Dating Daniel=s Book. Pt. 1
(Gerhard Hasel)
Concluding sentiments of scholars on the Qumram Dead Sea Scrolls and how they impact biblical knowledge.
Evidently this is a complex picture. The newly published Daniel materials from Qumram appear to throw important new light on the issue of the original text of Daniel. We say this because there is great harmony between the MT and the Cave 4 finds of the book of Daniel. Thus it no longer seems permissible to dismiss the Hebrew‑Aramaic text as unreliable.
We need to note the following:
When it comes to variants, the eight Dead Sea scroll Daniel manuscripts, for the most part, are very close to each other.
There is no significant abbreviation and no lengthy expansion in any of the manuscript fragments. “The text of Daniel in these [Cave 4] Daniel scrolls conforms closely to later Masoretic tradition; there are to be found, however, some rare variants which side with the Alexandrian Greek [Septuagint] against the MT and Theodotion” (Cross 1956:86).
These manuscript fragments do not contain any of the additions that are in all the Greek manuscripts, such as the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, and the Story of Susanna.
The change from Hebrew into Aramaic is preserved for Daniel 2:4b in 4QDana as it was previously in 1QDana. Thus two different manuscripts give evidence to this change. The change from Aramaic into Hebrew in Daniel 8:1 is clearly manifested in both 4QDana and 4QDanb, just as in the MT.
Based on the overwhelming conformity of these Qumran Daniel manuscripts with each other and with the MT, despite the few insignificant variants that agree with the Septuagint, it is evident that the MT is the well‑preserved key text for the book of Daniel. An eclectic approach, using the Hebrew/Aramaic text, the Greek, and other versions as if they were all on the same level without giving priority to the Hebrew text is no longer supportable, if it ever was previously. The Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic text of the book of Daniel now has stronger support than at any other time in the history of the interpretation of the book of Daniel.
The Daniel Dead Sea Scrolls and Canonical Book of Daniel
When Professor D. Barthélemy published in 1955 the first fragmentary Daniel manuscripts from Cave 1 of Qumran, that is, 1QDana and 1QDanb, he ventured the opinion that “certain indications permit the thought that Daniel had perhaps not yet been considered at Qumran as a canonical book” (Barthélemy and Milik 1955:250). This idea perpetuated itself for years afterward. In 1964, however, F.F. Bruce stated that the book of Daniel “may well have enjoyed canonical status among them [the Qumran sectaries]” (Bruce 1964:57). In his 1989 Daniel commentary, written before the newest publications of the Qumran Daniel manuscripts were accessible, John Goldingay stated, “There are no real grounds for suggesting that the form of the Qumran manuscripts of Daniel indicates that the book was not regarded as canonical there, though neither for affirming that it was (Goldingay 1989:xxvii).”
These doubts and uncertainties about the canonicity of Daniel among the Qumran people can now be laid aside for good. They have been based largely on the “roughly square proportions of the columns of 1QDana and because Pap6QDan is written on papyrus” (Ulrich 1987:19). But professor Ulrich now says,
“From Cave 4 we now have overriding evidence on both points from manuscripts of books indisputably authoritative or ‘canonical,’ including Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, and Psalms.. .. However one uses in relation to Qumran the category of what is later explicitly termed ‘canonical,’ the book of Daniel was certainly in that category (Ulrich 1987:19).”
Canonicity is supported also by the so called 4QFlorilegium, a fragment that employs the quotation formula “which written in the book of Daniel the prophet.” Such a formula is typical of quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran. It is similar also to Matthew 24:15, where Jesus refers to “Daniel the prophet.”
Inasmuch as Daniel was already canonical at Qumran at about 100 BC, how could it have become so quickly canonical if it had just been produced a mere half century before? While we do not know exactly how long it took for books to become canonical, it may be surmised that insofar as Daniel was reckoned to belong to the canonical books, it had a longer existence than a mere five decades, as the Maccabean dating hypothesis suggests. Both the canonical status and the fact that Daniel was considered a “prophet” speak for the antiquity of the book of Daniel. An existence of a mere five decades between the production of a Biblical book in its final form and canonization does not seem reasonable.
Thus the canonical acceptance of the book of Daniel at Qumran suggests an earlier origin of the book than the second century BC. In 1969, based on the evidence available at that time regarding the Qumran Daniel texts, Roland K. Harrison had already concluded that the second century dating of the book of Daniel was “absolutely precluded by the evidence from Qumran, partly because there are no indications whatever that the sectaries compiled any of the Biblical manuscripts recovered from the site, and partly because there would, in the latter event, have been insufficient time for Maccabean compositions to be circulated, venerated, and accepted as canonical Scripture by a Maccabean sect” (Harrison 1969:1127).
