Dennis Ingolfslanda
The book of Daniel claims to have been written by Daniel, (Dan. 7:15, 28, 8:1, 15, 9:2, 22, 10:2, 7, 12:5), a Hebrew prophet living during the time of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 1:1, 2:1), Belshazzar (5:1, 7:1), and Cyrus, king of Persia (10:1). But could it be that the book was really the work of an anonymous writer who lived over 300 years later? Although this question has been debated endlessly, Dr. John Trever, famous for his part in the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries, recently added his voice to the latter opinion. (Trever 1985 and 1987).
According to Dr. Trever it is “clear beyond any question of doubt the name ‘Daniel’ was a pseudonym deliberately chosen by the authors of the book to place the stories in an earlier century and thereby obscure the writers’ identities…” and to “lend more authority and a wider circulation to the writings” (1985: 100). This charge, of course, is certainly not new. What is new, however, is that Trever believes, on the basis of his studies in the Qumran manuscripts, that the writer or compiler of the book of Daniel was none other than the “founder and Right Teacher of the Qumran-Essene community”.
The importance of the issue has to do with the prophecies contained in Daniel. These prophecies cover the time period from Alexander the Great (333 B.C.) to Antiochus Epiphanes (168 B.C.) and many are given in minute detail. If Dr. Trever is right, these prophecies are in fact “prophetia ex eventu.” In other words they were written after the events had already occurred. On the other hand, ff the book of Daniel was written during the Babylonian and Persian empires as it claims, then we have a genuine foretelling of events hundreds of years before they occurred. And since Daniel gives credit to God for his prophetic ability (Dan. 2:28), it would seem that this would be objective evidence for the existence of God and His work in history.
The purpose of this article is not specifically to argue for an early date for Daniel. That has already been done very well by such men as Archer (129–147), Waltke (319–329), Yamauchi (3–13) and Fox (335–350). It is, rather, to examine Dr. Trever’s arguments to see ff he has brought to light compelling new evidence which should cause conservative scholars to reexamine their position.
Origin Among The Hasidim
According to Dr. Trever, “…both the author of Daniel and the Qumran Community had their origins among the Hasidim…” (1985: 95), and “both were pacifist in point of view…” (ibid.). Trever believes that the Hasidim suffered
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 70
a split over the issue of defending themselves on the Sabbath and that it would have taken “a giant of faith and loyalty to Torah, such as was exhibited by the author-compiler of Daniel—to lead such a split…”(1985: 96). In another article Trever quotes Hartman and Di Lella as saying, “The Book of Daniel as a whole may rightly be viewed as a pacifistic manifesto of the Hasidim” (1987:112).
The amazing thing about this quote is that the preceding sentence in the original context refers to 1 Macc. 2:42 which calls the Hasidim “Stout fighting men of Israel…” (Jerusalem Bible). How can the Hasidim be “stout fighting men” if they were pacifists? To answer this question Dr. Trever and others postulate a split in the party. But if there was a split in the party, and if Daniel had exhibited militant tendencies in his writing, Trever could also have argued that Daniel was writing for the militant wing of Hasidim. In other words, having assumed that Daniel was written in the second century B.C., it really wouldn’t matter which side of the issue Daniel supported. But this is begging the question and is invalid as evidence for a Maccabean date.
The Pesher Method
The “pesher method” is the second piece of evidence Dr. Trever produces. He points out that “…in the Aramaic portions of Daniel (2:4b–7:28), the Aramaic word peshar, meaning ‘interpretation’ (of dreams, and so on), appears thirty-two times” (1985: 96). This same word is found numerous times in several Dead Sea Scrolls which came to be known as “pesharim.” Dr. Trever says, “All of these pesharim manuscripts exhibited the same method of interpretation which showed the meaning of each passage for the ‘end-time’ in which the men of Qumran believed that they were living” (1985: 97). Trever believes that “the same method of interpreting Scripture is found in both Daniel and about fifteen pesharim scrolls from the eleven Qumran caves” (1987: 113). He believes that this is further evidence that the author-compiler of Daniel was the “Right Teacher from the Qumran Community.”
