"The Book of Daniel is preserved in the 12-chapter Masoretic Text and in two longer Greek versions, the original Septuagint version, c. 100 BC, and the later Theodotion version from c. 2nd century AD."
See also https://brill.com/display/book/9789004443280/BP000015.xml
I have no doubt that concepts from Daniel 12 or similar thereto are reflected in the GNT.
Pg 279 - VI. Daniel The 00 text of ch. 12 is unlike the sections that we have considered previously because it has more textual differences, particularly additions, when compared to MT. These textual differences will be discussed initially under the rubric of Syntax.
There is no serious reason to doubt that chapter 12 was written in the BCE period: even one link you posted confirmed this point. Also see the link above and the tanner.org link does not seem to cast doubt on chapter 12 either.
I don't support this late date for Daniel, but think it was written earlier. However, even those who practice historical-criticism don't try to locate Daniel in the CE period.
"Every chapter of Daniel is represented in the eight manuscripts, except for Daniel 12. Yet this does not mean that the book lacked the final chapter at Qumran, since Dan 12:10 is quoted in fragments 1-3 ii 3 - 4 a of the Florilegium (4Q174), which explicitly tells us that it is written in the book of Daniel the Prophet."
See http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/51323/1/18.pdf
I am sure you appreciate the gnostic nature of the supposed quote of Daniel 12:10. It also has no linkage requirements to verses before and after. So, does it confirm the contents of an early chapter 12 of Daniel? Once one removes presuppositions.
Your assumptions are putting the cart before the horse and Deut 29:29 is talking about knowledge already attained, not the promise of knowledge never attained which is the hallmark of Gnosis writings - Like Paul's sacred secret.
It is not an assumption, but what Daniel and Deuteronomy say. There is no good reason to deny that Daniel as a whole was written in the BCE period. Much of Daniel is also mirrored in Revelation.
Granted, the Israelites had things already revealed to them, but not everything. In order to have more things revealed, they had to obey. To me, that's a non-starter. Tell me why Jehovah would reveal sacred things to unholy or wicked people.
What other writing in the DSS has 8 witnesses? What is your benchmark for calling it unreasonable? Nearly every other chapter has more than one witness.
My point about the DSS is that we don't have everything that was written in those scrolls and we should not expect to have every vestige of scripture in the scrolls. They're a subset of the Jewish writings and other books are also incomplete in the DSS collection. Furthermore, the book of Daniel did not originate with the DSS.
I'm not going to argue about the things revealed point, but I thought you knew that the things revealed were once things concealed. Jehovah gradually reveals the things concealed.
I am not talking about the verse level and I have already demonstrated that from the Isaiah witnesses, we have something of every chapter, and not just a verse. Your argument does not hold.
This is the Marcion Luke Acts issue all over again. These references tell us nothing that ties them together and even if something does it still does not prove chapter 12 as extant. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2014%3A14%2CEzekiel%2014%3A20%2CEzekiel%2028%3A3&version=NIV
What about the book of Esther? Is it in the DSS? What about the fact that much of the DSS is fragmentary, so that it's hard to tell how some of the scrolls should read?
And you think the book of Daniel did not exist until the DSS? Both the Hebrew Bible and the LXX were written before the DSS. You're well aware of the late date assigned for Daniel, which would place it around 167 BCE. I don't have direct testimony for that date or earlier for Daniel, but you don't have evidence that it originated with the DSS either. Please also tell me which scholar thinks Daniel started with the DSS.
Why you want to exclude chapter 12 of Daniel because the chapter doesn't appear in the DSS mystifies me. That is not a good reason and there is no reason to exclude Daniel from the LXX which was completed before the CE period and likely, before the DSS. And I think you're wrong about the whole Marcion issue too.
" Both the Hebrew Bible and the LXX were written before the DSS." - your evidence please? Especially since the original definition of the LXX in tradition was NOT the whole Tanakh.
"Taylor brings to bear formidable erudition, and works out her argument with impressive thoroughness. She follows Philo and Josephus in seeing the Essenes not as a sect but as one of the three major movements in Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period – the other two are the Pharisees and the Sadducees. As she summarises Philo’s view, which she largely embraces: ‘The Essenes were by no means a small, marginal, alienated group living on the fringes of Jewish society, or one that was not representative of the whole; they were the very opposite. The Essenes were among the most exemplary representatives of the best in all of Judaism.’ The conclusion is repeated a dozen or more times, repetition being the defect of her virtue of thoroughness."
