Daniel–Malachi

Zondervan, Tremper Longman III, David E. Garland

• Publisher: Zondervan Academic
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9780310590545
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Estudios bíblicos

Continuing a Gold Medallion Award-winning legacy, the completely revised Expositor's Bible Commentary puts world-class biblical scholarship in your hands.

A staple for students, teachers, and pastors worldwide, The Expositor's Bible Commentary (EBC) offers comprehensive yet succinct commentary from scholars committed to the authority of the Holy Scriptures. The EBC uses the New International Version of the Bible, but the contributors work from the original Hebrew and Greek languages and refer to other translations when useful.

Each section of the commentary includes:

• An introduction: background information, a short bibliography, and an outline
• An overview of Scripture to illuminate the big picture
• The complete NIV text
• Extensive commentary
• Notes on textual questions, key words, and concepts
• Reflections to give expanded thoughts on important issues

The series features 56 contributors, who:

• Believe in the divine inspiration, complete trustworthiness, and full authority of the Bible
• Have demonstrated proficiency in the biblical book that is their specialty
• Are committed to the church and the pastoral dimension of biblical interpretation
• Represent geographical and denominational diversity
• Use a balanced and respectful approach toward marked differences of opinion
• Write from an evangelical viewpoint

For insightful exposition, thoughtful discussion, and ease of use—look no further than The Expositor's Bible Commentary.

DANIEL

ANDREW E. HILL

Introduction

1. Historical Background

2. Authorship and Date

3. Structure and Unity

4. Place of Composition, Audience, and Purpose

5. Social Setting

6. Literary Form

7. Theological Emphases

8. Text and Versions

9. Languages

10. Canonicity (and the Additions)

11. Daniel and the New Testament

12. Special Problems

13. Bibliography

14. Outline

The book of Daniel is one of the most contested books in OT scholarship. Issues of historical and chronological accuracy, literary genre and biblical interpretation, and the nature of OT prophecy continue to stir debate among scholars.

The book is an enigma—written in two languages (Aramaic and Hebrew), composed of two genres (narrative and visionary literature), narrated in two voices (third-person court stories and first-person visions embedded in third-person narrative), and organized in a two-part structure (stories, chs. 1–6; visions, chs. 7–12). Quite naturally, these features have led to two rather distinct understandings of the book.

Interestingly, the interpretive alternatives have so polarized the scholarship on Daniel that some recent commentators have resorted to incorporating materials typically associated with the critical introduction of biblical books (e.g., authorship, date, structure, genre, etc.) as an epilogue or appendix to the analysis of the text of Daniel in an effort to focus attention on the message and theology of the book.¹ Some even suggest that whether the stories of Daniel are history or fiction and whether the visions are actual prophecies or historical reports after the fact make little difference to the exegesis of the book.² There is some truth in such a statement, since in the end each reader understands the book of Daniel on the basis of what the text says. Yet the reader’s assumptions about the nature of divine revelation, the dynamics of the historical process, and the character of literary genres deeply color the theology derived from any study of the biblical documents. At what point, if any, are the original audience of Daniel’s message and today’s audience of this preserved tradition “children of a lesser God” if the stories of Daniel are fiction and the visions of Daniel are not prophecy?

The conventional labels “traditional” and “mainline” are the tags employed for the two basic interpretive views of the book of Daniel. The “traditional” or conservative approach typically understands the book as a sixth-century BC composition, while the “mainline” or critical approach typically considers the book largely a second-century BC work. According to Collins, the last gasp of the “fundamentalist” reading of Daniel was the work of Robert D. Wilson (although he notes conservative scholars continue to fight “rear-guard” actions in defense of the book’s reliability).³

Collins further confidently asserts that in academic circles the fundamentalist view of Daniel was defeated at the beginning of the twentieth century. Today the triumph of the critical understanding of Daniel is widely recognized.⁴ This does not mean, however, that voices championing the traditional view of Daniel ceased, as the scholarship of the likes of E. J. Young, J. G. Baldwin, K. A. Kitchen, and D. J. Wiseman attest. The history of biblical scholarship reveals that “post-mortems” are rarely final, and such may be the case with Daniel.

Naturally, these rubrics are not necessarily meant to reflect any particular “theological camp” with respect to a “view” of Scripture or prejudge any certain ideological posture regarding the realm of the supernatural. As Longman has recognized, “faithful interpreters find themselves on two sides of the debate.”⁵ And further, Lucas reminds us that “on both sides of the argument there are those who see their conclusions as compatible with acceptance of the inspiration and authority of Scripture.”⁶ In the end, “let God be true, and every human being a liar” (Ro 3:4).

