6th Century date do
so on the basis of predictive prophecy
o God revealing to Daniel in 6thC what would happen in 2ndC
o Porphyry (3rd C) was first to suggest that predictive prophecy of
Daniel was actually just vaticinia ex eventu prophecy after the
event
Many scholars now follow his approach
Historicity
• If Daniel was historical author then lived in 6th C
i. Requisite Historicity does not mean events did not happen. Some
events are recorded in only one source
ii. Unreliable History does not mean events did not happen, but lends
support to argument that they are purely fictional or result of
faulty/fanciful memories
iii. Caricatured History not important because no need to find this
evidence. Message of Daniel not to be tied to any one set of historical
events. Caricaturing requires exaggeration or distortion of known
historical events/entities
Siege of Jerusalem
o Jehoiakim king of Judah 609BC
Dan 1:1 siege of Jerusalem in his 3rd year (606BC?)
o Two problems
This siege unattested in OT. Only time Jerusalem said to have
been besieged was 2 times after his death
• Reign of his son Jehoiachin (597BC)
• Reigh of Zedekiah (588-86BC)
Only time Neb could have come to Jerusalem during reign of
Jehoiakim was in 605BC
i. Requisite Historicity lot of details and date but the upshot is two fold
a. 2 Kings 24:1 (Jehoiakim made Neb’s servant for 3 years) alludes
to the effect of the siege written about in Daniel without refering
to the siege itself
b. Depending on how you date the accession year of Jehoiakim the
dates can be made to fit with the 3rd year date in Dan 1:1
ii. Unreliable History Attempt at above does not work at all. Neb didn’t
have time to besiege Jerusalem at the time Daniel says he did
iii. Caricatured History date issues not important because Neb is just a
stereotypical foreign king and Jehoiakim stereotypical wicked king of
Judah
Figure of Daniel
• No mention of a Jew named Daniel holding high office in either
Babylonian or Persian administration
• Only Daniel in ANE literature is Dan’el in Ugartic literature a
legendary hero
o But Ugarit destroyed in 13thC, so not him
i. Requisite Historicity
a. absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. There
are countless administrative officials of various empires whose
names are lost
b. Possible Ezekiel references him (14:14, 20, 28:3) describing
him as very wise person.
i. Contemporaries – date in Dan 1:1 means Daniel deported
to Babylon 8 years before Ezkekiel giving him time to
forge his wise reputation
ii. Spelling discrepancy of his name not important
ii. Unreliable History
a. Fact that Daniel not mentioned outside Bible supports purely
fictional character
b. Daniel in Ezekiel cannot be same Daniel
i. Missing yod in the name
ii. Ezkiel referring to Dan’el of Urgatic literature
iii. Places him beside Noah and Job who were both foreigners
iv. Daniel would have been too young to have had such a big
reputation to be referred alongside Noah and Job
c. Possible/Probably that biblical Daniel is derived from the Ugartic
Dan’el
i. Author uses the tradition and adds his own visions etc in
the name of Daniel derived from Dan’el.
Babylonian Names
• Daniel and his friends are all given unusual Babylonian names
i. Requisite Historicity
i. Says there is some precedence for the names
Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meschach & Abednego
ii. Slight differences between Babylonian originals and
names as seen in Daniel due to bowdlerisation of
originals which were objectional to jews
ii. Unreliable History
i. Names do not have direct Babylonian etymologies
ii. They are perversions and suggests author tried to mimic
them
iii. Caricatured History not important. What matters is that they sound
Babylonian. Purpose of names it to highlight the pressure put on Daniel
and his friends to abandon jewish identity. Expect author to parody the
name
Nebuchadnezzar’s Name
• Name in OT spelt with a r (Nebuchadrezzar) but only in Ezekiel and
Jeremiah who were directly affected by his name. IN rest of OT
(including Daniel) always spent with a n (Nebuchadnezzar)
i. Requisite Historicity
i. Spelling with an n in Daniel represents legitimate shift
from r n (as per Berger).
ii. Does not mean author was not a contemporary
ii. Unreliable History
i. Spelling is inaccurate and incorrect.
ii. Reflects usage of an author who was not a contemporary
of him
iii. Caricatured History not important. What matters is that the
caricature of Neb, who is portrayed as self-absorbed, childish, barbaric
Nebuchadnezzar’s Madness
• Chp 4 goes mad. No Babylonian or other ANE doctrines refer to this
i. Requisite Historicity
i. Possibly officially suppressed?
ii. Records from end of his reigh are very sketchy
iii. Any similarities between prayer of Nabonidus and Daniel
either coincidental or derived from Daniel
ii. Unreliable History
i. Dan 4 derived from older tradition about last king of
Babylon (Nabonidus, 556-539BC) who went from Babylon
to Arabian oasis for ten years where for 7 years he was
afflicted by some kind of inflammation where he had to be
put away from men
1. Idolater who is then absolved and healed by
anonymous jewish exorcist
ii. No corroborating evidence for Neb
King Belshazzar
• He was never crowned as king
i. Requisite Historicity
o Until 20thC his rule was unknown in historical records
o But cuneiform texts published in 1929 name him as son of later
King (Nabonidus)
He acted as a kind of de facto king
nd
o A 2 century author would have pleaced Nabonidus, who was
the last king of Babylon, in the palace that night rather than
forgotten Belshazzar. So this is an indication of historical
reliability
ii. Unreliable History
o Unlikely Belshazzar was a forgotten memory that quickly
o Dan 5 Bel reigning at time Babylonian Empire fell (539BC)
Yet his father, Nabonidus, returned from his exile c 543BC
and was reigning at 539, not his son Bel.
Indication of historical inaccuracy.
King Belshazzar
• Named as son of Nebuchadnezzar but his father was Nabonidus
i. Requisite Historicity
Term father commonly denotes ancestor or forebear
Whilst Nabonidus was not a descendant of Neb he did
hold high rank during his administration
• Possibly married Neb’s daughter and therefore Bel
might have been able to trace lineage back through
mother
ii. Unreliable History
• Factual error and no corroboration that Nabonidus
married Neb’s daughter.
• Speculation at best and probably wishful thinking
iii. Caricatured History characters chose and used for their
idiosyncrasies and do not necessarily reflect real history. It is
characters of Nebuchadnezzar and Beltshazzar who serve the authors
intentions best.
i. Requisite Historicity
o Darius = Ugbaru who was Cryus’ military commander who led
capture of Babylon. Became a temporary governor and vassal
king of Babylon
o Darius = Gubaru who was a governor of Babylon after Ugbaru
(general who died not long after the conquest).
Passive ‘Darius was made king over realm’ implies the
existence of a greater authority Cyrus
o Darius = Cyrus relies on a reading of 6:28 which is ‘vav
explicativum’ Darius that is (not and) the reign of Cyrus.
ii. Unreliable History
• There is simply no way to reconcile Darius the Mede with any
prominent figure known in overthrow of Babylon in 539BC. Each
option fails completely
Qumran
• Eight fragments of Daniel dated to c 100bc
o Shows that it was accepted as authoritative
o Bruce can’t help but notice the pervasive influence of Daniel
upon the thought and language of the sect
• But if we go with the five stage historical development, the narratives
of 1-6 probably had long life before the Maccabean crisis.
o Visionary material (7-12) added during the Maccabean crisis
probably gained rapid acceptance because of their association
with already revered figure of Daniel