by
Damien F. Mackey
“This raises the question of what reason
Ben Sira might have had for not wanting to mention Daniel or single him out for
special praise. As it happens, a very plausible and straightforward answer to
the above question is available, but it has nothing to do with when the book of
Daniel was written. Ben Sira [Sirach] held the opinion, and stated it in so
many words, that dreamers and dreams were fools and foolishness, respectively”.
Frank W. Hardy
Might not
the reason why Sirach (“Ecclesiasticus”) seemingly failed to refer to the great
prophet Daniel - not to mention Ezra the scribe, the very “Father of Judaïsm” -
in his “praises of famous men”, beginning with 44:1:
“Let us now sing the praises of famous men,
our ancestors in their generations”,
be because
Daniel was - Ezra was - referred to in the Book of Sirach under some other
name?
It was
common for the ancients to have more than the one name. To give just one
example, from I Maccabees 2:2-5: “John surnamed Gaddi,
Simon called Thassi, Judas called Maccabeus, Eleazar called Avaran, and Jonathan called Apphus”.
And I
have already suggested that:
Ezra the Scribe [be] Identified as Nehemiah the Governor
which, if
this be the case, would mean that Ezra was
included by Sirach, when he wrote (49:13): “The memory of
Nehemiah is also great. He rebuilt the ruined walls of Jerusalem, installing
the gates and bars. He rebuilt our homes”.
Other inspired
scribes did not fail to mention Daniel. Nor could they have?
Ezekiel,
for example, mentions Daniel three times (14:14 and 20): “Though
these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but
their own souls by their righteousness,
saith the Lord God”.
And 28:3:
“Are
you wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?”
Whilst
Mattathias, the father of the five Maccabean sons, encouraged them with the
examples of holy men such as Daniel (I Maccabees 2:60-61): “Daniel
was a man of integrity, and the Lord rescued him from the mouth of the lions. Take each of
these ancestors of ours as an example, and you will realize that no one who
puts his trust in the Lord will ever lack strength”.
It is likewise quite
inconceivable that Sirach could possibly have omitted reference to Ezra. Henry
Englander has, in his article “Ezra the Scribe” (Journal of
Jewish Lore and Philosophy
Vol. 1, No. 3/4 (JULY/OCTOBER 1919)), written,
with reference to “H. P. Smith, following Torrey” (p. 322-323):
[Smith] notes that Ezra was unknown to Jesus ben Sirach the author who lived
in the early part of the second century before the common era …. It is impossible,
he believes, that ben Sirach would have ignored Ezra in his praise of Israel’s
worthies had he been known to him. But, the omission of any reference to Ezra
does not necessarily mean that he was the creation of the Chronicler. This
omission, however, calls for an adequate explanation on the part of those who
hold Ezra to be historical. If it could be shown that the identification of
Ezra with “Malachai” [Malachi] … was current in the time of ben Sirach then it
could be said that Ezra was included in his praise of the Minor Prophets.
On the possible identification of
Ezra with Malachi, see my article:
"By the hand of Malachi ... whose name is called
Ezra the scribe"
I think
that the alter ego explanation for
Sirach, in the case of Daniel - of Ezra - is far preferable to the following
version (whose BC dating I may not accept either) as given by Frank W. Hardy in
his article, “Ben
Sira’s Silence Concerning Daniel” (2008):
Jesus Ben
Sira … was a Jew
from Jerusalem who, in approximately 190 or 180 B.C. … wrote a book of
religious wisdom and pious advice on a variety of topics. In 132 B.C.—the thirty-eighth
year of Ptolemy Physcon VII Euergetes II (170-164, 147-117 B.C.)--Ben Sira's grandson
went to live in Egypt and sometime after the death of Euergetes II, i.e.,
sometime after 117 B.C., translated his grandfather's book from Hebrew into
Greek. Although translations were subsequently made into Latin, Syriac, and a
number of other languages it is primarily in its Greek form--with the Latin
title "Ecclesiasticus"--that the book has come down to us as one of the
deuterocanonicl books of the Septuagint. ….
In Ben Sira
chaps. 44-49 the author comments on the outstanding lives of some 28 individual
Old Testament heroes … along with the judges as a group (46:11) and the twelve minor
prophets (49:10). This long section ends with the following summary: ….
No one like
Enoch has been created on earth, for he was taken up from the earth. And no man
like Joseph has been born, and his bones are cared for. Shem and Seth were honored
among men, and Adam above every living being in the creation. ….
The
significance for Daniel research of Ben Sira's "Praise of the
Fathers" lies in what he
does not say.
Throughout this extended section of six chapters Daniel is passed over in
silence; there is no mention of him at all. Such an omission is conspicuous
when compared with 1 Maccabees, written somewhat later at around 100 B.C.
