David J.

Larsen
Notes Taken from Book of Daniel course
University of St Andrews – James Davila, Professor
Fall 2010

The following is based on my notes taken in class. This material does not necessarily represent my own
personal views of the subjects, nor should they be taken to be an accurate or complete rendition of
Professor Davila’s lectures.

As there is a lot of material here, I will have to divide it up between a few posts. This first post will give my
notes from Prof. Davila's lectures on the general overview of the book.

___________________________________

There are four critical commentaries that are important to look at:

 Montgomery (ICC): published 1927; best commentary of its time; some arguments are dated; still
very useful
 Hartman & Di Lella: Anchor Bible commentary; Hartman died before he finished; good critical
commentary; written in 70s; has some eccentricities; lot of discussion about theories of original
language
 Goldingay: published 1989; more up-to-date; good discussion of history of interpretation;
translation; looks at form, genre, setting; more homiletical commentary;  a bit long-winded; 
some idiosyncratic ideas
 Collins: Hermeneia commentary; definitive statement on everything to do with Daniel; extremely
detailed commentary; one of best commentaries ever written on a biblical book; published 1993

Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on Daniel, transl. Robert C. Hill (Atlanta: SBL, 2006) -- an early
Christian commentary on Daniel

Overview:

The Book of Daniel is a library -- a collection of stories; The Bible is a collection of books, but each book
generally is a collection as well.

Modern scholars believe that some editor in the Maccabean period pulled the Book of Daniel together.

There are copies of the Book of Daniel among the Dead Sea Scrolls (these are the earliest known
copies). There are a number of "Pseudo-Daniel" texts that mention Daniel -- 3 texts.  Many other texts
that have connections to Book of Daniel. The "Son of Man" title in the Gospels has some connection to
Daniel's "one like a son of man".  The Book of Revelation uses Daniel as a structuring element and
constantly alludes to it -- uses its secret names, etc.
The Book of Daniel was written, in terms of final form, in 167-165 BC.  It was set in the mouth of Daniel
during the Babylonian Exile (500s BC).

The purpose of the book: To encourage Jews when they were being persecuted by Antiochus IV
(Epiphanes). This persecution led to the Maccabean revolt of 167-165 BC.

Structure:

 First half of the book: Narrations about Daniel & his three friends
 Last half: First person accounts by Daniel of his visions and dreams, visitations by angels

History:

The late 7th Century BC marked the end of the Neo-Assyrian Empire; the destruction of Nineveh occurred
in 612 BC by Medes. The Medes were an Indo-European people who lived in Northwestern Iran -- they
weren't really empire builders -- they destroyed Nineveh and went home. The Medes were conquered by
Cyrus the Persian -- but they were closely related peoples in Iran. There was now a power vacuum in the
ancient Near East.

The Babylonians took over territory from the Assyrian Empire for the next few generations -- this became
the Neo-Babylonian Empire (not old Babylonian Empire). Nabo-polasser (625-605 BC), King of Babylon,
made a treaty with the Medes and took over Assyrian territories. He turned over the empire to his son
Nebuchadnezzar (II) -- 605-562 BC -- who defeated the state of Judah and destroyed the temple in
Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah in 597 BC, plundered the temple in order to  show that he, as
king, and his gods were dominant -- and because he needed money. He set up Zedekiah as a puppet ruler.
Zedekiah later revolts and Nebuchadnezzar comes back and finishes the job -- destroyed Jerusalem and
burned down the temple (586/87 BC). The wealthy and educated taken captive to Babylon (10,000 to
15,000 taken) -- the poor were left behind.

The Babylonian Exile -- 587 - 536 BC  -- is the setting of the Book of Daniel. But the book was written
centuries after the fact and because of this makes mistakes. It has the order of Babylonian kings wrong.

Historically, Nebuchadnezzar dies and his son Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk, "Man of Marduk") takes
over, rules for two years. Then Nebuchadnezzar's son-in-law takes over -- Neriglissar. His son Labashi-
Marduk (Garment of Marduk), succeeded him while yet a boy, but he was murdered after a couple of
months. Nabonidus takes over -- a general, no relation to Nebuchadnezzar. He worshiped the moon-god,
Sin, instead of Marduk. Nabonidus would go away for years at a time to Teima in south Arabia. During
those times, his son Belshazzar ruled as substitute.