I don't have manuscript proof for my position, if that's what you want, but there are book-length works that discuss the LXX. From what I've read in those works, the LXX was completed circa 150 BCE.
Regardless of that point, I would submit that Daniel appeared even earlier in the Hebrew Bible although we don't have manuscript evidence for that either.
The "LXX" tanakh is a construct. Sure, many used greek translations of Hebrew scriptures but this use of "LXX" as a label for a uniform set of translations is misleading and baseless apart from a legend of budious origin. The LXX as most understand is 4th century CE. I truly think that most Christians today including scholars under estimate the ability of people to propagandise in the early centuries of or common era, for purposes of rulership.
h. "The Canon in the Jewish Diaspora: THE PROLOGUE OF JESUS BEN SIRACH [132 BC]: In connection with the question of the development of the Jewish canon, reference is repeatedly made to the Prologue by the author’s grandson, who was also the translator of Sirach. The author speaks three times of a threefold division of the Jewish Scriptures. The very first sentence reads: "Whereas many great teachings have been given to us through the law, the prophets, and the other [writings] that followed them … (διὰ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατʼ αὐτοὺς ἠκολουθηκότων)." The next references occur in the description of the activity of his grandfather, who "devote[d] himself especially to the reading of the law and the prophets and the other books of our fathers (ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἑαυτὸν δοὺς εὶς τε τὴν τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων ἀνάγνωσιν)." The final reference occurs after he has mentioned the difference between the Hebrew original and the imperfect translation: "Not only this [work], but even the law itself, the prophecies and the rest of the books differ not a little if read in the original (ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων)." Clearly, the grandson, who himself emigrated from Palestine to Egypt in the year 132, reproduces here the Hebrew concept of canon, although we do not know exactly which books he placed among ‘the other books’. His threefold repetition and the concluding statement that he had published his book for those ‘abroad who are eager to learn’, who ‘desire to lead a life according to the law’, suggest that he regarded his grandfather’s work no more as ‘canonical’ but as a type of hortatory introduction to a life according to the ‘law, the prophets, and the other books’. He also emphasizes the difference between the original Hebrew and the Greek text and the difficulty of the translation. In his opinion, the pious Jewish lifestyle was apparently no longer to be taken for granted in Jewish Alexandria; therefore he feels the effort of translating the work is necessary. A review of the work, and especially of the writings employed in the Praise of the Fathers in Sirach 44:1–50:24, demonstrates that the grandfather knew or cited all the books of the Hebrew canon except Ruth, Canticles, Esther and Daniel. He could not have known Daniel, because it came into existence only later. Sirach 38:34c–39:1, the self-portrait of the scholar Ben Sirach, already essentially anticipates the division in the prologue: … he who devotes himself to the study of the law of the Most High will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and will be concerned with prophecies; he will preserve the discourse of notable men and penetrate the subtleties of parables; he will seek out the hidden meanings of proverbs … [This is followed in 39:6 by mention of] ‘words of wisdom’ and ‘thanksgiving to the Lord in prayer’. This statement distinguishes between law, prophets, historical narrative, wisdom books and hymnic poetry. Thus grandfather and grandson already tell us relatively much about the formation of the ‘Holy Scriptures’ in the motherland during the second century, but nothing about what was recognized as ‘canonical’ in Alexandria. Instead, the Jews in the Diaspora required special instruction on this point. The ‘prophets’ in the prologue may—as occurred later in the Hebrew canon—encompass both historical and prophetic books in the sense of the נביאים הראשונים or האחרונים, respectively. References to the ‘others that followed’—’other fathers’ or ‘other books’ respectively—betray an uncertainty that makes it clear that this collection of documents was by no means definitely delimited even in the grandson’s time." (The Septuagint as Christian scripture: its prehistory and the problem of its canon, M. Hengel, R. Deines, M. E Biddle, p96, 2002 AD)
I might post a separate thread about the LXX, but I realize the distinction between OG and LXX, but just use the latter designation for convenience.
I've usually read that the Septuagint started to be produced circa 280 BCE and was finished circa 185/180 BCE. Either way, it seems that writers alluded to the Septuagint before the CE period or it's sometimes quoted in the GNT.
