Is Daniel a combination of history and prophecy, or an example of apocalyptic literature?

Lee Hopkins

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.  And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia and put in the treasure house of his god.

Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring in some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility-  young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king's palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians.  The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king's table. They were to be trained for three years, and after that they were to enter the king's service.

Among these were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah.

And so begins some of the most illuminating stories in the Bible and a book generally regarded as the last of the canonical Hebrew Scriptures to be written (Anderson, 1984:xi).

But is the book of Daniel a fascinating example of prophecy combined with history, or an apocalyptic? Or is it just clever stories, written to help the readers of its day cope with the pressures of an authoritarian foreign rule?

Certainly the book was held by many scholars for many centuries as a stunning example of prophetic wisdom-written in the sixth century b.c.e. (Young, 1964:360), it accurately foretold of some future time when four kingdoms would rule the earth. Many early scholars argued over exactly whose kingdoms Daniel's dream kingdoms represented, but they generally fell into three camps: (I) Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, The successors of Alexander; (II) Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece; (III) Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome. In the mid 1960s arguments were swaying towards the third option (Young, op cit .:373).

However, most scholars (both liberal and conservative) now believe that not only was it written in its final (canonical) form under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 b.c.e. ) but that the month that it reached its present, final, form can almost be pinpointed (Anderson, op cit .:xiii). However, lest it be thought this date has been entirely agreed upon as a date of origination of the text, LaSor et al . (1996:574) point out that such a date would make the prophecies ex eventu and fraudulent, reducing the divine to a deception (1).

As Archer argues (1964:367), denying a sixth century Daniel the kudos of composition based on arguments of word usage (the use, for example, of Greek words (2) and Persian technical terms) is fallacious and indicative only of a final recension of the memoirs of a long and eventful diplomatic career. LaSor et al (1996:574), referencing a number of commentaries, remark that the "discussion has been long and sometimes heated."

Anderson ( op cit .;:3-4) argues that Daniel is split into three time sequences: sixth century b.c.e. when it was ostensibly written, the individual segments of the book (4th to 2nd cents., b.c.e. ) and final collation, editing and distribution (164 b.c.e. ).

But date of composition and final editing aside, does Daniel even 'fit' within the apocalyptic genre? Certainly the Jewish community never thought the book was prophetic-according to Archer ( op cit .:369), the mixed character of the book and the fact that, unlike other prophetic books Daniel rarely claimed he was delivering a message directly from God as an ordained mouthpiece, were reason enough for Jewish scribes to relegate the book to the third or 'miscellaneous' category of the Jewish canon (3).

If one follows Newsome's classifications of material that needs to be present before a work can be considered apocalyptic (1992:66), certainly Daniel fits broadly within the genre.

Firstly, as LaSor et al. ( op cit .:569) point out, apocalyptic prophesy is given in forms both timeless and timely; the 'current time' of Daniel laments of a world in the grasp of evil so strong that mere men are powerless, only the will of God can intervene and save us. Secondly, an angelology is present, albeit brief: the archangel Michael is an instrument by which God's kingdom will be finally and rightfully established.

Thirdly, dreams and visions are the delivery mechanisms for insight and wisdom. Fourthly, symbolic elements appear frequently-beasts, a ram, a goat, as well as numerological components such as the 'time, two times and half a time' (Dan. 7:25; 12:7), seventy years ('a Sabbath of decades' Dan. 9:2) and 'two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings' (Dan. 8:14; cf. Dan. 12:11,12).

Fifthly, there is an eschatological foundation to the work, a belief in the resurrection of the dead and the coming of God's final, glorious and everlasting kingdom (Dan. 2:44). Sixthly, a key message is presented as something that must be kept from general knowledge, to be handed down in secret (Rowley 1963:16 (4)).

Finally, the atmosphere of Daniel is one where the mysteries of God are revealed only to a select few ( Anderson op cit .;15).

But if 'Daniel' can be argued as a final redactive work that was originally authored centuries before, can its obvious claims to historicity and prophecy be critically considered in a positive light? Certainly the arguments are again heated, and fall into two camps.

