Báez, Enrique - Tesis Gen. 11

ABSTRACT
ALLUSIONS TO GENESIS 11:1-9 IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL: AN
EXEGETICAL AND INTERTEXTUAL STUDY
by
Enrique Báez
Adviser: Jacques B. Doukhan

ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH
Dissertation
Andrews University
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary
Title: ALLUSIONS TO GENESIS 11:1-9 IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL: AN

EXEGETICAL AND INTERTEXTUAL STUDY
Name of researcher: Enrique Báez
Name and degrees of faculty adviser: Jacques B. Doukhan, D.H.L., Th.D.
Date completed: June 2013
The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the allusions to Gen 11:1-9 in the
book of Daniel, and to demonstrate on exegetical and intertextual grounds the references
and allusions to Gen 11:1-9 in the book of Daniel and the theological implications of
those connections.
After reviewing the different kinds of intertextuality and the methodology used by
Old Testament scholars in the area of literary allusions (chap. 1), this dissertation
investigates the allusions to Gen 11 in both the historical (chap. 2) and the visionary
sections (chap. 3) of the book of Daniel. All the allusions to Gen 11 in the book of Daniel
are discussed and given an assessment of either “certain allusions,” “possible allusions,”
“uncertain allusions,” and “nonallusions.”
Furthermore, this study outlines the contribution of the allusions to Gen 11 to the
theology of the book of Daniel (chap. 4) and specifically relates the Babel motif to the
themes of the kingdom of God, judgment and the Israelite worship institution, the
Temple.
Finally, a summary and conclusions (chap. 5) gather and present the various
findings and insights gained from this research. Based on the evidence submitted in this
dissertation it is concluded that the allusions to Gen 11 play a dominant role in the whole
book of Daniel. It is further shown that the allusions to Gen 11 make a prominent
contribution to the main theological themes in Daniel and cannot be ignored by the
careful exegete.
Andrews University
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary
ALLUSIONS TO GENESIS 11:1-9 IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL
AN EXEGETICAL AND INTERTEXTUAL STUDY
A Dissertation
Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Enrique Báez
June 2013
UMI Number: 3590707
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3590707
Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© Copyright by Enrique Báez 2013
All Rights Reserved
ALLUSIONS TO GENESIS 11:1-9 IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL
AN EXEGETICAL AND INTERTEXTUAL STUDY
A dissertation
presented in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Enrique Baez
APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE:
Faculty Adviser, Director, PhD in Religion

Jacques B. Doukhan Thomas Shepherd
Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis
Jiri Moskala Dean, SDA Theological Seminary

Professor of Old Testament Exegesis and Theology Denis Fortin
Roy E. Gane
Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern
Languages
Paul Petersen
Professor of Hebrew Bible
Tremper Longman III Date approved

Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies
Westmont College, Santa Barbara, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................ xv
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
Background to the Problem .............................................................................. 1

Statement of the Problem................................................................................ 10
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................... 10
Justification for the Study ............................................................................... 10
Delimitations................................................................................................... 12
Methodology ................................................................................................... 12
Different Kinds of Intertextuality ............................................................ 14
Intertextuality and Old Testament Research............................................ 16
Methodological Approach for Identifying Allusions...................................... 25
Lexical Correspondences ........................................................................ 29
Thematic Similarities ............................................................................... 29
Structural Similarities .............................................................................. 30
II. ALLUSIONS TO GENESIS 11:1-9 IN DANIEL 1-6............................................. 34
Introduction..................................................................................................... 34
Allusions to Genesis 11 in Daniel 1................................................................ 36
The King of Babel and His Kingdom ........................................................ 37
On the Meaning of l¢RbD;b_JKRl`Rm …t…wäkVlAmVl // l$RbD;b ‹wø;tVkAlVmAm .............................. 41
On the Meaning of lRbD;b .......................................................................... 50
Implication of Allusion ......................................................................... 53
Meaning and Significance of r™Do◊nIv_X®r`Ra ..................................................... 55
Implication of Allusion ......................................................................... 59
Thematic Allusions: The Replacement of God.......................................... 59
The Temple Vessels .............................................................................. 60
Implication of Allusion ..................................................................... 64
“Appointing” the Menu......................................................................... 65
Giving Names (Gen 11:4; Dan 1:7) ...................................................... 70
Allusions to Genesis 11 in Daniel 2................................................................ 77
Introduction................................................................................................. 77
iii
Babylon: The First Kingdom ................................................................. 79
Implication of Allusion ...................................................................... 84
A Divided Kingdom.............................................................................. 84
The God of Heaven/Dwelling in Heaven (Gen 11; Dan 2:18) .............. 89
God Comes Down (Gen 11:5; Dan 2:44-45) ........................................ 93
The Scattering/Breaking Motif ............................................................. 95
Allusions to Gen 11 in Daniel 3.................................................................... 101
Introduction.............................................................................................. 101
The Plain (Gen 11:2; Dan 3:1)................................................................. 104
Implication of Allusion ........................................................................ 106
The Mighty Men ...................................................................................... 106
The Great Statue ...................................................................................... 108
Implication of Allusion ....................................................................... 113
Universal Dimension .............................................................................. 113
The Pride of the King.............................................................................. 118
“God” Comes Down (Gen 11:2; Dan 3:24-25)....................................... 122
Introduction.............................................................................................. 124
The Replacement of God: On “Naming”................................................. 127
The Motif of Reaching the Heavens ........................................................ 128
The Adam/Babel Motif ............................................................................ 134
The Watcher(s) Came Down ................................................................... 136
The Cut Down/Scattering Motif .............................................................. 145
The Great Babel ....................................................................................... 148
The Motif of Confusion ........................................................................... 158
Introduction.............................................................................................. 160
The Motif of Pride ................................................................................... 162
The Religious Nature of Belshazzar’s Feast ............................................ 168
Implication of the Last Two Allusion ................................................. 172
The Judgment Motif................................................................................. 174
The Motif of Confusion ........................................................................... 179
iv
The Scattering Motif ............................................................................... 181
Allusions to Gen 11 in Daniel 6............................................................... 182
Introduction.............................................................................................. 182
The Replacement of God: Kingdom and Law ......................................... 183
“God” Comes Down ............................................................................... 188
III. ALLUSIONS TO GENESIS 11:1-9 IN DANIEL 7-12........................................... 190
Introduction................................................................................................... 190
Allusions to Gen 11 in Daniel 7......................................................................... 192
Introduction................................................................................................... 192
The King of Babel and His Kingdom ........................................................... 196
Implications of Allusions........................................................................ 201
The Universal Dimension ............................................................................. 201
The Motif of Pride ........................................................................................ 204
The Motif of Judgment ................................................................................. 210
Implications of the last Two Allusions ................................................... 214
“God” Comes Down ..................................................................................... 215
Allusions to Gen 11 in Daniel 8............................................................................. 218
Introduction................................................................................................... 218
The Motif of Pride: On ldg ........................................................................... 223
Meaning and significance of Mˆy¡DmDÚvAh a∞DbVx_dAo ........................................... 226
Allusion to Gen 11 in Daniel 8:25 ................................................................ 232
Allusion to Gen 11 in Daniel 11 ............................................................................ 235
Introduction................................................................................................... 235
The Motif of Pride: On ldg ........................................................................... 238
Implications of Allusions.......................................................................... 249
IV. THEOLOGICAL ROLE OF BABEL IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL ...................... 251
Introduction................................................................................................... 251
The Theme of the Kingdom of God........................................................ 253
Universal Divine Sovereignty and Human Local Sovereignty............... 254
The Theme of God Judgment ....................................................................... 261
The Theme of Judgment in Daniel......................................................... 264
The Theme of the Temple................................................................... 270
Introduction................................................................................... 270
Theology of the Temple/House of God ........................................ 272
v
Summary ................................................................................................. 283
V. CONCLUSION......................................................................................................... 285
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................... 298
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB Anchor Bible
ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary
ACNT Augsburg Commentaries on the New Testament
AcT Acta theologica
AFO Archiv für Orientforschung
AJSLL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature
AnBib Analecta biblica
AOTC Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries
APetB Acta Patristica et Byzantina
ArS Aramaic Studies
ATSDS Adventist Theological Society Dissertation Series
ATSP Adventist Theological Society Publications
AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BChBC Believers Church Bible Commentary
BCOTWP Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
vii
BibIntS Biblical Interpretation Series
Bib Biblica
BLS Bible and Literature Series
BNC The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the

Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty
BR Biblical Research
BSac Bibliotheca Sacra
BT The Bible Translator
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
BZNT Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
CB Cultura Biblica
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBMH Comentario Bíblico Mundo Hispano
ChrArt Christianity and the Arts
ChrCent Christian Century
ClassPh Classical Philology
Colloq Colloquium
Com Commentary
ComHS A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures
ConC Concordia Commentary
ConJ Concordia Journal
viii
CPNIVC The College Press NIV Commentary
CPNIVOTI College Press NIV Commentary Old Testament Introduction
CriS Cristianismo y sociedad
CT Cuadernos de Teología
CTJ Calvin Theological Journal
CTQ Concordia Theological Quarterly
DARCOM Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
DCH The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew
DDD Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible
DLNT Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments
Dir Direction
DOTP Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch
DSBS The Daily Study Bible Series
EBS Encountering Biblical Studies
EBC Everyman’s Bible Commentary
ECB Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible
EDB Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible
EDBT Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology
EJ Evangelical Journal
ExBC The Expositor’s Bible Commentary
EstBíb Estudios bíblicos
EstuTeo Estudos teológicos
EPP Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics
ix
ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
ETR Etudes theologische et religieuses
EvT Evangelishe Theologie
FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature
GD Gorgias Dissertations
GMVO Götter und Mythen im vorderen Orient
HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
HBAAV The Holy Bible, According to the Authorized Version (A.D.

1611), with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary and a
Revision of the Translation.
HBM Hebrew Bible Monographs
HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology
HolOTC Holman Old Testament Commentary
HSDAT Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
HUCM Monographs of the Hebrew Union College
IB Interpreter’s Bible
IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and

Preaching
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
Int Interpretation
x
INSBL Indiana Studies Biblical Literature
IRM International Review of Mission
ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
ITC International Theological Commentary
JA Journal asiatique
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JATS Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JP Journal for Preachers
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JOSTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplements
JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement

Series
JST Journal of Theological Studies
LHB Library of Hebrew Bible
LP Living Pulpit
xi
MBC The Mellen Biblical Commentary. Old Testament Series
MenQR Mennonite Quarterly Review
MethQR Methodist Quarterly Review
MethR Methodist Review
MinF Ministerial Formation
MJNEAL Monographic Journals of the Near East Afroasiatic Linguistics
ModB Modern Believing
NAC New American Commentary
NBBC New Beacon Bible Commentary
NCBC New Century Bible Commentary
NCCHS A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture
NIBOne-VC The New Interpreter’s Bible One-Volume Commentary
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NIDB The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible
NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and

Exegesis
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIVAC NIV Application Commentary
NPEPP The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics
NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology
NSK-AT Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar-Altes Testament
NZK-AT Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar-Altes Testament
xii
Or Orientalia
OTG Old Testament Guides
OTS Old Testament Studies
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PTR Princeton Theological Review
QR Quarterly Review
RefR Reformed Review
RevExp Review and Expositor
RIBLA Revista de Interpretación Bíblica Latinoamericana
SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
ScrHier Scripta hierosolymitana
SDAIBC Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary
Sem Semitica
SHBC Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary
SJOT Scandinavian Journal for the Old Testament
SNTSB Society for New Testament Studies Bulletin
SPCK Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
SS Shabbat Shalom
StBL Studies in Biblical Literature
ST Studia theologica
TBRS The Biblical Resources Series
TCAAS Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences
xiii
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament
TGUOS Glasgow University Oriental Society Transactions
ThBC Theological Bible Commentary
Them Themelios
THOTC The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary
ThSt Theologische Studien
TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
UV Ugarit-Forschungen
VE Vox evangelica
VT Vetus Testamentum
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WLQ Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZA Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZKT Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie
xiv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Long ago Solomon said, “The end of a matter is better than its beginning” (Eccl
7:8 TNIV). I praise GOD, King and Sustainer of the universe, for giving me the strength
to finish this dissertation.
The realization of a work like this requires more than personal diligence and
rigorous attention. For this reason, I would like to express my gratitude to those who have
contributed to the completion of this dissertation.
First, I would like to express my deep gratitude for my professor and mentor, Dr.
Jacques Doukhan, who patiently supervised this research, upholding a higher standard of
excellence and who was always timely in his feedback. I want also to thank the other
members of my committee: Dr. Roy Gane for his many helpful insights and his
constructive criticism, and Dr. Jiri Moskala, who provided exegetical sensitivity and
encouragement. Thanks are also due to Dr. Paul Petersen, the fourth reader, for his
suggestions and for stimulating my thinking, and especially to Dr. Tremper Longman III,
Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies at Westmont College, who was willing to
serve as the external examiner at my defense and who also provided valuable comments
and suggestions that helped improve the final presentation of this work.
A special word of thanks is due to the Hispanic Theological Initiative (HTI). The
HTI provided me with support, with networking, and with financial assistance during my
doctoral studies and research. Joanne Rodríguez, Ángela Schoepf, and María Kennedy
xv
have been very supportative through all these years. The HTI also provided for the
editorial assistance of Ulrike Guthrie whose careful editing and proofreading saved my
manuscript from many blunders and corrected my writing style and grammar to academic
standards. The HTI also provided financial support for me to be mentored by Dr.
Guillermo Ramirez, who has been a source of wisdom and encouragement.
I would like to thank Dr. Leona G. Running and Terry Robertson for their help
with proofreading. Special thanks are due to Bonnie Proctor, Dissertation Secretary, who
did the last proofreading and improved the readability of this dissertation.
I also express appreciation to the Gerhard F. Hasel PhD grant program and to the
Chan Shun scholarship at Andrews University for financial support during the entire
doctoral program. Both Dr. Najeeb Nakhle and Mabel Bowen were instrumental in the
provision of financial aid.
Many others, too many to mention all by name, have contributed to this work.
Special thanks go to the staff of the libraries at Andrews University and The Hebrew
University for their cheerful assistance in acquiring items essential to the research.
I especially want to express my love for and appreciation to my wife, Raquel.
Without her encouragement, affection, and companionship, the long hours of writing
would not have been possible. My children, Erick, Eddy, and Rachel, likewise remained
patient and understanding during the dissertation writing process. Finally, I am indebted
to my parents, Juan and Elsa, and my siblings, Luca, Kisme, and Felix, for their prayers
and support during this doctoral venture.
Soli Deo Gloria
xvi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
The book of Daniel, like other books of the Bible, is a literary work.1 Written in
prose and also in poetry, employing poetic devices such as parallelisms, echoes, plays on
words, and rhythms, the book is a literary masterpiece.2 Its two dominant literary types
are narratives (Dan 1-6) and visions (Dan 7-12). The former are well structured,
characterized by plot, setting, and characters, and rich in various literary devices.3 The
latter, in line with what is found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, deals with eschatological
and apocalyptic types of prophecy.4 Thus the author of Daniel “skillfully unifies the two
1
A. Ferch explains that as a literary composition the book of Daniel may be
analyzed as to genre (kind of literature), tone, form, structure, style, vocabulary, etc.
Arthur J. Ferch, “Authorship, Theology, and Purpose of Daniel,” in Symposium on
Daniel, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, DARCOM, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Biblical Research
Institute, 1986), 23.
2
Jacques Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel: Wisdom and Dreams of a Jewish Prince in
Exile (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 10.
3
Zdravko Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom for the Wise: Commentary on the Book of
Daniel (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2007), 27.
4
Ibid. For further literary analysis of the book of Daniel, see also Joyce G.
Baldwin, “Daniel: Theology of,” NIDOTTE (1997), 4: 499-502; Pablo S. David, “The
Composition and Structure of the Book of Daniel: A Synchronic and Diachronic
Reading” (PhD diss., Katholicke Universiteit Leuven, 1991); Jacques Doukhan, Daniel:
The Vision of the End, Rev. ed. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1989),
halves by such devices as connecting themes with diverse imagery (chs. 2 and 7),
anticipating the beast-rulers by a ruler-beast (chs. 4 and 7-8), flashing back to past reigns
for the timing of visions (chs. 6 and 7 -8, 9, and 11), foreshadowing a vision in Cyrus’s
reign by early references (chs. 1, 10), and bridging the Hebrew of 1:1-2:4a and 8-12 by
the Aramaic of 2:4b-7:28.”5
John Goldingay states that the book of Daniel has specific links with a variety of
streams of tradition in the OT and elsewhere,6 incorporating motifs, imagery, and
phraseology from biblical, and to some degree also from nonbiblical, literature. Indeed,
the text is shot through with literary allusions, paraphrastic quotations, and borrowed
phrases, all of which demonstrate the writer’s familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures.7
Little wonder then that scholars have recognized the considerable continuity between
3-6; A. Lenglet, “La structure litteraire de Daniel 2-7,” Bib 53 (1972): 169-90; William
H. Shea, “Further Literary Structures in Daniel 2-7: An Analysis of Daniel 4,” AUSS 23
(1985): 193-202; William H. Shea, “Further Literary Structures in Daniel 2-7: An
Analysis of Daniel 5, and the Broader Relationships Within Chapters 2-7,” AUSS 23
(1985): 277-95; Andrew E. Steinmann, “The Shape of Things to Come: The Genre of the
Historical Apocalypse in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature” (PhD diss., University
of Michigan, 1990), 38-42; Hans van Deventer, “The End of the End, or, What Is the
Deuteronomist (Still) Doing in Daniel?,” in Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic
History and the Prophets, ed. Johannes C. de Moor and Harry F. van Rooy (Leiden: Brill,
2000), 71-74.
5
James H. Sims, “Daniel,” in A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Leland
Ryken and Tremper Longman III (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 328-29.
6
For Goldingay, Daniel begins with a virtual quotation from Chronicles, and
suggests links with Israelite historiography. John Goldingay, Daniel, WBC 30 (Dallas,
TX: Word Books, 1989), 322. Cf. G. I. Davies, “Apocalyptic and Historiography,” JSOT
5 (1978): 15-28; J. W. Wesselius, “Discontinuity, Congruence and the Making of the
Hebrew Bible,” SJOT 13 (1999): 24-77.
7
Shemaryahu Talmon, “Daniel,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Robert
Alter and Frank Kermode (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
1987), 346, 355.
2
Daniel and the prophetic tradition.8 That continuity is not only a matter of citations from
biblical texts but is also found in the vision form and in the eschatological expectation of
supernatural intervention for the deliverance of the people.9 Thus the symbolic language
of Daniel must be seen as an aspect of its genre, complementary to the literary and
conceptual structure.10
John Collins, among others, has shown that biblical allusions play an important
part in the book of Daniel,11 and numerous OT scholars have noted the parallels of Dan 2
8
Robert A. Anderson, Signs and Wonders: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel,
ITC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 1984), xii-xiv; John Joseph Collins, Daniel, First
Maccabees, Second Maccabees: With an Excursus on the Apocalyptic Genre
(Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1981); John Joseph Collins, Daniel: With an
Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, FOTL (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans,
1984), 18; John Joseph Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel,
Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 59-60; Alexander A. Di Lella, Daniel: A
Book for Troubling Times, Spiritual Commentaries (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press,
1997), 11; Louis Francis Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, AB,
vol. 23 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978), 231; André Lacocque, Daniel in His Time
(Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988), 183-86; Stephen R. Miller,
Daniel, NAC 18 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 243; James A.
Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (New York:
Scribner, 1927), 360-61; W. Sibley Towner, Daniel, IBC (Atlanta: John Knox Press,
1984). Knibb explains that continuity can be observed between Old Testament prophecy
and the use in Dan 7 and 8 of a literary genre familiar to us from the prophetic literature.
Michael A. Knibb, “You Are Indeed Wiser Than Daniel: Reflections on the Character of
the Book of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van
der Woude (Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993), 402. Goldingay
observes that the link with prophecy leads to a consideration of Daniel’s links with
divination or mantic wisdom in the OT and elsewhere. Goldingay, Daniel, 324.
9
John Joseph Collins, “Apocalyptic Genre and Mythic Allusions in Daniel,” JSOT
21 (1981): 89-90.
10
Ibid., 94.
11
Collins, Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 100. See also
Jacques Doukhan, “Allusions à la création dans le livre de Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel
in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude (Leuven-Louvain, Belgium:
Leuven University Press, 1993), 285-92; G. G. Labonté, “Genèse 41 et Daniel 2:
3
to the story of Joseph interpreting Pharaoh’s dreams in Gen 41.12 For example, Michael
Segal states that both stories describe a foreign king who dreams a dream and is troubled
(wjwr Mop[t]tw) because he does not understand it (Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 2:1; Pharaoh
in Gen 41:8).13 Similarly, Louis Hartman has shown that the account in Dan 4:2-6 about
the failure of the Babylonian soothsayers to explain Nebuchadnezzar’s dream owes
something to the story of Joseph in Egypt, in which the Egyptian magicians are presented
as unable to interpret Pharaoh’s dream. Thus Hartman explains that “the borrowing in
Daniel is evident from the fact that, with all the other words used here for various kinds
of soothsayers, Daniel (Dan 1:20; 2:2, 10, 27; 4:4-6) also uses the same word for
‘magicians’ (Heb. hartummîm) that occurs in Gen 41:8, 24 (cf. also Ex 7,11.22; 8,3.14f;
9,11), although this is a loanword from Egyptian . . .”14 Hartman has suggested that Dan
4 is also indebted to Ezek 31:6, 13, where the king of Egypt is likened to one of the great
Question d’origine,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van
der Woude (Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993), 271-84; André
Lacocque, “Allusions to Creation in Daniel 7,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and
Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 114-31.
12
Of the many OT scholars who have noticed these parallels between Dan 2 and
Gen 41, see e.g., Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 39-40;
Goldingay, Daniel, 37-39; Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel; Labonté, “Genèse
41 et Daniel 2: Question d’origine,” 271-84; Tremper Longman III, Daniel, NIVAC
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 73-74; Mattew S. Rindge, “Jewish Identity under
Foreign Rule: Daniel 2 as a Reconfiguration of Genesis 41,” JBL 129 (2010): 85-104; L.
Rosenthal, “Die Josephgeschichte mit den Büchern Ester und Daniel verglichen,” ZAW
15 (1895): 278-85; Towner, Daniel, 29-31.
13
Michael Segal, “From Joseph to Daniel: The Literary Development of the
Narrative in Daniel 2,” VT 59 (2009): 142.
14
Louis Hartman, “The Great Tree and Nabuchodonosor’s Madness,” in The Bible
in Current Catholic Thought, ed. J. L. Mckenzie (New York: Herder and Herder, 1962),
77-78.
4
trees of Lebanon that is cut down and its branches scattered.15 John Gammie has written
that there is evidence that the sources of Dan 4 and 5 may be seen to lie at least in part in
the books of Proverbs and Job. “In the book of Job it is described how God reveals
transgressions to kings guilty of pride, but gives them to complete their days in well-
being (battoli) if they heed and serve him, while the ones with profane minds (hanpê-lêb)
die in their youth (cf. Job 36:5-14 and Prov 16:5-7 with the fate of Nebuchadnezzar in
Dan 4 and that of Belshazzar in Dan 5).”16
It is well known among biblical scholars that within Dan 9-12 older biblical
material is widely reused.17 Whereas Dan 9 contains verbal allusion to the text of
Jeremiah,18 Dan 10-12 is full of verbal allusions to, and quotations from, prophetic
texts.19 Michael Knibb suggests there are four texts or groups of texts that do seem
important as a source for Daniel’s allusions in Dan 10-12.
First, the application of the prophecy of judgment on the Assyrians in Isa 10:24-27 to
the Syrians . . . through the allusion to Isa 10:23 (hxrjnw hlk) and 25 (Moz hlk) in
Dan 11:36: htcon hxrjn yk Moz hlk_do jy‹lxhw, “He shall prosper until the period of
wrath is completed for what is determined shall be done.” Second, the application of
15
Ibid., 78.
16
John Gammie, “On the Intention and Sources of Daniel I-VI,” VT 31 (1981):
284.
17
Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford,
Oxfordshire: Clarendon Press, 1985), 479-95; Knibb, “You Are Indeed Wiser Than
Daniel: Reflections on the Character of the Book of Daniel,” 404. Paul L. Redditt,
Introduction to the Prophets (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 187.
18
Besides verbal allusions, Walter E. Rast has shown that there are several
grammatical features, which are found only in Dan 9 and the book of Jeremiah. Walter E.
Rast, “Daniel 9: Its Form and Theological Significance” (PhD diss., University of
Chicago, 1966), 94-128.
19
Knibb, “You Are Indeed Wiser Than Daniel: Reflections on the Character of the
Book of Daniel,” 406.
5
the Fourth Servant Song group described in Dan 12:3 as “the wise” (Mylkcmh) and
“those who lead many to righteousness” (Mybrh yqydxm) through the allusion to Isa
53:11 (Mybrl ydbo qydx qydxy, “the righteous one, my servant will make many
righteous”) and Isa 52:12 (ydbo lykcy hnh, “See, my servant shall prosper” or “See,
my servant shall be wise”).’ Third, the direct allusion to Num 24:24 (“But ships shall
come from Kittim and shall afflict Asshur and Eber; and he also shall perish for
ever,” dym Myxw dba ydo awh_Mgw rbo wnow rwva wnow Mytk) in Dan 11:30 (“Ships of
Kittim will come against him, and he will lose heart,” hakn◊w Mytk Myyx wb wabw),
through which it seems likely that the references to Asshur and Eber in Num 24:24
were interpreted in relation to the Syrians and the eastern part of the Seleucid empire.
. . . Finally, the use of Hab. 2:3a (“For there is still a vision for the appointed time; it
testifies of the end, and does not lie,” bzky alw Xäql jpyw dowøml Nwzj dwo yk), three, or
perhaps four, times in Daniel 10-12 (see 10:14; 11:1:27 35, and perhaps 11:29) as
well as in 8:17, 19.20
Indeed, the book of Daniel has become something of a locus classicus of inner-biblical
exegesis.21 The humanlike figure that touches Daniel’s lips (10:16) is described in
imagery that appears to be derived from the inauguration visions of Jeremiah (Jer 1:9),
Ezekiel (Ezek 1, esp. v. 26), and possibly Isaiah (Isa 6:6-7).22 In the same vein, H. L.
Ginsberg has shown persuasive evidence that in Dan 10-12 is found the oldest
interpretation of the suffering Servant of Isa 53.23 In the book of Isaiah, the servant motif
20
Michael A. Knibb, “The Book of Daniel in Its Context,” in The Book of Daniel:
Composition and Reception, ed. John Joseph Collins and Peter W. Flint (Leiden: Brill,
2001), 18.
21
Matthias Henze, “The Use of Scripture in the Book of Daniel,” in A Companion
to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2012), 279-80. Cf. Lester L. Grabbe, “Daniel: Sage, Seer . . . and Prophet?,”
in Constructs of Prophecy in the Former and Latter Prophets and Other Texts, ed. Lester
L. Grabbe and Martti Nissinen (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 88-91.
22
Talmon, “Daniel,” 347.
23
According to Ginsberg, “the Maskilim, like the Servant, justify the Many; and
though one sense of this phrase in Daniel may be that they instruct them and induce them
to take the right path (Dan 11:33), some of the Maskilim do also suffer martyrdom and
are resurrected, and it is only to these that the epithet of ‘justifiers of the Many’ certainly
applies (Dan 12: 3).” H. L. Ginsberg, “The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering
6
is very distinctive (lsa 41: 1-20; 41: 21-42:17; 42: 18-48:22; 49-50; 52:13-53:12), and in
the book of Daniel there are also allusions to the servant motif (Dan 3:26; 4:5, 6, 15, 21;
5:11).24 For instance, just as the spirit (ruah) rests upon the servant in Isaiah (42:1), so it
rested upon Daniel (Dan 4: 5, 6, 15; 5:11). Just as the servant in Isaiah trusted in God (Isa
1:10), so did Daniel and his companions (Dan 4:24; 3:28). Just as the servant “exposed
his life to death” (Isa 53:12), so did Daniel and his companions (Dan 3 and 6).25
Additionally, Daniel Bailey states that “the language of ‘awakening’ from the sleep of
death in Daniel 12:2 is apparently borrowed directly from Isaiah 26:19: ‘Awake (…wxy°IqDh)
and shout for joy, you dwellers in the dust!’ (MT).”26 Moreover, Daniel uses the Hebrew
construct phrase r™DpDo_tAm√dAa (Dan 12:2), in order to allude to Gen 3:19, the only other
biblical text in the Hebrew Bible that uses the same two words in the same sequence (first
hDm∂dSa, then rDpDo in the same phrase). Recently, Doukhan has shown that both texts share
also the same partitive NIm, in Gen 3:19 to describe God’s act of creation, “from it [hDm∂dSa]
you were taken,” and in Dan 12:2 to describe God’s act of re-creation, “from those . . . in
Servant,” VT 3 (1953): 402.

24
Sung Ik Kim, “Proclamation in Cross-cultural Context: Missiological
Implications of the Book of Daniel” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2005), 42-43.
25
Gammie, “On the Intention and Sources of Daniel I-VI,” 89.
26
Daniel P. Bailey, “The Intertextual Relationship of Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah
26:19: Evidence from Qumran and the Greek Versions,” TynBul 51 (2000): 305.
Acccording to R. Hendel, Dan 12:1-4 is built up from a network of allusions and citations
from other OT prophets, primarily Isaiah. Ronald S. Hendel, “Isaiah and the Transition
from Prophecy to Apocalyptic,” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near
Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the
Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Volume 1, ed. Chaim Cohen and et al. (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 269-77.
7
hDm∂dSa will awake.”27
The intertextuality between Dan 12 and Gen 2-3 could be strengthened even more
by the simple fact that the location where the vision (Dan 10-12) was given to Daniel,
namely at the river l®qá∂;dIj, is mentioned in the Old Testament only two times, here in Dan
10:4 and in Gen 2:14. The context of Gen 2 is the Garden of Eden. Artur Stele has shown
that the mentioning of this river in Dan 10 could be understood as an allusion to the
Garden of Eden with the goal of emphasizing Daniel’s longing for the return to Eden.28 In
D. Block’s opinion, the style of the entire book of Daniel may be characterized as
allusive and anthological.29
A careful study, however, reveals the inadequacy of research in relation to the
allusions to the Tower of Babel30 in the book of Daniel. Recently, in limited research and
articles a few scholars have recognized the use of Gen 11:1-9 in the book of Daniel. For
example, Jacques Doukhan explains the association “Babylon-Jerusalem” in Dan 1:1 in
relation to Gen 11:1-9. Thus Doukhan shows that since the most ancient times, biblical
references to Babylon symbolize the forces of evil that oppose God and seek to possess
27
Jacques Doukhan, “From Dust to Stars: The Vision of Resurrection(s) in Daniel
12,1-3 and Its Resonance in the Book of Daniel,” in Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical
Traditions in Dialogue, ed. Oyen Geert Van and Tom Shepherd, BETL CCIL (Leuven:
Uitgeverij Peeters, 2012), 90. Cf. Anne E. Gardner, “The Way to Eternal Life in Daniel
2:1e-2 or How to Reverse the Death Curse of Genesis 3,” ABR 40 (1992): 6.
28
Artur A. Stele, “Resurrection in Daniel 12 and Its Contribution to the Theology
of the Book of Daniel” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 1996), 94, 227.
29
Daniel I. Block, “Preaching Old Testament Apocalyptic to a New Testament
Church,” CTJ 41 (2006): 30.
30
The Hebrew term lRbD;b is the word for both Babel and Babylon, with no
difference between the two words.
8
for themselves divine prerogatives and privileges.31 In Dan 1:2, the word “Shinar” is the
name for Babylon that recalls the story of the Tower of Babel in Gen 11 and associates
Babylon with the hubris evident in that account.32 Sharon Pace affirms that “Shinar,” a
synonym of Babylon, is used pejoratively throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. It is the
location of the arrogant building of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:2) and the place of origin
of one of the four kings who attacked Abraham (Gen 14:1).33 M. De Haan writes that in
order to thoroughly understand the meaning of the image in Dan 3, one must go farther
back in biblical history, as Babylon and Babylonianism began in the days immediately
after the Flood of Noah. We have the record in Gen 10 and 11. Thus he explains the “first
Babylon or Babel was a picture of Babylon throughout all the ages to follow. For Babel
or Babylon is a system, a political and religious system opposed to the true religion of
Jehovah.”34 Significantly, Michael Hilton points out that Gen 11:1-9 and Dan 5 are
clearly parallel passages, a point that had gone unnoticed by critical commentators.
Furthermore Hilton argues that it is important to explore in detail the links between Dan 5
and Gen 11:1-9—the Tower of Babel.35 Yet Hilton, Pace, De Hann, and Doukhan’s work
31
Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel: Wisdom and Dreams of a Jewish Prince in Exile,
13. Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom for the Wise: Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 47.
32
Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “Daniel,” NIB (1996), 7:39.
33
Sharon Pace, Daniel, SHBC (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2008),
25. See also George Wesley Buchanan, The Book of Daniel, MBC, vol. 25 (Lewiston,
NY: Mellen Biblical Press, 1999), 21; Ernest Lucas, Daniel, AOTC 20 (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 52; Andrew E. Steinmann, Daniel, ConC (Saint Louis:
Concordia, 2008), 84-85.
34
M. R. De Haan, Daniel The Prophet (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications,
1995), 75.
35
Michael Hilton, “Babel Reversed—Daniel Chapter 5,” JSOT 66 (1995): 107.
9
are in the minority. No comprehensive treatment of the use of Gen 11:1-9 in the book of
Daniel has been undertaken.
Statement of the Problem
The history of biblical interpretation shows a lack of detailed exegetical-
intertextual study regarding the allusions to Gen 11:1-9 in the book of Daniel. What are
the linguistic connections that exist between Gen 11:1-9 and the book of Daniel? What
does Babel/Babylon represent as a theological symbol in the book of Daniel? These
questions need to be addressed in order to obtain a more complete understanding of the
use of Gen 11:1-9 in the book of Daniel and its theological implications.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the allusions to Gen 11:1-9 in the
book of Daniel, and to demonstrate on exegetical-intertextual, linguistic, and
grammatical-syntactical grounds the references and allusions to Gen 11:1-9 in the book
of Daniel and the theological implications of those connections.
Justification of the Study
There is a striking relationship between Gen 11:1-9 and the book of Daniel, but
Hebrew biblical scholars have generally neglected this association. Joyce Baldwin notes
of the book of Daniel that “Babylon is the historic city of the Neo-Babylonian empire; its
kings are real men with awesome power. Nowhere is there any hint that Babylon is to be
taken as in any way symbolic of something else, although there was symbolism ready to
hand in Gen 11:9, and as such in major prophetic books (Isa. 13:19; Jer. 51:7; cf. Rev
10
17:5).”36 It is true that Babylon is a literal city in Daniel. However, the textual evidence
suggests that Baldwin’s conclusion on the symbolic meaning of Babylon in Daniel is
wrong, because the symbolism of Babylon from Gen 11 and developed by the prophets37
is picked up in Daniel. Despite the contribution of some scholars on the connections
between Genesis and Daniel, there is clearly a lack of detailed exegetical-intertextual
study on the use of Gen 11:1-9 in the book of Daniel. Despite the fact that many
dissertations have been written on the book of Daniel, no comprehensive study has been
made on the use of Gen 11:1-9 in the book of Daniel. For instance, William Norris
Wilson’s dissertation is concerned more broadly with the symbolic and theological
meaning of Babylon in the Pentateuch and the Prophets. Thus, Wilson establishes that
from the Tower of Babel,38 Babylon is a negative symbol bespeaking the desire for
autonomy; the pride of those who revolt, who cast off ordained limits; the hubris that
challenges the idea of submission to a God who claims sovereign control; the effort to
find a cultural oneness derived from self-sufficiency.39 However, what has been lacking
is a study that investigates the allusions to Gen 11:1-9 in the book of Daniel and the
36
Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Downers
Grove, IL: Inter-varsity, 1978), 46.
37
See Isa 13:1, 19-22; 14:3-22; Jer 50-51.
38
See John H. Walton’s dissertation entitled “The Tower of Babel,” which dealt
primarily with the exegesis of the MT and the Mesopotamian background of Gen 11:1-9.
John H. Walton, “The Tower of Babel” (PhD diss., Hebrew Union College 1981).
Regarding the use and meaning of Babylon in the book of Jeremiah, see also John Hill,
Friend or Foe? The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah MT, BibIntS 40 (Leiden:
Brill, 1999).
39
William Norris Wilson, “The Theological and Symbolic Significance of
Babylon in the Pentateuch and the Prophets” (PhD diss., Queen's University Belfast,
2006), 288.
11
theological role of Babylon in the book of Daniel as a whole. Critical and conservative
scholars alike tend to take into consideration only the allusions to Babel that are found in
the historical section of the book of Daniel (Dan 1-6), neglecting thus any further
allusions to Babel in the prophetic section of the book (Dan 7-12). Despite continued
interest in the exegetical reuse of earlier biblical passages in subsequent texts and the
widespread recognition that Daniel alludes to older biblical material, relatively few
studies examine the literary connections between Gen 11 and the book of Daniel. This
dissertation focuses on how Gen 11 is used or alluded to throughout the book of Daniel.
Delimitations
This research focuses on the Masoretic Text (MT) of the book of Daniel in its
final form as constituted by the MT of the Leningrad Codex B 19A (A.D. 1008), which is
regarded as the oldest dated manuscript of the complete Hebrew Bible and is the basis for
the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS).40 This dissertation includes some exegetical
discussion of Gen 11:1-9 and its immediate context as far as it relates to the story of the
Tower of Babel in order to assess the allusions to Gen 11:1-9 in the book of Daniel; but
no exhaustive exegesis of the account of the Tower of Babel is undertaken. This study
does not engage in the theoretical analysis of the redaction of the text but focuses instead
on the text in its final form. Aspects unrelated to this quest are not pursued.
Methodology
The methodological approach employed in this dissertation combines the
40
Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia
Hebraica (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 10.
12
hermeneutic of biblical exegesis and intertextuality.41 On the one hand, according to
Douglas Stuart exegesis is the process of careful, analytical study of biblical passages
undertaken in order to produce useful interpretations of those passages.42 On the other
hand, intertextuality is concerned with the relationship between texts.43 Intertextuality is
commonly used these days to express relationships between words, phrases, or longer
statements in one passage in the Bible that are used in other passages in the Bible.44 Thus
41
Julia Kristeva is generally credited as the first who introduced the term
“intertextuality” into literary discussion. Julia Kristeva, Desire in Language: A Semiotic
Approach to Literature and Art (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980). However,
the history of the concept of intertextuality begins with the Russian literary critic Michael
Bakhtin in the 1920s. Thus forty years later Kristeva introduced Bakhtin’s ideas in
France. E. J. van Wolde, Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1-11
(Leiden: Brill, 1994), 161-62. Regarding the figure of echo and allusions, see John
Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1981).
42
Douglas K. Stuart, “Exegesis,” ABD (1992), 2:682. Stuart also explains that in
order “to do OT exegesis properly, you have to be something of a generalist. You will
quickly become involved with the functions and meanings of words (linguistics); the
analysis of literature and speech (philology); theology; history; the transmission of the
biblical writings (textual criticism); stylistics, grammar, and vocabulary analysis; and the
vaguely defined yet inescapably important area of sociology.” Douglas K. Stuart, Old
Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors, 3rd ed. (Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001), 1.
43
Sipke Draisma, Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas
van Iersel, ed. Sipke Draisma (Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989), 18;
Patricia Tull, “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures,” CurBS 8 (2000): 59-90.
Compare also with Moyise who says that the value of the term ‘intertextuality’ is that it
evokes such complexity and openness. “However, if intertextuality is best used as an
‘umbrella’ term, then it requires subcategories to indicate the individual scholar’s
particular interest or focus. In this essay, I suggest three such categories. The first I call
Intertextual Echo. The second category I have called Dialogical Intertextuality. The third
I have called Postmodern Intertextuality.” Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the New
Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North, JSNTSup 189 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2000), 17.
44
William H. Shea, “Intertextuality within Daniel,” in Wort und Stein: Studien
zur Theologie und Archäologie: Festschrift für Udo Worschech, ed. Herausgegeben Von
13
intertextuality can then be defined as the potential transferability of utterances (sentences
or text fragments) beyond the borders of the text, and their assimilation in new text
structures.45 Intertextuality is the attempt to appreciate the meaning of a text by focusing
on the text (or texts) within it; that is, quoted in it or echoed in it.46 Offering new insights
into textual relations, intertextuality is changing the way scholars think about textual
production and interpretation.47
Different Kinds of Intertextuality
According to van Wolde, there are two possible and contradictory visions of
intertextuality that are important for biblical exegesis and for any interpretation of texts:
(1) intertextuality related to text production (the components are: writer, diachronic,
sources, causality, indexicality, limited number of relations and compulsory relations)
and (2) intertextuality related to text reception (the components are: reader, synchronic,
functions, analogy, iconicity, unlimited number of relations, and free relations).48 At the
center of the debate between intertextualists are the questions of who gives meaning to
the text—the author or the reader—and how texts are interrelated—by influence theory or
and Friedbert Ninow (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2003), 219.

45
van Wolde, Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1-11, 165.
46
James H. Charlesworth, “Intertextuality: Isaiah 40:3 and the Serek Ha-yahad,”
in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of
James A. Sanders, ed. Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon (Leiden: Brill, 1997),
218.
47
Danna Nolan Fewell, Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew
Bible, 1st ed., Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 10.
48
14
by a multifaceted dialogical concept.49 Intertextuality related to text production is thus to
be viewed as a phenomenon that is operative both in the production or the writing process
of a text, and in the reception or reading of a text. Van Wolde explains,
This view of the text is thus related to the production of the text. Historical-critical
exegesis thus directs all its attention to the genesis of the text and the intention of the
writer. . . . Intertextual relationships too, according to this approach, are products of
the writer’s giving of meaning. The author or editor used other texts in his or her
writing process: s/he indicates these explicitly or implicitly, by means of quotations,
allusions, ironic allusions and suchlike. A good reader is one who knows, or
discovers, which texts the author used when writing. This form of intertextuality is
essentially diachronic or historical in nature.50
On the other hand, in intertextuality related to text reception, the reader is in the key
position, as the one who allows the texts to interact with one another.51 The reader
constructs the mutual relevance of different texts as perceived by the reader but not
necessarily intended by the author. The intertext from which the reader can freely choose
intertextual relations is the entire universe of written and nonwritten texts, which makes
this model a truly synchronic approach.52 However, in intertextuality-text reception, “the
historical process by which the text came into being is no longer important, but rather the
final text product, which is compared with other texts in synchronic relationship.53 In
49
Martin Pröbstle, “Truth and Terror: A Text-Oriented Analysis of Daniel 8:9-14”
(PhD diss., Andrews University, 2006), 571-572.
50
51
E. J. van Wolde, “Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and
Tamar Narratives,” BibInt 5 (1997): 6.
52
Pröbstle, “Truth and Terror: A Text-Oriented Analysis of Daniel 8:9-14”, 571-
572.
53
Even though the last thirty years have witnessed the introduction of new methods for
doing exegesis, as canonical criticism and literary criticism, which study the biblical text
15
conclusion, since the intertextuality related to text reception makes it difficult to use for
the interpretation of texts (one reader’s matrix of associations will differ from another’s),
the approach used in this dissertation builds on the restricted and limited concept of
intertextuality, namely, intertextuality related to text production.
Intertextuality and Old Testament Research
The use of Scripture within Scripture continues to generate interest among
biblical scholars. In recent years biblical scholars have increasingly realized that the
biblical authors explain, revise, and allude to texts written by their predecessors. Biblical
intertextuality represents a relatively new discipline, riding the crest of recent
developments in the study of the biblical text from a literary perspective. As a result,
formal studies exploring intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible are scarce.54 On the other
hand, the literature on the intertextual use of the Old Testament in the New Testament is
huge.55 Among the most significant works, Richard Hays’s formulation of
in its final form, among OT scholars interest remains strong in trying to uncover the
process by which the biblical text was composed. Alexander explains that the shift in
emphasis entails a switch from diachronic (“through time”) to a synchronic (“at the same
time”) reading of the text. T. D. Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land: An
Introduction to the Pentateuch, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 5.
Regarding the ongoing debate among OT scholars and the use of synchronic and
diachronic methods, see Johannes C. Moor, Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on
Method in Old Testament Exegesis, OtSt (Leiden: Brill, 1995).
54
Sheri Lynn Klouda, “An Analysis of the Significance of Isaiah’s Use of Psalms
96-99” (PhD diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminar, 2002), 7.
55
Representative works include: Brian J. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old
Testament in Romans 9:1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis, Library of New
Testament Studies, Supplement Series 301 (New York: T&T Clark International, 2005);
Gregory K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation, JSNTSup 166
(Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); Andrew C. Brunson, Psalm 118 in
the Gospel of John: An Intertextual Study on the New Exodus Pattern in the Theology of
16
methodological criteria56 makes a particularly key contribution to the analysis of textual
borrowing. Hays stated that the volume of intertextual echoes between texts varies in
accordance with the semantic distance between the source and the reflecting surface.’
Quotation, allusion, and echo57 may be seen as points along a spectrum of intertextual
John, WUNT 2, Series 158 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Steve Moyise, The Old
Testament in the Book of Revelation, JSNTSup 115 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1995); Moyise, The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in
Honour of J. L. North; Jean-Pierre Ruiz, Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation
of Prophetic Language in Revelation 16:17-19:10 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,
1989); Shiu-Lun Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans: A Comparative Study of Paul’s
Letter to the Romans and the Sibylline and Qumran Sectarian Texts, WUNT 2, Series
156 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002).
56
Hays’s seven criteria to determine the presence of biblical echoes have received
wide acceptance among Old Testament and New Testament scholars alike: (1)
Availability, (2) Volume, (3) Recurrence, (4) Thematic Coherence, (5) Historical
Plausibility, (6) History of Interpretation, and (7) Satisfaction. Richard B. Hays, Echoes
of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29-32.
57
In the context of the OT, Richard Schultz explains that a quotation, unlike
“borrowing” or “proverbial usage,” has a referential character; it “intends to be related to
its source.” Schultz argues that “rather than setting an arbitrary minimum number of
words, it is more useful to seek both verbal and syntactical correspondence. Otherwise
one may be dealing with motifs, themes, images and key concepts, rather than quotation.”
Richard Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets, JSOTSup
180 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 223, 224. Pancratius Beentjes has
suggested the presence in the OT, NT, and extra-biblical material of the literary
phenomenon what he called inverted quotation. Thus Beentjes has shown that the most
spectacular inverted quotation in the OT is the exact reflection of another text:
1. Gen 27:29 Num 24:9
rwra Kyrra Kwrb Kykrbm
Kwrb Kykrbmw rwra Kyrraw
May those who curse you be cursed May those who bless you be blessed
And those who bless you be blessed And those who curse you be cursed!
It is hardly coincidence that these two texts are so similar. Another case of inverted
quotation is found in the pair passages of Ezek 8:12/Ezek 9:9.
2. Ezek 8:12 Ezek 9:9
17
reference, moving from the explicit to the subliminal. As we move farther away from
overt citation, the source recedes into the discursive distance. The intertextual
relations become less determinate, and the demand placed on the reader’s listening
powers grows greater. As we near the vanishing point of the echo, it inevitably
becomes difficult to decide whether we are really hearing an echo at all, or whether
we are only conjuring things out of the murmurings of our own imaginations.58
Many written texts, especially biblical ones, were written within the context of a
knowledge and understanding of other texts. Often biblical authors assumed their readers
Myrma yk wrma yk
wnta har hwhy Nya Xrah ta hwhy bzo
Xrah ta hwhy bzo har hwhy Nyaw
For they say: For they have said:
The LORD does not see (us), The LORD has forsaken the land
The Lord has forsaken the land. The Lord does not see.
The two cornerstones of prophetic speech (accusation and announcement of judgment)
are bound together indissolubly in Ezek 9:9 precisely by the inverted quotation.
Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Discovering a New Path of Intertextuality: Inverted Quotations
and Their Dynamics,” in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew
Bible, ed. L. J. de Reg, J. de Waard, and J. P. Fokkelman (Assen, The Netherlands: Van
Gorcum, 1996), 36, 48.
Intertextuality is often explicit, as, for example, the verbatim citation of the texts
in Gen 1 in Jer 27:5; but it can also be implicit, as in the allusion to Gen 49:11 in Isaiah’s
question, “Who is this one who comes from Edom?” Intertextuality can also consist of
direct allusions, such as the appeal of Isa 1:9 to Gen 19: “Unless the Lord Almighty had
left us some survivors [a remnant], we would have become like Sodom, we would have
been like Gomorrah.” The Isaiah passage alludes to the story of the destruction of Sodom
and Gomorrah in Gen 19 but does so by highlighting its perspective as a surviving
remnant. J. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” Genesis-Leviticus, EBC (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2008), 1:33.
The figure of echo concerns both the means by which texts relate and a more
general theory of textuality. Texts echo other texts, and as such can be understood as
“echo chambers.” In an echo chamber—that is, in a literary context for echoing—any text
being echoed will sound differently than it has elsewhere. Timothy Beal, “Glossary,” in
Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, ed. Danna Nolan Fewell
(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 21.
58
Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 23.
18
were thoroughly conversant with those texts. On a large scale, the NT books, for
example, assume a comprehensive understanding of the books of the OT. Many OT
books also assume that their readers are aware of and knowledgeable about other OT
books.59
Recently, biblical scholars have begun to recognize the validity and the promise
of intertextuality as a means to explore readings in the Hebrew Bible.60
59
Sailhamer, “Genesis,” 33.
60
John S. Vassar, Recalling a Story Once Told: An Intertextual Reading of the
Psalter and the Pentateuch (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2007), 5. For further
details on intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible see also the following representative
monographs and articles: Yitzhak Berger, “Ruth and the David-Bathsheba Story:
Allusions and Contrasts ” JSOT 33 (2009): 433-52; Ronald Bergey, “The Song of Moses
(Deuteronomy 32.1-43) and Isaianic Prophecies: A Case of Early Intertextuality?,” JSOT
28 (2003): 33-54; D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson, It is Written: Scripture Citing
Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SFF (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1988); Draisma, Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour
of Bas van Iersel; Lyle M. Eslinger, “Hosea 12:5a and Genesis 32:29: A Study in Inner
Biblical Exegesis,” JSOT 18 (1980): 91-99; Michael Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close
Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken Books, 1979); Michael
Fishbane, The Garments of Torah: Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics, INSBL
(Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1989); Gershon Hepner, “Verbal Resonance
in the Bible and Intertextuality,” JSOT 96 (2001): 3-27; Todd T. Hibbard, Intertextuality
in Isaiah 24-27: The Reuse and Evocation of Earlier Texts and Traditions, FAT 2, Series
16 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Hyun Chul Paul Kim, “Jonah Read
Intertextually,” JBL 126 (2007): 497-528; Ralph W. Klein, “Psalms in Chronicles,”
CurTM 32 (2005): 264-75; Lacocque, “Allusions to Creation in Daniel 7,” 114-31; André
Lemaire and Magne Sæbø, Congress Volume: Oslo 1998, VTSup 80 (Leiden: Brill,
2000); Jeffery M. Leonard, “Identifyings Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test
Case,” JBL 127 (2008): 241-65; Adina Levin, “A New Context for Jacob in Genesis and
Hosea 12,” in From Babel to Babylon, ed. Joyce Rilett Wood, John E. Harvey, and Mark
Leuchter (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006), 226-36; Graham S. Ogden, “Literary
Allusions in Isaiah: Isaiah 44.28-45.13 Revisited,” BT 54 (2003): 317-25; Eric Ortlund,
“An Intertextual Reading of the Theophany of Psalm 97,” JSOT 20 (2006): 273-85;
Donald C. Polaski, Authorizing an End: The Isaiah Apocalypse and Intertextuality,
BibIntS 50 (Leiden: Brill, 2001); Yohan Pyeon, You Have Not Spoken What Is Right
about Me: Intertextuality and the Book of Job, StBL 45 (New York: Peter Lang, 2003);
Nahum M. Sarna, “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” in Biblical and Other
19
Regarding intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible, Sommer affirms that the presence
of biblical exegesis within the Hebrew Bible itself shows that the religion of the ancient
Israelites was already a text-based religion, a set of beliefs and practices dependent not
only on oral traditions but also on authoritative documents.61 Yair Zakovitch states, “The
Hebrew Bible is an interbranching network of relationships that connects distant texts and
binds them to one another.”62 In his landmark book, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient
Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 29-
46; G. Savran, “Beastly Speech: Intertextuality, Balaam's Ass, and the Garden of Eden,”
in The Pentateuch, ed. John W. Rogersor (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996),
296-318; Benjamin D. Sommer, “Allusions and Illusions: The Unity of the Book of
Isaiah in Light of Deutero-Isaiah’s Use of Prophetic Tradition,” in New Visions of Isaiah,
ed. Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney, JSOTSup 214 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996), 156-86; Michael R. Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1-8,
LHB/OTS 506 (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2009); Hans Ulrich Steymans, “The Blessings
in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33: Awareness of Intertextuality,” in South African
Perspectives on the Pentateuch between Synchrony and Diachrony, ed. Jurie H. Le Roux
and Eckart Otto, LHB/OTS 463 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 71-89; John Strazicich,
Joel’s Use of Scripture and Scripture’s Use of Joel: Appropriation and Resignification in
Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, BibIntS 82 (Leiden: Brill, 2007); Beth
LaNeel Tanner, The Book of Psalms through the Lens of Intertextuality, StBL 26 (New
York: Peter Lang, 2001); J. W. Wesselius, “The Literary Nature of the Book of Daniel
and the Linguistic Character of Its Aramaic,” ArS 3 (2005): 241-83; Karl William
Weyde, “Inner-biblical Interpretation: Methodological Reflections on the Relationship
between Texts in the Hebrew Bible,” SEA 70 (2005): 287-300; Patricia Tull Willey,
Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah
(Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997); Lawrence Zalcman, “Intertextuality at Nahum 1:7,”
ZAW 116 (2004): 611-15.
61
Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66
(Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998), 2. Gail R. O’Day corroborates that in
both contemporary literary criticism and current biblical studies, there is a growing
interest in intertextuality as a literary and hermeneutical category. Intertextuality refers to
the ways a new text is created from the metaphors, images, and symbolic world of an
earlier text or tradition. Gail R. O'Day, “Jeremiah 9:22-23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26-23: A
Study in Intertextuality,” JBL 109 (1990): 259.
62
Yair Zakovitch, “Inner-biblical Interpretation,” in A Companion to Biblical
Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2012), 27.
20
Israel, Michael Fishbane advanced the concept of inner-biblical exegesis in the Hebrew
Bible, in which a later biblical writer re-uses, reinterprets, or reapplies an earlier biblical
text.63 Inner-biblical interpretation is the light one biblical text sheds on another.64 When
introducing the conceptual framework of his book, Fishbane appeals to the analytical
vocabulary of traditum and traditio, which he borrows from the work of Douglas
Knight.65 Thus Fishbane states: “The content of the tradition, the traditum, was not at all
monolithic, but rather the complex result of a long and varied process of transmission, the
traditio.”66 It is interesting that the method to which Fishbane implicitly appeals is
“tradition history.” However, he wants to distinguish between tradition history, which he
deems to focus on oral materials, and study of inner-biblical exegesis, which involves
written materials.67 Fishbane’s model relies heavily on establishing the chronological
priority of a text that reappears in a subsequent biblical text. Whereas tradition history68
63
Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 7-8.
64
Yair Zakovitch, “And You Shall Tell Your Son . . . ”: The Concept of the Exodus
in the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1991), 15.
65
Douglas A. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel, SBLDS 9 (Missoula:
Scholars Press, 1975), 5-20.
66
Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 6.
67
David L. Petersen, “Zechariah 9-14: Methodological Reflections,” in Bringing
out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9-14, ed. Mark J. Boda and
Michael H. Floyd, JSOTSup 370 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 216.
68
Tradition history focuses on the specific literary or verbal developments that led
up to the biblical literature in its present form. The initiators of traditio-historical research
in its modern sense were Gerhard von Rad and Martin Noth. For further detail see
Douglas A. Knight, “Tradition History,” ABD (1996), 6:633-38; Martin Noth, A History
of Pentateuchal Traditions (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972); Stephen Breck
Reid, “Tradition History, OT,” NIDB (2009), 5:637; Thomas Thompson, The Origin
Tradition of Ancient Israel (Sheffield: JSSOT Press, 1987); John van Seter, Abraham in
21
works with a fluid traditum, inner-biblical exegesis works with one text and its later
interpretation.69
At present intertextuality is used in a widespread sense to refer to the fact that just
as no text comes into being independently of other texts, so we never read any text
independently of other texts. Each and every text forms part of a network of texts that
provides background within which, or against which, a given text conveys its meaning.70
Moreover, biblical scholarship affirms the subjective element in evaluating textual
borrowing71 as well as the ambiguity of Fishbane’s broadly defined criteria.72 The
scholarly literature in this field is a definitional and methodological battleground, with
“intertextualists” taking shots across the bows at “inner-biblical exegetes” and vice
versa.73 Nevertheless, Fishbane’s approach, which inherently assumes that the author
History and Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1975); Gerhard Von Rad,
The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966).
69
Petersen, “Zechariah 9-14: Methodological Reflections,” 216. For Esther Marie
Menn inner-biblical exegesis is “the phenomenon of biblical texts that seem to clarify,
rework, or allude to identifiable precursor texts, many of which are also preserved in the
canonical corpus.” Esther Marie Menn, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis in the Tanak,” in A
History of Biblical Interpretation: The Ancient Period, ed. Alan J. Hauser and Duane F.
Watson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 1:56.
70
Kirsten Nielsen, “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible,” in Congress Volume:
Oslo 1998, ed. André Lemaire and Magne Sæbø, VTSup 80 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 17.
71
Bruce Norman Fisk, Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story and Exegesis in
the Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo, JSPSup 37 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2001), 61; Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 29; Jon Paulien, “Elusive
Allusions: The Problematic Use of the Old Testament in Revelation,” BR 33 (1988): 38.
72
Klouda, “An Analysis of the Significance of Isaiah’s Use of Psalms 96-99,” 10-
11.
73
Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1-8, 19. See also the hot debate between
Eslinger and Sommer: Lyle M. Eslinger, “Inner-biblical Exegesis and Inner-biblical
Allusion: The Question of Category,” VT 42 (1992): 47-58; Benjamin D. Sommer,
22
intentionally alludes to a particular text, relying on a historical-critical literary approach
that follows the biblical development of the primary text diachronically,74 remains strong
and useful in doing inner-biblical exegesis. Fishbane argues that one of the features that
emerges prominently is the fact that for inner-biblical exegesis there is no merely literary
or theological playfulness.
Exegesis arises out of a practical crisis of some sort—the incomprehensibility of a
word or a rule, or the failure of the covenantal tradition to engage its audience. There is,
then, something of the dynamic of tradition and the individual talent here—where the
tradition sets the agenda of problems which must be creatively resolved or determines the
received language which may be imaginatively reworked. Thus Fishbane states, “The
strategies vary from textual annotation, literary allusion, and types of analogical or
synthetic reasoning. They include also the ethical, legal, or even spiritual transformation
of textual content.”75
In addition, Fishbane has shown that another dimension of inner-biblical exegesis
is reflected in the use of the older texts and the creation of new formulations that are
apparent from the recurrence of similar language and themes in both passages.76 A third
“Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle

Eslinger,” VT 46 (1996): 479-89.
74
Klouda, “An Analysis of the Significance of Isaiah’s Use of Psalms 96-99,” 10.
75
Michael Fishbane, “Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of
Interpretation in Ancient Israel,” in Midrash and Literature, ed. Geoffrey H. Hartman and
Sanford Budick (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986), 34. For further details
about inner-biblical exegesis see also Michael Fishbane, “Types of Biblical
Intertextuality,” in Congress Volume: Oslo 1998, ed. André Lemaire and Magne Sæbø,
VTSup 80 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 39-44.
76
Michael Fishbane, “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical
23
pattern of inner-biblical exegesis, according to Fishbane, is the reinterpretation of
prophetic oracles.77 Apart from clarifications or elaborations, it was also necessary to up-
date or reapply oracles whose sense once seemed certain. Thus in Isa 16:13 the prophet
refers to a “former prophetic word” (zeh ha-dabhar) against Moab which is now (we-
‘attah) reissued (v. 14).78 Beyond Fishbane’s concerns, intertextuality raises important
questions about the dynamic and systemic nature of texts, of writing, of reading, indeed
of the material production of meaning within communities of readers.79 Instead of
presuming that scriptural editors spliced together earlier, hypothetical, literary forms
following some scissors-and-paste method, intertextuality recognizes the Scripture
developing in constant relationship to the worshiping community.80 Indeed, the copying,
citation, interpretation, and explanation of the sacred Scriptures gave ample opportunity
for the reformulation of traditum (tradition) in postbiblical traditio (transmission).81
Furthermore, Zakovitch remarks: “In contrast to what we have been taught by biblical
Exegesis,” JBL 99 (1980): 351.

