I finished my daily quiet time on Daniel a few days ago. Throughout the few weeks that I've been reading the book, the issue that has preoccupied my mind in my quiet time has been Daniel's date: Was it written in the sixth century B.C.E. (which is the book's setting for the visions) or the second century B.C.E. (the time of the Antiochan persecution)?
I have wondered if Daniel 11:14 is relevant to Daniel's date. The passage states (in the NRSV): "In those times many shall rise against the king of the south. The lawless among your own people shall lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision, but they shall fail."
I don't have ready access to a lot of modern commentaries, so I don't know how modern scholars interpret the passage, but what intrigues me is its reference to a "vision." What vision does Daniel 11:14 mean? I assume that it's referring to Daniel 11. There are some lawless people who are trying to bring to pass Daniel 11's prediction that the Seleucids will prevail over the Ptolemies.
The way that liberal scholars approach Daniel is that they date it to the second century B.C.E. For them, Daniel 11 accurately describes historical events concerning the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, and Antiochus IV Epiphanes, until vv 40-45, that is. V 45 says that Antiochus will die between the seas and the beautiful holy mountain, which many interpret as Zion. That did not occur, for Antiochus died in Persia. Liberal scholars conclude that Daniel was written in the second century B.C.E., but before the death of Antiochus.
But Daniel is set in the sixth century B.C.E., for the character Daniel lives under Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius. So do liberals assert that Daniel was written in the second century B.C.E., yet was presented as an older vision? "You can take comfort in the midst of your persecution," the alleged second century author of Daniel was saying. "This was predicted a long time ago, and if some of the stuff has come to pass, then you can rest assured that all of it will be fulfilled. And the vision predicts that God will overthrow Antiochus and set up his own kingdom. So take heart and wait!" Liberals may see Daniel as a pious fraud, who was portraying events that just happened as "predictions."
But my problem is this: Daniel 11:14 says that people are trying to establish a vision, which I presume to be Daniel 11. Yet, there are historical events that are narrated after Daniel 11:14--it is only when we reach v 40 that we begin to see things that did not take place. So what were the lawless people trying to establish? Daniel 11:1-14? They couldn't establish events that were happening after they had tried to establish the vision. So was the vision coming out in installments?
If "Daniel" were a recognizable figure of the second century B.C.E., then that would make sense. Others would then say, "Well, this guy has predicted things that have come to pass so far. Let's go back to him to see what will happen next." But Daniel is presented as a book from the sixth century B.C.E., not as a work in progress. It is something that is intended to be seen as old, and therefore complete. Thus, the people seeking to establish the vision must have all of Daniel 11 in front of them, unless someone keeps finding long lost sections. But how can they have all of Daniel 11 in front of them, if not all of Daniel 11 has happened yet, and the author of Daniel is a second century figure who is simply narrating what is going on around him? Is my confusion making any sense?
Perhaps one way out of my dilemma is to say that the lawless ones were not deliberately trying to establish the vision. Rather, they wanted to bring about the events that the vision predicted, though they were unaware of the vision itself. They desired Seleucid triumph, and that happened to coincide with what was in the vision. I'm not sure if I'm completely satisfied with that solution, but it is a possibility.