Cyrus the Persian defeated the Medes --550 BC -- and created the Persian Empire (Achaemenid Empire).
He added Asia Minor, Afghanistan, and finally Iraq -- and then in 538, he overthrew Babylon. Cyrus was a
pretty nice guy compared to the Assyrians and Babylonians -- he didn't use such brutal methods. He was
kind to cities that surrendered -- he just asked tribute. The Cyrus Cylinder, found in the ruins of Babylon,
was a propaganda piece. Cyrus deposed Nabonidus in Babylon. He declared in 536 that any Jews who
wanted to go home could go.
Daniel's history goes from 606-535 BC -- to the third year of Cyrus.

The Second Temple Period is from 535 BC (520 temple built) to 70 AD (2nd Temple destroyed).

The last king of the Persian Empire was Darius III. In 356 BC, Alexander was born to Philip of Macedonia
-- In 336, Philip was assassinated and Alexander inherited the throne. Alexander had been tutored by
Aristotle -- he became king at age 20. He joined up with Greece; conquered Asia Minor, Syria/Palestine,
Egypt (Alexandrias; "Kandahar" = Iskandriya = Alexandria). Alexander came to Iraq and defeated Darius
III by the Tigris River; He went on to conquer the Mediterranean coast; Tyre. He was named Pharoah in
Egypt -- son of God. In 331, he defeated Darius a second time and captured Persia and Babylon.
His soldiers married local women -- made ties to local people and spread Greek culture. They founded
"poleis" -- Greek city-states. Alexander claimed to have conquered the "whole world" -- actually stopped at
India 327/6 BC. He died in Babylonia in 323 -- age 33 -- under suspicious circumstances.
Alexander appears in the Bible -- Daniel chapter 8 -- he is the "he-goat from the west".

The Diadokoi --"successors" -- of Alexander divided his empire. Ptolemy took charge of Egypt and took
control of Palestine -- great for economy because of trade routes. Palestine was kept by the Ptolemies until
198 BC.

Seleucus started with Babylonia and spread to Persia and Syria. The Seleucids didn't do well until
Antiochus III (223-187 BC) conquered Palestine in 198 BCE. This led to the Maccabean revolt. Antiochus
wanted to make Palestine a polis. In 175,  Onias III (the high priest) was deposed by his brother
Jason. Jason set out to Hellenize Jerusalem; he built a gymnasium, etc. In book of Daniel, we see Onias
assassinated (Dan. 9); Antiochus IV (called "little horn") plundered temple and looted part of city. In 167,
he outlawed the practice of Judaism (punishable by death penalty), sacrificed a pig on the temple altar
and instituted the worship of Zeus in the temple.

The Maccabean revolt was started by a priest named Mattathias -- his oldest son was named Judah "the
Hammer" (Macabee). After 3 years, freedom of religion was granted to the Jews.

167-164 BCE -- this is the context of the writing of Daniel (but considerably older material was used).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Structure of the Book of Daniel:

Chapters 1-6 -- stories about Daniel and Friends

Chapters 7-12 -- visions

Chapters 1-2:4, 8-12 -- written in Hebrew

Chapters 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 -- written in Aramaic

No one knows why it is divided this way -- was it originally all in Aramaic and then some parts translated
to Heb? Why those parts?

Chapter 7 seems to be the central pivot -- the last Aramaic section, and the first vision

Chapters 1-6

These are "court tales" -- set during the Babylonian exile, in the courts of pagan kings. This is a genre in
the Bible -- Joseph, Esther (Jewish hero in court of pagan king).

Daniel & his friends are not narrators -- the story is told in the 3rd person omniscient. Chapter 4 is
narrated by King Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel and friends are mantic sages on whose behalf God works miracles.  Mantic vs. prophetic -- mantic
initiates the revelation; prophet receives from God whether he wants it or not. Mantic sages engage in
divination. Daniel can interpret dreams; read writing on wall -- this comes as revelation from God.

In these stories, the hero has to remain true to God in a threatening situation -- he is always delivered by
God in order to remain faithful to religion.

Setting -- the Aramaic folklore of the Persian period; stories gathered by scribes in the Maccabean period.

Chapters 7-12

Apocalypse -- or collection of smaller apocalypses -- a revelation by an angel/divine being to a human --

revelation of heavenly secrets (narrative genre: apocalypse).

There are older themes being used (and perhaps older documents)

Written in first person as Daniel (Daniel is pseudonymous author)

Angels appear to and have dialogue with Daniel

No otherworldly journey precisely (like Enoch) -- although chapter 7 seems to present Daniel in heaven
talking to an angel.