77
Paradigmatic of the postexilic reinterpretations of prophetic revelations is the
diverse applications made of Jer 25:9-12, an oracle which predicts a seventy-year period
of devastation for Israel and her land, to be followed by a reversal of fates for Israel and
her oppressor, Babylon. Fishbane mentions several reinterpretations of this Jeremiah
prophecy found in 2 Chr 36:21-23; Zech 1:7, 12; 7:1, 5; Dan 9. Ibid., 354-56.
78
In a similar way, Ezekiel refers to an unfulfilled prophecy about
Nebuchadnezzar (29:17-18) and goes on to respecify it for a future king (vv. 19-20). As
in the previous case, the older traditum is revised by a new oracle. Michael Fishbane,
“Inner Biblical Exegesis,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its
Interpretation, ed. M. Saebo (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1996), 47.
79
George Aichele and Gary A. Phillips, “Introduction: Exegesis, Eisegesis,
Intergesis,” Semeia 69-70 (1995): 6-18.
80
George Wesley Buchanan, Introduction to Intertextuality (Lewiston, NY:
Mellen Biblical Press, 1994), 3.
24
scholars in the past who isolated literary units and analyzed them with no interest in their
canonical content, one realizes that the biblical narrators did not function in a cultural-
literary vacuum but constructed their stories in a dialogue with existing compositions
known to their audience.”82
Methodological Approach for Identifying Allusions
Earl Miner has defined allusion as “a tacit reference to another literary work, to
another art, to history, to contemporary figures, or the like.”83 However, some literary
theorists have redefined the term allusion,84 so rather than understanding allusion as a
“tacit reference to another literary work,” they define allusion as “a device for the
simultaneous activation of two texts. An allusion occurs when an aspect of the alluding
text (called a ‘marker’) has a dual reference. It signifies something in the alluding text at
the same time as it points toward another text.”85 Recently, R. Alter has made the
distinction between direct and indirect allusions. Alter explains that in common usage
(indirect) allusion refers to “any indirect reference” to a place, a text, or an event. On the
other hand, (direct) literary allusion is the conscious and deliberate evocation in one text
81
Fishbane, “Inner Biblical Exegesis,” 34.
82
Yair Zakovitch, “Through the Looking Glass: Reflections/Inversions of Genesis
Stories in the Bible,” BibInt 1 (1993): 151-52.
83
Earl Miner, “Allusion,” EPP (1965), 18; Earl Miner, “Allusion,” NPEPP
(1993), 38-39.
84
Ziva Ben-Porat, “The Poetics of Literary Allusion,” PTL: A Journal for
Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 105-28; Carmela Perri, “On
Alluding,” Poetics 7 (1978): 289-307.
85
Susan Hylen, Allusion and Meaning in John 6, BZNW (Berlin: W. de Gruyter,
2005), 44-45.
25
of an antecedent literary text. Thus these two kinds of allusions are different in both
formal structure and semantic thrust.86
According to Jon Paulien, direct allusions are limited to a word, an idea, or a brief
phrase that should be traced to a known body of text.87 Similarity can function on the
levels of vocabulary, specific word constructions, structure, theme, and content.88 In
contrast to these intended references is what scholars call “echo,” which does not depend
on the author’s conscious intention.89 Accordingly an echo indicates that the author
picked up an idea that can be found in previous literature, but was probably unaware of
the original source.90 Paulien has shown that tracing a particular line of tradition may
involve both allusions and echoes.91 This study focuses on the former, so an allusion is
wherever the author of Daniel makes a reference to a particular passage in previous
literature, especially to Gen 11.
Fishbane suggests two criteria for identifying inner-biblical influences: “multiple
and sustained linkages between the two texts where the second text uses a segment of the
first in a lexically reorganized and topically rethematized way” and “establishing the
86
Robert Alter, The Pleasures of Reading in an Ideological Age (New York:
Norton & Company, 1989), 111-12.
87
Jon Paulien, Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets: Literary Allusions and
Interpretation of Revelation 8:7-12, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation
Series, vol. 2 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1988), 170-71.
88
Pröbstle, “Truth and Terror: A Text-Oriented Analysis of Daniel 8:9-14,” 575.
89
Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After, 64.
90
Paulien, Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets: Literary Allusions and Interpretation
of Revelation 8:7-12, 172.
91
Ibid., 173.
26
chronologically precedent text which uses the original citation in its fullest form.”92
Based on the work of the literary theorist Ziva Ben-Porat,93 Sommer has suggested three
indispensable stages in the process of identifying and interpreting allusions:
First, the reader recognizes what Ben-Porat calls a marker, an identifiable element or
pattern in one text belonging to another independent text. The marker is one aspect of
a sign in the referring text. The sign may be a poetic line or a sentence or a phrase, or
it may consist of a motif, a rhythmic pattern, an idea, or even the form of a work or its
title. The second stage in the recognition of the allusion is the identification of the
evoked text. This is not identical with the first stage, because it is possible that a
reader will recognize a marker as referring to another text without recalling what the
evoked text is. The third stage is the modification of the interpretation of the sign in
the alluding text. The reader brings certain elements of the evoked text or the marked
to bear on the alluding text, and these alter the reader’s construal of meaning of the
sign in the alluding text.94
The approach to be followed in this study is an exegetical and intertextual one that
incorporates both approaches, the historically oriented inner-biblical exegesis and
allusion associated with Fishbane and Sommer respectively, and the study of the biblical
text in its final form associated with Stuart among others. This means that clear criteria of
intertextuality must be established and adhered to in biblical exegesis.95 The book of
92
Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 285.
93
Ben-Porat, “The Poetics of Literary Allusion,” 105-28; Ziva Ben-Porat,
“Intertextuality,” Ha-Sifrut 34 (1985): 170-78 [Hebrew].
94
Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66, 11-12.
95
The fact that Genesis (and the Pentateuch) always comes first within the various
orders of the OT books could lead us to conclude that it does not contain references to the
other books of the OT. That, however, may not be entirely correct. Not only do the early
parts of Genesis contain references to later parts, as when Gen 13:10 refers to the land
chosen by Lot as beautiful and well watered “before the Lord destroyed Sodom and
Gomorrah” (Gen 19), but Genesis may also contain allusions to the themes and events in
the remainder of the Pentateuch (1:14; 15:13) and even the rest of the OT. Sailhamer,
“Genesis,” 33.
27
Daniel plainly prefers allusion to citing references, the only exception being reference to
Jeremiah in Dan 9:2.96 I will analyze the allusions of Gen 11:1-9 in the book of Daniel by
following two steps: first I will identify the correspondences and similarities between
Gen 11: 1-9 and the passages in the book of Daniel where the allusions are found.
Second, I will exegete the passages of the book of Daniel which allude to Gen 11:1-9 and
I will discuss in what way Gen 11:1-9 influences, shapes, or adds to the meaning and
theology of the book of Daniel. By exegesis I mean an attempt to analyze, explain, or
uncover the meaning of the text. While an allusion may help us to recognize elements in
the evoked text that we had not noticed before, exegesis necessarily and primarily
involves an attempt at helping the reader recognize elements in the older text and
analyzing factors in the text that shed light on its meaning.97
The signals of textual relation between Gen 11 and the book of Daniel include
three basic criteria: (1) verbal parallels or lexical correspondences, (2) thematic
96
It may be that the book of Daniel seeks a mode of allusion imitative of its
scriptural source texts; biblical allusion and inner-biblical exegesis tend toward
covertness, rather than toward such overt citation formulas as “It is written . . . ” G.
Brooke Lester, “Daniel Evokes Isaiah: The Rule of the Nations in Apocalyptic Allusion
Narrative” (PhD diss., Princeton, 2007), 185-86. According to Bernard Maurer, “the most
obvious explicit reference to another biblical book in the OT is found in Daniel 9:2,
where Daniel refers to the ‘word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet’ (_lRa hÎwh◊y_rAb√d
ay$IbÎ…nAh h∞DyIm√rˆy), a word which Daniel claims to get from the books (MyóîrDpV;sA;b). This seems to
indicate a fairly clear reference to the prophecy of the seventy years in Jer 25:11-12;
29:10. This is probably the clearest explicit reference to a biblical book in the OT.”
Bernard Maurer, “The Book of Ecclesiastes as a Derash of Genesis 1-4: A Study in Old
Testament Literary Dependency” (PhD diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary,
2007), 45. For Pancratius Beentjes one of the most clear quotations within the OT is
found in 2 Chr 36:21: “‘All the time that it lay desolate it kept the sabbath rest, to
complete seventy years in fulfillment of the word of the LORD by the prophet Jeremiah’
(cf. Jer 25:11; 29:10).” Beentjes, “Discovering a New Path of Intertextuality: Inverted
Quotations and Their Dynamics,” 31.
28
similarities, and (3) structural similarities.98
Lexical Correspondences
In this work, a lexical correspondence can be defined as occurring whenever at
least two words of more than minor significance are parallel between a passage in the
book of Daniel and a passage in Gen 11. Allusion can be effected through the choice of
identical or similar words, similar grammatical arrangement, or similarly constructed
narrative situations.99 This criterion “relies on lexical and conceptual affinities between
the earlier text and its reinterpretation in a later text. The number and frequency of
terminological parallels between the compared texts determine the likelihood that a later
text appropriates an earlier one.”100 In addition, the shared vocabulary should preferably
not be language common to the rest of the Hebrew Bible. The rarer the language in
common between the two texts or the more extensive the verbal overlap, the more
probable it is that one is dealing with an actual case of intertextuality.101
Thematic Similarities
Paulien has shown that allusions are not bound to reproduce the precise wording
97
Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66, 17-18.
98
See also Peter D. Miscall, “Texts, More Texts, a Textual Reader and a Textual Writer,”
Semeia 69/70 (1995): 247-59; Paulien, “Elusive Allusions: The Problematic Use of the
Old Testament in Revelation,” 37-53.
99
Danna Nolan Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in Daniel 1-6,
BLS 20 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988), 28.
100
Klouda, “An Analysis of the Significance of Isaiah’s Use of Psalms 96-99,” 10.
101
Hibbard, Intertextuality in Isaiah 24-27: The Reuse and Evocation of Earlier
29
of the original. Allusions may be characterized by similarity of thought and theme as well
as wording.102 If both texts are exploring the same concept or problem, the possibility of
intertextuality increases since the later text may intentionally choose the previous one as
a “conversation partner.” The issue is made difficult, however, by the fact that two texts
may address a similar theme or topic without using the same vocabulary,103 or the same
language. To take an example that I already noted above and will consider in more detail
in chapter 2: the thematic relations between Gen 11, which is written in Hebrew, and Dan
5, which belongs to the Aramaic section of the book of Daniel. Despite the differences of
languages, Dan 5 alludes to Gen 11 in the motif of pride, confusion of language/writing,
and by pointing out that the city of Babel was born in misunderstanding and it ends in the
same way.
Structural Similarities
A structural parallel can occur where the author models a given passage on an
antecedent text in the OT by utilizing its language and themes in roughly the same
order.104 Daniel’s allusion to Gen 11:1-9 is confirmed when any Danielic text parallels
the structural development of Gen 11:1-9. A good example of such structural similarities
(with which I will deal in more detail in chapter 2) can be seen by comparing Dan 4 with
Texts and Traditions, 5.

102
Paulien, “Elusive Allusions: The Problematic Use of the Old Testament in
Revelation,” 42.
103
Hibbard, Intertextuality in Isaiah 24-27: The Reuse and Evocation of Earlier
Texts and Traditions, 5.
104
Paulien, “Elusive Allusions: The Problematic Use of the Old Testament in
Revelation,” 43.
30
Gen 11:1-9. Like the builders of the Tower of Babel, the Babylonian king wanted to
“reach heaven” (Dan 4:11; Gen 11:4). Both Nebuchadnezzar and the builders of the
Tower of Babel sought to “make a name” for themselves (Gen 11:4). In both narratives
the human enterprise is interrupted by the voice of a Holy One that came down from
heaven (Gen 11:5; Dan 4:23, 31). Thus both narratives (Dan 4 and Gen 11:1-9) share a
similar structure and stress the same biblical motif: God’s sovereignty, which is
manifested in his humbling actions.
I will then apply to the Danielic passage under investigation the study of the
identified allusions (verbal parallels or lexical correspondences, thematic similarities, and
structural similarities) of Gen 11:1-9 in the book of Daniel and their context. Antoon
Schoors argues that if a phrase or motif has been borrowed, then it receives its full
meaning only from the actual context from which it has been adopted.105 Schoors adds
that in order to understand an actual text, synchronic reading is indispensable, but in
order to give to the text its full depth, a study of the antecedents of the borrowed material,
that is, its trajectory from the “source text” to the final text, is also indispensable.106
Additionally, in this search for allusions to specific individual texts it is important to
consider in each case the Old Testament context of the passage, not neglecting the
Hebrew text,107 or the Aramaic, as is the case in Dan 2:4b-7:28. In other words, the
105
Antoon Schoors, “(Mis)use of Intertextuality in Qohelet Exegesis,” in Congress
Volume: Oslo 1998, ed. André Lemaire and Magne Sæbø, VTSup 80 (Leiden: Brill,
2000), 59.
106
Ibid.
107
Marianne Grohmann, “Psalm 113 and the Song of Hannah (1 Samuel 2:1-10),”
in Reading the Bible Intertextuality, ed. Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A.
31
scholar considers the initial text in light of its original context, and then proceeds to
investigate how the earlier text functions in the alluding text. The context of the original
source contributes to an accurate understanding of its reinterpretation in a subsequent
text.108 Allusions reflect the larger text or context of literary expression and give the
reader another means by which to decipher the commonality and the uniqueness of the
work in question.109 Regarding the classification of the potential allusions to Gen 11 in
the book of Daniel, I use a nomenclature similar to the one suggested by Paulien, namely,
“certain allusions,” “possible allusions,” “uncertain allusions,” and “nonallusions.”110 The
first category indicates a high level of certainty that we are dealing with a direct allusion.
In that case, the interpreter may take the source passage’s original context into account
when interpreting the passage in Daniel, which contains the allusion.
The second category (possible allusions) is more problematic. In this case there is
enough evidence to indicate that Daniel may have been making an allusion to Gen 11, but
not enough to be reasonably certain. In this study, a “possible allusion” is similar to what
Sommer has defined as an”echo,” which differs from a certain allusion in that only the
first two stages of Ben-Porat’s scheme are at play.111 Such allusions can be used with
Huizenga (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), 134.

108
Klouda, “An Analysis of the Significance of Isaiah’s Use of Psalms 96-99,” 6-
7.
109
Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in Daniel 1-6, 29.
110
I find Paulien’s classification of direct allusions very helpful, yet what he calls
“probable allusions” and “possible allusions” seem to be very similar in meaning, so I
decided to leave “probable allusions” out of consideration. Paulien, Decoding
Revelation’s Trumpets: Literary Allusions and Interpretation of Revelation 8:7-12, 193,
235.
111
Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66, 16.
32
caution in interpretation. The likelihood of uncertain allusions and nonallusions being
intended by the author is considered so small that they should not be interpreted as direct
allusions.112
112
Paulien, Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets: Literary Allusions and
Interpretation of Revelation 8:7-12, 193.
33
CHAPTER II
ALLUSIONS TO GENESIS 11:1-9 IN DANIEL 1-6
Introduction
According to Hartman and Di Lella, the book of Daniel is divided into ten
sections, each a carefully crafted literary unit.1 The first chapter of Daniel constitutes an
1
The first nine correspond almost exactly to the chapter divisions of the book,
except for the fourth section (3:31-4:34) and the fifth (5:1-6:1), while the tenth goes from
10:1 to 12:13. Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 9. Each of these sections is
distinguished from one another through a superscription of sorts that gives the initial
setting for what is to follow. With the exception of Dan 3:1; 3:31; 5:1; and 6:2, each
superscription gives clear chronological indication as shown below:
1:1
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim hó∂d…wh◊y_JKRl`Rm MyâîqÎywøh◊y t…wäkVlAmVl vw$ølDv t∞AnVvI;b
king of Judah . . . (1:1)
In the second year of his reign, r$A…x‰n√dAkÙb◊n ‹t…wkVlAmVl Mˆy#A;tVv t∞AnVvIb…w 2:1
Nebuchadnezzar . . . (2:1)
King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of M∞ElVx ‹dAbSo a#D;kVlAm r∞A…x‰n√dAk…wb◊n 3:1
gold . . . (3:1)
In the first year of Belshazzar king of l$RbD;b JKRl∞Rm ‹rA…xAvaVlEbVl h#∂dSj t∞AnVvI;b 7:1
Babylon . . . (7:1)
In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign r∞A…xAvaVlE;b t…wäkVlAmVl vw$ølDv t∞AnVvI;b 8:1
. . . (8:1)
9:1
In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes . . . vwëør´wVvAjSa_NR;b v‰w¢Dy√r∂dVl t#AjAa t∞AnVvI;b
(9:1)
10:1
In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia . . . s$årDÚp JKRl∞Rm ‹v®rw‹økVl vw#ølDv t∞AnVvI;b
(10:1)
34
introduction to the whole book,2 and it sets the scene for the other stories (chaps. 2-6) and
the visions (chaps. 7-12) that make up the rest of the book.3 Thus Doukhan affirms that
Dan 1 contains not only all the theological concepts of the book but it contains, and
thereby announces, the general motif of the book.4 Scholars have noticed that in Dan 1
the narrator as briefly as possible links his story with traditional events in the last days of
national life.5
In the first part of this dissertation, we see that Dan 1:1–2 provides a general
introduction by recalling an event that begins the narrative that eventually leads to exile,
with v. 1 introducing the figure of a Gentile king who fills a key role in each of the
following stories, and v. 2 also specifically preparing for the story of Belshazzar’s feast in
chap. 5 by mentioning Nebuchadnezzar’s appropriation of the temple vessels.6 Daniel
alludes to Gen 11 in the so-called “court legends”7 of the book’s first chapters (Dan 1-6)
2
André Lacocque, The Book of Daniel (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979), 24. In
general there is a consensus among Danielic scholars that chap. 1 should be viewed as
introductory to the whole of the narrative as opposed to those who believe that chap. 1 is
simply one of six court-tales. Aaron Hebbard, Reading Daniel as a Text in Theological
Hermeneutics (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2009), 53. Cf. Collins, Daniel: A
Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 129; E.W. Heaton, The Book of Daniel: Introduction
and Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1956), 17; Miller, Daniel, 55; D. S. Russell,
Daniel, DSB (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1981), 4; John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The
Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), 15.
3
Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 131.
4
Doukhan, Daniel: The Vision of the End, 5.
5
Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 112.
6
Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 129.
7
According to critical scholars, “Daniel” is not a historical person but a figure of
legend. See John Joseph Collins, “Daniel, Book of,” ABD (1992), 2:30; Karel van der
Toorn, “Scholars at the Oriental Court: The Figure of Daniel against Its Mesopotamian
35
and also in the vision reports of book’s second half (Dan 7-12). In the remainder of this
chapter, I will argue that in Dan 1-6, Daniel draws words, images, and ideas from Gen
11.
Allusions to Genesis 11 in Daniel 1
The book of Daniel begins its story of the rule of the nations over the people of
Israel with an example of inner-biblical exegesis. This example of intentional
intertextuality in Daniel shows that, from the beginning, the book of Daniel is attentive to
texts, and places itself in an interliterary relationship to these texts.8 The first allusion to
Genesis (in the context of the Tower of Babel) in the book of Daniel is found in Dan 1:1-
2, namely the striking parallels shown below:
Dan 1:1-2 Gen 10:10 Gen 11:2, 9
1. lRbD;b_JKRl`Rm // t…wkVlAmVl 1. l$RbD;b ‹wø;tVkAlVmAm 1. l$RbD;b
2. r™Do◊nIv_X®r`Ra 2. r`Do◊nIv X®r™RaV;b 2. r™Do◊nIv X®r¶RaV;b
The Daniel text reads:
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king (KRlRm) of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king
of Babylon (lRbD;b_JKRl`Rm) came to Jerusalem and besieged it. The Lord gave Jehoiakim
king (KRlRm) of Judah into his hand, along with some of the vessels of the house of
God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar (r™Do◊nIv_X®r`Ra), to the house of his god,
and he brought the vessels into the treasury of his god (Dan 1:1-2).9
The related Genesis texts read:
Background,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John Joseph
Collins and Peter W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1:41.
8
Lester, “Daniel Evokes Isaiah: The Rule of the Nations in Apocalyptic Allusion
Narrative,” 62
9
Translation of biblical texts closely follows the wording of the NASB, which is
herein sometimes modified to reflect a more literal translation of the Hebrew text.
36
The beginning of his kingdom was Babel (l$RbD;b ‹wø;tVkAlVmAm ty§Ivaér) . . . in the land of
Shinar [r™Do◊nIv X®r¶RaV;b] (10:10).
It came about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar
(r™Do◊nIv X®r¶RaV;b) and settled there (11:2) . . . its name was called Babel (lRbD;b) . . . (11:9).
The King of Babel and His Kingdom
The dependence of the passage from Dan 1:1-2 on Gen 10:10 and Gen 11: 2, 9 at
first seems unlikely. It is true that the Hebrew expression lRbD;b_JKRl`Rm occurs 130 times in
the OT10 and is found only twice in the book of Daniel (Dan 1:1; 7:1). Yet, the use of this
phrase in combination with r™Do◊nIv_X®r`Ra is not found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible except
in the context of the Tower of Babel (Gen 10:10; 11:2) and in our passage (Dan 1:1-2), so
the likelihood of Daniel’s bringing the reader’s attention to Gen 10 and 11 must be
considered. Furthermore, a close reading reveals that the root Klm is used four times just
in Dan 1:1-2 (JKRl∞Rm 3x, t…wäkVlAmVl 1x).11 Both in Gen 10:10 and in Dan 1:1 a king
antagonistic toward the true God is introduced, both kingdoms are clearly identified as
lRbD;b, and in both passages the kingdom is settled in r™Do◊nIv X®r¶RaV;b. Further, the beginning of
Nimrod’s reign (l$RbD;b ‹wø;tVkAlVmAm ty§Ivaér) as well as Nebuchadnezzar’s is recorded; the former
10
2 Kgs 20:12, 18; 24:1, 7, 10-12, 16-17; 25:1, 6, 8, 20-24, 27; 2 Chr 36:6; Ezek
2:1; 5:12; Neh 7:6; 13:6; Esth 2:6; Isa 14:4; 39:1, 7; Jer 20:4; 21:2, 4, 7, 10; 22:25; 24:1;
25:1, 9, 11-12; 27:6, 8-9, 11-14, 17, 20; 28:2-4, 11, 14; 29:3, 21-22; 32:2-4, 28, 36; 34:1-
3, 7, 21; 35:11; 36:29; 37:1, 17, 19; 38:3, 17-18, 22-23; 39:1, 3, 5-6, 11, 13; 40:5, 7, 9,
11; 41:2, 18; 42:11; 43:10; 44:30; 46:2, 13, 26; 49:28, 30; 50:17-18, 43; 51:34; 52:4, 9-
12, 15, 26-27, 31, 34; Ezek 17:12; 19:9; 21:24, 26; 24:2; 26:7; 29:18-19; 30:10, 24-25;
32:11; Dan 1:1; 7:1. Bible Works for Windows, Version 8.0 (Big Fork, MT:
Hermeneutika Bible Research Software, 2008). For further statistics research I will be
using Bible Works unless otherwise indicated.
11
The Hebrew root Klm occurs 22 times in just Dan 1.
37
is explicit while the latter is implicit.12 Both Babylon and Jerusalem in Dan 1 are not
merely literal cities, but broader spiritual realities. In the Bible Babylon (Gen 11; Zech
2:5; NT, later than Daniel, so just cf. Rev 18:2) epitomized the realm of false religion,
and Jerusalem the realm of true religion.
Many commentators have seen the literary connection between Gen 11 and Dan
1:1-2. According to Doukhan, the association “Babylon-Jerusalem” and the mention of
Shinar in Dan 1:1-2 suggest that this passage must be read in relation to Gen 11:1-9.13 He
further says:
The narrative of Genesis 11:1-9 relates how in the days following the Flood,
humanity decided to build a tower that would lead them to heaven’s gates. The text
then tells, not without humor, of God’s shattering descent to disrupt their project by
confounding their language. In a play on words, Scripture explains the name of Babel
in relation to the root bll, which means “to confuse” (verse 9). Therefore, Babel, the
Hebrew word for Babylon, is the biblical symbol for the world below usurping power
that belongs exclusively to the one above. . . . We must read the book of Daniel then
with this perspective in mind.14
In the same vein, Peter W. Coxon says that in the book of Daniel the role of
Nebuchadnezzar as king of Babylon is of seminal importance in that it presupposes a
12
The lack of any date in Dan 1 regarding Nebuchadnezzar’s reign seems to
suggest that when he besieged and captured Jerusalem, he was not the crowned king of
Babylon. In Dan 1:1, as in Jer 46: 2, Nebuchadnezzar is referred to as KRlRm, “king,”
through anachronism (prolepsis). During the battle of Carchemish (605 B.C.) he was only
the crown prince. Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom for the Wise: Commentary on the Book of
Daniel, 46. See Josephus, Antiquities, 10.11.1; D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldean
Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum (London: 1956), 69.
13
13.
14
Ibid., 13-14.
38
connection between the incident of the Tower of Babel and the fall of Jerusalem.15 It is
significant that the Bible has often been referred to as a “tale of two cities,” Jerusalem
and Babylon, both of which are first mentioned in Genesis (14:18; 11:9) and finally in
Revelation (3:12; 21:2; 21:10; 14:8; 18:2; 16:19; 17:5). Indeed, the initial verse of Daniel
names both cities as a clue to the conflict between true and false religion to be
subsequently unfolded.16
Nebuchadnezzar is introduced in Dan 1:1 as the l¢RbD;b_JKRl`Rm. This Hebrew phrase is
both a masculine singular construct chain17 and an apposition18 to Nebuchadnezzar who
is the main human character in the narrative. The movement and violence of the action
are conveyed by making Nebuchadnezzar the subject of the four verbs awb, rwx, and aybh
(twice) (“he came,” “he blockaded,” “he took”); awb and aybh stand at the center of each
of the verses and hold the unit together.19 The action of Nebuchadnezzar was
characterized by the use of aD;b three times.20
15
Peter W. Coxon, “The Great Tree of Daniel 4,” in A Word in Season: Essays in
Honour of William McKane, ed. James D. Martin, Philip R. Davies, and William
McKane, JSOTSup 42 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), 91-92.
16
Desmond Ford, Daniel (Nashville: Southern Pub. Association, 1978), 75.
17
Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 138-40.
18
Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch and
Sir Arthur Ernest Cowley, 2nd English ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1909), 423-
24; Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rome: Editrice
Pontificio Intituto Biblico, 2006), 448-49; Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to
Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 226-28.
19
Goldingay, Daniel, 10.
20
According to HALOT awb is attested 2,550 times in the OT. L. Koehler, W.
Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, HALOT, s.v. “awb.” Compare with Clines who counted
39
The word group of the root Klm occurs more than 3,000 times in the OT. After
hwhy, MyIhølTa, and NE;b, the term JKRlRm is the fourth most frequently occurring noun in the OT,
more frequent even than lEa∂rVcˆy, attesting to its historical and religious significance for
biblical themes.21 Klm is a common Semitic root, but means “to be king” only in North-
west and South Semitic. In Akkadian malāku II consistently means “to advise” (also e.g.,
māliku “counselor, advisor,” malku II “counsel”). The term šarru and less often malku I,
which corresponds to a malāku III (probably a West Semitic loanword) attested once in
the Akkadian texts from Ugarit (PRU 3:135.16), refer to the king and his office.22
According to HALOT the meaning of Klm in the MT falls into four main categories:
—1. King, ruler of varying status: a) (of people) Judg 9:6; 1 Sam 8:22; king of a
nation: (Saul) 1 Sam 15:26; 24:15; 26:20; 2 Sam 6:20; 13:37 (Jeroboam) 1 Kgs 15: 9;
of a city Josh 10:1, of an empire Isa 36:4; b) title: the King Ps 21:2, 2S 3:21. —2.
Designation of a deity: a) for Yahweh Is 6:5 Jer 46:18 48:15 51:57 Ps 98:6 145:1. b)
for other gods: the non-Israelite Baal Jer 32:35; Hos 10:7. —3. Composite
expressions: Jer 36:26, Zeph 1:8; royal weight (made of stone) 2 Sam 14:26; —4.
Misc.: a) occurs 37 times in Ezek, but never said of God, 37:22, 24 see above 1; b)
metaph.: plants, trees Judg 9:8,15, animals Job 41:26 Prov 30:27; c) 2 Sam 11:1.23
It seems safe to say that the root Klm plays a very important role in the theology of
human as well as divine kingship in the OT, and that the book of Daniel is no exception
to this rule. The kingship of God in the OT is a central theological theme and has
attracted considerable attention lately. Thus scholars affirm that the theme of divine
2565 occurrences of awb in the MT and Elmer Martens who attested 2570 occurrences of
awb in the OT. D. J. A. Clines, “‫בוא‬,” DCH (1995), 37; Elmer A. Martens, “‫בוא‬,” TWOT
(1999), 93.
21
K. Seybold, “‫מלך‬,” TDOT (1997), 8:346.
22
J. A. Soggin, “‫מלך‬,” TLOT (1997), 2:672.
23
Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm, HALOT, s.v. “Klm.”
40
sovereignty is central to Daniel.24
On the Meaning of l¢RbD;b_JKRl`Rm . . . t…wäkVlAmVl // l$RbD;b ‹wø;tVkAlVmAm
Philip J. Nel has written that the noun hDkDlVmAm refers to the institution or the
functional system of mlk-rule and can best be translated kingdom or dominion. It is
particularly evident in those instances in which a distinction in meaning can be concluded
from the co-occurrence of related terms.25 The Hebrew word hDkDlVmAm is found 117 times in
the OT;26 however, it never occurs in the book of Daniel. Instead Daniel uses the Hebrew
word t…wkVlAm. In later texts (Chronicles, Esther, Daniel) preference is given to the abstract
formation t…wkVlAm over against hDkDlVmAm. Although the semantic aspects of these words
largely overlap, it seems as though a stronger emphasis is put on the activity of ruling in
the case of t…wkVlAm.27 The standard Hebrew and Aramaic terms for kingship (t…wkVlAm/wkVlAm)
24
J. Boehmer, Reich Gottes und Menschensohn im Buch Daniel (Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1899), 16-17; Goldingay, Daniel, 330.
25
Philip J. Nel, “‫מלך‬,” NIDOTTE (1997), 2:957.
26
Gen 10:10; 20:9; Exod 19:6; Num 32:33; Deut 3:4, 10, 13, 21; 17:18, 20; 28:25;
Josh 10:2; 11:10; 1 Sam 10:18; 13:13-14; 24:21; 27:5; 28:17; 2 Sam 3:10, 28; 5:12; 7:12-
13, 16; 1 Kgs 2:46; 5:1; 9:5; 10:20; 11:11, 13, 31, 34; 12:26; 14:8; 18:10; 2 Kgs 11:1;
14:5; 15:19; 19:15, 19; 1 Chr 16:20; 29:11, 30; 2 Chr 9:19; 11:1; 12:8; 13:5, 8; 14:4;
17:5, 10; 20:6, 29; 21:3-4; 22:9-10; 23:20; 25:3; 29:21; 32:15; 36:23; Ezra 1:2; Neh 9:22;
Pss 46:7; 68:33; 79:6; 102:23; 105:13; 135:11; Isa 9:6; 10:10; 13:4, 19; 14:16; 17:3; 19:2;
23:11, 17; 37:16, 20; 47:5; 60:12; Jer 1:10, 15; 15:4; 18:7, 9; 24:9; 25:26; 27:1, 8; 28:1,
8; 29:18; 34:1, 17; 49:28; 51:20, 27; Lam 2:2; Ezek 17:14; 29:14-15; 37:22; Amos 6:2;
7:13; 9:8; Mic 4:8; Nah 3:5; Zeph 3:8; Hag 2:22.
27
Nel, NIDOTTE, 957. This is not to say that because Daniel uses t…wkVlAm the book
of Daniel must have reached its final composition at a very late date, as some critical
scholars claim. For instance, Driver provided a list of more than 20 Hebrew words and
idioms that according to him prove the late origin of the book of Daniel. Interestingly, the
first word heading the list is t…wkVlAm. Thus Driver concluded, “The verdict of the language
of Daniel is thus clear . . . the Hebrew supports, and the Aramaic permits, a date after the
41
occur about seventy times in the book of Daniel—by far the heaviest concentration
anywhere in the Bible—along with Aram. NDfVlDv / Heb. NOfVlIv (cf. Arab, sultan) and other
derivatives of the root flv, as well as other terms for royal power and majesty.28
In the context of Dan 1:1, the facts of the fall of Jerusalem and the exile of the
Jewish people seemed at first sight to be proof that Nebuchadnezzar/Marduk had defeated
Jehoiakim/Yahweh. But the book of Daniel also begins by acknowledging the
sovereignty of God. God is the one who gave (Ntn) the king of Judah into the hand of
Nebuchadnezzar (1:2).29 The Hebrew grammar stresses the fact that King Jehoiakim is
subordinated to King Nebuchadnezzar, who is the only subject in Dan 1:1. But the
narrative suddenly shifts the subject in Dan 1:2, and introduces a tension by saying that
“the Lord gave . . . ” (y∏ÎnOdSa ·NE;tˆ¥yÅw) Jehoiakim into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. In light of
the perfect (a∞D;b) and waw-consecutive (rAx¶D¥yÅw “and he laid siege”) in v. 1, the waw-
consecutive that opens v. 2 is probably a simple consequential waw, “So the Lord
gave . . . ” The narrative itself reveals that the issue is between the subject of Dan 1:1,
Nebuchadnezzar, and the subject of Dan 1:2, God himself, and not between
conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (B.C. 332).” S. R. Driver, An Introduction

to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: Meridian Books, 1956), 508.
However, H. J. Martin has explained the usage of t…wkVlAm in Daniel, saying that “it was,
moreover, no neologism, for it is found already in Numbers 24:7, and in 1 Samuel 20:31,
as well as three times in Jeremiah (10:7; 49:34; 52:31) and twice in Nehemiah (9:35;
12:22) and six times in Ezra (1:1; 4:5 and 6 (twice); 7:1; 8:1).” H. J. Martin, “The
Hebrew of Daniel,” in Notes on Some Problem in the Book of Daniel, ed. D. J. Wiseman
et al. (London: Tyndale, 1965), 28.
28
C. L. Seow, “The Rule of God in the Book of Daniel,” in David and Zion:
Biblical Studies in Honor of J.J.M. Roberts, ed. Bernard Frank Batto and Kathryn L.
Roberts (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 219.
29
Paul M. Lederach, Daniel, BChBC (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1994), 33.
42
Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim, who is just a passive direct object in both clauses.
Regarding Dan 1:2, B. T. Arnold explains, “What is surprising is the change of subject
with no circumstantial clause or casus pendens. The subject changes from
Nebuchadnezzar to God.”30
The use of dyb + Ntn + ynda in Dan 1:2 highlights that it was not Nebuchadnezzar’s
military might or brilliance that brought about the downfall of Jerusalem, but it was the
sovereign will of God.31 But Nebuchadnezzar does not recognize Adonai as the source of
his victory. He does not know this God and he offers this God no credit. Thus the
potential conflict is born.32 Interestingly, the phrase dyb Ntn occurs in the OT in military
and legal settings (Gen 14:20; Exod 23:31; Num 21:2, 34; Jer 20:5; Ezek 7:21; Ps 106:41;
Dan 1:2; Neh 9:27; 2 Chr 16:8; Josh 2:24) and signifies the delivery or abandonment of a
person(s) or matter into the power of another.33 B. Albrektson pointed out that in ANE
literature a king used the expression, “the gods delivered it into my hand,” to express the
belief that the course of events was directed by the gods and that his victory was a divine
gift.34 Significantly, the same mode of expression is used in the same sense also in
Mesopotamia, as for example in a building inscription by Nebuchadnezzar II (col. III, 11.
30
Bill T. Arnold, “Word Play and Characterization in Daniel 1,” in Puns and
Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature, ed. Scott
B. Noegel (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2000), 234.
31
Miller, Daniel, 58.
32
Danna Nolan Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: Plotting Politics in the Book of
Daniel (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1991), 14-15.
33
Michael A. Grisanti, “‫נתן‬,” NIDOTTE (1997), 3:210.
34
Bertil Albrektson, History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical
Events as Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East and in Israel, CB (Lund:
43
18 ff.):
ni-sim ra-ap-sa-a-tim sa dmarduk The numerous peoples, which

be-e-la u-ma-al-lu-u qa-tu-u-a a-na Marduk, my lord, had delivered
ba-bi-lamki u-ka-an-ni-is into my hand, I brought under Babylon’s
dominion.35
It may have been the proud Babylonian king who came and besieged, but it was God who
gave! From the opening phrases of the book, the narrator is primarily interested in
stressing the sovereign power of God.”36
Similarly, throughout the rest of the book of Daniel, divine sovereignty is staked
out at every turn, whether explicitly or implicitly, and the deity is repeatedly called “the
God of gods” (2:47; 11:36), “the Lord of kings” (2:47), and “the Most High God” (3-26
32; 4:14, 21, 22, 29, 31; 5:18, 21; 7:18, 22, 25 [2x] 27), all of which are appropriately
reminiscent of the role of the deity, whose name is part of Daniel’s name—El, also the
name of the high god of the Canaanite pantheon, the quintessential divine ruler of heaven
and earth.37 Therefore, in Dan 1:1-2a the Lord (y∏ÎnOdSa)38 is clearly demonstrating His
sovereignty; in other words, the real King is neither Jehoiakim nor Nebuchadnezzar, but
the Lord (cf. Ps 96:10; 1 Chr 29:11-12). Further, God’s kingdom is not to be identified
Gleerup, 1967), 38.

35
Ibid., 39.
36
Arnold, “Word Play and Characterization in Daniel 1,” 234.
37
Seow, “The Rule of God in the Book of Daniel,” 219. For further detail on El
see F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion
of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 1-75; F. M. Cross, “‫אל‬,”
TDOT (1974), 1:241-61.
38
Some manuscripts read ‫יהוה‬, which otherwise appears only in chap. 9 (Dan 9: 2,
8, 10, 13, 14 [2 x], 20). Mangano suggests that “the noun Lord (y∏ÎnOdSa, ˒ădōnāy), rather
than “LORD” (‫יהוה‬, YHWH), emphasizes God’s control.” Mark Mangano, Esther &
44
with the failings of the Davidic line.
By using the same root Klm and the noun t…wäkVlAm, Daniel alludes to Gen 10:10
where is found the first use of hDkDlVmAm in the Bible and in connection with l$RbD;b, which
refers also to Gen 11:2, where is found the Hebrew phrase r™Do◊nIv_X®r`Ra that links Dan 1:2
and Gen 10:10; 11:2. As to the relationship between Gen 10:10 and the story of Gen 11,
opinions differ, but it is clear that both have some elements in common, namely the land
of Shinar, the city of Babel, and the motif of city building.39 Indeed, the connections
between Dan 1:1-2 and Gen 11 are strengthened by the common vocabulary found in Gen
10:10.
Both Nimrod and Nebuchadnezzar are characterized in the Bible as kings who
opposed God’s will and God’s kingdom. The immediate context of Gen 10:10 presents
Nimrod as a descendant of Cush in the Table of Nations:
Now Cush became the father of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth.
He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty
hunter before the LORD.” The beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech and
Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. (NASB, Gen 10:8-10)
Nimrod stands out in the genealogy as a unique figure deserving attention in that
(l) he is the only clearly noneponymous individual mentioned, and (2) he is the only
figure significantly elaborated upon.40 Although scholars have made several attempts to
Daniel, CPNIVC (Joplin, MO: College Press 2001), 168.

39
Arie van der Kooij, “The City of Babel and Assyrian Imperialism: Genesis 11:1-
9 Interpreted in the Light of Mesopotamian Sources,” in Congress Volume Leiden 2004,
ed. André Lemaire, VTSup 109 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 12.
40
Mary Katherin Y.H. Hom, “. . . A Mighty Hunter before YHWH: Genesis 10:9
and the Moral-Theological Evaluation of Nimrod,” VT 60 (2010): 63.
45
identify Nimrod in history,41 this outstanding personality, whose exploits obviously left
their mark on the historical memory of Israel, has not been positively identified as being
any known individual in the ancient world.42
The Bible gives no explanation of the name Nimrod, though it could be simply
translated “We shall rebel,” possibly foreshadowing 11:1–9.43 Moreover, the means by
which Nimrod achieves his ascendancy suggests that his distinction came by aggressive
force rather than the gradual diffusion of peoples as shown elsewhere by the Table.44
Nimrod is said to be the first rwø;bˆ…g on earth (X®r`DaD;b räO;bˆ…g); he was the first man of might on
earth. The word expresses the idea of violent, tyrannical power.45 One notes the
relationship between h∂r…wb◊…g and hDkDlVmAm, power and kingdom. According to ancient
41
According to V. Hamilton, Nimrod has been equated with (1) Ninurta, a
Babylonian war-god and god of the hunt, also called “the Arrow, the mighty hero,”
whose cult was widespread in Mesopotamia in the late 2nd millennium B.C., (2) the
Assyrian King Tukulti-Ninurta I (who bears the divine name Ninurta), who reigned in the
last half of the 13th century B.C. (ca. 1246–1206 B.C.) and (3) some have connected
Nimrod with the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenhotep III (ca. 1416–1379 B.C.) of the 18th
Dynasty. Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1990), 1:337-38. See also K. van der Toor and P. W. der Horst, “Nimrod
Before and After the Bible,” HTR 83 (1990): 1-29; James L. Kugel, Traditions of the
Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Beginning of the Common Era (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 228-34; Y. Levin, “Nimrod the Mighty, King of
Kish, King of Sumer and Akkad,” VT 52 (2002): 350-64; Peter Machinist, “Nimrod,”
ABD (1992), 4:1116-18; B. Oded, “The Table of Nations (Genesis 10)—A Socio-cultural
Approach,” ZAW 98 (1986): 14-31; E. A. Speiser, “In Search of Nimrod,” ErIsr 5 (1958):
32-36; Peter van der Horst, “Nimrod after the Bible,” in Essays on the Jewish World of
Early Christianity (Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, 1990), 220-32.
42
Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with New JPS
Translation, 1st ed., JPSTC (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 73.
43
G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC 1 (Dallas: Word, 1998), 222.
44
Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, NAC 1A (Nashville, TN: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 1996), 448.
46
notions, the state was based entirely and solely on power.46
The interpretation of the figure of Nimrod outside the Hebrew Bible, where apart
from Genesis the name appears only once, in Mic 5:5, is overwhelmingly negative.47
Thus in the Haggadah Nimrod is pictured as the prototype of rebellion, the builder of the
Tower of Babel, and as the one who led the people in rebellion against God.48 In addition,
distinctive vocabulary and phrases imply a negative perspective of Nimrod’s activity both
within Gen 10:8-12 as a contained unit and further in relation to the Tower of Babel
narrative soon to follow (11:1-9). The use of llj (profane, begin) in the Hiphil in Gen
11:6 echoes its use just before that in 10:8. lRbD;b, in Gen 10:10 and 11:1-9, instantly
evokes an impression of corruption and immorality.49 Moreover, lexical connections
between the Nimrod narrative and the tower event (11:1–9) encourage the reader to
interpret Nimrod’s activities as the founder of Babel in the same negative light as the
45
Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 516.
46
H. Gunkel, Genesis (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997), 88.
47
Joseph Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A Discursive
Commentary on Genesis 1-11 (New York: T & T Clark, 2011), 162.
48
Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 338. Haggadah 13a says: “The echo came forth
and said, Wicked man, son of a wicked man, grandson of Nimrod the evil, who through
his dominion brought about a rebellion by the entire world against me!” Jacob Neusner,
The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2011), 7d:51. Similarly, the Pesah 94b says: “When wicked Nimrod threw
our father Abraham into the fiery furnace, said Gabriel before the Holy One, blessed be
He, Lord of the world, let me go down and cool it off and save that righteous man from
the fiery furnace.” Ibid., 4:459.
49
Hom, “. . . A Mighty Hunter before YHWH: Genesis 10:9 and the Moral-
Theological Evaluation of Nimrod,” 67.
47
Lord “saw” the efforts of the tower builders.50
If this interpretation is correct, as the biblical text implies, then it follows that the
Mesopotamian ideology of the monarch51 may be reflected in the description of Nimrod.
Whereas a Babylonian or Assyrian monarch typically presumed to be the king of the
world, the expression “before YHWH” (Gen 10:9)52 makes clear that YHWH is actually
the king of the world.53 Genesis 10:10 states that Nimrod was a king and that his realm
was a kingdom. The verse is saying that Nimrod became a king and founder of a
kingdom by means of his mighty deeds, v. 8. The beginning of this kingdom was Babel,
that is, he became master of the city of Babel in the land of Shinar.54
50
Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 450.
51
According to the Sumerian king list, Eridu was host to the first kingship: “When
kingship was lowered from heaven, kingship was (first) in Eridu.” Indeed, the ideology of
kingship in Mesopotamia was religious, that is, kingship was a divine right given to a
man by the gods. “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,” translated by A. Leo
Oppenheim (ANET, 265).
52
It is a form of the superlative, so Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 516. Hom rightly
says that “the choice of hwhy instead of MyIhølTa, the usual generic name for Israel’s God,
draws attention to the greatness of Nimrod’s power in relation to not the gods of
Babylonia nor just a universally-recognized notion of deity, but to YHWH in particular.
Hom, “. . . A Mighty Hunter before YHWH: Genesis 10:9 and the Moral-Theological
Evaluation of Nimrod,” 67. For further considerations on the meaning of h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnVpIl see
also T. L. Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological
Commentary (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 194-95; Umberto Cassuto, A
Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part 2 from Noah to Abraham (Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1964), 201; W. H. Gispen, “Who Was Nimrod?,” in The Law and the Prophets:
Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis, ed. J. H. Skilton
(Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974), 207-14; E. A. Speiser, Genesis, AB
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 51; D. W. Thomas, “A Consideration of Some
Unusual Ways of Expressing the Superlative in Hebrew,” VT 3 (1953): 209-24.
53
Hom, “. . . A Mighty Hunter before YHWH: Genesis 10:9 and the Moral-
Theological Evaluation of Nimrod,” 68.
54
Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 517.
48
Indeed, the book of Genesis characterizes Nimrod’s pursuit of violent power. This
antagonistic aspect is underscored with the Hebrew word ty§Ivaér (beginning) that occurred
in Gen 10:10. tyIvaér has both chronological and qualitative significance. For instance, the
word refers to the beginning of time in Gen 1:1.55 It is, moreover, noteworthy that tyIvaér
is used along with twµødVlwøt as clear boundaries of the creation pericope (Gen 1:1; 2:4). It is
significant that this same pattern of the frame of the creation account, twµødVlwøt - tyIvaér, is
used in Gen 10:10 and 32 but in connection with Babel. Moreover, Doukhan suggests,
“By means of the Babel motif the author might have then suggested ‘in filigree’ the
association tyIvaér - twµødVlwøt in a way which points to the literary boundaries of C[reation
story].”56 While God made one tyIvaér in Gen 1:1, now Nimrod makes another tyIvaér in
Gen 10:10, but without God. Thus Nimrod begins a system grounded in violence and
shaped into cities that confronts God’s created realm, which centuries later is carried up
by King Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 1.57 Significantly, the kingdom of Babel is the first
earthly empire or kingdom recorded in the whole Bible, and it will play an important role
against and for the kingdom of God. Furthermore, as hwhy manifested His sovereignty to
Nimrod and the builders of Babel (Gen 10:10, 11:1-9), likewise in Dan 1:2a the Lord
(y∏ÎnOdSa) is clearly demonstrating His sovereignty when one reads that y∏ÎnOdSa “gave Jehoiakim
55
tyIvaér is regularly used in the law of firstfruits (e.g., Lev 2:12; Deut 26:2). And
because something is first, it is expected to be the best: Gen 49:3, Deut 21:17. Wenham,
Genesis 1-15, 223.
56
Jacques Doukhan, “The Literary Structure of the Genesis Creation Story” (ThD
diss., Andrews University, 1978), 251.
57
Wes Howard-Brook, “Come out My People!” God’s Call out of Empire in the
Bible and Beyond (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2010), 45.
49
king of Judah into Nebuchadnezzar’s hand.” Once again, God is the only ultimate King.
On the Meaning of lRbD;b
The noun lRbD;b is found 262 times58 in the Hebrew section of the OT and 25 times
in the Aramaic sections of both Daniel and Ezra.59 The first time this term was used was
in the Table of Nations in Gen 10 where the beginning of the kingdom was recorded in
58
E.g., Gen 10:10; 11:9; Dan 1:1; Mic 4:10; Zech 2:11; 6:10.
59
Ezra 5:12 (2X), 13, 14 (2X), 17; 6:1, 5; 7:16; Dan 2:12, 14, 18, 24 (2X), 48
(2X), 49; 3:1, 12, 30; 4:3, 26-27; 5:7; 7:1. According to Mills the noun Babylon is used
nearly three hundred times in the Bible (more than half these uses are in Jeremiah) of
which ten are in the New Testament (five in Revelation). The biblical use of “Babel”
(Hebrew and Aramaic), its synonym Shinar, and Babelon (Greek) is shown in the table.
Shinar Hebrew Aramaic Shinar Hebrew Aramaic Greek
Genesis 4 2 Jeremiah 169
Joshua 1 Ezekiel 20
II Kings 32 Daniel 1 1 16
I Chronicles 1 Micah 1
II Chronicles 9 Zechariah 1 2
Ezra 7 9 Matthew 3
Nehemiah 2 Acts 1
Esther 1 I Peter 1
Psalms 3 Revelation 5
Isaiah 1 13 Total 8 263 25 10
So Babylon is mentioned 306 times in the Bible and is far from being an obscure biblical
concept. It is a concept found in the earliest postflood narratives, and one whose
influence runs throughout the biblical period. M. Mills, Genesis: A Study Guide to the
50
the exploits of Nimrod from Cush (10:10)60 and the episode of the Tower of Babel (Gen
11:9), which are the first references in the Bible and the only ones in the Pentateuch.61
The name lRbD;b, “Babylon,” which corresponds to the Akkadian Bābili/u, is explained in
Gen 11:9 by pejorative etymology62 as related to the verb llb,63 “to mix,” “to confuse,”
and is connected with the confusion of tongues.64 Moreover, Koehler, Baumgartner, and
Stamm suggest that the noun lRbD;b corresponds to the Sumerian Ka-dingir gate of the god,
NBab. Bāb-ilāni gate of the gods which developed into the Greek Βαβυλών, after a
sacred gate at the end of the procession way.65 However, according to Ringgren the name
lRbD;b, which was more accurately read Babilla, is neither Sumerian nor Akkadian, and its
original meaning is unknown.66 If one assumes that initially the noun lRbD;b implied some
sort of religious connotation as meaning “the gate of the gods,” as suggested by its
possible Akkadian origin, even here one can find some theological and historical
connections with the Tower of Babel account. Although Babylon may be regarded as
Book of Genesis, electronic ed. (Dallas: 3E Ministries, 1999).

60
Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part 2 from Noah to Abraham,
226.
61
Bill T. Arnold, “Babylon, OT,” NIDB (2006), 378.
62
According to Roy Gane, the biblical text intentionally twists the name lRbD;b here,
so it is a pejorative false etymology, as later in the case of Ish-Bosheth in 2 Sam 2:8, 10,
12, 15 (“Man of Shame,” son of Saul, referred to in the genealogy by his real name, Ish-
Ba’al in 2 Chr 8:33). Roy E. Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, NIVAC (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2004), 720, n. 9.
63
On the meaning of llb see Wilma A. Bailey, “‫בלל‬,” NIDOTTE (1997), 1:663-4.
64
H. Ringgren, “‫בבל‬,” TDOT (1974), 1:466.
65
Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm, HALOT, s.v. “lbb.”
66
Ringgren, “‫בבל‬,” TDOT, 1:466-7.
51
simply one among several great powers that concerned ancient Israel, it is also clear that
Babylon occupied the imagination of Israel. Thus Walter Brueggemann has shown that
even in the postexilic period, it is Babylon and not Persia that continues to function as a
powerful theological metaphor for Israel in a singular way.67 Significantly, José Bertoluci
writes that as far as the use of the term Babylon is concerned, besides designating an
ancient city and an empire, it has been used with several different connotations:
1. In Gen 11:9 it is reinterpreted as confusion.
2. After the fall of Babylon (Babel), it represents for later Jewish readers of
Scripture the very epitome and type of an ungodly and domineering city.68
In conclusion, Babylon exhibits universalistic features that go far beyond
considering it the sixth-century historical enemy of Israel, so that it may be considered
the archetype of the archenemy of the people of God in all ages to come.69 Thus the name
“Babylon” conjures up for the Israelite and the reader of Scripture memories of the
Tower of Babel (Gen 11:1–9). Furthermore, Jože Krašovec remarks: “In accordance with
the general theme of the Primeval History, namely, the escalation of sin, the narrator
brings into the foreground the greatest possible sin: the aspiration of humans to overstep
the limited state of their existence and to force their way into the realm of gods or God.”70
67
Walter Brueggemann, “At the Mercy of Babylon: A Subversive Rereading of
the Empire,” JBL 110 (1991): 3.
68
José M. Bertoluci, “The Son of the Morning and the Guardian Cherub in the
Context of the Controversy Between Good and Evil” (PhD diss., Andrews University,
1985), 290.
69
G. F. Hasel, “‫פלת‬,” TDOT (2001), 11:565.
70
Jože Krašovec, The Transformation of Biblical Proper Names, LHB 418 (New
York: T. & T. Clark International, 2010), 12.
52
Therefore, the story of Babel is consistent with the city’s claim to a prestigious antiquity.
Its influence through the centuries had a religious base, and the usage of the name lRbD;b in
Dan 1:1-2 is not the exception. Indeed, throughout the Bible the city of Babel has always
been and always will be the capital of false religion, whereas the city of Jerusalem stands
for the capital of true religion. The course of history and the course of prophecy center on
these two cities, Babylon and Jerusalem.71 Therefore, the association Jerusalem-Babel,
the religious meaning of both cities, the use of the phrase l¢RbD;b_JKRl`Rm in combination with
r™Do◊nIv_X®r`Ra, which is not found elsewhere in the OT except in the context of the Tower of
Babel and Dan 1:1-2, and the weight of evidence suggest that the allusions to Gen 10 and
11 in Dan 1:1-2 are more than likely.
Conclusion: certain allusions.
Implication of Allusion
The story of Babel in the book of Genesis recorded the paradigmatic defeat of
Babylon at the beginning of human history. Now it would appear that the capture of
Jerusalem and the temple’s articles by Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 1:1 represented a
traumatic reversal of that event.72 Thus the book of Daniel opens in chap. 1 with the
record of a Babylonian triumph over Judah. This exile (Dan 1:2) to “Shinar” (that is,
Babylonia) represents, in fact, a reversal of events recorded in Gen 11:31-12:7, in which
Abraham left the land of Shinar and eventually reached Palestine, where he entered into
71
Geoffrey R. King, Daniel: A Detailed Explanation of the Book (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1966), 74.
72
Coxon, “The Great Tree of Daniel 4,” 92.
53
covenant with Yahweh.73 Jean Steimann rightly argues that “in order to understand the
role played by Nebuchadnezzar in the mind of the author of the book of Daniel, we must
put together the stories of the Tower of Babel and the Fall of Jerusalem. Genesis, with the
account of the Tower of Babel, speaks of the failure of Babylon in the beginning of
human history. Now, the conquest and fire of Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar
seemed to be a vengeance of this distant defeat.”74
Scholars agree that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Davidic monarchy by
Babylon, the exile, and the return from exile are arguably the most significant Old
Testament events.75 For Daniel and the biblical authors, the name “Babylon” as a general
term encompasses more than a single, specific historical reality. The use of the term
Babel recalls the idolatry and pride of that ancient city, a city whose rulers saw
themselves and their gods as supreme.76 Furthermore, as a symbol, Babylon embraces
more than what the empire and the city stand for; it is the sphere of idolatry and
73
Zdravko Stefanovic, “Daniel: A Book of Significant Reversals,” AUSS 30
(1992): 139-40. Interestingly, H. McArthur and R. Johnston mentioned in their book They
Also Taught in Parables a rabbinic parable from the first century, entitled “The Wife Sent
Back to Her Father,” which provides a theological reason for the Babylonian exile. The
parable reads: “Five things were said by R. Johanan b. Zakkai in the nature of a principle.
Why did Israel go into exile into Babylon rather than into all other lands? Because the
home of Abraham was from there. . . . Unto what is the matter like? It is like a woman
who disgraces her husband so that he sends her away. He sends her away to the home of
her father.” Harvey K. McArthur and Robert M. Johnston, They Also Taught in Parables:
Rabbinic Parables from the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1990), 23.
74
Jean Steinmann, Daniel (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1950), 73.
75
H. Victor Mathews, Old Testament Turning Points: The Narratives That Shaped
a Nation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005), 157-61.
76
Peter F. Gregory, “Its End Is Destruction: Babylon the Great in the Book of
Revelation,” CTQ 73 (2009): 138.
54
worldliness in opposition to the people and work of God, a worldliness epitomized first
by the tower of Babel account in Gen 11. Therefore, beginning in Genesis and through
Revelation, Babylon becomes the antithesis of Jerusalem and the Kingdom of God. 77
Meaning and Significance of r™Do◊nIv_X®r`Ra
Most OT commentators recognize the link between Dan 1:2 and the Tower of
Babel account.78 Acccording to Montgomery, the use of the noun “Shinar” in Dan 1:2 is
well chosen as denoting the land of the archrebel Nimrod, Gen 10:10, and of the Tower
of Babel, which is the antithesis of the theme of Dan 1:2.79 Similarly Porteous states:
It may not be without significance that Babylonia here is called the land of Shinar, a
name associated in Hebrew memory with the kingdom of Nimrod the mighty hunter
(Gen 10:10), and still more with the impious builders of the so-called tower of Babel
(Gen 11:2), and the name of the land to which, in the bizarre vision of Zechariah
(Zech 5:11), Wickedness was to be banished. From the very outset, then, it is hinted
that the environment of the Jewish exiles, whose adventures are to be told, contains
an element hostile to faith. As the story goes on, it is not surprising to find this
hostility concentrated, where one might expect to find it, at the Babylonian court.80
77
Jean-Claude Margueron and Duane F. Watson, “Babylon,” ABD (1992), 1:566.
For a contrast between Babylon and Jerusalem in the book of Revelation see Roberto
Badenas, “New Jerusalem—The Holy City,” in Symposium on Revelation—Book II, ed.
Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 255-57; Richard
J. Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1993), 131-32; Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the
Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 1117-21; Gerhard Krodel,
Revelation, ACNT (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 352-54.
78
Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 21, 26.
79
Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel,
117.
80
Norman Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1965), 27. Other commentators who also see an allusion to Gen 11 here include: Merling
K. Alomía, Daniel: el profeta mesiánico. Volumen II (Lima, Peru: Ediciones Theologika,
Universidad Peruana Unión, 2007), 14-15; Buchanan, The Book of Daniel, 21; Collins,
Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 134; Kenneth O. Gangel and Max E.
55
Indeed, the use of “Shinar” rather than “Babylon” here in Dan 1:2 alerts us to
consider the Babylonian exile in the light of the original Babel incident (Gen 11). 81 It
was there that God rejected humanity’s efforts to become like God. The author’s use of
the term further underscores the godless environment in which the events and visions of
the book take place.82 The reference to Shinar evokes Gen 11, where humans displayed
their misdirected aspirations by building the Tower of Babel.
Nevertheless, scholars typically fail to explain the significance of the allusion to
Gen 10:10; 11:2 in the intertextual context of Dan 1:1-2, namely the ideology of kingship
and its connection with worship which is found in all three passages. After the Tower of
Babel episode (Gen11), the term r™Do◊nIv carried the connotation “center of wickedness.”
Anders, Daniel, HolOTC 18 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 17; Andrés
Glaze, “Daniel,” Comentario Bíblico Mundo Hispano, Tomo 12: Ezequiel y Daniel (El
Paso, TX: Editorial Mundo Hispano, 2009), 410; Goldingay, Daniel, 13; E. Haag,
“Israels Exil im Lande Schinar Beobachtungen zu Daniel 1,1-2,” in Christlicher Glaube
und säkulsres Denken: Festschrift zum 50. Jahrestag der Wiedererrichtung der
Theologischen Fakultät Trier, 1950-2000, ed. Theologische Fakultät Universität Trier
(Trier: Paulinus, 2000), 41-53; Ernst Haag, Daniel, Die neue Echter Bibel (Würzburg:
Echter Verlag, 1993), 23-24; Jin Hee Han, Daniel’s Spiel: Apocalyptic Literacy in the
Book of Daniel (Lanham: University Press of America, 2008), 24; Philip C. Johnson, The
Book of Daniel: A Study Manual (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1964), 13; Jürgen-Christian
Lebram, Das Buch Daniel (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1984), 43; Iain Provan,
“Daniel,” Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003),
665; Agus Santoso, Die Apokalyptik als jüdische Denkbewegung: eine literarkritische
Untersuchung zum Buch Daniel (Marburg: Tectum, 2007), 38; Sergine Snanoudj, Visions
du prophète Daniel sur la fin des temps: Ses jeûnes, ses intercessions, ses victoires
(Panassac: Impact du plein Évangile, 2003), 22-24; John Clement Whitcomb, Daniel,
EBC (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 26-27; Herbert Willett, “Daniel,” The Abingdon
Bible Commentary (New York: Abingdon, 1929), 748.
81
James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of
Daniel (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007), 88.
82
Jim Edlin, Daniel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, NBBC (Kansas
City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 2009), 47.
56
While the Hebrew phrase r™Do◊nIv_X®r`Ra occurs four times in the OT (Gen 10:10; 11:2,
Zech 5:1; Dan 1:2) the word r™Do◊nIv is found eight times.83 The first two usages of Shinar in
the Bible are those related to the kingdom of Babel and the Tower of Babel respectively.
Regarding the geographical location of Shinar, scholars state that it is the area known to
the Mesopotamians as “the land of Sumer and Akkad,” corresponding to the portion of
modern Iraq south of Baghdad. This meaning is confirmed by the LXX, Targum Onqelos,
and the Genesis Apocryphon. All three sometimes translate “Shinar” as Babylon.84
According to Gen 10:8-10, Nimrod’s kingdom first included sites in Shinar and later
extended north into Assyria, and Shinar was the location of the Tower of Babel (Gen
11:2). The mention of Shinar in both contexts is the exegetical basis for the association of
Nimrod with the building of the tower in later Jewish interpretive texts (e.g., Josephus,
Ant. 1.113-15).85
Scholars have long been puzzled regarding the question of the origin of Shinar.
One suggestion is that Shinar is derived from “Sumer.” This identification, however, is
phonologically impossible, since it cannot explain the origin of the third consonant (˓ayin,
original ǵayin), which never appears in any form of “Sumer.”86 Shinar is first mentioned
in Egyptian documents and also in the Amarna Letters (the Hurrian letter sent from
Ittanni [Tell el-Amarna tablets (EA) 24:95] and that sent from Alasûia [Cyprus] to Egypt
83
Gen 11:2; 14:1, 9; Josh 7:21; Isa 11:11; Zech 5:11; Dan 1:2.
84
James R. Davilla, “Shinar,” ABD (1996), 5:1220.
85
P. M. Sherman, “Shinar,” NIDB (2009), 5:234.
86
James R. Davilla, “Shinar,” ABD (1996), 5:1220.
57
[EA 35:39]).87 According to R. Zadok, its Egyptian equivalent Sngr is first mentioned in
Thutmoses III’s thirty-third year (1457 B.C.; it appears, especially in topographical lists,
from the reign of Amenhotep III down to that of Tirhaka).88 Some evidence points to a
Syrian district cited as Sanhara in the Amarna letters. Thus Zadok suggests that Shinar
derives from cuneiform Samḫaru, apparently the name of a Kassite tribe. The Kassites
were rulers of Babylon during the period when the term “Shinar” was used in Egyptian
and cuneiform sources. Sanhara/Sin‘ar was the usual name for Babylonia among the
peoples dwelling west of the Euphrates during the latter half of the second millennium
B.C. when Babylonia was under Kassite rule.89
In the OT the territorial name r™Do◊nIv refers to the whole of Mesopotamia, but with
one exception; the exception is Dan 1:2 where r™Do◊nIv means Babylonia.90 Commentators
agree that Shinar was synonymous with opposition to God; it was the place where
wickedness was at home (Zech 5:11) and uprightness could expect opposition.91 All of
87
Isaac Kalimi, “Shinar,” EDB (2000), 1213.
88
Ran Zadok, “The Origin of the Name Shinar,” ZA 74 (1984): 240.
89
Ibid., 240. HALOT says that an assessment of these possibilities shows that they
all have grounds for support, which makes it very difficult to come to a decision about
which of the three to adopt for the origin of this territorial name. Koehler, Baumgartner,
and Stamm, HALOT, s.v. “rDo◊nIv.”
90
Ibid. The tower of Babel was built in Shinar (Gen 11:2–9). The king of Shinar
opposed Abraham (Gen 14:1). Isaiah prophesied that God would bring out a remnant of
His people from Shinar (11:11). Daniel 1:1–2 and probably Zech 5:11 equate Babylon
and Shinar, thus limiting Shinar to its major city in the writers’ day.
91
Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary, 87. See also Delcor, who
writes: “Mais l’expression comporte certainement une nuance péjorative car elle apparait
en des textes ou elle équivaut pratiquement à «terre de péché » (cf. Gn 11,1-10; Za 5,
11). Puisque les objets du culte provenant du temple de Jérusalem sont déposés dans les
trésors des dieux babyloniens, il faut supposer que Nabuchodonosor s’est emparé de
58
this points to a sinister significance for Shinar as being the major center for the
development of a culture and civilization built on counterfeit religion, rebelliousness
against the true God and His revealed word, the cradle of imperial tyranny and the enemy
of God’s people, in short, the epitome of wickedness,92 the center and mother of idolatry.
Conclusion: certain allusion.
From the days of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel, until it was blotted out from
under heaven, Babylon was the headquarters for the heathen mysteries.93 Therefore, at
the very core of the allusions to Gen 11 in Dan 1:1-2 is the understanding of a cosmic and
religious conflict. Thus Babel/Shinar represented the spiritual and political antithesis to
Jerusalem.
Thematic Allusions: The Replacement of God
It was shown above that Nebuchadnezzar and the God of Israel emerge as the two
main characters in the narrative of Dan 1. The textual analysis of Dan 1:1-2 demonstrates
that there is a confrontation between Babylon/Nebuchadnezzar and Jerusalem/Adonai,
which sets the stage for the following encounters that the prophet Daniel and his three
friends will have with Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 1-4) and further, Daniel with Belshazzar
(Dan 5). The primary character flaw of the rulers in both Dan 1-6 and 7-12 is arrogance,
ce qu’il y avait de précieux.” M. Delcor, Le Livre de Daniel (Paris: Gabalda, 1971), 61.
Compare also M. Delcor, “Le trésor de la maison de Yahweh des origines à l'exil,” VT 12
(1962): 353-77.
92
Hermann J. Austel, “‫שנער‬,” TWOT (1999), 943.
93
H. A. Ironside, Lectures on Daniel the Prophet (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux
59
in particular the sort that exalts itself over the living God. It is this arrogance that drives
them to promote religious intolerance, self-worship, idolatry, profanation of the temple
cult, and suppression of Jewish religious practices.94 Indeed, behind the confrontation
between Babylon and Jerusalem, Daniel and other OT prophets (Isa 14:4-14; cf. Jer
50:17-40; Eze 31) see a conflict of another dimension.95 In Dan 1, the prophet describes
the religious nature of the conflict between God’s exiled children and Nebuchadnezzar’s
agenda. Here Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babel, is trying to show God up.96 This section
deals with thematic allusions to Gen 11 in Dan 1, namely, the replacement of God by the
King of Babylon in Dan 1, especially on the acts of bringing the Temple vessel to Shinar,
appointing the diet, and giving new names to Daniel and his three friends.
The Temple Vessels
Both the book of Daniel and the Neo-Babylonian inscriptions represent
Nebuchadnezzar as a very religious man.97 Both the project the Bible describes at Babel
(Gen 11) and the one in Dan 1:2 are a temple complex featuring a ziggurat, which was
designed to make it convenient for the god to come down to his temple, receive worship,
Brothers, 1973), 82.

