Personal critical theology on Daniel 7-9

This is derived from answers to three Quora questions, separately on Daniel 7, 8, and 9, requested by a John Bonham. (No, I didn't meet him down at the levee.)

Just above every other answer to the Daniel 7 question, which I was directly asked by him, were Religious Right nutters, with the same variety of answers to the fourth empire. Rome. European Union. USSR. UN. Et cetera. There were a couple of non-Religious Right nutters more nutters yet. I am adapting that answer and combining it with the other two.

First, critical theology has Daniel written sometime shortly after 164 BCE. The increasing inaccuracy of his "prophecy" about the fate of Antiochus IV is a lead-pipe cinch on that. Fundamentalists often dodge that by saying it's not about him, hence we can't say it's right or wrong.

The ten horns? Likely a reference to the Seleucid dynasty. If one counts Alexander the Great and the unnumbered Antiochus, nephew of Antiochus IV and son of Seleucus IV, one gets to 10.

Other descriptors in visions in both chapters 7 and 8 make clear it's the Selucids. The seventy "sevens" in Chapter 9 make this even more clear.

Since it's the Selucids, and we have a "vaticinium ex eventu," or prophecy after the fact, we can thus date the approximate writing of the book.

Why four kingdoms here and only two in Chapter 8? Why is the one animal Media-Persia combined in Chapter 8, but Media is kingdom two and Persia kingdom three in Chapter 7?

Simple.

Daniel actually has a kind of complex compositional history. Chapters 2-7 are in Aramaic and chapters 1 and 8-12 are in Hebrew. Wikipedia's piece on Daniel has more. WHY this is that way is still a riddle in critical theology. But, it seems likely that the author was borrowing from older sources in spots and there was an editing and redacting process involved.

Now, Daniel 7.

As Daniel was written during the Maccabean Revolt, that’s what the end of Chapter 7 was about — Maccabean-leaning Jews throwing off the yoke of the Seleucids. Not all Palestinian Jews were anti-Hellenization. There were ardent Hellenophiles, and people with various middle grounds. Per Wikipedia, it must be remembered this was a civil war as much as a revolt. More on that here.

It wasn't a prophecy about an unknown Jew coming along about 200 years later to be a spiritual Messiah rather than a princely leader, just as Isaiah 7 was not about an unknown Jew being born 740 years later. Prophecy meant FORTHtelling first, foretelling second. And, it had to be relevant to the people at hand. (Isaiah 7 is actually predicting the birth of Hezekiah in a couple years from the time of speaking.)

Now, Daniel 8.

The language about the end of the time and rebels against this last king matches well with fighting the fourth beast in Chapter 7, another indication that beast is NOT Rome, let alone anything later.

Finally, Daniel 9.

I referenced this article from Infidels on Quora in my Chapter 7 answer. It talks a lot about the 70 "weeks" so I link it here. But, I don't totally agree with it on the weeks. Here's my take, which requires more depth.

The seventy “sevens” have traditionally been understood as seventy seven-year periods. So, when exactly do they start? What about the different subgroupings? This is an issue still of some debate in scholarship.

If one notes the 62 sevens in the first group are 434 years, that may help. Nebuchadnezzar first took some Judahites into captivity in 605 BCE. And, 434 years later, 171 BCE, is when Onias III as high priest is killed, and when Antiochus IV Epiphanes consolidates his reign as Seleucid emperor, killing his nephew, also Antiochus, after letting him rule as co-emperor since 175, and yet another clue that this book is about the Maccabean revolt and no, not about Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, the Papacy, the UN or anything else.

So, that’s how I see the 62 “sevens.”

Then, the one “seven” gets you to 164 BCE and the seeming success of the Maccabean Revolt with the death of Antiochus IV.

Now, the seven “sevens.”

Why they’re listed after the seven sevens, I’m not sure.

They don’t fit going backward from 605; nothing earthshaking happened in 654. They don’t make sense coming after the single 7.

One solution, given the chiastic structure of much of Daniel, is to take them as a period within the 62 sevens. The full Babylonian captivity starts in 586. From there, it’s approximately 49 years to Cyrus’ edict of return. Infidels disagrees with me somewhat on this part of the issue in particular.

====

Now, should these be taken as literal weeks, first of all, rather than totally symbolic, since they're called 70 "sevens"? And how much does this connect to the historical accuracy or lack thereof of where Daniel makes historic statements, like "Darius the Mede"?

These are separate but intertwining issues.

First, on the overall historical accuracy of Daniel? It's not high, but why? Many people want to take him as just an idiot, kind of like Mark being an idiot about Syro-Phoenician geography and more. But others, noting the apocalyptic-mythopoeic nature of the book, say that Daniel "salted" some of his inaccuracies into the book to let readers know to read it semi-novelistically. The Infidels link has more.

I'm inclined to think these are more goofs rather than wink-wink nudge-nudge efforts. That said, Mark was writing about geography and just apparently didn't bother to get facts straight that were in his lifetime. The actual Shah Darius, that is, Darius the Great, vs "Darius the Mede," lived almost 350 years before Daniel was written. Even if parts of Daniel have an earlier core, none of it was likely written out before 300 BCE, still 200 years after the fact or more.

This issue interlinks partially with whether the "sevens" are symbolic or literal, and if literal, how accurate.

That said, re a commenter to my Daniel 9 post on Quora, EVERYBODY in the Biblical interpretation world not a fundamentalist or evangelical takes the single seven as literal, precisely because it fits the timetable of the Maccabean revolt.

So why not the 62 "sevens" and the seven "sevens"? Well, as I show, the 62 fit perfectly. Of course, when you recognize that, you have to say that the author of Daniel was apparently not a historical idiot after all.

One presumes that, just as kingly reign dates were kept, and are shown (albeit with some inaccuracies and some possible father-son dual reigns) in Kings and Chronicles, that a high priestly reign sheet would have been kept after the end of the monarchy. So, this wouldn't be that hard, and you say "Daniel" wasn't an idiot on all matters historical.

That still leaves the problem of that last seven "sevens." My answer is the best I can think of. Nobody claims Daniel was written 115 BCE, which would be required by placing them later — unless they're considered a stab at actual prophecy. The third alternative is taking them, and them only, as symbolic, a la a Jubilee cycle like in Leviticus.

Whether Daniel gets everything else historically correct or not, he portrays all his visions and all his folklore stories alike as being set within history. So, I think we need to take the 70 "sevens" that way and keep wrestling with the seven "sevens."

(Update: See LOTS more at this longform for just what Daniel, First Maccabees and to some extent Second Maccabees, presumably willfully and polemically, get wrong.)

====

For people not regular readers of this blog, I have a graduate divinity degree from a top-rate seminary, not a fly-by-night bible college. I know biblical Hebrew, biblical and classical Greek, and ecclesiastical and classical Latin.

And, a couple of notes for the skeptic-minded of various types and the Religious Right.

First, others occupied today's Israel / Palestine / west side of the Fertile Crescent / south Syrian appendage before the first Israelites. Remember that in the context of Daniel, and First and Second Maccabees, being hortatory works and not history. More on that from me here, in my piece on the true meaning of Hanukkah.

Second, while Revelation feeds on Daniel's imagery, no, they're not writing about the same things. In fact, the core of Revelation is probably non-Christian.