다니엘 시대논쟁

다니엘서를 둘러싼 소모적 논쟁. 75분을 168 BCE이 아니라는 논증으로 소모했다. 수업을 마친후 교수를 만났다: "논증은 잘들었다. 그렇다고 그 논증이 535 BCE 저작연대를 증명하는 것도 아니다."

내가 보유하고 있는 구약개론책을 다 뒤져보았다. 사실 '히브리' 성서로 접근하고 있기에, 성문서파트에 그것도 대부분 마지막에 위치하고 있다: All this shows that the book of Daniel as we have it must have come into existence between 168 and 164(Artur Weiser, the Old Testament: its formation and development 1968, 315); The date of the book can be dtermined quite exactly ... I any case, however, the author worked on his book for a considerable period, so that it must be dated generally in the period 167-164 B.C(Ernst Sellin and Georg Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament 1968, 477-8); Thus it is clear that Daniel is quite familiar with events connected with the life of Antiochus IV, but does not know of his death, which is presented only as an event in the future. We shall not go far wrong in dating the book between 168 and 164; this theory was already put forward by the neo-Platonist Porphyry in his anti-Christian polemic (J. Alberto Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament 1989, 477); It can be solidly concluded that the present form of the Book of Daniel was composed in the year 165 B.C.E. because of "the final events" which it announces as revelations to the seer Daniel. (Norman K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction 1985, 590); Daniel must be classified as a fictional tale rather than as a historical narrative ... [T]he author of Daniel professes to be concerned with "prospective" history. (Shemaryahu Talmon, "Daniel," in Robert Alter and Frank Kermode eds., The Literary Guide to the Bible 1987, 355); Probably, the author has drawn upon and adapted earlier materials. In any case, the book in its present form is fundamentally a unity, issued during Antiochus Epiphanes' persecution (probably about 165 B.C.E.) (Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament 1998, 562)

새천년이 되어도 입장은 변하지 않는다: But then the canon of scripture is not a single coherent theological document, but a collection of resources that may be helpful to different people on different occasions. ... The canon would be poorer if it were limited to whatever is universally valid. (J.J. Collins, "Apocalyptic Literature," in Leo G. Perdue ed., The Blackwell companion to the Hebrew Bible 2001, 446); Indeed, the entire Book of Daniel may conceivably have been intended to console as well as vindicate this very segment of second-century-B.C.E. Judean society. (Stephen L. Harris and Robert L. Platzner, the Old Testament: an Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 2003, 344); The evidence strongly suggests that the apocalypses were written around 165 B.C.E., ... This would make Daniel the prime candidate for the latest book of the Hebrew Bible. (Barry L. Bandstra, Reading the Old Testament 2004, 478); All these hypotheses take the gradual evolution of an original text as their point of departure, leaving behind the gragmentary hypothesis (the book consists of originally independent segments, eg., J.J. Collins 1993) and the unitary hypothesis (the book was written in its entirety by a Maccabeann author). ... The genesis of the final form of the book of Daniel in 165 BCE is more or less certain. (T.C. Vriezen and A.S. van der Woude, Ancient Israelite and Early Jewish Literature 2005, 480-1); These tales were collected and modified by the author of the book of Daniel in the second century BCE. ... These errors suggest that the book was written a considerable time after the events described, or they may be deliberate indications that it is not to be understood as historical. (Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 2006, 538-9); The Daniel stories, however, must be dated much later than the events which they describe ... [T]he date of composition should be placed towards the end of the third century BCE. (Alexader Rofe, Introdcution to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible 2009, 138, 141); In short, throughout the book of Daniel, internal evidence points to a date imbedded within the three year period (167-164 BCE) of the Seleucid persecution of the observant Jews. (W. Sibley Towner, "Daniel, Book of," NIB:2, 19); Thus apocalyptic rhetoric is here linked to a particular historical reality (167-164 BCE), so that apocalyptic faith is not in a vacuum, but concerns real people in real circumstances. (Walter Brueggemann and Tod Linafelt, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination 2012, 388); Daniel's purpose was to encourage Jewish warriors, led by the Hasmonean priestly family, in their efforts to overthrow Seleucid Syria's control of Judah and to re-establish an independent Jewish state with the holy Temple in Jerusalem at its center. The revolt broke out in late 167 BCE under the leadership of the Hasmonean priest Mattathias and his five sons. (Marvin A. Sweeney, TANAK: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible 2012, 449-50).

보수적인 입장은 어떠한가? 보유하고 있는것이 많지 않지만, Evidence regarding the date of the final form of Daniel is not clear-cut. A reasoned, andn reasonable, defense can be made of either an early or a late date. Acceptance of either is consonant with belief in the divine inspiration and authority of the book. (E.C. Lucas, "Daniel: Book of," in Mark J. Boda and J. Gordon McConville eds., Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets 2012, 120); I am interested in exploring how the book of Daniel was heard by Jews in the post-Maccabean period. ... The Maccabean dating of the book does not undercut the valitdity of its witness when it is properly understood. (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture 1979, 613, 618)

개인적으로, 다니엘서의 후대저작연대를 믿는다. 아, 역사를 초월한 신학을 만나고 싶다.