94
Susan F. Mathews, “When We Remembered Zion: The Significance of the Exile
for Understanding Daniel,” in The Bible on Suffering: Social and Political Implications,
ed. Anthony J. Tambasco (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2001), 95.
95
16.
96
C. L. Seow, Daniel, WBC (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 23.
97
The sacred vessels of Jehovah’s temple at Jerusalem are brought by
Nebuchadnezzar into the treasure house of his god at Babylon, and we know from his
inscriptions that the god meant is Marduk, the patron god of Babylon. C. Boutflower, In
and Around the Book of Daniel (New York: Macmillan, 1923), 93.
60
and bless his people.98 Like the Temple at Jerusalem, the Esagila temple of Marduk, the
city-god of Babylon, was primarily regarded as the home of the deity, where he dwelt
when on earth and where he could be approached.99 Furthermore, the “land of Shinar”
was the center for the worship of the god Bēl, “lord” (cf. Dan 4:8; Isa 46:1) or Marduk,
whose worship was anathema to those who served the God of Israel. 100 The important
point is that both the tower of Gen 11 and the temple of Nebuchadnezzar’s god in Shinar
had cultic significance; it was a means for worshiping a Mesopotamian deity. Worship of
the gods lay at the heart of Babel’s life, as the tower attests.101 Thus throughout Holy
Scripture, from Gen 11 to Daniel, Babel forms a world-historical antithesis to Zion.102 In
turn, Nebuchadnezzar’s main claim was to have made the cult-center of Babylon a
“wonder.”103 In other words, Nebuchadnezzar has replaced the true God and His Temple.
Thus in Dan 1:2 “Shinar” is used in a clearly disparaging way. The context speaks of “the
treasury house of his [Nebuchadnezzar’s] gods” and again associates Babylon with an
98
John H. Walton, “Genesis,” ZIBBCOT (2009), 62-63.
99
John C. L. Gibson, Genesis, DSBS, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981),
206.
100
Russell, Daniel, 9.
101
Robert B. Laurin, “The Tower of Babel Revisited,” in Biblical and Near
Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor, ed. Gary A. Turtle (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 142-43. Cf. Andre Parrot, The Tower of Babel (New York:
Philosophical Library, 1955); André Parrot, Ziggurats et tour de Babel (Paris: Michel,
1949).
102
John Peter Lange, Genesis: Or, the First Book of Moses: Together with a
General Theological and Homiletical Introduction to the Old Testament, ComHS, vol. 1
(New York: Charles Scriber's Sons, 1915), 361.
103
D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, Schweich Lectures 1983
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 64.
61
idolatrous shrine. In fact, “Shinar” is here set in apposition to “home of his gods” before
the focus is set on the pagan temple.104 Nebuchadnezzar brings the vessels of the temple
of Jerusalem to the land of Shinar, recalling the primeval hubris of the place where
humans built the Tower of Babel. Thus, “Nebuchadnezzar attempts to change the
symbolic meaning of the vessels of the temple, when he places the vessels in the treasure
house of the gods of imperial Babylon, attempting to turn the array of instruments of
worship into a display of his lordship.”105 Moreover, with the seeming defeat of the true
God and the destruction of his Temple in Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar with the implicit
help of his god Marduk, Babylon has replaced Jerusalem, and one cannot ignore the
religious implications of such usurpation. Significantly, the text underlines three times
Nebuchadnezzar’s appropriation of the utensils of God’s Temple for his own temple use
(Dan 1:2). Consequently, King Nebuchadnezzar has replaced the God of Judah.106 The
tension introduced by the reference to the Lord’s giving Jehoiakim up is heightened by
the further references to deity in 1:2. Goldingay puts it this way:
The scandal of what is happening is conveyed by juxtaposing the phrase Myhlah tyb
“the house of God” both with the preceding reference to the Lord’s giving over, and
with the following fulsome descriptions of the destiny of the temple articles, ronv
“Shinar,” wyhla tyb “his god’s house,” wyhla rxwa tyb “his god’s treasure house.” In
making its points, Daniel is characteristically careful in its choice of words and
phrases; this often involves fulsomeness and repetition rather than syntactical
elegance.107
104
André Lacocque, “Whatever Happened in the Valley of Shinar? A Response to
Theodore Hiebert,” JBL 128 (2009): 32.
105
Han, Daniel’s Spiel: Apocalyptic Literacy in the Book of Daniel, 24.
106
16.
107
62
It is against this biblical and historical background that Daniel’s allusion to Gen
11 can be better understood. Daniel 1:2 describes the carrying away of the remainder of
the temple vessels and Dan 5 picks up the story of the vessels by showing how their use
for improper purposes by Belshazzar provides the moment for the word of judgment
against Babylon.108 Nebuchadnezzar and Adonai emerge as the only two characters to
survive the exposition. By pairing Adonai’s will with Nebuchadnezzar’s activity, Daniel
gives the story a certain theological global tone.109 These opening verses serve as an
“orientation,” as modern sociolinguistic studies would say, which places the ensuing
narrative in a particular time and place, and in this particular case also establishes
Nebuchadnezzar’s character and God’s sovereignty over the events.110 Therefore, once
108
P.R. Ackroyd, “The Temple Vessels—A Continuity Theme,” in Studies in the
Religion of Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 180.
109
“First of all, the narrator’s appeal to Adonai’s will explains the theological
difficulty of the conquest of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Secondly, by
attributing the exile to Adonai, the narrator constructs a world in which Adonai is in
control of world events and is capable of manipulating foreign rulers even though they
are not believers. Thirdly, with the idea that Adonai has turned against Judah, the narrator
implies that the people have done something to cause the anger of their god. Finally,
Adonai may be a punisher in the worldview of this story, but Adonai is also a protector.
God’s participation in the fall of Jerusalem, the end of the old story, foreshadows the
possibility of God’s participation in the story about to be told and thereby lends an air of
hope.” Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in Daniel 1-6, 35-36.
110
Arnold, “Word Play and Characterization in Daniel 1,” 235. For further
discussion on characterization and orientation in biblical studies see Robert Alter, The Art
of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 114-30; Shimon Bar-Efrat,
Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989), 47-92; Adele Berlin, Poetics
and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983), 23-42;
Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1978), 107-37; David M. Gunn and Danna Nolan Fewell,
Narrative in the Hebrew Bible, OB5 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 46-89;
Luc Herman and Bart Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis (Lincoln: University of
63
again, as in Gen 10 and 11, here in Dan 1 the king of Babel is trying to set “Shinar” over
against Jerusalem and the true God.
Conclusion: possible allusion.
Acccording to Dan 1, the clash between Jerusalem/Jehoiakim/Adonai and
Shinar/Nebuchadnezzar/Marduk is not a mere political one; the clash of these two
civilizations is both cosmic and religious in nature. The land to which the vessels of the
temple are transferred is the same as that where earlier the people tried to build a tower to
heaven and where a confusion of tongues erupted and so the place was called Babylon.111
Thus the narrative shows that by removing the temple vessels, King Nebuchadnezzar has
replaced not only the true place of worship, but also the true God. Here in Dan 1 as in
Gen 10 and 11, the proud, evil, and corrupted “Shinar” is set against God and his temple.
Yet, in the telling of the capture of Jerusalem, Scripture makes evident that God is in
control of the course of history. YHWH’s “kingship” is over the entire world. YHWH’s
universal sovereignty derives from being the Creator and the ruler of creation, and from
the intrinsic quality of being God (Exod 15:18; Pss 103:19; 145:11-13).112
Nebraska Press, 2005), 67-70. See also the complete issue of Semeia dealing with
characterization in the Bible: Elizabeth Struthers and Malbon Adele Berlin,
“Characterization in Biblical Literature,” Semeia 63 (1993): 1-226.
111
Kenneth Stevenson, Michael Glerup, and Thomas C. Oden, Ezekiel, Daniel,
ACCSOT, vol. 13 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008), 155.
112
Dale Patrick, “The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament,” in The Kingdom of
God in 20th-century Interpretation, ed. Wendell Willis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1987), 73.
64
“Appointing” the Menu
It is noteworthy that the three explicit actions attributed by the narrator to God in
Dan 1 are expressed by the same Hebrew verb Ntn:
h#∂d…wh◊y_JKRl`Rm MyâîqÎywøh◊y_tRa w%ødÎyV;b y∏ÎnOdSa ·NE;tˆ¥yÅw 1:2

The Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah My$IhølTa`Dh_tyEb y∞ElV;k ‹tDxVqIm…w
into his hand, along with some of the
vessels of the house of God. (1:2a)
Now God granted Daniel favor and y™EnVpIl My¡ImSjårVlá…w dRs™RjVl laY´¥yˆnâ∂;d_tRa ‹MyIhølTa`Dh N§E;tˆ¥yÅw 1:9
compassion in the sight of the commander MyÌsyîrD;sAh r¶Ac
of the officials. (1:9)
As for these four youths, God gave them My¢IhølTa`Dh MªRhDl N°AtÎn M$D;tVoA;b√rAa ‹hR;l‹EaDh MyôîdDl◊yAh◊w 1:17
knowledge and intelligence in every h¡DmVkDj◊w rRp∞Es_lDkV;b l™E;kVcAh◊w oñ∂;dAm
branch of literature and wisdom. (1:17a)
The three references to God’s activity contribute to a series of developments and
reversals of movement in Dan 1 as a whole.113 The Hebrew verb Ntn is often used with a
direct object and the preposition le, followed by a name designating a person, and means
“give, pass on, transfer.” The same construction can also mean that one places certain
goods at the disposal of another person.114 Thus the verb Ntn is associated with God in the
biblical creation stories. For example, in Gen 1:29, God puts plants and fruit-bearing trees
at the disposal of the human beings, because He is the Creator and Provider.
Nevertheless, in Dan 1, it is Nebuchadnezzar who provides, gives the food that is needed,
and forces others to accept it (Dan 1:5).115 Thus Nebuchadnezzar’s diet is indicative of
113
114
E. Lipinski, “‫נתן‬,” TDOT (1999), 10:91.
115
Jiří Moskala, “The Struggles of Daniel with Religious Liberty,” SS 54 (2007):
26.
65
total control over the four Jewish youths.116
Just as God “gave” the Temple vessels and the young men to Babylon, so also
God “gave” Daniel favor with his master (Dan 1:9) and “gave” knowledge and wisdom to
the four youths (1:17). The use of the verb Ntn in Dan 1:17 highlights the symmetry of the
introduction of the narrative (1:2, 9) as well as its conclusion, and also reminds the reader
of the existence of providence. Indeed, the notion of God frames the chapter, alluding to
His implicit presence and to his directing the course of events.117 Yet, the opposition of
King Nebuchadnezzar to God’s actions is more than evident. D. S. Russell comments,
“The Babylonian king was not content to capture the bodies of those who had been
deported from Judea, he had to capture their minds as well. And so he set about a process
of conditioning and indoctrination.”118 Furthermore, in Dan 1 Nebuchadnezzar “even
tries to reverse the consequences of God’s judgment at Babel by imposing a common
language on one and all (v. 4). God had willed the dispersion of people from Babel,
according to Gen 11, but Nebuchadnezzar brings them back to the land of Shinar. God
had willed many languages, but Nebuchadnezzar would have them learn the language of
Babylon (Babel).”119 This becomes a volatile issue confronting the very will of YHWH
who himself dispersed the people by means of various languages.120 Indeed, the narrative
116
Hans van Deventer, “The Bold, the Beautiful and the Beasts in the Book of
Daniel,” Scriptura 90 (2005): 724.
117
21.
118
Russell, Daniel, 19.
119
Seow, Daniel, 23.
120
Hebbard, Reading Daniel as a Text in Theological Hermeneutics, 65.
66
of Dan 1 contrasts God’s activities with Nebuchadnezzar’s actions. Scholars have shown
that the characterization of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 1 clearly suggests that the King of
Babylon “plays God” by determining the menu for Daniel and his three friends. The text
and its translation read:
The king appointed for them a daily ration g§A;b_tAÚpIm w#ømwøyV;b Mwâøy_rAb√;d JKRl%R;mAh M°RhDl ·NAm◊yÅw 1:5
from the king’s choice food and from the wy$D;tVvIm Ny∞E¥yIm…w ‹JKRl‹R;mAh
wine which he drank (1:5a)
According to this passage, King Nebuchadnezzar “determines” the menu. The verb used
here in the form NAm◊yÅw (determined) has in the Bible no other subject but God121 himself
and appears otherwise when creation is implied (Jonah 1:17; 4:6-8).122 Twice in Daniel
(1:5, 10) and four times in Jonah (1:17 [H 2:1]; 4:6–8), inanimate things—Daniel’s food,
Jonah’s fish, the gourd, worm, and hot wind—are under the control of God.123 The
characteristic feature of all the occurrences in the Piel or Pael of the verbal root hnm is
121
The only other passage in which the verb hnm in the Piel stem (meaning
“appoint, determine”) is used of a person is Ps 61:8 (HB). Koehler, Baumgartner, and
Stamm, HALOT, s.v. “hnm.” The verb hnm means “count, reckon, number, allot and
designate, definitions that will cover all the occurrences of the verb in the Hebrew Bible
and in the Aramaic of Daniel as well. R. D. Wilson, “MNH, ‘To Appoint’ in the Old
Testament,” PTR 16 (1918): 653.
122
17. The verb hnm in the book of Jonah always points to the Lord’s power to accomplish
his will. Thus in Jonah 1:17 the Creator of the sea is also the Master of its creatures. hnm
occurs also in Jonah 4:6, 7, 8, and refers in each instance to God’s ability to control
nature, as he desires. L. C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, NICOT
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 213; David W. Baker, T. D. Alexander, and Bruce
K.Waltke, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah: An introduction and Commentary, TOTC
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), 121; Douglas K. Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, WBC 31
(Dallas: Word, 2002), 474; H. W. Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah, CC (Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg, 1986), 132.
123
G. Lloyd Carr, “‫מנה‬,” TWOT (1999), 513.
67
that they variously bring to expression the powers of command of a highest authority.124
J. Conrads goes further and states,
Both in the Biblical Aramaic texts and in Dnl the reference is to the powers of
disposal of the Babylonian or Persian kings as the highest human authority (Dnl.
1:5,10; 2:24,49; 3:12) or to derivative authorization or power of authority (Ezr. 7:25;
Dnl. 1:11 [different in the LXX]). The remaining occurrences refer to Yahweh’s own
powers of disposal, powers transcending all human possibilities and comprehension.
According to the book of Jonah, he is able to commission natural forces like servants
(Jon. 2:1[1:17]; 4:6-8), his sovereignty impressively underscored by the fourfold
occurrence of the form wayeman.125
Therefore, the unexpected use of that Hebrew verb hnm in relation to Nebuchadnezzar in
Dan 1:5 suggests that the king in “determining” the menu takes the place of the
Creator.126 This interpretation seems to be confirmed by Daniel’s resolution or reaction
(vv. 8, 12) to the king’s program. First, all that the text actually tells us about the king’s
menu is contained in the single Hebrew word gA;b_VtAÚp, which is borrowed from the Persian
(and ultimately Sanskrit) patibaga, “portion, ration.” This rare Hebrew word occurs again
in Dan 11:26. The contextual use and meaning of gA;b_VtAÚp then suggests, “Whoever eats the
king’s rich food becomes indebted to the king. It might be as simple as that,”127 in other
words, eating from the king’s table is symbolic of political covenant and compromise.128
124
J. Conrad Leipzig, “‫מנה‬,” TDOT (1997), 8:399.
125
Ibid.
126
17.
127
W. Sibley Towner, “Daniel 1 in the Context of the Canon,” in Canon,
Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs, ed.
Gene M. Tucker, David L. Petersen, and Robert R. Wilson (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress
Press, 1988), 290, 293.
128
The dietary experiment proves that the king is not. Thus through the stories
(Dan 1-6), Daniel and his friends may conform entirely to every item of the king’s will,
68
So Daniel’s rejection of the diet has not so much to do with the food and wine itself, as it
has to do with its source.129 It would seem that Daniel rejected this symbol of dependence
on the king because he wished to be free to fulfill his primary obligations to the God he
served.130 Thus the king’s food as well as Daniel’s food of choice symbolizes the clash
between two opposing cultural-religious worlds.131
Second, the phrase that Daniel uses (Dan 1: 12) to designate the menu he wishes
to have is a literal quotation from the text of Creation (Gen 1:29).132 The same Hebrew
words appear with the same associations: “vegetables,” “given,” “to be eaten.”
Therefore, in reformulating the same expression, Daniel is affirming that his God is the
Creator and not King Nebuchadnezzar.133 Accepting the food in this context would
simply indicate that the recipient accepts the king as his personal God.134
but not to the point of acknowledging the king’s absolute sovereignty. Philip R. Davies,
Daniel, OTG, vol 24 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985), 90-91.
129
This reading does not deny that Daniel’s decision is religiously motivated (Lev
11:44-45); it simply suggests that Daniel’s religiosity is of a more complex nature.
Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in Daniel 1-6, 40. For further discussion
on the king’s food in Dan 1, see Goldingay, Daniel, 18-19.
130
Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary, 83.
131
P. M. Venter, “A Study of Space in Daniel 1,” OTE 19 (2006): 999.
132
Doukhan, “Allusions à la création dans le livre de Daniel,” 286. Cf. Doukhan,
Secrets of Daniel: Wisdom and Dreams of a Jewish Prince in Exile, 19.
133
19.
134
Paul Z. Gregor, Life and Visions of Daniel (Mandeville, Jamaica: Northern
Caribbean University, 2005), 32.
69
The narrative of Dan 1 suggests that by “determining” the menu King
Nebuchadnezzar was trying to replace the God of Creation. Nebuchadnezzar’s actions
thus resemble the same attitude of Babel. In choosing a different diet from the one
provided by the king, Daniel and his friends made the point that neither the king nor the
“fine food and drink are not what sustain life, but God.”135 I agree with P. Davies’
assertion that the refusal of the king’s food in Dan 1 “was a symbolic denial of the king’s
implicit claim to be the sole provider”; 136 in other words, Daniel’s reaction (Dan 1:8)
denied Nebuchadnezzar’s claim to be the Creator, God.
Giving Names (Gen 11:4; Dan 1:7)
The motif of “making a name/giving names” plays an important role in both Gen
11 and Dan 1. Thematic similarities and the use of the Hebrew noun MEv seems to link
both passages. While in Gen 11 the “Babelites” are trying to make a name for
themselves, here in Dan 1 the Babylonians are giving new names to the four Hebrew
lads. After Daniel and his three friends were so directly characterized in Dan 1:3-4, we
are told they were to be nourished on Babylonian food and trained in Babylonian culture
in preparation for appointment to royal service (vv. 5-6). The giving of new Babylonian
names (v. 7) serves as the climax of the cultural and religious clash.137 Thus the
totalitarian control that Nebuchadnezzar’s court exercises over Daniel is evidenced in the
135
Davies, Daniel, 90.
136
Ibid., 91.
137
70
renaming of Daniel and his friends.138
Most personal names in the OT are hypocoristic, constituting all or part of a
sentence. Such a sentence might reflect something distinctive about a person’s birth or
character (e.g., Daniel, la´¥yˆn∂;d, “God is my judge” or “God judges”).139 A change of name
within the OT usually has special significance. 140 Changing names signifies a change of
destinies—nomen est omen.141 In addition, renaming of persons is frequently due to the
fact that they have come under new masters and negative circunstances. 142 So Daniel is
renamed Belteshazzar by Nebuchadnezzar to honor the king’s god. Renaming captives as
Nebuchadnezzar did in the case of Daniel and his friends, and publicly humiliating the
gods and temples of conquered peoples were all tactics familiar to Neo-Babylonian
138
Pace, Daniel, 32.
139
Timothy M. Willis, “Name, Naming,” NIDB (2009), 4:217-18.
140
It may suggest a certain relationship, a personal characteristic, or sometimes a
stipulated function. It is doubtful, however, whether any of these purposes is involved in
these stories. Anderson, Signs and Wonders: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 4-5.
141
Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 29.
142
Otto Eissfeldt, “Renaming in the Old Testament,” in Words and Meanings:
Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars
(Cambridge: The University Press, 1968), 73. According to the Babylonian “doctrine of
the name,” a name was a hypostasis of the thing itself; in other words, Babylonian
worldview equates naming and existence. “The doctrine itself can be summarized in the
basic principle that nothing exists unless it has a name.” Georges Contenau, Everyday
Life in Babylon and Assyria (New York: Norton, 1966), 160. Furthermore, the opening
phrase of the Creation Epic, Enūma Elish, gives evidence of the “doctrine of the name”:
“When on high no name was given to heaven, Nor below was the netherworld called by
name,” which merely means before heaven and earth existed. “Epic of Creation,”
translated by Benjamin R. Foster (COS, 1.111, 391). See W. G. Lambert, “Myth and
Mythmaking in Sumer and Akkad,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. J. M.
Sasson (New York: Scribner, 1995), 3:1827-28.
71
rulers.143
It has been shown that the idiom Daniel uses for naming in Dan 1:7 indicates that
he views the renaming by the Babylonians as an attempt to impose the will and
polytheistic worldview of Babylon on these young men.144 The passage and its translation
read:
Then the commander of the officials MRcÎ¥y∏ Åw twóømEv My™IsyîrD;sAh r¶Ac M¢RhDl MRcªD¥yÅw 1:7
assigned new names to them; and to l∞EaDvyÌmVl…w JK$år√dAv ‹hÎy◊nÅnSjÀl◊w r#A…xaAvVfVl∞E;b la˝´¥yˆná∂dVl
Daniel he assigned the name Belteshazzar, wáøg◊n d¶EbSo h™Dy√rÅzSoAl◊w JK$AvyEm
to Hananiah Shadrach, to Mishael
Meshach and to Azariah Abed-nego.
According to Arnold, the idiom for naming used here in Dan 1:7, Myc (to set) + MEv
(name), is not the normal way to introduce naming (or here renaming) in the Hebrew
Bible. Elsewhere name giving is most commonly depicted with one of several idioms
using the verb arq (call) in combination with the word MEv.145 Instead here we have the
idiom with Myc plus MEv (set a name), which ordinarily connotes establishing Yahweh’s
143
Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “The Politics of Ezra: Sociological Indicators of
Postexilic Judaean Society,” in Second Temple Studies 1: Persian Period, ed. Philip R.
Davies (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 77.
144
Arnold, “Word Play and Characterization in Daniel 1,” 237-38; Steinmann,
Daniel, 92.
145
Arnold, “Word Play and Characterization in Daniel 1,” 237. The act of name-
giving is usually depicted by one of the following constructions: MEv arq + acc. of the
name (e.g., Gen 3:20; 4:25, 26; 5:2, 3, 29, etc.); lRa/Vl MEv arq (Gen 2:20; 26:18; Ruth
4:17; Ps 147:4; Isa 65:15); or just lRa/Vl arq (Gen 1:5, 8, 10; 2:19; 33:20, etc.). It is
commonly observed that the act of bestowing a name on a person or a place is a
demonstration of authority over that person or place. Louis Jonker, “‫קרא‬,” NIDOTTE
(1997), 3:972. See Frederic William Bush, “Ruth 4:17: A Semantic Wordplay,” in “Go to
the Land I will Show You”: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young, ed. J. E. Coleson and
V. H. Matthews (Winona Lake, ID: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 3-14; F. L. Hossfeld and E.-M.
Kindl, “‫קרא‬,” TDOT (2004), 13:126-31; C. J. Labuschagne, “‫קרא‬,” TLOT (1997), 3:1161-
62; G. W. Ramsey, “Is Name-Giving an Act of Domination in Genesis 2:23 and
72
reputation or renown through the community Israel, or at the temple in Jerusalem.146 For
instance, in two passages, the idiom recalls God’s naming of two of the patriarchs:
Jacob/lsrael (2 Kgs 17:34b: lÈa∂rVcˆy wäømVv M¶Dc_rRvSa b$OqSoÅy y∞EnV;b_tRa ‹hÎwh◊y h§D…wIx r°RvSa, “which the
LORD commanded the sons of Jacob, whom He named Israel”) and Abram/Abraham
(Neh 9:7: M`Dh∂rVbAa wäømVÚv D;tVm¶Ac◊w Myóî;dVcA;k r…wâaEm wäøtaExwøh◊w M$∂rVbAaV;b ‹D;t√r‹AjD;b r§RvSa My$IhølTaDh h∞Dwh◊y ‹a…wh_hD;tAa,
“You are the LORD God, Who chose Abram and brought him out from Ur of the
Chaldees, and gave him the name Abraham”).
Daniel seems to be indicating that he and his companions viewed their Hebrew
theophoric names as given by Yahweh (perhaps through the agency of their parents), and
now the Babylonians were attempting to impose the perceived will of their false gods on
these young men.147 In others words, once again Babel is attempting to replace the true
God by the false ones. It may be further irony that an idiom commonly used for
establishing Yahweh’s renown in the world was used to establish Daniel’s new identity
as a Babylonian courtier. Just as Yahweh would prove His identity as sovereign Lord
through Israel and the Jerusalem temple, Nebuchadnezzar was hoping Daniel would now
prove himself as worthy of his new Babylonian name.148 By changing their names,
Babylonians wanted the four Hebrew lads to forget about their God; now they belonged
to King Nebuchadnezzar, so he claimed their loyalty and total allegiance. “Their loyalty
Elsewhere?,” CBQ 50 (1988): 26-29.

146
147
Steinmann, Daniel, 92-93.
148
73
is now directed toward the crown and the Babylonian pantheon.”149 Consequently, Babel
has replaced the true God.
Significantly, the motif of name-giving plays an important role in the narrative of
Gen 1-12. The naming of the subject, as in the creation story, carries with it a notion of
domination and lordship over the subject.150 The first namings in the OT are attributed to
God’s sovereignty over creation (cf. Isa 43:1). Other uses reflect humankind’s dominion
over creation (Gen 2:20), parental designations for children (4:25, unless God intervened
as in 16:11), or kings’ or famous ancestors’ claim over territory (28:19).151 Clines has
pointed out that the self-sufficient builders of Babel set about building their city and
tower with the explicit purpose of making a “name” for themselves. 152 In this context, to
make a name for oneself was to seek fame (ironically, their name bab-ili, “gate of God,”
received the meaning of “confusion” [a pejorative etymology using balal] in Hebrew).153
Those early aspirants to fame expressed their sinful desire in the words: “let us make us a
name” (Gen 11:4). This is reminiscent of those mysterious MyIlIp◊…n of Gen 6:4, for the
expression “men of renown” in that passage reads literally in Hebrew “men of the name.”
This evil yearning after a name that will go down in history is God-dishonoring pride. It
149
Gregor, Life and Visions of Daniel, 30.
150
Philip Chia, “On Naming the Subject: Postcolonial Reading of Daniel 1,” in
The Postcolonial Biblical Reader, ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah (Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing, 2006), 176.
151
Allen P. Ross, “‫שם‬,” NIDOTTE (1997), 4:147-48.
152
D. J. A. Clines, “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6:1-
4) in the Context of the ‘Primeval History’ (Genesis 1-11),” JSOT 13 (1979): 37.
153
Allen P. Ross, NIDOTTE, 4:148.
74
is a mark not only of the builder of the tower of Babel but of Babylon through the ages.154
This desire to make a name for oneself is more than arrogance; just as their tower whose
top reaches to the sky may be seen as an assault on heaven, so their ambition for “name”
is an attack on the prerogative of God, who himself makes his own name great or
glorious (2 Sam 7:23; Jer 32:20; Isa 63:12,14) and who is the true source of “name” and
who sets his “name” at his sanctuary/temple (cf. Deut 12:5; Zeph 3:19f.).155
The renaming of Daniel and his friends evidences a profound change. Each of
their original Hebrew names is theophoric, that is, derived from one of the names of the
God of Israel. Yet the Babylonian official gives them names in honor of the gods of
Babylon. These names are symbols not only of the oppressor’s culture, but also of the
very gods that the Babylonians believed granted them such power.156 The renaming of
Daniel and his friends is unlike others in the Hebrew Bible. On the one hand, we can
have theophoric names replacing neutral ones (Jacob-Israel, and Hoshea-Joshua). But it
was altogether another matter to replace an Israelite theophoric name with one of
Babylonian religious significance.157 What is at stake here is the replacement of the true
God. Significantly, the four Jewish exiles are carefully introduced with their Jewish
154
Martin Massinger, “Babylon in Biblical Prophecy” (ThD diss., Dallas
Theological Seminary, 1967), 26.
155
Clines, “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6:1-4) in the
Context of the ‘Primeval History’ (Genesis 1-11),” 37.
156
Pace, Daniel, 32-33.
75
names (h`Dy√rÅzSo, l™EaDvyÌm, hYÎy◊nÅnSj, la∞E¥yˆn∂;d), before it is noted that their names have been changed
to Babylonian names (wáøg◊n d¶EbSo, JK$AvyEm, JK$år√dAv, r#A…xaAvVfVl∞E;b).158 Indeed, the substitute names
have as their obvious intention the obliterating of the name of Israel’s God. While
scholars differ on the meaning of the new Babylonian names,159 it seems certain that they
were forms commemorating the heathen gods, such as Bel, Marduk, and Nebo.160 The
significance of the names, however, lies not so much in their meaning; rather, it lies in
the fact that they are being named by their subjugator/colonizer; it is done by a power that
assumes the authority to make such a change.161 Therefore, the change from their Hebrew
birth-names to new theophoric Babylonian names was the quintessential attack on their
heritage and religious faith.162 Here the same arrogant and anti-God power epitomized by
Babel (Gen 11) is certainly “playing” God. Since the names of the Hebrew lads had the
name of the true God suffixed to them (lEa [God] and ;hÎy [Yhwh]), they could not be
tolerated by Nebuchadnezzar. He therefore substituted names of an idolatrous or secular
nature.163
Daniel 1 shows that the same God who allowed Jehoiakim of Judah to be captured
157
158
Smith-Christopher, “Daniel,” NIB (1996), 7:39.
159
Peter W. Coxon, “Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego,” ABD (1992), 5:1150.
160
Ford, Daniel, 83, n. 6.
161
Chia, “On Naming the Subject: Postcolonial Reading of Daniel 1,” 176.
162
163
Hersh Goldwurm, Daniel: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized
from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources, 2nd rev. & corr. ed., The ArtScroll
Tanach Series (New York: Mesorah, 1980), 65.
76
by Nebuchadnezzar is the same God who gave knowledge, wisdom, and success to
Daniel. The narrative further portrays an arrogant Babel that, as in Gen 11, here in Dan 1
also represents the forces of evil that opposed God and seeks to replace Him. Indeed,
Babylon is the symbol of self-exaltation and revolt against God. Babylon’s ambition was
to become as great as God, to be independent of his rule.164 Therefore, from Nimrod to
King Nebuchadnezzar, Babel is characterized in the Bible by her pride, idolatry, and
despotism (cf. Gen 10:8-10; Gen 11:1-9; Isa 13:19; Jer 50:35-38; Dan 1:1-2; Zech 5:8).
As Pace puts it:
Daniel and his friends may not understand God’s ways, given the victory of such a
cruel regime. . . . They stand as witness against the powerful of the world who say,
“Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us
make a name for ourselves” (Gen 11:4). These young captives rest confident that God
scatters the latest builders of the next Tower of Babel “over the face of all the earth”
(Gen 11:9).165
Introduction
As shown above, the book of Daniel has several prominent connections to other
portions of the OT. One of the most noticeable parallels to Daniel is the story of Joseph in
Genesis.166 T. Mitchell has pointed out that of both the Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar it is
164
John D. W. Watts, “Babylonian Idolatry in the Prophets as a False Socio-
Economic System,” in Israel's Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K.
Harrison, ed. Avraham Gileadi (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988), 118.
165
Pace, Daniel, 44.
166
Both Joseph and Daniel are taken to a foreign country (Gen 37:12-36; Dan 1:1-
7); both are condemned to punishment due to their loyalty to God, but God is with them
in their punishment (Gen 39; Dan 6); both are servants and advisors to pagan kings (Gen
41:46; Dan 1-6); both interpret dreams for the king (Gen 41:1-3 1-38; Dan 2 and 4); and
77
said that “his spirit was troubled”; the w$øj…wr MRo∞DÚpI;tÅw (Gen 41:8) and w$øj…wr MRo∞DÚpVtI;tÅw (Dan 2:1)
passages differ only in that in Genesis the Niphal and in Daniel the Hithpael stem are
used, although in Dan 2:3, where Nebuchadnezzar speaks of himself, the Niphal is used
167
(y$Ij…wr MRo∞DÚpI;tÅw). In addition, there are other lexical items that evidence the striking
grammatical relation between Gen 40-41 and Dan 2, which strongly suggest that the
writer of the book of Daniel, knowing the Pentateuch well, might have consciously made
use of the vocabulary stock in Genesis and Exodus.168 Consequently, some scholars argue
that Dan 2 is a new version of the story of Joseph169 or a sort of midrash of Gen 41.170
Yet Collins rightly observes that this designation is unsatisfactory,171 and emphatically
both are promoted to high office (Gen 41:39-45; Dan 2:48; 5:29; 6:2-3). Steinmann,
Daniel, 37.
167
Terence C. Mitchell, “Shared Vocabulary in the Pentateuch and the Book of
Daniel,” in He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12-50, ed. Richard S. Hess,
P. E. Satterthwaite, and Gordon J. Wenham (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994), 132.
168
Ibid., 139-40.
169
Heaton, The Book of Daniel: Introduction and Commentary, 122.
170
Delcor, Le Livre de Daniel, 23; C. Gaide, Le Livre de Daniel (Paris: Mame,
1969), 19-20; Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 55; Jean-Marie Husser, Dreams
and Dream Narratives in the Biblical World (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999),
118; Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 36-37; Rindge, “Jewish Identity under Foreign Rule:
Daniel 2 as a Reconfiguration of Genesis 41,” 85-104.
171
Midrash is properly defined as “a work that attempts to make a text of Scripture
understandable, useful and relevant for a later generation.” The relation to the older
Scripture is crucial: “It is the text of Scripture which is the point of departure and it is for
the sake of the text that the midrash exists.” Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book
of Daniel, 39-40. For further discussions of midrash see also Jacob Neusner, What Is
Midrash?, GBS (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987); G. Porton, “Midrash: Palestinian Jews and
the Hebrew Bible in the Greco-Roman Period,” in Judentum: Palastinisches Judentum,
ed. Wolfgang Haase (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1979), 103-38; G. Porton, “Defining
Midrash,” in The Study of Ancient Judaism I: Mishnah, Midrash, Siddur, ed. J. Neusner
(New York: KTAV, 1981), 55-92; G. Porton, “Midrash,” ABD (1996), 818-24; H. Strack,
78
states that Dan 2 is neither an interpretation nor a retelling of the Joseph story. Instead,
the Daniel text has its own new hero in a different situation, and the influence of Genesis
is only one factor among many in the shaping of the tales.172 Very clearly Daniel has
modeled his historically true composition after Genesis and is consciously drawing his
readers’ attention to the similarity between his situation and Joseph’s.173 Yet, most OT
scholars have failed to identify any literary relation between Gen 11 and Dan 2, though
some have shown that Dan 2 has points of contact with other OT passages.174 This
section deals with thematic as well as lexical allusions to Gen 11 in Dan 2; the former
focuses on ‘Babylon as the first kingdom’ and the latter explores the motifs of a divided
kingdom, attempted unity, the God of heaven, God coming down and the breaking into
pieces/scattering of the image.
Babylon: The First Kingdom (Gen 10:8-10; Dan 2)
The only kingdom that Daniel identifies in his explanation of the dream is that
Nebuchadnezzar (monarch of the Babylonian kingdom) is the gold head (2:38). The lack
of explicit identification of the other kingdoms has led to much argument over their
identity.175 One may wonder and ask, why does Daniel identify Babylon as the first
Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1991);
Burton L. Visotzky, “Midrash,” NIDB (2009), 81-84; G. Wright, The Literary Genre
Midrash (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1967); S. Zeitlin, “Midrash: A Historical
Study,” JQR 44 (1953): 21-36.
172
173
Steinmann, Daniel, 38.
174
175
Steinmann, Daniel, 137. Scholars identify these kingdoms in three ways:
(1) The oldest interpretation identifies the kingdoms with Babylon, Media/Persia,
79
kingdom? As shown above, Babylon is the first kingdom ever recorded in the whole
Bible (Gen 10:10; 11:1-9) and Daniel seems to elaborate the interpretation of
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in the light of Genesis. Furthermore, there seems to be an
intentional allusion to Gen 10:10 in Dan 2:38 via the use of the common Aramaic word
for “head,” vaér, which in both Aramaic and Hebrew also means “first” or “beginning.”176
In Gen 10:8-10 the text clearly identifies Nimrod and the beginning (ty§Ivaér) of his
kingdom, namely, Babel. Similarly, Arthur Kac has also seen the connection between
Greece, and Rome. Some Jewish and ancient representatives of this interpretation are
Jean Calvin, Daniel, vol. 20 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993); Hippolytus,
Commentary on Daniel (ANF 5:178-79); Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, trans. G. L.
Archer Jr. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1985); Josephus, Antiquities, 10.276; M. Luther,
Preface to Daniel, AE 35:295. The ArtScroll commentary on Daniel explains that the
kingdoms included in Dan 2 are only the kingdoms responsible for the exile: Babylon,
responsible for the first exile, is named. Persia, successor in its totality to the Babylonian
empire, is considered the second kingdom; and Greece the third for the same reason.
Rome is identified as the fourth kingdom for two reasons: (a) Its conquests included Eretz
Yisrael, the center of Jewry; (b) it was directly responsible for the subsequent exile from
the Holy Land. Goldwurm, Daniel: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized
from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources, 104. Some other modern sources
include H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1949), 115-23,
276-329; William H. Shea, Daniel: A Reader’s Guide (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2005);
E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1949), 275-94.
(2) The Greek position identifies the kingdoms with Babylon, Media, Persia, and
Greece. Representative of this view are Collins, Daniel: With an Introduction to
Apocalyptic Literature, 166; M. J. Gruenthaner, “The Four Empires of Daniel,” CBQ 8
(1946): 201-12; R.J.M. Gurney, “The Four Kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7,” Them 2 (1977):
39-45; Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 147-48; Pace, Daniel, 73; John H.
Walton, “The Four Kingdoms of Daniel,” JETS 29 (1986): 25-36.
(3) A minor interpretation argues that the four metals refer to individual kings
rather than kingdoms. For instance, Goldingay says that the statue represents the empire
led by Nebuchadnezzar. Goldingay, Daniel, 57. Other representatives of this
interpretation are M. A. Beek, Das Danielbuch (Leiden: Ginsberg, 1935), 38-54; Philip
R. Davies, “Daniel Chapter Two,” JTS 27 (1976): 392-401; B. D. Eerdmans, “Origin and
Meaning of the Aramaic Part of Daniel,” in Actes du xviiie Congrès International des
Orientalistes (Leiden: Brill, 1932), 198-202.
80
Dan 2 and Gen 11. He believes that Babylon heads the list of the world empires in Dan 2
for the “association of ancient Babel with mankind’s first collective rebellion against God
in the Tower of Babel incident.”177
Furthermore, it is significant that the usage of the word tyIvaér in the context of the
Tower of Babel (Gen 10:10) and Balaam’s oracle (Num 24:20) conveys the idea of
rebellion and opposition against God. Thus the Amalekites were first among the nations
to war against Israel after the people left Egypt, at which time their future destruction was
decreed (Exod 17:8–16).178 While the Amalekites were the first to oppose Israel, Babel
was the first kingdom to oppose God.
Moreover, picturing an empire headed by Nebuchadnezzar is not fortuitous, for he
had brought the rule of Davidic kings in Jerusalem to an end. He ruled the first Gentile
empire directly to control the destiny of Israel. Beginning in his day the Jews are part of
176
Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm, HALOT, s.v. “vaér.”
177
Arthur W. Kac, The Rebirth of the State of Israel (Chicago: Moody Press,
1958), 250. This reading does not exclude the alternative interpretation that Babylon is
the first in Dan 2 simply because it was the current empire then, yet it does suggest a
more likely intertextual reading of both Gen 10-11 and Dan 2.
178
Clyde M. Woods and Justin Rogers, Leviticus-Numbers, CPNIVC (Joplin, MO:
College Press, 2006), 339. Three suggestions have been made regarding the meaning of
tyIvaér in Num 24:20: strength, age, or primary opponent. T. R. Ashley, The Book of
Numbers, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 506. Cf. P. J. Budd, Numbers,
WBC, vol. 5 (Dallas: Word, 2002), 270; R. D. Cole, Numbers, NAC 3B (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 2001), 429; George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on Numbers, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), 374; Baruch A. Levine,
Numbers 21-36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4B (New
York: Doubleday, 2000), 204; G. J. Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and
Commentary, TOTC 4 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 203.
81
secular history.179 There is no doubt that Daniel combines the motif of the first Adam
and the first king: “You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has
given the kingdom, the power, the strength and the glory; and wherever the sons of men
dwell, or the beasts of the field, or the birds of the sky, He has given them into your hand
and has caused you to rule over them all. You are the head of gold” (Dan 2:37-38,
NASB). The point is that Adam was to have dominion over the world. Now
Nebuchadnezzar has the dominion. Ultimately, as we will see below, the dominion would
return to God and the “one like a son of man” (Dan 7:13) and his loyal “holy ones of the
most high.”
It is noteworthy that Daniel uses the word “king” (KRlRm) and “kingdom” (wkVlAm)
interchangeably. In other words, he is not speaking to Nebuchadnezzar in particular, but
to the whole kingdom of Babylon. Edward J. Young states:
The reference is not to the king as an individual, since it is immediately stated that
another kingdom (not king) will stand in Neb.’s place, but to the empire itself. . . .
The empire in the person of its ruler, stood before Dan. and would therefore he
addressed as thou. Also, in a certain sense, the king was the empire, for he had built it
up. It is, therefore, the neo-Babylonian empire, represented in the person of its
monarch, to whom Dan. makes his address.180
Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar was the embodiment of all that Babylon was. The head,
then, represented the Babylonian kingdom as well as its king. The title “king of kings”
and the dominion given this king over all living things indicate Babylon’s superiority
over the others. “King of kings” was, of course, also the official title of the king at the
179
180
Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 73-74.
82
court of Babylon, and Ezek 26:7 specifically applies it to Nebuchadnezzar.181 So the
golden splendor of Nebuchadnezzar’s empire is God-given. God gave Nebuchadnezzar
not only Jerusalem (1:2) but royal might and power (v. 37, cf. 5:18), and indeed authority
over all creation (v. 38).182 It is remarkable that the three explicit actions attributed by the
narrator to God in Dan 1:2, 9, 17 are expressed by the same verb Ntn, “to give.” Similarly,
God is identified in the prayer in Dan 2:21b and in Daniel’s exposition of the dream in
2:27-28, 30, as the giver of wisdom to wise men. God also gives or delegates power to
kings and rulers, expressed in the prayer in 2:21a and in the explanation in 2:37-38.183
Daniel identifies Nebuchadnezzar with the “first man” on the basis of a functional
analogy: universal dominion.184 Moreover, the fact that God gives Nebuchadnezzar
dominion over all living things reminds one of Adam’s responsibility worded in the same
language in Gen 1:28. The passage here identifies Nebuchadnezzar as the first man; for
181
29-30. According to Daniel Block, the title king of kings (melek melākim) corresponds to
Akk. šar-šarrāni, a traditional Mesopotamian title, having been used in Assyria since the
13th century B.C., though to date neo-Babylonian texts attest the title only for the god
Marduk. Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25-48, NICOT (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 40. For further details see also H. L. Ginsberg, “‘King of Kings’
and ‘Lord of Kingdoms’,” AJSLL 57 (1940): 71-74; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A
Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Hermeneia, vol. 2 (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1979), 35-36.
182
183
Paul B. Petersen, “God—The Great Giver,” in For You Have Strengthened Me:
Biblical and Theological Studies in Honor of Gerhard Pfandl in Celebration of His Sixty-
fifth Birthday, ed. Martin T. Pröbstle, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Martin Gerhard Klingbeil
(St. Peter am Hart, Austria: Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen, 2007), 104.
184
83
like Adam, he is king over the earth, and like Adam, he introduces history.185 Daniel’s
words, however, also point out a part of the hierarchy that Nebuchadnezzar has not seen,
either in his dream or in his life: The “God of heaven” stands over the “head of gold.”
The God of heaven “gives” control and “causes rule.”186 In conclusion, the theology of
Daniel is clearly the antithesis of the successive kingdoms of humankind. In contrast to
these kingdoms is the abiding but finally triumphant kingdom of God. The prophet
Daniel, along with Ezekiel, looked beyond the catastrophe of the collapse of Jerusalem
and the Davidic line to that abiding promised kingdom of God.187
The fact that Dan 2 listed Babylon first, heading thus the four world empires,
seems to suggest that the biblical writer had Gen 10 and 11 in mind. According to the
book of Genesis, the first human empire began in Babel as a direct act of rebellion
against God. Babylon was later to become the main city of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.
Nevertheless, both Gen 10 and Dan 2 point to the Lord’s sovereignty over all nations, in
other words, the God of heaven rules over the human kingdoms.
A Divided Kingdom (Gen 10:25; Dan 2:41)
Doukhan suggests that there is an allusion to Gen 10:25 in Dan 2:41. He states
185
30. Cf. Doukhan, “Allusions à la création dans le livre de Daniel,” 286.
186
187
Walter C. Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI:
84
that Dan 2:41 alludes to the Tower of Babel in the use of the root glp (divided). The
biblical tradition generally links this root, from which comes the name Peleg, to the
Tower of Babel event: “Because in his time the earth was divided (h∞DgVlVpˆn).”188
Furthermore, there is also a thematic parallel in the concept of the attempt of unity among
the kings represented by the iron and the clay, which resemble the unity of humanity in
the account of the tower of Babel.
The divisions within the fourth kingdom in Dan 2 clearly stem from the differing
qualities of the two materials that comprise this kingdom: iron and clay.189 The text does
not describe this new kingdom as being separate from the one of iron preceding it. Indeed
the association of clay and iron implies division, a fact particularly significant, since it
occurs right after a period characterized by its unity. 190
The Aramaic phrase hÎgyIlVp …wôkVlAm is used in the Bible only in Dan 2:41. hÎgyIlVp is a
Peal passive participle feminine singular verb that means divided. The common Hebrew
and Aramaic root of hÎgyIlVp is glp, which is used twice in the book of Daniel (Dan 2:41;
7:25).191 Significantly, the first use of glp is found in the context of the Tower of Babel,
which clearly indicates the linguistic connection between Dan 2:41 and Gen 10:25. In
188
36.
189
Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom for the Wise: Commentary on the Book of Daniel,
107.
190
33-34.
191
Outside of the Aramaic section of the book of Daniel, the Hebrew root glp is
used in the OT 21 times: Gen 10:25; 11:16-19; 1 Chr 1:19, 25; Job 29:6; 38:25; Pss 1:3;
46:5; 55:10; 65:10; 119:136; Prov 5:16; 21:1; Isa 30:25; 32:2; Lam 3:48.
85
order to better understand the meaning of the Hebrew root glp in Dan 2:41, it is necessary
to consider its first use in Gen 10:25, in the context of the Babel pericope.
The text in Gen 10:25 reads as follows: “Two sons were born to Eber; the name of
the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was
Joktan.” Though scholars have suggested different ways to understand this passage, most
of them read the passage in the context of the Tower of Babel.192 Thus the note on Eber’s
son Peleg—that in his time the earth was divided—seems to pinpoint the Babel
192
Scholars have advanced three main interpretations regarding Gen 10:25:
(1) The traditional interpretation understands Gen 10:25 as the division of
tongues/genealogies. Supporters of this view include among others G. C. Aalders,
Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 1:237; James Montgomery Boice,
Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 416; Cassuto, A
Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part 2 from Noah to Abraham, 221; Hamilton, The
Book of Genesis, 345; John E. Hartley, Genesis, NIBCOT (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
2000), 120; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Bible Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 1: 171; Paul J. Kissling, Genesis, CPNIVC (Joplin, MO:
College Press, 2004), 373; H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 1942), 381; James McKeown, Genesis, THOTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2008), 69; H. M. Morris and J. C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961), 482; Sailhamer, “Genesis, 141-42; Bruce K. Waltke
and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001),
173; Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 231; R. T. White, “The House of Peleg in the Dead Sea
Scrolls,” in A Tribute to Geza Vermes, ed. P. Davies and R. White (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1990), 68.
(2) Some young-earth creationists understand Gen 10:25 as meaning the
continental drift. Representative of this view are D. G. Barnhouse, Genesis: A Devotional
Exposition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970), 68; B. Northrup, “Continental Drift
and the Fossil Record,” in Repossess the Land, ed. Walter Lang (Minneapolis: Bible-
Science Association, 1979), 165-70.
(3) Canalization, the third view, understands the division in Gen 10:25 as a
reference to the widespread canalization of the land of Mesopotamia. Representative
scholars who support this interpretation are S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (London:
Methuen & Co., 1913), 130; Sarna, Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with New JPS
Translation, 79; John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, ICC
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1910), 220; D. J. Wiseman, “Peleg,” NBD (1962), 957.
86
experience (11:1-9).193 The play between the name “Peleg” (peleg) and the Niphal form
“divided” (nipleg) is created by their homonymity: Both of them use the root glp. This
explication on the name “Peleg” ties the genealogy to a specific event known to the
original readers.194 Again, in chap. 11 there are references to a scattering of the peoples
following the confusion of languages (vv. 4, 8–9). It is true that in each of these three
places different words are used: In 10:5 and 32 the word is drp (“separate”), in 10:25 glp
(“divide”), and in 11:4, 8, and 9 Xwp (“disperse”). But the fact that the division takes place
“according to their languages” (10:5, 20, 31) strongly suggests literary foreshadowing of
the Babel account in the next chapter, which of course answers the “why” of the
dispersion recorded in chap. 10.195 The word gRlRÚp is often used for trenches and irrigation
ditches, but the implication of the Table of Nations in Gen 10 is toward universal
events.196 Although the question is still unsettled, it seems most likely that the division
referred to in Gen 10:25 was simply the geographic division resulting directly from the
confusion of tongues at Babel.197
193
Allen P. Ross, “Genesis,” BNC (1983), 44.
194
Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 463. See also HALOT that affirms that the meaning
of gRlRÚp is “division” in both Gen 10:25 and 1 Chr 1:19. Koehler, Baumgartner, and
Stamm, HALOT, s.v. “gRlRÚp.”
195
David M. Fouts, “Peleg in Gen 10:25,” JETS 41 (1998): 18.
196
Allen P. Ross, “The Dispersion of the Nations in Gen 11:1–9,” BSac 138
(1981): 128.
197
H. M. Morris, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary
on the Book of Beginnings (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1976), 260; William D. Reyburn
and Euan McG. Fry, A Handbook on Genesis, UBSHS (New York: United Bible
Societies, 1997), 244; Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and
Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 243.
87
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the root word occurs in Ps 55:9 (Eng., 10) for
a moral division: “Destroy, O LORD, and divide (g∞A;lAÚp) their tongues,198 for I have seen
violence and strife in the city,” which may suggest a division or confusion of
tongues/languages.199 According to Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, the use of
Piel glp in the sense of “divide” or “split” is unique in Ps 55:9.200 In addition, the use of
similar terminologies regarding the confusion of languages, and the use of glp plus the
Hebrew word ryIo “city” strengthens the connection between Gen 10-11 and Ps 55. Thus
Ps 55:9 refers both to the division or “confusion of language and to the image of the city
as a place of evil, mischief, fraud and deceit. Both of these issues—language and the
urban experience—have important implications for reading and interpreting the Tower of
Babel narrative.”201
Additional support for the meaning of glp as “division” also comes from the
nouns hÎ…gAlVÚp (Judg 5:15–16), hÎ…gUlVÚp (2 Chr 35:5; Ezra 6:18), and gAlVÚp (Dan 7:25).202 This is
precisely the case of the Aramaic occurrence of the verb glp in Dan 2:41, which refers to
a division of the fourth world kingdom, and which alludes to the first use of glp in the
Bible in Gen 10:25. Commenting on the division caused by the clay and the iron in Dan
2:41, Keil remarks:
198
Ross, “The Dispersion of the Nations in Gen 11:1–9,” 128.
199
Fouts, “Peleg in Gen 10:25,” 18.
200
Frank-Lothar Hossfel and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms
51-100, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 51.
201
Phillip M. Sherman, “Translating the Tower: Genesis 11 and Ancient Jewish
Interpretation” (PhD dissertation, Emory University, 2008), 83.
88
This twofold material denotes that it will be a divided or severed kingdom, not
because it separates into several (two to ten) kingdoms, for this is denoted by the
duality of the feet and by the number of the toes of the feet, but inwardly divided; for
glp always in Hebr., and often in Chald., signifies the unnatural or violent division
arising from inner disharmony or discord; cf. Gen. 10:25 [emphasis added].203
According to Keil, the meaning of glp implies an unnatural or violent division,
caused by inner disharmony or discord. Furthermore, Keil’s reference to Gen 10:25 is
significant because, as shown above, many believe that the division of the earth in
Peleg’s days is thought to refer to the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel.204
Therefore, the combination of the verbal parallel and the theme of attempt of unity makes
it likely that Gen 10:25 was in the mind of the author when he wrote Dan 2:41.
The allusion to Gen 10:25 in Dan 2:41 seems to suggests that Babel begins and
ends with division arising out of inner disharmony. In Gen 11 the division of languages
caused the inner disharmony while in Dan 2 the main reason was political or military;
conquest by another empire.
The God of Heaven/Dwelling in Heaven (Gen 11; Dan 2:18, 19, 37, 44)
Doukhan sees an allusion to Gen 11 in Dan 2 in the use of the motif “the God of
Heaven, who dwells in Heaven.” Despite the fact that the biblical phrase “the God of
202
Fouts, “Peleg in Gen 10:25,” 19.
203
C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1959), 108.
204
See n. 178 above.
89
Heaven”205 is not found in the narrative of Gen 11, yet the motifs of God as dwelling in
heaven and descending from heaven are common to both Dan 2 and the tower of Babel
account (Gen 11:4-5). It is worth noting that the first occurrence of the phrase ‘the God of
Heaven’ is found in Gen 24:3, 7. A. Vincent argues that this expression was an early
witness to monotheism in Israel and that it was never entirely forgotten by the Jews in
Palestine, Egypt or Babylon.206 It is interesting to note that the expression “God of/in
heaven” is a key phrase throughout the book of Daniel, which emphasizes God’s
involvement in history (Dan 2:27-30, 44, 45; 4:36; 5:23, 24).207 Thus the title “God of
heaven” is the most common term in Dan 2, where King Nebuchadnezzar also
acknowledges Him as “God of gods and Lord of kings.”208 The title became used
frequently during the Persian period, perhaps, as Collins suggests, because of the celestial
connotations of the God of Israel, who is creator of Heaven and Earth.209 The designation
“God of heaven” not only refers to God’s dwelling, but “heaven” becomes a
205
The biblical phrase “God of Heaven” is found in the Old Testament 22 times
(Gen 24:3, 7; 2 Chr 36:23; Ezra 1:2; 5:11, 12; 6:9, 10; 7:12, 21, 23 [2x]; Neh 1:4, 5; 2:4,
20; Ps 136:26; Dan 2:18, [19], 37,44; Jonah 1:9) in four different forms (Mˆy$AmDÚvAh y∞EhølTa,
Mˆy¡DmDÚvAh l∞Ea, the latter only in Ps 136:26, and their Aramaic equivalent a$D¥yAmVv ;h∞DlTa /a$D¥yAmVv
;h∞DlTaRl).
206
Albert Vincent, La Religion des Judéo-Araméennes d’Eléphantine (Paris: Paul
Geuthner, 1937), 142. For Vincent, the expression “God of Heaven” was used by post-
exilic Jews mainly for political reasons, yet this is hardly convincing (Neh 1; Dan 2).
207
27. According to H. Niehr, “The fact that the two titles for Yahweh, ‘god of heaven’ and
‘lord of heaven’, are not exclusively used in communication with the Persian overlords,
but also in intra-Jewish communication, is a decisive argument against the alleged
Persian provenience of the title ‘god of heaven’ applied to Yahweh in post-exilic texts.”
Herbert Niehr, “God of Heaven ‫אלהי השמים‬,” DDD (1999), 371.
208
Davies, Daniel, 82.
90
distinguishing characteristic of God. “Heaven” describes the nature of God.210 Thus the
author of Ecclessiates says: X®r$DaDh_lAo h∞D;tAa◊w ‹Mˆy‹AmDÚvA;b My§IhølTaDh y∞I;k, “For God is in heaven and
you are on earth” (Eccl 5:1). Therefore, the concept of the God of heaven and who dwells
in heaven seems to stress both the divine power and supremacy.
The dream of King Nebuchadnezzar as recorded in Dan 2 presents a panoramic
view of the world empires from the time of the Babylonian empire to the end of time. It is
significant to note that the image in Dan 2 represents the world kingdoms, yet in all this
the God of heaven is in control. In the first part of the chapter the kingdoms are given to
humanity by the God of Heaven (v. 37), while in the second part the “God of heaven”
sets up the kingdom and it remains in his control.211 Significantly, the structure of the
dream and its interpretation in Dan 2 roughly parallel the literary structure of the
narrative of Gen 11:
Dan 2 Gen 11
1. The statue: earthly 1. Action
kingdoms (vv. 31-33 by men (vv. 1-4)
2. The God of heaven (v. 37,
209
210
Stefan Beyerle, “The “God of Heaven” in Persian and Hellenistic Times,” in
Other Worlds and Their Relation to This World: Early Jewish and Ancient Christian
Traditions, ed. Tobias Nicklas et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 25. See Klaus Koch, Daniel,
BKAT 22 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1986), 161; Reinhard G. Kratz,
Translatio imperii: Untersuchungen zu den aramäischen Danielerzählungen und ihrem
theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld, WMANT 63 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991),
216-17.
211
37.
91
44) 2. God
3. The stone (vv. 34, 35, 49) dwells in heaven (vv. 4b-5)
3. Action
by God (5b-9)
This chart shows that there are thematic and structural parallels between the
passages, which strengthen the possibility for a literary connection. Both narratives
indicate that the God of heaven and who dwells in heaven is the only one who sets the
limits of human affairs. God is the ultimate Judge and King. According to D. K.
Andrews, the title for God, “the God of heaven,” served in the OT, in the first place, to
identify Yahweh as the supreme deity who is the ultimate source of all power and
authority.212 Thus, Nebuchadnezzar was reminded that it was “the God of the heavens”
who had made him “king of kings” and controlled the destiny of all kingdoms until His
own everlasting kingdom would be established (Dan 2:37, 44).213
Both Genesis and Daniel emphatically affirm that the Lord, not humankind,
dwells in the heavens (Gen 11:4-5; 19:24; 21:17; 22:11, 15; 24:3, 7; Dan 2:27-30, 44,
45). As the tower builders sought meaning and fame by transgressing into the dwelling
212
D. K. Andrews, “Yahweh and the God of the Heavens,” in The Seed of
Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T. J. Meek, ed. W. S. McCullough (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1964), 53.
213
Ibid., 54.
92
place of God,214 similarly the end-time empire of Babel will seek to infringe upon the
divine sphere.
God Comes Down (Gen 11:5; Dan 2:44-45)
The thematic parallel between Gen 11 and Dan 2 is apparent. Significantly, the
turning point of both narratives is the divine intervention, in other words, the God of
Heaven, who dwells in heaven, comes down and judges the Babelites in Gen 11 and sets
up his eternal kingdom in Dan 2. The Hebrew expression hYÎwh◊y d®r∞E¥yÅw (the LORD came
down), which is used in Gen 11:5, appears four times in the whole Bible and only in the
Pentateuch (Gen 11:5; Exod 19:20; Num 11:25; 12). This expression is an
anthropomorphic description of God’s interposition in the actions of men, primarily
judicial cognizance of the actual face, and then, v. 7 (“Come let us go down,” hDbDh h$∂d√rìń),
“a judicial infliction of punishment.” 215 Arie van der Kooij pointed out that v. 5 is about
YHWH alone, whereas the phrase in v. 7 refers to YHWH and the members of the divine
council.216 In addition, Kooij writes that just as in Gen 18:21, the Hebrew expression
h$Ra√rRa◊w a∞D…n_h∂dßrÈa (I will go down now, and see) means that the Lord came down to inspect,
like a judge (cf. Gen 18:25), in order to know the plan of what was going on.217 Thus vv.
214
Waltke and Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary, 177.
215
C. Houtman, Der Himmel im Alten Testament. Israels Weltbild und
Weltanschauung, OTS, 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1953), 353-54.
216
Kooij, “The City of Babel and Assyrian Imperialism: Genesis 11:1-9
Interpreted in the Light of Mesopotamian Sources,” 3.
217
Not as if he didn’t already know, but he is portrayed as investigating before
carrying out a judicial sentence, because he is just.
93
6 and 7 contain his report and the plan of action he recommends to the divine council.218
It is worth noting that the judgment of the Tower of Babel is against pride and
self-sufficiency (“let us make a name for ourselves . . . otherwise we shall be scattered,”
11:4, 6); similarly the judgment of the nations in Dan 2 is mainly for pride and arrogance.
It is an exalting of the creature over the Creator, the God of heaven.219 The builders of the
Tower of Babel imagine themselves ascending to the heavens and their gods descending
down their staircase. They do not expect the true God to descend.220 Significantly, the
prophecy of Dan 2 foretells an event related to that of the Tower of Babel. In Gen 11 God
descends from heaven at the moment when, in fear of being destroyed, the people of the
earth unite to erect a tower and give themselves a name (Gen 11:4).221 Consequently,
there is basic thematic similarity between Gen 11 and Dan 2, which suggests that Daniel
is making an allusion to Gen 11.
The Tower of Babel narrative foreshadows God’s future intervention as depicted
in Dan 2. Thus the prophet Daniel uses the lesson of the Tower of Babel to describe the
eschatological scenario of the gathering of the nations, which will be the last symptom of
218
Kooij, “The City of Babel and Assyrian Imperialism: Genesis 11:1-9
Interpreted in the Light of Mesopotamian Sources.” See also Garcia Santos’s explanation
on Gen 11:5, 7. Angel García Santos, “Gn 11,1-9: Crítica literaria y de la redacción,”
EstBíb 47 (1989): 298-318.
219
John W. Olley, “The God of Heaven: A Look at Attitudes to Other Religions in
the Old Testament,” Colloq 27 (1995): 94.
220
221
94
human history that will generate the descent of God:222 “And just as you saw the iron
mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any
more than iron mixes with clay. In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up
a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush
all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever” (Dan 2:43-
44).
As in the days of the ancient Babel, Dan 2 shows a decadent humanity that is
united in their political endeavor to find existential meaning apart from God. Therefore,
Dan 2 is linked to Gen 11 in sharing the same solution for the depraved humanity,
“unless God intervenes nothing can stop human beings in their overweening pride and
their desire for autonomy. They will drive over the boundaries the Creator has
established.”223 By alluding to the descent of God in Gen 11, the author of Daniel clearly
shows that God will descend again.
The Scattering/Breaking Motif
Once the God of heaven has descended, He puts an end to both the project of the
men of the land of Shinar and the kingdoms of men represented by the statue in Dan 2.
Here one finds another thematic parallel that links both accounts. Indeed, God’s descent
scatters both the builders in the narrative of Gen 11 and the last earthly kingdom in Dan
2. The means that God used in Gen 11 to scatter the Babelites was to strike at their unity:
the language. The narrative of Gen 11 indicates that the builders got what they were
36.
222
Jacques Doukhan, “Genesis,” SDAIBC (forthcoming).
95
trying to avoid: division. “So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth”
(Gen 11:8). Consequently, the unity that the Babelites had sought was completely lost.
There is a palpable contrast between the actions of the men of the land of Shinar
and the actions of God, which is stressed in the following micro-structural parallels of
Gen 11:4, 8:
4a ry#Io …wn∞D;l_h‰nVbˆn —hDb∞Dh