All these visions have vaticinia ex eventu (prophecies after the fact) -- also include reviews of history
(especially chapter 11)-- history of world from creation, leads up to persecution of Jews by Antiochus
Epiphanes, then end of world.

The visions are built on the ancient schema of 4 world empires -- (in Daniel they are) Babylon, Medes,
Persians, Greeks

1970s -- John Collins, et al., collected all of the ancient apocalypses they could find -- published in Semeia
a "master paradigm" for the genre "apocalypse":
  there are key features: narrative framework, otherworldly mediator (angel), human recipient,
revelation of divine secrets (otherworldly realities, future eschatalogical salvation--judgment,
afterlife journey)
 some elements are present, some not -- some common but not universal
 pseudonymity is nearly universal
 some have reviews of history, otherworldly journeys -- some don't

Daniel is "historical apocalypse with no otherworldly journey" -- a rather unusual combination

The development of apocalyptic literature happened generally outside the canon. It's good to know the
Enochic literature to help you understand Daniel.  Genesis 5 -- understood to mean that God translated
Enoch to heaven. The Book of the Watchers expands on Gen. 6 -- the writer of Gen 6 knows the longer
story, but doesn't want to include it, but has to include something because it is well known -- the Book of
Watchers is the more original story. The Animal Apocalypse is an ex eventu review of history, from the
creation of Adam to the Maccabean revolt -- the allegory/animal fable is similar to Dan 7 -- they are
interested in the same series of events -- the author of the Animal Apocalypse probably lived at the same
time and place, writing at the same time as author of Daniel. The Similitudes of Enoch was written quite a
bit later -- 1 century CE -- it draws extensively on the Book of Daniel, and is one of the first sources we
have of the interpretation of Daniel.

4th Book of Ezra -- 100 CE -- is more or less a contemporary of John (Revelation) -- its visions were
inspired by the Book of Daniel -- another early source for what people thought of the Book of Daniel.

The Book of Revelation and the Gospels draw on Daniel.

What is the relationship between the Book of Daniel and the Akkadian apocalypses of Ancient
Mesopotamia? Calling the Akkadian documents "apocalypses" is really an incorrect description -- the
stories they tell are not mediated by a divine being. They present past events as prophetic predictions--
after the fact predictions lead into real future predictions.

Date of Book of Daniel

This is a theologically fraught/controversial issue.  The modern scholarly conclusion: it is clearly from the
2nd century BCE, not from 6th Century BCE.  The book's claimed setting was first challenged by pagan
thinker Porphyry (3rd century CE) -- he dated the book correctly to the time of the Maccabean revolt. St
Jerome argued against him.

The Book of Daniel does preserve ancient material -- but the prophecies and final form are from the
Maccabean revolt.

Arguments:

 The book is full of miracles. This is a weak argument --circular reasoning that assumes that
miracles don't happen--miracle stories can be contemporary with events.
  There are detailed, correct predictions of future events -- astonishing detail, so it must be
written after-the-fact. This is a weak argument -- again circular reasoning--there is nothing in the
laws of physics that presents information from travelling backwards in time--it would reasonably
be possible for someone in the past to know something of the future--the predictions are not
impossible.

We can dismiss the above arguments as weak. However, there are other arguments that are more
persuasive.

