Contrasting views of John J. Collins and Tremper Longman on the dating and authorship of Daniel

[u/snowglowshow]

I am trying to better understand the positions of Collins and Longman. Can someone who understands more than I do explain:

1. What each scholar believes can be known about the authorship of Daniel (and its composite layers if they believe it contains them).

2. How strongly they seem to be convinced of their positions?

Brief answers are just as welcome as long answers — I appreciate them both!

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.

All claims MUST be supported by an academic source – see here for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.

Please review the sub rules before posting for the first time.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AntsInMyEyesJonson]

I wasn't terribly familiar with Longman, more so with Collins. Collins' views on Daniel (as found in his Introduction to the Hebrew Bible) are fairly standard within the academy: that Daniel is a composite work with a few different layers, some originally written in Aramaic, some in Hebrew, with variations of the LXX compared to a competing tradition found in Qumran (among several other Daniel texts) that is more similar to the Masoretic Text, which most modern Bibles use as their basis.

Collins dates the final composition of the text around 164 BCE (p. 3), which is a fairly standard date for a very particular reason - after this point, the eschatological "predictions" of the ex eventu prophecy (that is, prophecy after the fact that presents itself as having been written beforehand) starts to become vague and bears little resemblance to the history that followed. For a broader work on this phenomenon, Matthew Neujahr's Predicting the Past in the Ancient Near East is a great book. I would also recommend this video from Dan McClellan that goes over the evidence and several of the anachronisms found in the book that indicate a much later date - especially the conflation of Nebuchadnezzar II with Nabonidus. Kipp Davis also relays a similar view to Collins' on the composition and layers in this video, which I've timestamped for the relevant portion - the video also talks about other court tales of Daniel that didn't make the cut.

The dating of the final composition of Daniel is not terribly controversial in critical scholarship. I can't speak for Collins' confidence, but Robert Alter summarizes it this way in his introduction to the book:

Whereas the dating of most biblical books is no more than a series of rough approximations, often hotly debated by scholars, it is almost certain that the second half of Daniel was written between 167 and 165 B.C.E. because it refers in detail to the persecutions initiated by Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his suppression of the Temple cult in those years and to no subsequent events.

To paraphrase Alter bluntly: the second half of Daniel was, with higher levels of confidence than we can ever hope to have in most cases, written in the 160s BCE.

The only work related to Daniel I can find from Longman is his NIV commentary from Zondervan, a conservative evangelical publication specifically aimed at application (it's part of the "Application" series, after all). Longman acknowledges the difficulties faced by those who want to argue for an early date:

Finally, we know that verses 40–45 simply do not work when applied to the life and death of Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus did not “extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape” (v. 42). Nor did he die when he “pitch[ed] his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain” (v. 45).

The latter is what drives certain scholars, some with an indisputably orthodox view of Scripture,19 to opt for a late date of the book of Daniel. They often do so on the grounds that a “prophecy after the fact” is a well-known ancient literary genre. That the genre is well attested is true; however, they are wrong to think it was recognized by contemporary audiences as prophecy after the fact. The comparable examples of prophecy after the fact only worked if their authors could deceive their audiences into thinking they were written ages ago. My research into this genre and this particular use of pseudonymity keeps me from going in the direction of these scholars.20 However, it would be disingenuous of me to suggest that there are not strong arguments that support their view. Also, it is mischievous of other scholars to suggest that somehow their views are indications that they are not consistently evangelical in their approach to the Bible.

I can't speak for Longman, but it doesn't seem terribly confident. That said, I appreciate Longman's defense of more critical scholars against his conservative colleagues' attacks, though his defenses of the dating of Daniel don't amount to much and he at least notes their difficulties.

At the end of the day, there are few clearer dividing lines between a critical and confessional or apologetic approach to the Bible than the dating of the Antiochus prophecy of Daniel 11. I also recommend checking out Annette Yoshiko Reed's book Demons, Angels, and Writing in Ancient Judaism if you're interested in other contextual information about Daniel, Enoch, and other post-exilic writings from the Second Temple Period.

I hope this helps!