Daniel and the Destruction of the Temple

It’s now time to start writing up the first draft of my article on the traditional Rabbinic material on the dating in Daniel. This can be an exercise in how to set out data and evidence in a satisfactory form. I will select, in about a week, exact translations of Rashi & Saadya with a guide on separating what is transmitted from the comments by the transmitter, and on how to show the reader where the divisions lie. I was wrong in saying that Rashi & Saadya are puzzled by what they transmit: it would be better to say they don’t want their readers to be puzzled, but don’t want them to be fully informed either. The statement of policy in this respect is given by Maimonides. I can do all this in the form of working notes without waiting for my translations. I will try to find more Rabbinic support beyond what I have so far. I will need to add to what Maimonides says, two other pieces of information on the reticence of the Rabbinic sources in explaining CLEARLY what they transmit. One is the statement on why there is no Targum to Daniel, the reason given being that there used to be one, but it was too explicit. The other is the statement of why the LXX of Daniel was replaced by Theodotion’s revision, namely that the original Greek translation was too explicit. Then I will have to give evidence for my claims about the authorship and dating of the Zadokite Document, and I will have to show which passages are specifically relevant to my article. Then I will have to quote any supporting evidence that is available from historical documentation.

I’ve seen for myself how evidence is set out, and source-references are given, in academic writing. I will have noticed that there are different ways of formatting, all of which are acceptable. However, I will have to put editorial annotations in the margins, so the text can be revised.