, or prophecy after the fact (i.e., history written as though it were prophecy). Part of the reason that the spelling is different might be that the out, broadening the scope of God as judge.
As a sidenote, it is interesting to observe that the pseudepigraphical approach wants to have its cake and eat it too. it is only natural to assume that Daniel is likewise a figure of hoary antiquity. Dressler was simply being honest with the text of Ezekiel, pointing out that any arguments about lists fly in the face of Ezekiel’s tendencies.
The reason for pseudepigraphy, it is claimed, is to employ some famous person’s name for the sake of one’s own views. This alone makes it improbable that Ezekiel was referring to a contemporary, the hero of the book of Daniel, but is fully consonant with the Daniel of the Aqhat epic, the extant text of which dates from the 14th century B. In other words, when Ezekiel penned “Noah, Daniel, and Job” his intention was to list these three men, though the order of their names probably had to with the order of his recollection.
Could it be that this Danel is the same as Daniel in the book that bears his name? Perhaps most important has been the investigation into the meaning of in Ez. Ezekiel simply spells the name without the vowel letter ” (p. There are many indications within the book of Daniel that suggest that he anticipated hesitation on the part of his audience to accept him as a true prophet of YHWH, in particular because of his status in the political machinery of a foreign regime.
Until the 1930s the standard view that the Danel of Ezekiel was an ancient mythical hero., a description of a certain Dnil. d) If Ezekiel’s authorship and the unity of the book is maintained, it may be pointed out that, by the time the book was published (app. xiv where this term is used as an antonym to “unfaithfulness” in the sense of idolatry, i.e. Thus, it is especially inappropriate to suggest a Baal-devotee, the Ugaritic Dnil, as an exemplary “righteous” man. In other words, even back then, people had serious doubts about whether “honest” and “politician” could be juxtaposed!
Several scholars have since found that by a rather ingenious interpretation of the evidence they can claim enough parallels in the Ugaritic Dnil with Ezekiel’s Danel to make a positive identification of the latter with the former. However, one needs no particularly fertile imagination to view an Israelite Daniel flanked by a pre-Israelite and a non-Israelite to arrive at an equally satisfying theological construction.” (pp. “It is generally considered that the identification of the Daniel mentioned by Ezekiel with the hero of the book of Daniel runs into chronological difficulties since Daniel would have been a youth whose reputation, if he had one at the time, was certainly of only a local nature. 570-567 BC according to Howie), approximately thirty-six years had elapsed, enough time to establish the fame of the Daniel of the Babylonian ” (pp. After a brief discussion of other points ancillary to our discussion, Dressler summarizes his article: With regard to the Daniel-figure in Ezekiel no compelling reason was found for rejecting the identification of the Daniel mentioned by Ezekiel with the Biblical Daniel. Hence, a few casual but well-placed notations to Daniel’s wisdom and righteousness by Ezekiel could well function as a foreword to Daniel, defusing to some degree any possible opposition to the book. First, if Ezekiel is simply thinking of three righteous men that the nation would know about either from the Scriptures or from their national history, is he necessarily trying to single out non-Israelites?