let us build ourselves a city
4b X®r`DaDh_lDk y¶EnVÚp_lAo X…wäpÎn_NRÚp
lest we shall be scattered all over the world
8a X®r¡DaDh_lDk y∞EnVÚp_lAo M™DÚvIm M¢DtOa h¶Dwh◊y XRp∏Î¥yÅw
and JHWH dispersed them from over the whole world
8b ryÌoDh tñOnVbIl …wäl√;dVjÅ¥yìÅw
and they stopped building the city.
This clearly shows the contrast between v. 4, expressing the intention of the
builders, and v. 8 in which YHWH counters their plans.224 Similarly, in Dan 2 the last
kingdom, which begins with legs of iron and ends in feet of iron and pottery, starts with
strength or apparent unity, but in the end becomes too diverse and loses the strength that
comes with unity.225
Despite all the efforts of political leaders to hold together the last stage of the
iron-clay kingdom, its two elements will ultimately find themselves unable to bond to
each other: “And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a
223
224
Pierre Swiggers, “Babel and the Confusion of Tongues (Genesis 11:1-9),” in
Mythos im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 191.
225
96
mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay” (Dan 2:43). The
futile actions of these kings parallel the actions of the Babelites. Both groups were trying
hard to stay united but none succeeded. Thus these attempts are doomed to failure in the
way in which the similar project carried out in the plain of Shinar had failed (Gen 11).226
As in Gen 11, here in Dan 2 God intervenes at the end of time when the powers of the
world, because of their fear of destruction, attempt to unite by “human alliances.”227 Then
the rock “struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. Then the iron,
the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like
chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a
trace” (Dan 2:35-36).
The stone here stands for an indestructible kingdom established by the God of
heaven. It puts an end to these other kingdoms and it stands forever.228 Furthermore, the
stone and the wind together, representing God’s judgment, ensure that Babylon’s tyranny
will be defeated.229 “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will raise up an
everlasting kingdom that will not be destroyed and a kingdom that will not be left to
another people. It will break in pieces and bring about the demise of all these kingdoms.
But it will stand forever” (Dan 2:44). Unlike God’s scattering in Gen 11, God’s breaking
226
108.
227
36.
228
229
Pace, Daniel, 70.
97
in pieces of the earthly empires in Dan 2 represents a final solution to Babel.230 As shown
below, the structural parallels between Gen 11 and Dan 2 are significant. Furthermore,
the striking parallels of the scattering of the Babelites in Gen 11 and the breaking in
pieces of the kingdoms of men in Dan 2, makes it likely that Dan 2 alludes to Gen 11.
Dan 2 Gen 11
1. The statue (vv. 31-33). 1. Action by men (vv. 1-4).
2. Divine intervention: God comes 2. Divine intervention: God comes
down from heaven and sets up a down from heaven in order to see
kingdom (v. 44). the city and its tower (vv. 5-7).
3. The stone: heavenly Kingdom. 3. Action by God. He confuses the
The stone smashes all earthly language of men and scatters them
kingdoms and scatters them (vv. over all the earth (vv. 8-9).
34, 35, 49).
Scholars have noticed that after the Babylonian kingdom, which is represented in
Dan 2 by the head of gold, the succeeding world empires carry on the cultural influence
of Babylon. Thus Dan 2:35, 45 distinctly states that the metals representing the first three
stages of the image are all present, along with the iron and clay, when the descending
230
Commenting on God’s punishment upon the builders of Babel (Gen 11), L.
Turner says that God’s judgment changed human existence permanently. “Compared to
the Flood, therefore, the confusion of human language at Babel is much more significant.
We have seen that the Flood punished sin—but achieved nothing else. The punishment of
Babel still affects us.” Laurence A. Turner, Back to the Present: Encountering Genesis in
98
stone strikes the image upon its feet.231 Block argues that Dan 2 resembles Gen 11. Thus
he states,
In chapter 2 . . . the succession of empires represents a series of noble political

accomplishments. To be sure, the respective empires deteriorate as one’s gaze moves
downward from the head of gold (Babylon) to the chest of silver, the belly and thighs
of bronze, the legs of iron, and finally the feet of a mixture of iron and clay, but the
picture as a whole is as impressive as the tower of Babel in Genesis 11. This is a
glorious monument to human political achievement. However, the feet of iron and
clay imply a fundamental instability to the colossus.232
According to E. Speiser, “The [Medo-] Persian conquest did not in itself bring an end to
the cultural career of Mesopotamia. Two centuries later, Alexander the Great was to
make Babylon his own and the world’s capital—a telling tribute to the country's prestige
throughout the civilized world.233 Massinger argues that the continuity of life from the
head of gold to the toes of iron and clay is particularly seen in the continuity of religion,
featuring the worship of similar deities under different names.234 Moreover, the fact
remains that in God’s sight Babylon is the head of the system of Gentile empires and
the 21st Century (Grantham, England: Autumn House, 2004), 97.

231
Philip Rutherford Newell, Daniel: The Man Greatly Beloved and His
Prophecies (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), 44. It should be noted, “The symbolism of the
statue falling and its resultant destruction does not need imply that these kingdoms were
contemporary. The kingdoms have appeared to be consecutive: After you . . . Next . . .
Finally. . . .” Mangano, Esther & Daniel, 189. Thus the language of Dan 2 is better suited
to trace the antecedent to the “kingdoms” (v. 44) of the feet and toes arising out of the
fourth kingdom (2:41). Douglas Bennett, “The Stone Kingdom of Daniel 2,” in
Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical Studies, ed. Frank B. Holbrook
(Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 356.
232
Block, “Preaching Old Testament Apocalyptic to a New Testament Church,”
40.
233
E. A. Speiser, “Ancient Mesopotamia: A Light That Did Not Fail,” National
Geographic 99 (January 1951): 49.
234
Massinger, “Babylon in Biblical Prophecy,” 115.
99
therefore the very life and essence of the system.235 Therefore, Babylon’s symbolic force
persisted for centuries. “Babylon not only represented a fearsome and triumphant empire,
but it also encapsulated the very power that challenged God.”236 Since the days of ancient
Babel (Gen 11), the same ambition has obsessed the Babelites—to unite and to take over
the divine prerogative of world dominion; to reach heaven and the “door of God”
(Babel).237 Then the ongoing history of the world produces a global society structured
without God, the humanly-made, humanly-centred city, created by the Babelites. The
small beginnings in Shinar (Gen 11: 1-4) are thus a microcosm of what the whole earth
will be at the end (Dan 2).238 Therefore, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Dan 2 and Daniel’s
interpretation convey an eschatological perspective of the end of the empires that oppress
and dispossess the people of God.239 Thus the kingdoms of Dan 2 are seen as part of a
greater whole, telling of mankind’s hubris and arrogance.240 The unity of humankind that
was lost at Babel will be recovered at the time of the end, not as a result of the human-
sought unity, but as a result of the establishment of the kingdom of God. Indeed, the
essence of Dan 2 is that all human kingdoms will cease to exist when God establishes his
235
Ibid., 118.
236
Pace, Daniel, 79.
237
Jacques Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation: The Apocalypse Through Hebrew
Eyes (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2002), 153.
238
J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 17.
239
Herman C. Waetjen, “Millenarism, God’s Reign, and Daniel as the Bar Enash,”
in To Break Every Yoke: Essays in Honor of Marvin L. Chaney, ed. Robert B. Coote et al.
(Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007), 237.
240
Marius Nel, “A Literary-Historical Analysis of Daniel 2: Two Powers in
100
sovereign rule and divine kingdom on earth.241 As Doukhan puts it, “The very fact that
God’s intervention means the reversal of Babel’s reversal of creation suggests that the
divine descent will take us back to the situation at the time of creation.”242
Introduction
Daniel 3 contains a single story with a clear beginning, middle, and end. In other
words, though it fits nicely into the broader context,243 it has its own plot, which
generates tension but moves toward resolution.244 Although some critical scholars245
suggest an elaborate and complicated redaction-critical reconstruction of Dan 3, in
general OT scholars have rejected such dubious redactional reconstructions, instead
supporting the unity and coherence of the whole chapter.246 The most prominent stylistic
Opposition,” AcT 22 (2002): 88.

241
Ibid., 92. Cf. G. A. Klingbeil, “‘Rocking the Mountain’: Text, Theology, and
Mission in Daniel 2,” in For You Have Strengthened Me: Biblical and Theological
Studies in Honor of Gerhard Pfandl in Celebration of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. Martin
T. Pröbstle, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Martin G. Klingbeil (St. Peter am Hart, Austria:
Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen, 2007), 137-38.
242
Doukhan, Genesis, forthcoming.
243
William H. Shea, Daniel 1-7: Prophecy as History, Abundant Life Bible
Amplifier (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1996), 45. See also Wesselius, who argues that the
entire cycle of stories in Daniel 2-6 is the result of a sophisticated and deliberate process
of literary composition. J. W. Wesselius, “Language and Style in Biblical Aramaic:
Observations on the Unity of Daniel II-VI,” VT 38 (1988): 208.
244
Longman III, Daniel, 96.
245
Ernst Haag, “Die drei Männer im Feuer nach Dan. 3:1–30,” in Die Entstehung
der Jüdischen Martyrologie, ed. J. W. van Henten (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 20-50. Cf. Ernst
Haag, “Die drei Männer im Feuer nach Dan 3, 1–30,” TTZ 96 (1987): 21-50.
246
For instance, Collins says, “The extant Aramaic text is a coherent unit and
101
feature of Dan 3 is the repetition of lists and of key clauses.247 Shalom Paul argues that
should be treated as an integral whole.” Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of

Daniel, 180. Significantly, both the LXX and Theodotion versions indicate that the story
originated in the sixth century B.C. Regarding the date of the chapter, the LXX adds in v.
1 the words Ἔτους ὀκτωκαιδεκάτου Ναβουχοδονοσορ (the eighteenth year of
Nebuchadnezzar) that is 587. On the LXX additions to Daniel see Pierre-Maurice
Bogaert, “Daniel 3 LXX et son suplement Grec,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of
New Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude (Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University
Press, 1993), 13-37; John C. Endres, “Daniel, Additions to,” EDB (2000), 312-14; Carey
Moore, “Daniel, Additions to,” AYBD (1992), 18-28; Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther,
and Jeremiah: The Additions, 1st ed., AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977); Daniel
L. Smith-Christopher, “The Additions to Daniel,” NIB (1996), 153-94; M. J. Steussy,
Gardens in Babylon: Narrative and Faith in the Greek Legends of Daniel, SBLDS 141
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). On the three Greek words (κίθαρις, ψαλτήριον and
συμφωνία) in Dan 3 see W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2nd ed.
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1957), 337; Phillips Barry, “Daniel 3:5, Sūmpōnyāh,”
JBL 27 (1908): 99-127; Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 20; Pierre
Grelot, “L’orchestre de Daniel iii, 5, 7, 10, 15,” VT 29 (1979): 23-38. For further
evidence of cultural contacts and musical instruments in both Mediterranea and Babylon,
see Peter W. Coxon, “Greek Loan-Words and Alleged Greek Loan Translations in the
Book of Daniel,” TGUOS 25 (1973): 24-40; C. H. Dyer, “The Musical Instruments in
Daniel 3,” BSac 157 (1990): 426-36; T. C. Mitchell, “The Music of the Old Testament
Reconsidered,” PEQ 124 (1992): 124-43; T. C. Mitchell and R. Joyce, “The Musical
Instruments in Nebuchadnezzar’s Orchestra,” in Notes on Some Problem in the Book of
Daniel, ed. D. J. Wiseman et al. (London: Tyndale, 1965), 19-27; Edwin M. Yamauchi,
Greece and Babylon: Early Contacts between the Aegean and the Near East (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 1967), 94; Edwin M. Yamauchi, “The Greek Words in Daniel in the
Light of Greek Influence in the Near East,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament,
ed. J. Barton Payne (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1970), 170-200; Edwin M. Yamauchi,
“Daniel and Contacts Between the Aegean and the Near East Before Alexander,” EvQ 53
(1981): 37-47; Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Greece and Babylon Revisited,” in To Understand
the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. David Merling (Berrien Springs,
MI: Andrews University Press, 1997), 127-35.
247
Three times we read the list of Nebuchadnezzar’s officials (abbreviated the
third time, v. 27). Four times the full list of musical instruments appears. The expression
“the statue that King Nebuchadnezzar set up (or made)” occurs no fewer than ten times.
The furnace is usually a “burning fiery furnace.” “People, nations, and languages” occurs
three times. Donald E. Gowan, Daniel, AOTC (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001),
63. P. Coxon has shown that there are antecedents in both Akkadian and Egyptian
literature for the kinds of lists found in Dan 3. Peter W. Coxon, “The ‘List’ Genre and
Narrative Style in the Court Tales of Daniel,” JSOT 35 (1986): 95-121. Recently, some
authors have suggested that the repetition of lists in Dan 3 is comic. Jacques Doukhan,
“Humor in the Book of Daniel,” SS 55 (2008): 22. For further study on the comedic
102
the book of Daniel bears noticeable linguistic, philological, and typological
Mesopotamian imprints.248 In addition, that some Jewish exiles settled in Babylonia in
the early decades of the sixth century is now documented by a group of cuneiform
contract tablets stemming mainly from two localities in the region of Nippur,249 which
also point to the fact that the episode depicted in Dan 3 most likely took place at the
Babylonian court of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned from 605 to 562 B.C.
Daniel 3 tells the story of Nebuchadnezzar’s fashioning of a golden statue and his
function of the lists in Dan 3, see Hector Avalos, “The Comedic Function of the
Enumerations of Officials and Instruments in Daniel 3,” CBQ 53 (1991): 580-88; E. M.
Good, “Apocalyptic Comedy: The Book of Daniel,” Semeia 32 (1984): 41-70.
248
Shalom M. Paul, “The Mesopotamian Background of Daniel 1–6,” in The Book
of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint (Leiden:
Brill, 2001), 55. For further discussion on Daniel’s stories in the Babylonian reality of the
sixth century B.C., see also Shalom M. Paul, “Daniel 3:29: A Case Study of ‘Neglected’
Blasphemy,” JNES 42 (1983): 291-94; Shalom M. Paul, “Dan 6, 8: An Aramaic Reflex of
Assyrian Legal Terminology,” Bib 65 (1984): 106-110; Shalom M. Paul, “Decoding a
‘Joint’ Expression in Dan 5:6, 16,” JANES 22 (1993): 121-27. Cf. F. Polak, who argues
that the linguistic features of the Aramaic of Dan 2-6 indicate a possible origin as early as
the sixth century B.C. Frank Polak, “The Daniel Tales in Their Aramaic Literary Milieu,”
in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude (Leuven:
Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1993), 249-65.
249
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, “The Babylonian Background of the Motif of the Fiery
Furnace in Daniel 3,” JBL 128 (2009): 274. For further discussion regarding the Judeans’
presence in Babylonia, see Kathleen Abraham, “An Inheritance Division among Judeans
in Babylonia from the Early Persian Period,” in New Seals and Inscriptions, Hebrew,
Idumean, and Cuneiform, ed. Meir Lubetski, Hebrew Bible Monographs 8 (Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix, 2007), 206-21; Kathleen Abraham, “West Semitic and Judean Brides
in Cuneiform Sources from the Sixth Century BCE: New Evidence from a Marriage
Contract from Al-Yahudu,” AfO 51 (2005/2006): 198-219; Francis Joannès and André
Lemaire, “Trois tablettes cunéiformes à onomastique ouest-sémitique,” Transeu 17
(1999): 17-33; Laurie E. Pearce, “New Evidence for Judeans in Babylonia,” in Judah and
the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 399-411.
103
command that all subjects worship it or face death.250 This section deals with six direct
literary and thematic allusions to Gen 11 in Dan 3.
The Plain (Gen 11:2; Dan 3:1)
Despite the fact that the valley of Dura in the province of Babylon has not been
identified with certainty,251 it seems apparent that Dan 3:1 alludes to the same
250
Sharon Pace, “Diaspora Dangers, Diaspora Dreams,” in Studies in the Hebrew
Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich, ed. Peter W. Flint,
Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 30-31. For further study
on the portrayals of Nebuchadnezzar and the Jews in the Diaspora see also the contrasting
works of W. L. Humphreys, “A Lifestyle for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther
and Daniel,” JBL 92 (1973): 211-23; Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “Prayers and Dreams:
Power and Diaspora Identities in the Social Setting of the Daniel Tales,” in The Book of
Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter Flint (Leiden: Brill,
2001), 266-90.
251
The Akkadian word dūru, which means “circuit = wall = walled place” is
common in the geographical nomenclature of Mesopotamia. Montgomery, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 197. The location of Dura (Aram. a$∂r…w;d,
LXX Δεειρα) has given rise to speculation. Since it was near Babylon it could have been
by the (fortified) city-wall (dūru) parts of which were specifically named (e.g. dūru ša
karabi). Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 110-111. E. Cook has suggested that
the Aramaic word a$∂r…w;d should be understood as “the wall” and not as a place-name, and
that the word hnydm should be translated not as “province,” the usual translation, but as
“city,” as in later Aramaic. The full translation would then be “in the plain of the wall in
the city of Babylon.” Edward M. Cook, “In the Plain of the Wall,” JBL 108 (1989): 116.
Cook is following Pinches’ suggestion, T. G. Pinches, “Dura,” ISBE (1957), 2:883. In
this case “the wall” would be Nimit-Enlil, the great outer wall of Babylon, built by
Nebuchadnezzar, so the image/statue of Dan 3 “was located between the outer wall of
Babylon and the city proper.” Cook, “In the Plain of the Wall,” 116. It is doubtful,
however, whether an area inside the wall could be described as a “plain” or “valley.”
Dura should instead be regarded as a place name that adds local color to the story.
Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 182. More likely it describes the
site about sixteen miles south of Babylon called Tulul Dura (tells of Dura), where Jules
Oppert uncovered a platform 19 ½ feet high with 16 ½ square yards of surface that could
well have served as a support for the statue. Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel: Wisdom and
Dreams of a Jewish Prince in Exile, 45; Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the
Book of Daniel; Jules Oppert, Expédition scientifique en Mésopotamie, vol. 1 (Paris:
Impériale, 1863), 239. Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel,
104
geographical area where the events of Gen 11:1-9 more likely took place:
r™Do◊nIv X®r¶RaV;b h¢DoVqIb w… ñaVxVmˆ¥yìÅw M®dó®;qIm M∞DoVsÎnV;b y™Ih◊yìÅw l`RbD;b t™AnyîdVmI;b a$∂r…w;d t∞AoVqIbV;b ‹;hEmyIqSa
M`Dv …wbVv¶E¥yÅw
As people moved eastward, they found a

. . . and set it up on the plain of Dura in
plain in Shinar and settled there (Gen 11:2).
the province of Babylon (Dan 3:1).
Significantly, the common use of the word hDoVqI;b at the head of both passages as
well as the use of the construct r™Do◊nIv X®r¶RaV;b in Gen 11:1, which paralles the noun l`RbD;b in
Dan 3:1, already suggests the link between the two.
Several commentators have pointed out the geographical link between Gen 11 and
Dan 3. Thus Doukhan argues that the tower, like the statue, is erected “on the plain,”
evoking the vast vistas of this region—the space needed for the crowd gathered there to
worship together.252 Furthemore, Michael Shepherd states that the main “clue as to the
significance of the image (M∞ElVx) is the place in which it stands: the valley . . . in the
province of Babylon. This setting reminds the reader of the Tower of Babylon, which was
built in a valley in the land of Shinar (Gen 11:2).”253 In the same vein, Iain M. Duguid
also affirms that the location of the statue was significant, for the Babylonian plain was
119. Suggested sites north of Babylon and east of the Tigris are ruled out because of the
implied proximity of Dura to the city of Babylon. Allan M. Harman, A Study
Commentary on Daniel (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2007), 76.
252
45.
253
Michael B. Shepherd, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible (New York:
Peter Lang, 2009), 76. The Aramaic phrase l`RbD;b t™AnyîdVmI;b (province of Babylon) is
mentioned three times in Dan 3, significantly at the beginning (v. 1), in the middle (v. 12)
and at the end (v. 30) of the story. G. T. M. Prinsloo, “Daniel 3: Intratextual Perpectives
and Intertextual Tradition,” APetB 16 (2005): 72.
105
the location for the building of the Tower of Babel in Gen 11:2.254 Indeed, there is a
direct literary as well as geographical connection between Dan 3:1 and Gen 11:2.
The use of the Aramaic word hDoVqI;b in the narrative of the dedication of the
idolatrous image (Dan 3:1) is intended to send the reader’s thoughts back to the Tower of
Babel (Gen 11:2), where the people settled on a plain.255
The Mighty Men
Recently, James B. Jordan has argued that another possible link to the Tower of
Babel incident is the use of the term Nyrbg “mighty men” in Dan 3. He thinks that there is
an opposition between the three Jewish men as “mighty men” and the “mighty men” of
Nebuchadnezzar.256 The noun rbg occurs sixteen times257 in the Aramaic section of the
book of Daniel and two times258 in the Hebrew section. Before the Flood, when the sin of
intermarriage was being committed by MyöîrO;bˆ…gAh, such “mighty men” were found on the
254
Iain M. Duguid, Daniel, Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ:
P&R Pub., 2008), 47.
255
Eugene Carpenter, “Daniel,” Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (Carol Stream,
IL: Tyndale, 2010), 9:350.
256
Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel,
107.
257
Dan 2:25; 3:8, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27; 5:11; 6:6, 12, 16, 25.
258
Dan 8:15; 11:3. The term used in 8:15 is rRb`Dg_hEa√rAmV;k “one like a man,” making
reference to the divine person that appears to Daniel, while in 11:3 the phrase is rwóø;bˆ…g JKRl∞Rm
“mighty king.” Scholars agree that the “mighty king” of Dan 11:33 was Alexander the
Great. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 377; Miller, Daniel, 291.
106
earth. After the Flood, Nimrod is specifically said to be the heir of such mighty men in
Gen 10:8-9. That text gives us a saying, that Nimrod was a mighty man and a hunter
before the face of Yahweh.259
Archer states that in Dan 3:8, where the first occurrence of the term rbg is found
in chap. 3, the phrase Ny¡Ia∂;dVcA;k NyâîrVb¨…g is used only of men of importance and high standing
in the community; therefore, the expression implies Chaldean nobles rather than a class
of mere astrologers or soothsayers.260 The next time that the term rbg is used in the
narrative is in v. 12 and in relation with the three Jews, NyIa∂d…wh◊y NyîrVb¨…g. The three who were
merely youths in chap. 1 and merely Daniel’s friends in chap. 2 are here full-grown men
(Nyrbg) of importance in their own right.261 Moreover, in Dan 3 the NyîrVb¨…g NyIa∂;dVcA;k, who were
the religious leaders, magicians, of the Babylonian religion are set in opposition to the
NGˆya∂d…wh◊y NyîrVb¨…g, the leaders of the true religion.262 While the NyIa∂;dVcA;k NyîrbV ¨…g stand for idolatry,
the NyIa∂d…wh◊y NyîrVb¨…g are the representatives of the religion of Israel. Idolatry, the Babylonian
religion, is fashioned in humanity’s image. The religion of Israel, however, is a revelation
from above, of a living God with whom his people can establish a personal
relationship.263
259
108.
260
G. L. Archer, “Daniel,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI:
261
262
109.
263
107
Despite the fact that the word rbg is first used in Genesis in the context of those
who opposed God, namely, the antediluvian “mighty men” and Nimrod himself, the
occurrence of the same word in Dan 3 does not guarantee the connection between Gen 11
and Dan 3. First, the basic meaning of rbg is man,264 which seems to be the plain reason
why the noun is used in Dan 3. Second, although the book of Genesis uses the word to
identify “rebel human beings,” it lacks any reference of rbg regarding those who are
faithful to God, as it is the case with the three Hebrew men in Dan 3.
Conclusion: uncertain allusion.
The Great Statue
Thematic allusions to Gen 11 in Dan 3 begin with the setting up of the idolatrous
golden image. Daniel 3 records the account of Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image: “King
Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, whose height was sixty cubits and its breadth
six cubits” (Dan 3:1). The contents of the dream of Dan 2 become the main points of
intertextuality within the rest of the book of Daniel.265 The word MElVx occurs seventeen
times in the book of Daniel, but only in chaps. 2 and 3.266 Thus the dream statue of Dan 2
and the golden image of Dan 3 provide together a connecting point for these two
stories.267 Furthermore, the same word, MyIq◊y “stand” (Dan 2:44), used to describe the
52.
264
Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, BDB, s.v. “rbg.”
265
Jordan M. Scheetz, The Concept of Canonical Intertextuality and the Book of
Daniel (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 58.
266
Dan 2:31 (2 x), 32, 34, 35; 3:1, 2, 3 (2 x), 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19.
267
David M. Valeta, Lions and Ovens and Visions: A Satirical Reading of Daniel
108
establishment of God’s reign (translated “to set up”), becomes in chap. 3 a key word that
resounds like a refrain; it appears eight times (vv. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, 18) to describe the
erection of the statue. Thus the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar replaces God’s kingdom .268
Concerning the underlying meaning of Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image, there are
basically two opinions. First, most commentators believe that the presupposition in the
narrative of Dan 3 is that willingness to bow down to the golden image was equated with
loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar.269 Shea states, “One piece of evidence pointing toward the
nature of the meeting is to be found in the list of persons in attendance. Seven different
classes of Babylonian officials are listed in Dan 3:2-3, and everybody included was some
sort of official in Babylonian government.”270 They were required to bow down and to
worship the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. Watts remarks that the image could
have been one of Marduk= Bēl, or Nebo. Whatever its name, it represented Babylon and
her king. To worship it meant total and absolute commitment to the imperial government
1-6, HBM 12 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008), 78.

268
44.
269
Steinmann, Daniel, 168. Cf. Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and
Commentary, 99; Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 183; Goldingay,
Daniel, 73; Gowan, Daniel, 65; Lucas, Daniel, 93; Montgomery, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 195; Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to
Prophetic Revelation, 82; Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 88. A century
earlier it is known that Assyrian king Ashurbanipal gathered his chief officials together in
Babylon to take a loyalty oath. John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W.
Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2000), 735. Cf. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Book of Daniel, 197-98.
270
William H. Shea, “Daniel 3: Extra-biblical Texts and the Convocation on the
Plain of Dura,” AUSS 20 (1982): 30.
109
and to the system it represented.271 Consequently, these scholars interpret the setting up
of the golden image as clearly political in nature. Thus the most obvious and likely
historical reason for the convocation of Dan 3 is that some of these officials either had
been disloyal to Nebuchadnezzar, or were suspected of having been disloyal at some time
before they were summoned to this ceremony.272
Another school of thought maintains that this image was idolatrous. It is true that
all the leaders and government officials were present for the dedication of the image, but
this was more than a political assembly; it was a religious service, complete with music,
271
Watts, “Babylonian Idolatry in the Prophets as a False Socio-Economic
System,” 120.
272
Shea, “Daniel 3: Extra-biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of
Dura,” 30. The Babylonian Chronicle attests that a rebellion took place in Babylon from
the month of Kislev (December 15, 595–January 12, 594) to the month of Tebeth
(January 13–February 11, 594) in the tenth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.
21. “In the tenth year the king of Akkad (was) in his own land; from the month of Kislev
to the month of Tebet there was rebellion in Akkad….
22………………..with arms he slew many of his own army. His own hand captured his
enemy.
23. [In the month of……..] he marched to the Hatti-land, where kings and […………..]-
officials
24. [came before him] and he [received] their heavy tribute and then returned [to
Babylon.]
25. [In the] eleventh [year] in the month of Kislev the king of Akkad [mustered his]
troops [……………...] and marched [to the] Hatti-land.” Wiseman, Chronicles of
Chaldean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, 73-75. The chronicle states that
many in the army were slain at this time, which seems to indicate that this revolt was
more than just a small-scale affair. In this context, a second piece of evidence, this time
from the Bible, becomes equally valuable. It comes from Jer 51:59-61. Zedekiah’s trip
“most likely took place upon the return of Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon, perhaps in late
Kislev 594 (late December 594) or more likely in Tebeth 593 (January 593). Zedekiah
probably was asked to make this trip to profess his loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar. There
was, therefore, a good historical and political reason behind King Nebuchadnezzar’s bold
project to erect this statue and make it a symbol of his powerful and lasting reign.
Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom for the Wise: Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 120.
110
and it called for total commitment on the part of the worshipers.273 According to
Babylonian theology, the presence of the god was manifested in the shape of an
anthropomorphic statue, which was made of wood and covered with precious metal. Thus
the image was seen as the embodiment of the divine; it was the only point at which the
god could be reached.274
Lacocque says that “the statue may not represent the king, but perhaps, to cite one
example, the god Marduk; yet, even in this case, we must remember that the Babylonian
king was the god’s right-hand man.”275 According to A. Di Lella, in the time of
Nebuchadnezzar, the greatest temple was the temple of the god Marduk, with its
impressive tower or ziggurat, which is probably the basis of the story of the City and
Tower of Babel in Gen 11:1-9.276 Furthermore, Di Lella states, “Each year on the
anniversary of Marduk’s coronation, a colossal statue of the god was hauled through the
streets of the city and placed in his temple—a ceremony that may be reflected in the story
of Daniel 3.”277
Similarly, Doukhan has argued that the ceremony to which Nebuchadnezzar calls
273
Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Resolute (Daniel): Determining to Go God’s Direction
(Colorado Springs, CO: Victor, 2000), 39.
274
Karel van der Toorn, “The Iconic Book: Analogies between the Babylonian
Cult of Images and the Veneration of the Torah,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic
Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. Karel
van der Toorn (Bondgenotenlaan: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1997), 233, 235.
275
Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 58-59. According to Hippolytus, King
Nebuchadnezzar made this golden image of himself so that he might be worshiped by
everyone as God (Comm. in Dan. 3.4). D. E. Aune, Revelation 6-16, WBC 52B (Dallas,
TX: Word, 2002), 761.
276
Di Lella, Daniel: A Book for Troubling Times, 19.
111
his guests is, as in the episode of Babel, a religious one. It is a dedication, a hD;k¨nSj (vv. 2,
3). The Bible always uses the word in relation to the altar or the Temple (Num 7:10; 2
Chr 7:9).278 HALOT defines hD;k¨nSj as the dedication or consecration of the altar (Num
7:10, 84, 88; 2 Chr 7:9), the temple (Ps 30:1) and the town walls (Neh 12:27).279
Furthermore, the dedication of the statue in Dan 3 functions as a counterpart cult to the
true Israelite cult.280 Thus Dan 3:2 describes the dedication of a divine statue. The
ceremony includes the presence of numerous invited guests, the playing of various
musical instruments, and prostration in worship.281 Duguid remarks:
The Tower of Babel had a twofold function in the mind of its builders: it was a
defiant attempt to make a name for the people who built it as a lasting legacy to their
glory, and also to prevent the people from being scattered throughout the earth, as
God had decreed (Gen. 11:4). Nebuchadnezzar’s statue had the same two goals in
mind: it was designed to establish a lasting testimony to his glory and to provide a
unifying focus for the kingdom. This is why he summoned not merely local
277
Ibid.
278
45. Cf. Jean Margain, Le livre de Daniel: commentaire philologique du texte araméen,
Les classiques bibliques (Paris: Beauchesne, 1994), 30.
279
Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm, HALOT, s.v. “Knj.” Schedl has suggested
that hD;k¨nSj has a possible Punic origin. Thus he also explains how the Talmud uses the
same root for the “establishment and inauguration of graves” (hinuk kebarot). Gaus
Schedl, “Hnkt ‘bnt auf Neupunischen grabinschriften,” VT 12 (1962): 343. R. Saadia
renders the Hebrew word hknj with the Arabic word that designates the festive meal at
the end of a building work, which basically means “inauguration.” Joseph Alobaidi, The
Book of Daniel: The Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon: Edition and Translation, Bible in
History (Bern: Peter Lang, 2006), 464. For further detail on the verbal root Knj see
Hendrik L. Bosman, “‫חנכה‬,” NIDOTTE (1997), 2:201; W. Dommershausen, “‫חנך‬,” TDOT
(1986), 5:19; Jackie A. Naudé, “‫חנך‬,” NIDOTTE (1997), 2:200; Oliver S. Rankin, The
Origins of the Festival of Hanukkah. The Jewish New-Age Festival (Edinburgh: T.& T.
Clark, 1930), 29; Stefan C. Reif, “Dedicated to ‫חנך‬,” VT 22 (1972): 497.
280
Jacques Doukhan, “The Worship of Babel,” SS 44 (1997): 31-32.
281
Naudé, NIDOTTE, 2:201.
112
dignitaries but all of the leading officials from throughout his empire—the satraps,
the prefects, the governors, the advisors, the treasurers, the judges, the magistrates,
and all the other provincial officials—to gather before the statue for its dedication
(Dan. 3:2). This occasion was a public statement that the unity of Nebuchadnezzar’
empire was rooted in the common worship of his image, a religious unity which he
was willing to enforce with the threat of death if necessary (3:6). 282
The historical circumstances depicted in Dan 3 indicate that the self-deification of
the pagan state is in view here, which is an analogy to the building of the Tower of Babel
in the plain of Shinar (Gen 11:1-9).283
Universal Dimension
Several scholars have suggested that another thematic link that connects Dan 3 to
Gen 11 is the universal scope of both narratives. Jean Steinmann states that the great
gathering recorded in Dan 3 is not without analogy with the similar gathering that all men
had at Babel (Gen 11) when they were building the Tower, of which the statue of
Nebuchadnezzar is like a replica.284 According to the narrative of Dan 3, “all the nations
and peoples of every language must fall down and worship the image of gold” (Dan 3:4,
7). Thus Carpenter affirms that reminiscent of the Tower of Babel story, Dan 3 relates an
attempt to once again unite the whole world, as they would focus and worship—with one
282
Duguid, Daniel, 47.
283
Haag, Daniel, 32. Mathias Henze states that Dan 3 sharply contrasts Jewish
monotheism with Babylonian idol worship, a popular theme in postexilic literature—with
deep roots in Isa 40-55—and ridicules the king’s idolatry with much irony. Matthias
Henze, “Daniel,” NIBOne-VC (2010), 484.
284
113
language and with one common ritual (cf. Gen 11:1)—the great gods of Babylon on the
plain.285 Similarly, Gregory states that this fourfold designation of universality—every
tribe, people, language, and nation—recalls Gen 10:5 and 11:1-9.286
According to the king’s command, everyone who attended the celebration was to
“fall down and do homage to the image of gold,” a$DbShå;d MRl∞RxVl ‹N…wd◊…gVsIt◊w N…wôlVÚpI;t (Dan 3:5). The
Aramaic word dgs with l occurs twelve times in the Bible, and only in Dan 2 and 3.287
The same gesture of prostration, dgs, through which the Nebuchadnezzar of chap. 2
expressed his adoration for God (v. 46), the king now requires of others for his statue.
Nebuchadnezzar has replaced God. Such a usurpation of God perfectly reflects the proud
tradition of Babel: a movement from below that soars up to claim divine glory and
prerogatives.288 The homage that Nebuchadnezzar commanded to be shown to the image
was regarded not only as a proof of subjection under the power of the king, but
comprehended in it also the recognition of his gods as the gods of the kingdom.289
The religion of Babel permits no exceptions.290 Those who refuse to prostrate
themselves before the image and worship it will “immediately be cast into a burning fiery
285
Carpenter, “Daniel,” 9:352.
286
Gregory, “Its End Is Destruction: Babylon the Great in the Book of
Revelation,” 147, n. 31.
287
According to HALOT, the basic meaning is “to pay homage to, with l to God,
and to idols Dan 3:5-7; 10-12, 14, 18, 28, (3:12, 14, 18, 28 parallel with jlp) to people
2:46.” Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm, HALOT, s.v. “dgs.”
288
45.
289
Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 124.
290
Anderson, Signs and Wonders: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 31;
114
furnace” (v. 6). Similarly, according to Jer 29:10, the king of Babylon roasted two anti-
Babylonian false prophets, Ahab and Zedekiah, in the fire.291 The furnace has been also
attested in a number of texts from Mesopotamia, as a choice medium for capital
punishment.292 It is worth noting that the the midrashim preserve a tradition that the giant
Nimrod (Gen 10:10) ruled over Shinar, where he punished Abraham’s faithfulness to the
one God by commanding that the patriarch be thrust into a fiery furnace.293 Scholars have
noticed that furnaces were a normal part of Mesopotamia’s landscape, being used in the
firing of bricks. Archaeological excavations have revealed several such furnaces in the
area surrounding Babylon. Interestingly, Scripture also associates the furnace with the
construction of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:3).294

291
Burning as a death penalty is prescribed in the Hebrew Bible for prostitution by
a priest’s daughter (Lev 21:9) and for the incest of a man who weds both mother and
daughter (Lev 20:14). It is proposed as the punishment for fornication in the case of
Tamar in Gen 38:24. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 185.
292
See F. N. H. Al-Rawi and A. R. George, “Tablets from the Sippar Library,”
Iraq 56 (1995): 135; John B. Alexander, “New Light on the Fiery Furnace,” JBL 69
(1950): 375; Beaulieu, “The Babylonian Background of the Motif of the Fiery Furnace in
Daniel 3,” 283. The law of Hammurabi refers to burning on two separate occasions as a
medium of punishment: (1) L25: “If there has been an outbreak of fire in a man’s house
and a man who has gone to put it out catches sight of the private possessions of the owner
of the house and takes them, that man shall be thrown into that same fire.” M.
Richardson, Hammurabi’s Laws: Text, Translation, and Glossary (New York: T. & T.
Clark, 2004). (2) E28: “O Nergal, fighter for the gods, unrivalled in the battle, who sees
me through to victory, you shall burn up his people with a massive holocaust, like flames
blazing through the reeds; you shall beat him with a violent weapon, you shall crush his
limbs like those of a clay doll.” Richardson, Hammurabi’s Laws: Text, Translation, and
Glossary, 133.
293
H. Freedman, Midrash Rabbah: Genesis (London: The Soncino Press, 1983),
311.
294
49.
115
Indeed, the sense of unity and universality is conveyed in the narrative by the use
of several expressions, such as “all the rulers of the provinces,” a¡DtÎnyáîdVm y∞EnOfVlIv läOk◊w (v. 2),
“Nations and peoples of every language,” a™D¥yA;mUa a`D¥yÅnDÚvIl◊w a$D¥yAmVmÀo (v. 4), and “all the nations
and peoples of every language,” a∞D¥yAmUa a#D¥yÅnDÚvIl◊w a%D¥yAmVmÀo_l`D;k (v. 7). Furthermore, the size of the
colossal image, sixty cubits high and six cubits wide (v. 1), is given in the Babylonian
sexagesimal system, in which the number sixty was also a symbol for unity.295 Thus in
erecting his statue to a height of sixty cubits, Nebuchadnezzar seeks primarily to enforce
his will for unity—for one kingdom, one religion. Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image
represented his attempt to ensure political and religious unity in his kingdom.296 In other
words, Nebuchadnezzar was attempting to institute a world religion. This was nothing in
the world but a repetition of the Tower of Babel—a forming of one religion for the
world.297
Therefore, the grandeur of the image, the religious nature of the event, and the
unity sought among the worshipers at the valley of Dura all clearly allude to the Tower of
Babel account. At the time of Babel X®r™DaDh_lDk, “the whole world” (Gen 11:1, 4, 8, 9),
clustered on the plain to unite in a common sacred act. Nebuchadnezzar gathers on the
same plain not only his officials but a`D¥yÅnDÚvIl◊w a™D¥yA;mUa a$D¥yAmVmÀo, “all peoples, nations and men of
every language” (Dan 3:4) to unite them in a sacred ceremony in his honor. Here we
discern a fundamental trait of the religion of Babel: It does not tolerate diversity. It is the
295
Marvin H. Pope, “Numbers,” IDB (1962), 3:561-62.
296
Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: Plotting Politics in the Book of Daniel, 82.
297
J. Vernon McGee, Daniel, Thru the Bible Commentary: The Prophets, vol. 3
(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1991), 544.
116
same passion for unity that we witness among the builders of Babel: “Let us build
ourselves a city, with a tower . . . , so that we may make a name for ourselves” (Gen
11:4).298 “Name” in biblical language means the mark and witness of power, outlasting
mortal men. Accordingly, a name arises for this work; the name of the world-city
opposed to God, the name deriving from the accumulation and confusion of languages:
“jumble,” “babble,” “Babel.”299
On the basis of Babylonian iconism, one can determine that the colossal statue
that Nebuchadnezzar set up (height 60 cubits [90 ft.]; and width 6 cubits [9 ft.]; Dan 3:1)
was not a mere icon (MElVx), but a theophanic manifestation of the Babylonian deity in
what was most likely an Akitu celebration.300 Karel van der Toorn remarks, “Only on
religious high-days did the god show himself to them. The best-known example of such a
theophany was staged in the setting of the Babylonian New Year festival celebrated in
Spring and Autumn.”301 Furthermore, the biblical text shows that the huge MElVx in Dan 3,
which is itself a god, functions as an antithesis to the true God. As king Nebuchadnezzar
298
45-46.
299
Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, Scripture and Translation (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1994), 117.
300
Denroy Black, “A Study of the Term Bar Elahin in the Context of Daniel 3:24-
28, the Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Literature” (PhD diss., Andrews
University, 2010), 139.
301
van der Toorn, “The Iconic Book: Analogies between the Babylonian Cult of
117
had earlier acknowledged that Daniel’s God is “the God of gods and the Lord of kings”
(2:47), now in Dan 3 Nebuchadnezzar says: “Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach
and Abednego. . . . They trusted in him and defied the king’s command and were willing
to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God” (v. 28).
Therefore, the narrative of Dan 3 is linked to the Tower of Babel account by
thematic similarities, namely, the politico-religious nature of the event, which is apparent
in both narratives. As shown above, in Gen 11 the kingdom of Babylon is tied by the
building motif as well as the worshiping motif, which are attested in the building of the
“city with the tower” (v. 3). In addition, the height of the image that is set up on the plain
of Dura (Dan 3:1) evokes the height of the Tower of Babel, thus strengthening the
relation between the two accounts. Both narratives are stories of an idolatrous system
“fashioned in humanity’s image.”302
The Pride of the King
Another thematic link between Gen 11 and Dan 3 is the common use of the pride
motif. The “Babylon” of Dan 3 exhibits the same blasphemous pride as the ancient Babel
(Gen 11). Thus in setting up the image for worship, Nebuchadnezzar set himself in the
place of God. Indeed, the defiant attitude of the king parallels the Tower of Babel motif.
According to Gunn and Fewell, the dream in Dan 2 functions as a divine warning against
hubris, but Nebuchadnezzar’s sculpting feat in Dan 3 indicates that the king has totally
Images and the Veneration of the Torah,” 233.

302
52.
118
missed the point.303 Beyond any doubts, King Nebuchadnezzar is the main human
character in chap. 3. The first word in Dan 3:1 is r∞A…x‰n√dAk…wb◊n, which, besides the verbs dAbSo
and Mwq and the noun MElVx, occurs throughout the whole chapter as a Leitwort.304 For
instance, eleven times in 3:1-18, Nebuchadnezzar functions as the subject of the verbal
roots dAbSo and Mwq, and in each case, MElVx serves as the object.305 Although in a Hebrew
sentence the normal word order is verb-subject-direct object,306 that is not the rule in
Biblical Aramaic.307 In Dan 3:1 the subject r∞A…x‰n√dAk…wb◊n heads the clause for the sake of
303
Gunn and Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible, 175.
304
Leitwort is a German term used by Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig to
describe a “leadword” in OT narratives. Leitwort describes “a word or word root that is
meaningfully repeated within a text or sequence or complex of texts.” Buber and
Rosenzweig, Scripture and Translation, 114. In addition to repetition of key words,
recurring elements may include: motif, theme, sequence of action, and types-scenes.
Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 95-96.
305
Terry L. Brensinger, “Compliance, Dissonance and Amazement in Daniel 3,”
EJ 20 (2002): 8.
306
The statistically dominant and unmarked word order in the verbal clause is:
Verb-Subject. Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 545; Christ van der
Merwe et al., A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1999), 336.
307
H. Bauer and P. Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen (Hildesheim:
Georg Olms, 1962), 342. Similarly Rosenthal says, “The position of words in a verbal
sentence is free and does not follow any hard and fast rules. The more ancient sequence
verb-subject-object occurs occasionally, in particular in dependent clauses and after such
particles as NAoV;k “now,” NˆyôådaE;b “then.” Preference is shown to the sequence object’-verb-
subject.’ In sentences containing no direct object, the preferred sequence is subject-verb.”
Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1974),
56. Cook affirms that the Aramaic of Daniel has a repertoire of word orders that fulfills
certain functions—sometimes it is true, to reduce ambiguity—in the discourse. Compared
to Hebrew, its word order is remarkably free, although both languages have a comparable
set of devices to reduce ambiguity. Edward M. Cook, “Word Order in the Aramaic of
Daniel,” MJNEAL 9 (1986): 15. See also Kutscher’s remarkable study, which based on
the free word order, has shown that the Aramaic of Daniel points to an Eastern origin.
119
emphasis. The focus here is on the king who figures so prominently in the chapter.308 It is
noteworthy that the proper noun r∞A…x‰n√dAk…wb◊n (including the defective309 spelling rA…x‰n√dAkÙb◊n) is
used sixteen times in the Aramaic text of Dan 3, which represents the highest occurrence
of the name in any single chapter of the Hebrew Bible. Brensinger points out that the
characterization of Nebuchadnezzar leaves little doubt that he is in a position of
unquestioned authority. In fact, he receives by far the most direct attention in the
narrative.310
According to Davies, the issue in Dan 3 is indeed sovereignty, but this
sovereignty is settled by a kind of “trial of strength.” The challenge is between the power
of Nebuchadnezzar and that of God over the life and death of the three Hebrew heroes.311
E.Y. Kutscher, “Dating the Language of the Genesis Apocryphon,” JBL 76 (1957): 282-
92; E.Y. Kutscher, “The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon—A Preliminary Study,”
Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (1957): 1-34; E.Y. Kutscher, “Aramaic,” in Current Trends in
Linguistics VI: Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa, ed. T. Sebeok (The
Hague: Mouton, 1971), 361-82.
308
121.
309
A. van Selms explains that there is no name in the Bible which presents more
variants than this one. Thus when the Masoretic text of the Old Testament is consulted,
one discovers that there are no less than eight variants of the name. A. van Selms, “The
Name Nebuchadnezzar,” in Travels in the World of the Old Testament: Studies Presented
to Professor M. A. Beek on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. M. S. H. G. Heerma
van Voss et al. (Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1974), 223.
310
We, the readers, learn about him through reports from the narrator concerning
his activities (vv. 1, 2, 13, 19, 20, 22, 30), attitudes (vv. 13, 19, 24), and, on one occasion,
his appearance (v. 19). In other instances, various characters either talk about him (vv. 5,
10, 11, 12) or act in such a way as to display their views of the king (vv. 3, 7, 13, 21, 23).
Finally, Nebuchadnezzar himself speaks more frequently than anyone else in the story
(vv. 14, 15, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29). Brensinger, “Compliance, Dissonance and Amazement in
Daniel 3,” 14.
311
Davies, Daniel, 94.
120
In Dan 3 Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion seems absolute, requiring the submission of “all
peoples, nations, and languages” within his empire. Indeed, the religion of Babel is
violent, intolerant, totalitarian, and mechanical.312 Doubtless, in Dan 3 the new Babel is
depicted as a “totalitarian state.”313 Collins points out that in Dan 3 Nebuchadnezzar
emerges as arrogant and hostile. Thus “the hubris of the king is made evident by his
question, ‘What god is there that can save you from my power?’314 Nebuchadnezzar here
shows considerable similarity to the little horn in Dan 8, which magnifies itself against
the Prince of the host. Such hubris, or human claim to divine status, is the ultimate sin in
the OT,”315 which was also manifested in the builders of the Tower of Babel. Therefore,
here in Dan 3, Nebuchadnezzar’s attitude echoes exactly the spirit of the original Babel
(Gen 11).
312
49.
313
Haag, “Israels Exil im Lande Schinar Beobachtungen zu Daniel 1,1-2,” 52. On
totalitarianism see Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (San Diego: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, 1979), 305-479.
314
Nebuchadnezzar’s words also echo the arrogant taunt of the Rabshakeh of
Sennacherib, king of Assyria. After cataloging the nations defeated by Sennacherib’s
armies, he asks, “Who among all the gods of these countries have saved their countries
out of my hand, that the LORD should save Jerusalem out of my hand?” (Isa 36:20,
NRSV). Anathea Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in
Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 259. Cf. R. H. Charles, A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with Introduction, Indexes and a New
English Translation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929), 68.
315
John Joseph Collins, “The Court-Tales in Daniel and the Development of
Apocalyptic,” JBL 94 (1975): 276.
121
The characterization of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 3 is reminiscent of Nimrod’s
characterization in Genesis. Both are tyrannical rulers over people. Thus by highlighting
the role of the Babylonian king through the narrative of Dan 3, the narrator shows that
Nebuchadnezzar’s Babel replicates the Tower of Babel city in its arrogant rebellion
against God. Indeed, both cities and their kings represent what Waltke and Fredricks call
the “tyranny on the horizontal axis. The human spirit to idolize itself.”316
“God” Comes Down (Gen 11:5; Dan 3:24-25)
Soon after King Nebuchadnezzar commanded his strongest soldiers to throw the
Hebrew men into the blazing furnace, the biblical texts records, “King Nebuchadnezzar
leaped to his feet in amazement and asked his advisers, ‘Weren’t there three men that we
tied up and threw into the fire?’ They replied, ‘Certainly, Your Majesty.’ He said, ‘Look!
I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks
like a son of the gods’ (vv. 24-25). As in Gen 11, here one finds a possible allusion to the
motif of the “God” of heaven who comes down to meet the arrogant challenge set by the
Babelites/Nebuchadnezzar and to save His three children (Dan 3).
It is true, there are noticeable differences concerning the outcomes of God’s
coming down in our passage and Gen 11. While in Gen 11 God comes down mainly to
judge the Babelites, here in Dan 3 “God” chooses to come down to save Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abednego from the fire. But in both passages God is descending, and that
is precisely the connection between the texts. One might also inquire about the difference
316
122
between the explicit reference to God (hwhy) in Gen 11 and the mysterious “son of the
gods” in our passage (NyÌhDlTa_rAb). This is not the place to provide an elaborated answer to
that question.317 Yet, the textual evidence points to the understanding that God is the only
one who saves and delivers from the fire, and that was exactly the answer given by the
Hebrew men to the king: “The God we serve is able to deliver us” (v. 3:17),318 which
implies that the true God was their Deliverer (v. 28).
Furthermore, Black has convincingly shown that in light of the noun ‹;hEkSaVlAm
319
“angel” that is used in Dan 3:28, the NyÌhDlTa_rAb should be identified with the hDwøh◊y JK°AaVlAm
317
Concerning the identity of the “fourth person” whom Nebuchadnezzar saw in
Dan 3, there are different opinions. For a thorough treatment of the “son of gods” in Dan
3, see Black, “A Study of the Term Bar Elahin in the Context of Daniel 3:24-28, the Old
Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Literature,” 141-221.
318
Some interpreters see some sort of “doubt” in the answer of the three Jews.
Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 127; Young, The
Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 91. Nevertheless, Coxon rightly argues that the
three lads’ reply in vv. 17- 18 is modeled on Nebuchadnezzar’s question in v. 15; in other
words, the textual evidence rules out any implication of doubt in the minds of the youths
concerning their God’s ability to save them. Peter W. Coxon, “Daniel III 17: A Linguistic
and Theological Problem,” VT 26 (1976): 400-09. Cf. Roy L. Heller, ““But if Not . . .”
What? The Speech of the Youths in Daniel 3 and a (Theo)logical Problem,” in Thus Says
the Lord: Essays on the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, ed.
John J. Ahn and Stephen L. Cook, LHB/OTS 502 (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 244-
55.
319
Collins also affirms, “The angel here . . . must be understood against the
background of the hDwøh◊y JK°AaVlAm in the Hebrew Bible, who is not only a messenger but an
agent. Thus he protects Israel at the Exodus (Exod 14:19) and guides Israel on the way
(Exod 23:20), helps Elijah (1 Kgs 19:7), resists Balaam (Num 22:22), and destroys the
Assyrian army (Isa 37:36; 2 Kgs 19:35).” Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of
Daniel, 191. On the use of the term h¶Dwøh◊y JK°AaVlAm as pointing to hwhy Himself, see David
Noel Freedman, B. E. Willoughby, and H. J. Fabry, “‫מלאך‬,” TDOT (1997), 8:316-22;
Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, NAC 2 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2007), 110-12;
Gerhard Von Rad, “‫מלאך יהוה‬,” TDNT (1964), 1:76-80.
123
who appeared as a agent of hwhy during the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.320 In
other words, God himself is the one who came down both in Gen 11 and here in Dan 3.
Therefore, the literary, thematic, and structural parallels between Gen 11 and Dan 3,
already shown above, suggest that by using the motif of God coming down from heaven,
once again our text might be echoing Gen 11. Thus in Dan 3 Nebuchadnezzar saw a
divine-like being who would normally be in heaven, present in the realm of man.321
Introduction
Chapter 4 of the book of Daniel tells the story of King Nebuchadnezzar’s bad
dream, which only Daniel, of all his wise men, could explain. At a certain moment he is
enjoying the riches that he has amassed, the beautiful city that he has built for his own
glorification, and the magnificent empire that he rules. In his dream this success is
signified by a luxuriant and gigantic tree, which provides shelter for all and sundry (v.
9).322 Here the tree symbolizes King Nebuchadnezzar, who has universal dominion; it
represents the scope of his rule and the fact that he is the source of livelihood for all his
320
Black, “A Study of the Term Bar Elahin in the Context of Daniel 3:24-28, the
Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Literature,” 221.
321
Shea, “Intertextuality within Daniel,” 228.
322
Carla Sulzbach, “Nebuchadnezzar in Eden? Daniel 4 and Ezekiel 28,” in
Stimulation from Leiden: Collected Communications to the XVIIth Congress of the
International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden 2004, ed. Hermann
Michael Niemann and Matthias Augustin (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2006), 125.
124
subjects.323 When King Nebuchadnezzar goes beyond his human bounds, he is hurled
back by a divine “Watcher,” the word of doom is spoken, and the king is taught that to
deny God his place is to become subhuman.324 The parallels between chaps. 2 and 4 are
obvious. Nebuchadnezzar has a dream that disturbs him (2:1-3; 4:1-2). Nebuchadnezzar
calls in the same group of interpreters.325 Moreover, the report of Nebuchadnezzar’s
dream of the great and magnificent tree, which culminates in the Babylonian king’s
confession of the God of Israel, has its negative counterpart in the report of Belshazzar’s
banquet, which ends with the death of the arrogant king (ch. 4 || 5).326
There is general agreement among scholars concerning the overall structure of
Dan 4. M. Delcor divides Dan 4 into three main sections: the dream (vv. 1-15), its
interpretation (vv. 16-24), and its fulfillment (vv. 25-33).327 Apart from
Nebuchadnezzar’s introduction, the pericope of Dan 4 opens and closes with his praise of
323
Shaul Bar, A Letter That Has Not Been Read: Dreams in the Hebrew Bible,
HUCM 25 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2001), 66.
324
Raymond Hammer, The Book of Daniel (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1976), 48.
325
W. P. Gooding, “The Literary Structure of the Book of Daniel and Its
lmplications,” TynBul 32 (1981): 63.
326
Jan Christian Gertz et al., T&T Clark Handbook of the Old Testament: An
Introduction to the Literature, Religion and History of the Old Testament (New York: T.
& T. Clark, forthcoming), 644.
327
Delcor, Le Livre de Daniel, 108. Cf. Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel: Wisdom and
Dreams of a Jewish Prince in Exile, 75; Goldingay, Daniel, 85; Klaus Koch, “Gottes
Herrschaft über das Reich des Menschen. Daniel 4 im Licht neuer Funde,” in The Book of
Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude (Leuven-Louvain,
Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993), 82; Lucas, Daniel, 102; Shea, “Further
Literary Structures in Daniel 2-7: An Analysis of Daniel 4,” 202.
125
God Most High.328 The chapter begins and ends as a first-person account of
Nebuchadnezzar, a literary style known elsewhere from Neo-Babylonian inscriptions and
letters, which here lends the story the character of a confession of faith.329 Unlike its
equivalent in the Greek tradition, the form of the story is epistolary,330 beginning with a
328
Goldingay, Daniel, 84. There is general agreement among scholars that the
story begins with the proclamation, as the English version indicates. The words “Peace be
multiplied to you!” (4:1b Eng.) are part of a letter-form (cf. Ezra 5:7; 7:12; Dan 6:25) that
makes the whole of Dan 4 an encyclical. The placement of the chapter division after 3:33
(Aram.) implies that the expression “the signs and wonders” refers to the miraculous
deliverance from the fiery furnace described in Dan 3 (cf. 6:27 Eng. [Aram. 6:28] that
refers to Daniel’s rescue from the lion’s den using the same expression). Greg Goswell,
“The Divisions of the Book of Daniel,” in The Impact of Unit Delimitation on Exegesis,
ed. Raymond de Hoop, Marjo C.A. Karpel, and Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 2009),
98. See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2001), 52.
329
Henze, “Daniel,” NIBOne-VC, 485.
330
The epistolary form does not inform the narrative of the LXX version in the
same way. The story starts straight in with “In the eighteenth year of King
Nebuchadnezzar, he said”: (Ἔτους ὀκτωκαιδεκάτου τῆς βασιλείας Ναβουχοδονοσορ
εἶπεν). There is no hint of an encyclical at this stage, and it is not clear exactly who is
being spoken to by the first person narrator, or for what purpose. Only in the last two
verses (vv. 37b-38) does the suggestion of a letter come in, yet even here the situation is
confused. T. J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison,
ed. David J.A. Clines and Philip R. Davies, JSOTSup (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1995), 33-34. The Old Greek (OG) translation of Dan 4-6 presents the
Septuagintalist with a host of interesting textual problems. R. Timothy MacLay, “The
Old Greek Translation of Daniel IV-VI and the Formation of the Book of Daniel,” VT 55
(2005): 304. See also R. Glenn Wooden, “Changing Perceptions of Daniel: Reading
Daniel 4 and 5 in Context,” in From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith: Essays in Honor
of Lee Martin Mcdonald, ed. William H. Brackney and Craig A. Evans (Macon, GA:
Mercer University Press, 2007), 12. In 1781, J. D. Michaelis went too far in suggesting
that Dan 3:31-6:28 at one time circulated as an independent document, due to the fact that
the Old Greek translation of these chapters significantly differs from that of the Masoretic
text and Theodotion's Septuagint. J. D. Michaelis, Deutsche Übersetzung des Alten
Testaments 10 Theil (Göttingen: Dieterich, 1781), 22. So also Collins, Daniel: A
Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 38; Ernst Haag, Die Errettung Daniels aus der
Löwengrube: Untersuchungen zum Ursprung der biblischen Danieltradition, SBS 110
(Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983), 12; Klaus Koch, Das Buch Daniel, Erträge der
126
salutation and statement of purpose (Dan 3:31-33) and concluding with a summary that
echoes back to the opening verses (v. 34). This section identifies and studies all the
allusions to Gen 11 in Dan 4.
The Replacement of God: On “Naming” (Gen 11; Dan 4:5 MT)
As Daniel stands before Nebuchadnezzar, the author reveals that the king
continues to be entrenched in his own polytheistic world. He reminds the recipients of the
letter that Daniel “was named Belteshazzar after the name of my god, and who is
endowed with a spirit of the holy gods” (4:8 [4:5 MT]).331 From the Babylonian’s point
of view, Daniel is honored with the name of Nebuchadnezzar’s god, but from Daniel’s
point of view this name is a constant reminder of the exile of God’s people and an insult
Forschung 144 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980), 75. For further

