1/10 The late date for Daniel is also at the heart of the so-called classic model of canonization, which says the Torah (Law) was canonized in the 5th century, the Nebi'im (Prophets) around 200, and the Ketubim (Writings) around 90AD (Daniel included here). Thus in 3 stages.
2/10 Because Daniel was placed in the Writings (so the argument goes), his book must not have been written to make it into the Prophets and had to be included in the third, later stage of the canon, which was closed at the Council of Yavneh/Jamnia around 90 AD.
3/10 But Ulrich (1987) mentions the canonicity of Daniel at Qumran because many had been questioning the Classical Model for some time due to its many problems, which I will comment on briefly.
4/10 First, Jack Lewis (1964), dispelled the notion that there was anything resembling a council of rabbis meeting at Yavneh to close the canon of the Hebrew Bible. Without this anchor, the canon could be closed earlier or later, and scholars have proposed both.
5/10 Second, John Barton (1986) argued that in the pre-rabbinic sources, "Prophets" did not refer only to the 8 books that would form the second part of the TaNaK, but rather to all 'non-Torah' scripture. This clarifies the phrase "Law and the Prophets"...
6/10 ...where the latter now includes those books the rabbis would put in the Writings: Daniel (4Q174), David (11QPsa), and Solomon (b. Sotah 48b), since they were thought to be Prophets. "Law and Prophets" probably meant "Torah and other Jewish Scripture."
7/10 Thus with the underpinnings of the Classic or Three-Stage model of canonization thoroughly questioned & mostly dismissed (cf. Lim 2013), scholars, like Ulrich, began to apply the label "canonized" to books in the Writings, like Daniel, before the traditional date of 90AD.
8/10 Whether this shift on Dan's early canoniz. has occasioned doubt about the late date for Daniel itself, I do not know. What is clear is that the field thinks canonization is process that takes lots of time. Thus the late view of composition collides w/early canonization view.
9/10 Some might point to Dan's different text forms (1 with longer ch. 3, Sus, Bel + Dragon and 1 without) as reason for late canonicity, but Jeremiah was also in different text forms (1 with Bar + EpJer and 1 without) and there was no debate over this book.
10/10 Most modern canon scholars do not see a book circulating in different text forms as an ancient reason against canonicity. The book is canonized, not its particular form. No where do we read early Christians or Rabbis disputing Daniel's canonical status. Hope that helps.
.@JamesBejon, sorry, I thought I had put this in a quote Tweet but I guess not. Anyways, here it is.
Anyone wanting to read more on these issues see chapter 1 and the Appendix here amzn.to/39n63aV