My experience with OT studies has been that most scholars working now question almost everything about how a work originated. Hence, the late date for Daniel, etc.
That 150BCE is something parroted from one work to another but I would love to know where it originated and what data supports it because I sure have not found any yet. Please do a thread on this, I would love to learn more and my resources on this might be limited at the moment.
I will see if there is a need to construct a thread and consider whether anything new can be said about this subject. I doubt that any MS evidence will support the date, 150 CE, but I coulld be wrong about that. But we don't have MSS for a lot of things.
Btw, you posted information to another thread that I think was meant for this one.
"The translations of the Prophets and Writings were completed by the middle of the first century B.C.E. The grandson of Ben Sira knew the translation of the Prophets and part of the Writings in 132 or 116 B.C.E. according to different computations of the date of his Greek translation of Ben Sira. Origin. The Jewish origin of the LXX is described in the Epistle of Aristeas, rabbinic literature, and various additional sources. Its Jewish nature is reflected in its terminology and exegesis. However, it was soon recognized that the LXX often differed from the Hebrew text that was current in Palestine from the second-first centuries B.C.E. onwards and that was later to become the Masoretic Text."
Yes I mis posted again but it get laborious typing everything in again, especially when my posts don't stick. Rabbinic literature has its own level of self promotion and propaganda, but I will look into it. As for the Epistle of Aristeas It has no real provenance and may are recognizing that, as per a paper that I posted some time ago, but to add to that see- https://www.jstor.org/stable/90025846#:~:text=According%20to%20Grafton%2C%20Aristeas%20is,%2C%203%20vols.%2C%20ed.
The text of the Septuagint is contained in a few early, but not necessarily reliable, manuscripts. The best known of these are the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (S), both dating from the 4th century ce, and the Codex Alexandrinus (A) from the 5th century. There are also numerous earlier papyrus fragments and many later manuscripts. The first printed copy of the Septuagint was in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514–22).
The earliest extra-biblical references to the Book of Daniel are relatively late compared to the time period the book is set in. Here are some key early references:
1. Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd century BCE) Fragments of the Book of Daniel were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. These manuscripts date to the late 2nd century BCE. This is the earliest manuscript evidence we have of the text, showing that Daniel was considered important in Jewish communities by this time. Notably, some of the Aramaic and Hebrew texts from Daniel found at Qumran suggest the book was widely circulated.
2. 1 Maccabees (2nd century BCE) While the Book of Daniel is not directly cited, the story of the Maccabean revolt (167-160 BCE) shares thematic connections with Daniel, particularly in terms of resistance to foreign rule and religious persecution. The Maccabean literature shows familiarity with Daniel’s themes of faithful endurance under persecution, which may suggest indirect reference to the book's influence during the period....
......5. Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Works (2nd century BCE - 1st century CE) Several works in the Jewish Pseudepigrapha show familiarity with the ideas in Daniel. For example, the Book of Enoch and 4 Ezra contain apocalyptic visions that reflect the eschatological themes in Daniel. These writings likely indicate that Daniel’s apocalyptic worldview was influential in Jewish thought around the same period. - ***FALSE assumption of priority***
6. Rabbinic Literature (post-2nd century CE) Rabbinic texts like the Talmud (3rd-5th centuries CE) also mention Daniel and interpret parts of the book, particularly its prophecies. Daniel is not considered a prophet in the same way as Isaiah or Jeremiah by some rabbinic sources, but his visions are still treated as significant.
In summary, the earliest extra-biblical references to Daniel come from the 2nd century BCE, with more explicit references in the 1st century BCE through 1st century CE. These references underscore the growing importance of Daniel within both Jewish and Christian traditions during this period.
early rabbinic references to the LXX and its history ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Early rabbinic references to the Septuagint (LXX) — the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible — reflect a complex relationship with the text. The Septuagint originated in the Jewish community of Alexandria, Egypt, in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, but by the time of the early rabbinic period (1st-5th centuries CE), it was viewed with increasing suspicion and criticism in Jewish circles.
Here are some key early rabbinic references and their views on the LXX:
1. The Story of the Seventy Translators (Tosefta, Megillah 3:33; b. Megillah 9a; Philo and Josephus) The rabbinic tradition preserves a version of the origin of the LXX in connection with King Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (r. 285–246 BCE). According to the Talmudic accounts, Ptolemy asked for a Greek translation of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). Seventy or seventy-two Jewish elders were chosen to translate the Torah into Greek, a miraculous event where all of them independently produced identical translations.