Subsequent to this, he stated that based on the Qumran manuscripts, “there can no longer be any possible reason for considering the book as a Maccabean product” (Harrison 1979:862). The most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts confirm this conclusion.
Gerhard Hasel (1935‑1994) was a Seventh‑day Adventist theologian, and Professor of OT and Biblical Theology as well as Dean of the Seventh Day Adventist Theological Seminary.
Bibliography
Baillet, M. and Milik, J.T.
1962 Les ‘Petites Grottes’ des Qumran, 1. Texte, 2. Planches, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan, 3 (Oxford: Clarendon).
Barthélemy, D. and Milik, J.T.
1955 Qumran Cave 1. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan 1 (Oxford: Clar‑endon).
Benoit, P., et al.
1956 Editing the Manuscript Fragments from Qumran (4Q). Biblical Archaeologist 19:75B96.
Brooke, G.J.
1985 Exegesis at Qumran. 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context. JSOT 29 (Sheffield: JSOT Press).
Bruce, F.F.
1964 Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Cross, F.M., Jr.
1956 Cave 4 of Qumran (4Q). Biblical Archaeologist 19:83B86.
1961 The Ancient Library of Qumran, 2nd ed. (Garden City NY: Doubleday).
Fitzmyer, J.A.
1977 The Dead Sea Scrolls. Major Publications and Tools for Study (Missoula MT: Scholars Press).
1990 The Dead Sea Scrolls. Major Publications and Tools for Study, Revised Edition (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Geissen A.
1968 Der Septuaginta‑Text des Buches Daniel 5B12 sowie Esther 1B2, 15 (Bonn: R. Habelt).
Goldingay, J.E.
1989 Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 30 (Dallas: Word Books).
Hamm, W.
1969 Der Septuaginta‑Text des Buches Daniel 1B2 (Bonn: R. Habelt).
1977 Der Septuaginta‑Text des Buches Daniel 3B4 (Bonn: R. Habelt).
Harrison, R.K.
1969 Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
1979 Daniel, Book of. Pp. 859B66 in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Hartman, L.F. and Di Lella, A.A.
1978 The Book of Daniel, Anchor Bible, vol. 23 (Garden City NY: Doubleday).
Hasel, G.F.
1990 The Book of Daniel Confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 1/2:37B49.
Jellicoe, S.
1968 The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Koch, K.
1986 Daniel, BKAT 22/1 (Neukirchen‑Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag).
Koch, K. et al.
1980 Das Buch Daniel, Ertage der Erforschung 144 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft).
Mertens, A.
1971 Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Texte vom Toten Meer, Stuttgarter Biblische Monographien 12 (Wurzburg: Echter Verlag).
Moore, C.A.
1977 Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions, Anchor Bible, vol. 44 (Garden City NY: Doubleday).
Schmitt, A.
1966 Stammter soqenannte “Theodotion” ‑ Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion? (Gottingen: Vanden‑hoeck and Ruprecht).
Shanks, H.
1989a At Least Publish the Dead Sea Scroll Timetable. Biblical Archaeology Review 15/3:56B58.
1989b The Dead Sea Scroll Scandal. Biblical Archaeology Review 15/4.
1989c What Should Be Done About the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls? Biblical Archaeology Review 15/5:18B22.
1989d New Hope for the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls. Biblical Archaeology Review 15/6:55B56, 74.
1990 Dead Sea Scroll Variation on “Show and Tell”- It’s Called “Tell, But No Show.” Biblical Archaeology Review 16/2:18B21.
Swete, H.B.
1912 The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, vol. 4, 4th ed. (Cambridge: Clarendon).
Trever, J.T.
1964B1966 Completion of the Publication of Some Fragments From Qumran Cave 1. Revue de Qumran 5:323B44.
Ulrich, E.
1987 Daniel Manuscripts From Qumran, Part 1: A Preliminary Edition of 4QDana. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 268:17B37.
1989 Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran, Part 2: Preliminary Editions of 4QDanb and 4QDanc. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 274:3B26.
Wurthwein, E. 1979 The Text of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Pastor Ron Henderson is a retired Seventh-day Adventist Pastor. You may reach him at ron.hende@gmail.com if you have any comments or questions.