|
|
|
4QDanC (4Q114) 4
= Cave, Q = Qumran, Dan = Daniel, C = Clarification Composition of the Book of Daniel
Dead Sea Scrolls
Robert Dick Wilson home.earthlink.net/~ironmen/qumran.htm Critical
Scholarship, Daniel, and the Scrolls
The
Qumran materials similarly have substantiated the textual integrity and
authenticity of Daniel. Critical scholarship, as in the case of most all books
of the Old Testament, has attempted to dismantle the authenticity of the book of
Daniel. The message of the book claims to have originated during the Babylonian
exile, from the first deportation of the Jews into captivity (606 B.C.; Daniel
1:1-2) to the ascension of the Persian Empire to world dominance (c. 536 B.C.;
Daniel 10:1). This date, however, has been questioned and generally dismissed by
critical scholars who date the final composition of the book to the
second-century B.C. Specifically, it is argued that the tales in chapters 1-6 as
they appear in their present form can be no earlier than the Hellenistic age (c.
332 B.C.). Also, the four-kingdom outline, explicitly stated in chapter 2,
allegedly requires a date after the rise of the Grecian Empire. Further, these
scholars argue that since there is no explicit reference to Antiochus Epiphanes
IV (175-164 B.C.), a Seleucid king clearly under prophetic consideration in
chapter 11, a date in the late third or early second century B.C. is most likely
(see Collins, 1992a, 2:31; Whitehorne, 1992, 1:270).
The
apparent reason for this conclusion among critical scholars is the predictive
nature of the book of Daniel. It speaks precisely of events that transpired
several hundred years removed from the period in which it claims to have been
composed. Since the guiding principles of the historical-critical method
preclude a transcendent God¡¯s intervening in human affairs (see Brantley,
1994), the idea of inspired predictive prophecy is dismissed a priori from the
realm of possibility. Accordingly, Daniel could not have spoken with such
precision about events so remote from his day. Therefore, critical scholars
conclude that the book was written actually as a historical record of events
during the Maccabean period, but couched in apocalyptic or prophetic language.
Such conclusions clearly deny that this book was the authentic composition of a
Daniel who lived in the sixth century B.C., which the Bible affirms.
The
Dead Sea Scrolls have lifted their voice in this controversy. Due to the amount
of Daniel fragments found in various caves near Qumran, it appears that this
prophetic book was one of the most treasured by that community. Perhaps the
popularity of Daniel was due to the fact that the people of Qumran lived during
the anxious period in which many of these prophecies actually were being
fulfilled. For whatever reason, Daniel was peculiarly safeguarded to the extent
that we have at our disposal parts of all chapters of Daniel, except chapters 9
and 12. However, one manuscript (4QDanc; 4 = Cave 4; Q = Qumran; Danc = one of
the Daniel fragments arbitrarily designated "c" for clarification),
published in November 1989, has been dated to the late second-century B.C. (see
Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:47). Two other major documents (4QDanb, 4QDana) have been
published since 1987, which contribute to scholarly analysis of Daniel. These
recently-released fragments have direct bearing on the integrity and
authenticity of the book of Daniel. Integrity
of the Text
As
in the case of Isaiah, before Qumran there were no extant manuscripts of Daniel
that dated earlier than the late tenth-century A.D. Accordingly, scholars cast
suspicion on the integrity of Daniel¡¯s text. Also, as with Isaiah, this
skepticism about the credibility of Daniel¡¯s contents prompted scholars to
take great freedom in adjusting the Hebrew text. One reason for this suspicion
is the seemingly arbitrary appearance of Aramaic sections within the book. Some
scholars had assumed from this linguistic shift that Daniel was written
initially in Aramaic, and then some portions were translated into Hebrew.
Further, a comparison of the Septuagint translation (Greek translation of the
Hebrew Bible) with the MT revealed tremendous disparity in length and content
between the two texts. Due to these and other considerations, critical scholars
assigned little value to the MT rendition of Daniel.
Once
again, however, the findings at Qumran have confirmed the integrity of Daniel¡¯s
text. Gerhard Hasel listed several strands of evidence from the Daniel fragments
found at Qumran that support the integrity of the MT (see 1992, 5[2]:50). First,
for the most part, the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts of Daniel are very consistent
in content among themselves, containing very few variants. Second, the Qumran
fragments conform very closely to the MT overall, with only a few rare variants
in the former that side with the Septuagint version. Third, the transitions from
Hebrew to Aramaic are preserved in the Qumran fragments. Based on such
overwhelming data, it is evident that the MT is a well-preserved rendition of
Daniel. In short, Qumran assures us that we can be reasonably confident that the
Daniel text on which our English translations are based is one of integrity.
Practically speaking, this means that we have at our disposal, through faithful
translations of the original, the truth God revealed to Daniel centuries ago. Date
of the Book
The
Daniel fragments found at Qumran also speak to the issue of Daniel¡¯s
authenticity. As mentioned earlier, conventional scholarship generally places
the final composition of Daniel during the second-century B.C. Yet, the book
claims to have been written by a Daniel who lived in the sixth-century B.C.
However, the Dead Sea fragments of Daniel present compelling evidence for the
earlier, biblical date of this book.