Tosefta Megillah 3:33: This version emphasizes the miraculous nature of the translation and God's hand in ensuring the text was faithfully rendered into Greek. However, the account subtly reflects a tension between the translation and the Hebrew original.
b. Megillah 9a: This Babylonian Talmudic text provides a more critical view, mentioning certain changes the translators made to avoid misunderstanding by the Greeks. For example, they altered passages to avoid anthropomorphisms of God or political sensitivities (like translating "man" in place of "Israel"). The narrative suggests concern that the Greek translation was not perfectly faithful to the Hebrew text.
Philo of Alexandria (early 1st century CE) and Josephus (1st century CE) also recount this story. Philo praises the translation highly, reflecting the Greek-speaking Jewish community's pride in the LXX, while Josephus echoes this positive assessment in Antiquities (12.2.1).
I wont bother posting the rest on the negative attitude of the sources toward it.
This thread was never really about the age of Daniel, but about the resurrection. However, what chat GPT says is standard liberal scholarly fare. On the other hand, the New American commentary for the book of Daniel makes an extended case that Daniel was written earlier than the second century BCE. See also https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_daniel.html
"Although Jewish believers revered the book, interestingly there are no Targums on Daniel. 37 " - Rhodes, “Daniel,” 437.
Regarding LXX - "(probably third century B.C. but no later than ca. 130 B.C)" repeated three times in this work but sadly not one foot note reference to back it up.
"The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 and subsequent discoveries in the years that followed revolutionized the studies of the text, canon, and theology of the books of the Bible. Fragments and quotations from Daniel's book have come from caves one, four, and six. These fragments attest the presence of all twelve canonical chapters in the library at Qumran. In fact, the material evidence indicates the presence of no less than eight copies of Daniel's book there."
Stefanovic, Zdravko. Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise: Commentary on the Book of Daniel, page 39-40.
Look, unless something new has been found recently I know the fragments of the DSS, some years ago I even paid about £400 on a book that contains plates of all the unpublished fragment of the Judean desert finds. There are no fragments of chapter 12.
Well, a quote from Daniel 12:10 does appear though, as the commentary says. See also https://ojs.reformedjournals.co.za/ngtt/article/view/1222/1715
But it would not bother me if nothing from chapter 12 appeared since Daniel was likely written before the DSS were produced. Besides the LXX, which we've discussed, there is the proto-Masoretic text that contained Daniel.
DSS Daniel - 8 scrolls with extracts from every chapter except 12
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's the DSS, but Wiki says:
ReplyDelete"The Book of Daniel is preserved in the 12-chapter Masoretic Text and in two longer Greek versions, the original Septuagint version, c. 100 BC, and the later Theodotion version from c. 2nd century AD."
See also https://brill.com/display/book/9789004443280/BP000015.xml
I have no doubt that concepts from Daniel 12 or similar thereto are reflected in the GNT.
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/divided-monarchy/3193-new-light-on-the-book-of-daniel-from-the-dead-sea-scrolls
ReplyDeleteYou have a BCE witness in Greek to chapter 12?
ReplyDeletePg 279 - VI. Daniel The 00 text of ch. 12 is unlike the sections that we have considered previously because it has more textual differences, particularly additions, when compared to MT. These textual differences will be discussed initially under the rubric of Syntax.
ReplyDeletehttps://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9640633.pdf
A test in flux?
https://www.proquest.com/openview/d5ac94600e7db1185f7ca0979303d7c0/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
ReplyDelete"The oldest Greek language copy of Daniel is Papyrus 967, dated to 3rd century CE."
ReplyDeletehttps://paultanner.org/English%20Docs/Daniel/Introductory/App%20C%20-%20Texts%20Versions.pdf
ReplyDeleteApp.C.3
https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/58706/1/Bledsoe_Relationship.pdf
ReplyDeleteThere is no serious reason to doubt that chapter 12 was written in the BCE period: even one link you posted confirmed this point. Also see the link above and the tanner.org link does not seem to cast doubt on chapter 12 either.
