[This article is post #4 of a multi-post review of Richard Bauckham’s book “Son of Man”: Volume 1: Early Jewish Literature. Click here to go to post #1.]
Was Daniel Written in 6th or 2nd Century BCE?
Most modern scholars of the Old Testament have strongly asserted that the apocalyptic book of Daniel—which claims to have been written in the 6th century BCE and purports to present much prediction about the future—was written in the 2nd century BCE, during the Maccabean era, as history rather than prophecy. Yet the author of the book, whose name was Daniel, claims he lived in the Babylonian Captivity (=Exile) of the 6th century BCE. He says he was taken captive in his youth by Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar’s military forces to live the rest of his life in the Babylonian Empire (Daniel 1.1-7).
In Richard Bauckham’s book, “Son of Man”: Volume 1: Early Jewish Literature, he explains concerning the Jews of antiquity (p. 135), “Ancient interpreters of Daniel” believed “the whole book was written by the historical Daniel in the period of the Babylonian and Persian Empires…. They did not treat the events of the crisis in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes”—a Syrian king who lived in the 2nd century BCE and who ignited the Jewish Maccabean revolt against him and his reign—“as key to understanding most of Daniel’s prophecies.” And neither do I. I believe the book of Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE as its author Daniel claims.
Porphyry Said Daniel is History, Not Prophecy
A change about this occurred centuries later, during the 3rd century CE. The leading philosopher of the Hellenistic world, a Gentile atheist and an anti-Christian named Porphyry, wrote a book alleging that Daniel was written during the Maccabean era as history rather than prophecy. After that, most Gentile scholars of Daniel, including some Jews, accepted this skeptical view of the book of Daniel. Many of them did not think the God of the Jews could have informed Daniel of such amazing predictions about the future, especially in Daniel 2 and 7, that would have involved the consecutive empires of the Mediterranean world following the Babylonian Empire. They were the Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, and the Roman Empire.
Bauckham informs (p. 142), “Among the books of the Jewish scriptures, the book of Daniel is unusual in that we have the complete texts of two Greek versions, known as the Old Greek [OG] and Theodotion.” The latter refers to the name of a prominent scholar who also translated Daniel into Greek. Strangely, the book of Daniel was written in two languages: Daniel 1—2.4a was written in Hebrew; Daniel 2.4b—7.28 was written in Aramaic, a sister language of Hebrew which was the language of the Babylonians; and Daniel 8—12 was written in Hebrew. There has been much scholarly discussion, with no consensus, about why these two different languages.
“One Like a Son of Man” in Daniel 7.13
Bauckham says of the Son of Man text in Daniel 7.13 (pp. 153-54), “The interest scholars have shown in OG-Daniel’s version of this verse is of course closely related to the attempt to reconstruct a Son of Man tradition in which the figure in Daniel 7:13 was understood as a heavenly or even divine figure, closely related to God.” Bauckham then cites various opinions of scholars about this. For instance, he says (p. 156) Enoch specialist Loren Stuckenbruck (with whom I communicated via email just over a year ago) says the critical Greek phrase about the Son of Man should be rendered “one like a son of man,” which I prefer even though I’m certainly no such specialist. Bauckham disagrees, rendering it “one like an ancient of days.” Some scholars even render the Son of Man “as the Ancient of Days, thus nullifying the concept of two separate individuals. In this case, most scholars cite the original Aramaic original in the Masoretic Text as preferable since it clearly presents two separate individuals: the Son of Man and the Ancient of Days, who is God.
God Gives the Son of Man Authority to Judge
Bauckham further relates concerning the Son of Man in Daniel 7.13 in both Greek versions (p. 163), “‘Royal authority’ is given to the ‘one like a son of man’ by (it is implied) the Ancient of Days. It does not belong to him inherently.” Since Bauckham and I believe the Son of Man in Daniel 7.13 is Jesus of Nazareth, as most Christian Bible students do, this coincides with what Jesus claimed of himself when he was accused by his Jewish opponents of “making himself equal to God” (John 5.18). He denied it by retorting, “Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing,” referring to God. Jesus added, “The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son” (vv. 19, 22), affirming that it was not inherent to his being. On another occasion, when Jesus healed a paralytic and forgave his sins he revealed, “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mark 2.10).
Bauckham interestingly states (p. 165), “All translation entails interpretation.” He then applies this to “one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven” in Daniel 7.13 (NIV) by saying (p. 166), “The claim that traveling on clouds was a divine prerogative,” which many Trinitarians have argued throughout the centuries as proof that Jesus is God, “is not adequately based on evidence.”
[Click here to go to post #5 of this review of Bauckham’s book. Click here to go to post #1.]
[See Kermit’s two books that relate to this book review: The Restitution: Biblical Proof Jesus Is NOT God and The Gospel Corrupted: When Jesus Was Made God.]
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In