I am very happy to announce that the first volume of texts edited for the More Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Project has been sent to the publisher (Eerdmans) and we anticipate its publication within the next year.

This is an epic undertaking that many have been waiting anxiously to see come to fruition.  This is a new collection of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha that goes beyond previous collections, such as the two-volume work of James Charlesworth (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha).  This new collection includes about 100 documents, including texts most of us have never even heard of!  Some of those include:

• The Apocryphon of Eber
• The Dispute over Abraham
• The Inquiry of Abraham
• The Story of Melchizedek with the Melchizedek Legend from the Chronicon Paschale
• The Syriac History of Joseph
• The Eighth Book of Moses
• The Balaam Text from Tell Deir ‘Allā
• Songs of David
• The Aramaic Song of the Lamb (Dialogue between David and Goliath)
• Exorcistic Psalms of David and Solomon
• The Selendromion of David and Solomon
• Jeremiah’s Prophecy to Pashhur
• The Apocryphon of Ezekiel
• The Treatise of the Vessels (Massekhet Kelim)
• The Seventh Vision of Daniel
• Sefer Zerubbabel: The Prophetic Vision of Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel
• Fifth Ezra
• Sixth Ezra

And there are obviously many more. These are just some of the texts that are covered in the first volume!

These publications will open the way for a much wider appreciation and understanding of these texts. Professor Davila comments, regarding the importance of the publication of these documents:

“Some of these compositions provide us with fascinating background material to the New Testament. Others are a rich source of information on the reception history of the Hebrew Bible by Jews, Christians, and pagans through late antiquity. They frequently give us different perspectives from those found in writings of the same period which later acquired an authoritative status in Judaism (the rabbinic literature) and Christianity (the patristic literature). Together they present us with the sacred legends and spiritual reflections of numerous long-dead authors whose works were lost, neglected, or suppressed for many centuries. By making these documents available in excellent English translations and authoritative but accessible introductions we aim both to promote more scholarly study of them and to bring them to the attention of the vast lay audience who appreciate such treasures.”

Many thanks to Professors Davila, Bauckham, Dr. Panayotov, and their many associates on the project (including the Maxwell Institute’s Kristian Heal), for making these exciting texts available to us!

For the full flier (which will be handed out to participants of our grad conference tomorrow) and Table of Contents of Volume 1, see Jim Davila’s post at PaleoJudaica.

A couple of press releases are now circulating related to the cache of metal plates.

Bryce Haymond over at TempleStudy.com links to one, plus he give a great outline of the nature of the plates and what some people think may be on them (he mentions “secret teachings” and “Temple based documentation”).

See his post here: http://www.templestudy.com/2011/03/22/ancient-sealed-metal-plates-secret-temple-texts-discovered-middle-east/

Jim Davila links to the same press release, with his comments here.

The following is another, slightly different press release that I have just uploaded to Scribd. My thanks to Rick Huchel for this, who got it from Margaret Barker.

Lead Plates Press Release

Just an update on my last post regarding the supposed discovery of a cache of ancient inscriptions written on metal plates.  This find continues to generate interest and a number of biblical scholars, including Margaret Barker, Philip Davies, and Jim Davila, have expressed opinions on the matter, based on what information they’ve been able to get hold of.

On PaleoJudaica, Jim Davila has a link to a DailyMail article, “Are lead tablets discovered in a remote cave in Jordan the secret writings about the last years of Jesus?” This article is quite sensationalist and left me wondering how the content of the plates went from possibly being related to the Kabbalah to being about the death and resurrection of Jesus. Davila is probably correct to suggest that this is a “silly misunderstanding” of the journalist.

The redeeming virtue of the article is that it quotes both Barker and Davies on the topic.

Speaking of Margaret Barker, the articles notes:

She has had access to photgraphs taken of the codices and scrolls, and is wary of confirming their authenticity.
But she said if the material is genuine then the books could be ‘vital and unique’ evidence of the earliest Christians.
‘If they are a forgery, what are they are forgery of?’ she said.’ Most fakes are drawn from existing material, but there is nothing like this that I have seen.’

For Philip Davies:

However, Philip Davies, emeritus professor of biblical studies at Sheffield University is convinced the codices are genuine after studying one.
He has told colleagues privately that he believes the find is unlikely to have been forged, say the Sunday Times.