Keep in mind that MS do wear out :-)
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thetorah.com/article/the-valley-of-dry-bones-and-the-resurrection-of-the-dead
ReplyDeleteI don't support this late date for Daniel, but think it was written earlier. However, even those who practice historical-criticism don't try to locate Daniel in the CE period.
"Every chapter of Daniel is represented in the eight manuscripts, except for Daniel 12. Yet this does not mean that the book lacked the final chapter at Qumran, since Dan 12:10 is quoted in fragments 1-3 ii 3 - 4 a of the Florilegium (4Q174), which explicitly tells us that it is written in the book of Daniel the
ReplyDeleteProphet."
See http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/51323/1/18.pdf
https://intertextual.bible/book/4q174/chapter/1
ReplyDeleteI am sure you appreciate the gnostic nature of the supposed quote of Daniel 12:10. It also has no linkage requirements to verses before and after. So, does it confirm the contents of an early chapter 12 of Daniel? Once one removes presuppositions.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell at the moment, THE SIBYLLINE ORACLES only use Daniel 7 & 11.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I don't find the quote to be Gnostic. Similar statements are made in other parts of Daniel and other Bible books.
ReplyDelete"Similar statements are made in other parts of Daniel and other Bible books." In the OT?
ReplyDeleteI was thinking of Daniel 11 and Deuteronomy 29:29.
ReplyDeleteYour assumptions are putting the cart before the horse and Deut 29:29 is talking about knowledge already attained, not the promise of knowledge never attained which is the hallmark of Gnosis writings - Like Paul's sacred secret.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.tyndalebulletin.org/article/30242-early-traces-of-the-book-of-daniel.pdf
Even these don't demonstrate Daniel 12 & reference to 1st Enoch is highly dubious in any case.
It is not an assumption, but what Daniel and Deuteronomy say. There is no good reason to deny that Daniel as a whole was written in the BCE period. Much of Daniel is also mirrored in Revelation.
ReplyDeleteGranted, the Israelites had things already revealed to them, but not everything. In order to have more things revealed, they had to obey. To me, that's a non-starter. Tell me why Jehovah would reveal sacred things to unholy or wicked people.
It's not reasonable to expect that one would find all of Daniel amongst the DSS.
ReplyDeleteWhat other writing in the DSS has 8 witnesses? What is your benchmark for calling it unreasonable? Nearly every other chapter has more than one witness.
ReplyDeleteMy point about the DSS is that we don't have everything that was written in those scrolls and we should not expect to have every vestige of scripture in the scrolls. They're a subset of the Jewish writings and other books are also incomplete in the DSS collection. Furthermore, the book of Daniel did not originate with the DSS.
DeleteI'm not going to argue about the things revealed point, but I thought you knew that the things revealed were once things concealed. Jehovah gradually reveals the things concealed.
No, you are clearly wrong. In Deut there is no claim that the secret things will be revealed. They are not ours to know but the others are revealed.
ReplyDeletehttps://dssenglishbible.com/daniel.htm
ReplyDeleteGaps? - https://dssenglishbible.com/Isaiah.htm
ReplyDeleteI am not talking about the verse level and I have already demonstrated that from the Isaiah witnesses, we have something of every chapter, and not just a verse. Your argument does not hold.
ReplyDelete"Furthermore, the book of Daniel did not originate with the DSS." - your evidence please?
ReplyDeleteThis is the Marcion Luke Acts issue all over again. These references tell us nothing that ties them together and even if something does it still does not prove chapter 12 as extant. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2014%3A14%2CEzekiel%2014%3A20%2CEzekiel%2028%3A3&version=NIV
ReplyDeleteMaybe Solomon was not the only gifted son of Solomon ? - https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_chronicles/3-1.htm
ReplyDeleteWhat about the book of Esther? Is it in the DSS? What about the fact that much of the DSS is fragmentary, so that it's hard to tell how some of the scrolls should read?
ReplyDeleteAnd you think the book of Daniel did not exist until the DSS? Both the Hebrew Bible and the LXX were written before the DSS. You're well aware of the late date assigned for Daniel, which would place it around 167 BCE. I don't have direct testimony for that date or earlier for Daniel, but you don't have evidence that it originated with the DSS either. Please also tell me which scholar thinks Daniel started with the DSS.
Why you want to exclude chapter 12 of Daniel because the chapter doesn't appear in the DSS mystifies me. That is not a good reason and there is no reason to exclude Daniel from the LXX which was completed before the CE period and likely, before the DSS. And I think you're wrong about the whole Marcion issue too.