1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The book of Daniel contains nine date formulas (1:1, 21; 2:1; 5:30; 7:1; 8:1; 9:1; 10:1, [cf. v.21]; 11:1). The earliest formula refers to the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim (i.e., 605 BC) and reports the first Babylonian invasion of Judah by King Nebuchadnezzar (1:1).⁷ This means Daniel was among the first of the Hebrews taken captive by the Babylonians and deported to Mesopotamia, a fact that has significance for his later prayer (cf. 9:2–3). The latest date formula places Daniel in the Persian royal court during the third year of the Persian king Cyrus (537 or 536 BC; 10:1). This means the historical setting for Daniel is the Babylonian exile in the royal courts of Babylonian, Median, and Persian kings between 605 and 536 BC. The dated portions of Daniel may be outlined as follows:

1:1—third year, King Jehoiakim of Judah, 605 BC
1:21—first year, King Cyrus of Persia, 539 BC
2:1—second year, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia, 604 or 603 BC
5:30—last year, King Belshazzar of Babylonia/first year, Darius the Mede, 539 BC
7:1—first year, King Belshazzar of Babylonia, ca. 553 BC
8:1—third year, King Belshazzar of Babylonia, ca. 551 BC
9:1—first year, Darius the Mede, 539 BC
10:1—third year, King Cyrus of Persia, 537 or 536 BC

King Josiah of Judah died in battle near Megiddo in 609 BC (2Ki 23:30). Perhaps obligations to the Babylonians motivated his attempt to intercept the Egyptian forces of Pharaoh Neco en route to Carchemish (23:29).⁸ Josiah was the last reformer and “good” king of Judah, and his death precipitated the rapid decline of the southern Hebrew monarchy. The last twenty-plus years of the Judahite monarchy saw four kings ascend to the throne. Two of these kings, Jehoahaz (609 BC) and Jehoiachin (597 BC), each ruled for but three months (23:31–34; 24:8–17). The other two were puppet kings of the superpowers competing for control of the land bridge of Syro-Palestine.

Eliakim/Jehoiakim (609–597 BC) was installed by Pharaoh Neco of Egypt (2Ki 23:34). He later surrendered to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia but rebelled three years later (ca. 603 BC; 24:1–7). Nebuchadnezzar was unable to resume his military campaigns in Syro-Palestine until 598 BC but then moved swiftly to punish the disloyal vassal. By the time Nebuchadnezzar reached Jerusalem, Jehoiakim had died and Jehoiachin succeeded him as king of Judah (24:8). As a result of the second Babylonian invasion of Judah, King Jehoiachin was deposed and exiled along with ten thousand citizens of Jerusalem (including Ezekiel; cf. 2Ki 24:10–17; Eze 1:1–2).

Mattaniah/Zedekiah was installed by King Nebuchadnezzar as a puppet king of Babylonia after the exile of Jehoiachin (2Ki 24:17). Zedekiah foolishly rebelled against the Babylonian overlord and allied Judah with Pharaoh Hophra of Egypt in 589 BC. The third Babylonian invasion of Judah was swift and decisive. Nebuchadnezzar surrounded Jerusalem in 588 BC, and after a lengthy siege the city was sacked, Yahweh’s temple was destroyed, and Davidic kingship in Judah ceased (24:18–25:21).⁹

2. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE

For centuries traditional Jewish and Christian scholarship ascribed the book of Daniel to the sixth-century BC Hebrew courtier of the same name employed in the service of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia (Da 1:3). Daniel was among the first Hebrews taken captive from Judah and was conscripted into the civil service corps of the Babylonian government (1:6). Internal evidence in the second half of the book (the visions of chs. 7–12) is usually cited in support of this view. This includes the first-person reporting (of personal memoirs or journal accounts [?]; cf. 7:2–28; 8:1–27; 9:1–27; 10:2–12:4; 12:5–13) and the angelic command to Daniel himself to “seal up the book.”¹⁰ The court stories of the first half of the book (chs. 1–6) are written in the third person (except the first-person report of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream about a tree; 4:4–18). Yet the presumed eyewitness detail of these accounts is considered indirect evidence of Daniel’s authorship of this section of the book as well.¹¹ Lastly, proponents of the traditional view for the authorship and date of the book of Daniel appeal to the testimony of Jesus, who credits the prophet Daniel with the authorship of the prophecy concerning “the abomination that causes desolation” (Mt 24:15; Mk 13:14).

