Chanukah, Daniel 11 and the Rabbis’ Limited Knowledge of History

The Book of Daniel can be divided into two distinct parts. Chapters 1-6 recount tales involving Daniel and his Jewish colleagues in the court of the Chaldean monarchs during the Babylonian captivity. Much of this section (Chapters 2-6) is composed in Aramaic. Chapters 7-12 describe several of Daniel’s apocalyptic visions involving the four great monarchies; most of these chapters (8-12) are in Hebrew.

Even ArtScroll, a publishing house not inclined to embrace critical Bible studies, is forced to acknowledge the difference between 11:5-39 and 11:40-45, though without drawing any conclusions about the book’s date of composition:

“The following verses describe the events immediately preceding, during, and after the promised redemption. Up to this point, we have at least had the guiding hand of history to aid us in understanding some of the obscure verses. From here on we stumble in darkness.”

See e.g. “symphonia” in Daniel 3:5, 10, 15; this word refers to a type of musical instrument, and the English word “symphony” ultimately derives from it.

The Book of Daniel was quite popular in the late Second Temple era among various Jewish factions. Many copies were found at Qumran, indicating its significance to the Dead Sea Sect. Zechariah ben Kevutal said that on many occasions he read to the High Priest from the Book of Daniel during the all-night Temple activities of Yom Kippur (Mishnah Yoma 1:6). The purpose of those sessions was to keep the High Priest awake. Exciting stories, told in the Aramaic vernacular, about ancient heroes were sure to captivate.

The reference to a righteous person named Daniel in Ezekiel 14:14, 20 cannot refer to our Daniel. Our Daniel is a Jew; whereas Ezekiel is referring to a gentile, (Daniel is listed together with Noah and Job.) Our Daniel would have been a younger contemporary of Ezekiel; whereas Ezekiel is referencing a famous wise man. Most probably, Ezekiel is referring to the ancient wise man referenced in the Ugaritic epic called Akhat, whose name was Danil. This is supported by the ketiv (written form) of the name Daniel in Ezekiel—spelled Danil (not Daniel) in all three instances.

Seder Olam Rabbah 20, Genesis Rabbah 27, Tanchuma Bo 5, b. Megillah 15a.

Klaus Koch, “Is Daniel Also Among the Prophets,” in Interpreting the Prophets (eds. James L. Mays and Paul J. Achtmeier; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 237-248.

Rivka Raviv, “On the Original Position of the Book of Daniel in the Jewish Bible,” JSIJ 6 (2007); 1-12 [Hebrew].

Possible evidence in rabbinic literature for the multi-stage canonization of Tanakh, with Ketuvim being canonized last, can be found in Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 4:6.

For the most up to date text and analysis of this work, see Chaim Milikowsky, Seder Olam: Critical Edition, Commentary and Notes (2 vols; Yad Ben Zvi, 2013 [Hebrew]).

There is another possibility suggested by some, namely, that the sages were aware of how extremely accurate Daniel 11 is and that they were intentionally silent lest people conclude that the text is history masquerading as prophecy. Nevertheless, I believe that my first answer is preferable; there is little evidence that the rabbis would have known enough history such that Daniel 11 would have appeared so striking in its predictions.

Rashi does believe that verse 17 refers to Antiochus, basing his reading of this on the correspondence he finds between what is described in this verse and what is described in Josippun. It stands to reason that if Rashi had had access to better historical texts than Josippun, like Josephus, he may have picked up on the actual reference to Antiochus that appears towards the end of the chapter.

Ibn Ezra and Ralbag interpret 8:9-11 as referring to Antiochus IV, but they did not have the full understanding of the Hellenistic period possessed by Abarbanel.

This brings up the question, why celebrate Chanukah at all if only a century later Judah would be retaken and a century after that destroyed. This is a strong question but would require a separate piece to discuss well.