The DailyMail also notes that:

Two samples were sent to a laboratory in England where they were examined by Peter Northover, head of the materials science-based archaeology group.
The verdict was inconclusive without more tests, but he said the composition was ‘consistent with a range of ancient lead.’

Davila  provides links to the Unicode Mailing List of “Menorah- and Hebrew-inscribed lead plates of dubious provenance.” If these list postings are about the same plates, it looks as if there are individuals that are earnestly trying to find scholars who can authenticate the writing on them and are already coming up with some that are offering possibilities. Davila notes that the inscriptions are written in a Paleo-Hebrew script and some of the individuals on the list are suggesting that the dialect may be an archaic form of Samaritan or the Kanaanaean branch of Phoenician.

The links to the mailing list that Davila provides are here and here.

You can also see images of the plates in question here and here.

Davila, who remains skeptical about the discovery, until better analyses come along, posted a preliminary list of nine different criteria that he feels need to be fulfilled before we can start to accept these plates as a true discovery of ancient inscriptions:

1. Publication in a scholarly journal of the metal analysis that shows the lead to be ancient.

2. Publication in a scholarly journal of the carbon-14 tests that show the associated leather to be ancient and of a comparable date to the lead.

Even if the antiquity of the materials is demonstrated, this proves nothing, since ancient materials are sometimes available on which to write fake inscriptions.

3. Publication of the location and details of the supposed discovery and analysis of the site by archaeologists.

4. Analysis of the patina of the script which demonstrates the writing to be ancient. If it is modern and unretouched, this will be obvious. If it has been retouched to seem ancient, this may or may not be detectable (see the controversy over the patina of the James Ossuary and the Jehoash inscription).

5. Full publication of all the texts with good photographs.

6. Analysis of the script by paleographers.

[...]

See here for the full list of criteria he outlines and for the complete post.

I agree that it is important to be very careful with this type of find, especially with all the attention and money that these discoveries tend to generate.  However, if care is taken to analyze them properly, and, if proven to be authentic, this is potentially an incredibly significant find (especially if the text can be deciphered, but also simply for the value of having additional Jewish texts written on metal).

Tony Burke at Apocryphicity shared the following regarding why he chose to study the Christian Apocrypha:

Why am I such an advocate for the Christian Apocrypha? Have I been “burned…by orthodox Christianity” as Ben Witherington suggests (in The Gospel Code: Novel Claims About Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Da Vinci [Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2004], p. 172-174, and What Have They Done With Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History—Why We Can Trust the Bible [San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2006], p. 4-5)? Am I trying to prove I am a “good critical scholar” by “discrediting” the New Testament? Or have I been “misled…by the powers of darkness”? I hope the answer to all of these questions is no. But the answer is connected to faith—or more rightly, a reaction to a faith once held.

[...]

My views on censorship have led me also to become an advocate for apocryphal texts. This is literature that Christian orthodoxy did not, and indeed still does not, want us to read. We can debate the validity of this position—the process of selecting a canon of sacred texts is a common phenomenon and is, in some ways, necessary for the survival of the faith—but part of me still thinks it wrong. Texts should be available to all, ideas should flow freely, and to censor them is nothing but cowardice. This is particularly so today. For the church to censor texts in the fourth century, and many centuries thereafter, may be understandable given the times, but for Christian groups and Christian writers to advocate doing so now is unconscionable. Of course, in an age of the free flow of information, censoring the texts is no longer an option, but actively discouraging others from reading literature, sometimes by distorting their contents to instill fear in the potential reader, is just as insidious.

[...]

You can read the full post here. I don’t agree with all of Tony’s remarks; for example, I would take issue with his opinion that the Apocalypse of John is not the result of a vision (in agreement with Jim Davila’s comment).

I think that the Apocrypha is an important body of literature, as it gives us insights into the beliefs and practices of early Jews and Christians that we often don’t find so clearly in the canonical texts.

See also Tony Burke’s More Christian Apocrypha page, which lists a number of apocryphal texts that you probably have never even heard of (I hadn’t).

————————————–

For a day-by-day plan for reading all of James Charlesworth’s The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.), and why you would want to do so, check out “The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Calendar-in-a-Year” at Joseph Kelly’s blog, כל–האדם

Jim Davila recommends reading these volumes this year before the release of his “More Old Testament Pseudepigrapha” soon afterwards.

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.