This post was inspired by a request from a friend. She was reading the book of Daniel and was finding it very complex. She asked to hear some of my thoughts about the book of Daniel, specifically how I understand it. As I pondered how best to respond, I realized my response was not going to be small because the book is wonderfully complex. I had some initial thoughts I wanted to share, but I as I pondered what I should say I realized it has been a long time since I actually read all of Daniel. I proceeded to sit down and read Daniel in my study Bible. I soon realized the study Bible was not going to be sufficient help. The notes were fluff and completely ignored the implications of a late date of authorship, so I went and pulled out “How to Read the Bible Book by Book” by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stewart. The following is some of my thoughts about how to read and understand Daniel while considering the book to be intertestamental history and literature, apocalyptic in genre, and prophetic in nature given its place in the Christian cannon (it is in the writings/history in the Hebrew Scriptures).
• First, Christian prophecy is best understood as proclamation. The vast majority of Hebrew prophecy and consequently Christian prophecy is the prophet proclaiming something to his/her current situation. It is a matter of forth-telling NOT foretelling the future. Think about Amos, he critiques the economics of his time - “selling the poor for a pair of sandals”, he does not tell what will occur two millennia in the future. The prophet’s task was to critique and teach the current population. The teachings are understood to be timeless in that they continue to teach the ethic or lesson that drives such critiques.
• Given this understanding of prophecy, one runs into the question of authorship. Was the book written in 535BC by Daniel, its namesake, or was it written in 165 BC at the time of Antiochus IV (Epiphanies) (11:21-32). Given the nature of Christian prophecy, I hold to the late date authorship. I believe the book was written/compiled at the time of the Abomination of Desolation (11:31), Antiochus Epiphanies sacrificing a pig to Zeus in the temple in Jerusalem. By taking a late date, one can understand Daniel to be largely a Jewish reflection on history and the acts of God in such a history.
• I think Daniel must be read in the context of the intertestamental period, so reading 1 & 2 Maccabees, of the Apocrypha, will help one understand the context in which Daniel was written.
• Apocalyptic literature is an unveiling; it is therefore inherently metaphorical. One experiences this in the second half of the book where the author uses images and visions to communicate and underlying message. The form of Apocalyptic was often used to state things that if stated outright would have been reason for the author to be killed. The images and visions depict a critique of the current socioeconomic and political reality the author was experiencing.
• Apocalyptic literature uses numbers symbolically. I.e. 7 is completeness, 4 is the natural order, 3 is a number of God, one is unity. Daniel uses these numbers in combination 3x7=21 or 2100. Whatever the case, numbers are used to convey a concept not specific chronology or time as we conceive chronology and time today.
• Horns represent power, specifically in Daniel they refer to kings.
• The genre of apocalyptic literature is meant to offer hope. Thus, there are depictions of the supremacy of God, the promises of a future kingdom, and hope that justice (maybe even revenge) will come on behalf of those who are being oppressed (the Israelites in exile in Babylon and those being harmed in the time of Antiochus IV). This hope is also conveyed in the consummation of all things, that eventually there will be an end to empire domination (12:1-4).
• A second way apocalyptic literature offers hope is to give reprieves in between depressing segments. Chapter 10 comes as hope of a larger reality after the depressing segments of chapters 7 and 8. The reader/listener is reminded of a reality that is bigger than his/her own existence. Chapter 7 and 8 tell the story of the succession of empires that the people in Judea had experienced. Both end with Antiochus IV (Epiphanies). He is the little horn, the 10th king of the Seleucid Empire. Three kings were murdered or died for him to come to power. Antiochus is also the figure referred to in 8:12 as he was the one who stopped sacrifices in Jerusalem.
• Chapter 7 and 8 show the trait of repetition in apocalyptic literature. They repeat the same information, which is again repeated in chapter 11. Each time the repletion focuses on something slightly different. But they all conclude emphatically with Antiochus IV. Notice the threefold repetition, three being a number of God, in other words, God has been in sovereign over and above all of these empires.
• The one great king refers to Alexander the great. The four heads of the beast, refers to Alexander’s four successors. The winged lion was a symbol of Babylon etc.
• Judah in the time leading up to the Maccabean revolt was experiencing oppression by a divided yet joined empire (Dan 2:41) the Seleucids (north) and Ptolemy’s (South (e.g. 11:25) – Egypt). A divide that occurred after Alexander the Great’s Empire was split between his generals. One of the boundaries between these factions just happened to go through Palestine. Thus, Judah experienced the push and pulls of competing, yet joined empires.
• Daniel is unique in Biblical literature, as it tells stories about Daniel rather than recording sayings of Daniel (this may be one reason why it is considered a writing in the Hebrew scriptures). Whatever the case, the reader/listener must consider the a twofold context, both the context of the stories (Babylon/Persia) and of the time when written (Antiocus IV). Themes of exile and the rebellion (Maccabean revolt) surface throughout the text.