detailed discussion on LXX, Th, and MT similarities and divergences on Dan 1-6, see R.
Albertz, Der Gott des Daniel: Untersuchungen zu Daniel 4-6 in der Septuagintafassung
sowie zu Komposition und Theologie des aramäischen Daniel, SBS, 131 (Stuttgart:
KBW, 1988); Pierre Grelot, “La Septante de Daniel iv et son substrat sémitique,” RB 81
(1974): 5-23; Pierre Grelot, “Le chapitre v de Daniel dans la Septante,” Sem 24 (1974):
45-66; Johan Lust, “The Septuagint Version of Daniel 4-5,” in The Book of Daniel in the
Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude (Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven
University Press, 1993), 39-53; R. Timothy MacLay, “The Relationship Between the
Greek Translations of Daniel 1-3,” BIOSCS 37 (2004): 29-53; Tim MacLay, The OG and
Th Versions of Daniel, SCS, 43 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1996); O.
Munnich, “Texte Massorétique et Septante dans le Livre de Daniel,” in The Earliest Text
of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base
of the Septuagint Reconsidered, ed. A. Schenker (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2003). On Aramaic royal encyclicals and letters see P. S. Alexander,
“Remarks on Aramaic Epistolography in the Persian Period,” JSS 23 (1978): 155-70; W.
G. Doty, “The Classification of Epistolory Literature,” CBQ 31 (1969): 183-99; Joseph
A. Fitzmyer, “Some Notes on Aramaic Epistolography,” JBL 93 (1974): 201-25; Joseph
A. Fitzmyer, “Aramaic Epistolography,” Semeia 22 (1981): 25-57.
331
On the meaning of Ny™IhDlTa Aj…wõr see Bob Becking, “‘A Divine Spirit Is in You’:
Notes on the Translation of the Phrase ruah ’lahin in Daniel 5, 14 and Related Texts,” in
The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude (Leuven-
Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993), 515-19.
127
to his own God.332 Futhermore, for the Babylonian recipients of the king’s letter (Dan 4),
the name Belteshazzar symbolizes both Daniel’s subjugation and the apparent triumph of
the Babylonian god, Bel.333 Similar to the attempt of men to “make a name for
themselves” (Gen 11:4), here King Nebuchadnezzar is giving a name to Daniel after his
god, apart from the God of heaven. Yet, Daniel remained faithful to the God of Israel,
and similar to the patriarch Abraham, he also understood that the only One who can
promise and make his name great is Yahweh himself (12:2). Once again as in Dan 1, here
in Dan 4 King Nebuchadnezzar is replacing the true God.
As shown above in Dan 1, the main implication of this possible allusion to Gen 11
also here in Dan 4 is that it stresses the fact that the King of Babylon wanted to erase any
religious background of Daniel, particularly his relation with the true God, the God of
Israel. As in Dan 1 here in Dan 4, the substitute name has as its obvious intention the
obliterating of the name of Israel’s God.334 Thus Nebuchadnezzar sought to replace the
God of heaven with a Babylonian idol.
The Motif of “Reaching the Heavens” (Gen 11:4; Dan 4:8, 17, 19, MT)
The first lexical allusion to Gen 11 in Dan 4 is the composite Aramaic expression
332
Sinclair B. Ferguson, Daniel, The Preacher’s Commentary Series, vol. 21
(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 83.
333
Pace, Daniel, 126.
334
Ford, Daniel, 83, n. 6.
128
a$D¥yAmVvIl a∞EfVmˆy, “reaching the heavens,” which occurs three times in chap. 4 (Dan 4:8, 17,
19; v. 19 used the verbal form Peal perfect, instead of the imperfect as in the former
occurrences). The first two identical occurrences of a$D¥yAmVvIl a∞EfVmˆy are found in the dream
section while the last occurrence a$D¥yAmVvIl t∞DfVm…w belongs to the interpretation section of the
dream.
According to HALOT, the basic meaning of the verb hfm is to reach to (with l)
(Dan 4:8, 17, 19); to attain to (Dan 6:25); to come upon (with dAo) (Dan 7:13); to come
over, affect (Dan 4:21), to come over, happen to (Dan 4:25).335 Although Dan 4:7
describes the tree as being already very high, yet it became even greater and stronger, so
that it reached even unto heaven and was visible to the ends of the earth. Significantly,
the verbal forms that are used in Dan 4:8a, in the first two clauses, the perfects hbr “to be
great” and Pqt “to grow strong” express not the tree’s condition, but its increasing
greatness and strength. Thus in the third clause of Dan 4:8, the imperfect a∞EfVmˆy, as the
form of the striving movement, corresponds to hbr and Pqt.336
Recently, several scholars have acknowledged that Dan 4 alludes to Gen 11.337
Accordingly Collins points out that the OG of Dan 4:8 combines the imagery of Ezek
31:10 and he also recognizes that the expression a$D¥yAmVvIl a∞EfVmˆy, “touching the heavens,”
335
Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm, HALOT, s.v. “hfm.”
336
Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 147-48. This
view is doubtless corroborated by the repetition of the verbs in v. 19 and adds liveliness
to the scene. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel,
230.
337
Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Daniel: Foundations for Expository
Sermons (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 117; William B. Nelson, Daniel, UBCS
129
resembles Gen 11. Thus Collins states: “The human attempt to scale heaven is a recurring
biblical metaphor for hubris, beginning with the tower of Babylon in Gen 11.” 338
Similarly, Hartman suggests that the concept of something “touching the heavens,” that
is, reaching to the heavens, is a symbol of insolent pride, of hubris against the divine,
rising up against heaven, which is much older than either Daniel or Ezekiel. It goes back
to the story of the Tower of Babel, whose builders made bold to raise “a tower with its
top in the heavens” (Gen 11:4).339 In the same vein, Carpenter concludes that the use of
the expression “touching the heavens” is an allusion to the Tower of Babel, with its tower
reaching into the sky (Gen 11:1–9).340 Doubtless, the lexical parallel between Gen 11 and
Dan 4 is striking:
Mˆy$AmDÚvAb wâøvaør◊w ‹ l∂;d◊gIm…w a$D¥yAmVvIl a∞EfVmˆy ‹;hEm…wr◊w PóîqVt…w a™DnDlyÌa h¶Db√r
. . . whose top may reach unto . . . and the height thereof reached
heaven . . . (Gen 11:4). unto heaven . . . (Dan 4:8).
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), 129.

338
Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 224. The MT and the
OG do not show any essential differences in describing the tree in terms of its height,
extent, and the benefits that animals obtain in, under, and from it. Nevertheless, the OG’s
description is remarkably more elaborated and vivid than the MT’s. F. F. Bruce, “The
Oldest Greek Version of Daniel,” in Introduction and Interpretation: Studies in Hebrew
Language, Palestinian Archaeology and Biblical Exegesis, ed. H. A. Brongers et al.
(Leiden: Brill, 1977), 29.
339
The Sumerians, as well as the later Babylonians, intended such a ziggurat or
temple tower to be a dur-an-ki, a “bond between heaven and earth”; but Israel regarded
such a “skyscraper” as blasphemous arrogance. Compare also the proud boasting of the
king of Babylon in Isa 14:13: “I will scale the heavens; above the stars of God I will set
up my throne. . . . I will ascend above the top of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.”
Hartman, “The Great Tree and Nabuchodonosor’s Madness,” 78.
340
Carpenter, “Daniel,” CBC, 368.
130
Scholars agree that the figure of a tree whose top reached to heaven would remind the
readers of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9) and the men who learned they could not build
a city and civilization without God. From a material standpoint, Nebuchadnezzar’s
empire seemed a success; his building projects provided work and food for all and
produced a capital of unrivaled magnificence. Yet to the knowing readers the very
description of the tree’s greatness would forecast its fall.341 According to D. Davies, “the
height of the tree suggests hubris (there is a possible allusion to the tower of Babel, Gen
11), and the king’s pride is manifest in v. 30: Is this not great Babylon, which I have built
by my mighty power . . . for the glory of my majesty?”342
Stephen Cook points out that in Dan 4 the tree becomes an enemy of God through
hubris (vv. 27, 34 [Eng. vv. 30, 37]) and is felled. Its fruit scatters, and beasts and birds
flee from its branches (v. 11 [Eng. v. 14]).343 Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon had been the
contemporary embodiment of that recurrent ambition of nations to be the one that, God-
like, rules and provides for the whole world. It has “reached up to heaven”; and that can
suggest a rebellious arrogance, which Heaven itself must judge (Gen 11:4; Isa 14:13).344
Therefore, in Dan 4 the tree’s location at the center of the earth recalls the cosmic tree in
Eden (Gen 2:9); its height reaching to heaven is reminiscent of the Tower of Babel (Gen
341
George A. F. Knight, “The Book of Daniel,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume
Commentary, ed. C. M. Laymon (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1971), 431.
342
Davies, Daniel, 94.
343
Stephen L. Cook, “Mythological Discourse in Ezekiel and Daniel and the Rise
of Apocalypticism in Israel,” in Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the
Apocalyptic and their Relationships, ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak, JSPSup
46 (London: T & T Clark International, 2003), 98.
344
John Goldingay, “The Stories in Daniel: A Narrative Politics,” JSOT 37 (1987):
131
11:1-9), symbol of human arrogance, 345 and no doubt it also connects that tower to the
temple-tower complex in Babylon in Daniel’s day.346
The cosmic tree clearly represents Nebuchadnezzar himself and what happens to
the tree represents his rise and fall. On the one hand, God must view Nebuchadnezzar as
an agent, a protector, and nourisher of all living things. On the other hand, God must also
view Nebuchadnezzar as an enemy, a mortal who, like the tree, reaches to heaven.347 The
latter description of the tree “reaching to heaven” points back to Gen 11. The tree, then,
portrays Nebuchadnezzar as one who grasps divinity for himself. Furthermore, the dream
implies that the king of Babylon considers himself above humanity, a tree of life
nourishing the whole world. Thus he acknowledges no other source of power beside
himself. This is the sin of Babel, for which he, like the ancient Babelites (Gen 11), is to
be punished.348
Siginificantly, Nebuchadnezzar’s account of his dream introduces a further key
pair of terms, the antithesis ora —Nymv,349 which strengthens the literary connection
105.
345
Pace, Daniel, 128.
346
Carpenter, CBC, 368
347
348
Ibid.
349
Thus Goldingay explains that oårSa can mean “earth” in the sense of “world,”
and thus suggests the extent of Nebuchadnezzar’s rule (3:31; 4:7, 8, 17, 19 [4:1, 10, 11,
20, 22]), though also its ultimate insignificance compared with God, before whom the
132
between Gen 11 and Dan 4. Concerning the Aramaic word NˆyAmVv, HALOT defines it as
heaven, sky (4:8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, 22, 23, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34 [11, 12, 15, 20,
21, 22, 23, 23, 25, 26, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37]); as God’s dwelling place (Dan 2:28; 4:31; and
as referring to God (as in the New Testament, for example ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν).350
Significantly, no other chapter of the OT uses Nymv/Mymv as often, or uses the word as a
periphrasis for God (4:23 [26])351 or refers to God as king of heaven (4:34 [37]), bringing
together the two fields of terms we have noted in the chapter. Nor does any other chapter
of the OT use as often the related title “Most High”: 3:32; 4:14, 21, 22, 29, 31 [4:2, 17,
24, 25, 32, 34]). In their various senses Nymv and ora can both confront and associate with
each other, setting up both links and tensions within the passage.352 The concentration of
these terms throughout this chapter highlights the contest between earthly and heavenly
realms. God’s heavenly kingdom contrasts sharply with Nebuchadnezzar’s earthly
domain. Though the king exerts remarkable influence throughout the earth and even
touches the heavens, in the end he is overpowered by the powers of heaven.353
Furthermore, in the Tower of Babel story (Gen 11:1-9) the concept that heaven
whole earth is nothing (4:32, 32 [35, 35]). It can also mean “ground,” and thus more
directly suggests the extent of Nebuchadnezzar’s humiliation (4:12, 12, 20, 29, 30 [15,
15, 23, 32, 33]). Goldingay, Daniel, 85-86.
350
Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm, HALOT, s.v. “NˆyAmVv.”
351
It should be noted that here for the first time, and for the only time in the Old
Testament, the word “heaven” is substituted for God, a usage which is found frequently
in later literature, inter-testamental and Rabbinic, and in the New Testament. It is a sign,
not merely of a reverent avoidance of the title “God,” but of a tendency of religions to
assimilate and use language that united instead of dividing.
352
Goldingay, Daniel, 85-86.
353
Edlin, Daniel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, 117.
133
belongs to God is absolutely central. The Israelite belief that God dwells in heaven (cf.
Gen 11:4; 28:12-13; Eccl 5:1; Ps 115:16; Isa 14:13-14), coupled with descriptions of
contact between the human and divine realms in other traditions, demonstrates that it is
far from unthinkable that the Tower of Babel story originally referred to an assault on
heaven.354
The Adam/Babel Motif
Alexander Di Lella affirms that Dan 4 should be understood and explained against
the background, vocabulary, and theology of Gen 1-3 and 11:1-9.355 As for the Babelite’s
association with Adam, it is argued below that the former resembles the pride of the
latter. Thus when the Babel story (Gen 11) is read in the context of the Fall (Gen 3), the
pride motif is evident in both stories. From Adam to the over-ambitious builders of Babel
(11:4), and then to the arrogant King Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4), mankind developes the
same ambition, which in effect seeks to replace God, in other words, “the hubris of the
first couple has become the hubris of all.”356
The vision of the tree in Dan 4 includes a double allusion to the account of
creation and to the narrative of the Tower of Babel. The first allusion refers to Adam as
protector of the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky. The narrator says, “The tree
354
Frederick E. Greenspahn, “A Mesopotamian Proverb and Its Biblical
Reverberations,” JAOS 114 (1994): 35, 37.
355
Alexander A. Di Lella, “Daniel 4:7–14: Poetic Analysis and Biblical
Background,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l'honneur de H. Cazelles, ed. A.
Caquot and M. Delcor, AOAT (Kevelaer: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 255.
356
Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological
Commentary, 199.
134
grew large and . . . it was visible to the ends of the earth. Its leaves were beautiful, its
fruit abundant, and on it was food for all. Under it the wild animals found shelter, and the
birds lived in its branches; from it every creature was fed” (Dan 4:11-12). It is significant
to note that like the head of the statue in Dan 2:38, here the tree is visible from “the ends
of the earth” (4:11). Thus the biblical author identifies the tree with the head of the statue,
and it represents Nebuchadnezzar. Doukhan affirms, “the metaphor of the tree alludes
also to the king’s presumptuous character, comparing Nebuchadnezzar to Adam in his
function as manager of the universe.”357 Heaton states that the writer of Dan 4 was
echoing themes which enabled him to associate the pride of Nebuchadnezzar with the
pride of Adam that led to his expulsion from Eden.358 Therefore, in the accounts of both
Eden and Babel, God acts in order to keep men from presuming to become like him,
whether by gaining knowledge and immortality or by reaching the heavenly realm.359
Likewise, in Dan 4 God punishes Nebucadnezzar and puts a limit to the king’s pride.
The second is an allusion to the Garden of Eden by means of a common
association in both contexts: (1) the location of the tree in the middle of the earth, v. 10
(cf. Gen 2:9), (2) his beauty, vv. 12, 21 (cf. Gen 2:9), and (3) the dew of heaven, vv. 15,
23 (cf. Gen 2:6).360 In Dan 4 the tree’s size, “reaching high into the heavens” (v. 11), and
its location are singled out for special attention, along with its fruitfulness (v. 12). Indeed,
the metaphor of the huge tree depicts Nebuchadnezzar’s pride. Like Adam and the
357
64.
358
Heaton, The Book of Daniel: Introduction and Commentary, 149.
359
Greenspahn, “A Mesopotamian Proverb and Its Biblical Reverberations,” 37.
135
Babelites, Nebuchadnezzar also tries to be like God and refuses the restrictions that are
placed on him. Thus from Eden (Gen 3) to Babel (Gen 11) each of the incidents of the
primeval history shows attempts by humans to break the limits imposed by God.361
Consequently, the Adam/Babel motif, which recurs in every major episode of the
primeval history, appears also here in Dan 4.
Just as in the Eden story, where the tree of knowledge of good and evil is linked
with the human desire to know all, in other words to be like God, so too, the tree in the
dream, which stands for Nebuchadnezzar, is representative of a human being wanting to
be like a god.362 Moroever, like the builders of the Tower of Babel, the arrogant king
transgressed the boundaries of heaven and earth, and in his desire to become like God,
King Nebuchadnezzar experienced God’s judgment and became like an “animal” instead.
The Watcher(s) Came Down (Gen 11:4-5; Dan 4:10, 20)
Another strong thematic allusion to Gen 11 in Dan 4 is the Aramaic phrase tÌjÎn
a™D¥yAmVv_NIm vy$î;dåq◊w ry∞Io, which is found twice in chap. 4 (vv. 10, 20) with some slight
variation; in the second occurrence (Dan 4:20) the masculine singular participle tÌjÎn
follows its subject vy$î;dåq◊w ry∞Io. King Nebuchadnezzar states, literally, “there was a watcher
and a holy one coming down from heaven” (Dan 4:10 MT [Dan 4:13]). According to
360
Doukhan, “Allusions à la création dans le livre de Daniel,” 287.
361
P. J. Harland, “Vertical or Horizontal: The Sin of Babel,” VT 48 (1998): 523.
136
Seow, here in Dan 4 the heaven-to-earth movement is similar to the one we find in the
account of the destruction of the Tower of Babel. Arrogant human beings tried to reach
God by building a tower with “its top in heaven,” but God descends to order its
destruction (Gen 11).363 Similarly, Andrew Hill suggests that the movement in the dream
from heaven to earth is reminiscent of the story of God’s destruction of the Tower of
Babel erected by arrogant human beings.364
Daniel 4 (vv. 10, 14, 20) is the only place in the Hebrew Bible where the noun
ryo, “one who is awake,” “a watcher,” is generally taken to refer to a heavenly being, as
the accompanying phrase “a holy being” indicates that it should be.365 The word ryIo is
Aramaic in form, although it has its Hebrew counterpart (rEo),366 corresponding to
Theodotion (ε)ιρ; it is also attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls in Christian Palestinian
Aramaic with the basic meaning of awake, that later developed to mean angel. The Syriac
cognate form ı̂rā, also means “wakening” and “angel,” although the Neo-Syriac ʿirā
came to mean clever, intelligent.367
As shown above, the word ryIo is simply transliterated in Theodotion. The OG
uses the single word ἄγγελος in place of “watcher” and “holy one.” Both Aquila and
362
363
Seow, Daniel, 67.
364
Andrew Hill, “Daniel,” Daniel-Malachi. ExBC (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2008), 93.
365
Lucas, Daniel, 110.
366
231.
137
Symmachus read ἐγρήγορος, “wakeful one” or “watcher,” presumably from the Semitic
root r…wo, “wake up.”368 The Aramaic adjective vyî;dåq is usually understood epexegetically,
that is, as an additional explanatory comment for ryIo; hence the translation “a holy
watcher” (NRSV),369 understanding thus the meaning of the w in the phrase vy$î;dåq◊w ry∞Io as
“that is”; in other words, the Aramaic expression vy$î;dåq◊w ry∞Io should be translated as “a
watcher that is holy” or simply “a holy watcher.” Conversely, Dan 4:14 has the two
words vy$î;dåq◊w ry∞Io in the plural and in parallelism (Ny™Ivyî;dåq r¶AmaEm…w a$DmÎgVtIÚp ‹NyîryIo tôår´z◊gI;b),
indicating clearly that both words denote angels as agents of God. Although the
367
Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm, HALOT, s.v. “ryIo.”
368
369
Pace, Daniel, 128. The explicative function of the copula waw in Hebrew,
Aramaic, Greek, and Ugaritic is well attested. David W. Baker, “Further Examples of the
Waw Explicativum,” VT 30 (1980): 129-36. Concerning the usage of the waw explicative
in the book of Daniel, Goldingay argues that the waw explicative is used in Dan 1:3; 4:10
[13]; 6:29; 7:1; 8:10, 24; 11:38. Goldingay, Daniel, 122. Cf. S. Erlandsson, “Nȧgra
exempel pȧ waw explicativum,” SEÅ 41-42 (1977-76): 69-76; D. J. Wiseman et al., Notes
on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel (London: Tyndale, 1965), 9. For further
discussion on the waw explicative in the OT, see F. I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical
Hebrew (The Hague: Mouton, 1974), 117; S. Erlandsson, “Some Examples of Waw
Explicativum,” WLQ 74 (1977): 306-13; Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 484-85;
B. A. Mastin, “Wāw Explicativum in 2 Kings 8:9,” VT 34 (1984): 353-55; van der Merwe
et al., A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 300; Waltke and O’Connor, An
Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 648-53; Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An
Outline, 2d ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976), 71; Patrick Wilton, “More
Cases of Waw Explicativum,” VT 44 (1994): 125-28. On the epexegetical usage of the
Greek conjunction καί, see H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, LSJM, s.v. “καί”; J. H. Moulton
and N. Turner, Grammar of New Testament Greek III, Syntax (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1963), 365. On Ugaritic conjunction w with explicative function see J. C. De Moor, “The
Semitic Pantheon at Ugarit,” UF 2 (1970): 187-228; John C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths
and Legends, 2nd ed., OTS (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978), 123; H. L. Ginsberg,
“Baal’s Two Messengers,” BASOR 95 (1944): 25-30; C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook:
Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices, AnBib 38
(Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965), 54; D. Tsumura, “A Ugaritic God, MT-W-SR,
and His Two Weapons,” UF 6 (1974): 407-13.
138
announcement of the watcher states that the judgment on the king is “an edict of
watchers” (4:14), yet the context suggests that the “watcher” in Dan 4:10 (ET 4:13) and
“watchers” in 4:14 (ET 4:17) are merely carrying out a decree that originated with God
himself: “so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms
on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of people”
(Dan 4:14).370 In Daniel itself, the plural NyîryIo seems to be some sort of heavenly council
(4:14).371
Several scholars have tried to identify within the OT the meaning and possible
origin of ryIo. Lacocque argues that the term ryIo is best explained by the intellectual
parallel furnished by Isa 62.6: “Upon your walls, O Jerusalem, I have set watchmen
(Myrmv); all the day and all the night they shall never be silent. You who put the Lord in
remembrance, take no rest” (RSV), and also of Ps 121 speaking of God “who neither
slumbers nor sleeps.”372 Similarly, Mitchell Dahood has suggested that the Hebrew
370
Steinmann explains that the OT occasionally depicts God as presiding over a
heavenly council and conversing with the angels who are present (Ps 82:1; 1 Kgs 22:19-
23; cf. Job 1-2). Evidently, the decree came from this council of watchers, which is
understood to be under God’s authority. Steinmann, Daniel, 237-38. Collins also affirms
that the idea of divine council was widespread in the Ancient Near East. Collins, Daniel:
A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 228. For a fuller discussion of divine council, see
E. T. Mullen’s work, which suggests that the depiction of Yahweh in the OT as a king
and judge presiding over his council derives from a Canaanite (Ugaritic) matrix. E.
Theodore Mullen, The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, HSM
24 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1980).
371
Rashi explains ryo to mean an angel, the word ryo deriving from the Hebrew ro
“to be awake,” and explains that an angel is always awake. D. Boyarin, “Watchers,”
EncJud (1971), 16:365.
372
Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 78. Cf. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with Introduction, Indexes and a New English
Translation, 91.
139
phrase D;tVv¡AtÎn MyñîrDo◊w in Ps 9:7, be translated as “root out their gods,” and that MyrDo is related
to the root appearing in Ugaritic as ǵyr, “to protect”; hence MyrDo literally denotes
“protectors.”373 According to Dahood, other texts preserving the root ʿyr, “to protect,”
include Deut 32:11; 1 Sam 28:16; Isa 14:21, 33:8; Pss 78:38, 139:20; Job 8:6; Dan 4:10,
20.374 But Murray argues that the strongest instances for the verbal forms of ryIo are the
imperfect ry∞IoÎy of the eagle in Deut 32:11 (P¡Ejår◊y wy™DlÎzwø…g_lAo wYø…nIq ry∞IoÎy ‹rRv‹‰nV;k), and of God in Job
8:6 (ÔKá®q√dIx t∞Aw◊n M#A;lIv◊wŒ ÔKy¡RlDo ry∞IoÎy hD;tAo_yI;k), where the parallel verb recalls the Ugaritic
formula.375
Scholars have shown that the term “watchers” figured prominently in
pseudepigraphic and later mystical literature of the Second Temple period.376 The
373
Thus Dahood goes on to say, “That this is a name for pagan divinities may be
gathered from the clear parallelism in Mic 5:13, ÔKyá®rDo y™I;t√dAmVvIh◊w ÔK¡R;b√rI;qIm ÔKyä®ryEvSa y¶I;tVvAtÎn◊w,
‘And I will root out your Asherim and will destroy your gods.’ The orthographic and
phonic coincidence of ʿārīm, ‘cities,’ and ʿārīm, ‘gods,’ forms the basis of the pun in Jer
2:28, há∂d…wh◊y ÔKy™RhølTa …wñyDh ÔKy$®rDo r∞AÚpVsIm yI;k, ‘For your gods, O Judah, were the number of your
cities/gods.’” Mitchell J. Dahood, Psalms I: 1-50: Introduction, Translation, and Notes,
1st ed., AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 55.
374
Ibid. Cf. R. M. Serra, “Una Raíz, afín a la raíz ugarítica gyr 'guardar', en
algunos textos bíblicos,” Claretianum 4 (1964): 161-76.
375
Robert Murray, “The Origin of Aramaic ‛ir, Angel,” Or 53 (1984): 307. See
also Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 225; Johann Jakob Stamm,
“Ein ugaritisch-hebräisches Verbum und seine Ableitungen,” TZ 35 (1979): 7-8.
376
Luis Diez Merino has written a thorough article that explains how the
intertestamental literature develops the watchers’ personalities: from “ill spirits,” through
“the giants” who married with the daughters of men, up to the “archangels.” L. D.
Merino, “Los ‘vigilantes’ en la literatura intertestamentaria,” in Simposio Bíblico
Español, Salamanca, ed. N. Fernandez-Marcos (Madrid: Universidad Complutense,
1984), 575-609. On the watchers in Jewish literature and Qumran, see also R. H. Charles,
The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912); John Joseph Collins, “The Apocalyptic
Technique: Setting and Function in the Book of Watchers,” CBQ 44 (1982): 91-111; John
140
watchers are more fully described in the pseudepigraphic book of Enoch (second century
B.C.), where they are identified (21:10) specifically with the angels, and again (1:5; 10:9,
15; 12:2, 4; 13:10; 14:1, 3) more generally with those denizens of heaven who were
expelled for their waywardness and rebellion (cf. Gen 6:1-8).377 The watchers, however,
never have this late dual meaning in the book of Daniel, where they might represent
merely holy angels. Collins does not deny that the function of the watchers overlaps with
that of the Kalm insofar as they can convey a divine message to earth, but they apparently
were conceived as a distinct class of angelic being.378
A. Barnes draws attention to an ancient Persian belief that is found in the Bun-
Dehesh, a commentary on the Zend-Avesta, which shows clearly the name and object of
the watchers in the ancient system of Zoroaster. 379
Joseph Collins, “Watcher ‫עיר‬,” DDD (1999), 893-94; Maxwell J. Davidson, Angels at
Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1–36, 72–108 and Sectarian Writings from
Qumran, JSP Sup 11 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 72-108; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The
Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I: A Commentary (Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1971), 80-81; J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave
Four (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976); G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the
Book of 1 Enoch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001); G. W. E. Nickelsburg,
Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Literary and Historical
Introduction, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 46-52; Michael E. Stone, “The
Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century B.C.E.,” CBQ 40 (1978): 479-92;
Kevin Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship Between Angels and
Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament, AGJU 55 (Leiden: Brill,
2004), 200-13; James VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition,
CBQMS 16 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984), 123-28.
377
The latter identification occurs also in the book of Jubilees (4:15, 22; 7:21;
8:3), in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (T. Reu. 5:6; T. Naph. 3:5), in the so-
called Zadokite Document (A ii, 17-19), and in the Genesis Apocryphon discovered
among the Dead Sea Scrolls (II. 1). T. H. Gaster, “Watcher,” IDB (1962), 4:805-06.
378
379
“Ormuzd has set four ‘watchers’ in the four parts of the heavens, to keep their
141
If, according to Dan 4:14, the NyîryIo constitute a deliberative council forming a
resolution regarding the fate of men, and then one of these NyîryIo comes down and makes
known the resolution to the king, then one can regard the ryIo as an angel of God who
belonged to the My∞IvOdVq_dwøs “council of the holy ones” around the throne of God (Ps
89:8).380 Indeed, it is highly likely that the Aramaic word ryIo seems to have developed
along these lines: awake→wakeful →vigilant→ watcher→angel.381 Thus the angel
designates to the Babylonian king the divine resolution regarding the judgment or
“resolution of the watchers,” that would fall upon him from God to humble him for his
eye upon the host of the stars. They are bound to keep watch over the hosts of the
celestial stars. One stands here as the watcher of his circle; the other there. He has placed
them at such and such posts, as watchers over such and such a circle of the heavenly
regions; and this by his own power and might. Tashter guards the east, Statevis watches
the west, Venant the south, and Haftorang the north.” Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on
the Old Testament, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1950), 252.
380
Keil draws attention to a Babylonian tradition that might be associated with the
Babylonian doctrine of gods, which could shed light on the use of watchers in Dan 4.
“Regarding the Babylonian gods Diod. Sic. ii. 30, says: ‘Under the five planets (= gods)
are ranked thirty others whom they call the counselling gods (θεοὶ βούλαιοι), the half of
whom have the oversight of the regions under the earth, and the other half oversee that
which goes on on the earth, and among men, and in heaven. Every ten days one of these
is sent as a messenger of the stars from the upper to the lower, and at the same time also
one from the lower to the upper regions.’” Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on
the Book of Daniel, 149-50.
381
Di Lella says that it is probable that behind this development are ideas found in
Ps 121:4 and Gen 3. In Gen 3:24, the cherubim, My#IbürV;kAh, are the divinely appointed
angelic beings who are “to watch (or guard) the way to the tree of life,” MyÌ¥yAjÀh X¶Eo JK®rä®;d_tRa
r›OmVvIl, so that the man and woman can no longer enter the Garden of Eden. In our poem
(Dan 4:7-14), “a watcher,” ryIo (10c), descends from the heavens to declare God’s
judgment on the tree, i.e., Nebuchadnezzar; and in the final stanza, the divine command
is carried out “by the decree of the watchers,” NyîryIo (14a). Di Lella, “Daniel 4:7–14:
Poetic Analysis and Biblical Background,” 256-57.
142
pride.382
Significantly, the commands of the holy watcher are not issued to
Nebuchadnezzar, for the imperative forms are all plural: “You [plural] cut down . . . chop
off . . . strip off . . . scatter” (v. 13). The reader is probably to understand these
imperatives to be directed at the divine council, all the celestial beings at the beck and
call of God.383 Furthermore, Seow affirms that the use of pural forms in Dan 4:13 recalls
the Tower of Babel story: “Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there” (Gen
11:7, emphasis his).384 Unlike Gen 11, this time in Dan 4 God himself will not come
down (Gen 11:5), but will send his holy watcher (angel) down to carry out his command
(4:13).385 But the ultimate agent of the action is God himself, who delegates his authority
to his watchers in order to carry out his decision.386
Once again, the dream speaks the language of the king. Nebuchadnezzar
understands the presence of the celestial beings as meaning that the great God of heaven
is determining his destiny. The dream, however, portrays the beings according to biblical
tradition, presenting them as “holy ones,” a term applied to angels in many biblical texts
382
383
Seow, Daniel, 68.
384
Ibid.
385
386
Bryan Estelle, “The Use of Deferential Language in the Arsames
Correspondence and Biblical Aramaic Compared,” Maarav 13 (2006): 52; Lowell K.
Handy, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 152-59.
143
(Job 5:1; 15:15; Ps 89:7, 8; Zech 14:5).387
Consequently, the Aramaic word ryIo that Dan 4 employs is one consciously
chosen to represent the thought of King Nebuchadnezzar, which was common both to
Babylon and Persia.388 At the same time, by using similar language of the divine council
and the Holy One who came down from heaven, Daniel is actually alluding to Gen 11. As
shown above, when the inhabitants of the land of Shinar decided to build “a city, with a
tower that reaches to the heavens” (Mˆy$AmDÚvAb wâøvaør◊w l∂;d◊gIm…w ryIo, Gen 11:4), God came down
and confused their language. Similarly, when Nebuchadnezzar surveyed the great and
magnificent city from the top of his palace, “pride overcame him” and he attributed the
building of this great city as the house of his kingdom to the might of his power and the
honor of his majesty.389 Unfortunately, God sees pride and confusion in Babylon repeated
(4:14; Gen 11:5–7), for it had begun to seek its own autonomy again, forgetting the one
who gave it sovereignty (2:28–30).390 The biblical text says that at that very moment
God’s sentence fell upon the king.
The allusion to the Tower of Babel here in Dan 4, specifically the use of the motif
of a holy one coming down from heaven, underscores the condemnatory message of the
387
65.
388
Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 103.
389
144
watchers, which is reminiscent of God’s descent in the narrative of the Tower of Babel.
In Gen 11, God came down to see and judge the builders of the Tower of Babel.
Similarly, here in Dan 4 a watcher, a holy one, comes down to do the same (4:13, 21).
The Cut Down/Scattering Motif
Acccording to several commentators, the cut down/scattering motif is another
strong thematic link between Dan 4 and Gen 11. Thus Edlin has written that Dan 4
“evokes images of the tower of Babel in Gen 11. Both stories speak about the issue of
arrogant grasping at divinity as well as a judgment of scattering.”391 In addition, Fewell
states, “The scattering of the peoples and the multiple languages that result from the
building of the tower are reproduced in the dream when the fruit, the beasts, and the birds
are scattered after the fall of the tree. The scattered ones in Nebuchadnezzar’s world are
the subjugated peoples, the peoples of many nations and languages to whom he addresses
his correspondence.”392
Scholars agree that the metaphor of blooming and chopped trees symbolizing the
rise, hubris, and subsequent fall of foreign rulers occurs a number of times in the Hebrew
Bible, yet the use of a tree to signify royalty and royal might, endurance, and protection is
not unique to the Hebrew Bible.393
390
391
Edlin, Daniel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, 110. Emphasis mine.
392
393
Sulzbach, “Nebuchadnezzar in Eden? Daniel 4 and Ezekiel 28,” 126. On the
image of cosmic tree in the Bible and in ancient Near Eastern literature, see also P. von
Gemünden, “L’arbre et son fruit. Analyse d’un corpus d’images comme ‘méthode
exégétique',” ETR 69 (1994): 315-27; Carol L. Meyers, The Tabernacle Menorah: A
145
According to S. Parpola, in ANE literature and iconography the “cosmic tree”
symbolized the divine world order, then the king himself represented the realization of
that order in man, in other words, a true image of God, the Perfect Man.394 Thus, the tree
symbolism was not strange to Nebuchadnezzar, who in an inscription praises the cedars
of Lebanon and compares Babylon to a great tree sheltering the nations of the world.395
Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the Biblical Cult, ed. D. N. Freedman, ASORDS 2
(Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974), 143-54; Kirsten Nielsen, There Is Hope for a
Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah, JSOTSup 65 (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press,
1989), 71-85; T. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolism of the Eden
Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature, CBET 25 (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000), 87-
92; G. Widengren, The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion
(Uppsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1951), 42-58.
394
Simo Parpola, “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish
Monotheism and Greek Philosophy,” JNES 52 (1993): 167-68. Parpola also remarks that
in a Neo-Assyrian letter written by a prominent court scholar, the king is clearly
portrayed as a flourishing tree offering shelter to his subjects. This letter resembles Dan
4:20. Simo Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and
Assurbanipal, AOAT 5/2 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1983), 108.
395
Herodotus tells of the case of Astyages, Nebuchadnezzar’s brother-in-law, who
had also dreamed of a tree symbolizing his dominion. Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel:
Wisdom and Dreams of a Jewish Prince in Exile, 63. The prophet Ezekiel compares the
king of Assyria with a cedar of Lebanon (Ezek 31:2-9). D. Block says that Ezekiel’s
description of Assyria as a cedar in Lebanon is remarkable, especially since ancient
reliefs usually associate Assyrian kings with the date palm. But the cedar was a well-
known ancient Near Eastern symbol of majesty. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters
25-48, 185. Cf. Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, WBC 29 (Dallas: Word, 2002), 124-25;
Horace D. Hummel, Ezekiel 21-48, ConC (St. Louis: Concordia, 2007), 918-21; Millard
Lind, Ezekiel, BChBC (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1996), 250-51; John B. Taylor,
Ezekiel: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC 22 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1969), 200-01. Horace Hummel adds that Ezek 31 is not the only appearance in the
Bible. Yahweh Himself has worked around the edges of the picture in Ezek 17. In Dan 4,
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, portending his punishment, plainly is based on the same
metaphor. And even our Lord’s parable of the mustard seed, related by all three synoptic
evangelists, concludes with the image (Matt 13:31-32; Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18-19).
Hummel, Ezekiel 21-48, 920. Recently, M. Segal has drawn attention to the usage of the
tree metaphor in Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20), column 13, which he thinks is dependent
on Dan 4:
] NaygC NaypØw«o ØyØwØz«b NaygC NoCw hmwrb rbg atyz a«h Øw«raw atyz hzjml tynpt«aØw 13
146
Here in Dan 4 the tree stands for Nebuchadnezzar: “The tree you saw, which grew large
and strong, with its top touching the sky, visible to the whole earth, with beautiful leaves
and abundant fruit, providing food for all, giving shelter to the wild animals, and having
nesting places in its branches for the birds— Your Majesty, you are that tree!” (vv. 20-
22). Nevertheless, a crashing descent from above, like the ancient story of Babel (Gen
11:4, 5) suddenly halts the growth of the tree.396 The prophet says that the tree is
punished by being chopped down to its stump: “Your Majesty saw a holy one, a
messenger, coming down from heaven and saying, Cut down the tree and destroy it, but
leave the stump. . . . Let him be drenched with the dew of heaven; let him live with the
wild animals, until seven times pass by for him” (v. 23). In other words, King
Nebuchadnezzar loses sovereignty over his kingdom, and he is deprived of the use of
reason for seven years and lives like a beast in the grass of the earth.397
] »y|h»wlo tØyØgC«m âh^ wraw Nd atyzb tywh Nnwbtm .Nhb hzjtmw «r [ ] b « b«r«b [ ] Øn«a 14
]t « hmt adjl ygC yhwl«oØw ØN«d «atyØz l«o «hm«t tywhw .hb N«rCq ØN«aØy [ ]w 15
] Nymdql .hl NrbtØyw hl N«pnomw Nd atyzb al|b|jw Pwqtb NbCn aymC yjw«r [obra] 16
]h
| rtbw ayjwrl htrdbØw «h«b»n|a »N|m»w »y|h»wl«o Nm trtaw htfbjw brom [ ] 17
“(13) I turned to observe the olive tree, and behold, the olive tree grew in its height. And
for many hours in the glory of the great foliage . . . (14) and appeared amongst them. I
was examining this olive tree, and behold, the majority of its leaves . . . (15) they were
casting and tying with it. And I marveled at this olive tree and its leaves. I marveled
greatly . . . (16) the [four] winds of heaven blowing strongly and violently against this
olive tree, removing its branches and smashing it. First (came) (17) the West [wind] and
struck it and stripped off some of its leaves and its fruit and cast them in all directions.
After it [came the Nor]th wind.” Michael Segal, “Qumran Evidence for a Semitic
Vorlage of LXX Daniel 4” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the SBL, Atlanta,
November 21, 2010).
396
64.
397
Di Lella, “Daniel 4:7–14: Poetic Analysis and Biblical Background,” 258.
147
In both stories (Gen 11 and Dan 4) “pride led to rebellion, even an assault on
heaven itself. Human beings presumed to be godlike. . . . God, however, intervened,
reducing the arrogant to humility and scattering them over the face of the earth.”398 When
King Nebuchadnezzar was raising himself up to an almost quasi-divine status,399 then the
God of heaven judged the arrogant king and scattered him to live like an animal for seven
years.
The Great Babel
Nebuchadnezzar declared himself and his city as supreme upon the earth, having
received nothing from anyone and owing nothing to anyone.400 Thus “the king said: Is
not this401 the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and
398
Longman III, Daniel, 127. Emphasis mine.
399
Shea, Daniel 1-7: Prophecy as History, 78.
400
Gregory, “Its End Is Destruction: Babylon the Great in the Book of
Revelation,” 148.
401
The phrase “Is not this” translates the Aramaic aDlSh, which occurs three times in
the book of Daniel (Dan 3:24; 4:27; 6:13). According to Montgomery, a¶DlSh in Dan 4:27 is
an asseverative particle, equivalent to the Hebrew aølSh. Montgomery, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 244. Similarly, E. Vogt corroborates that
a¶DlSh has affirmative meaning in Dan 4:27, which parallels the meaning of its Hebrew
cognate aølSh in 2 Kgs 15:36. E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae Aramaicae Veteris Testamenti
documentis antiquis illustratum (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1971), 46. So
J. Moffatt’s translation: “The king was saying, ‘There lies Babylon the great, which I
have built for a royal residence by my vast power and to my noble majesty!” James
Moffatt, A New Translation of the Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments (New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1954), 967. B. A. Masti argues that there are strong grounds
for holding that a¶DlSh may be used with asseverative force both at Tg. Isa. ν 20, x 32, xxvii
4, xli 7, xlii 19, lxvi 2, in material B. Sanhedrin 95a, as well as in Dan 4:27.B. A. Mastin,
“The Meaning of Hala’ at Daniel IV 27,” VT 42 (1992): 234-47.
148
for the glory of my majesty?” (Dan 4:30, ET).
An examination of the boastful words that Nebuchadnezzar uses to note his
accomplishments hints that he places himself close to God in importance. Such words as
“mighty power” and “glorious majesty” (4:30 [4:27 MT]) are commonly used to refer to
God’s sovereignty over the universe.402 Nebuchadnezzar’s rhetorical question to himself
demonstrates his self-centered hubris.403
Scholars have seen the connection between Nebuchadnezzar’s arrogant words and
Gen 11. According to Carpenter, the connection of these words with the Tower of Babel
in Gen 11 is palpable. The people built a city to magnify their name (Gen 11:4). Here the
King Nebuchadnezzar locates the power of rulership granted by heaven in himself,
disavowing that “heaven rules” (4:26 [23]).404 Similarly, Fewell states, “Like the city
builders in Gen 11 (who, incidentally, built in the same geographical location),
Nebuchadnezzar has built his city Babylon (= Babel) for his own glory, in other words, to
make a name for himself. The allusion to the tower of Babel underscores the
condemnatory message of the dream. The height of the tree is reminiscent of the great
tower. The tree, like the tower, reaches the heavens.”405
The Aramaic phrase a¡DtV;bår l∞RbD;b is found just in Dan 4:27; however, the adjective
402
Pace, Daniel, 140.
403
Steinmann, Daniel, 250. Cf. Gonzalo Aranda, Daniel, Comentarios a la nueva
Biblia de Jerusalem (Bilbao, Spain: Desclee de Brouwer, 2006), 82.
404
405
Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in Daniel 1-6, 100-01.
149
bår (bbr) occurs twenty times in the Aramaic section of Daniel.406 According to HALOT,
bår is attested in all Semitic languages. The range of meaning of bår falls into two main
categories:
1. Great (Dan 2: 31, 35: 3:31; 7:3,7,17); a¡DtV;bår l∞RbD;b (4:27); b$år M∞RjVl a great, splendid
banquet (5:1); a`D;bår a¶D;mÅyVl (7:2); bâår ‹JKRl‹Rm (2:10); ‹bår ;h¶DlTa (2:45); a$DtDb√rVbår a∞D¥yA;lIm ‹l∂q (7:11);
N`Db√rVbår l¶I;lAmVm M™Up…w a mouth speaking greatness, speaking boastfully (7:8, 20). 2. With
genitive pl., to designate the holder of an office, chief of . . . , supervisor of . . . :
a™D¥yAjD;bAf_bår (2: 14), ~aD¥yAmUf√rAj bâår (4:6; 5:11), ‹NDayˆ…gAc N§Db√rVbår (2:48).407
The boastful title “Babylon the great” is used as a negative symbol in Rev 14:8;
16:19; 18:2,408 and in the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar it corresponds to the self-praise of
his great might by which he had built Babylon as the residence of a great king.409
There is agreement among scholars that in Dan 4:30 is found a historical portrayal
of King Nebuchadnezzar. Not only was Babylon one of the largest and most magnificent
cities in the ancient world, it was to Nebuchadnezzar in particular that it owed most of its
splendor, and several of his cuneiform inscriptions are preserved in which he boasts of
the great buildings that he erected there.410 Wiseman says that Nebuchadnezzar’s
406
Dan 2:10, 14, 31, 35, 45, 48; 3:33; 4:6, 27; 5:1,11; 7:2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 17, 20.
407
Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm, HALOT, s.v. “bår.”
408
Aune, Revelation 6-16, 831; Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on
the Greek Text, 753-55; Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 230; J.
Massyngberde Ford, Revelation: Introduction, Translation and Commentary, AB 38
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 237; R. H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation,
NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 271; Jürgen Roloff, The Revelation of John,
CC (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 175; Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus
Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews
University Press, 2002), 446-47.
409
410
Dieter Bauer, Das Buch Daniel, NSK-AT 22 (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches
150
inscriptions, perhaps because the majority of those that survived are of the category of so-
called “building inscriptions,” lay the emphasis on the rebuilding work he undertook at
Babylon and in twelve cities at various locations in Babylonia.411 In one of his
inscriptions, Nebuchadnezzar describes his finished palace as “a palace as the seat of my
royal authority, a building for the admiration of my people, a place of union for the
land.”412 In addition to a new royal palace on the Euphrates in the northern district,
Nebuchadnezzar focused on cult-centers. He continued the work of his father and
completely restored the temple tower (ziggurat) named Etemenanki (“The building that is
the Foundation of Heaven and Earth”)413 and the temple of Esagila (Marduk’s shrine)
adjacent to it, along with its subsidiary chapels. Well might Nebuchadnezzar take pride in
his construction of Babylon (Dan 4:30 [MT 4:27]), though such pride was his ultimate
Bibelwerk, 1996), 114-15; Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 178.
411
Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 42. The Wadi Brisa inscription shows
the arrogant builder and suppliant Nebuchadnezzar: “What no former king had done (I
achieved): I cut through steep mountains, I split rocks, opened passages and (thus) I
constructed a straight road for the (transport of the) cedars, made the Arahtu flo[at]
(down) and carry to Marduk, my king, mighty cedars, high and strong, of precious beauty
and of excellent dark quality, the abundant yield of the Lebanon, as (if they be) reed
stalks (carried by) the river. . . . O Marduk, my lord, do remember my deeds favorably as
good [deeds], may (these) my good deeds be always before your mind (so that) my
walking in Esagila and Ezida—which I love—may last to old age. May I (remain) always
your legitimate governor (šakanakku), may I pull your yoke till (I am) sated with
progeny, may my name be remembered in future (days) in a god sense, may my offspring
rule forever over the black-headed. “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,”
translated by A. Leo Oppenheim (ANET, 307).
412
Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 55. The name of Nebuchadnezzar is
stamped on so many thousands of bricks used to construct buildings during his lifetime
that no one has attempted to count them all. C. Mervyn Maxwell, The Message of Daniel:
God Cares (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1981), 29.
413
According to W. Kaiser, “It is estimated that some 58,000,000 bricks were used
in the construction of this ziggurat.” Walter C. Kaiser, A History of Israel: From the
151
undoing.414 A cuneiform tablet of Nebuchadnezzar’s time lists 53 temples dedicated to
important gods, 955 small sanctuaries, and 384 street altars—all of them within the city
confines. One can well understand why the Babylonians were proud of their city, and
would claim that “Babylon is the origin and center of all lands.”415
It is well known that in his Babyloniaca of 278 B.C.E., Berossus promoted
Nebuchadnezzar’s fame and reputation as a builder. Indeed, all evidence indicates that
the figure of Nebuchadnezzar was unknown to the larger Greek world prior to Berossus’s
Babyloniaca, which contained the first translations of native Babylonian historical
materials.416 Thus Josephus quoted Berossus on several building projects constructed by
King Nebuchadnezzar, which affirms the biblical depiction of the Babylonian king.417
Bronze Age Through the Jewish Wars (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 415.
414
Bill T. Arnold, “What Has Nebuchadnezzar to Do with David? On the New-
Babylonian Period and Early Israel,” in Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative
Explorations, ed. Mark W. Chavalas and K Lawson Younger, Jr. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 2002), 340-41.
415
Their pride is reflected in Nebuchadnezzar’s famous words quoted in the
comment on Dan 4:30, and also in an ancient song of praise (as given by E. Ebeling,
Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts, Part I [Leipzig, 1915], No. 8): “O Babylon,
whosoever beholds thee is filled with rejoicing, Whosoever dwells in Babylon increases
his life, Whosoever speaks evil of Babylon is like one who kills his own mother. Babylon
is like a sweet date palm, whose fruit is lovely to behold.” Francis Nichol, ed., The
Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald,
1977), 797.
416
R. E. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic
Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch (London: T. & T. Clark, 2006), 257.
417
In his book Against Apiom, Josephus says: “(139) . . . he [Nebuchadnezzar]
adorned the temple of Belus, and the other temples, after an elegant manner out of the
spoils he had taken in this war. He also rebuilt the old city, and added another to it on the
outside, and so far restored Babylon, that none who should besiege it afterwards might
have it in their power to divert the river, so as to facilitate an entrance into it; and this he
did by building three walls about the inner city, and three about the outer. Some of these
walls he built of burnt brick and bitumen, and some of brick only. (140) So when he had
152
It seems clear that in Dan 4:27, Nebuchadnezzar describes himself as the creator
of his kingdom and of its glory. The verb Peal perfect 1cs hAt◊yÅnTb designates, as does its
Hebrew cognate hnb more frequently, not the building or founding of a city, for the
founding of Babylon took place in the earliest times after the Flood (Gen 11); rather hnb
means the building up, the enlargement, the adorning of the city …w$kVlAm ty∞EbVl, for the house
of the kingdom, that is, for a royal residence.418 Significantly, by using the same verbal
root (hnb), Dan 4 is once again linked to the narrative of Gen 11, for in both accounts is
found the common motif of building for the sake of making a name. Like
Nebuchadnezzar, the builders of the Tower of Babel wanted it to “reach to the heavens.”
Like the Babylonian king, they sought to “make a name for ourselves” (Gen 11:4). And
likewise, a voice from heaven interrupts their work (vv. 5-7), distorting their language
into one incomprehensible bellow (v. 9).419
Thus Dan 4 shows that a pride that is not satisfied with being “a little lower than
God” (Ps 8), one that reaches for the heavens, so blurring the human-divine distinction,
results in a humbling to earth and a blurring of the human-animal distinction.420
thus fortified the city with walls, after an excellent manner, and had adorned the gates
magnificently, he added a new palace to that which his father had dwelt in, and this close
by it also, and that more eminent in its height, and in its great splendor. . . . (141) Now in
this palace he erected very high walks, supported by stone pillars, and by planting what
was called a pensile Paradise, and replenishing it with all sorts of trees, he rendered the
prospect of an exact resemblance of a mountainous country. This he did to please his
queen, because she had been brought up in Media, and was fond of a mountainous
situation.” Josephus, AgAp, 1. 39-41.
418
Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 158-59.
419
69.
420
Lucas, Daniel, 116.
153
The close correspondence between Nebuchadnezzar’s pride and his punishment
is made through deliberate “linguistic bridging” as shown in the MT’s use of dwøo “still”
(4:28) and a#DtSoAv_;hA;b “immediately” (4:30). His proud boasts are “still on his lips” when
the voice from heaven pronounces the words of judgment (v. 31).421 The king who
thought himself capable of becoming a superman is reduced to the status of an animal.422
Nebuchadnezzar’s pride brought him in danger of losing his human status. As he refused
to realize God’s authority over human rulership but instead engaged in self-idolization,
the proclaimed punishment is carried out and he is forced to undergo a bestial
transformation.423 The decree was issued and its execution ordered, not so much for the
chastisement of Nebuchadnezzar, but that in the fate of him, the type of human pride and
glory, all living may learn that the Most High is potentate, in the kingdom of man—one
of the immortal sentences of the Hebrew Scriptures!424 The allusions in this story to the
421
Byron Burkholder, “Literary Patterns and God’s Sovereignty in Daniel 4,”
Direction 16 (1987): 52-53.
422
Lacocque points out that the account of the Garden of Eden (Gen 2) is re-used
in Dan 4. Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 80. In 1975, A. Grayson published a clay tablet,
which is in the British Museum (B.M. 34, sp. 213) that may refer to Nebuchadnezzar’s
madness. Unfortunately, it is merely a fragment, and the surviving text is not as clear as
we would like it to be. But the lines that may refer to the king’s illness are exciting
nevertheless: “[Nebu]chadnezzar. . . . His life appeared of no value to [him, . . .]. . . . He
does not show love to son and daughter [. . .] . . . family and clan do not exist [. . .].” A.
K. Grayson, Babylonian Historical-literary Texts (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1975), 87-92; Siegfried H. Horn, “New Light on Nebuchadnezzar’s Madness,” Ministry,
April 1978, 40.
423
424
236. This theological statement is the central theme of the book of Daniel (1:17, 20; 2:21;
3:28(95)-29(96); 4:31-34; 5:26-28; 6:27-28; 7:11-12, 14, 18, 22, 25-27; 8:20-25; 9:27;
11:36-45) and is repeated elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g., 1 Sam 2:6-9, Ezek 17:24;
154
Tower of Babel remind one of the fundamental nature of the sin of pride: “It can cut at
the root of what it means to be truly human, to live in proper creature-Creator relationship
with God.”425 The biblical postulate that affirms that humans were created—therefore,
they will never be God—constantly escapes the human’s awareness, leading to
temptation and fall (Gen 3:5, 22-24).426 From Babel (Gen 11) to the days of
Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4), this “absent-mindedness” has generated the most senseless
ambitions and the resulting confusions.427
Beyond any doubt, the motif of God who humbles the arrogant and exalts the
humble is one of the main themes in Dan 4. Through this motif, the readers of the book of
Daniel come to acknowledge that God still reigns over human beings, even in a
seemingly contradictory situation.428 The hubris of Nebuchadnezzar, who thinks that he
Ps 113:4-8; Job 5:11-13) and New Testament (e.g., Luke 1:52; 1 Cor 1:26-29). Di Lella,
“Daniel 4:7–14: Poetic Analysis and Biblical Background,” 258.
425
Lucas, Daniel, 116.
426
Jacques Doukhan, “All in All: Hebrew Conception of the Human Person,” SS
43 (1996): 18-19.
427
Ibid., 19.
428
John Goldingay, “Daniel in the Context of Old Testament Theology,” in The
Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (Leiden:
Brill, 2001), 644. Significantly, Satran has shown that the narrative of Nebuchadnezzar’s
prideful boast and subsequent reduction to a bestial exile (Dan 4:25-30) held a very real
fascination for rabbinic interpretation. “Thus rabbinic literature in its discussion of
Nebuchadnezzar used to link Isa 14 with Dan 4: And you also find it so in the case of
Nebuchadnezzar—in the manner that he exalted himself, He punished him, as it is said,
‘And you said in your heart: I will ascend to heaven. . . . I will ascend above the heights
of the clouds,’ etc. (Isa 14:13-14). What is written after this? ‘But you are brought down
to Sheol’ (Isa 14:15).” David Satran, “Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation of the
Fourth Chapter of the Book of Daniel” (PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
1985), 98-99. For further discussion on rabbinic interpretation of Dan 4, see also Matthias
Henze, The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and
Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 101-41.
155
can “play God,” is the major theme that runs through Dan 4: The king’s arrogance before
God is symbolized by the king’s vision and Daniel’s interpretation of a cosmic tree
whose height reaches to the heaven and whose extent touches the clouds (Dan 4:8,19
[MT]; 4:9-10,19 [OG]).429
What the author of Dan 4 has succeeded in doing is to weld together the well-
known myth of the cosmic tree, a fitting symbol of the pride and power of the Babylonian
monarch, and the picture of a shaggy beast-like creature, itself a symbol of humiliation
and despair.430 Nebuchadnezzar is an example—a warning of how not to be led astray by
power and achievement, a model of how to respond to chastisement and humiliation.
Even more, he is a promise that earthly authorities are in the hand of God, not merely for
their judgment, but for his glory.431 The gentile kingship, as represented in the figure of
Nebuchadnezzar, is depicted as an institution willed by God and so good in that sense.
But kings who do not recognize that their power comes from God are corrupted by
arrogance and subject to judgment.432
The builders of the Tower of Babel and Nebuchadnezzar are infamous Old
Testament examples of “pride goes before a fall.” In all cases God judged these humans
429
Chung Hyeon Cho, “Humiliation and Exaltation: Intertextuality and the
Influence of Daniel 4 on Philippians 2:6-11” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 2008), 148-49.
430
Coxon, “The Great Tree of Daniel 4,” 100.
431
432
Carol A. Newsom, “Daniel,” ThBC (Lousville, KY: Westminster John Knox,
2009), 259.
156
and their divinelike claims at the peak of their splendor.433 As king of Babylon,
Nebuchadnezzar shared in the hubris of the people of Babel when their motivation in
building the tower was to “make a name for themselves” (Gen 11:4).434 In both narratives
the human enterprise is interrupted by the voice of a Holy One who came down from
heaven (Gen 11:5; Dan 4:23, 31). Thus both narratives (Dan 4 and Gen 11:1-9) share a
manifested in His humbling actions. As in the case of the builders of Babel,
Nebuchadnezzar’s pride in his achievement is doubtless intended to imply the arrogance
that calls for judgment. Just as he reached the pinnacle of worldly success, the blow
fell.435 The description of the tree reaching to the heavens (Dan 4:11) reminds us once
again of the attempt of the builders of the Tower of Babel to construct an edifice whose
top would enter the heavens (Gen 11:4). Such acts of arrogance inevitably end in disaster.
In this case, the image itself suggests the appropriate metaphor for its downfall: The
divine lumberjack will bring the mighty tree crashing to the ground, removing it from its
place of influence and glory.436
Despite the overwhelming attraction that the city of Babylon displayed in the days
of King Nebuchadnezzar, other nations and the biblical writers still saw the city as a
433
434
Ferguson, Daniel, 64.
435
Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, 72.
157
wicked metropolis, which pointed back to the ancient Babel of Gen 11.437 Thus the use of
the title the “great Babylon” by King Nebuchadnezzar is “an expression of the king’s
self-glorification, for which he is to be judged,”438 just as the ancient Babel (Gen 11) was
judged.
The Motif of Confusion
Nebuchadnezzar’s transformation into an animal and subsequent separation from
the human community display another similar thematic link with Gen 11, namely, the
motif of confusion. According to the biblical text, Nebuchadnezzar’s prideful boast is met
by “a voice from heaven” that interrupts the king’s speech and dramatically underscores
God’s judgment upon him.439 Significantly, both the Babylonian king and the Babelites
sought to “make a name for ourselves” (Gen 11:4; Dan 4:30). Furthermore, in both
narratives “a voice from heaven” interrupted their work (Gen 11; 5-7; Dan 4:31),
distorting their language into one incomprehensible bellow (Gen 11:9; Dan 4:32).440
Nebuchadnezzar’s reduction to a bestial exile is vividly described in the biblical
narrative. The text reads: “Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was
fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like the ox. His body was
drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his
436
Duguid, Daniel, 67.
437
Klaus Koch, Daniel, BKAT 22/6 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag,
2005), 431.
438
Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 754.
439
Pace, Daniel, 140.
440
158
nails like the claws of a bird” (v. 33).
After God’s judgment befell upon both the Babelites and the Babylonian king,
“not understand each other,” in other words, both Nebuchadnezzar and the tower’s
builders were confused. Consequently, communication among the arrogant Babelites was
halted and they were scattered; likewise as a result of his overweening pride the
Babylonian king is cast out from human society, exposed to the elements, and ultimately
forced to lead a bestial existence.441 By now the powerful Babylonian king is confused,
he is not able to speak the language of humans any more, now he thinks and acts as an
animal. As Henze states, “Humanization becomes animalization.”442 In other words, “a
man who thinks he is like a god must become a beast to learn that he is only a human
69.
441
Satran, “Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation of the Fourth Chapter of the
Book of Daniel,” 46.
442
Henze, The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern
Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4, 99. Many scholars have noted
the parallels between Nebuchadnezzar’s symptoms and the widespread “wild man motif”
in ANE literature. See Peter W. Coxon, “Another Look at Nebuchadnezzar’s Madness,”
in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude (Leuven-
Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993), 211-22; G. Dossin, Enkidou dans
l’«Epopée de Gilgames», Bulletin de la classe des lettres et des sciences morales et
politiques, 5e Série, Tome XLII (Brussels: Palais des Académies, 1956), 583; Paul
Ferguson, “Nebuchadnezzar, Gilgamesh, and the ‘Babylonian Job’,” JETS 37 (1994):
321-31; Thorkild Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian
Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976), 195-219; Samuel Noah Kramer,
“The Epic of Gilgamesh and Its Sumerian Sources. A Study in Literary Evolution,” JAOS
64 (1944): 7-23; G. Mobley, “The Wild Man in the Bible and the Ancient Near East,”
JBL 116 (1997): 217-33; William L. Moran, “Ovid’s Blanda Voluptas and the
Humanization of Enkidu,” JNES 50 (1991): 121-27; A. Shaffer, “The Sumerian Sources
of Tablet XII of the Epic of Gilgamesh” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1964),
22-23; Jeffrey H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), 192-213.
159
being.”443 Therefore, the story of the fulfillment of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream brings to
mind the story of the Tower of Babel. On the terraces of his palace, Nebuchadnezzar,
king of the world, believes he realizes the dream of the first builders of Babel. His power
reaches the heavens. Immediately, the threat is accomplished against his pride. Even
though the languages are not confused, as occurred at the time of the Tower of Babel, the
king loses his reason.444 Thus by using common concepts and themes as the motif of
reaching to the heavens, the building motif, the motif of a Holy One coming down from
heaven, the judgment motif and the motif of confusion, the story of Dan 4 alludes to Gen
11.
Both the builders at Babel and King Nebuchadnezzar could have thought
themselves sovereign of the world, but they were not even sovereign of their own stories.
As shown above, Nebuchadnezzar’s own boasting is interrupted by a voice from heaven,
undertood to be that of God.445 Immediately, the king’s boastful speech brought disaster
and confusion upon himself, reminiscent of that at Babel (Gen 11:7, 9). After the king
recognized that the only sovereign is the Most High, then he regained his reason. On the
other hand, the devastating judgment rendered at Babel is still with us.446
443
444
445
Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary, 114.
446
W. Sibley Towner, Genesis, WBC (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2001), 112-13.
160
Allusions to Genesis 11:1-9 in Daniel 5
Introduction
The account of Belshazzar’s feast, his foolish decree that he and his guests drink
out of the vessels Nebuchadnezzar had taken from Yahweh’s temple, the mysterious and
frightening hand that writes a message on the wall, and Daniel’s divinely revealed,
clever, and artful interpretation of the message, is one of the most dramatic narratives in
all of Scripture.447
Daniel 5 presents a new episode in the book of Daniel. The time of the event is
539 B.C., twenty years or more after the event described in chapter 4. The Babylonian
Empire has run its course, and Daniel describes the last, eventful evening before Cyrus
the Persian attacks.448 Thus Dan 5 is the only place in the entire Bible where the fall of
Babylon is presented from a historical perspective.449
Scholars have suggested that in many ways the story world of Dan 5 is similar to
that of Dan 2 and 4. The cast of characters is almost identical: There is a king, a group of
incapable sages, and a successful sage.450 Other familiar elements include a king who is
447
Steinmann, Daniel, 257. For reasons unclear, Daniel says nothing of the period
between the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and that of Belshazzar. Eugene H. Merrill,
Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008),
497.
448
Bert Harold Hall, “The Book of Daniel,” The Wesleyan Bible Commentary
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969), 526.
449
This chapter is also important from the point of view of biblical prophecy,
because the interpretation of the first part, the dream in chap. 2, finds its fulfillment and
confirmation in the historical event of the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Stefanovic,
Daniel: Wisdom for the Wise: Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 177.
450
Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in Daniel 1-6, 113. According
to Niditch and Doran, Dan 5 follows a common plot pattern also found in other ANE
161
distressed about his problem. Thus in Dan 5 as well as in Dan 2, a mediator brings Daniel
to the king’s attention. In both of these cases, Daniel is introduced as if he were being
presented to the king for the first time.451 The episode of Belshazzar and the handwriting
on the wall shares the central position of the chiastic structure from chaps. 2-7 with the
previous life-story and conversion of Nebuchadnezzar. While the issue of human pride
and resistance to Adonai dominates both plots, the outcomes of these two stories differ
drastically.452 Chapters 4-5 provide contrasting examples of royal hubris. In Dan 4
Nebuchadnezzar comes to recognize that “the Most High rules over human kingship” and
is restored to his throne. Belshazzar has learnt nothing from this example (which Daniel
says he knows), and so loses his throne and his life.453
The Motif of Pride
Chapter 5 assumes the same themes put forth in chap. 4 and builds upon them.
The theme of human pride and its consequences, for example, is explored further. Pride
takes different forms and impacts national as well as personal outcomes of life.454 The
element of idolatry and sacrilegious insolence adds a special nuance to this story. In chap.
texts: (1) A person of lower status (a prisoner, foreigner, debtor, servant, etc.) is called
before a person of higher status (often a king or bishop or chief of some kind) to answer
difficult questions or to solve a problem requiring insight. (2) The person of high status
poses the problem, which no one seems capable of solving. (3) The person of lower status
does solve the problem. (4) The person of lower status is rewarded for answering (by
being given half the kingdom, the daughter of the king, special clothing, a signet ring, or
some other sign of a raise in status). Susan Niditch and Robert Doran, “The Success
Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach,” JBL 96 (1977): 180.
451
452
Hebbard, Reading Daniel as a Text in Theological Hermeneutics, 125.
453
Lucas, Daniel, 125.
162
4, Nebuchadnezzar repented of his insolence and pride; in chap. 5 Belshazzar does not.455
Nevertheless, both Babylonian monarchs are portrayed in the book of Daniel as haughty
characters, sharing thus the same attitude attested in the builders of the Tower of Babel.
Thus the attempt of the tower builders (Gen 11) and Belshazzar (Dan 5) to assault
heaven, and thereby to challenge God, is a violation of the divine will that is condemned
in both biblical narratives.
Although the occasion for the feast is not made explicit in either version (LXX,
MT), 456 scholars have long debated the nature of Belshazzar’s celebration in Dan 5.
While some scholars propose that the celebration may have been an akītu festival in
honor of the moon god Sîn,457 others think the feast in question might have been a
celebration of Belshazzar’s coronation as sole ruler after Cyrus’s defeat of his father
454
455
Towner, Daniel, 77.
456
It is well known that the LXX provides a prologue to the account, in the form
of a brief abstract of the story, but it is not part of the main text. This contains the
information that the feast took place at ‘the dedication of his kingdoms’ (ἐγκαινισμοῦ
τῶν βασιλείων) and that the number of guests was two thousand.
457
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C.
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 152; Lawrence M. Wills, The Jew in the
Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends, HDR 26 (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1990), 124-25; Al Wolters, “Belshazzar’s Feast and the Cult of the Moon God
Sîn,” BBR 5 (1995): 199-206. According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, the New Year
festival (Akitu) was observed in the year when Cyrus’s army took the city. Stefanovic,
Daniel: Wisdom for the Wise: Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 179. Yet, Julye
Bidmead has shown that this hypothesis is unlikely. She argues that the observance of an
akitu for the moon god would have been held in his temple at Harran, as a local akitu
festival, similar to other local akitu celebrations like the akitu of Ishtar at Arbela or
Nippur. Julye Bidmead, The Akitu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation
in Mesopotamia, GD 2 Near Eastern Studies 2 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2004),
139.
163
Nabonidus.458 While these suggestions have some merit, nevertheless, they are
inconclusive.
Despite the fact that the exact nature of the occasion is unclear, the biblical text
seems to suggest that Belshazzar held this banquet in order to display his greatness. To
heighten this notion, the Aramaic word PAlSa (thousand) is used twice in Dan 5:1, as well
as the term bår (great).459 Besides including the telling descriptions of Belshazzar’s
actions regarding his feast, the author’s sentence structure indicates that Belshazzar acts
arrogantly. The first two sentences of Dan 5, both of which have Belshazzar as subject,
employ a less commonly used syntax that suggests something is amiss.460
Scholars rightly point out that what takes place in Dan 5:1-4 was prepared for in
Dan 1, where it is mentioned that items from the Jerusalem temple were seized during
Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of the city and that these items were carried off to the temple
in Babylon.461 It is clear that the mention of the vessels from the temple in Jerusalem
458
William H. Shea, “Nabonidus, Belshazzar, and the Book of Daniel: An
Update,” AUSS 20 (1982): 142. In the Babylonian Talmud (Megillah 11b) there is a
curious notion that Belshazzar gave the order to bring the sacred vessels because of a
calculation he had made. He knew the prophecy of Jeremiah that the Exile would last
seventy years, and he calculated that, as Nebuchadrezzar had reigned forty-five years,
Evil-merodach twenty-three years, and he himself had been reigning two years, the
seventy years of prophecy were now up. The prophecy had not been fulfilled, the Jews
had not gone back, and as the prophecy was a failure and the Jews would never return,
there was no further purpose in storing the sacred vessels, which might just as well be
brought out and put to use. Arthur Jeffery and Gerald Kennedy, “The Book of Daniel,”
Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1956), 6:422.
459
182.
460
Pace, Daniel, 163.
461
Pamela Jeanne Milne, “Narrative Structure in Daniel 1-6: An Analysis of
164
recalls Dan 1:1-2 and here, as the Babylonian empire approaches its end, reminds us of
the deeper meaning of the Exile with its conflict between the God of Israel and pagan
gods.462
As shown in the discussion of Dan 1:1-2, for Nebuchadnezzar, the capture of the
city, its king, and its temple’s vessels is the result of his military expertise and the support
of his personal god. The narrator and the reader know, however, that Israel’s God has
given to him the Judean king and the temple vessels.463 Even though Nebuchadnezzar put
the vessels in the house of his god, they still belong to the house of God, which was in
Jerusalem. In the narrator’s description of the vessels, we are twice told they were
“brought forth” (Haphel of nepaq, vv. 2 and 3). 464 Belshazzar’s command concerns “the
gold and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken from the temple in
Jerusalem” (v. 2). The narrator’s report describes the vessels as “the gold vessels that had
been taken out of the temple, the house of God which was in Jerusalem” (v. 3). The first
statement found in Dan 5:2 represents Belshazzar’s point of view while the second
sentence (Dan 5:3) is the narrator’s point of view. Three important words are inserted
into the narrator's description of the Temple. Not only is this the Temple in Jerusalem,
but the Temple which is the house of God (a™DhDlTa ty¶Eb_yáî;d) in Jerusalem. The effect of this
is to show that this ravenous act of Belshazzar was more than drunken recklessness; it
Structure in a Group of Old Testament Texts, Based on Vladimir Propp's Morphology of