The men at Qumran who wrote their commentaries (eg. on Habakkuk, Isaiah, Hoses, Psalms, Micah, Zephaniah and Nahum) did indeed interpret (pesher} the Old Testament in a way which showed the meaning of each passage for the time in which they lived, as Trever points out. For example, the passage in Habakkuk which says, “For indeed I am raising up the Chaldeans,” (Hab. 1:6) is interpreted by the Qumran commentator as referring to the “Kittaeans” or Romans (Gaster 318).
Daniel, however, never uses “pesher” in this way. Every one of the 32 occurrences of “pesher” in Daniel refers to the interpretation of a dream or vision or direct revelation from God, as opposed to the interpretation of a Scripture passage in light of contemporary events.
Even assuming a second century B.C. date for Daniel, for the sake of argument, there is still a big difference between Daniel’s use of “pesher” and that of the Qumran Community. A second century
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 71
“Daniel” was not interpreting previously recorded Scripture in light of contemporary events, he was creating “prophecies” and interpreting those prophecies in a way that refers to past historical events.
The main similarity between the Qumran “pesharim” and Daniel is just the fact that both use the word “pesher.” It should be pointed out that both Akkadian and Aramaic were used in the Babylonian empire and that the Akkadian work pasaru (to interpret) was commonly used during the sixth and seventh centuries B.C. in reference to dreams (Oppenheim 186–220.). Since the Aramaic cognate of pasaru is peshar it was only natural for a sixth century Daniel to use the Aramaic peshar in reference to the interpretation of dreams.
Use Of Maskilim
The word maskilim which occurs several times in Daniel was also used three times at Qumran. Dr. Trever believes that the word moreh, used at Qumran in reference to the founder, was an honorific title for a specific maskil, or Right Teacher…” (1985: 97). He speculates that this title moreh, was drawn from the community’s familiarity with Isaiah 30:20.
In response it must be said that this is interesting speculation, but it is not evidence supporting Dr. Trever’s thesis. The use of maskil in both the Qumran scrolls and in Daniel demonstrates nothing concerning the date of Daniel since the same word is also found in I Samuel, 2 Chronicles, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Jeremiah, and Amos. And if moreh could have been borrowed by a second century writer from Isaiah as Trever believes, why is it so hard to believe that maskfl or peshar was borrowed from a sixth century Daniel?
The Use Of Kittiim
The word Kittiim is used in Daniel 11:30 in reference to an event which occurred in 168 B.C. when a Roman official thwarted Antiochus Epiphanes” plans to attack Egypt. The same word is also used 33 times in the Qumran scrolls; all with reference to the Romans. The difference is that the word Kittiim in the scrolls always seems to refer to the later “imperial period of Rome,” from about 63 B.C. Dr. Trever believes that, “Kittim in Dan 11:30 came to be interpreted as referring to the later imperial period of Rome,” (1987:115), and that it was so interpreted by the “devoted followers of the Right Teacher” (1985:99).
Once again, this is interesting speculation, but even assuming a second century B.C. date for Daniel, it is difficult to understand how this can be construed as “evidence” showing that the Right Teacher was the author-compiler of Daniel. The fact that some scribes around 63 B.C. borrowed the word Kittiim in Daniel and applied it to imperial Rome does not prove anything regarding either the date of Daniel or the authorship.
It could be argued that the use of Kittiim with reference to Rome would be anachronistic in a supposed sixth century B.C.
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 72
document. But this is not necessarily so. Jeremiah, a contemporary of Daniel (assuming the traditional date), used Kittiim with reference to “…the isles and coast of the far west, as in Ezek. xxvii. 6…” (Keil and Delitzsch 56; cf Bright, 15; Lange 32). Those who understand Daniel 11:30 as predictive prophecy have little difficulty understanding why the Qumran scribes used kittiim with reference to Rome.