ReplyDelete" Both the Hebrew Bible and the LXX were written before the DSS." - your evidence please? Especially since the original definition of the LXX in tradition was NOT the whole Tanakh.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n17/robert-alter/where-s-esther
ReplyDelete"Taylor brings to bear formidable erudition, and works out her argument with impressive thoroughness. She follows Philo and Josephus in seeing the Essenes not as a sect but as one of the three major movements in Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period – the other two are the Pharisees and the Sadducees. As she summarises Philo’s view, which she largely embraces: ‘The Essenes were by no means a small, marginal, alienated group living on the fringes of Jewish society, or one that was not representative of the whole; they were the very opposite. The Essenes were among the most exemplary representatives of the best in all of Judaism.’ The conclusion is repeated a dozen or more times, repetition being the defect of her virtue of thoroughness."
I don't have manuscript proof for my position, if that's what you want, but there are book-length works that discuss the LXX. From what I've read in those works, the LXX was completed circa 150 BCE.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of that point, I would submit that Daniel appeared even earlier in the Hebrew Bible although we don't have manuscript evidence for that either.
ReplyDeleteThe "LXX" tanakh is a construct. Sure, many used greek translations of Hebrew scriptures but this use of "LXX" as a label for a uniform set of translations is misleading and baseless apart from a legend of budious origin. The LXX as most understand is 4th century CE. I truly think that most Christians today including scholars under estimate the ability of people to propagandise in the early centuries of or common era, for purposes of rulership.
ReplyDeleteh. "The Canon in the Jewish Diaspora: THE PROLOGUE OF JESUS BEN SIRACH [132 BC]: In connection with the question of the development of the Jewish canon, reference is repeatedly made to the Prologue by the author’s grandson, who was also the translator of Sirach. The author speaks three times of a threefold division of the Jewish Scriptures. The very first sentence reads: "Whereas many great teachings have been given to us through the law, the prophets, and the other [writings] that followed them … (διὰ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατʼ αὐτοὺς ἠκολουθηκότων)." The next references occur in the description of the activity of his grandfather, who "devote[d] himself especially to the reading of the law and the prophets and the other books of our fathers (ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἑαυτὸν δοὺς εὶς τε τὴν τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων ἀνάγνωσιν)." The final reference occurs after he has mentioned the difference between the Hebrew original and the imperfect translation: "Not only this [work], but even the law itself, the prophecies and the rest of the books differ not a little if read in the original (ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων)." Clearly, the grandson, who himself emigrated from Palestine to Egypt in the year 132, reproduces here the Hebrew concept of canon, although we do not know exactly which books he placed among ‘the other books’. His threefold repetition and the concluding statement that he had published his book for those ‘abroad who are eager to learn’, who ‘desire to lead a life according to the law’, suggest that he regarded his grandfather’s work no more as ‘canonical’ but as a type of hortatory introduction to a life according to the ‘law, the prophets, and the other books’. He also emphasizes the difference between the original Hebrew and the Greek text and the difficulty of the translation. In his opinion, the pious Jewish lifestyle was apparently no longer to be taken for granted in Jewish Alexandria; therefore he feels the effort of translating the work is necessary. A review of the work, and especially of the writings employed in the Praise of the Fathers in Sirach 44:1–50:24, demonstrates that the grandfather knew or cited all the books of the Hebrew canon except Ruth, Canticles, Esther and Daniel. He could not have known Daniel, because it came into existence only later. Sirach 38:34c–39:1, the self-portrait of the scholar Ben Sirach, already essentially anticipates the division in the prologue: … he who devotes himself to the study of the law of the Most High will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and will be concerned with prophecies; he will preserve the discourse of notable men and penetrate the subtleties of parables; he will seek out the hidden meanings of proverbs … [This is followed in 39:6 by mention of] ‘words of wisdom’ and ‘thanksgiving to the Lord in prayer’. This statement distinguishes between law, prophets, historical narrative, wisdom books and hymnic poetry. Thus grandfather and grandson already tell us relatively much about the formation of the ‘Holy Scriptures’ in the motherland during the second century, but nothing about what was recognized as ‘canonical’ in Alexandria. Instead, the Jews in the Diaspora required special instruction on this point. The ‘prophets’ in the prologue may—as occurred later in the Hebrew canon—encompass both historical and prophetic books in the sense of the נביאים הראשונים or האחרונים, respectively. References to the ‘others that followed’—’other fathers’ or ‘other books’ respectively—betray an uncertainty that makes it clear that this collection of documents was by no means definitely delimited even in the grandson’s time." (The Septuagint as Christian scripture: its prehistory and the problem of its canon, M. Hengel, R. Deines, M. E Biddle, p96, 2002 AD)
ReplyDeleteI might post a separate thread about the LXX, but I realize the distinction between OG and LXX, but just use the latter designation for convenience.