the Folktale” (PhD diss., McGill University, 1982), 345.
462
Robert S. Fyall, Daniel, Focus on the Bible (Fearn: Christian Focus
Publications, 1998), 74.
463
464
Bill T. Arnold, “Wordplay and Narrative Techniques in Daniel 5 and 6,” JBL
165
was sacrilege and blasphemy against the God of Israel, whose Temple is in Jerusalem.465
The basic meaning of the Aramaic word NaDm is “vessel,” but the root of this noun
is uncertain.466 Its Hebrew cognate is yIlV;k, which is used in Dan 1:2. According to HALOT
yIlV;k means utensil in the broadest sense of the word and its range of meaning falls into
five categories:
—1. vessel, receptacle (Gen 31:37), made of wood (Lev 11:32), —2. piece of
equipment: a) non-religious: of leather (Lev 13:49), furniture (Gen 45:20; Ex 27:19),
in the tent (Nu 19:18); b) cultic: for slaughtering (Ez 40:42), utensils of the altar (Ex
38:3; Nu 3:8; 2K 23:4; Isa 52:11); musical instruments (Ps 71:22; 1Chr 16:5); —3.
implement, instrument (Gen 49:5); —4. other things: a) ornament (Gen 24:53 Ex
3:22); b) garments (Deut 22:5), instruments of death (Ps 7:14); —5. vessel, meaning
ship, boat (Is 18:2; Jer 25:34).467
yIlV;k appears in the OT 325 times, and in a number of OT texts the term yIlV;k is used
generally to refer to the “vessels of the Temple” (NRSV, “of the Lord’s house”) (e.g., Jer
27:16, 18-19, 21; 28:3, 6), many of which were made of gold, silver, bronze, or wood
overlaid with precious metal.468 The holiness and importance of the temple vessels is first
attested in the books of Exodus (Exod 25:1-7; 35:20-29) and Numbers (Num 7:84-6).
Thus the theme of making such vessels, or the emphasis on their provision, or on their
purification (2 Chr 29:18) and guarding (1 Chr 9:28), equally provides points at which we
may detect the writer’s concern to continue in proper form the religious observances that
112 (1993): 479-80.

465
Ibid., 81.
466
Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm, HALOT, s.v. “yIlV;k.”
467
Ibid.
468
John I. Lawlor, “Vessels,” NIDB (2009), 5:765.
166
are seen as necessary to the well-being of the community.469 According to the book of
Chronicles, the removal of the vessels from Jerusalem to Babylon took place in three
stages: first in the time of Jehoiakim (“part of the vessels of the house of the Lord,” [hYÎwh◊y
ty∞E;b ‹yElV;kIm…w] 2 Ch 36:7), then with the exile of Jehoiachin (“the precious vessels from the
temple of the LORD,” [h¡Dwh◊y_tyE;b tâå;dVmRj y™ElV;k_MIo] 2 Ch 36:10), and finally with the exile of
Zedekiah (“all the vessels from the temple of the Lord, both great and small,” [MyYˆ…nAfV;qAh◊w
My∞IlOd◊…gAh ‹MyIhølTaDh ty§E;b yElV;k lOk◊w] 2 Ch 36:18).470 It seems that both the Chronicler and the
prophet Daniel (Dan 1:2), in using the theme of the temple vessels and their preservation
and restoration, allude to Jeremiah’s prophecy: “Yes, this is what the LORD Almighty,
the God of Israel, says about the vessels that are left in the house of the LORD and in the
palace of the king of Judah and in Jerusalem: They will be taken to Babylon and there
they will remain until the day I come for them, declares the LORD. Then I will bring
them back and restore them to this place” (Jer 27:21-22). It is against this biblical
background that Belshazzar’s sacrilegious behavior is better understood. It seems clear
that in the biblical text, Belshazzar’s conduct is thus marked by arrogance, which thus
parallels the same first instance of hubris and self-aggrandizement shown by the builders
469
Ackroyd, “The Temple Vessels—A Continuity Theme,” 171.
470
Isaac Kalimi and James D. Purvis, “King Jehoiachin and the Vessels of the
Lord’s House in Biblical Literature,” CBQ 56 (1994): 453. Contrary to 2 Kgs 24:13 and
Jer 52:17, which say that part of the large articles were broken up by the Babylonian, the
Chronicler just says that all the vessels were removed. Concerning the theme of the
preservation of the vessels, Ackroyd states that the community which sought to re-
establish itself after the exile, deeply conscious of its ancestry in faith but also aware of
the problem of continuity with that faith, made use of the theme of the vessels, as it made
use of other themes, to make good its claim to be the true successors . . . to be directly
linked with those who stood on the other side of the exilic gulf.” Ackroyd, “The Temple
167
of the Tower of Babel. Therefore, Belshazzar, the last “king” of Babylon, followed in the
footsteps of Nimrod, the Babelites, and his “father” Nebuchadnezzar.
The Religious Nature of Belshazzar’s Feast
The setting of Belshazzar’s account displays another thematic link with the Tower
of Babel, namely, the possible religious nature of the event. Belshazzar’s banquet was
“the occasion of the revelry and excess that lead [sic] to sacrilege and idolatry.”471 If the
occasion actually was cultic in nature, as the biblical account seems to suggest, then the
use of the Temple vessels takes on a somewhat different nature than if the feast was
purely a social gathering. A cultic setting would mean Belshazzar incorporated the
Temple vessels into actual pagan rituals, whereas a social event would mean he used
them at his party mainly for sport.472 Thus Belshazzar’s defiance of the God of Israel
clearly shows that Babel is the same political and religious system opposed to the true
religion of Jehovah as it was first attested in Gen 11. Both the Babelites and Belshazzar
blatantly called into question the sovereignty and power of the God of Israel.
The biblical narrator carefully states: “As they drank the wine, they praised the
gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood and stone” (v. 4; cf. v. 23). Consequently,
some scholars have suggested that Belshazzar’s feast is represented as being of an
Vessels—A Continuity Theme,” 181.

471
472
Daniel R. Watson, “The Writing on the Wall: A Study of the Belshazzar
Narrative” (PhD diss., Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 2004), 136.
168
orgiastic and cultic character.473 Hartman and Di Lella consider it as “a quasi-cultic-
act,”474 while Porteous says that the sacrilege of drinking from sacred vessels was
increased by associating them with heathen worship.475 Furthermore, Doukhan argues
that Belshazzar might have been commemorating the victory of Babylon over Jerusalem
(Dan 1:1-2), the triumph of the god of Babylon over the God of Israel.476 Excavations at
Babylon have amply confirmed the fact that there were in the city an abundance of
temples, and thus also of gods resident in them; so there was no shortage of gods for
Belshazzar and his friends to praise.477 From the golden (and silver)478 vessels of
Yahweh’s temple the thousand and one Babylonian nobles drank wine and praised the
473
Aage Bentzen, Daniel, 2d ed., HAT 19 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1952), 47;
474
475
Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, 78.
476
78.
477
Shea, “Further Literary Structures in Daniel 2-7: An Analysis of Daniel 5, and
the Broader Relationships Within Chapters 2-7,” 282. Interestingly, the Babylonian
Chronicle reports that Nabonidus had assembled the nation’s gods in the city for their
protection and for the protection of the city: “[Lugal-Marada and the other gods] of the
town Marad, Zababa and the (other) gods of Kish, the goddess Ninlil [and the other gods
of] Hursagkalama entered Babylon. Till the end of the month Ululu (all) the gods of
Akkad . . . those from above the IM and (those from) below the IM, entered Babylon. The
gods from Borsippa, Kutha, . . . and Sippar (however) did not enter.” “Babylonian and
Assyrian Historical Texts,” translated by A. Leo Oppenheim (ANET, 306). The people in
the outlying cities were not happy about this. One of the first things Cyrus did after he
had taken control of Babylon was to return the gods to the cities from which they were
taken.
478
Theodotion, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate all have the silver as well, just as in
v. 2. Jeffery and Kennedy, “The Book of Daniel,” IB, 423. According to Young, the one
term (gold) is sufficient as a designation of all. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A
Commentary, 199.
169
gods of gold and silver (Dan 5:1-4), at which point the fingers of a man’s hand appeared
and wrote on the plaster of the wall, near the lampstand479 in the royal palace, the fate of
Belshazzar’s kingdom (Dan 5:5).480
Indeed, in Dan 5 the vessels were desecrated by profane drinking. The temple
vessels, once handled by consecrated priests in solemn services ordained by God, are
now in Dan 5 passed around by wicked revelers. The temple vessels were further
desecrated by toasting pagan gods. In his misuse of the Temple vessels, then, Belshazzar
appears guilty with regard to the transgression of cultic boundaries. He subjects the
sacred items to handling by those who were not qualified to do so, indeed who were the
least qualified. He also seems to ignore their sacred status as items set aside for the
worship of the Most High God and thus has them treated in a common and profane
manner.481 As the builders of Babel had transgressed the boundaries set by God, once
again Belshazzar defied God and he went too far. Thus the prophet Daniel rebuked the
king saying: “You have set yourself up against the Lord of heaven” (v. 23, emphasis
mine). This sentence clearly depicts the nature of the sin of Babel--the aspiration to be
479
For a discussion of the etymology of hDv√rVb‰n,“lampstand” (Persian or Akkadian
loanword), see A. R. Millard, “The Etymology of Nebrasta, Daniel 5:5,” Maarav 4
(1987): 87-92. Based on Jer 52:19, recently, Andrés Glaze has suggested that the
“lampstand” mentioned here in Dan 5 refers to the lampstand of Solomon’s Temple, yet
his interpretation goes beyond the biblical evidence. Glaze, “Daniel,” CBMH, 443-44.
480
Robert P. Carroll, “Razed Temple and Shattered Vessels: Continuities and
Discontinuities in the Discourses of Exile in the Hebrew Bible. An Appreciation of the
Work of Peter R. Ackroyd on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday,” JSOT 75 (1977):
104. For Mason the emphasis in Dan 5 is not so much on “hubris” as on sacrilege and
idolatry, on the unspeakable abomination of desecrating the sacred vessels of the
Jerusalem temple. Rex A. Mason, “The Treatment of Earlier Biblical Themes in the Book
of Daniel,” in Perspectives on the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Walter J.
Harrelson, ed. James L. Crenshaw (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988), 89.
481
Watson, “The Writing on the Wall: A Study of the Belshazzar Narrative,” 137.
170
like God and to reach heaven. Furthermore, the representation of Belshazzar in Dan 5 is
reminiscent of the builders of the Tower of Babel, indeed as in Gen 11 Belshazzar is
incurring God’s wrath for his overweening pride.482 Significantly, by lifting himself “up
against the Lord of heaven,” Belshazzar also reminds us of Isaiah’s taunt song against the
king of Babylon, another passage that also alludes to Gen 11: “You said in your heart, ‘I
will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God. . . . I will make
myself like the Most High” (Isa 14:13-14).
It has been shown that there is a quite obvious thematic parallel between Dan 5:2-
4 and Dan 5:22-23: (1) the vessels from the temple in Jerusalem are mentioned in both
cases, (2) the same four parties are identified as drinking from them in both cases
(namely, the king, his lords, his wives, and his concubines), (3) the drinking of wine is
connected with praising the gods in both passages, and (4) the list of substances from
which the gods were constructed is also the same in both cases.483 In Dan 5:22-23, Daniel
delivers a stinging rebuke to Belshazzar. First, he had failed to learn the lesson he ought
to have learnt from Nebuchadnezzar’s experience, and had repeated his sin of pride.
Second, he had desecrated the vessels from the Jerusalem temple. Third, he had
worshipped worthless idols. Finally, he had failed to honor the God in whose power lay
his life and his destiny.484 Thus Daniel laments that Belshazzar placed himself above “the
482
Nelson, Daniel, 152.
483
Shea draws attention to the slight alteration in the lengthy list of substances
from which the gods were constructed, the first pair—gold and silver—has been inverted
in the second passage (Dan 5:4, 23). Shea, “Further Literary Structures in Daniel 2-7: An
Analysis of Daniel 5, and the Broader Relationships Within Chapters 2-7,” 281.
484
Lucas, Daniel, 132. According to Anderson, “nowhere in the book does Daniel
come as close to the classical prophets as he does in vv. 18–23. The confrontation with
Belshazzar is worthy of an Amos or a Jeremiah. The author, who has already seen the
171
Lord of Heaven” (v. 23). Both the Babelites and Belshazzar are guilty of arrogance and
idolatry.
Implications of the Last Two Allusions
While God gave Jerusalem and the vessels of the temple into Nebuchadnezzar’s
hands (Dan 1:2), Belshazzar took the vessels of the temple into his own hands (Dan 5:2)
and desecrated them. This king, who dared to desecrate the holy vessels that were the
only surviving link between the past and the future temples, could find no good word to
utter about God.485 In the MT Daniel serves a twofold function vis-à-vis King Belshazzar.
On the one hand he is a symbol of the regime of Nebuchadnezzar, and on the other he
brings the judgment of God.486 Furthermore, the characterization of Belshazzar in Dan 5
is entirely negative:
1. Arrogant—“he gave orders to bring in the . . . goblets” (v. 2)
2. Sacrilegious —“his wives and concubines drank from them” (v. 3)
hand of God behind the siege and sacking of Jerusalem (1:2), has no difficulty in
ascribing to God himself the greatness and glory of Nebuchadnezzar.” Anderson, Signs
and Wonders: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 59. Cf. Longman III, Daniel, 141.
Thus Daniel reminds Belshazzar that the “Most High God gave your father
Nebuchadnezzar sovereignty (tklm)” (5:18). Daniel also recalls Nebuchadnezzar’s
arrogance and subsequent insanity that was only relieved with his acknowledgment that
the “Most High God is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and sets over them anyone
he wishes” (5:21). Anne Moore, Moving Beyond Symbol and Myth: Understanding the
Kingship of God of the Hebrew Bible through Metaphor, ed. Hemchand Gossai, StBL 99
(New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 185.
485
Zdravko Stefanovic, “The Roles of the Babylonian and Medo-Persian Kings in
the Book of Daniel,” in Creation, Life, and Hope: Essays in Honor of Jacques B.
Doukhan, ed. Jiri Moskala (Berrien Springs, MI: Old Testament Department, Seventh-
day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 2000), 389.
486
Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison, 69.
172
3. Idolatrous —“as they drank . . . they praised the gods” (v. 4)
4. Cynical—“are you Daniel, one of the exiles” (v. 13)
5. Manipulative—“you will be made the . . . ruler” (v. 16)
6. Unrepentant—“Belshazzar, king . . . was slain” (v. 30).487
Indeed, in the book of Daniel, Belshazzar symbolizes the worst possibilities of human
rule, the pride that wants the rank of divinity, and self-serving tyranny.488 It should not
come as a surprise that it was during Belshazzar’s reign that Daniel was given the two
crucial visions about a future anti-God power that will blaspheme God, desecrate his
sanctuary, and persecute his saints on earth (Dan 7:1; 8:1). Thus some scholars have
noticed several similarities between Belshazzar and the little horn described in Daniel’s
visions (Dan 7-8):
1. Both appeared toward the end of their world empires (5:31; 7:8; 8:23).
2. Both claimed royal power and prerogatives (5:1; 8:23, 24).
3. Transgression on the part of both resulted in desecration of the temple (5:3; 8:11).
4. Both came to their end in rebellion against God (5:22, 23; 7:26).
5. Both came to a sudden end brought about by God (5:26-28; 7:26; 8:25)
6. Both spoke and acted blasphemously (5:23; 7:25; 8:11).
7. Both became strong by means of someone else’s power (5:16, 23; 8:22).489
487
Stefanovic, “The Roles of the Babylonian and Medo-Persian Kings in the Book
of Daniel,” 389.
488
J. Gordon McConville, Exploring the Old Testament, vol. 4 of A Guide to the
Prophets (London: SPCK, 2002), 126.
489
Zdravko Stefanovic, “Thematic Links Between the Historical and Prophetic
Sections of Daniel,” AUSS 27 (1989): 126. Critical scholars advocate a Maccabean date
for the book of Daniel based among other things on the parallels between Belshazzar and
Antiochus Epiphanes. For example, M. McNamara says, “In its present form, Dan 5
intends to show how God punishes kings for the sacrilegious use they make of sacred
vessels of the temple. As such it served as a reminder to the Jews of the fate that awaited
a later Belshazzar, Antiochus IV.” M. McNamara, “Daniel,” NCCHS (London: Nelson,
1969), 660. So John R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York:
Macmillan, 1958), 536; Louis Francis Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella, “Daniel,” The
New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990), 414;
André Lacocque, “Daniel,” The International Bible Commentary: A Catholic and
173
The supernatural handwriting incident establishes the divine intervention in the
course of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, and the sages’ inability to interpret the writing
emphasizes the futility of man’s regimes in God’s hand (vv. 5–9). In conclusion, Genesis
11 and Dan 5 are linked together by the use of similar themes. Specifically, the motif of
pride and idolatry are common to both narratives. Daniel 5, then, alludes to Gen 11.
The Judgment Motif
Another strong link to the Tower of Babel incident is the common use of the
judgment motif. As in the narrative of Gen 11, the deity’s reaction to Belshazzar’s sin
was swift. The same verbal root qpn that is used in Dan 5:2-3 for the “bringing forth” of
the vessels, significantly, is now used in Dan 5:5 ([‹h∂q‹Ap◊n] …wqAp◊n), this time in the Peal. The
subject is now the fingers of a human hand which writes a divine message of doom. Thus
the narrator is intentionally using the wordplay in v. 5 to dramatize divine retribution
against human sin. And the irony is that he uses the same verb to denote both sin and
punishment.490
The mysterious fingers that write recall the writing of the covenant tablets by “the
finger of God” at Mount Sinai (Exod 31:18; Deut 9:10). They recall, too, the association
by Pharaoh’s magicians of the plague of gnats with “the finger of God” (Exod 8:18).491 In
the Bible, when the hand of God writes, it generally does so in a context of judgment.
The books written by God (Dan 7:10; Exod 31:18; 34:1; Rev 3:5; 21:27), like the law
Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-first Century (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical

Press, 1998), 1097.
490
Arnold, “Wordplay and Narrative Techniques in Daniel 5 and 6,” 482.
174
engraved by the finger of God and placed in the ark of the covenant (Exod 34:1; Deut
10:5), form part of that judgment.492
By now Belshazzar is terrified by his thoughts, but his fear cannot be internalized
and kept private: his countenance changes; the Aramaic text suggests that “the knots of
his hips loosened” (that is, either he collapses or he is losing control of his bowels), and
his knees knock (v. 6).493 In Dan 5 God, via scribal mediation, addresses a recalcitrant
king and his bureaucracy, showing the extent to which notions of power are “textualized”
in the thought world of the book of Daniel. Belshazzar is always on the “wrong side” of
491
Seow, Daniel, 79.
492
82. See also T. G. Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and
Legends of Assyria and Babylonia (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
1903), 430-51.
493
Seow, Daniel, 79. Wolter argues that the meaning of the expression “the knots
of his hips loosened,” specifically refers to losing control of the most basic bodily
functions. Al Wolters, “Untying the King’s Knots: Physiology and Wordplay in Daniel
5,” JBL 110 (1991): 117-22. Cf. Athalya Brenner, “Who’s Afraid of Feminist Criticism?
Who’s Afraid of Biblical Humour? The Case of the Obtuse Foreign Ruler in the Hebrew
Bible,” JSOT 63 (1994): 49-50; Hans van Deventer, “Another Wise Queen (Mother)—
Women’s Wisdom in Daniel 5.10-12?,” in Prophets and Daniel: Feminist Companion to
the Bible, ed. Athalya Brenner (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 253. On a
person’s reaction upon receiving bad news in the OT, see D. R. Hillers, “A Convention in
Hebrew Literature: The Reaction to Bad News,” ZAW 77 (1965): 86-90. Physiological
reactions upon receiving bad news are also well attested in Ugaritic as well as
Mesopotamian literature. Thus in the Baal epic it is reported that Anath trembled at the
approach of Baal’s messenger: “No sooner espies she the gods, Than Anath’s feet do
stumble. Behind, her loins do break; Above, her face doth sweat: Bent are the joints of
her loins, Weakened those of her back.” “Ugaritic Myths, Epics, and Legends,” translated
by H. L. Ginsberg (ANET, 136-37). Similarly, Paul has drawn attention to a
Mesopotamian source, namely, Esarhaddon’s statement in his famous “Gottesbrief”:
“(When) he [the king] heard my [Esarhaddon’s] royal message, which burns the enemies
like a flame (su nasparti sarrutija sa kima nabli iqammu ajabi ismema), his hips
collapsed (qabalsu imqussuma), his heart was seized (by fear) (libbasu sabitma), his legs
trembled (itarura isdasu) . . . his countenance looked bad (zimusu ulamminma).” Paul,
“Decoding a ‘Joint’ Expression in Dan 5:6, 16,” 122.
175
writing in this chapter, from the “decree” of wine (5:2) to the writing on the wall, while
Daniel and his God are in league with writing and use writing effectively. In short, in Dan
5 the God who writes and the scribe who reads triumph over the arrogant and ineffective
Babylonian king and his court.494
The message on the wall, as Daniel’s interpretation is to show, is one of
judgment. Belshazzar had acted in a high-handed manner in his dealings with God and
the vessels of God’s temple. He had presumed to judge God; God would judge him.495
Daniel mentions with censure in v. 23 that Belshazzar proudly exalted himself
above the God of Israel, and in mockery employed the vessels stolen from his sanctuary
to drink wine while singing the praises of the victorious gods of Babylon. It was thus
essentially an exaltation of the Babylonian gods above Yahweh, who apparently had
succumbed to them in battle, and whom they had despoiled.496 Then the prophet gives the
inscription and its interpretation: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN (lñéqV;t a¶EnVm a™EnVm
NyÌs√rAp…w).497 “This is what these words mean:
494
Donald C. Polaski, “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin: Writing and Resistance in
Daniel 5 and 6,” JBL 123 (2004): 659-60.
495
Russell, Daniel, 87.
496
Otto Zöckler, The Book of the Prophet Daniel (New York: Charles Scribner,
1890), 126.
497
C. Clermont-Ganneau was the first who suggested that these three words
represented weights: mina, shekel, and half mina. C. Clermont-Ganneau, “Mané, thécel,
pharés et le festin de Balthasar,” JA 8, no. 8 (1886): 36-67. Virtually all interpreters have
taken up Clermont-Ganneau’s interpretation, yet C. C. Torres objects to this
understanding. C. C. Torrey, “Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel,” TCAAS 15 (1909):
241-82. Similarly, many have followed Clermont-Ganneau’s proposal that the inscription
implies a possible contrast of the last Babylonian kings. See Otto Eissfeldt, “Die
Menetekel-Inschrift und ihre Deutung,” ZAW 63 (1951): 109; Emil G. Kraeling, “The
176
Mene: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.
Tekel: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.
Peres: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians” (vv. 25-
28). The writing says that Belshazzar and Babylon have come under a final judgment.
What happens next is just what happened at the judgment of the first Babylon in Gen
11.498 Doukhan explains that the idea of termination permeates each word of the
inscription and its interpretation. Significantly, to each word of the inscription Daniel
adds a four-word explanation in Aramaic,499 as the following highlights:
NyÌs√rAp…w lñéqV;t a™EnVm a¶EnVm (v. 25)
;hÀmVlVvAh◊w JK™Dt…wkVlAm a¶DhDlTa_h`DnVm a¶EnVm (v. 26)
ryÌ;sAj V;tAj¶AkV;tVvIh◊w a™Dy◊nÅzaáømVb hD;tVlyñîqV;t lñéqV;t (v. 27)
sá∂rDp…w yñådDmVl t™AbyIhyˆw JK$Dt…wkVlAm ‹tAsyîrVÚp sóérVÚp (v. 28)
The words spoke not only through their meaning but also through the rhythm of the
phrases.500 Doubtless, the number four plays a prominent role in the book of Daniel and
in ancient Eastern Literature.501 Thus in Dan 2 the statue of Nebuchadnezzar consisted of
Handwriting on the Wall,” JBL 63 (1944): 11-18; John Dyneley Prince, “Mene Mene
Tekel Upharsin” (PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1893).
498
106.
499
84.
500
501
The ancient Akkadian oracles and prophecies often refer to a cycle of four
kingdoms:
“[A ruler will arise], he [will rule] for eighteen years . . .
A ruler will arise, he will rule for thirteen years . . .
177
four metals, representing the succession of four kingdoms until the end. The same four
kingdoms will appear in Dan 7 in the form of four beasts. This, then, seems to suggest
that the number four is the omen of the end.502 Daniel read the words as nouns, but he
explained them as passive verbs: numbered, numbered, weighed, and divided.503
According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, on the sixteenth day [12 October, 539 B.C.]
Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium, and the troops of Cyrus entered Babylon without
battle504 and Belshazzar was killed that very night (v. 30).
W. Shea points out that the Jewish Day of Atonement occurred just five days
before the city of Babylon fell. In other words, when Daniel read the writing on the wall,
he interpreted the meaning of the third word written there, lñéqV;t, as signifying, “You have
been weighed on the scales and found wanting” (v. 27). The verb here is in the past
tense—“you have been weighed.”505
Through the mysterious and terrifying apparition of the hand writing
incomprehensible words on the wall, God once again expresses judgment and reconfirms
A ruler will arise, his days will be few . . .

A ruler [will arise], he will rule for three years . . . ” “Prophecies,” translated by R. D.
Biggs (ANET, 606-07).
502
84-85.
503
504
505
William H. Shea, Daniel 7-12: Prophecies of the End Time, The Abundant Life
Bible Amplifier (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1996), 89.
178
his power over the king (5:24-28). Thus Dan 5 affirms that God is the absolute
protagonist of history; the sovereignty of kings is only a reflection of God’s
sovereignty.506 From Nimrod to Belshazzar, God, therefore, possessor of an eternal and
absolute power, is the source of the sovereignty of Gentile kings who govern by God’s
will and within the limits set by God’s judgment.507 Therefore, as in the narrative of Gen
11, similarly in Dan 5 “the fall of the Babylonian Empire can be seen as an act of divine
judgment on a king guilty of sacrilegious insolence.”508
The Motif of Confusion
According to the narrative, Belshazzar cries loudly for the sages to be brought,
but these counselors, following the set pattern of the Daniel stories, are not able to
interpret the meaning of the event. Belshazzar remains terrified, and the counselors are
perplexed.509 It is ironic that King Belshazzar was unable to understand the writing—after
all, as Daniel points out, he is supposed to have inherited his father's kingship over lk
aynvlw ayma aymmo —all peoples, nations and languages (Dan 5:19).510
Significantly, Hilton says that just as Babylon was born in misunderstanding and
confusion of languages, so too does it end. As God intervened directly at the start of
Babylon’s history, so too does he intervene again at its end, for he is the God of all
506
Gabriele Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from
Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 177.
507
Ibid.
508
Lucas, Daniel, 140.
509
Smith-Christopher, “Daniel,” 82.
510
Hilton, “Babel Reversed—Daniel Chapter 5,” 106.
179
history. Both are stories of hubris, of the arrogance of people who are under the illusion
that they have power.511 In Gen 11, the people of Babel wanted to get to the door of God,
to the “Bāb El.” They wanted to get to that door in order to finally settle there, but great
confusion followed.512 Indeed, here in Dan 5 as at Babel (Gen 11), arrogance and false
worship give way to confusion. Once again, by using the motif of
confusion/misunderstanding Dan 5 alludes to Gen 11; there is, therefore, the Babylonian
name for the city, lbb (“gate of the divine”), and there is YHWH’s name for it
(“confusion”). Therefore, both the Tower of Babel story in Gen 11:1-9, which associates
the beginning of Babylonia with a confusion of language, and Dan 5, which associates its
end with confusion, are linked by the same motif.513
As the Tower of Babel was an assault on the divine, likewise Belshazzar’s
sacrilegious conduct was the apex of arrogance; he set himself “against the Lord of
heaven” (a∞D¥yAmVv_aáérDm l∞Ao). Both stories (Gen 11; Dan 5) are stories of idolatry and
confusion. Babylon is not the “Gate to the Divine” it claims to be, but a gateway to
confusion/chaos.514 As God confused the languages of the arrogant Babelites in Gen 11,
he did the same thing in Dan 5, when on the last night of the Babylonian Empire there
511
Ibid., 107.
512
Jacques Doukhan, “Lekh, Lekha: Go!,” SS 50 (2003): 14.
513
514
André Lacocque, The Captivity of Innocence: Babel and the Yahwist (Eugene,
180
was a new confusion of tongues: No one, regardless how learned, was able either to read
or understand the writing on the wall, except Daniel.515 Indeed, here in Dan 5 as at Babel,
disobedience, arrogance, and false worship give way to confusion. Both the story of the
first Babylon (Gen 11) and the last Babylon (Dan 5) are brought to an end by means of
judgment and confusion.
The Scattering Motif
The writer of Dan 5 drives home the predominant, recurrent scattering motif,
which was already attested in the preceding narratives of Daniel (2; 4) and which also
links Dan 5 with Gen 11. As shown above, the last word of the inscription on the wall,
srp, means “divided” and, and according to Archer, “Daniel read it as a passive participle
. . . and interpreted it to mean that Belshazzar’s kingdom, the Babylonian Empire, had
been divided or separated from him and given over to the Medes and Persians besieging
the city.”516 Scholars have often given to the Aramaic root srp a double interpretation.
First, the noun [Ny]srp suggests the verb srp “broken in half,” then another noun srp
Persia. 517
Consequently, Belshazzar is made to understand that Babylon will be given to the
Medes and the Persians. Even while Daniel was interpreting the writing on the wall, the
OR: Cascade Books, 2010), 158.

515
102.
516
Archer, “Daniel,” EBC, 73.
517
Goldingay, Daniel, 111. See David Instone Brewer, “Mene Mene Teqel
Uparsin: Daniel 5:25 in Cuneiform,” TynBul 42 (1991): 312; A. De Guglielmo, “Daniel
5.25—An Example of a Double Literal Sense,” CBQ 11 (1949): 202-06; F. Zimmermann,
181
prophecy was being fulfilled as the Medes and the Persians poured into the city.518 Thus
the Neo-Babylon kingdom was scattered/divided among the Medes and the Persians.
The parallelism between the beginning and ending of Babel is striking. In both
occasions arrogance and idolatry gave way to confusion and scattering. The God of
heaven intervened at the ancient Babel (Gen 11) and at the last Babel (Dan 5), showing
this way that he is the only sovereign God. Nevertheless, as we will see in Dan 6, the
succeeding world empire carried on the spirit and influence of Babel.
Allusions to Genesis 11:1-9 in Daniel 6
Introduction
Scholars have identified Dan 6 as “a court tale of conflict.”519 As in chap. 3, the
story combines factual allusions and traditional motifs. Its historical background
corresponds to aspects of the circumstances of the Babylonian period (lions kept in
captivity, Jewish faith under pressure) and the Persian period (the bureaucratic
organization of the empire).520 Chapter 6 is a story of conflict between the exemplary and
“The Writing on the Wall,” JQR 55 (1964-65): 201-07.