• In addition, note the Chiastic structure of the first half of the book. Chapter 2 and 7 being similar looking forward to the Kingdom of God/messianic hope/revolt against Antiochus IV. Chapters 3 and 6 being similar in miraculous deliverances out of the hand of oppressive empires, by individuals being faithful and resisting the socio/economic/religious syncretism the empire is forcing. Chapters 4 and 5 being the center of the chiasm, both recording the demise of two Babylonian Kings. Both of which are forced to recognize the greatness of God.
• As I was reading, I was confronted by my tendency to read Jesus and the proclamation/coming of the Kingdom of God into the text. An example of this is 2:45, thinking Jesus is the rock. At the time of writing, I would argue this section was referring to the Maccabean revolt, or the growing messianic undercurrent in Jewish self-understanding. Whatever the case, that understanding did not prevail, and with time, we can state that this rock refers to Jesus. That, however, is only done by the fluidity of the text, allowing it to mean one thing at the time it was written and then be re-defined in a similar fashion later. An example of this redefining is Peter interpreting the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts back into the Joel text about visions and dreams and prophesying. This historical understanding guards against the text being primarily understood as foretelling of things to come. This is important because such interpretations lead to crazy predictions such as the rapture that supposedly occurred last May. The only aspect that is foretelling is the offer hope through a depiction of a spiritual reality. It is offered as a future hope yet in so doing it is made available to be realized as a present hope.
So how do you read Daniel? With great care and a lot of study. I think the starting point is to read it with a good commentary (something that is NOT dispensationalist). Or read it with Wikipedia open trying to understand the history that is being told. The difficulty in finding meaning, specifically with the visions of the second half of the book, is to understand the history to which they refer. Meaning then is derived from the perspective the stories are told from. What I have shown is that the history of living under oppressive empires is told from a perspective that offers hope. Hope that there will be an end to the oppression; hope that life will again have meaning, hope that Judea will stop being a pawn in global affairs, and hope for justice to come (12:9-10).
It is my understanding that the book of Daniel is trying to convey hope in order to spur on the reader/listener to resist dominating empires through trust in God. The book then means the same to us today, it is to us give hope that the world will not always be as horrible as it was at the time when the book of Daniel was written, or as horrible as we experience it now. In the first half of the book, there are stories about how to resist the empire by remaining truthful. These stories provoke trust in the power of God as they show he will enable the faithful to overcome the empire, just like Daniel and his friends did.
PS. Go find a copy of the Apocrpha and read the additions to the book of Daniel. “The Prayer of Azariah (Abednego) and the Song of the Three Jews”, it fits in the story of the fiery furnace. “Susanna” a story of wisdom, and “Bel and the Dragon”. All of which are great reads.
I really liked this article and I agree with most of what was said. The only point I would push back on is the biblical definition of prophecy you gave that in turn interpreted your interpretation of this passage:
ReplyDeleteFirst, Christian prophecy is best understood as proclamation. The vast majority of Hebrew prophecy and consequently Christian prophecy is the prophet proclaiming something to his/her current situation. It is a matter of forth-telling NOT foretelling the future. Think about Amos, he critiques the economics of his time - “selling the poor for a pair of sandals”, he does not tell what will occur two millennia in the future. The prophet’s task was to critique and teach the current population. The teachings are understood to be timeless in that they continue to teach the ethic or lesson that drives such critiques.
• Given this understanding of prophecy, one runs into the question of authorship. Was the book written in 535BC by Daniel, its namesake, or was it written in 165 BC at the time of Antiochus IV (Epiphanies) (11:21-32). Given the nature of Christian prophecy, I hold to the late date authorship. I believe the book was written/compiled at the time of the Abomination of Desolation (11:31), Antiochus Epiphanies sacrificing a pig to Zeus in the temple in Jerusalem. By taking a late date, one can understand Daniel to be largely a Jewish reflection on history and the acts of God in such a history.
You're right to say that Much of Christian prophecy is forth telling as opposed o fore telling - Prediction the future - BUT ITS FORE TELLING IS NOT EXCLUDED. Jesus told about future events,a prophet told paul in the furture that he would be chained and also in Acts its says a prophet predicted or fore told of serve famine that hit the land. Since Acts is not Apolopitc literature it must be interpreted in the genre it was written in which was an attempt at a true and orderly account at least by Luke's standards.
If thats the biblical perceptive, your take on Daniel being written AFTER these events have occurred needs to open itself up the possibility it could have been foretold and written down at a later date because your late date authorship rests in part on your definetion
Thanks for the push back. I never meant to say that ALL of Christian prophecy is forth-telling. I think there are some (but far fewer)examples of telling the future. I also think that sometimes a prophecy is BOTH, such as when I talk about re-interpreting the rock from the mountain as being Christ.
ReplyDeleteMy argument for a late date authorship here was based on the definition of Christian prophecy that I gave. However, I believe the argument for a late date is far more persuasive beyond this basic premise. I would argue based on the writing style, the connections within the book, the various points of view, redactional editions. That is, however, beyond the scope of my intent with this blog. But the far more basic question of what would be the purpose of foretelling the future to Jews in exile? Personally I have not been convinced by an answer to this. I think the intent of the author to give a theological understanding history seems much more plausible.