Daniel appears at the end of a passage that mentions a number of ancient
heroes.
(51)
"Remember the deeds of the fathers, which they did in their generations;
and receive great honor and an everlasting name. (52) Was not Abraham found
faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness? (53) Joseph
in the time of his distress kept the commandment, and became lord of Egypt.
(54) Phinehas our father, because he was deeply zealous, received the covenant
of everlasting priesthood. (55) Joshua, because he fulfilled the command,
became a judge in Israel. (56) Caleb, because he testified in the assembly,
received an inheritance in the land. (57) David, because he was merciful,
inherited the throne of the kingdom for ever. (58) Elijah because of great zeal
for the law was taken up into heaven. (59) Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael
believed and were saved from the flame. (60) Daniel because of his
innocence was delivered from the mouth of the lions" (1 Macc 2:51-60).
The fact that
Ben Sira, writing early in the second century B.C., says nothing about Daniel,
while the author of 1 Maccabees does refer to him, writing at the end of the
second century B.C., is taken by some scholars to indicate that the book of
Daniel originated sometime in between Ben Sira and 1 Maccabees--i.e., in the
mid-second century B.C. …. Eissfeldt evaluates
the evidence from Ben Sira as follows, as it bears on the dating of Daniel:
We
may leave the matter there, with the broader period 167-163 in mind. This
dating [for Daniel] is then supported by a whole series of further
observations. The fact that the book was not included in the canon of the
prophets (p. 565) shows already that it can only have been composed very late.
This is confirmed by the fact that Ben Sira, writing in about 190, does not mention
it in his Praise of the Fathers (xliv-l) whereas 1 Maccabees, compiled probably
in about 100 B.C., has in ii,59-60 a reference to it, more precisely to i, iii
and vi. . . . ….
But
Eissfeldt's conclusion is not required by the evidence. There is no reason—even
under preterist presuppositions--why Ben Sira should not have been well
informed concerning the main events of Daniel's life. Mertens shows that the
claim that Daniel was written entirely within the second century B.C., with no
sources or fragments coming from an earlier time, is a minority view even among
critical scholars and one which he considers extreme. ….
According to
F. Nötscher the substance, content and even formulation of individual reports
go back to the time of the exile; similarly J. Goettsberger; H. Schneider also
takes the position that the oldest parts of the book of Daniel derive from the
sixth century B.C. ….
Thus, the
claim that Ben Sira did not mention Daniel because the book of Daniel was not
written until
after Ecclesiasticus requires one to assume that Rowley's view of how Daniel
originated was substantially the correct one. Rowley held that a single author
produced the entire work in the second century B.C. …. There are no preterist scholars at
present, however, who would accept this assumption or defend it. I submit that,
whether one proceeds under preterist or historicist assumptions, Ben Sira could
not have been unaware of Daniel's life story when he wrote his book.
This raises
the question of what reason Ben Sira might have had for not wanting to mention
Daniel or single him out for special praise. As it happens, a very plausible
and straightforward answer to the above question is available, but it has
nothing to do with when the book of Daniel was written. Ben Sira held the
opinion, and stated it in so many words, that dreamers and dreams were fools
and foolishness, respectively.
A
man of no understanding has vain and false hopes, and dreams give wings to
fools. (2) As one who catches at a shadow and pursues the wind, so is he who
gives heed to dreams. (3) The vision of dreams is this against that, the
likeness of a face confronting a face. (4) From an unclean thing what will be
made clean? And from something false what will be true? (5) Divinations and omens
and dreams are folly, and like a woman in travail the mind has fancies. (6)
Unless they are sent from the Most High as a visitation, do not give your mind
to them. (7) For dreams have deceived many, and those who put their hope in
them have failed. (8) Without such deceptions the law will be fulfilled, and
wisdom is made perfect in truthful lips. (Ben Sira 34:1-8)
If Ben Sira
believed dreamers were fools, and thought of Daniel primarily as a dreamer … one
could hardly expect Ben Sira to name Daniel as one of Israel's great and illustrious
figures of the past. For Daniel to be passed over in silence would be much more
consistent with the passage just quoted than prominent mention of him a few
chapters later would be.
It is not
necessary therefore to suggest that the book of Daniel came into existence
after
Ben Sira
wrote in order to account for the latter's silence regarding him. Ben Sira was
a man of deep convictions, some of which bordered on prejudice. …. One of these
convictions was that dreams were not a dependable criterion for behaviour. …. Seeing Daniel primarily as a
dreamer he was not inclined to praise him.
[End
of quote]
Clever though all this may be, I shall be
looking amongst Sirach’s ‘praises of famous men’ for a worthy alter ego for the great and famous
prophet Daniel, who had miraculously told the King’s Dream.
No comments:
Post a Comment