As discussed previously, the first and perhaps more conservative camp argues that the work prophecies four future kingdoms, most scholars of this camp holding that the four kingdoms were Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. 'Daniel', they argue, is a stunning piece of prophetic literature, pointing out that any questions regarding the historical (in)accuracy of, for example, Nebuchadnezzar's capture of Jerusalem, are more than answered by consideration of the difference in the accounting methods of Babylonian and Persian regal years (Young op cit .:365).

The opposite camp holds that the work took existing material (even possibly the memoirs of the eponymous diplomatic author) and added flourishes to help encourage and sustain the faith of a people under intense pressure from both Antiochus IV Epiphanes' persecutions and from fellow Jews willing to set aside long-held and zealously guarded traditions in favour of the ruling Hellenistic customs. These critics argue that the historicity of the fourth vision (Dan. 10-12) was nothing more than obvious pointers to what had already happened-the Ptolemys, the Seleucids, the arising of the 'contemptible' Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his repulsion by the Romans when he attempted to invade Egypt (Newsome op cit .:77).

Some hold that it would have been impossible for the 'real' Daniel to have lived for as long as the story would suggest; however as Anderson points out ( op cit .:8), whilst some scholars find it hard to believe that Daniel lived to see the fall of Babylon, his career could conceivably have lasted this long (5). As he says, "We miss the whole purpose of the book, however, if we engage in arithmetical niceties."

And, as Goldingay points out (1989: Author's Preface;329-334) a pre-occupation with the accuracy of sixth- and second-century history should not distract us from the deadly seriousness of the underlying issues the book addresses-of maintaining faith in times of great duress; of how a faithful, powerful and sovereign God interacts with the world and with us; and of the promise of a kingdom to come, where the faithful will arise from their graves and receive their reward. These issues are the reasons the book is a vital and cherished part of the canon.

 

Bibliography

Anderson, R.A. Daniel: Signs and Wonders (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984)

Archer, G. 'Daniel'. In A survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964), 365-388

Butler, T.C., Church, C.L., Scott, L.L., Smith, M.A.E. and White, J.E. (eds.) Holman Bible Handbook (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, n.d.) 'QuickVerse' electronic edition

Goldingay, J.E. Daniel : Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 30 (Dallas: Word Books, 1989)

Keil, C.F. and Delitzsch, F. 'Daniel'. In Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol.9: Ezekiel-Daniel (Omaha: Parsons Church Group, n.d.) 'QuickVerse' electronic edition

LaSor, W.S., Hubbard, D.A. and Bush, F.W. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament 2 nd ed (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996)

Newsome, J. 'Apocalyptic'. In Greek, Romans, Jews: Currents of Culture and Belief in the New Testament World (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992), 66-80

Rowley, H.H. The Relevance of the Apocalyptic: A Study of Jewish and Christian Apocalypses from Daniel to the Revelation Rev.edn (London: Lutterworth, 1963)

Young, E. 'Daniel'. In An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 360-377

Notes

Young argues ( op cit :361) that Jesus himself proclaimed that Daniel wrote 'Daniel', precisely because Jesus quoted from Daniel ( cf . Matt. 24:15 with Dan. 9:27 and 12:11). If Jesus lied to us about Daniel's authorship (using, perhaps, the idiom and understandings of the day, despite knowing that the popular culture was wrong) then He is not trustworthy. If He is not trustworthy in this, how can we be sure that He is trustworthy regarding our salvation and His part in it? How can we trust Him when he says He is the 'only way'?

See also Archer's comments ( op cit .:375): Greek mercenaries, slaves and musical instruments were current in the Ancient Near East long before Daniel's time

The Jewish canon placed Daniel in 'The Writings' or ' Hagiographa ', consisting of the books the Christian church knows as Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 & 2 Chronicles (Butler et al., n.d.: Part 1 > The Bible > The Canonicity of the Bible > Old Testament Canon > Chart, the Hebrew Canon)

cf. Dan. 8:26 where Daniel is told to seal up the vision, and Dan. 12:9 where he is told to go about his business as the message has been sealed until the end of time

Keil & Delitzch (n.d.:'Daniel'>'Introduction') calculate his age to be at least 90 years