 The stories in the Book of Daniel are not mentioned anywhere before the Maccabean Revolt. --
Not overly impressive argument on its own -- it is an argument from silence -- in the end, a weak
argument.
 In the Jewish canon, Daniel is listed among the "writings" instead of the "prophets" --"Writings"
is the catch-all category at the end, written after the canon of prophets was closed. --We don't
know when the canon was closed, when the collections were final -- also, Daniel is not actually a
prophet (he's a mantic sage), and is never called a prophet--he doesn't do prophecy -- so it is
reasonable that he is not included among the prophets.
 The Aramaic of the Book of Daniel looks to be much later than 6th Century BCE. -- It's a late
western dialect. Now we recognize that Daniel was written in Imperial Aramaic used by Persians
as diplomatic language in their empire, which makes it very difficult to date. There is Aramaic in
the Book of Ezra that also looks late, but that could be due to copying over time. While the
Aramaic in Daniel is consistent with it being from the Maccabean period, we are not compelled to
conclude this. There is a lot of older Persian language in it -- but the Persian and Greek words in it
would not go back to the Babylonian period.
 Stronger argument: the writer shows vague knowledge of his supposed time period -- the text is
full of mistakes, anachronisms, things that don't make sense according to history -- There was no
deportation of Jews in 606; no Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnezzar (there was one who was a son
of Nabonidas, but he is not mentioned); there was no Darius the Mede (there was a Persian king
Darius); the use of the word Chaldean is odd-- it was an ethnic term, not used for magicians (that
is a later, Hellenistic usage). There are various apologetic arguments to explain these away, but
they become quite desperate.  There are incongruities (furnace, Lion's Den law).
 Strongest argument: ex eventu prophecies -- there are many examples of fake "historical reviews"
-- these flow into real future predictions, but these are almost always wrong (see Daniel 2, 7, 8, 11)
-- predictions of events after the Maccabean revolt all go wrong -- the final judgment is to come
directly after the Maccabean revolt -- all of predictions up to Maccabean revolt are correct, but
then when the end time is expected, it doesn't happen -- so we can understand that it was written
in Maccabean times.

Is pseudonymity dishonest?

Possibilities:

 The writer wanted to enhance the believability of his writings (this is dishonest and stupid as
people will soon catch on)
  There is a humility in this -- the writer wanted to give a message, but didn't want to glorify himself
so wrote it in the name of an ancient worthy (still dishonest)
 It was written in the name of someone else because the writer was afraid of persecution (they
could have written anonymously without claiming to be an ancient prophet)
 The writers actually had visionary experiences themselves in which they channeled ancient
prophets (as a medium -- dead person speaks through him) --the writers were mantic sages
themselves that involved being possessed by the earlier prophet -- the writer is speaking in the
name of Daniel -- this is Davila's working hypothesis in analyzing Daniel -- this gets rid of the
moral problem.

But where did the writer get the idea that there was a Daniel? Ezek. 14:12-20; 28:1-3 -- mentions a
Daniel: Ch. 14--refers to Noah, Daniel, and Job as great preachers. Ch. 28--Prince of Tyre thinks himself
wiser than Daniel (a very wise figure). The problem with relating this to Daniel in the Book of Daniel is
that it is an odd context -- Daniel was supposed to be a contemporary of Ezekiel, and wouldn't have been
associated with Noah and Job -- but we don't have any stories of an ancient Daniel -- the Ugaritic texts
have a figure named Dan'el. Nehemiah has Daniel & Three Friends listed as exiled priests. Stories about a
Daniel seem to come up in the Persian period, but they don't really match Book of Daniel. Daniel is called
a prophet in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the NT. But Daniel is not a "prophet", he is a mantic sage and gets
revelation through ritual practices.

Sources for Daniel Text

 Masoretic text (Bible)

 Greek translations --Old Greek (Chapters 3,4,5,6 quite different from MT -- not many copies
because it was embarrassing to early Church because of differences from MT), Theodotion,
Papyrus 967 (best source for OG)
 Qumran -- 8 highly fragmentary copies of Daniel (all 12 chptrs) -- also quoted many times in
other texts
o oldest copy dated to late 2nd century BCE (within 50 years of actual writing of book)
o close to Masoretic text
 Daniel traditions outside of the MT -- Greek translation is larger than MT
o Prayer of Azariah, Song of Three Young Men, Bel & the Serpent/Dragon, Susanna -- likely
written in Hebrew/Aramaic, but we only now have Greek versions
o other stories found among DSS
 Prayer of Nabonidus (clear parallels to Book of Daniel)
o other related elements (Book of Giants throne theophany, etc.)

Daniel highly influential in the NT

--expression Son of Man --from Dan. 7, "one like a son of man" who came to throne of Ancient of Days

--Book of Revelation highly dependent on Daniel

400 BCE -- Tichonius, a Christian writer, (picked up by Augustine) developed a non-chiliastic view of
Book of Daniel (non-millenarian) -- eschatological aspects watered down -- New Jerusalem is Church on
earth at present, not some future place -- apocalyptic instructional, not predictive -- Christ already rules
on earth

Joachim of Fiore -- a bit before 1200 BCE -- renewed the eschatological perspective -- predicted the
establishment of two orders of monks

4 Empires idea changed to include the Romans

Protestant reformers -- "the Romans" includes the Papacy -- John Knox

Modern evangelicals have an eschatological view that relies heavily on the Book of Daniel.