According to the Maccabean Hypothesis, the author of the apocalyptic half of the book of Daniel, 7-12, was written during the Maccabean Revolt (c.165 BC) as a way to either encourage the Jews to keep up the fight or, in a more pacifist way, to simply resist the hellenisation being imposed on them. Some have claimed a certainty that, judging by the context of Daniel 7-12, the author was a traditionalist Jew, encouraging a strict adherence to the Torah lifestyle. My question is: can we be confident that the author was a traditionalist considering that he was writing a forgery?
7
-
3I agree that if we take the "Daniel" as writing a forgery, then nothing in the book is reliable.– DottardCommented Jan 24, 2023 at 10:45
-
In Thailand, most people use ordinary, tepid water when engaged in the nation-wide Songkran "water fight" festival. A few actually throw ice water. Those who cast ice water get a vigorous volley in response! The same seems true of certain truth-filled portions of the Bible: the more it "steps on toes," the more people attack it as illegitimate in some way. No part of Daniel can rightly be considered a forgery. The last chapters are even more crucial than the earlier ones.– BiblasiaCommented Jan 24, 2023 at 11:18
-
Just to complicate things, I suggest the possibility that the Aramaic ch7 is really the climax of the first half, in which case the author of ch8 onwards could be building on the work of the earlier aithor.– Stephen DisraeliCommented Jan 24, 2023 at 11:28
-
@StephenDisraeli I'm not sure that "complicate" is the best characterization of your suggestion that Daniel had plural authors. "Muddy the waters" seems more apropos. Daniel was certainly a polyglot, and gifted author. He used multiple languages in the book, which is why so many doubt he could have written it all himself. Hebrew courses often reserve Daniel for last, as it requires great scholarship to correctly understand it.– BiblasiaCommented Jan 24, 2023 at 12:23
-
The question is not whether the book is reliable, but --assuming it was not written in Daniel's time -- whether its author was a traditionalist Jew.– Dan FeffermanCommented Jan 26, 2023 at 20:07
|
Show 2 more comments
1 Answer
If the Maccabean hypothesis is correct, we can still be reasonably sure that the author of chapters 7-11 was a traditionalist. The reason is that the Maccabean Revolt was essentially a traditionalist rebellion against the extreme Hellenizing policies of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The website of the US Council of Catholics Bishops explains:
This work was composed during the bitter persecution carried on by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167–164 B.C.) and was written to strengthen and comfort the Jewish people in their ordeal. The persecution was occasioned by Antiochus’s efforts to unify his kingdom, in face of the rising power of Rome, by continuing the hellenization begun by Alexander the Great; Antiochus tried to force Jews to adopt Greek ways, including religious practices. Severe penalties, including death, were exacted against those who refused.
Regarding the "forgery" objection, this might also be raised in relation to several other biblical books, including the Pastoral Epistles and even the Torah, which was not written by Moses if one accepts the Documentary Hypothesis. But no one that I know of suggests that the authors of the Torah were anything other than what we would call traditionalist, or that the author of the Pastoral Epistles did not think of himself as being true to the spirit of Paul. So if the Book of Daniel was a forgery, then, it was a pious one, intended to rally the Jews to a godly cause. It may also be the case that the author believed himself to be inspired by the spirit of Daniel himself.
Finally, since the Maccabean hypothesis holds that Daniel was written in opposition to Hellenism, it does not make sense that the author (or authors) was anything other than a Jewish patriot himself, who hoped his work would contribute to the rekindling of Jewish traditions which Antiochus had suppressed.
Conclusion:
Although there are reasons to think that the apocalyptic sections of the book (such as chapters 7-11) are by a different writer than the earlier chapters, the content of these sections does not negate the idea that the book as a whole represents a traditionalist reaction to extreme Hellenism as represented by the "reforms" of Antiochus IV. Therefore, even if the Maccabean hypothesis is accepted, we can be reasonably certain that the author was a traditionalist.
answered Jan 26, 2023 at 2:58
