Source Ledger

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XVI · copies c. 125–50 BCE; edition 2000

Daniel fragments 4QDan a–e (4Q112–4Q116), ed. Eugene Ulrich, in Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XVI (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000).

Reliability · Primary manuscript evidence. Eight Daniel copies were recovered at Qumran, the earliest within roughly half a century of the book reaching its final form. The fragments are damaged and do not preserve every verse, so coverage of any particular passage must be checked individually rather than assumed.

Partially verified — Bibliographic identifiers present; no live catalogue check has been run.

National Library of Russia, Firkovich B19A · 1008 CE

Codex Leningradensis (Firkovich B19A), National Library of Russia, St Petersburg, dated 1008 CE.

Reliability · The oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible and the base text of the standard critical editions. Late relative to the Qumran evidence, but the agreement between the two is itself a measure of transmission stability.

Partially verified — Bibliographic identifiers present; no live catalogue check has been run.

K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (eds.) · Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft · 1977 (5th ed. 1997)

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977).

Reliability · The standard diplomatic critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, reproducing Codex Leningradensis with a variant apparatus. Diplomatic rather than eclectic: it prints one manuscript and records variants, so the apparatus rather than the main text carries the comparative evidence.

Partially verified — Bibliographic identifiers present; no live catalogue check has been run.

Joseph Ziegler; rev. Olivier Munnich · Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht · 1954; rev. ed. 1999

Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum XVI/2, Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, ed. Joseph Ziegler, rev. Olivier Munnich (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999).

Reliability · The critical edition of the Greek Daniel. Essential here because Daniel survives in two distinct Greek forms — the Old Greek and the Theodotionic text — and the difference between them is directly relevant to any claim about wording.

Internal corpus record — Internal corpus record. Not reconciled against an external catalogue.

Qumran Cave 1 · copy c. 30 BCE – 20 CE

The War Scroll (1QM), Qumran Cave 1, Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, Jerusalem.

Reliability · A sectarian composition, not a neutral witness to mainstream Second Temple belief. Its value here is narrow and real: it shows that a Jewish community close in time to Daniel read Michael as a commanding angelic figure in an eschatological conflict.

Partially verified — Bibliographic identifiers present; no live catalogue check has been run.

Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed. · c. 50–90 CE

Jude 9, in Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).

Reliability · The only New Testament text to apply the word archangelos to Michael explicitly. Later than Daniel by two to three centuries, so it evidences how Michael was understood in the first century rather than what Daniel's author intended.

Internal corpus record — Internal corpus record. Not reconciled against an external catalogue.

Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed. · c. 95 CE

Revelation 12:7–9, in Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. ed.

Reliability · Depicts Michael commanding angels in heavenly conflict, drawing on Danielic imagery. Because it is partly dependent on Daniel, it is a weaker witness to Daniel's own meaning than its vividness suggests.

Internal corpus record — Internal corpus record. Not reconciled against an external catalogue.

Ethiopic, Greek and Aramaic witnesses · c. 3rd–2nd century BCE

1 Enoch 9:1; 20:1–8; 40:9, with Aramaic fragments from Qumran Cave 4.

Reliability · Non-canonical for most traditions but chronologically close to Daniel, and one of the few sources that lets us see the angelological vocabulary in circulation when Daniel was written. Its own compositional layers are of different dates and must be distinguished.

Internal corpus record — Internal corpus record. Not reconciled against an external catalogue.

Hippolytus of Rome · Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller · c. 204 CE

Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel, c. 204 CE.

Reliability · The earliest surviving Christian commentary on any biblical book, and therefore the earliest direct evidence of how Christian readers handled Daniel 12. Evidence of reception, not of authorial intent.

Internal corpus record — Internal corpus record. Not reconciled against an external catalogue.

Emanuel Tov · Fortress Press · 2012

Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012).

Reliability · The standard handbook of Hebrew Bible textual criticism, by the editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls publication project. Authoritative on method and on the state of the manuscript evidence.

Partially verified — Bibliographic identifiers present; no live catalogue check has been run.

John J. Collins · Fortress Press · 1993

John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).

Reliability · The standard critical commentary on Daniel in English, from a scholar central to the study of Jewish apocalyptic. Works from the historical-critical consensus for a second-century BCE composition of Daniel 7–12; that framework is argued rather than assumed, but it is a framework.

Partially verified — Bibliographic identifiers present; no live catalogue check has been run.

Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella · Doubleday · 1978

Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, Anchor Bible 23 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1978).

Reliability · A major critical commentary from Catholic scholars, independent of Collins and reaching broadly similar conclusions on Daniel 12 by a separate route — which is what makes the convergence worth something.

Partially verified — Bibliographic identifiers present; no live catalogue check has been run.

Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (eds.) · Oxford University Press · 2014

Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (eds.), The Jewish Study Bible, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014).

Reliability · Jewish scholarly annotation of the Tanakh from a major university press. Included so that a Jewish reading of Daniel 12 is represented from within the tradition rather than summarised from outside it.

Partially verified — Bibliographic identifiers present; no live catalogue check has been run.

John Calvin · Calvin Translation Society · 1561 (ET 1852–53)

John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, trans. Thomas Myers (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852–53).

Reliability · A Reformation-era commentary of considerable historical influence. Cited here as evidence of reception history — Calvin reads Michael at Daniel 12:1 as Christ — not as evidence of what the Hebrew text meant in the second century BCE.

Internal corpus record — Internal corpus record. Not reconciled against an external catalogue.

Francis D. Nichol (ed.) · Review and Herald · 1955

Francis D. Nichol (ed.), The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington DC: Review and Herald, 1955).

Reliability · Denominational scholarship presenting the identification of Michael with Christ as a considered exegetical position. Cited so that the minority reading is stated in its own strongest terms; its confessional commitments are declared rather than hidden.

Internal corpus record — Internal corpus record. Not reconciled against an external catalogue.

Joyce G. Baldwin · Inter-Varsity Press · 1978

Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978).

Reliability · A careful conservative commentary defending a sixth-century setting for Daniel against the critical consensus. Included because the case for the minority dating should be represented by its serious form rather than by a caricature; its arguments on the Aramaic and the Persian loanwords are genuinely engaged with in the literature.

Partially verified — Bibliographic identifiers present; no live catalogue check has been run.