ReplyDeleteI've usually read that the Septuagint started to be produced circa 280 BCE and was finished circa 185/180 BCE. Either way, it seems that writers alluded to the Septuagint before the CE period or it's sometimes quoted in the GNT.
My experience with OT studies has been that most scholars working now question almost everything about how a work originated. Hence, the late date for Daniel, etc.
That 150BCE is something parroted from one work to another but I would love to know where it originated and what data supports it because I sure have not found any yet. Please do a thread on this, I would love to learn more and my resources on this might be limited at the moment.
ReplyDeleteI will see if there is a need to construct a thread and consider whether anything new can be said about this subject. I doubt that any MS evidence will support the date, 150 CE, but I coulld be wrong about that. But we don't have MSS for a lot of things.
ReplyDeleteBtw, you posted information to another thread that I think was meant for this one.
From E. Tov:
ReplyDelete"The translations of the Prophets and Writings were completed by the middle of the first century B.C.E. The grandson of Ben
Sira knew the translation of the Prophets and part of the Writings in 132 or 116 B.C.E. according to different computations of the date of his Greek translation of Ben Sira.
Origin. The Jewish origin of the LXX is described in the Epistle of Aristeas, rabbinic literature, and various additional sources. Its Jewish nature is reflected in its terminology and exegesis. However, it was soon recognized that the LXX often differed from the Hebrew text that was current in Palestine from the second-first centuries B.C.E. onwards and that was later to become the Masoretic Text."
http://www.emanueltov.info/docs/varia/202.lxx.intro.short.varia.pdf?v=1.0
Yes I mis posted again but it get laborious typing everything in again, especially when my posts don't stick. Rabbinic literature has its own level of self promotion and propaganda, but I will look into it. As for the Epistle of Aristeas It has no real provenance and may are recognizing that, as per a paper that I posted some time ago, but to add to that see- https://www.jstor.org/stable/90025846#:~:text=According%20to%20Grafton%2C%20Aristeas%20is,%2C%203%20vols.%2C%20ed.
ReplyDeleteThe text of the Septuagint is contained in a few early, but not necessarily reliable, manuscripts. The best known of these are the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (S), both dating from the 4th century ce, and the Codex Alexandrinus (A) from the 5th century. There are also numerous earlier papyrus fragments and many later manuscripts. The first printed copy of the Septuagint was in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514–22).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint
ChatGPT -
ReplyDeleteThe earliest extra-biblical references to the Book of Daniel are relatively late compared to the time period the book is set in. Here are some key early references:
1. Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd century BCE)
Fragments of the Book of Daniel were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. These manuscripts date to the late 2nd century BCE. This is the earliest manuscript evidence we have of the text, showing that Daniel was considered important in Jewish communities by this time. Notably, some of the Aramaic and Hebrew texts from Daniel found at Qumran suggest the book was widely circulated.
2. 1 Maccabees (2nd century BCE)
While the Book of Daniel is not directly cited, the story of the Maccabean revolt (167-160 BCE) shares thematic connections with Daniel, particularly in terms of resistance to foreign rule and religious persecution. The Maccabean literature shows familiarity with Daniel’s themes of faithful endurance under persecution, which may suggest indirect reference to the book's influence during the period....
......5. Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Works (2nd century BCE - 1st century CE)
Several works in the Jewish Pseudepigrapha show familiarity with the ideas in Daniel. For example, the Book of Enoch and 4 Ezra contain apocalyptic visions that reflect the eschatological themes in Daniel. These writings likely indicate that Daniel’s apocalyptic worldview was influential in Jewish thought around the same period. - ***FALSE assumption of priority***
6. Rabbinic Literature (post-2nd century CE)
Rabbinic texts like the Talmud (3rd-5th centuries CE) also mention Daniel and interpret parts of the book, particularly its prophecies. Daniel is not considered a prophet in the same way as Isaiah or Jeremiah by some rabbinic sources, but his visions are still treated as significant.