The
relatively copious remains of Daniel indicate the importance of this book to the
Qumran community. Further, there are clear indications that this book was
considered "canonical" for the community, which meant it was
recognized as an authoritative book on a par with other biblical books (e.g.,
Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, Psalms). The canonicity of Daniel at Qumran is
indicated, not only by the prolific fragments, but by the manner in which it is
referenced in other materials. One fragment employs the quotation, "which
was written in the book of Daniel the prophet." This phrase, similar to
Jesus¡¯ reference to "Daniel the prophet" (Matthew 24:15), was a
formula typically applied to quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran (see
Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:51).
The
canonical status of Daniel at Qumran is important to the date and authenticity
of the book. If, as critical scholars allege, Daniel reached its final form
around 160 B.C., how could it have attained canonical status at Qumran in a mere
five or six decades? While we do not know exactly how long it took for a book to
reach such authoritative status, it appears that more time is needed for this
development (see Bruce, 1988, pp. 27-42). Interestingly, even before the most
recent publication of Daniel fragments, R.K. Harrison recognized that the
canonical status of Daniel at Qumran militated against its being a composition
of the Maccabean era, and served as confirmation of its authenticity (1969, p.
1126-1127).
Although
Harrison made this observation in 1969, over three decades before the large
cache of Cave 4 documents was made available to the general and scholarly
public, no new evidence has refuted it. On the contrary, the newly-released
texts from Qumran have confirmed this conclusion. The canonical acceptance of
Daniel at Qumran indicates the antiquity of the book¡¯s composition?certainly
much earlier than the Maccabean period. Hence, the most recent publications of
Daniel manuscripts offer confirmation of Daniel¡¯s authenticity; it was
written when the Bible says it was written.
A
final contribution from Qumran to the biblically-claimed date for Daniel¡¯s
composition comes from linguistic considerations. Though, as we mentioned
earlier, critical scholars argue that the Aramaic sections in Daniel indicate a
second-century B.C. date of composition, the Qumran materials suggest otherwise.
In fact, a comparison of the documents at Qumran with Daniel demonstrates that
the Aramaic in Daniel is a much earlier composition than the second-century B.C.
Such a comparison further demonstrates that Daniel was written in a region
different from that of Judea. For example, the Genesis Apocryphon found in Cave
1 is a second-century B.C. document written in Aramaic ?the same period during
which critical scholars argue that Daniel was composed. If the critical date for
Daniel¡¯s composition were correct, it should reflect the same linguistic
characteristics of the Genesis Apocryphon. Yet, the Aramaic of these two books
is markedly dissimilar.
The
Genesis Apocryphon, for example, tends to place the verb toward the beginning of
the clause, whereas Daniel tends to defer the verb to a later position in the
clause. Due to such considerations, linguists suggest that Daniel reflects an
Eastern type Aramaic, which is more flexible with word order, and exhibits
scarcely any Western characteristics at all. In each significant category of
linguistic comparison (i.e., morphology, grammar, syntax, vocabulary), the
Genesis Apocryphon (admittedly written in the second-century B.C.) reflects a
much later style than the language of Daniel (Archer, 1980, 136:143; cf.
Yamauchi, 1980). Interestingly, the same is true when the Hebrew of Daniel is
compared with the Hebrew preserved in the Qumran sectarian documents (i.e.,
those texts composed by the Qumran community reflecting their peculiar societal
laws and religious customs). From such linguistic considerations provided by
Qumran, Daniel could hardly have been written by a Jewish patriot in Judea
during the early second-century B.C., as the critics charge. Conclusion
There
are, of course, critical scholars who, despite the evidence, continue to argue
against the authenticity of Daniel and other biblical books. Yet, the Qumran
texts have provided compelling evidence that buttresses our faith in the
integrity of the manuscripts on which our translations are based. It is now up
to Bible believers to allow these texts to direct our attention to divine
concerns and become the people God intends us to be. by Garry K. Brantley www.christ.or.kr/English/tracts/data/409e.htm First Rule of Thumb:
Those Not Under the Influence of the Holy Spirit WILL
CERTAINLY NOT UNDERSTAND the Book of Daniel. Get On Your Knees Before God
Confess Your Sin and Ask For Salvation through Christ Jesus Your Redeemer Before
You Decide To Delve Into the Mysteries of God’s Word. God Himself GIVES
Understanding to Those Who Seek Wisdom THROUGH HIM Not Through Men. Those Who
Attempt to Understand the Book of Daniel Without the Holy Spirit Being Present
Within Them Are As New Born Babies Who Try to Digest Steak Before the Mothers
Milk – If You DO NOT Have The Spirit of God in You – You Cannot Possibly
Understand The Work and Mysteries of God. The debate surrounding the
book of Daniel comes down to this simple fact – the Book of Daniel proves
without a doubt that Jesus Christ is the Messiah the Anointed Son of God. With
the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls historical validation has been proven for
the critics of the Book of Daniel although there still remains the argument of
authenticity amongst the secular world. Why is this? Simple – if the book of
Daniel becomes accepted by the secular world through evidence it can only mean
one thing -
confessing Jesus Christ as Lord, the Son of God. The pride of men destroys the very
soul. The acceptance of Christ is the acceptance of life and those that dwell
therein shall continually rejoice.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© 1999-2006 3DS Xtreme
Sports & Gear Logos, pictures, stories, or any content may not be copied, electronically transferred, or duplicated by any means
without the express written consent of 3DS Xtreme Sports & Gear. Prices,
site criteria, and/or information subject to change without prior notification. All
Rights Reserved. |
