Question on Tobit 2:12-18

[patrick457]

Recent scholarship points to the “late date” Daniel (175 BC +/-), making it a Deuterocanonical period writing. As well, it is considered apocalyptic rather than prophetic writing - said apocalyptic style prominent in the 3-4 centuries immediately preceding Christ’s Incarnation. This is based on Daniel’s details about Antiochus IV Epiphanes of 1 & 2 Maccabees infamy. And, since prophecy is generally principle rather than precision, this would tend to demonstrate the later date of composition. In fact, it might have been composed so as to feign an exilic time frame and thus be less offensive to the Seleucids, if that were possible.

Rhetorical: Based on this, do adherents of the recent doctrine of the “inter-testamental period” now have to ponder discarding Daniel? Conversely, do those who recognize Daniel now have to re-consider the Deuterocanon?

Of course, those with a more conservative bent would (obviously) object to this late dating of Daniel.

A bit unrelated, but I should point out that there are eight manuscripts of Daniel found in Qumran (1QDan[sup]a-b[/sup], 4Dan[sup]a-e[/sup], pap6QDan), preserving text from eleven of Daniel’s twelve chapters. Most of these mainly agree with the shorter Masoretic version instead of the reworked version in Greek. (4QDan[sup]e[/sup] is possibly an abbreviated text which contained only chapter 9, and thus does not qualify as a complete copy of the book.) In addition to this, there are a few other Danielic texts from Cave 4 (e.g., 4Q242, the so-called Prayer of Nabonidus; the very fragmentary 4Q243-245 - at least the names “Daniel” and “Belshazzar” can be made out; 4Q246, a very Daniel-esque apocalyptic work).

Fun fact: the book of Daniel isn’t counted among the Nevi’im or the Prophets in the Jewish reckoning. (Although Jonah is.) Instead, Daniel is traditionally the third from last in the Ketuvim (Writings) section, followed by Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles (each of which are counted as single books). In the Greek order, Daniel, while included among the prophets, is either the penultimate or the last book of the OT, after Ezekiel, depending on whether one places 4 Maccabees in the appendix - as the Eastern Churches do today - or not. (This is because the Twelve Minor Prophets are placed at the head of the section, unlike in the Western order, where the Major Prophets - Isaiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations-Baruch-(Letter of Jeremiah), Ezekiel and Daniel - are placed first.)

 

[po18guy]

Of course, those with a more conservative bent would (obviously) object to this late dating of Daniel.

A bit unrelated, but I should point out that there are eight manuscripts of Daniel found in Qumran (1QDan[sup]a-b[/sup], 4Dan[sup]a-e[/sup], pap6QDan), preserving text from eleven of Daniel’s twelve chapters. Most of these mainly agree with the shorter Masoretic version instead of the reworked version in Greek. (4QDan[sup]e[/sup] is possibly an abbreviated text which contained only chapter 9, and thus does not qualify as a complete copy of the book.) In addition to this, there are a few other Danielic texts from Cave 4 (e.g., 4Q242, the so-called Prayer of Nabonidus; the very fragmentary 4Q243-245 - at least the names “Daniel” and “Belshazzar” can be made out; 4Q246, a very Daniel-esque apocalyptic work).

Fun fact: the book of Daniel isn’t counted among the Nevi’im or the Prophets in the Jewish reckoning. (Although Jonah is.) Instead, Daniel is traditionally the third from last in the Ketuvim (Writings) section, followed by Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles (each of which are counted as single books). In the Greek order, Daniel, while included among the prophets, is either the penultimate or the last book of the OT, after Ezekiel, depending on whether one places 4 Maccabees in the appendix - as the Eastern Churches do today - or not. (This is because the Twelve Minor Prophets are placed at the head of the section, unlike in the Western order, where the Major Prophets - Isaiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations-Baruch-(Letter of Jeremiah), Ezekiel and Daniel - are placed first.)

What I find fascinating is the possibility that the late composition date would nuke the man-made “inter-testamental period” that was slapped together to explain the rejection of the Deuterocanon. This would force a re-think of those 7 books by the non-Apostolic communities.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Kind of answering my own question , but I assume that you’re talking about why the Church deems the longer Greek versions of Daniel and Esther to be canonical instead of the shorter Hebrew versions.

Actually, I’m more interested in the phenomenon of that than why. My general observation is that the Church seems to have selected particular versions/manuscripts/re-workings of some texts as the canonical text (the case of Esther, Daniel and, say, Jeremiah) but in the case of Tobit, just as a counterexample and the book under discussion, not so.

My question is really whether the former decisions to select particular versions as canonical are official decisions, or simply a matter of Catholic practice.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I think that what has been allowed for is the future discovery of varying forms of the manuscripts, whereas (I may be wrong here) other books were examined in all available variations at that time. Does that make sense?

So if new manuscripts are discovered then the Catholic canonical text would change? And if this were the case, then wouldn’t the Church have already adapted the biblical text to include, say, textual variants discovered at Qumran?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I think that what has been allowed for is the future discovery of varying forms of the manuscripts, whereas (I may be wrong here) other books were examined in all available variations at that time. Does that make sense?

So if new manuscripts are discovered then the Catholic canonical text would change? And if this were the case, then wouldn’t the Church have already adapted the biblical text to include, say, textual variants discovered at Qumran?

 

[po18guy]

So if new manuscripts are discovered then the Catholic canonical text would change? And if this were the case, then wouldn’t the Church have already adapted the biblical text to include, say, textual variants discovered at Qumran?

Good question, concerning a situation that was addressed during the formulation of the canon, since various manuscripts existed even prior to the Council of Carthage. Qumran was a more recent example of needing to address the more recent discovery of manuscripts purporting to be genuine. As to versions, I think the Church tends to allow-in rather than to exclude, as no one knows what the original documents consisted of. The Church can test only the content of a document and render judgment upon that text.