The Book of Daniel: Part I: A Theological- Political Tractate Addressed to Judean Hasidim under Seleucid-Greek Rule
2010; Volume: 38; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
0792-3910
Autores Tópico(s)Historical and Linguistic Studies
ResumoINTRODUCTION Based on a critical textual analysis of Book of Daniel, it is hypothesized that it was specifically written as a theological-political tractate addressed to Judean Hasidim during their persecution by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Seleucid-Greek occupier of Israel. Out of fear of provoking life-threatening political reprisals at time of its writing, book's message was covertly encrusted with Babylonian and Persian time-lines, and identities of Seleucid Empire and of Antiochus were explicitly and purposefully omitted. HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT The Book of Daniel is chronologically last composition to be included in Hebrew Bible despite being editorially placed in front of Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. It is herein hypothesized that Daniel is almost contemporary with Book of Maccabees which was written in 100 BCE covering events from 170 through 134 BCE, historically unfolding only slightly earlier. The Tanakh takes Book of Daniel at its literary timeline face-value as occurring predominantly during Babylonian exile (605-562 BCE), prior to events of Ezra and Nehemiah. At first glance, Daniel appears to be a mysterious apocalyptic book. A thoughtful analysis, however, demonstrates that it is actually a splendidly picturesque anthology of consolatory parables, in form of prophesies and moral tales, providing practical spiritual guidance to Hasidim during their persecution by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Seleucid-Greek occupier of Israel, circa 176-170 BCE. The Hasidim [The Righteous--not to be confused with contemporary Hasidim] were Jews who non-violently resisted Seleucid Greeks' attempts at forced assimilation. (1) It is herein suggested, based on textual analysis, that Book of Daniel is addressed to them, encouraging and consoling them in their martyrdom, and discouraging spiritual compromise even when confronted with violence and death. The book's protagonist, Daniel, despite experiencing and interpreting multiple prophesies, is not accorded biblical status of prophet. This is because a literary vehicle for parables is not a prophecy. In all probability, Antiochus' identity and that of Seleucid Empire were explicitly omitted from Book of Daniel out of fear of provoking serious political reprisals at time of its writing. Most likely, greatest worry was that Hellenized Jews who were fluent in Hebrew and Aramaic would inform on non-Hellenized Jews to Seleucids. Hence, for protection of Hasidim, book's message needed to be wrapped in a riddle, packaged in a prophecy, and crafted to deliver a knock-out moral punch. In essence, it is an ancient, time specific, theological-political pamphlet. Centuries and millennia after its publication, long after its original political context had been lost and forgotten, and because it was purposefully oblique to begin with, many people have scratched their heads proffering wild and colorful interpretations of this book, losing sight of its original historical context. Nevertheless, there are carefully detailed descriptions of Antiochus' military exploits outlined in latter portion of book (for example, kings of North for Seleucid Dynasty, kings of South for Ptolemaic dynasty, and so forth), use of Antiochus' well-known Hebrew code name the little horn (confirmed by Josephus (2)); and documented placement of an idol in Temple termed an abomination of desolation (Dan. 11:31) (identical terminology for Zeus idol mentioned in Book of Maccabees (3)). These identify Antiochus IV as Book's arch enemy almost beyond a shadow of doubt, and allow us correctly to identify approximate date of Daniel's writing. In addition, Aramaically transliterated Greek words in book--for example, symphonia (4)--could not have been known to Jews during Babylonian Exile, and thus provide further evidence of time period in question. …
Referência(s)