Biblical scholarship of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century challenged the traditional understanding of the origin of the book of Daniel. The views of Porphyry (AD 233–304), a Neoplationist philosopher, are frequently cited as precursors of the critical assessment of this book.¹² As an early dissenting voice in the scholarship on Daniel, Porphyry questioned the historicity of the figure of Daniel and dismissed the idea of prophecy in Daniel. Instead, he argued that Daniel was written by a Palestinian Jew living at the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who related the past but did not foretell the future.¹³

Such analysis represents the dominant view of the book of Daniel today. A number of historical, literary, theological, and canonical trajectories have converged to shape this understanding of the book. Primary among them was the perceived inferiority of postexilic prophecy and apocalyptic literature when compared to preexilic prophecy according to the canons of nineteenth-century literary criticism.¹⁴ The traditional view of Daniel was further eroded by the Enlightenment’s antisupernaturalist assumptions of biblical scholarship rooted in the elevation of reason over revelation—thus dismissing a priori such categories as “miracle” and “predictive prophecy” in the biblical record.¹⁵

Today the discussion extends beyond the issue of vaticinium ex eventu (or “prophecy after the fact”) to the nature and character of the apocalyptic genre that comprises portions of Daniel. Collins states that the “issue is not ‘a dogmatic rejection of predictive prophecy’ as conservatives like to assert, but a calculation of probability” (since for him the weight of the literary, linguistic, historical, and textual evidence points to a second-century BC date for Daniel).¹⁶ One feature of apocalyptic literature—pseudonymity (ascribing a writing to someone other than its actual author)—is of particular importance. Pseudonymity was a known literary practice in the ancient world, particularly in the Hellenistic age. Despite the fact that such a literary device is rarer in our own culture, Goldingay cautions that we should not “infer that God could not use it in another culture.”¹⁷

As a result, mainline scholars now consider the book of Daniel the product of one or more unknown Jewish pseudepigraphers writing shortly after the Maccabean crisis (ca. 160 BC).¹⁸ In fact, some scholars date the final compilation of the book to shortly before 163 BC since the person(s) responsible for the book erroneously place Antiochus’s death in Palestine, not Syria (as recorded in Polybius, Histories 33.9). This critical approach to the book also assumes that the anonymous author(s) incorporated the court stories about Daniel (chs. 1–6) in the book since these earlier materials were already circulating in a relatively fixed form.¹⁹ Beyond this, a growing number of biblical scholars who might be categorized broadly as conservative or evangelical in persuasion adhere to this view.²⁰

In summary, the book of Daniel is a blend of third-person report and first-person memoir, divided into a narrative section (chs. 1–6) and an apocalyptic section (chs. 7–12). The internal evidence demands that only the first-person visions of the second half of the book be ascribed directly to Daniel.²¹ And in some cases even these visions are framed by third-person introductions (e.g., 7:1; 9:1; 10:1). Given this two-part (or bifid) structure, it seems likely that the book represents an anthology or edited collection of selections of Daniel’s personal journal or memoirs and adaptations of more formal chronicles documenting his service in the Babylonian royal court. The book was probably composed in the Babylonian Diaspora by Daniel, or more likely by associates who outlived him, sometime after 536 BC (the last date formula in the book; 10:1) and before 515 BC (since the composition makes no reference to the rebuilding of the second temple in Jerusalem). This places the current study in what Collins calls “an ongoing tradition of conservative scholarship that holds to the exilic date.”²²

3. STRUCTURE AND UNITY

Two basic methods for determining structure have been applied to the book of Daniel. One is based on the two languages utilized in the composition of the book. For example, while acknowledging the bifid structure of the book on the basis of genre, Wood states that “the employment of two languages points to an equally valid division, which has to do with the people concerned, rather than with literary criteria.”²³The organization of the content of Daniel as determined by the language patterns of the book may be outlined as follows:²⁴

“Preface” (in Hebrew) for the Jews, ch. 1
Messages (in Aramaic) to the Gentile nations, chs. 2–7
Prophecies (in Hebrew) to the Jews about the...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Contributors to Volume Eight
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Daniel
• Hosea
• Joel
• Amos
• Obadiah
• Jonah
• Micah
• Nahum
• Habakkuk
• Zephaniah
• Haggai
• Zechariah
• Malachi
• About the Publisher
• Share Your Thoughts