Robert said

godspell said
I understand, but could you please clarify what parts of Daniel are considered forgery?

Because in a recent article here on the main blog, Bart responds to a comment and very clearly indicates he doesn’t consider all of it to be forgery.  And of course, he mentions parts being written in Aramaic.

** you do not have permission to see this link **

In the Hebrew/Aramaic text, Chapters 7-12, the whole second half of the book is clearly pseudepigraphic/forged, presented as if they were authored by Daniel in the first person and with Daniel being told to hide the book away in the very last chapter, until the time of the end, which just so happens to be prophesied to occur soon after the events that have just been fulfilled. It is generally considered that the first half of the book, Chapters 1 through 6, merely set-up the validity of Daniel as a genuine, faithful, seer, prior to the second half giving his dream/vision prophecies that will subsequently play out long after his death. It is possible that there was an original of Chapter 1 or a part of Chapter 1 that existed in Aramaic at some time, but there has never been found any evidence of an original Aramaic portion of Chapter 1. Thus it is perhaps most likely that Chapters 1-2,4 and 8-12 are all primarily the work of the final authors/redactors of the book, all written in late Hebrew. I also trust Collins’ assessment that Chapter 7, although written in Aramaic, was the work of a later bilingual Aramaic/Hebrew author who was a member of the same group responsible for Chapters 1-2,4 and 8-12, thus rendering the scholarly likelihood that Chapters 1-2,4 and 7-12 were the work of the final authors, who were also the redactors of the Aramaic material in Chapters 2,4-6. Jewish Aramaic cannot be dated with as easily, but it is relatively late Aramaic. Thus only part of Chapters 2 through 6 might be earlier narrative material about Daniel (but not necessarily that much earlier), setting up the pseudepigraphic/forged contemporary material that gives the most important section of the book. Also, a cohesive structure can be seen for the whole of the work.

Disclaimer: It’s been a long time since I’ve worked my way through the whole of the Aramaic portion of Daniel (with the help of a master orientalist) and I have not read all of Collins’ commentary so this is merely my best representation of the best scholarship still available to me in my old age.  

Bart says the First Apocalypse isn’t a forgery–by which he does not mean Daniel wrote it.  He doesn’t believe that’s the case.  But he says that developing an existing idea further isn’t generally considered forgery in scholarly circles.  What’s your opinion on that?

He said the First Apocalypse isn’t a forgery, as he understands the term.  Again, Daniel isn’t one book by one author, but a compilation of various material, all of which is of murky provenance.   

The term ‘forgery’ in scholarly circles (which neither of us belong to) isn’t as simple as all that.  That’s what I make of it.  There is quite a lot of gray area here. 

I gave you direct quotes, and you didn’t explain them.   Why is the First Apocalypse not understood to be a forgery? 

You seem to want to make this a simple matter of yes or no, black or white, true or false.

That isn’t good scholarship.

Then we agree on that.  (If not the grammar, but you were typing quickly, I understand.)

And truthfully, this exchange has gone on long  enough.  If I want to know what Bart Ehrman thinks, I’ll read more Bart Ehrman. Who is, after all, best known for his ability to explain complex terms and ideas succinctly, in plain language, for the benefit of laypersons such as you and I.  🙂