In summary, the earliest extra-biblical references to Daniel come from the 2nd century BCE, with more explicit references in the 1st century BCE through 1st century CE. These references underscore the growing importance of Daniel within both Jewish and Christian traditions during this period.
early rabbinic references to the LXX and its history
ReplyDeleteChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Early rabbinic references to the Septuagint (LXX) — the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible — reflect a complex relationship with the text. The Septuagint originated in the Jewish community of Alexandria, Egypt, in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, but by the time of the early rabbinic period (1st-5th centuries CE), it was viewed with increasing suspicion and criticism in Jewish circles.
Here are some key early rabbinic references and their views on the LXX:
1. The Story of the Seventy Translators (Tosefta, Megillah 3:33; b. Megillah 9a; Philo and Josephus)
The rabbinic tradition preserves a version of the origin of the LXX in connection with King Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (r. 285–246 BCE). According to the Talmudic accounts, Ptolemy asked for a Greek translation of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). Seventy or seventy-two Jewish elders were chosen to translate the Torah into Greek, a miraculous event where all of them independently produced identical translations.
Tosefta Megillah 3:33: This version emphasizes the miraculous nature of the translation and God's hand in ensuring the text was faithfully rendered into Greek. However, the account subtly reflects a tension between the translation and the Hebrew original.
b. Megillah 9a: This Babylonian Talmudic text provides a more critical view, mentioning certain changes the translators made to avoid misunderstanding by the Greeks. For example, they altered passages to avoid anthropomorphisms of God or political sensitivities (like translating "man" in place of "Israel"). The narrative suggests concern that the Greek translation was not perfectly faithful to the Hebrew text.
Philo of Alexandria (early 1st century CE) and Josephus (1st century CE) also recount this story. Philo praises the translation highly, reflecting the Greek-speaking Jewish community's pride in the LXX, while Josephus echoes this positive assessment in Antiquities (12.2.1).
I wont bother posting the rest on the negative attitude of the sources toward it.
This thread was never really about the age of Daniel, but about the resurrection. However, what chat GPT says is standard liberal scholarly fare. On the other hand, the New American commentary for the book of Daniel makes an extended case that Daniel was written earlier than the second century BCE. See also https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_daniel.html
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mabts.edu/directory/miller-steve/
ReplyDeletehttps://bestcommentaries.com/book/3601/
"Although Jewish believers revered the book, interestingly there are no
Targums on Daniel. 37
" - Rhodes, “Daniel,” 437.
Regarding LXX - "(probably third century B.C. but no later than ca. 130 B.C)" repeated three times in this work but sadly not one foot note reference to back it up.
That work does not even dain to mention the fact that Chapter 12 is missing from the DSS witnesses. You can keep that commentary.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you would like this commentary:
ReplyDelete"The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 and subsequent discoveries in the years that followed revolutionized the studies of the text, canon, and theology
of the books of the Bible. Fragments and quotations from Daniel's book have come from caves one, four, and six. These fragments attest the presence of all twelve canonical chapters in the library at Qumran. In fact, the material evidence indicates the presence of no less than eight copies of Daniel's book there."
Stefanovic, Zdravko. Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise: Commentary on the Book of Daniel, page 39-40.
Look, unless something new has been found recently I know the fragments of the DSS, some years ago I even paid about £400 on a book that contains plates of all the unpublished fragment of the Judean desert finds. There are no fragments of chapter 12.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/archaeologists-biblical-scholars-works/ancient-scribe-links-qumran-scrolls-to-masada/
ReplyDeletehttps://www.schoyencollection.com/bible-collection-foreword/hebrew-aramaic-bible/daniel-b-dead-sea-scroll-ms-1926-4
ReplyDeleteWell, a quote from Daniel 12:10 does appear though, as the commentary says. See also https://ojs.reformedjournals.co.za/ngtt/article/view/1222/1715
ReplyDeleteBut it would not bother me if nothing from chapter 12 appeared since Daniel was likely written before the DSS were produced. Besides the LXX, which we've discussed, there is the proto-Masoretic text that contained Daniel.