518
Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, 128-29.
519
John Joseph Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel, ed. Frank
Moore Cross, HSM, no. 16 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press for Harvard Semitic Museum,
1977), 49-51; Goldingay, Daniel, 122; Humphreys, “A Lifestyle for Diaspora: A Study of
the Tales of Esther and Daniel,” 217-21.
520
Goldingay, Daniel, 123. For Karel Van der Toorn, the “metaphor of the pit of
lions” was mistakenly taken in a literal way by the author of Daniel. While recognizing
that other biblical references to threats of lions (either metaphorical or literal) may also
182
successful Jewish courtier to the Persian king Darius,521 Daniel, and his detractors and
rivals in the court. By further extension, it is a story of a contest between kingdoms and
their immutable laws: “the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked”
(v. 8) and the law of Daniel’s God.522 Daniel 6 may be divided into four parts: (1) the plot
against Daniel (6:1-9); (2) the trap and reluctant punishment (6:10-18); (3) Daniel’s
rescue and the accusers’ demise (6:19-24); (4) Darius’s decree (6:25-28).523
The Replacement of God: Kingdom and Law
The first thematic link involving Gen 11 and Dan 6 is the palpable conflict
between the kingdom of men and their law and the kingdom of God and his law. As in
have contributed to the story, he argues that Dan 6 is an example of metaphor taken
literally. Karel van der Toorn, “In the Lions’ Den: The Babylonian Background of a
Biblical Motif,” CBQ 60 (1998): 638. See also van der Toorn, “Scholars at the Oriental
Court: The Figure of Daniel against Its Mesopotamian Background,” 52-53.
521
On the possible identity of Darius the Mede see William H. Shea, “An
Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid (Part 1),” AUSS 9
(1971): 51-67; William H. Shea, “An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early
Achaemenid (Part 2),” AUSS 9 (1971): 99-128; William H. Shea, “An Unrecognized
Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid (Part 3),” AUSS 10 (1972): 88-117;
William H. Shea, “An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid
(Part 4),” AUSS 10 (1972): 147-78; William H. Shea, “Darius the Mede: An Update,”
AUSS 20 (1982): 229-47; William H. Shea, “Darius the Mede in His Persian-Babylonian
Setting,” AUSS 29 (1991): 235-57; William H. Shea, “The Search for Darius the Mede
(Concluded), or, The Time of the Answer to Daniel’s Prayer and the Date of the Death of
Darius the Mede,” JATS 12 (2001): 97-105. Cf. H. H. Rowley, Darius, the Mede and the
Four Empires in the Book of Daniel: A Historical Study of Contemporary Theories
(Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1935), 9-66; John Clement Whitcomb, Darius the
Mede: A Study in Historical Identification (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1959); D. J.
Wiseman, “Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel,” in Notes on Some
Problems in the Book of Daniel, ed. D. J. Wiseman et al. (London: Tyndale, 1965), 12-
16.
522
Towner, Daniel, 78.
523
183
the narrative of Gen 11, here in Dan 6 the men’s actions are in opposition to God’s
actions. This plainly indicates that while Babylon as empire has come to an end in Dan 6,
yet the influence of Babylon continues playing a very important role in the newly
established Medo-Persian Empire. While the buildings of Babylon were not destroyed,
under the new king the city and its wealth were under new hegemony. World authority
had been taken from the Babylonians and placed into the hands of the Persians with
certain finality. Moreover, the language used by the storyteller in Dan 6 shows both the
continuity of the Babel mind-set and that Dan 6 parallels Dan 3. For instance, while in
Dan 3 the issue concerned the “setting up” (Myqh) of the statue (v. 1), here in Dan 6 the
main concern focuses on the “setting up” (Myqh) of administrators over the kingdom (Dan
6:1). The same Aramaic verb appears in both chapters.524 In other words, the new king
decides to leave the main structure of the Babylonian government intact. Consequently,
“the Babel mentality infiltrates itself even into the king’s good intentions. We are again
in a religious context, and it is in this light that we should interpret the rest of the
passage.”525
In a sense, the rule of Darius the Mede represents a return to the latter days of
Nebuchadnezzar as especially portrayed in Dan 3 and 4. Here in Dan 6 King Darius is
trying to firmly establish his kingdom; then, he agreed with his officials’ proposal in
issuing a decree, stating “that anyone who prays to any god or human being during the
next thirty days, shall be thrown into the lions’ den” (v. 7). It seems more than apparent
524
89.
525
Ibid.
184
that the Medo-Persian officials’ proposal appealed to Darius’s ego, which clearly
underscores Darius’s gullibility and pride.526 Furthermore, the narrative of Dan 6
underscores the issue of trusting in human power (in this case Darius) for security, just as
the builders of the Tower of Babel were trusting in human power for security.
Steinmann comments that since the decree was to be in force for only thirty days,
Darius would at most be honored as a temporary deity.527 Thus Dan 6 contrasts the law
(t∂;d) of God (6:6 [ET 6:5]) with the law (t∂;d) of the Medes and the Persians (6:9, 13, 16
[ET 6:8, 12, 15]). The Persian loan-word t∂;d used here represents the Hebrew word h∂rwø;t
(see Ezra 7:10, 12, 14) or fDÚpVvIm (see Isa 42:4; 51:4, where it appears as parallel to
h∂rwø;t).528 On the other hand, the law of the Medes and Persians takes on an almost divine
quality in the story. It is an external force that controls earthly events. That law
overpowers all the human characters in the story.529 Consequently, the human has
replaced God, a substitution described in legal terms: The law of God, t∂;d (v. 5), has been
discarded for human law, t∂;d (v. 8).530
526
527
Steinmann, Daniel, 315. John Walton has suggested that “Darius could easily
have been persuaded of the benefits of himself acting as mediator in order to urge by
example that all Iranians give honor to Ahura Mazda.” John H. Walton, “The Decree of
Darius the Mede in Daniel 6,” JETS 31 (1988): 286.
528
Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, 89. P. de Martin de Viviés argues that the
law of the empire and the law of God can (normally) coexist. Pierre de Martin De Viviés,
“Les séjours de Daniel dans la fosse aux lions: Regard narrative synoptique,” in Analyse
narrative et Bible: Deuxième colloque international du Rrenab, Louvain-la-Neuve, avril
2004, ed. Camille Focant and André Wénin (Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 142.
529
530
185
Therefore, as in Dan 3, here in Dan 6, once again the king and the state are
replacing the true God. Like Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 3, King Darius is playing God. Like
Daniel in the present story, the three young men had been trapped by a royal edict that
demanded the unacceptable. The conflict is between their king, Nebuchadnezzar, who
demands that they worship his statue, and their God, who demands their sole
allegiance.531 The injunction to “worship the image” in chap. 3 is paralleled by Darius’s
decree. Both kings enforced religion. According to A. Gaebelein, in both historical
incidents (Dan 3 and 6) we behold almost the same characteristic. There was set up the
image of gold to be worshipped, the deification of man; and here a man is put in the place
of God, honor and worship is demanded for him. 532 Thus Gunn suggests that the book of
Daniel is punctuated by decrees that are ultimately absurd.533 Then, Dan 6 alludes to the
same Babel mentality first attested in Gen 11 and also verified in the previous chapters of
Daniel (1-5). T. A. Boogaart concludes that the main theme in Dan 6 is the conflict
between two kingdoms. He states:
Daniel 6 is a tale of two empires. On the one hand we have Darius, ruler of all the
peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth (cf. verse 25) and enforcer
of the law of the Medes and Persians. On the other hand we have the God of Daniel,
working signs and wonders in heaven and on earth (cf. verse 27) and enforcer of
Jewish law (cf. verse 5). The kingdoms overlap and the question of sovereignty has to
be resolved. This is the main theme and at the same time conflict of the story.534
90.
531
Polaski, “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin: Writing and Resistance in Daniel 5 and
6,” 664.
532
A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel (New York: Publication Office Our
Hope, 1911), 65.
533
David M. Gunn, “The Anatomy of Divine Comedy: On Reading the Bible as
Comedy and Tragedy,” Semeia 32 (1984): 128.
534
Thomas Arthur Boogaart, “Daniel 6: A Tale of Two Empires,” RefR 39 (1986):
186
Darius’s decree complicates the power relation between his empire and God’s.
Thus the unalterable law of the Medes and Persians comes into direct and fatal conflict
with the eternal law of the God of Israel.535 Similar to the narrative of Dan 1-5, chap. 6
revolves around two forms of authority which in principle are incompatible with each
other and which clash consistently in the stories.536 As in previous allusions to Gen 11 in
Dan 1-5, here in Dan 6 what is at stake is God’ sovereignty versus men’s; in other words,
the same Babel spirit that opposes God and his kingdom found its way into Darius’s
court. The spirit of Babel is the spirit of independence, which was first evidenced in a
concerted, organized form in the building of the tower of Babel (Gen 11). It seems that,
once again, as the Neo-Babylonian kings did before, here in Dan 6 the Medo-Persian king
tried to set up his own independent government (independent of God’s control, that is),
just as the Babelites attempted at the ancient Babel. Thus both Nebuchadnezzar and
Darius are guilty of the same sin—the deification of man. Therefore, the history of
Babylon starts with the tower of Babel, and then concluded that the great sin of the
human race is its rebellion and rejection of God as sovereign.
107.
535
Towner, Daniel, 82.
536
Matthias Henze, “The Narrative Frame of Daniel: A Literary Assessment,” JSJ
32 (2001): 20.
187
“God” Comes Down (Gen 11:5; Dan 6:22)
Both Dan 3 and 6 resemble Gen 11 by using the motif of the “God” of Heaven
who comes down. After Daniel was found “guilty” King Darius gave the order, and they
brought Daniel and threw him into the lions’ den. The king said to Daniel, “May your
God, whom you serve continually, rescue you” (v. 16). Again, as in chap. 3, deliverance
comes from above as God sends an angel. In Dan 3 Nebuchadnezzar saw the divine man
(v. 25) whom he described as God’s “angel” (v. 28), and now in Dan 6 King Darius
learned through Daniel that God has sent His “angel” (v. 22). Steinmann argues that in
both Dan 3 and 6 the “angel” might be the “Angel of the Lord.”537 Goldingay remarks
that “as the divine aide entered the furnace to stand with Daniel’s friends, so God has sent
his aide into the pit to stand with Daniel; as Daniel’s friends were preserved in the
furnace, so is Daniel in the lion pit.”538
In keeping with the theme of God’s defeat of the arrogant world powers, Daniel’s
victory in the lions’ den is reminiscent of Gen 11. It also previews God’s crushing of evil
537
Steinmann, Daniel, 321. On the use of Dan 3 and 6 in the NT see Jan Willem
van Henten, “Daniel 3 and 6 in Early Christian Literature,” in The Book of Daniel:
2001), 149-69. Cf. Jan Willem van Henten, “The Reception of Daniel 3 and 6 and the
Maccabean Martyrdoms in Hebrews 11:33-38,” in Myths, Martyrs, and Modernity:
Studies in the History of Religions in Honour of Jan N. Bremmer, ed. Jitse Dijkstra, Justin
Kroesen, and Yme Kuiper (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 359-77.
538
188
and brutality, which paves a path for the kingdom of God.539 Thus the deliverance of
Daniel once more foreshadows the deliverance of the faithful remnant in the time of the
end, when the stone smites the image (Dan 2) and it will forever pass away. Thus far, all
the world empires found in the historical section of Daniel (chaps. 1-6) follow in the
same path of the ancient Babel (Gen 11), showing thus the same leading features of self-
exaltation, pride, and deification of man, persecution, cruelty, and man putting himself in
the place of God.540
539
Pace, Daniel, 212.
540
Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel, 66-67.
189
CHAPTER III
ALLUSIONS TO GENESIS 11:1-9 IN DANIEL 7-12
Introduction
Scholars have long recognized that the book of Daniel divides stylistically into
two halves: the third-person narratives of chaps. 1-6 and the first-person visions of chaps.
7-12.1 It is clear that the visions segment of the book of Daniel begins with chap. 7.
Although scholars have tended to believe that the only full-blown apocalypse in the
Hebrew Bible is found in Dan 7-12, the whole book of Daniel is an apocalypse because
this genre designation applies to whole works. Daniel 7-12 consists of three visions
(chaps. 7, 8, and 10-12) and a prophecy (chap. 9). These four units are clearly parallel in
the sense that they cover the same material and use similar imagery to describe it.2
1
Whereas in the first part Daniel is able to discern and interpret dreams and to
decipher the writing on the wall, in the second part he becomes a recipient of visions that
he does not understand and for whose interpretation he is dependent upon the angelus
interpres. Reinhard G. Kratz, “The Visions of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel:
2001), 91.
2
John Joseph Collins, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre,”
Semeia 14 (1979): 29-30. Doukhan has shown that Dan 7-12 offers the same picture of
“concentric parallelism” just as in the first half of the book. Chapter 7 is related to chap.
12 on the motif of the judgment and the parousia; chap. 8 is related to chap. 11 on the
specific motif of a conflict; and chap. 9 is related to chap. 10 especially on the specific
motif of “weeks,” (9:24-27; cf. 10:2, 3) but essentially on the deeper level of the
structure. Doukhan, Daniel: The Vision of the End, 3-7. Although scholars agree that Dan
7-12 belongs to a literary genre, which can be called apocalypse, there has been intense
debate over the definition of the genre. See S. Kaufmann, “Prediction, Prophecy, and
Apocalypse in the Light of New Akkadian Texts,” in Proceedings of the Sixth World
190
Significantly, with regard to the visions themselves (Dan 7-12) scholars have
increasingly recognized the importance of inner-biblical exegesis in the formation of the
material, and this points to the essentially scholarly character of the book as we now have
it.3 For instance, Dan 9 stands out from the rest insofar as it is explicitly formulated as an
interpretation of older biblical texts. The passages in question are found in Jer 25:11-12;
29:10 and say that the dominion of Babylon will last for seventy years, after which time
the Jews will be restored.4 Moreover, M. Fishbane has shown that Dan 9, as well as the
three visions (Dan 7, 8, and 10-12), is full of allusions to previous Scripture.5
Congress of Jewish Studies, ed. A. Shinan (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic, 1977), 225.
Collins has defined apocalypse as follows: “Apocalypse” may be defined as a genre of
revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an
otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both
temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial, insofar as it
involves another, supernatural world. Collins, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of
a Genre,” 22. To this definition, Collins later added that the genre serves “to interpret
present, earthly circumstances in light of the supernatural world and of the future, and to
influence both the understanding and the behavior of the audience by means of divine
authority.” Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 54. Thus Collins
affirms that the whole book of Daniel is an apocalypse. Similarly, in an insightful essay
written by Gane, he develops and supports the idea that Daniel’s book is an apocalypse.
Roy E. Gane, “Genre Awareness and Interpretation of the Book of Daniel,” in To
Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. David Merling
(Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1997), 137-48.
3
Knibb, “You Are Indeed Wiser Than Daniel: Reflections on the Character of the
Book of Daniel,” 404. According to M. Sweeney, the visions of Dan 7-12 are permeated
with priestly imagery, symbolism, and concepts. Marvin A. Sweeney, “The End of
Eschatology in Daniel? Theological and Socio-Political Ramifications of the Changing
Contexts of Interpretation,” in Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic
Literature, ed. Bernd Janowski and Mark S. Smith (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 260.
4
John Joseph Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish
Apocalyptic Literature, ed. Astrid B. Beck and David N. Freedman, TBRS (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), 108.
5
Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 482-95. Daniel found in
Leviticus not only a connection between exile and Sabbath, but also the multiplication of
191
Introduction
Even though Dan 7 has long suffered from being read in isolation from chaps. 1–
6, the fact that Dan 2:4b–7:28 is in Aramaic suggests that chap. 7 is not to be divorced
from chaps. 1–6.6 While chap. 7 alludes to the theme of chap. 2, the worldly empires are
now symbolized in Dan 7 by four great animals.7 After their destruction, “the Ancient of
Days” (God) grants dominion to “someone like a son of man” (v. 13),8 and later the
kingdom and dominion is “given to the people of the saints of the most High” (v. 27).
Certainly Dan 7 occupies a pivotal place in the book of Daniel.9 It is linked with
seven times seven that would yield a type of jubilee. Portier-Young, Apocalypse against
Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism, 271. For further details on Dan 9 and
the allusions to earlier Scripture, see also Mark J. Boda, Praying the Tradition: The
Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9, BZAW 277 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1999); D. Dimant, “The Seventy Weeks Chronology (Dan 9, 24-27) in the Light of New
Qumranic Texts,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van der
Woude (Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993), 58-65; Jacques
Doukhan, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9,” AUSS 17 (1979): 1-22; Arie van der Kooij,
“The Concept of Covenant (Berit) in the Book of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel in the
Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude (Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven
University Press, 1993), 495-97; André Lacocque, “The Liturgical Prayer in Daniel 9,”
HUCA 47 (1976): 119-42; R. C. Newman, “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and the Old
Testament Sabbath-Year Cycle,” JETS 16 (1973): 229-34; Brempong Owusu-Antwi, The
Chronology of Dan 9:24-27, ATSDS 2 (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological
Society Publications, 1995).
6
N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK, 1992),
293.
7
Daniel I. Block, “When Nightmares Cease: A Message of Hope from Daniel 7,”
CTJ 41 (2006): 109.
8
T. C. Vriezen and A. S. van der Woude, Ancient Israelite and Early Jewish
Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 478.
9
According to Lacocque, Dan 7 “constitutes the veritable centre of the book.”
Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 122. Cf. Pablo Richard, “El pueblo de Dios contra el
Imperio: Daniel 7 en su contexto literario e histórico,” RIBLA 7 (1990): 30-32.
192
the preceding narratives by the fact that it is written in Aramaic and also by the motif of
the four kingdoms.10 According to its genre, however, it belongs with the second half of
the book.11 The number four plays a significant role in Dan 7.12 Interestingly, the
interpretation from chap. 2 emphasizes that in the days of the fourth kingdom God will
raise up an indestructible eternal kingdom. The vision of chap. 7 also emphasizes a
kingdom. This kingdom will come after the destruction of the fourth beast and will also
be an indestructible eternal kingdom.13 Indeed, Dan 7 exhibits canonical intertextuality
not only through the connection with the vision and interpretation in chap. 2, but with the
first six chapters,14 which indicates that chap. 7 was never an independent text, not even
in parts, but was in its substance and from the beginning composed with the context of
10
According to the scheme of the four world empires, the destruction of the fourth
world kingdom will be followed by the divinely ordained triumph of the kingdom of
God. Maurice Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London:
SPCK, 1979), 7. This eschatological outlook, in which the fifth empire and the Son of
Man appear, is unique to the book of Daniel, and must be explained on the background of
Old Testament prophetic eschatology (cf. Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-9; Jer 23:5-6; Ezek 37:24-25;
Mic 5:1; Ps 17); Helge S. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian
Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man, WMANT 61 (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 488.
11
12
There are “four winds of the heavens” (a$D¥yAmVv y∞Ej…wr ‹oA;b√rAa) in 7:2, “four great
beasts” (N$Db√rVbår ‹NÎwyEj o§A;b√rAa◊w) in 7:3-7, “four wings” (o¢A;b√rAa Ny¶IÚpÅ…g), “four heads” (‹NyIvaér h§DoV;b√rAa)
to the third beast in 7:6 and the emphasis on “the fourth beast” (hÎyDoyIb√r h∞DwyEj) in 7:7-8.
This emphasis especially on the fourth beast does find an interesting parallel not in the
vision from chap. 2, but in the interpretation of the vision from 2:40 on the fourth
kingdom. Scheetz, The Concept of Canonical Intertextuality and the Book of Daniel, 87.
13
Ibid., 89.
14
Ibid., 91.
193
chaps. 1-6 in mind.15
Furthermore, Dan 7 has received much attention from scholars interested in
demonstrating the influence of Akkadian (as well as West Semitic) literature on the book
of Daniel.16 Yet, as Collins rightly argues, Dan 7 is not simply a reproduction of an older
15
Kratz, “The Visions of Daniel,” 97.
16
John H. Walton, “The Anzu Myth as Relevant Background for Daniel 7?,” in
The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John Joseph Collins and Peter W.
Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 69. Cf. Marius Nel, “Daniel 7, Mythology and the Creation
Combat Myths,” OTS 19 (2006): 156-70. Some proponents of a Canaanite mythological
connection for Dan 7 include Aage Bentzen, Daniel (Tübingen: Mohr, 1937), 34; John
Joseph Collins, “Stirring Up the Great Sea: The Religio-Historical Background of Daniel
7,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude
(Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993), 121-36; Carsten Colpe, “ὁ
υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” TDNT (1972), 408-23; Otto Eissfeldt, “El and Yahweh,” JSS 1
(1956): 25-37; John A. Emerton, “The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery,” JTS 9 (1958):
225-42. Walton provides a helpful sampling of identified influences on Dan 7, which are
presented here with some variations:
1. The initial churning of the sea (7:2) has been recognized as the typical mythical
scene in which the churning of the cosmic ocean disturbs the creatures (monsters, beasts)
that represent the forces of chaos and disorder. In Enuma Elish, Anu creates the four
winds that stir up Tiamat. See Hermann Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und
Endzeit. Eine religions-geschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1895), 323-35.
2. The similarity of the description of the beasts (7:4-6) to some of the
descriptions of birth anomalies that occur in the omen series summa izbu and portend
significant events. See Paul A. Porter, Metaphors and Monsters: A Literary-Critical
Study of Daniel 7 and 8 (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1983), 17-22.
3. The prominence of winged lions (7:4) in Mesopotamian iconography. Collins,
Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 297.
4. The common occurrence of stacks of horns (7:7, 20, 24) on the crowns of
Mesopotamian kings and deities.
5. The association of El with the Ancient of Days (7:9-10). See Cross, Canaanite
Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, 16; John Day,
God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old
Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 161; Mullen, The Divine
Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, 160-61.
6. The thrones equipped with wheels (7:9) used in divine processions. D. Collon,
First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1987), 160, #725-26.
194
source, Canaanite or other. It is a new composition, and it draws on more than a single
source for its imagery.17 Debates over the origin and meaning of the mythological
background of Dan 7, as well as the sharp division of scholarly opinion on the subject of
the unity18 of the chapter, both fall outside the scope of our concerns here. Rather, the
main focus of this research is to identify the allusions to Gen 11 in Dan 7-12, and explain
by means of exegesis the significance of those allusions. While some scholars have
7. The motif of riding on the clouds (7: 13). See S. B. Parker, Ugaritic Narrative
Poetry, Writings from the Ancient World 9 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 103.
17
18
Some scholars consider the verses dealing with “the ten horns” (vv. 7, 11a), and
“the little horn” (vv. 20-22; 24-25), as redactional insertions. Gustav Hölscher, “Die
Entstehung des Buches Daniel,” ThStK 92 (1919): 113-38; Ernst Seilin, Einleitung in das
Alte Testament (Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1910), 233-34. On the one hand, scholars who
followed E. Sellin in identifying only the reference to “the little horn” as redactional
include Luc Dequeker, “Daniel VII et les saints du très haut,” ETL 36 (1960): 353-92; H.
L. Ginsberg, Studies in Daniel (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America,
1948), 11-13; Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 209. On the other hand, Ulrich
Müller agrees with Hölscher in that the reference to “the ten horns” was redactional in
nature. Ulrich B. Müller, Messias und Menschensohn in jüdischen Apokalypsen und in
der Offenbarung des Johannes, SNT 6 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1972), 19-24. For M. Noth the
vision of the Ancient of Days (vv. 9-10) and the one like a Son of man (vv. 13-14) are
additions. Martin Noth, “Zur Komposition des Buches Daniel,” ThStK 98/99 (1926): 145-
47. Compare Helge Kvanvig, who also accepts the refence to the ten horns as redactional,
but defends that authenticity of vv. 9-10 and 13-14. Helge S. Kvanvig, “Struktur und
Geschichte in Dan. 7, 1–4,” ST 32 (1978): 95-117. Yet, there is a strong tradition of
scholarship opinion that continues to affirm the essential unity of Dan 7. See Casey, Son
of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, 11-16; Collins, The Apocalyptic
Vision of the Book of Daniel, 127-32; M. Delcor, “Les Sources du chapitre VII de
Daniel,” VT 18 (1968): 290-312; Arthur J. Ferch, The Son of Man in Daniel 7, AUSDDS
6 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1979), 108-45; Goldingay, Daniel,
156-57; Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 95-
96; Paul Raabe, “Daniel 7: Its Structure and Role in the Book,” HAR 9 (1985): 267-75;
H. H. Rowley, “The Unity of the Book of Daniel,” in The Servant of the Lord and Other
Essays on the Old Testament (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 249-60.
195
succeeded in identifying allusions to the book of Genesis in Dan 7,19 most OT scholars
have overlooked the literary connections between Dan 7 and Gen 11.
The King of Babel and His Kingdom
The first possible link to Gen 11 in Dan 7 is found in the heading of the passage
(Dan 7:1), where the prophet provides the chronological element for the whole vision and
its interpretation. The text and translation of Dan 7:1 read as follows:
‹b$AtVk a∞DmVlRj Nˆy‹ådaE;b ;h¡EbV;kVvIm_lÀo ;h™Evaér y¶Ew◊zRj◊w hYÎzSj MRl∞Ej ‹ la´¥yˆn∂;d l$RbD;b JKRl∞Rm ‹rA…xAvaVlEbVl h#∂dSj t∞AnVvI;b
:rÀmSa Ny™I;lIm vañér
“In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel saw a dream and visions in his
mind as he lay on his bed; then he wrote the dream down and related the following
summary of it.”
The expression l$RbD;b JKRl∞Rm is used in the book of Daniel only twice; the first time
occurs in Dan 1:1, and the second here in our text, thus forming a sort of inclusio that
envelops the Babylonian kings. Chapter 7 is dated to the first year of Belshazzar, king of
Babel. We have already noted that Belshazzar’s reign foreshadows a future anti-God
power that will blaspheme God and desecrate his sanctuary as recorded in Dan 7 and 8.
By using the expression l$RbD;b JKRl∞Rm, the book of Daniel once again links the only two
Babylonian kings mentioned in the book, Nebuchadnezzar the empire builder and
Belshazzar the last king of Babylon.
19
For allusions to creation in Dan 7, see Doukhan, “Allusions à la création dans le
livre de Daniel,” 285-92; Lacocque, “Allusions to Creation in Daniel 7,” 114-31.
Elements common to both Gen 1 and Dan 7 include large bodies of water whose surface
is rough (Gen 1:2; Dan 7:2), the appearance of animals (Gen 1:20-25; Dan 7:3-7),
followed by the appearance of human(like) being(s) (Gen 1:26, 27; Dan 7:13), and the
granting of authority to the human(like) being(s) (Gen 1:28; Dan 7:14). Stefanovic,
196
As we saw above, in Dan 4 and 5 both kings are characterized among other things
by their hubris, which is humbled. It seems clear that the position of Babylon as the first
kingdom in the book of Daniel seems to depend upon the important role of this empire in
this book and its correspondence with the first kingdom mentioned in the Bible in the
context of the Tower of Babel (Gen 10-11). Thus l$RbD;b JKRl∞Rm in the book of Daniel conveys
the idea of empire, oppression and destruction, especially in Dan 1, and the idea of anti-
God power as Dan 7 suggests. The spirit of the Tower of Babel builders, empire-anti-
God, is precisely what Dan 7 alludes to here.
Furthermore, R. Jamieson, A. Fausset, and D. Brown suggested that there is a link
between Gen 10-11 and Dan 7. Commenting on the interpretation section of Dan 7, they
affirm that at the beginning of Israel’s independent history (Num 23-24), and at the close
of it (Dan 1, 2, 7), the Bible shows the hostile world powers that oppose God’s plan and
God’s people.20 Thus Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown go further and say, “In Babel,
Nimrod the hunter (revolter) founds the first kingdom of the world (Gen 10:8-13). The
Babylonian world power takes up the thread interrupted at the building of Babel, and the
kingdom of Nimrod. As at Babel, so in Babylon the world is united against God;
Babylon, the first world power, thus becomes the type of the God-opposed world.”21
Moreover, in Dan 7 the prophet sees the world kingdoms in their inner essence as
of an animal nature lower than human, being estranged from God; and that only in the
Daniel: Wisdom for the Wise: Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 256.
20
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary, Critical and
Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1945), 422.
21
Ibid.
197
kingdom of God (“the Son of man”) is the true dignity of man realized. M. Casey writes
that in choosing beasts to symbolize all these foreign kingdoms, the author made use of
the traditional Israelite idea that rebellion against God is beastlike rather than manly.22 As
shown above, scholars agree that Dan 7 parallels Dan 2, thus, both chapters treat the same
subject—the same four kingdoms of men and the same kingdom of God. Then, as in Dan
2 the golden head stands for Babylon, here in Dan 7 the winged lion must also represent
Babylon.23 In other words, once again Babel is heading the list of the world empires. In
addition, the possible allusion to Nebuchadnezzar’s illness in Dan 7:4 seems to
strengthen this intertextual connection between the chapters.24 Thus both Dan 4 and 7
underscore that in the moment that man tries to exalt himself to independence of God, as
22
The use of beasts to symbolize gentile nations is common enough in the OT,
e.g., Jer 4.7; 5:6; Ezek 29:3; Pss 68:31; 80:14. Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and
Influence of Daniel 7, 19. Cf. Morna D. Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark (London:
SPCK, 1967), 71.
23
Despite some disagreement on the identification of the beasts of Dan 7, most
scholars agree that the lion identifies Babylon. C. C. Caragounis, “History and Supra-
History: Daniel and the Four Empires,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New
Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude (Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press,
1993), 388. On the role of the lion in Baylon see Jeremy Black, Anthony Green, and
Tessa Rickards, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated
Dictionary (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992), 118-22; G. J. Botterweck, “‫ארי‬,”
TDOT (1974), 1:379. J. Hoffmeier explains that Babylonian artisans mastered the art of
molding and glazing mud-bricks into decorative designs. Figures of lions (representing
the goddess Ishtar), bulls (representing Adad), and griffins (representing Marduk, the
principal deity of Babylon) were molded on walls and gateways. James K. Hoffmeier,
The Archaeology of the Bible (Oxford: Lion, 2008), 117.
24
In Dan 7:4, Nebuchadnezzar, represented as a beast, is transformed into a
human shape and given a human heart. Since the semantic pattern of the vision is based
on the pattern man-beast, Nebuchadnezzar’s transformation can hardly be accidental.
Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and
of the Son of Man, 487.
198
did Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:30), he sinks to the beast’s level.25 While Nebuchadnezzar is
only temporarily transformed into a beast (4: 12- 13, 20, 22, 29-30), the empires in Dan 7
assume a lasting beastly form (cf. Prov 28: 15).26
Significantly, throughout history earthly power in and of itself degenerates into
brutality. In the context of Gen 10-11 and Dan 7, W. Taylor points out that “the
appropriate symbol of a great empire is a wild beast. From the day when Nimrod founded
Babel on till that when the latest empire that has been added to the list of the world’s
monarchies was consummated, the kingdoms of the earth have stood on military
conquest.”27 Now in Dan 7 Babel/Babylon is depicted as a predatory animal, perhaps like
an animal that Nimrod would have hunted!28
Shea observes that the major event that occurred in Babylon during the first year
of Belshazzar (Dan 7:1) was that very event to which the dateline itself points— namely,
25
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the
Old and New Testaments, 417.
26
The use of animals to represent nations is not peculiar to the book of Daniel (cf.
Ezek 29:3; Ps 68:30; Rev 13:1-18). R. Kratz argues that the list of beasts in Dan 7 can be
explained by the combination of Dan 4 with Hos 13:7-8. Kratz, “The Visions of Daniel,”
95-96. Similarly, Lucas writes that the likely source of the basic imagery of the four
animals is Hos 13:7-8, where, in a threat to chastise his people, God says that he will
behave towards them as a lion, a leopard, a bear, and an unspecified “wild beast.” He also
explains that the bizarre, hybrid nature of the beasts reflects the visionary's acquaintance
with the strange creatures described in Mesopotamian birth omens and, for those aware of
them, gives the visions an ominous ethos. For a Jew, this is specifically an evil ethos
because hybrid creatures are unclean according to the Mosaic food laws. Lucas, Daniel,
178. See Ernest Lucas, “The Source of Daniel’s Animal Imagery,” TynBul 41 (1990):
161-85; Porter, Metaphors and Monsters: A Literary-Critical Study of Daniel 7 and 8,
17-22.
27
William M. Taylor, Daniel: The Beloved (New York: Doran, 1919), 136.
28
I am grateful to Dr. Gane for drawing my attention to this possible connection
between Gen 11 and Dan 7.
199
the installation of Belshazzar as regent of Babylon when his father, King Nabonidus, left
for an extended stay in Tema of Arabia.29 While it would take us beyond the limits of this
present study to examine the entire historical background of Dan 7, I do need to pause
briefly so as to make several observations. First, the vision of Dan 7 is associated with the
time of Belshazzar. This is interesting, because it associates this vision with the most
negative portrayal of a foreign ruler thus far. It seems that the dream/vision is occasioned
by the kind of negative political rule that was typified by the story of Belshazzar. This is
a significant point.30 Second, while coregencies were well known and used in Egypt, they
were extraordinarily uncommon in the kingdoms of Mesopotamia. Thus God chose the
year in which a rare and unusual co-regency was established here on earth to talk about
co-regency in heaven. That is what we have in Dan 7:9-l4.31 Furthermore, in the vision of
Dan 7 the Ancient of Days takes dominion away from the powers of this world because
they use it only to oppress, exploit, and destroy. The authority to rule is then transferred
to the Son of Man who will be worshiped by all people, nations, and tribes and whose
29
William H. Shea, “The Neo-Babylonian Historical Setting for Daniel 7,” AUSS
24 (1986): 33. Based on cuneiform data, Hasel has shown that the kingship was entrusted
to Belshazzar in the sixth year (550/549 B.C.) of the reign of Nabonidus, who returned
from his ten-year stay in Tema on Tashritu 17 of his sixteenth year (Oct. 25, 540 B.C.). It
seems, therefore, safe to assume that the “first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon (Dan
7: 1)” began in 550/549 B.C. G. F. Hasel, “The First and Third Years of Belshazzar (Dan
7:1; 8:1),” AUSS 15 (1975): 166. Belshazzar is, Assyriologically, of interest only as the
unique example of a crown prince who was officially recognized as coregent. A. Leo
Oppenheim, “Belshazzar,” IDB (1962), 1:379.
30
Smith-Christopher, “Daniel,” NIB, 100.
31
William H. Shea, “History and Eschatology in the Book of Daniel,” JATS 8
(1997): 201.
200
kingship will last forever.32 The matter of the delegation of power is important. The book
of Daniel is consistent in showing that God, throughout history, delegates power to rulers.
Daniel 7 befits this conception: The “Son of Man” is displacing all political dominions
and replacing them with His own ultimate delegated power.33
Implications
The Babylonian Empire, which from Daniel’s viewpoint was the first worldwide
empire, is well represented in Dan 7 by a lion, the king of beasts, with wings of an eagle,
the king of birds.34 According to Carol A. Newsom, “to represent the world empires as
emerging from the turbulent sea is then to identify their violence and greediness, their
insatiable desire to grow larger and more powerful as eruptions of the force of chaos into
history.”35 Thus both the account of Gen 10-11 and the vision of Dan 7 suggest that
human political power by its nature and origin inevitably becomes evil.
The Universal Dimension
It has been recognized that the book of Daniel takes a comprehensive, universal
view of history, similar to that of the early chapters of the book of Genesis. Beginning
with the sixth century B.C., the writer’s understanding of history broadens and he takes
32
254.
33
Lacocque, “Allusions to Creation in Daniel 7,” 123.
34
35
Carol A. Newsom, “The Past as Revelation: History in Apocalyptic Literature,”
QR 4 (1984): 47-48.
201
into account not only the faith of Israel but also that of the kingdoms of the world within
God’s purpose.36 In addition, Daniel’s reference to God as the “God of heaven”
expressed his universalistic scope. His prophetic visions go beyond the borders of ancient
Israel and the Jewish people to concern all nations, embracing the entire world.37
Furthermore, the majority of OT interpreters understand that from the start the
vision of Dan 7 functions on a universal level. It is churned up from water and framed by
the four winds of the earth (v. 2). The mention of water sends us back to the time of
Creation (Gen 1:1), and the four winds of the earth personify the four corners of the earth
(Zech 6:5, 6). Thus the prophecy of Dan 7 concerns the whole world.38 The four winds of
heaven appear three times in Daniel (7:2; 8:8; 11:4; cf. Rev. 7:1). Here the winds relate to
the four beasts (kings; 7:2, 17), later to the male goat (8:8), and to a powerful warrior
king (11:3–4). The four winds of heaven often refer to the four points of the compass:
north, south, east, and west, but their meaning may be deeper than this. Since the four
winds of heaven appear in connection with earthly kings, the term also suggests divine
action. Since the Most High has sovereignty over the kingdom of mortals, and gives it to
whomever he will (4:25), the four winds of heaven are a sign of his universal rule over
36
Ferch, “Authorship, Theology, and Purpose of Daniel,” 62-63.
37
Jacques Doukhan, “Seven Perspectives in the Book of Daniel,” SS 51 (2004):
12.
38
101. Cf. John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Themes (Dallas, TX: Word Books,
1989), 69; Jonathan Goldstein, Peoples of an Almighty God: Competing Religions in the
Ancient World, ed. David Noel Freedman, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 223-24;
Newsom, “Daniel, 260; D. S. Russell, Daniel, an Active Volcano: Reflections on the
Book of Daniel (Louisville, KY: Westminster/J. Knox Press, 1989), 79.
202
the whole earth.39
According to Heinrich Groß, the fact that the “four winds of heaven” break forth
upon the great sea and that there are four animals emerging from the hostile sea, seems to
express the totality of world history, just as the rulers of the great empire of Mesopotamia
used to called themselves the rulers of the four zones of the world in order to document
their claim to unlimited global dominance.40 Perhaps there is here an allusion to the
universal dimension that is also displayed in the narrative of the Tower of Babel. In
addition, Groß argues that to the author of Gen 11, the arrogant and God-disdaining grab
for power was the driving force in the history of humanity after the Flood; indeed it was
like a new Fall, the reason for humanity’s turning away from God, and for its descent into
heathenism’s distance from and forgetfulness of God. According to the biblical text, the
entire still-unified humanity caused this Fall.41 The reiterated emphasis on the
involvement of the totality of humankind in the offense committed in the valley of Shinar
is thus highlighted by the use of the expression “the whole earth,” X®r™DaDh_lDk (Gen 11:1, 4,
8, 9 [2x]).42
Consequently, the author of Genesis locates the new Fall in the building of the
city of Babel and its empire, for Babel seemed to the biblical narrator to be at the heart of
people’s turning away from God and therefore also to embody the typical opponent of
39
Lederach, Daniel, 152.
40
Heinrich Groß, “Weltherrschaft als Gottesherrschaft nach Genesis 11,1-9 und
Daniel 7: Bibeltheologische Überlegungen,” in Gottesherrschaft, Weltherrschaft:
Festschrift Rudolf Graber zum Abschied von seiner Diözese Regensburg, ed. Johann
Auer and Franz Mussner (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet Verlag, 1980), 20.
41
Ibid., 16.
203
God’s reign in the world. In this view, Gen 11:1-9 is the unfettered representation of
history and the theological interpretation of history, which render visible as a startling
primal type the actual forces at work in humanity’s history.43 Thus both Gen 11 and Dan
7 show how human rulers have aspired to universal empires but they have failed in their
enterprise. Daniel 7 shows attempts to reverse the aftermath of Babel, which God decreed
for the well-being of humans, by attempting to unite the world by military and political
domination, to get back to the kind of unity at Babel, which God decreed would not
happen.
Implications
In Dan 7 the four beasts relate to the succession of four world empires as the
epitome of what human kingdoms can achieve over against the kingdom of God.44
Similar to the preexilic prophets, Daniel merges the story of Israel with the cosmic story
of the nations begun in Gen 1-11.45 The prophets concern themselves with international
history insofar as it affects the history of Israel; Daniel is closer to having a philosophy of
international history in itself.46
42
Sarna, Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with New JPS Translation, 81.
43
Groß, “Weltherrschaft als Gottesherrschaft nach Genesis 11,1-9 und Daniel 7:
Bibeltheologische Überlegungen,” 16.
44
Walter C. Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI:
45
J. Daniel Hays, The Message of the Prophets: A Survey of the Prophetic and
Apocalyptic Books of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 73.
46
204
The Motif of Pride
As shown above, scholars agree that in the Bible the city of Babylon is a symbol
of human pride and power.47 It seems apparent that here in Dan 7 as in Dan 2 there is an
age-long continuity in Babylon, and that all the four world empires, though having to an
extent a separate existence as nations—Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome—are
yet really one48 in their wild-beast nature and in their arrogant attempt to rule themselves
without the help from above, which resemble the same mentality of the builders of the
Tower of Babel. According to W. Brueggemann, Dan 7:1-8 presents a picture of the
arrogance of the world powers.49 Thus in Dan 7:9-14 the extreme arrogance of the little
horn (similarly 5:2-3, 30) is contrasted with the righteousness of the “Son of man.”50
Whereas the first three beasts of Dan 7 (lion, bear, and leopard) are introduced
with the brief phrases, “then as I watched,” tyÓ´wSh h∞EzDj (v. 4), “and behold,” …wêrSaÅw (v. 5), and
“as I watched,” tyG´wSh h∞EzDj (v. 6), the introduction to the fourth is lengthy and explicit:
“after this I saw in the night visions and behold,” wêrSaÅw a#DyVlyÈl y∞Ew◊zRjV;b ty˝´wSh h∏´zDj ·hÎn√;d r∞AtaD;b (v.
7), calling attention to Daniel’s special preoccupation with this beast. It is so different
from the first three that there is no animal with which it can be compared.51 Daniel’s
attention has shifted from the beast as a whole to its ten horns, which caught his attention
because they made the beast different from the others (7:7). As the prophet is
47
Arnold B. Rhodes, “The Kingdoms of Men and The Kingdom of God: A Study
of Daniel 7:1-14,” Int 15 (1961): 417.
48
Massinger, “Babylon in Biblical Prophecy,” 121.
49
Walter Brueggemann, “The Old One Takes Notice,” ChrCent 109 (1992): 867.
50
Henze, “Daniel,” NIBOne-VC, 488.
205
contemplating the horns, a little horn arises on the beast, and “three of the previous horns
[are] uprooted in front of it” (7:8).52 Like the first animal, the fourth animal’s small horn
has an appearance that suggests it is more than a mere animal. Like the first animal, the
small horn on the fourth animal has certain human features. It looks and speaks like a
human being. If the animal symbolizes the human and the human the supernatural, the
little horn sees itself as having the power of a heavenly being, and speaks accordingly.
But it is not given such a position by God, as the first three animals were given their
different commissions. It gradually becomes apparent that the little horn is someone of
arrogant appearance and tongue whose person and activity constitute a challenge to
heaven itself, like the challenge of the Babylonian king in Isa 14:1-15,53 and the
challenge set by the builders of the Tower of Babel in Gen 11. It is understandable that
Jews and Christians found it possible to reapply the imagery of the fourth beast to later
powers and especially the little horn’s arrogance and godlessness, starting with Roman
actions against the Jews and Christians. Nor is it surprising that the small horn becomes
the archetype of the Antichrist—all that is opposed to the messianic ideal of a kingdom of
51
Pace, Daniel, 234.
52
Steinmann, Daniel, 348. The large LXX plus in v. 8, ‘and it made war against
the holy ones’ (καὶ ἐποίει πόλεμον πρὸς τοὺς ἁγίους), is probably introduced from v. 21.
A likely Aramaic retroversion of the Greek ἐποίει πόλεμον (v. 8 LXX) would be brq
hdbo (‘did battle’), which occurs subsequently in the MT at v. 21. Meadowcroft, Aramaic
Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison, 216. Charles, followed by S. Niditch,
accepts the LXX plus in v. 8 as authentic, but the saints have not yet been introduced, and
as Collins states, the saints are intrusive in the present context. Charles, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with Introduction, Indexes and a New
English Translation, 180; Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 299;
Susan Niditch, The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition (Chico, CA: Scholars Press,
1983), 181-82.
206
righteousness, justice, liberty, and peace.54
Central to the prophetic narrative of chap. 7 is the little horn’s opposition to God
and his saints and God’s judgment of the little horn. There is a disparity between the
“little” horn’s actual size and its “great words,” implying arrogance and pride.55
Significantly, the last clause of Dan 7:8 reads literally, “a mouth speaking big” (N`Db√rVbår M™Up…w
l¶I;lAmVm).56 In other words, this sentence ends with an adjective (“big” N`Db√rVbår) but has no
noun accompanying it. It is understood to mean “arrogantly” (i.e., the horn speaks
arrogant words), as is the case in Dan 7:11a (h¡DlT;lAmVm a™Dn√råq yñî;d a$DtDb√rVbår a∞D¥yA;lIm ‹ l∂q_NIm,
“because of the boastful words the horn was speaking”). This is a fair reading, but we
should also note that the absence of the noun is an appropriate indication of the ultimate
weakness of this horn that challenges God with such pride. Its words will ultimately
mean nothing, and it will be cut off, just as the incomplete syntax suggests.57 In Dan 7 the
keyword N$Db√rVbår “great” occurs eight times, four times with respect to the little horn: from
53
54
Lucas, Daniel, 198.
55
Tarsee Li, “The Characterization of God in the Aramaic Chapters of Daniel,” in
For You Have Strengthened Me: Biblical and Theological Studies in Honor of Gerhard
Pfandl in Celebration of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. Martin T. Pröbstle, Gerald A.
Klingbeil, and Martin G. Klingbeil (St. Peter am Hart, Austria: Seminar Schloss
Bogenhofen, 2007), 115.
56
Hebrew equivalent expressions are used in Ps 12:3-4 (v. 3 twqDlSj tApVc, and v. 4
twáølOd◊…g t®r¶R;bådVm) to describe proud words coming from a flattering tongue. Pride and
arrogance tend to be accompanied by deceit and flattery. Goldingay, Daniel, 164. Similar
phraseology also occurs twice in the Enochic Book of Watchers: “[Because of all] great
and hard [words they spoke against him,” En 1:9; and: “[but] you [tr]ansgress against
Him with great and hard (words) with your unclean <mouth>,” En 5:4.
57
Pace, Daniel, 236.
207
the great sea (7:2) come up great beasts (7:3,17), the fourth, which is different from the
three beasts before, has great iron teeth (7:7), and the horn is speaking great words (7:8,
11, 20) and is in appearance greater than its companions (7:20).58 The Aramaic term
N`Db√rVbår comes from the root bår (great, elevated) and conveys the idea of presumption and
pride. As Doukhan puts it, “The spirit of Babel has reincarnated itself into this emerging
power whose goal is to usurp God. But the arrogance of the little horn goes beyond
words. It seeks as well to replace God on the level of history.”59 The wickedness of the
looks and words of the little horn here referred to (Dan 7:8, 11, 12, 20) will become
explicit only in v. 25 (cf. 8:23; 11:36).60 Boasting as an act of arrogance and rebellion
against the gods was also a part of Nabonidus’s portrait in the Verse Account.
Significantly, such boasting is also ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4:27 (MT).
Accordingly, the boastful words ascribed to the little horn in Dan 7:8, 11, describe a ruler
who is arrogant and rebellious in his power.61
The arrogant sense of the words found in Dan 7:8 may be better understood by
taking into consideration the one who speaks. As the text seems to suggest, the four
beasts and the little horn allude to the fact that evil has crept into the world of humans,
and it is especially manifested in the sphere of political power.62 It is probably significant
58
59
107.
60
61
Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch
Figure and of the Son of Man, 476.
62
Marco Settembrini, Sapienza e Storia in Dn 7-12, AnBib 169 (Rome: Editrice
208
that the initial description of the fourth beast lacks the reminder of God’s standing in the
background. The beast’s actions seem unrestrained. This becomes clearer in vv. 21, 25.
The small horn that arises from it deliberately mounts a challenge against the Most High
and the “holy ones.” It is marked by arrogance and godlessness.63
Verse 25 summarizes the activities of the little horn better than does any other
part of this chapter. It consists of four poetic lines characterized by parallelism:
A He will speak out against the Most High (blasphemy)
B and will wear down the saints of the Most High (persecution)
A1 and will intend to change the set times and law (blasphemy)
B1 The saints will be given into his hand for a time . . . (persecution). 64
Previously the little horn was depicted as “speaking great things, that is, speaking
boastfully” (7:8, 20). The angel now explains to the prophet Daniel the content of the
horn’s words. The most general characterization is that they are polemical “words against
the Most High” (7:25). The angel then adds a more specific evil purpose: through his
words, the little horn “will intend to change times and Law,” t$∂d◊w Ny∞InVmˆz ‹hÎyÎnVvAhVl (7:25).65 A
similar expression is used in Dan 2:21, a$D¥yÅnVmˆz◊w ‹aD¥yÅn∂;dIo a§EnVvAhVm a…wh◊w, where the subject is God.
The text thus affirms that the ability to change “times and seasons” is a prerogative
exclusively reserved for God. Consequently, Dan 7:25 suggests that the little horn
attempts to usurp that divine prerogative, through its words and teaching usurp God’s
Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2007), 105.

63
Lucas, Daniel, 194.
64
Ferch, The Son of Man in Daniel 7, 136-43; Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom for the
Wise: Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 276.
209
authority by seeking to change the worship and piety of God’s people. The little horn
attempts to replace God’s Word with his own “great words” (7:11).66 In Daniel’s
language, this implies an attempt at usurping God, for to Daniel, only God can change the
times (cf. Dan 2:21). Actually the Bible explains this prerogative of God on the basis that,
as the Creator, He is the only one who can control time (cf. Jer 31:35; cf. Gen 1:4, 14).67
The Motif of Judgment
It is more than apparent that Dan 7 shares with Gen 11 the key motifs of pride,
kingdom, and judgment. It is particularly the fourth animal and the little horn in which
the insatiable greed for power reaches its zenith and that calls upon itself the judgment of
total annihilation. Yet to a lesser extent God’s punishment is also directed at the other
animals and the kingdoms of the world that they represent (Dan 7:11). Hybrids that to the
smallest detail represent unrestrained human greed for power and the human desire to
rule must be totally destroyed and completely annihilated before the true ruler of the
world can establish his qualitatively differently structured kingdom. Thus, Groß affirms
that Gen 11:1-9 and Dan 7 are the same in their expression of God’s judgment toward
presumptuous world domination by human rulers.68 Just as the stories of Nebuchadnezzar
and Belshazzar have illustrated God’s judging activity within the course of the history of
65
66
Ibid.
67
68
210
the nations, here in Dan 7 a final judgment is to be executed, not upon the deeds of
individuals but upon the life of an empire.69
Furthermore, Dan 7 maintains the association of the heavenly council with
judgment that also appears in Gen 11 and elsewhere in the OT (cf. 1 Kgs 22, Isa 6, and Ps
82).70 The coming of God for judgment was already part of Old Testament belief (cf.
Zech 14:5; Ps 96:13; Joel 3:12). Thus the existence of a heavenly court should be no
surprise in view of the common OT idea that God has a heavenly council associated with
him (e.g., Job 1, Ps 82).71 The same divine council that passed judgment on the builders
of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11: 5-7), the pride of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4), and the
sacrilegious Belshazzar (Dan 5), now in Dan 7 executed judgment against the pretension
of the fourth beast and its little horn (Dan 7:8, 20, 25). Note that the three passages in
Dan 7 that refer expressis verbis to the judgment motif occur right after the boastful
speaking of the little horn. They are found in vv. 9-14, 21-22, and 26. The horn’s
arrogance ends when the awesome Ancient of Days takes his throne to preside over a
judgment that involves opening books. Condemned by this tribunal, the offending horn is
slain and its body destroyed (vv. 9-11). The vision concludes with the entrance of “One
like a human being,” who is presented to the Ancient of Days and receives an eternal,
glorious, and global kingdom (vv. 13-14).72
69
70
Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 17. Cf. Min Suc Kee, “The Heavenly
Council and its Type-scene,” JSOT 31 (2007): 259-73.
71
Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, 22-23.
72
Roy E. Gane, “Hurrian Ullikummi and Daniel’s ‘Little Horn’,” in Birkat
211
Gerhard von Rad has pointed out how each of the narratives of Gen 1-11, from
the Fall to the Tower of Babel, exhibits a movement from (a) human sin to (b) divine
punishment/judgment. He states that “God reacts to these outbreaks of human sin with
severe judgments. . . . [Yet] the narrator shows something else along with the
consequences of divine judgment. . . . Each time, in and after the judgment, God’s
preserving, forgiving will to save is revealed.”73 The sin of the tower-builders may be
seen not as a mere expression of human self-importance and self-reliance, but as an act of
pride matched in its defiance of God only by the first sin in the garden; like the eating of
the forbidden fruit, the tower-building may be an assault on heaven, an attempt at self-
divinization.74 This is precisely the sin of the fourth beast and its grandiloquent little horn
in Dan 7; it attempts to overstep the bounds of creatureliness. As Groß puts it,
Particularly in usurped global domination people continue to be tempted to confront

Yahweh, the Lord of the Earth, and to ignore him. What according to Gen 11:1-9 has
shaped the beginnings of the races on this earth and their path through history,
according to Daniel remains determinative for the entire rest of world history. The
theological interpretation of world history in the book of Daniel is at one and the
same time horrifying and comforting. For according to Daniel, when it relies on itself,
world history takes a path of increasing lack of order, limitless greed for power, and
thus increasing distance from God—which at the same time is also escalating
inhumanity.75
Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism
Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, vol. 1, ed.
Chaim Cohen et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 489.
73
Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1972), 152.
74
D. J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (Sheffield, England: University of
Sheffield, Dept. of Biblical Studies, 1978), 75. Cf. Albert de Pury, “La tour de Babel et la
vocation d’Abraham notes exégétiques,” ETR 53 (1978): 89.
75
212
According to Antonio González, from Genesis through Revelation the empire of
Babel stands for idolatry of power, injustice, the destruction of human lives, and the
pretension of universal domination.76 Daniel 7 reveals that a judgment is convened and
concludes by (1) taking away the dominion of the little horn (7:23-26), and in (2)
establishing the dominion of God’s eternal kingdom (7:27, 28). The removal of the one
gives way to the establishing of the other.77
It is immediately after the horn utters great things (7:8) that the judgment scene
sets in (7:9-10). Right after the judgment scene, Daniel refers again to the great words
that the horn speaks (7:11), immediately followed by the destruction of the fourth beast.
The great words of the horn frame the judgment scene, almost like an inclusio, and the
literary effect is that the judgment of the horn and the fourth beast is triggered by the
great words of the horn.78 So in Dan 7 the motif of pride before the judgment is evoked,
which is also attested in Gen 11.
As shown above, here in Dan 7 the messianic Son of Man comes into the presence
of the Ancient of Days and is given power and authority, which evokes the worship of
“all peoples, nations, and languages.” This phrase is an allusion to Gen 10-12 and shows
that the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise as a solution to the Gen 3-11 problem will
76
Antonio González, Reinado de Dios e imperio: Ensayo de teologia social
(Santander, Spain: Sal Terrae, 2003), 89.
77
Norman R. Gulley, “Why the Danielic Little Horn Is Not Antiochus IV
Epiphanes,” in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed.
David Merling (Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, Siegfried H. Horn
Archaeological Museum, Andrews University, 1997), 192.
78
213
be carried out by the Son of Man in the eschatological future.79 Therefore, by using the
motifs of kingdom, pride, divine council, and judgment, Dan 7 alludes to Gen 11.
Implications of the Last Two Allusions
As in the narrative of Gen 11, here in Dan 7 the pride and exaltation of human
power knows no limit. Similarly, as in Gen 11, here in Dan 7 it is judgment which puts an
end to the evil one (v. 22), yet in Dan 7, the judgment takes on another perspective, for
here it is primarily concerning “the saints of the most High.” Thus the judgment is
pronounced “in favor of the saints of the Most High” (v. 22)80 and against their enemies.
Just as YHWH had set limits to the Babelites in Gen 11, so too explicit limits are set on
the prideful power of the human kingdoms in Dan 7. Consequently, in Dan 7 the
sovereignty of God is expressed explicitly through the prominence given to the Ancient
of Days and the role of the divine court. In the context of the court, eternal and universal
dominion is handed to the Son of Man (vv. 13-14); the critical moment occurs when the
Ancient of Days renders judgment in favor of the saints (v. 22), taking the dominion from
the beasts and handing it over to them (vv. 26-27).81
79
Hays, The Message of the Prophets: A Survey of the Prophetic and Apocalyptic
Books of the Old Testament, 73.
80
According to G. Hasel, “the saints of the Most High” in Dan 7 cannot refer to
angelic beings, as a recent trend in current scholarship supposes, but these “saints” are a
people of holiness, namely those who are characterized by holiness, the holy people (cf.
Ps 34:10; Dan 12:7). G. F. Hasel, “The Identity of ‘The Saints of the Most High’ in
Daniel 7,” Bib 56 (1975): 173-92. Cf. Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 90.
81
Block, “When Nightmares Cease: A Message of Hope from Daniel 7,” 110. The
language of divine giving and handing over (Aramaic bhy; Hebrew Ntn) is attested through
214
“God” Comes Down (Gen 11:5; Dan 7:13)
The description of Dan 7:13 compares with the coming of God to earth in Gen
11:5 as in other passages of the OT (Isa 19:1; Pss 18:10-13; 68:4; 97:2; 104:3). Daniel
sees the “Son of Man” “coming down” from heaven. His coming upon the clouds clearly
identifies him with God,82 whose return Scripture describes in similar terms.83 Thus both
Gen 11: 5 and Dan 7:13-14 describe a movement from heaven to earth,84 in which the
Deity passes judgment on the rebels, namely, the Babelites in Gen 11 and the fourth beast
with its little horn in Dan 7. Keil and Delitzsch strongly maintain that in Dan 7:13 the one
who appears with the clouds of heaven comes from heaven to earth and is brought before
God, who judges the world, so that he may receive dominion, majesty, and a kingdom.85
the book of Daniel (Dan 1:2, 9, 17; 2:21, 37, 38; 5:18, 19, 28; 7:4, 6, 12; 8: 12, 13).
82
For a thorough study on the biblical cloud see J. Luzarraga, Las tradiciones de
la nube en la Biblia y en el judaismo primitivo, AnBib 54 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1973). In connection with Dan 7:13, L. Sabourin also affirms that the coming with the
clouds is an exclusively divine attribute. Léopold Sabourin, “Biblical Cloud:
Terminology and Traditions,” BTB 4 (1974): 304. According to R. Davidson, in a
negative sense, clouds are used to symbolize prideful self-exaltation (Job 20:6; Isa
14:14). Richard Davidson, “Cloud, Cloud of the Lord,” EDBT (1996), 102. Significantly,
in Jewish tradition Nebuchadnezzar’s arrogance is associated with a cloud and the
passage of Isa 14:13 as follows: “He [Nebuchadnezzar] later became so arrogant that he
thought himself a god, and cherished the plan of enveloping himself in a cloud, so that he
might live apart from men. A heavenly voice resounded: ‘“O thou wicked man, son of a
wicked man, and descendant of Nimrod the wicked, who incited the world to rebel
against God. . . . How, then, canst thou speak of ascending like unto the Most High
“above the heights of the clouds”?’” L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 2nd ed.
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003), 1103.
83
117.
84
85
Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 236. From the
Gospels onwards, Christians usually read Dan 7:13 as a prophecy of the second coming
of Christ. Lucas, Daniel, 185. Cf. G. R. Beasley-Murray, “The Interpretation of Daniel
215
Moreover, it is important to recognize that the judgment passage in Dan 7:9-14 contains
three scenes: (a) a judgment in heaven in verses 9 and 10; (b) the end of the fourth beast,
in other words, the outcome of the judgment in verses 11 and 12; and (c) the reception of
the kingdom by the Son of man in verses 13 and 14.86 According to Doukhan, Dan 7:13-
14 describes the downward movement of the “Son of man” through the use of seven
verbs, the tenses of which render three distinct phases as follows:
Phase 1 occurs during the contemporary period of the prophet and is presented by a
verb in the participial tense: “And behold someone like a Son of man [was] coming
on the clouds of heaven” (verse 13, literal translation).
During phase 2 the prophet looks in the past in relation to the participle above and
pronounces three verbs in the Aramaic perfect tense, which we translate by a
pluperfect: “He had come to the Ancient of Days, had been brought to him, and there
had been given unto him the domination, the glory, and the kingdom” (verses 13, 14,
literal translation).
Next, in phase 3 the prophet looks to the future in relation to the participle in phase 1
and utters three verbs in the Aramaic imperfect tense, which we translate by a future:
“And all peoples, nations, and men of every language will worship him. His dominion
is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will
never be destroyed” (verse 14).87
Furthermore, Doukhan argues that through these back-and-forth movements in
time—present, past, future—the prophet indicates that one of the steps toward the
establishment of the kingdom is a period of judgment.88 Indeed, Dan 7:9-14 describes
God’s judgment concerning the hostile powers. The judgment ends with the total
7,” CBQ 45 (1983): 44-58.

86
Gerhard Pfandl, Daniel: The Seer of Babylon (Hagerstown, MD: Review and
Herald, 2004), 71.
87
117.
88
Ibid.
216
condemnation of the world empires and the triumph of the cause of God.89 Significantly,
in both passages (Gen 11 and Dan 7) the “rising up” movement represents the rebellious
mind-set of the Babelites and the beasts while the “coming down from heaven” describes
the Deity’s movement. Therefore, as the Babelites constitute a corporate rebellion against
God, here in Dan 7 the four beasts and the little horn represent corporate rebellion as
well,90 which calls for God’s intervention.
Implications
G. R. Beasley-Murray argues that the “coming down” on the clouds of the Son of
Man in Dan 7 is to be interpreted in terms of theophany, in which the Deity passes
judgment on the tyrant rulers represented by the four beasts and the little horn.91
Moreover, the use of the passivum divinum in Dan 7:4-6 makes it clear that the four
world empires do not operate through their own strength but rather through God’s
dispensation.92 This understanding is further strengthened by the interpretation section of
the vision, which states in vv. 21-22 that the oppression of the tyrant continued “until the
Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most
89
Pfandl, Daniel: The Seer of Babylon, 71. Cf. Franz Düsterwald, Die Weltreiche
und das Gottesreich nach den Weissagungen des Propheten Daniel (Freiburg im
Bresgau: Herder, 1890), 177.
90
91
Beasley-Murray, “The Interpretation of Daniel 7,” 49.
92
Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 212. The use of the passive voice
has an important effect on the portrayal of divine activity and the reader’s perception of
it. Amy C. Merrill Willis, Dissonance and the Drama of Divine Sovereignty in the Book
of Daniel (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2010), 70-71.
217
High.” Thus as in Dan 2, where annihilation was the fate of the world’s empire,93 here in
Dan 7 the arrogant rulers are destroyed and then replaced by the Kingdom of God.
As in the narrative of the Tower of Babel in Gen 11, here in Dan 7 once again
God takes away the dominion of the antagonist rulers.94 Furthermore, the usage of the
“judgment” and the “coming down” motifs in Dan 7 clearly links this pivotal passage of
the book of Daniel to the narrative of the Tower of Babel. Both the book of Genesis and
the book of Daniel are consistent in showing that God, throughout history, delegates
power to humans, 95 but the biblical text indicates that the ultimate Ruler and Judge is
God Himself. Thus Dan 7 befits this conception: the “Son of Man” is displacing all
political dominions and replacing them with his own ultimate delegated power. Therefore
from Dan 7 through Dan 12 the ideology of rule is in fact the theology of rule.96 Then
there was no doubt that for both the author of Genesis and the author of Daniel the God
of Israel is the real ruler over creation and history.
Introduction
Daniel 8 begins the final major movement within the book of Daniel. It relays the
first of three closely related visions recorded in chaps. 8-12. These three visions focus
upon a period of intense persecutions for God’s people that occur after the lifetime of
93
94
Block, “When Nightmares Cease: A Message of Hope from Daniel 7,” 110.
95
Lacocque, “Allusions to Creation in Daniel 7,” 123.
96
Daniel J. Harrington, “The Ideology of Rule in Daniel 7-12,” SBLSP 38 (1999):
540.
218
Daniel.97 Chapter 8 is the report of a symbolic vision.98 Daniel 8 contains a full-blown
apocalyptic vision, complete with symbolic elements, such as the ram, the goat, and the
horns.99 This vision is directly related to the preceding one in chap. 7, to which it alludes
in v. 1 (“after that which appeared to me at the first”). The vision consists of a series of
episodes, which show a clear progression. First, the ram magnifies itself. Then the he-
goat defeats the ram and magnifies itself. Its great horn is broken but the new little horn
magnifies itself even up to the Prince of the host (3-12).100 Second, there is a heavenly
audition between two holy personages (vv. 13-14). Third, the last section of the vision
deals with the first part of Gabriel’s explanation of the revelation (vv. 15-26). The unity
of whole vision, like that of chap. 7, has been contested. Although historical-critical
scholarship has attempted to challenge the authenticity of Dan 8:9-14, 16, 26a, and
97
Edlin, Daniel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, 192. It should be noted
that the language used in this chapter reverts to Hebrew, rather than continuing in the
Aramaic, which has been used since 2:4. Leon James Wood, A Commentary on Daniel
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 1973), 206. The transition from Aramaic to Hebrew is
attested in 4QDana and 4QDanb. Eugene C. Ulrich, “Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran,
Part 1: A Preliminary Edition of 4QDan,” BASOR 268 (1987): 18.
98
Goldingay points out that the vision uses the term NwøzDj six times (vv. 1, 2, 13, 15,
26); also expressions for “appear”/“see”/“look” (vv. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 15, 20), the
preposition k “like,” the demonstrative particle h´…nIh (“there before me,” vv. 3, 5, 15, 19),
and terms such as Mdr “fall into a trance” (v. 18) characteristic of vision reports. The root
hzj appears also as t…wzDj (“conspicuous,” v. 5, recurring in v. 8 MT). The symbolic nature
of the vision is indirectly noted by the use of terms for “(cause to) understand,” vv. 15,
16, 17, 19, 23. The chapter also uses hRa√rAm to denote not only appearance (v. 15) but
(verbal) revelation (vv. 16, 26, 27); the auditory aspect to the vision is of great
importance (cf. omv “hear,” vv. 13, 16). Goldingay, Daniel, 200.
99
Donn Walter Leatherman, “Structural Considerations Regarding the Relation of
Daniel 8 & Daniel 9,” in The Cosmic Battle for Planet Earth: Essays in Honor of
Norman R. Gulley, ed. Ron du Preez and Jiri Moskala (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews
University, 2003), 295.
219
27b,101 the evidence demonstrates its genuineness.102
Scholars agree that Dan 8 follows the general form of chap. 7, and it also alludes
to earlier Scripture.103 The influence of Dan 7 is patent, especially in the symbolism of
100
Collins, Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 85.
101
Ginsberg, Studies in Daniel, 32-33; H. L. Ginsberg, “The Composition of the
Book of Daniel,” VT 54 (1954): 246-75; Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 230-
31. B. Hasslberger claims that Dan 8:11-14 is a later interpolation. Bernhard Hasslberger,
Hoffnung in der Bedrängnis: Eine formkritische Untersuchung zu Dan 8 und 10-12 (St.
Ottilien: EOS, 1977), 19-20. For A. Jepsen the entire description of the “little horn” in
both vision (8:9-14) and interpretation (vv. 23-26) is a secondary addition. A. Jepsen,
“Bemerkungen zum Danielbuch,” VT 11 (1961): 386-91.
102
G. F. Hasel, “The ‘Little Horn,’ the Heavenly Sanctuary, and the Time of the
End: A Study of Daniel 8:9-14,” in Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical
Studies, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 378.
In vv. 11 and 12, the subject changes from feminine (horn) to masculine, that is, the
author slips from the allegorical mode of the vision and speaks directly of the king. Such
a lapse scarcely requires us to posit a second author. Verses 13 and 14 have been thought
secondary because they are an audition rather than a vision, but apocalyptic writers do
not necessarily have the same concern for formal purity as some form-critics. Collins,
Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 328. Lacocque argues that vv. 13 and 14
are the heart of Dan 8. Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 165. Moreover, vv. 13 and 14 are
closely related to vv. 11 and 12 by the use of the terms dyImD;t and oAvRÚp, so the decision on
their authenticity will be influenced by the prior decision on those verses. Verse 26a
clearly presupposes vv. 13 and 14 and stands or falls with them. Collins, Daniel: A
Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 328.
103
For Lucas, Daniel’s overhearing the conversation of the two angelic figures in
8:13–14 recalls Micaiah’s overhearing unidentified (angelic) voices in 1 Kgs 22:20–22.
Lucas, Daniel, 211. Cf. George Savran, Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical
Narrative (London: T. & T. Clark 2005), 240. Similarly, scholars have suggested that
Dan 8 and the vision of Zechariah share the common motif of ‘listening in’ on heavenly
conversations. Niditch, The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition, 232. There are also
some verbal similarities between Hab 2:3, “the vision awaits its set time; it hastens to the
end,” and Dan 8:17, 19, where the same words are used for “vision,” “set time/period”
and “end.” Lucas, Daniel, 211. Cf. O. P. Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk and
Zephaniah, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 171. Goldingay comments that
the three occurrences of oAvRÚp in Isa 59:12, 13 and the two in Dan 8:12, 13 may not be
coincidental; nor may that between the description of Jerusalem as a desolation (hDmDmVv) in
Isa 64:9 [10] and mention of the desolating rebellion (Mmv oAvRÚph) in Dan 8:13. Goldingay,
220
the little horn,104 the use of the animal imagery, the mention of “holy ones,” and 8:1
Daniel, 202. There are also similarities between Isa 52:14; 53:12 (tjv, Mym…wxo, Mybr), and
Dan 8:24-25, where the same words are used. W. H. Brownlee, “The Servant of the Lord
in the Qumran Scrolls,” BASOR 132 (1953): 13. Regarding the use of the animal imagery
in Dan 8, Goldingay proposes that the prophet takes up a tradition that goes back to Gen
49 via Ezekiel’s nature allegories (Ezek 15; 17; 19; 39:18). Goldingay, Daniel, 203.
According to Holger Gzella, the use of rams and he-goats as images in the prophetic
tradition allows the reader to grasp something of their significance in Dan 8. Both
animals are traditionally associated with power and thus also with leadership and
kingship throughout the history of biblical texts, and such a metaphorical usage is well
attested in most Semitic languages. Holger Gzella, Cosmic Battle and Political Conflict:
Studies in Verbal Syntax and Contextual Interpretation of Daniel 8 (Rome: Pontificio
Istituto Biblico, 2003), 133; Patrick D. Miller, “Animal Names as Designations in
Ugaritic and Hebrew,” UF 2 (1970): 177-86. Others have proposed that Dan 8 alludes to
the motif of the rebellious king who seeks to usurp the place of God himself as described
in Isa 14. The mythic language of Isa 14 is given precision by the more literal language of
the laments in Isa 59:1-15; 63:7-64:11 [12]. Here already truth has fallen in the public
squares and cannot be found (59:14-15; cf. Dan 8:12), and God’s sanctuary is trampled
down by Israel’s adversaries (63:15, 18; cf. Dan 8:11, 13). Goldingay, Daniel, 202.
104
Scholars have recognized that there are several lexical, thematic, and structural
similarities between the two horns. The following is a list of some of their similarities:
1. Both are identified with the same symbol: a horn.
7:8, Aramaic, qeren 8:9, Hebrew, qeren
2. Both are described as “little” at the outset.
7:8, Aramaic, ‹h∂ryEo◊z 8:9, Hebrew, hó∂ryIoV…x
3. Both are described as becoming “great” later on.
7:20, Aramaic, rab 8:9ff, Hebrew, gadal
4. Both are described as persecuting powers.
7:21, 25 8:10, 24
5. Both have the same target group as object of their persecution.
7:27, “people of the saints” 8:24, “people of the saints”
Aramaic, y∞Evyî;dåq M™Ao Hebrew, MyÌvOdVq_MAo
6. Both are described as self-exalting and blasphemous powers.
7:8, 11, 20, 25 8:10-12, 25.
7. Both represent the final and greatest anti-God climax of their visions.
7:8-9, 21-22, 25-26 8:12-14, 25
8. Both are to be supernaturally destroyed.
7:11, 26 8:25.
William H. Shea, “Unity of Daniel,” in Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and
Exegetical Studies, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute,
1986), 187. Yet, scholars have also identified some differences between the horns. Thus
whereas in Dan 7 the little horn sprouts from a monstrous beast, here in Dan 8 the little
horn comes “out of one of them,” meaning out of one of the four winds of heaven. Roy E.
221
refers back explicitly to the earlier vision.105 In addition, a comparison between the
Hebrew of Dan 8 and the Aramaic of Dan 7 reveals the intertextual relation of both
chapters.106 Beyond any doubt, there is a close lexical and thematic relationship between
Dan 7 and Dan 8.107 Probably the most important contribution of the intertextual analysis
between Dan 7 and 8 (especially vv. 9-14) lies in the connection of the three themes of
judgment, creation, and cult. Reading Dan 8 in light of Dan 7 adds emphasis to the theme
of judgment as expressed by v®díOq qäå;dVxˆn◊w in 8:14c.108
A few scholars have advanced the idea that Dan 8 alludes to the book of Genesis.
Gane, Who’s Afraid of the Judgment?: The Good News about Christ’s Work in the
Heavenly Sanctuary (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2006), 37. For further similarities as well
as differences between the horns of Dan 7 and Dan 8, see also Doukhan, Daniel: The
Vision of the End, 24-25; Gruenthaner, “The Four Empires of Daniel,” 203-05; Gerhard
Maier, Der Prophet Daniel, Wuppertaler Studienbibel (Wuppertal Brockhaus, 1982),
307; Rowley, Darius, the Mede and the Four Empires in the Book of Daniel: A Historical
Study of Contemporary Theories, 124-128; Margit Linnéa Süring, “The Horn-Motifs in
the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East,” AUSS 22 (1984): 338-39; Young, The
Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 276-77.
105
Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 342. Thus, the visions
of chap. 8 continue to elaborate and confirm elements in both chaps. 2 and 7. Chapter 8
picks up the central theme of the rise and fall of the four world kingdoms from chap. 2,
but focuses only on the last two within the original vision. Brevard S. Childs,
Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 617.
106
Some of the common terminologies found in both Dan 7 and Dan 8 include: (1)
JKRlRm (7:1, 17, 24 [2x]) // (8:1, 20, 21 [2x], 23, 27); (2) …wkVlAm (7:14 [2x], 18 [2x], 22, 23
[2x], 24, 27[4x]) // t…wkVlAm (8:1, 22, 23); (3) a$D¥yAmVv (7:2, 13, 27) // MˆyAmDv (8:8, 10); (4) oårSa
(7:4, 17, 23 [2x]) // X®rRa (8:5 [2x], 7, 10, 12, 18); (5) oA;b√rAa (7:3, 6, 17 [2x], // (8:8); (6) N®r®q
(7:7, 8 [4x], 11, 20 [2x], 21, 24) // (8:5, 9); (7) h∂ryEo◊z (7:8) // (8:9); (8) NyIvyî;dåq (7:18, 21, 22
[2x], 25, 27) // MyIvOdVq (8:24), vwød∂q (8:13 [2x]).
107
Moreover, both Dan 7:25 (“time, times and half a time”) and Dan 8:14 (“2,300
evening-morning”) contain a prophetic time element. Furthermore, the two visions have
several common themes and cover the same historical time span until the end. Doukhan,
Secrets of Daniel: Wisdom and Dreams of a Jewish Prince in Exile, 121.
108
222
Thus C. Seow points out that the initial words of the Hebrew text in Dan 8:3 (a§DÚcRaÎw d#DjRa
lˆy∞Aa h∞E…nIh◊w h$Ra√rRaÎw ‹yÅnyEo) are curiously reminiscent of Gen 22:13, where Abraham, after being
told to refrain from slaughtering his own son Isaac, literally lifted up his eyes and saw a
ram (lˆy$Aa_h´…nIh◊w ‹a√rÅ¥yÅw wyGÎnyEo_tRa M%Dh∂rVbAa a°DÚcˆ¥yÅw). Daniel, too, according to the Hebrew text, lifted
up his eyes and saw a ram.109
Similarly, scholars have shown that Dan 8 also alludes to Gen 1, the creation
account. It has been noticed that the association of the two segolate nouns, r®qO;b b®ro
R ,
“evening-morning” in Dan 8:14 is found in this sequence and meaning only in the
creation story, where the standard expression r®qäOb_yIh◊yÀw b®r¶Ro_yIh◊yÀw concludes each day in
the creation narrative (Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).110 Apparently the author of the book of
Daniel used this particular phraseology from Gen 1 in order to refer to full days in this
time prediction (Dan 8:14). The fact that in both cases, Gen 1 and Dan 8, the evening
(b®rRo) is mentioned first, is further support for the allusion to creation in Dan 8:14.111
Indeed, chap. 8 is indebted to earlier Scripture, yet the majority of commentators have
overlooked the allusions to Gen 11 in Dan 8.
The Motif of Pride: On ldg
Recently, a few scholars have acknowledged the relationship between Gen 11
109
Seow, Daniel, 120.
110
Doukhan, “Allusions à la création dans le livre de Daniel,” 288; Goldingay,
Daniel, 213; M. G. Klingbeil, “Creation in the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament:
An Intertextual Approach,” JATS 20 (2009): 48; S. J. Schwantes, “Ereb Boqer of Daniel
8: 14 Re-examined,” AUSS 16 (1978): 375-85; Winfried Vogel, The Cultic Motif in the
Book of Daniel (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), 124.
111
Vogel, The Cultic Motif in the Book of Daniel, 124.
223
and Dan 8. Thus Luis Alonzo Schökel and L. Sicre Diaz suggest that the language used in
Dan 8:11 to depict the little horn is reminiscent of the same arrogant attitude attested in
the narrative of the Tower of Babel.112 Similarly, G. R. Osborne thinks, without any
doubt, that as in chap. 7, here in Dan 8:11 this power wants to usurp God. Like the Tower
of Babel, the little horn “grew until it reached the host of the heavens” (v. 10).113
Moreover, Doukhan explains that the link between the little horn and the Tower of Babel
receives further confirmation by the use of the verb ldg; significantly the Hebrew Bible
uses a word from the same root to characterize the Tower of Babel (l∂;d◊gIm).114
Certainly Dan 8 builds dramatic tension through the repetition of the verb ldg.
The verb’s description of the horns unfolds the pattern of each kingdom’s ascending
aggression. Its repetition also creates rhetorical momentum for the reader. It begins at a
slow pace in v. 4 but then recurs more often, quickening the pace, as the reader moves
closer to the heart of the vision.115 An extremely important literary function can be
assigned to the verbal root ldg which, without doubt, is the keyword in Dan 8. It is
inserted at various points in Dan 8, having as its subject the different agents mentioned in
the vision as well as the king in the interpretation: in vv. 4 (ram), 8 (he-goat), 9b, 10a, 11a
112
Luis Alonso Schökel and L. Sicre Diaz, Nueva Biblia Espanola: Profetas
Comentarios II (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1980), 1278.
113
G. R. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), 500.
114
124.
115
Willis, Dissonance and the Drama of Divine Sovereignty in the Book of Daniel,
104.
224
(all: horn), and 25c (king).116
The verb ldg is used in each of vv. 8–11, the forms of expression working toward
a climax: simple lyáî;d◊gIh (“he did great things,” v. 4); dóOaVm_dAo lyâî;d◊gIh (“he grew very great,”
v. 8); rRt¢Ry_lå;d◊gI;tÅw (“it grew abundantly,” v. 9), cf. Isa 56:12; a∞DbVx_dAo läå;d◊gI;tÅw Mˆy¡DmDÚvAh (“it grew
within reach of the heavenly army,” v. 10); lyóî;d◊gIh a™DbD…xAh_rÀc d¶Ao◊w (“he grew within reach of
the leader of the army,” v. 11).117 The aggrandizement of the pagan empires is viewed as
a gradual crescendo leading up to the assault of the little horn on the heavenly host.118
The political and religious power displays for the little horn in Dan 8 are
reminiscent of the same attitude shown by the builders of the Tower of Babel. The little
horn in Dan 8 is not only a political power but also a religious power, for it is not only
portrayed with military terminology but also in priestly and religious terms, acting like a
priest and a god (8:11, 12). The horn shows an intense interest in worship that none of the
previous powers exhibits. It interferes with the worship and priestly function of the divine
commander of the host (8:11) and takes over his rights. It removes “the daily” (Heb.
tamid), the regular sanctuary service, from the divine commander, only to put itself in
charge over it. Since the agent of the sanctuary activity (tamid) is a priest, often the high
priest, the horn acts as a (high) priest and commands its own host, which it set up over
116
Martin Pröbstle, “A Linguistic Analysis of Daniel 8:11, 12,” JATS 7 (1996):
85-86. Cf. Pröbstle, “Truth and Terror: A Text-Oriented Analysis of Daniel 8:9-14,” 510.
117
118
Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 331. Cf. Montgomery,
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 335.
225
“the daily” (Dan 8:11, 12).119 In sum, this prideful religiopolitical power speaks
blasphemy (Dan 7:8, 20, 25; 8:25; 11:36), prospers (Dan 8:12, 24; 11:36), attempts to
change God’s law (Dan 7:25), puts God’s truth down (Dan 8:12), fights even against the
Prince of princes (Dan 8:11, 25), and leads people astray into false worship by deception
(Dan 8:23, 25).120
Meaning and Significance of Mˆy¡DmDÚvAh a∞DbVx_dAo
Similar to Dan 7, chap. 8 is characterized by two dimensions: the horizontal or
earthly dimension and the vertical dimension. In Dan 8 the vision starts out on the
horizontal dimension. The ram and the goat contend back and forth across the surface of
the earth. The four horns that come from the goat spread out in those directions again,
and the little horn comes on the scene of action from one of those directions. Thus the
little horn first makes itself great (lå;d◊gI;tÅw) toward the south, east, and the glorious land, or
Palestine (Dan 8:9). The preposition lRa is employed for these three horizontal directions
(v. 9). Then the little horn makes itself great (läå;d◊gI;tÅw) toward heaven (Dan 8:10). This
transition is marked by a shift to the preposition dAo, which means “up to.”121
The vertical dimension of this action is indicated by the use of the words “stars”
119
Martin Pröbstle, “Who Is the Little Horn in Daniel 8?,” in Interpreting
Scripture: Bible Questions and Answers, ed. Gerhard Pfandl (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical
Research Institute, 2010), 245. The verbal root ldg occurs nine times in the book of
Daniel (Dan 1:5; 8:4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 25; 11:36, 37) while the adjective form is found fifteen
times (Dan 8:8, 21; 9:4, 12; 10:1, 4, 7, 8; 11:2, 13, 25 (2x), 28, 44; 12:1).
120
Jiří Moskala, “Worship in the Book of Daniel,” in Encountering God in Life
and Mission: A Festschrift Honoring Jon L. Dybdahl, ed. Rudi Maier (Berrien Springs,
MI: Andrews University, 2010), 27.
121
Shea, “Unity of Daniel,” 193-94.
226
and “heaven.” These words do not primarily convey a reference to heaven as the place
where God dwells, but rather to the starry heavens. Nor is this primarily a reference to
those starry heavens as literal objects of the physical universe. The little horn is not
turning nature out of its course. Rather, these literal objects have been used as symbols in
this apocalyptic prophecy.122
Thus there is a transition in the way the verb ldg functions in this overall passage.
In the first two sections, pertaining to the Persian ram and the Grecian goat, it functions
as the concluding and summary word. In the last three sections, all of which deal with the
little horn, it functions as the opening and introductory word. The juncture at which this
transition in the usage of ldg occurs is located between v. 8 and v. 9 where the
description of the emergence of the little horn is given.123
Hebrew Bible scholars have proposed several interpretations for the construct
phrase Mˆy¡DmDÚvAh a∞DbVx,124 which occurs eighteen times in the OT.125 This host (aDbDx) probably
122
William H. Shea, “Spatial Dimensions in the Vision of Daniel 8,” in
Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical Studies, ed. Frank B. Holbrook
123
Ibid., 508.
124
Some of the main interpretations representative of their respective advocates
include:
(1) Human beings. Di Lella, Daniel: A Book for Troubling Times, 160; Lacocque,
The Book of Daniel, 161-62; Johan Lust, “Cult and Sacrifice in Daniel: The Tamid and
the Abomination of Desolation,” in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, ed. J.
Quaegebeur (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1993), 290.
(2) Celestial beings. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 332;
Longman III, Daniel, 204; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “YHWH SABAOTH—The
Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon
and Other Essays: Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies,
Tokyo, 5-7 December, 1979, ed. Tomoo Ishida (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 124;
Paul L. Redditt, Daniel: Based on the New Revised Standard Version, NCBC (Sheffield:
227
designates a cultic guard, a kind of Levitical guard. Among the duties of the Levites was
the responsibility of protecting the sanctuary from the intrusion of noncultic personnel
(Num 3:5-10; 18:1-10, 1 Chr 9:23-27).126 But Goldingay believes that the expression
Mˆy¡DmDÚvAh a∞DbVx may refer both to humans and supernatural beings. He suggests that “the
heavenly army is the Jewish people, or the priesthood in particular, viewed as of heavenly
significance because of their relationship with the God of heaven. They are the Lord’s
armies (Exod 7:4; cf. 6:26; 12:17, 51; Num 33:1). Yet the people attacked include “some
of the stars,” which rather points to the heavenly army being a supernatural body.”127
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 139.

