I share here my notes from the lecture. Please be aware that the following is based on rather skimpy hand-written notes, and so does not do justice to Wright’s elegant and precise handling of the English language, but I hope I have preserved the thrust of his arguments.  The speech was entitled:  ”Imagining the Kingdom: Mission and Theology in early Christianity.”

Now while I am trying to put this up at a time when some of you may be studying Daniel, the information in my notes is not necessarily Sunday School material. It represents current opinions in the field of biblical studies — opinions which often do not approximate our own (as LDS) interpretations of the text. Having said that, I hope that there is some information here that is helpful, or that at least serves to communicate the opinions that are out there regarding this biblical text.  This is the material that was presented in class and does not represent my own personal views of the subjects.

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.

If you want to read these notes on Scribd, see here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44863398/Daniel-Class-Notes-1

___________________________________

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
  • oldest copy dated to late 2nd century BCE (within 50 years of actual writing of book)
  • close to Masoretic text
• Daniel traditions outside of the MT — Greek translation is larger than MT
  • 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
  • other stories found among DSS
    • Prayer of Nabonidus (clear parallels to Book of Daniel)
  • 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 Daniel.

I present here my notes from her lecture.  As always, please realize that these are my own notes and do not fully represent the material that Dr Tiemeyer presented. She is publishing a much larger work on this topic (unfortunately I didn’t catch the title).  Please bear with the incomplete nature of these notes.

———————————————–

Dr Lena Sophia Tiemeyer on Isaiah 40-55

 Challenging the concept that one person wrote Isa. 40-55 during the Exile in Babylon

 –She is arguing that it was written in Judah during Exile

 Do the scholarly claims support a Babylonian setting? She argues that they only presuppose it — nothing necessitates a Babylonian-based author

 Methods: Shemaryahu Talmon’s four principles for comparative studies:

1) priority of biblical parallels over extra-biblical

2) proximity in time and space: contemporary societies should be used for comparisons

3) correspondence of social function: examples in Judah over outside

4) holistic approach vs. atomistic

Examples in biblical texts should be sought before Mesopotamian examples

Barr offers these guidelines for comparisons:

1) sources nearer to the Hebrew Bible in time

2) geographic closeness

3) Semitic sources

———

Because of their conquests of the region, we should expect to find a great degree of Mesopotamian influence over Judah during the time of Exile. Mesopotamian rulers lived in Judah — so it would be natural that we should see their influence there. Judahite scribes and possibly even regular people had a good idea of Mesopotamian religious ideas and practice since 6th-7th Century BCE.

–So there is not a good argument for the Assyrian/Babylonian elements in the Bible to have actually come from those places –such usage would have been known in Judah.

It is possible to detect Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian language) influence in Deutero-Isaiah — however, we would need to see if there are more Akkadian loan-words than are found in other texts.

–Kittel compares 2Isaiah to cuneiform literature (Akkadian) — lists parallels betwn Babylonian texts and 2Isa.

–there are similarities in vocabulary between these texts – but these could be cognates — we should look for inner-biblical parallels first

–we can also find many similarities between Isa. 60-62 and Babylonian texts although scholars wouldn’t claim authorship of these chapters in Babylon

–You didn’t need to be living in Babylon to know name of Cyrus

–Regarding some of the thematic elements in 2Isa: It is more likely that authors were influenced by Book of Exodus rather than Babylonian texts

Most texts in Hebrew Bible have Akkadian influence (not just 2Isa) — Amos has a large number of Akkadian loan words, but no one argues that Amos was in Babylon

–Akkadian was the politically dominant language of the time — it had significant influence on the local languages — it is natural that we find Akkadian elements throughout the Bible.  Language cannot be used to argue for a Babylonian setting — there are no more loan words in 2Isa than in the rest of the Hebrew Bible

–Ezekiel claims to have been written in Babylon, but has less loan words than Isa. or Jeremiah!

–we should note that there are also Ugaritic cognates in 2Isa — Dahood even argued that parts of 2Isa were written in Phoenicia!