Linguistic Affinities
Dr. Trever argues that “scholars have been pointing for many years to parallels between the wording of Daniel and various Qumran documents.” (1985:99). Similarity in wording, however, is not necessarily evidence for the same author. It is well known that the Qumran writers were constantly alluding to or quoting from Scripture and imitating Scriptural style. Gaster speaks of the “…incessant filching of Scriptural ‘tags’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls” (Gaster 9; cfxiii).
Far more conclusive is the linguistic evidence from the style of Aramaic in use (evidence which “Trever ignores). Harrison, for example, states, “The Aramaic sections of Daniel (2:4b–7:28) are by nature closely akin to the language of the fifth century B.C. Elephantine papyri and that of Ezra (4:7–6:18, 7:12–26)…” (1125). Archer, who has personally studied this matter concludes that: “a marked contrast is evident between the Aramaic chapters of Daniel and the Aramaic text of the Genesis Apocryphon in every significant category of linguistic comparison. In each of these categories (morphology, grammar, syntax and vocabulary) the Apocryphon (an admittedly second century B.C. composition) stands out as centuries later than the language of Daniel.” (Archer 143–144.)
Finally, Waltke, agreeing with Archers previous study in this area says, “While the Aramaic of Daniel fits comfortably into the period of official Aramaic it does not comport well with the Genesis Apocryphon discovered in Qumran Cave One and dated in the first century B.C.” (Waltke 323; cf. Fox 344–45).
Any article dealing with “linguistic affinities” in Daniel must deal with this evidence.
Historical Sequence
Dr. Trever refers to the opinion of Yigael Yadin that the Temple Scroll was composed by the Teacher of Righteousness. If this is true, Trever concludes, then the “Essene Torah [Temple Scroll] was the magnum opus of none other than the author-compiler of Daniel” (1985: 99; cf 1987:117).
Even granting Dr. Trever’s presupposition that Daniel was compiled in the second century B.C., and granting that Yigael Yadin was correct about the Teacher of Righteousness being the composer of the Temple Scroll, it does not necessarily follow that Daniel was written by the same person. This reasoning, in addition to being non sequitur, is filled with too many assumptions to be considered “evidence.”
First is the assumption that Daniel was in fact written or compiled in the second century B.C. All of the arguments against
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 73
a sixth century B.C. date for Daniel have been answered by conservative scholars and many of their arguments against a second century B.C. date remain unanswered.
The second assumption is that the Teacher of Righteousness was a single person. This does not seem to be a foregone conclusion among all scholars. Gaster, for example says, “The title ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ (more correctly, ‘true exponent of the Law) designates an office, not a particular person” (Gaster xii).
The third assumption is that Yadin is correct in his assertion that the Teacher of Righteousness wrote the Temple Scroll. Trever recognized that this was still a tentative assumption when he wrote, “Since already the origin of that scroll as proposed by Dr. Yadin has been challenged by some scholars, it is too early to consider his conclusion as supporting evidence to our overall point of view, even though it is tempting to do so” (1987:117). The problem is that Trever does treat it as evidence in that he lists it under the general heading of “Summary of the Evidence” (1987: 112; cf 1985: 95) and counts it as one of his “twelve supporting points” (1987:112).
Apocalyptic Chronology
According to Dr. Trever, the author-compiler of Daniel borrowed the number 70 from the “seventy years” of exile in Jeremiah 25:11, 12, and 29:10, “mingling them in such a way as to fulfill his literary purpose,” (1985: 99) with reference to his 70 weeks of years in Daniel 9:24. This “literary method” of apocalyptic chronology is seen, by Trever, to be identical with the method used at Qumran, one example being a passage in the Damascus Document which refers to 390 years and the Babylonian captivity, taken from Ezekiel 4:5.
