The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

LOREN T. STUCKENBRUCK 113
B. “NONBIBLICAL” DANIELIC TRADITIONS
4QPseudo-Daniel a–b (4Q243–244)
These very fragmentary manuscripts have been recently reedited by John
J. Collins and Peter W. Flint for the Discoveries in the Judean Desert
series (1996). 27 Since they preserve overlapping texts (4Q243 frag. 13 and
4Q244 frag. 12), the manuscripts may be assigned to the same document.
28 Although, owing to Milik’s initial discussion (1956), they have
often been treated together with 4Q245, it is best for us to discuss them
separately (on 4Q245, see below). Containing a retelling of Israel’s past
history and a prediction of future, eschatological events, the fragments
from 4Q243-244 are—as a whole—Danielic in character. This emerges
from the following features: (a) The name “Daniel” (dny)l ) occurs five
times (4Q243 frags. 1–2, 5; 4Q244 frags. 1, 4). (b) The setting is the court
of a foreign king (4Q243 frags. 1–3, 5–6; 4Q244 frags. 1–4; cf. Daniel
2–6). (c) One fragment mentions “Belshazzar” (4Q243 frag. 2; cf. Dan
5:1–2, 9, 22, 29–30). (d) The fragments contain eschatological prophecy
(4Q243 frags. 16, 24–26, 33; cf. Dan 7:15–27; 8:25; 9:24–27;
11:40–12:3). (e) Both blame the exile on the sins of Israel (4Q243 frag.
13 + 4Q244 frag. 12; cf. Dan 9:4–19). Adding to these elements other
features based on questionable readings, 29 Milik construed the evidence
as leaving the impression that the fragments were written later than “the
canonical book of Daniel.” 30 Émile Puech and García Martínez have
27. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, “4QPseudo-Daniel,” in Qumran Cave 4.XVII:
Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (ed. G. J. Brooke et al.; DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996),
95–151, and pls. 7–9. See also Peter W. Flint, “Pseudo-Daniel Revisited,” RevQ 17
(1996): 111–50. 4Q243 and 244 are extant in 40 and 14 fragments respectively.
28. As noted early by Milik, “‘Prière de Nabonide,’” 411–15.
29. Ibid., 413, arguing that, in addition, 4Q243 frag. 16 mentions a period of “seventy
years” (line 1; cf. Dan 9:2, 20–27) and refers to a “fi[rst] kingdom” (line 4; cf. Dan
2:26–45; 7:3–8, 17–24) to be construed as part of a four-kingdom scheme. As Collins
and Flint have correctly argued, a look at the photographic plates shows that these
readings, while not impossible, are far from clear. Even if these readings are correct, it
is not necessary to conclude that the document is specifically alluding to Daniel; on
this, see Collins, Apocalypticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 16, with bibliography in n3.
30. Milik, “‘Prière de Nabonide,’” 415: “…l’impression que l’ouvrage sous-jacent
est postérieur à la composition du livre canonique de Daniel.” Important for the date
is the occurrence of the Hellenistic name blkrws in 4Q243 frag. 21, which Milik thinks
may refer to Alexander Balas, who set himself up as Antiochus Epiphanes’ successor.
This identification must remain an unverifiable conjecture. Even more problematic is
the possible identification of the incomplete ]rhws in 4Q243 frag. 19 with the name
Demetrius (cf. 4Q169 frags. 3 + 4 1.2: dmy]trws).