–Akkadian was not even the major language during the Neo-Babylonian period — Aramaic was more used

–There would have been no need for the authors of 2Isa to know Akkadian if they were not part of the Babylonian royal court or cult

The presence of Akkadian cognates in the Heb. Bible is not evidence of the author’s presence in Babylon, but that loan words were known in Judah – evidence of Assyrian influence over conquered city-states

–”Self-Predication Formula” (“I am YHWH — the First and the Last”, etc.) — scholars argue that this comes from Babylonian influence — they argue that this is reminiscent of Sumerian hymns learned in Babylon

–again we should give precedence to biblical parallels — the authors likely drew from their own already existing self-presentation formula in their scriptures — maybe it ultimately stems from Sumeria, but can be found in Hebrew prophetic texts — the influence is likely pre-exilic Palestine

– There is no evidence of Assyrian prophetic texts having an influence in Babylon — there must have been earlier interaction between the people of Marduk and people of YHWH

–Isa 40-55 follows the pattern of earlier Isa chapters — We cannot conclude (from the above linguistic arguments cited) that authors must have been residents of Babylon

Another argument is that the passages in 2Isa that refer to religious practices (instructions for making of idols, etc.) are claimed to be related to Babylonian practices. –There are direct references to Babylonian deities

–tendency to worship idols is not novel to the Babylonian period  — you don’t have to be living in Babylon to know about their gods and practices

–all the terms used are attested to elsewhere in the  Heb. Bible — there are no details that would lead us to conclude that authors knew anything beyond what was commonly known

–no local features or local individuals are mentioned — a prophet in Judah would have been able to envision all of this

–Isa 46:1–2 — the picture of Babylonian gods depicted here does not fit the picture of what was going on in Babylon — King Nabonidus was replacing Marduk with moon-god Sin — this is not mentioned in 2Isa

–There is nothing in this material to warrant the conclusion that author of 2Isa was in Babylon — Jews would have known the customs of their conquerors.

The following tidbits come from the Q&A period after her presentation. I did not take note of the questions asked.

— There are many differences between the theology of 2Isa and the theology of Ezekiel — how could they come from contemporaries in the same group in Babylon?

– Evidence for the conflict between those who remained and exilees comes mainly from later texts, not contemporary

–***She says: We should first go to Psalter before we start considering Mesopotamian sources for these things*** (She said this subsequent to my asking if she had considered parallels between 2Isa and the biblical Psalms)

–Flora and fauna mentioned (plus coming of rain) — (e.g. Isa. 41:18–19) — seem to fit Israel/Judah better than Mesopotamia (In response to a question from Prof N.T. Wright) 

—Isa 48:11–12; 52 — talk about return from Babylon — but the majority of such passages in 2Isa talk about return from worldwide diaspora — so not necessarily written from perspective of those in Babylon

– The implications of this study are important. If 2Isa was written in Palestine, this changes a lot about how we understand these chapters and their relationship to other biblical literature written in the same period. If all chapters of Isaiah were written in Palestine, this has implications for our understanding of the unity of the Book of Isaiah as a whole (in response to a question by Allen Jones regarding what this research ultimately means for our understanding of 2Isa)

He also has a book out, written together with LDS scripture scholar John Tvedtnes, called Testaments: Links between the Book of Mormon and the Hebrew Bible. For more on this work, see Jeff Lindsay’s review of it here: http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2005/08/recommended-reading-bokovoy-and.html

For a nice summary of Bokovoy’s lively exchange with evangelical Hebrew Bible scholar Michael S. Heiser over Psalm 82 and what we should understand by the phrase “Ye are gods,” see here:  http://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com/2007/11/23/heiser-and-bokovoy-exchange-introduction/ 

On a more personal note, I have had the privilege of meeting David Bokovoy on a couple of occasions in the past few months and can truly say I found him to be brilliant, quick-witted, and just a really nice guy.  He has had some of the best training in Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible that you can get (Brandeis is very well recognized for Hebrew and Jewish studies–LDS scholar Victor Ludlow also went there).  

David graduated from BYU with a BA in History and Near Eastern Studies and then earned his MA in Ancient Near East and Judaic Studies from Brandeis. As mentioned, he is currently pursuing his PhD there, with an emphasis on Hebrew Bible.  His current topic of focus is the Divine Council motif.  He also currently teaches at the Boston, MA LDS Institute of Religion (I’d love to have a class from him!). 

His blog, which has actually been around for a month or so (shows you how busy I’ve been), covers a good range of topics, including:

• Biblical Studies
• The Book of Abraham
• The Book of Mormon

His posts are scholarly, deep, and very informative. I highly recommend checking out www.davidbokovoy.com!