First, the reference in the Damascus (Zadokite) Document to which Dr. Trever seems to be referring reads, “So in the Era of Anger, that era of the three hundred and ninety years, when He delivered them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon…” (Gaster 66). But this is not a mere “literary device.” It was intended as a statement of history. In Ezekiel 4:4–6 the prophet is told to lay on his side one day for every year of Israel’s iniquity or 390 days. This also is intended to be understood as a statement of historical fact, not just a literary device designed to prove a point.
Second, we might go one step further and argue that Daniel’s use ofT0 weeks of years (Dan. 9:24) was not just borrowed from Jeremiah and doctored up because he was not satisfied with the way Jeremiah’s prophecy turned out (cf. Hartman and Di Lella 247). It was instead intended as a statement of genuine prophecy. Hartman and Di Lella (to whom Trever refers frequently), argue that the Daniel 9:24 prophecy began with the “utterance of the word regarding the rebuilding of Jerusalem” and ends with the death of Epiphanes (Hartman and Di Lella 250; cf. 247). They then attempt to fit history into this chronology. Rather than admit their failure they reason, “one may rightly doubt if the author of Daniel 9 had an accurate knowledge of the
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 74
chronology of the period. Therefore his division of the various periods of the early part of his 490-year period cannot be taken too seriously” (250).
But Jeremiah did not issue a command to restore and build Jerusalem as Daniel 9:24 predicts. Such a command is issued, however, in Nehemiah 2:1–8 and is dated at about 445 BC. The terminal point of the 69 weeks of years in the prophecy is the cutting off of the Messiah (who Hartman and Di Lella identify as the high priest, Joshua ben Jozadak, 251). Calculations show that 69 weeks of years beginning at 445 B.C. ends at the time of our Lord’s crucifixion (Hoehner 47–65). This is remarkable accuracy, even for a second century “prophet.” The point is that Daniel’s seventy weeks may not be dismissed as a mere literary device without at least dealing with the possibility of genuine prophecy.
Dreams And Visions
In this section Dr. Trever points out that the use of visions both at Qumran and in the book of Daniel, as well as the fact that both the Right Teacher and the compiler of Daniel were “spiritually oriented persons” suggests that they may have been the same person. (1985:100).
By the same logic, however, this could also be used to support the traditional date for Daniel since dreams and visions also played an important part in the writings of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who wrote during the exile. In fact, dreams and visions were an important part of ancient near eastern literature long before the second century, even in non-Biblical literature. There is even an extant copy of a dream of Nabonidas, a contemporary of Daniel (Oppenheim 250).
Angelology
“Some scholars,” Trever asserts, “have shown that Daniel was a major source of the developing angelology in the Judaism of the second century B.C., and the Qumran documents reflect a similar influence. Again this point of view may suggest one and the same person.” (1985:100).
It must be pointed out, however, that this in no way discredits a sixth century date for Daniel. A sixth century Daniel could have been just as influential on the angelology of the Qumran community as could a second century writer.., even more so in fact, since it is hard to imagine why a second century fictional work would have been accepted as being authoritative in the same generation in which it was composed. This is especially true considering the high regard the community had for Scrip-tttre.
Imminence Of End-Time
Dr. Trever asserts that, “The author-compiler of Daniel believed he was living in end-time, as did the teacher who founded the Qumran Community,” and that this belief is, “another ideological parallel that brings the two together…”(1985: 100).
The answer to this is two-fold. First, Daniel has long been recognized to be apocalyptic literature. But as Trever himself points out in a quote from J.J. Collins; the Qumran Community “cannot be taken as a typical setting for the production of apocalypses” (1987:119).
Second, the opinion that the writer of Daniel believed he was
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 75
living in the end-time is a view which has been read into the text and not from it. Daniel, for example, prophesies of three kingdoms future to Babylon. Daniel 8:17, 19 refers to the confrontation between Greece and Medo-Persia as being future. Daniel 11 speaks of future struggles between Greece and Persia. Of course, those who hold to a second century date must also hold that these events actually occurred before the final compilation of the book of Daniel but in so doing they ignore what the text itself has to say about the future course of human history.
