|
За да не си играем на лични мнения и догатки, по-долу цитирам два несектантски източника, които от своя страна препращат към други относно датирането на кн. Даниил.
Но дори и да приемем, че е в завършения си вид кн. Даниил е написана и "запечатана" не два, а шест века по-рано от кн. Откровение (което е нелепо допускане, но все пак), то това пак е мн. по-малко от 20 века. И пак остава въпроса за разликата запечатай/не запечатвай.
Daniel's exclusion from the Hebrew bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BCE, suggests it was not known at that time, and the Wisdom of Sirach, from around 180 BCE, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted by the author of a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BCE, and was popular at Qumran beginning at much the same time, suggesting that it was known and revered from the middle of that century.[22]
The actual historical setting of the book is clear from chapter 11, where the prophecy is accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author knows about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BCE), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he knows nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or the actual circumstances of the death of Antiochus in late 164. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BCE. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again
It is unfortunate that scholars seem constrained to adopt one of two essentially polarized positions with regard to the unity of the Book of Daniel: (a) Only one author of Maccabean times, who may have utilized and reworked older traditions and written materials, composed the entire twelve chapters of the MT as we now have them; so, for example, S. R. Driver,21 S. B. Frost,22 O. Eissfeldt,23 and H. H. Rowley.24 (b) Two or more authors from the third and second centuries b.c. and probably a final redactor had their hands in the production of the book; so, for instance, J. A. Montgomery,25 H. L. Ginsberg,26 A. Bentzen,27 and M. Delcor.28 Here, however, a respectable middle ground hypothesis may be proposed which would avoid the polarization of either the a or the b position, and at the same time would do justice to the evidence supportive of each position. In this hypothesis, the present book was composed, according to the rather intricate reconstruction I outlined above, by several like-minded authors, the last of whom (the writer of the core apocalypse in ch. 9) acted as final editor-compiler of the whole book—this is the general attitude of the b position. Nevertheless, the book in its present form has an overall literary unity centering on the person of Daniel and a central theological purpose, viz. to inculcate courage and fidelity in the persecuted and disheartened Jews of Maccabean times—this is the basic contention of the a position. This literary and theological unity derives from the fairly obvious activity of the final editor-compiler and also in part from the assumed translator of 1:1–2:4a and chs. 8–12, sections which in our opinion had originally been composed in Aramaic. It was this Hebrew translator who was responsible for publishing the work in its present form as a single book. The date would be ca. 140 b.c.
Hartman, L. F., & Di Lella, A. A. (2008). The Book of Daniel: A new translation with notes and commentary on chapters 1-9. Includes indexes. (16). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
|
Мне, ок. два века пр. Откр. [re: Stephanus]