We must also remember that the men at Qumran studied the Scriptures and interpreted them in such a way that it was made to refer directly to contemporary events which they believed to be in the end-time. By contrast Daniel 12:4 says “But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end…”. Daniel evidently believed that the end-t/me was still some way off.
A Devotion To Scripture
Another similarity between the writer of Daniel and the Right Teacher, according to Dr. Trever, is that they both had an intimate knowledge of Scripture.
This, however, can also be said of Jeremiah and Ezekiel and is therefore no more evidence of a second century B.C. date than of a sixth century B.C. date.
Daniel As A Pseudonym
In Trever’s original article which occurred in Bibllcal Archaeogist, his final piece of evidence was that archaeology may one day discover the grave of the Right Teacher and that “such a discovery would provide the first direct physical link with a Biblical figure that would be more than tradition…” (1985: 100). It should be Immediately clear that Trever was appealing to an event which has not yet happened and that this can hardly be used as evidence.
Evidently, Dr. Trever recognized this logical fallacy because when he published his later article which was to elaborate and document these twelve points of evidence (cf. 1985: 95) he changed this last point. In his later article the final piece of evidence was that “Daniel’ was dearly a pseudonym for the authors of the book, and the Qumran Community maintained anonymity for both its Founder-Teacher and its members for some 200years…” (1987:119–120).
That “Daniel” is a pseudonym, however, is something which is only assumed and not demonstrated. If Daniel was in fact written by a historic Daniel in the sixth century, Dr. Trever’s final evidence is meaningless.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it must be noted that Dr. Trever’s purpose was not to argue about the date of Daniel at all. Since he believes that a second century date for Daniel has been established beyond reasonable doubt, he simply tries to show similarities between the “author-compiler” of Daniel and the Right Teacher. If it should be objected that this writer’s criticism is overdone, it may be well to look at Trever’s conclusion in which he states that
“…it should be clear beyond any question of doubt that the name “Daniel” was a pseudonym deliberately chosen by the authors of the book to place the stories in an earlier century and thereby obscure the writers’ identities, which was a common practice in the second century B.C.
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 76
Furthermore, it was done to lend more authority and a wider circulation to the writings” (1985:100).
This conclusion seems to imply that Dr. Trever has discovered evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls to prove once and for all that Daniel was in fact written in the second century B.C. and not in the sixth century B.C. as the book itself testifies.
The purpose of this article has been to show that Dr. Trever has not produced any evidence to discredit or cause conservatives to question the traditional date for Daniel.
Sources Consulted:
Archer, Gleason L., “Modern Rationalism and the Book of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Apr.-June 1979: 129–147.
Bright, John, Jeremiah. Vol. 21 of the Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1965.
Fox, Douglas E., “Ben Slra on OT Canon Again: The Date of Daniel,” Westminster Theological Journal Fall 1987: 335–350.
Gaster, Theodore H., ed., The Dead Sea Scriptures. New York: Anchor, 1976.
Harrison, R. IC, Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.
Hartman, L F., and Di Lella, A.A. The Book of Daniel. Vol. 23 of the Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1978.
Hoehner, H., “Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ,” Bibliotheca Sacra Jan.-Mar. 1975: 47–65.
Jerusalem Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1971.
Keil, C. F., and Delitzsch, F., Jeremiah and Lamentations. Vol. 8 of Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.
Lange, J. P., Jeremiah. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d. Oppenheim, A. L., =The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Sept. 1965: 186–220.
Trever, J. C., “The Book of Daniel,” Biblical Archaeologist June 1985: 89–101.
______, “The Qumran Teacher – Another Candidate?” in Early Jewish and Christian Exegisis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee, Evans, C. A., and Stinespring, W., eds. Atlanta, 1987: 101–121.
Waltke, B. K., “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct.-Dec. 1976: 319–329.
Yamauchi, E. M., “The Archaeological Background of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan.-Mar. 1980: 3–13.