(3) Mythological meaning: gods. Delcor, Le Livre de Daniel, 173; H. L. Ginsberg,
“The Book of Daniel,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 2 of The Hellenistic
Age, ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1989), 518; Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 236; Emil G. Kraeling,
Commentary on the Prophets: Daniel-Malachi (Camden: Nelson, 1966), 2:57;
Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel; Russell,
Daniel, 144. Collins rightly refutes this interpretation. In the view of the parallelism with
the qedoshim in the interpretation (8:24), it is surely more likely that the host here is
Yahweh’s host rather than the pagan gods. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of
Daniel, 140.
125
Deut 17:3; 1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Kgs 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4, 5; Isa 34:4; Jer 8:2; 19:13;
33:22; Zeph 1:5; Dan 8:10; Neh 9:6; 2 Chr 18:18; 33:3, 5.
126
Ángel M. Rodríguez, “Significance of the Cultic Language in Daniel 8:9-14,”
in Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical Studies, ed. Frank B. Holbrook
127
Goldingay, Daniel. For P. Miller the term Mˆy¡DmDÚvAh a∞DbVx functions as a part of the
divine assembly. Micaiah ben Imlah in his vision of the divine council sees standing
about Yahweh “all the host of heaven” (2 Kgs 22:19). This host includes the sun, the
moon, and the stars (Deut 4:19 and 17:3) and is identified with the angelic host (Ps
103:20-21; Ps 148:2-3). Thus Miller explains that Mˆy¡DmDÚvAh a∞DbVx is a technical term referring
to a fixed and specific group usually associated with astral elements. Patrick D. Miller,
The Divine Warrior in Early Israel, HSM 5 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1973), 67, 154. For further detail on aDbDx see also Tremper Longman III, “‫צבא‬,”
NIDOTTE (1997), 3:733-35; Herbert Niehr, “Host of Heaven ‫צבא השמים‬,” DDD (1999),
428-30; H. Ringgren, “‫צבא‬,” TDOT (2003), 12:213; M. Weinfeld, “The Worship of
228
Significantly, the arrogance of the little horn knows no limit and even aspires to
equal the “Prince of the host,” a™DbD…xAh_rÀc (Dan 8:11). Since the word aDbDx is used in vv. 10-
11, one would expect the host to be the same. Moreover, the biblical traditions explicitly
note that the host of heaven, the sun, moon, and stars, comprised the army and council of
Yahweh.128 The majority of scholars agree that “Prince of the host” here refers to God
himself.129 Joshua 5:14-15 uses an extended form of the phrase here, “the Prince of the
army” (a™DbD…xAh_rÀc, Dan 8:11), to refer to “the Prince of the army of Yahweh”
(h™Dwh◊y_a`DbVx_rAc),130 which confirm that in both passages the reference is to God.
According to Gzella,131 the motif of attacking the stars (Dan 8:10) is a topos for
illustrating a maximum of arrogance. Even though it may have originated as a form of
Molech and of the Queen of Heaven and Its Background,” UF 4 (1972): 149-54; G.
Westphal, “‫צבא השמים‬,” in Orientalische Studien Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten
Geburtstag (2. März 1906) gewidmet von Freunden und Schülern, ed. C. Bezold (Gießen:
Töpelmann, 1906), 2:719-28.
128
Mullen, The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, 194. In
the song of Deborah, the stars fight from heaven for Isarel against Sisera: “From the
heavens the stars fought, from their courses they fought against Sisera” (Judg 5:20).
Similarly, in the book of Job is found that the stars are also members of the divine army:
“while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy” (Job 38:7).
129
Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary, 157; Collins, Daniel: A
Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 332-33; Goldingay, Daniel, 210; Hartman and Di
Lella, The Book of Daniel, 236; Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Book of Daniel, 335; Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 172.
130
Steinmann, Daniel, 402. That this figure is a member of the divine assembly is
immediately indicated by his identification of himself as “the commander of the army of
Yahweh” and his command to Joshua to take off his shoes because he is on holy ground,
that is, before the Lord’s representative. Patrick D. Miller, “Cosmology and World Order
in the Old Testament: The Divine Council as Cosmic-Political Symbol,” HBT 9 (1987):
58.
131
Gzella, Cosmic Battle and Political Conflict: Studies in Verbal Syntax and
Contextual Interpretation of Daniel 8, 121, 139.
229
royal self-praise at some stage, it carries extremely negative overtones in the imagery of
the Bible. The Tower of Babel in Genesis is a well-known symbol for human ambition;
apart from that, one may also recall the mockery of the king of Babylon in Isa 14:13 of
whom it is said: y¡IaVsI;k MyâîrDa l™Ea_yEbVkwáøkVl lAo¶A;mIm h$RlTo`Ra Mˆy∞AmDÚvAh ‹ÔKVbDbVlÌb D;t√r§AmDa hD;tAa◊w.132
Here is the attempt to ascend to heaven, and the challenge to the stars (Dan 8:10),
as well as the claim to rival even God himself (Dan 8:11, 25).133 The final two verses of
this unit, vv. 11-12, heavily focus on the consequences of the growing of the last horn. In
total, they contain, despite their shortness, no less than seven verbal sentences and so
apparently aim at an extremely graphic description of what is going on. This stylistic
feature suggests to the reader that they depict the crucial point of the whole narrative. As
if it were not enough that the horn had already attacked the heavenly host, it goes on to
grow up to the prince of the host himself.134
From Dan 8:11 it seems clear that the expression lyóî;d◊gIh a™DbD…xAh_rÀc d¶Ao◊w refers to the
peak of arrogance, an attack against the heavenly powers and their prince. The Hebrew
term lyóî;d◊gIh that is used here is the Hiphil form, which basically means “to prove oneself
132
Porteous also believes that the imagery of the stars in Dan 8:10 might allude to
Isa 14:13, where it is prophesied that the arrogance of the king of Babylon, who had
thought to ascend to heaven and enthrone himself above the stars of God, is to be
punished by his being brought down to the underworld. Porteous, Daniel: A
Commentary, 125.
133
The Mesopotamian myth of Zu spoke of a divine figure who rebelled against
Enlil, king of the gods, and stole the tablets of destiny, leading to chaos until Zu was
vanquished. There are Hittite and Greek myths that tell of uncontrolled, intrafamily
struggles among the gods for supreme power, such as the Hittite Kumarbi and Ullikumi
texts (Pritchard 1955, 120-125) and the Greek Titanomachis, known from Hesiod’s
Theogony. Gowan, Daniel, 117.
134
230
to be great actually and effectively.” Thus the intrinsically transitive Hiphil of ldg always
means “to set oneself forth as great illegally, presumptuously, and arrogantly, to boast, to
triumph over (‘al) others.”135
Daniel’s vision of the arrogant ram and goat uses the Hiphil stem (Dan 8:4, 8, 11,
25), whereas the boasting of the king of the north is in the Hitpael (Dan 11:36-37).136 The
apocalyptic description of the great adversary of God and his people is the genre in which
we encounter the intrinsically transitive ldg in the Hiphil in the sense of boasting and
arrogant conduct. In Dan 8 ldg is used of the growing power of empires that refuse to
tolerate any kind of rule beside their own.137 According to Solomon “pride goes before
destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov 16:18). The arrogance that may
come with success and power can lead nations or rulers to overreach themselves in
various ways that contribute to their downfall.138 Here in Dan 8 the little horn displays the
same “arrogant spirit” like that of the builders of the Tower of Babel.
Implications
As in Gen 11, the arrogance displayed by the little horn in Dan 8 is a sin against
God as an effort to move into the divine world, the divine domain. The threatened loss of
creature limits (Gen 11:6-7 and Dan 8:9-11) leads in both instances to the judging activity
Contextual Interpretation of Daniel 8, 115.

135
R. Mosis, “‫גדל‬,” TDOT (1975), 2:404-05.
136
M. G. Abegg, “‫גדל‬,” NIDOTTE (1997), 1:824.
137
Mosis, “‫גדל‬,” TDOT, 2:406.
231
of God. Judgment in history falls heaviest on those who come to think themselves gods,
who fly in the face of Providence and history, who put their trust in man-made systems
and worship the work of their own hands, and who say that the strength of their own right
arm gave them the victory.139 Therefore, the little horn remains a symbol of human pride
for any generation, like Nebuchadnezzar in chap. 4 and the beasts in chap. 7.140
Doubtless, the spirit of Babel has reincarnated itself into the emerging power of the little
horn.
Allusions to Genesis 11 in Daniel 8:25
As indicated above, Gabriel’s interpretation of Dan 8 is found in vv. 15-26. This
section of the chapter contains a number of lexical links, both keywords and thematic
links to the vision (vv. 1-14). For instance, from 8:9-14 the key verbal roots ldg (9b, 10a,
11a, 25), hco (12c, 24), and Klv (12d, 24, 25) are taken up. The main target of the
horn/king’s attack is a prince (rAc in vv. 11a, 25). Similarly, the self-magnification of the
little horn (lyóî;d◊gIh, v. 11a) finds its correspondence in the magnifying of the king’s heart
(ly$î;d◊gÅy wâøbDbVlIb, v. 25).141 The pride of this king becomes clear in v. 25, when it leads him to
oppose the “Prince of princes.”142 This sense of mistaken greatness which causes the king
to attempt to wipe out all that oppose themselves finally leads him so far that “he shall
138
Lucas, Daniel, 222.
139
Ibid.
140
141
142
Lucas, Daniel, 221.
232
stand up against the prince of princes.”143 Scholars agree that the context of Dan 8:11
within which the a™DbD…xAh_rÀc is mentioned involves the temple and sacrifices. To that extent,
rÀc refers to God.144 Similarly, Dan 8:25 refers to God with the title ‹MyîrDc_rAc; here the title
resonates with the Akkadian title used to refer to the Persian kings, sar sarrani, in the
sense of “high king.”145
The magnification of the horn in v. 11a is indeed to be considered as self-
magnification since it occurs “in his heart” (v. 25). As with the description of the horn’s
activities, the king’s self-magnification occurs at the climax of his presumptuousness, just
as it was with the ram and the he-goat (8:4, 8, 11a, 25).146 The ultimate destiny of the
little horn/king is that “he will be destroyed, but not by human power” (Dan 8:25). The
“little horn” is not a symbol whose referent is a particular human ruler, as is often
assumed, but an evil force in the supernatural,147 which alludes to the power manifested
143
Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, 369.
144
Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 333; Montgomery, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 335; Otto Plöger, Das Buch
Daniel (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus G. Mohn, 1965), 126.
145
Herbert Niehr, “‫שר‬,” TDOT (2004), 14:214. Originally rAc could have been a
reference to a clan leader or military leader (Gen 21:22; Judg 4:7; 7:25; 8:3; 1 Sam 18:30;
1 Kgs 15:20). In Isa 9:5 the word has a peculiar usage when the future Davidic leader is
called MwáølDv_rAc, prince of peace. David W. Baker and Philip J. Nel, “‫שרר‬,” NIDOTTE
(1997), 3:1295. It has been pointed out that some biblical texts clearly allow us to
understand rAc in the sense of ‘(High) Priest’. For example, 1 Chr 24:5 cites among the
servants in the Temple: My$IhølTaDh yâérDc◊w ‹v®d‚Oq_yér`Dc; and Ezra 8:24: My™InShO;kAh yñérDÚc. Lacocque, The
Book of Daniel, 162. Siginificantly, in the book of Daniel the word rAc most of the time
designates an angel, but also the archangel Michael (Dan 10:13; 20, 21; 12:1).
146
147
Contextual Interpretation of Daniel 8, 153.
233
in the Tower of Babel, the arrogant human power that tries to place himself on the clouds
and displace God in the act of claiming royal power. The arrogance of this king as well as
his fate is reminiscent of the fate that fell upon the builders of the Tower of Babel. In Dan
8:11 this arrogant king sought to be classed with God, and Dan 8:25 indicates the other
side of his ambitions: he aims to set himself against God.148 Thus this king is like
Nebuchadnezzar in chap. 4 and Belshazzar in chap. 5 in taking his stand against the
heavenly realms. Yet, just as no animal could “stand against” the ram (Dan 8: 4) and the
ram could not “stand against” the goat (Dan 8: 7), so also this arrogant king will not be
able to stand long against heaven.149 Such defying of the Almighty Ruler of the universe
calls forth his judgment. One can hardly be surprised at the conclusion: “He will be
broken without human hand” (v. 25). The allusion to the phrase “by no human hand” in
Dan 2:34, 45 is unmistakable. In Dan 2 the stone cut “by no human hand” brings to an
end all the kingdoms of the world. Then only God’s everlasting kingdom will exist on
earth.150
The expression “without hand” (v. 25) points to the anonymous character of
divine activity (cf. Job 34:20), capable of working without a human agent—in Dan 2:36 it
means without the king’s agency—and/or more generally, without anthropomorphic
embodiment. Thus the absence of anthropomorphic depictions is one way to articulate
148
Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, 369.
149
150
G. F. Hasel, “The ‘Little Horn,’ the Saints, and the Sanctuary in Daniel 8,” in
The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies, ed.
Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher (Washington, DC: Review and Herald,
1981), 180.
234
divine incomparability. This was the case in Dan 2:34, 45 where the text rejects
embodied or humanistic terms for describing divine activity.151 As pointed out above,
Belshazzar’s fate was sealed by a hand sent from heaven (Dan 5). In his sudden downfall,
then, there is a hint of what will happen to the little horn. It seems apparent that the same
God that made judgment in the valley of Shinar (Gen 11: 7-9) will also judge the arrogant
king of Dan 8. In sum, the motifs of self-exaltation and of divine judgment link together
Dan 8 and Gen 11.
Implications
In chap. 8, the little horn’s arrogance begins on earth and grows up to the
heavenly realm, attacking the stars. Indeed, as in Gen 11, here in Dan 8 there is a
connection between the earthly-horizontal and heavenly-vertical dimensions of the
arrogant human powers, which met God’s judgment.
Allusion to Genesis 11 in Daniel 11
Introduction
Chapters 10-12 of the book of Daniel, by consensus of modern commentators152 a
single apocalypse parallel to the apocalypses of Dan 7 and 8, are a unique combination of
151
In Dan 2:38 God gives all things into the hand or dÅy of Nebuchadnezzar. The
hand thus signals his derived power, whereas God’s ability to act without hands is the
mark of absolute power. Willis, Dissonance and the Drama of Divine Sovereignty in the
Book of Daniel, 113.
152
Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 52-54; Goldingay,
Daniel, 282; Gowan, Daniel, 140-42; Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Daniel:
Foundations for Expository Sermons, 345; Nelson, Daniel, 246; Pace, Daniel, 317-18.
235
historical narrative and prediction of the future.153 According to Collins, the visions of
chaps. 7 and 8, and the angelic narrative in chaps. 10-12, all draw heavily on traditional,
and in large part mythological, materials.154 However, Dan 10-12 differs from chaps. 7
and 8 insofar as the historical/eschatological prophecy is not presented as a vision of
Daniel but as a narrative by the angel.155
It is clear that chaps. 10-12 were written after chap. 9 (corresponding to the
interval of three years between 9:1 and 10:1; the angel-interpreter identified with Gabriel
on the basis of 9:21). What is more, there are many different points of contact with Dan 8
as well (cf. 10:9 and 8:18; 12:4 and 8:26; etc.).156 As shown above,157 OT scholars agree
153
Richard J. Clifford, “History and Myth in Daniel 10–12,” BASOR 220 (1975):
23. It is the considered opinion of virtually all commentators on Daniel that chaps. 10 and
11 belong together as a part of the final prophecy of the book that also includes chap. 12.
William H. Shea, “Wrestling with the Prince of Persia: A Study on Daniel 10,” AUSS 21
(1983): 247. Compare Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 275; Lacocque, The
Book of Daniel, 200; Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of
Daniel, 404. Within the literary unit constituted by chaps. 10-12, it is useful to
distinguish:
1. The prologue: Dan 10:1-11:2a
2. The revelation: Dan 11:2b-12:4
3. The epilogue: Dan 12:5-13. Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 201. See Jason Thomas
Parry, “Desolation of the Temple and Messianic Enthronement in Daniel 11:36-12:3,”
JETS 54 (2011): 500-01.
154
Collins suggests that Dan 7 draws on the old Canaanite myth of the conflict of
Baal and Yamm; Dan 8 on the myth of the revolt of Helal ben Shachar; Dan 10-12 on the
mythic system of the national deities. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of
Daniel, 109.
155
Ibid., 115.
156
157
See especially pages 5-6.
236
that within Dan 10-12 earlier biblical material is widely reused.158
In terms of genre, scholars have suggested that Dan 11 is strikingly similar to the
Akkadian “Dynastic Prophecy”159 (c. 330 B.C.) in three respects: (1) there is a
succession, not unbroken, of anonymous kings in a concise annalistic historical account;
(2) the scheme of historical events associated with the reigns of these kings is selective;
158
Much research has gone in recent years into the relation between Daniel and
the book of Isaiah, especially the allusions to the Servant Songs. Thus in the book of
Daniel has been found “the oldest interpretation of the Suffering Servant,” and in the
interests of historical theology many parallels in thought and language have been drawn.
See Leslie C. Allen, “Isaiah LIII. 11 and Its Echoes,” VE 1 (1962): 26. See also Matthew
Black, “Servant of the Lord and Son of Man,” SJT 6 (1953): 1; Brownlee, “The Servant
of the Lord in the Qumran Scrolls,” 8-15; F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran
Texts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 58; C. F. D. Moule, “From Defendant to Judge
—And Deliverer,” SNTSB 3 (1952): 40; C. R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-
Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study (London: Oxford University Press, 1950), 6; H.
W. Wolff, Jesaja 53 im Urchristentum (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1950), 38;
Gordon Zerbe, “‘Pacifism’ and ‘Passive Resistance’ in Apocalyptic Writings: A Critical
Evaluation,” in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, ed. J. H.
Charlesworth and C. A. Evans (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 73. Cf. Collins, Daniel: A
Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 385, 393; Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of
Daniel, 300; Mason, “The Treatment of Earlier Biblical Themes in the Book of Daniel,”
94-96; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in
Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity, expanded ed. (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2006), 38-41, 91-108; B. Nicol, “Isaiah’s Vision and the
Visions of Daniel,” VT 29 (1979): 504; Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire:
Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism, 272-273.
159
According to A. Grayson, “the Dynastic Prophecy is one of the most unusual
and significant pieces of Babylonian Literature. . . . It is a description, in prophetic terms
of the rise and fall of dynasties or empires, including Babylonia and rise of Persia, the fall
of Persia and rise of Hellenistic monarchies. Although as in other prophecies, no names
of kings are given, there are enough circumstantial details to identify the period
described.” Grayson, Babylonian Historical-literary Texts, 24. See also R. D. Biggs,
“More Babylonian Prophecies,” Iraq 29 (1967): 117-32; A. K. Grayson and W. G.
Lambert, “Akkadian Prophecies,” JCS 18 (1964): 7-30; W. W. Hallo, “Akkadian
Apocalypse,” IEJ 16 (1966): 230-42.
237
and (3) the unnamed rulers arise within a named succession of world empires.160 Thus
Daniel shares with the Dynastic Prophecy not only the feature of historical outline, and
not only the motif of an ideal era for Babylon within such an outline, it shares specific
identification of that era as the glorious early part of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.161
Indeed, the concept of rise and fall of empires is unmistakable in Dan 2 and 7, as well as
in chaps. 8 and 11. This suggests that in style and form chaps. 7-12 now prove to have
Babylonian literary affinities. Nevertheless, most scholars have not seen the literary
connections between Gen 11 and the last vision of Daniel (chaps. 10-12).
The Motif of Pride: On ldg
As noted above, the common use of the Hebrew root ldg suggests a literary
connection between Gen 11 and Dan 8. The only other occurrences of the verbal root ldg
160
Roy E. Gane, “The Un-Manifestation of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel
11:1-22,” BBT 1 (2009): 14. Cf. M. Delcor, “L’histoire selon le livre de Daniel,
notamment au chapitre XI,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S.
van der Woude (Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993), 377-81.
161
Gane, “Genre Awareness and Interpretation of the Book of Daniel,” 143. J.
Baldwin has questioned, however, whether the rationale of the Babylonian prophecies
closely resembles that of Daniel, by calling attention to the marked differences between
them.
First, the Babylonian language had no word for history and its literature contained
no thought of eschatology. On the other hand, these particular chapters of Daniel (7-12)
all point to a cataclysmic end to history, which throughout the book is seen to be under
the control of the God of heaven.
Second, a marked contrast is to be noted also in the scope of interest. Because
Babylonian gods were partisan, their intervention was seen as limited to particular areas,
whereas in Daniel the supreme and only God is concerned with all history and with all
mankind. Furthermore, it follows that the rationale of the book Daniel is distinctive to
that of the Dynastic Prophecy. The book of Daniel represents a totally different
worldview, based on a totally different theology, which gives rise to an understanding of
history unknown in Babylon. Joyce G. Baldwin, “Some Literary Affinities of the Book of
Daniel,” TynBul 30 (1979): 92-93.
238
in the book of Daniel outside chap. 8 appear in Dan 11:36, 37. Daniel 11:36 seems
intertextually important for Dan 8:11, 12, because the lexical links between the two texts
are rather strong. Apart from the ldg verbal form, the verbal roots hco, Mwr, and jlx
occur in both passages.162 Likewise the word twóøaDlVpˆn, “wonderful things,” is used in 8:24
to describe the little horn’s attack against God’s Temple. Once again, the political-
religious attitude of the builders of the Tower of Babel is attested in the book of Daniel.
Thus the usage of the same verb (ldg) in Dan 11 once again indicates that Daniel
draws on the account of the Tower of Babel. Moreover, in Dan 11 the prophet seems to
conflate the language of Gen 11 and Isa 14. In other words, Dan 11 alludes to Gen 11 via
Isa 14. Some may argue that even if there is such a linguistic connection between these
passages, that does not mean by itself that Dan 11 is dependent on Gen 11, but with other
contextual factors it could add up to a cumulative weight of evidence.
According to both Gen 11 and Isa 14, the Babelites and the king of Babylon
wanted to reach/ascend to heaven. Similarly the text of Dan 11:36 says, “And the king
shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above
every god.” Scholars disagree about the subject of Dan 11:36-45.163 Richard Clifford has
162
Pröbstle, “A Linguistic Analysis of Daniel 8:11, 12,” 86.
163
Mark Kent Mercer, “An Historical, Exegetical, and Theological Study of
Daniel 11:2b-12:4” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987), 184. M. Mercer
points out that the four basic views on these verses are:
(1) They were historically fulfilled by Antiochus IV, so Porphyry. Jerome,
Commentary on Daniel, 11:24.
(2) Verses 36-39 refer to Antiochus as well as vv. 40-45, but the latter is a
prophecy of the conclusion of his reign. A. A. Bevan, A Short Commentary on the Book
of Daniel for the Use of Students (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892), 198-
200; Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 386-90; S. R. Driver, The
Book of Daniel: With Introduction and Notes (Cambridge: The University Press, 1901),
239
argued that Dan 11:36-12:3 deals with an unfulfilled description of a future world
figure.164 The author of Dan 11 draws more heavily in this section on Old Testament
traditions and mythopoeic imagery than he did in vv. 2b-35. One of the examples, which
Clifford cites, is the king’s raising of himself against the divine assembly and even the
Most High God, which is a reuse of the old Canaanite myth of the rebellion in the
heavens that finds its OT reflex in such passages as Isa 14:3-21.165
Regarding Isa 14, J. N. Oswalt writes that the prophet Isaiah makes the king of
Babylon aspire to the kingship of the gods.166 Thus H. Wildberger explains that the king
of Babylon wanted to ascend, on the heights of the clouds, into heaven, higher than all
196-98; Goldingay, Daniel, 304-05; Lucas, Daniel, 289-90; Montgomery, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 465, 470; Porteous, Daniel: A
Commentary, 169-70; Seow, Daniel, 182-86. Montgomery admits that “the modern
consensus is therefore a continuation of the ancient historical exegesis of the chapter as
introduced by Porphyry, with the exception that vv. 40 ff. are a necessarily vague
prediction of events subsequent to 168 B.C., after the manner of much of O.T. prophecy
and apocalyptic.” Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of
Daniel, 470.
(3) Verses 36-45 refer to Antiochus and vv. 40-45 are a recapitulation of his reign.
Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on the Old Testament, 467-68.
(4) Beginning in vv. 36-39 or vv. 40-45 is a yet unfulfilled description of a future
world figure. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, 510-12; Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to
Prophetic Revelation, 270-73; Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, 304-05. This was the
position of several church fathers, including Chrysostom, Hippolytus, Theodoret, and
Jerome. Luther also adopted this interpretation, and contemporary evangelical scholars
often advocate it. It views the end of Dan 11 not as inaccurate prophecy but as prophecy
that is yet to be fulfilled. Andrew E. Steinmann, “Is the Antichrist in Daniel 11?,” BSac
162 (2005): 196. Cf. Archer, “Daniel,” ExBC, 144-49. Since the time of Jerome, many
Christian commentators have held that the vision ends with a focus upon the antichrist.
Edlin, Daniel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, 267. See also Longman III,
Daniel, 280-85; Miller, Daniel, 304-13.
164
Clifford, “History and Myth in Daniel 10–12,” 25.
165
Ibid., 25-26
166
J. N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI:
240
the other stars of God, on the mountain of assembly in the far north, so that he could take
the throne as king over the universe.167 Furthermore, the pride motif is the pivotal theme
unfolded by the taunt over the Babylonian king (vv. 4b-21), as indicated by the word Nwag
(v. 11) and the arrogant behavior of the ruler. The development of the pride motif
portrays the impressive attempt by the king in trying to match God Himself on His own
throne (vv. 13-14).168 Thus Isa 14:12-14 depicts the conflict between YHWH and the
king of Babylon pretending to be of divine stature.169
Robert H. O’Connel has convincenly argued that by its subject matter and
concentric structure the poem of Isa 14:4b-23 seems to allude to the ancient story of the
overthrow at the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9), where we also see hubris (i.e., that of
united humanity) raising up an earthly rival to the mythic ideal Cosmic Mountain on
which God dwells.170 Thus the Isaianic text provides for a deep portrait and
Eerdmans, 1986), 322.

167
H. Wildberger, Isaiah 13-27, CC (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1997), 62.
168
Deomar Roos, “Babylon in the Book of Isaiah,” ConJ 30 (2004): 355.
169
Klaas Spronk, “Down with Helel! The Assumed Mythological Background of
Isa. 14:12,” in Und Mose Schrieb dieses Lied auf: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum
Alien Orient, ed. M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1988), 722. The
prophet emphatically presents the contrast between the desires of the arrogant tyrant and
his actual end. The use of lwav and rwb in Isa 14:15 represents the depths of punishment
for the arrogant ruler. See Gerald Lynwood Keown, “A History of the Interpretation of
Isaiah 14: 12-15” (PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1979), 141. For a
good overview of the history of interpretation of Isa 14:4-23, see R. Mark Shipp, Of Dead
Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b-21, SBLABib 11 (Atlanta: Society
of Biblical Literature, 2002), 1-27. According to L. A. Schokel, Isa 14:13-15 is an
example of antithesis: “In various instances the punishment of the tyrant recurs as a fall
from the heights to the depths.” Luis A. Schökel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Rome:
Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989), 89.
170
Robert H. O’Connel, “Isaiah XIV 4b-23: Ironic Reversal through Concentric
241
characterization of the essential nature of Babylon—past, present and future—as well as
the primal sin of the king of Babylon—pride.171 Moreover, the poetry of Isa 14:13-15
takes the imagery further than the suggestive language of Gen 11. Read in canonical
context, the Tower of Babel account seems to narrate not only another example of
Babylon’s tendency towards self-divinization, but the primal event itself.172
Therefore, the exaltation of the king in Dan 11:36-37 has a clear biblical
precedent in Gen 11 and Isa 14:13-14. As in Gen 11 and Dan 11, pride and arrogance are
also the characteristics of Babylon in Isa 14. As mentioned above, Babylon’s pride was
unlimited (Dan 4:30) and it acted as God on earth. In its imperial ambitions, it acted no
differently than the ancient people who built a city to make a name for themselves (Gen
11:1–9).
In the Old Testament, man’s arrogance is expressed primarily in two ways: either
he seeks to be like God, or he attempts to climb up to heaven or to construct for himself
as high a throne as possible. Both these modes of expression are found in Genesis (3:5
and 11: 4), and they have parallels elsewhere, among which are the delineations of pride
in Isaiah as follows:
1. The aspiration to be like God
Myhlak Mtyyhw Gen 3:5 Nwylol hmda Isa 14:14
2. The aspiration to reach to heaven
Mymvb wvaørw ldgm Gen 11:4 hloa Mymvh Isa 14:13
Structure and Mythic Allusion,” VT 38 (1988): 412-13.

171
Walter T. Wilson, “Translating the Tower: Genesis 11 and Ancient Jewish
Interpretation” (PhD diss., Emory University, 2008), 100.
242
y¡IaVsI;k MyâîrDa l™Ea_yEbVkwáøkVl lAo¶A;mIm Isa 14:13
b¡Do yEtFm∞D;b_lAo h™RlToRa Isa 14:14173
Thus the tradition of Babylon’s pride according to Gen 11 and Isa 14 must have
been a living one for Daniel. Both the aspiration to be like God and to reach heaven are
found in Dan 11, namely the king’s arrogant idea of being able to take the highest place
in heaven and set himself above all gods (Dan 11:36-37). Furthermore, the same spirit of
self-exaltation links the narrative of the tower of Babel, Isa 14 and Dan 11. O’Connel
says:
In the text of Gen. xi it is a man-made mountain which constitutes the assault on

godhood and there, as in Isa xiv, the entire episode is cast in an ascent-descent
polarity with which the concentric structure is, in each case, so sympathetic.
The effect of Isa xiv evoking this primeval precedent of God’s overthrow of hubris at
Babel’s ziggurat is to emphasize the pattern according to which YHWH overthrows
all opposition. That which was established in antiquity continues as the pattern in
Israel’s history. All who rise up against God will be debased. Thus, what seems to
constitute a deliberate literary allusion to Gen. xi serves to reinforce Isaiah’s purpose
for in that context, as in Isa xiv, concentric structure is the key device used to elicit
ironic reversal of the intentions of the characters described within the text.174
In Dan 11 the exaltation of the king is introduced in v. 36 by the formula h°DcDo◊w
w˝ønwøx√rIk, which expresses the self-will and the irresistible might of his proceeding.175 The
identical wording for this arrogance (hco, “do,” and w˝ønwøx√rIk, literally, “according to his
172
Ibid., 101.
173
S. Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon. A Study of Isaiah 13:2-14:23 (Lund:
Gleerup, 1970), 148-49. Verse 13 reminds us of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9), though
the endeavor to be like God takes us right back to Gen 3. Geoffrey W. Grogan, “Isaiah,”
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986), 6:105.
174
O’Connel, “Isaiah XIV 4b-23: Ironic Reversal through Concentric Structure
and Mythic Allusion,” 413.
175
243
pleasure”) was also used for the characteristic arrogance of the kingdom of Persia,
represented by the ram (8:4), of Alexander the Great (11:3), and of the king of the North,
the invader (11:16).176 However, Steinmann explains that those statements came within
the descriptions, but this is the very first statement about the eschatological king in Dan
11:36. He is chiefly characterized by his willful arrogance. Unlike those other kings, his
arrogance is characterized as primarily religious in nature (11:36-39).177 He shall raise
himself above every god, not merely “subjectively in his lofty imagination,” but also by
his actions.178
It is worth noticing that Dan 11:36 introduces the king in a unique way. He is
simply referred to as JKRl#R;mAh. Significantly, the root Klm is found twenty-five times only in
Dan 11. Yet, no king prior to Dan 11:36 is ever referred to simply as JKRl#R;mAh, even when he
has been recently mentioned.179 Thus the king is represented as a force who has no
earthly superior, and also thinks himself to be without divine or human peer.180
Interestingly, the main characteristic of this end-time king recalls the political and
religious nature of the Tower of Babel event, representing thus the power that is striving
to usurp God. “He will exalt himself against every god and against the god of gods he
will speak monstrous things” (Dan 11:36) recalls Dan 7:8, 11, 20, 25; 8:9-12. The
unheard-of attack on heaven can be put down only by heaven itself. Heaven’s
176
177
Ibid.
178
179
180
Hugh Rowland Page, Jr., “The Astral Revolt: A Study of Its Reflexes in
244
intervention is the end of the earthly empire.181
The translation of the phrase l$Ea_lD;k_lAo in 11:36 is of some significance. Since the
phrase is grouped here with My$IlEa l∞Ea or Yahweh, and since the pagan gods are mentioned
separately in v. 37, it seems reasonable to conclude that l$Ea_lD;k_lAo refers to Yahweh’s
angelic host. In fact, My$IlEa is a common synonym for angels, especially in the Qumran
scrolls.182 The Hebrew title My$IlEa l∞Ea (God of gods) is unique in the OT. However, there
are three similar phrases to be translated the same way: (1) My°IhølTa lEa in Josh 22:22; Ps
50:1; (2) My$IhølTa`Dh y∞EhølTa in Deut 10:17; Ps 136:2; and (3) the Aramaic Ny¢IhDlTa ;hªDlTa in Dan
2:47. Like those other phrases, this phrase too refers to the one true God, Israel’s God.183
The height of blasphemy against the Lord is reached in the king’s self-deification. He
places himself above all the gods.184
It is important to note that the words MDmwørEa and lôé;dÅ…gVtˆy, which describe the
arrogant behavior of the king in Dan 11:36, are used in the OT only of God exalting
himself (lsa 33: 10), and of the outrage of “the saw exalting itself above him who wields
it” (lsa 10:15).185 Clearly, the main characteristic of this end-time king is that he elevates
himself over every other god. Significantly, the word for “god” is rarely used in Dan 11;
Canaanite and Hebrew Literature” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1990), 162.
181
Clifford, “History and Myth in Daniel 10–12,” 24.
182
John Joseph Collins, “The Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the
Book of Daniel,” JBL 93 (1974): 57.
183
184
185
The more immediate reference is to Dan 7 and 8 where the earthly tyrant who
threatens the holy people comes finally to speak arrogant words against Yahweh (esp.
245
however, in 11:36-39 the word or name for “god” is used eight times, showing the
distinctly religious character of this power at this point and emphasizing the type of
religious conflict into which it has entered by this time in the flow of history.186
R. A. Bowman explains that for the Hebrews, who accepted the Canaanite
concept that the mountain of the gods lay far to the North (Ps 48:2-3), and who believed
that manifestations of their own God, Yahweh, likewise came from the North (Job 37-22-
Ezek 1:4), a prophet’s vague and nonspecific reference to a visitation by a foe from the
North might well have been interpreted as an encounter with an army of God’s own
avengers.187
In prophetic language, the concept of the north is associated with the evil power,
which claims the place of God. It is from the North that the prophet Daniel sees the little
horn coming. The northern origin of the little horn has already been suggested in Dan
8:9.188 The link between Babylon and the north finds further confirmation in ancient
Middle Eastern literature. In Canaanite mythology the god of Baal dwelled in the north.
The reference to the north, be it through Baal189 or Babylon, carries religious implications
7:8, 11, 25; 8:9-12). Clifford, “History and Myth in Daniel 10–12,” 25.
186
Shea, Daniel: A Reader’s Guide, 262.
187
R. A. Bowman, “North Country, The,” IDB (1962), 3:560. Cf. Richard J.
Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1972), 3; Marvin H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, VTSup 2
(Leiden: Brill, 1955), 102.
188
Doukhan, Daniel: The Vision of the End, 85. See Brevard S. Childs, “The
Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradition,” JBL 78 (1959): 197-98.
189
The Canaanite storm-god, Baal-Hadad, lived on Mount Zaphon. Much of the
lore concerning Ugaritic Zaphon is found to apply to Mount Zion as well. Zaphon, like
Zion, is the scene of battle, is ultimately impregnable, is the place where the deity has his
temple/palace and exercises kingship, and so on. Elements of Baal’s mountain Zaphon in
246
and allusions to the usurpation of God.190 The terms “North” and “South” in Dan 11 are
best defined in terms of the exilic context of Daniel’s prophecies. “North” is most often
used in the other exilic prophets with reference to Babylon, and “South” is always
associated with Egypt. Both Babylon and Egypt were powers that failed to acknowledge
the sovereignty of Yahweh, although Babylon was consistently hostile to Yahweh’s
people while Egypt was not (Dan 5; Exod 5:1-2).191 Because of its prominence as a
geographical feature, the word NwøpDx came to be used to indicate a northerly direction
among the Israelites, and presumably also the Canaanites. However, behind this
importance in Canaanite mythology of Mount Zaphon as the dwelling-place of Baal, we
must recognize the very ancient belief that mountains were divine abodes. It is very
probable that some connection with the north was already evident in the Mesopotamian
background to the belief.192 Further, the association between Babylon and the North is
also attested in Isa 14:13-14: “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise
my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the
utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make
myself like the Most High.’” Here the prophet describes a being with a hubris that will
brook no rival and who wishes to challenge God himself for position, authority, and
the Ugaritic myths have clearly attached themselves to Mount Zion in the Old Testament.
Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, 4.
190
172.
191
Frank W. Hardy, “An Historicist Perspective on Daniel 11” (MA thesis,
Andrews University, 1983), 215-16.
192
R. E. Clements, God and Temple (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), 5. Cf. Hugo
Gressmann, The Tower of Babel (New York: Jewish Institute, 1928), 15.
247
power.193
The expression NwáøpDx y¶EtV;k√rÅyV;b d™Eowøm_rAhV;b (on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon)
clearly suggests the Canaanite mythology.194 The most frequent use of the word NwøpDx
occurs in Ugaritic, where it generally refers to Mount Saphon as the dwelling place of
Baal.195 Although Zaphon was particularly associated with Baal, the divine assembly was
presided over by El. According to Doukhan, the northern power as described in Dan 11
has much in common with the little horn, even down to linguistic similarities:
1. The king of the north challenges God and seeks to usurp Him (Dan 11:36, 37). In
chapter 8 the little horn rises to the heavenly hosts (verses 10, 11) against the “Prince
of princes” (verse 25).
2. The king of the north desecrates the sanctuary and abolishes the daily sacrifice
(Dan 11:31), while in Daniel 8 the little horn desecrates the sanctuary (verse 11) and
takes away the daily sacrifices (verse 12).
3. The king of the north establishes himself in the “Beautiful Land” (tsevi), an
expression symbolizing Palestine (Dan 11: 16, 41, 45), and attacks the holy covenant
(verses 28, 30). The little horn grows toward the “Beautiful Land” (Dan 8:9) and
destroys the “holy people” (verse 24).
4. Like the king of the north, the little horn of chapter 8 originates from the north
(verse 9).
5. The king of the north and the little horn die the same death. The king of the north
193
Walter C. Kaiser, More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 236.
194
There is a fragmentary Ugaritic myth that tells how ‛Aṯtar, the morning star,
attempted to take over Ba‛al’s throne but proved inadequate. Collins, Daniel: A
Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 332. Further see Page, “The Astral Revolt: A Study
of Its Reflexes in Canaanite and Hebrew Literature”; Marvin H. Pope, “Aṯtar,” GMVO
(1965), 1:249-50. Yet for some scholars it is doubtful that Isa 14 reflects direct
dependence on Ugaritic material, though there is a terminological relationship. G. F.
Hasel, “Dawn; Dawning,” ISBE (1988), 1:877.
195
Cleon L. Rogers, “‫צפון‬,” NIDOTTE (1997), 3:834. On NwøpDx see also J. De
Savignac, “Mote Sur le Sens du Terme ‫ צפון‬Dans Quelques Passages de la Bible,” VT 3
(1953): 95; Joel F. Drinkard, “North,” ABD (1996), 4:1135-36; John E. Hartley, “North,”
ISBE (1988), 3:550-51; John E. Hartley, “Zaphon,” ISBE (1988), 4:1173; J. J. Roberts,
“Zaphon in Job 26:7,” Bib 56 (1975): 554-57; A. Robinson, “Zion and ‫ צפון‬in Psalm
XLVIII 3,” VT 24 (1974): 118-23.
248
comes to his end without the help of anyone (Dan 11:45), while the little horn “will
be destroyed, but not by human power” (Dan 8:25; cf. 2:45).196
This shows that Dan 11 alludes to the same politico-religious power that we already saw
in the previous chapters of Daniel and that first was manifested in the narrative of the
Tower of Babel (Gen 11), which was later epitomized by the king of Babylon (Isa 14).
Indeed, in Dan 11 the “king of the north” stands for a spiritual power that is guilty of self-
exaltation and blasphemy. These charges correspond to the characteristics of the little
horn as revealed in both Dan 7 and 8. Collins affirms that in chaps. 7, 8, and 11 Daniel
uses ancient mythic imagery, which likens the king to the chaos-monster of the sea (Dan
7) or to Lucifer, the son of Dawn (chaps. 8-11).197
Implications
The characteristic of self-exaltation of the king of the north in Dan 11 was first
manifested in the story of the tower of Babel. Furthermore, the valley of Shinar suggests
such thoughts as inspired the authors of Isa 14 and Dan 11. There, as we read in Gen
11:1-9, it was first made manifest that what is wrought for man’s aggrandizement cannot
196
169. Whereas Dan 11:36-37 depicts the arrogant career of the king of the north, Dan 8
specifically states that the little horn will exalt itself, and Dan 7 directly implies the same.
Daniel 7 refers to the blasphemy that the little horn speaks as his “great words against the
most High” (v. 25). Speaking of its self-exaltation, chap. 8 states that the little horn “grew
until it reached the host of the heavens,” and it “set itself up to be as great as the Prince of
the host” (vv. 10, 11). Shea, Daniel: A Reader’s Guide, 261-62.
197
John Joseph Collins, “Daniel and His Social World,” in Interpreting the
Prophets, ed. James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987),
255.
249
abide; it creates only disorder and confusion.198 Therefore, both the king of the north in
Dan 11:36 and the anti-God power, which was associated with the king of Babylon in
Isaiah 14, remind us of the first sin of mankind in the garden of Eden, and of mankind’s
sinful nature as it is expressed also in the story of the Tower of Babel. This mythological
picture then came, in later centuries, to represent these evil worldly powers that rebel
against God, or the anti-God world power of the anti-Christ.199
198
Benjamin Szold, “The Eleventh Chapter of the Book of Daniel,” in Semitic
Studies in Memory of A. Kohut, ed. G. A. Kohut (Berlin: Calvary, 1897), 576.
199
S. H. Widyapranawa, The Lord Is Savior: Faith in National Crisis: A
Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 1-39, ITC (Grand Rapids: MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 204.
250
CHAPTER IV
THE THEOLOGICAL ROLE OF BABEL IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Introduction
The influence of Babylon is woven throughout the biblical narrative from Genesis
to Revelation, first related to the linguistic divisiveness of humankind, then historically
dramatized as an enemy of the Kingdom of Judah, and finally appearing as a symbol of
anti-God powers.1 As the first book of the OT, Genesis provides the foundation for the
Pentateuch and for the rest of Scripture.2 Genesis establishes God as the sole creator,
sustainer, and judge of all persons regardless of their race or nationality. Theologically,
above all else, the book of Genesis portrays God as the one who creates and rules over
all.3 The book of Genesis, and especially Gen 1-11, is a theologically pivotal text in the
Old Testament because later biblical writers pick up themes like creation, blessing, sin,
mercy, etc. Indeed, these themes are the seedbed of the Bible.4 For example, without
doubt, in the book of Daniel there are strong thematic echoes of the first few chapters of
the OT,5 including to the Tower of Babel account. Such echoes contribute significantly to
1
Gerald A. Larue, Babylon and the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1969), 5.
2
Laurence A. Turner, “Genesis, Book of,” DOTP (2003), 350.
3
Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1998), 58.
4
Johnson T. K. Lim, Grace in the Midst of Judgment: Grappling with Genesis 1-
11 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 194.
5
Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the
251
Old Testament theology and allow its readers litle room for indifference.6
Scholars agree that the central theme running through the book of Daniel is the
sovereignty of the God of Israel.7 According to Goldingay, “the theme that is central to
Daniel as it is to no other book in the OT is the kingdom of God.”8 Daniel uses two
primary images to portray the sovereignty of God: God as King and God as Judge. These
two controlling images are interconnected with the Israelite worship institution, the
Temple. Several scholars have proposed that the themes of the Temple and the judgment
are quite prominent in the book of Daniel. For instance, according to Lacocque, the
“stone not cut by human hands” in Dan 2:34 “represents Mount Zion, the Temple not
built by human hands. So the vision in chapter 7 has the Temple as its framework.”9
Furthermore, Lacocque idientified the “Son of Man” as the Hight Priest who has his
place entirely within the framework of the Temple.10
Similarly, Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis argues that Dan 7:9-14 describes the
eschatological Day of Atonement when the true high priest, the Son of Man, will come to
the Ancient of Days surrounded by clouds of incense.11 In addition, Heaton affirms that
Hebrew Bible, NSBT 15 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 213.

6
House, Old Testament Theology, 497.
7
8
9
Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 124-25; Lacocque, Daniel in His Time, 28-29;
André Lacocque, “The Socio-Spiritual Formative Milieu of the Daniel Apocalypse,” in
The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude (Leuven-
Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993), 335-36.
10
Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 125-26.
11
Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, “The High Priest as Divine Mediator in the
252
in the prophetic section of the book of Daniel (7-12), the triumph of God is very closely
associated with the cleansing and restoration of the Temple (Dan 8:13; 12:11).12 The
cultic language of Dan 8 (as well as the symbolic use of sacrificial animals in the vision:
the ram and goat) indicates a sanctuary setting with particular allusion to the Day of
Atonement.13 Vogel has convincingly shown that there is a strong cultic motif in the book
of Daniel, 14 which is related with some of the main themes of the book, namely, the
themes of kingdom, judgment, and worship.
This chapter of the dissertation deals with the main theological themes that link
the book of Daniel with the story of the Tower of Babel, namely, the theme of the
kingdom of God, the theme of judgment, and the theme of the temple.
The Theme of the Kingdom of God
The account of the Tower of Babel clearly shows that God is sovereign over all
humankind. What the people considered their greatest and indispensible strength, their
unity, God easily destroyed by confusing their language (11:7, 9).15 Thus God scatters the
Hebrew Bible: Dan 7:13 as a Test Case,” SBLSP 36 (1997): 186.

12
Heaton, The Book of Daniel: Introduction and Commentary, 87. Scholars agree
that the content of chap. 8 in the book of Daniel is expressed in liturgical Israelite
language. The two symbolic animals representing the empires of Medo-Persia and Greece
are no longer unclean, as in the previous chapter. They belong to the category of clean
animals, as were those sacrificed in the sanctuary (Dan 8:3-8, 20-22). Alberto R. Treiyer,
The Day of Atonement and the Heavenly Judgment: From the Pentateuch to Revelation
(Siloam Springs, AR: Creation Enterprises International, 1992), 349.
13
Hasel, “The ‘Little Horn,’ the Heavenly Sanctuary, and the Time of the End: A
Study of Daniel 8:9-14,” 427.
14
Vogel, The Cultic Motif in the Book of Daniel.
15
Allen P. Ross, “Genesis,” Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (Carol Stream, IL:
Tyndale, 2008), 1:91.
253
Babelites, which forces them to fulfill the Lord’s purpose for them. House explains that
this punishment reemphasizes God’s sovereignty, God’s determination to fulfill the stated
purpose for creation, and God’s merciful nature.16 So the primeval history may serve as a
worthy introduction to the subject of the characteristics of God’s sovereignty, because it
teaches us that his dominion is universal17 and eternal. Therefore, both the narrative of
the Tower of Babel and the book of Daniel affirm the universal and eternal divine
sovereignty, without denying the rebellion of humankind that since the primeval history
and though Daniel has opposed God’s sovereignty, developing thus a recurring “scheme
to escape their earthbound status and ascend into the realm of divine beings.”18
Universal Divine Sovereignty and Local/Limited Human Sovereignty
As shown above, the Tower of Babel narrative points to the Lord’s sovereignty
over all nations.19 In the same vein, scholars agree that the primary theological message
of the book of Daniel is clear: God overrules the rulers of this world20 and will overcome
human evil. Simply put, God is sovereign and his kingdom is universal. This theme is
found in both parts of the book.21 Furthermore, William J. Dumbrell states that the
16
17
R. Youngblood, The Heart of the Old Testament: A Survey of Key Theological
Themes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 22.
18
Bruce K. Waltke and Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical,
Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 214.
19
20
21
Tremper Longman III and Raymond B. Dillard, An Introduction to the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 392.
254
prominent concept in the book of Daniel is the concept of kingdom.22 Both Gen 11 and
the book of Daniel show how the kingdom of man opposes the kingdom of God. Thus,
beginning in Dan 1, the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar is seen by the author to manifest a
re-incarnation of the Babel mentality of Gen 11:1-9.23
Furthermore, similar to Gen 11 where the actions of the people clashed with
God’s will, the book of Daniel presents a stark contrast between two kingdoms, the
kingdom of man and the kingdom of God. On one side stand human beings who in their
pride reject God and attempt to amass power for themselves. On the other side stands the
God of Israel, the Ancient of Days, along with the Son of Man and angels, and men and
women who are in conflict with the powers of evil (Dan 7).24
Indeed, related to the motif of the sovereignty of God is the motif of human
sovereignty.25 Thus the main thrust in Daniel is the contrast between God’s kingdom and
all earthly kingdoms, which bring to mind the divine encounter with the pride of the
Babelites at Shinar (Gen 11). This theme is repeated in all references to God’s kingdom,
whether as a eulogy in the mouth of foreign emperors, or as a comment about the
kingdom given by God to humans. Whereas the kingdoms of humans are earthly in
origin, the kingdom of God comes from heaven.26 While the kingdom of God is universal
22
William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: An Old Testament Covenantal
Theology (Exeter: Paternoster, 1984), 201.
23
Ibid.
24
Longman III and Dillard, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 395.
25
26
Martin J. Selman, “The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament,” TynBul 40
(1989): 171.
255
and eternal, the kingdom of humans is ephemeral and local.
God’s sovereignty is rooted in the fact that he alone lives forever (Dan 4:34;
6:26), that his dominion is endless (2:44; 4:3; 6:26; 7:9), and that he is accountable
neither to the powers in heaven nor to the peoples on earth.27 In fact, there is a connection
between the expressions used to refer to God and some of the themes developed in
Daniel. The fact that he is the Most High means that he rules over human beings (e.g.,
4:14 [ET 4:17]), and the fact that he is eternal means that his kingdom will have no end
(e.g., 2:44; 7:14). 28
Similar to the narrative of the Tower of Babel, the sovereignty of God is played
out throughout the book of Daniel in the conflict between the proud and arrogant rulers of
the world and the kingdom of God. Thus, for instance, the stone cut by supernatural
forces in chap. 2 demolished the statue of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream symbolizing the
human kingdoms of the earth.29 This clearly indicates that the Lord is the ultimate
sovereign, who “sets up kings and deposes them” (2:21a) and has a goal for history, the
establishing of “a kingdom that will never be destroyed” (2:44).30 While the earthly
kingdoms both in Genesis (10:8-10; 11:1-9) and in Daniel (2, 7-12) were temporary, and
all eventually collapsed, the kingdom of God, on the other hand, will last forever.
Indeed, Yahweh and Yahweh alone among all the so-called deities of Babylon is
the sovereign ruler of heaven and earth, of mighty kings and lowly exiles. Daniel shares
27
Ferch, “Authorship, Theology, and Purpose of Daniel,” 53.
28
Li, “The Characterization of God in the Aramaic Chapters of Daniel,” 110.
29
William T. Arnold, “Daniel, Theology of,” EDBT (1996), 141.
30
Ernest Lucas, “Daniel, Book of,” DTIB (2005), 157.
256
these convictions with Gen 1-11 and with the rest of the Old Testament,31 and hence the
theme of the sovereignty of God, introduced at the very beginning of the book, is one that
recurs in the book, where the deity is repeatedly called “the God of gods” (2:47; 11:36),
“the Lord of kings” (2:47), and “the Most High God” (3:26; 4:2, 17, 24, 25, 32, 34; 5:18,
21; 7:18, 22, 25 [twice], 27). That sovereign God is the one who gives kingship and
power and glory “to whom[ever] he will[s]” (4:17, 25, 32; 5:21).32
According to Charles, after the primeval history (Gen 1-11), Daniel is the first
among the prophets to teach the unity of all human history, and that every fresh phase of
this history was a further stage in the development of God’s purposes.33 C. Westermann
states that apocalyptic literature (Dan 2, 7-12) takes place within the horizon of human
history and cosmic history. In this respect, apocalyptic corresponds to primeval history,
where it is also a matter of humankind as a whole and the world as a whole.34 Indeed, this
31
32
Seow, Daniel, 14. God’s sovereignty in history is assumed throughout as
unassailable, for instance in his disposal of kingship to Nebuchadnezzar (2:37) and others
(5:21), particularly Israel (7:14, 27), and is expressed throughout in hymns of praise (4:31
f., EV 34 f.; 4:14b, EV 17b). John Gray, The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), 236.
33
Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with
Introduction, Indexes and a New English Translation, cxiv-cxv.
34
Claus Westermann, Elements of Old Testament Theology (Atlanta: John Knox,
1982), 149. All of this means, in apocalyptic terms, that if there is hope for the future, it
must be grounded in the mystery or secret of God’s kingdom. Liberation must come from
beyond this world from above, not from below. In other words, the victory will not come
by repentance, by devotion to the Torah, or, I might add, by education, technology, social
planning, or social revolution. Liberation —the kingdom— will come only from God, the
cosmic King. Bernhard W. Anderson and Steven Bishop, Contours of Old Testament
Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 311.
257
unified conception of world history is shown particularly well by the book of Daniel,35
which resembles the world history found in Gen 10 and 11. The God of the book of
Daniel is the same God of Gen 11, who rules the history of all nations. The course of
history is completely under his sovereignty.36
Significantly, in the book of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar is taken up as a cipher for
all pretentious worldly power and is dramatically shown to be completely dependent on
Yahweh. As has already been indicated, scholars agree that Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon
become a metaphor for arrogant, autonomous power that does evil in the world in
opposition to YHWH’s will, which is reminiscent of the arrogance and self-sufficiency
reflected in Gen 11:1-9. This emergence of the metaphorical force of Babylon and
Nebuchadnezzar is quite evident in Dan 1-4, which C. Newsom has recently called “the
Nebuchadnezzar cycle.”37 In chap. 4, Nebuchadnezzar is portrayed as an autonomous
35
Westermann, Elements of Old Testament Theology, 151. Paul Niskanes writes
that “unlike the biblical books of Kings and Chronicles, which systematically treat of the
successive monarchs in Israel and Judah, the book of Daniel’s series of kings is no longer
Israelite or Judean but foreign. Beginning with Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 1-4), the king of
Babylon, we pass through the successive reigns of Belshazzar (Dan 5; 7:1), Darius the
Mede (Dan 6), and Cyrus the Persian (Dan1: 21; 6:28; 10:1).” Paul Niskanen, The
Human and the Divine in History: Herodotus and the Book of Daniel, JSOTSup 396
(New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 55.
36
It is not fate, nor astrology, which gives kings and kingdoms their place in the
sun but God’s grace (Dan 1:2; 2:21; 4:33; 5:28; 7:6; 9:1, 24). G. Umhau Wolf, “Daniel
and the Lord’s Prayer: A Synthesis of the Theology of the Book of Daniel,” Int 15
(1961): 401.
37
As has often been noted, the theme of divine sovereignty is carried throughout
the narratives by the various doxologies uttered by the kings, mostly at the end of the
chapters, doxologies that have a crescendo pattern. Carol A. Newsom, “God’s Other: The
Intractable Problem of the Gentile King in Judean and Early Jewish Literature,” in The
“Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins, ed. Daniel C.
Harlow et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmams 2011), 46-7. Similarly, S. Tower says that in
258
power who is driven insane and restored to sanity and power only when he submits, in
doxology, to the ultimate rule of YHWH.38 He is cut off from power to communicate
with others, including through language, which God controls in Gen 11. Although king of
Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar recognizes for the first time the existence of an authority over
him.39
Therefore, both the narrative of the Tower of Babel and Dan 1-6 affirm that God
alone has ultimate sovereignty, and worldly kingdoms have derived power. They are
helpless against God’s might and power. The king who in pride forgets his origin must
perish. Kingdoms cannot endure on pride, greed, or fear.40 Yahweh is indeed sovereign.
addition to Dan 2:20-23, in all the three remaining poems in the narrative of Daniel (Dan
4:1-3; 34-35; 6:25-26), there is stress on the world rule of God, praise of him as Creator
and All-wise, and the typical hymnic celebration of his eternality. W. Sibley Towner,
“The Poetic Passages of Daniel 1-6,” CBQ 31 (1969): 321.
38
Walter Brueggemann, Reverberations of Faith: A Theological Handbook of Old
Testament Themes (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 18. Lucas comments
that humans were created in the image of God to have dominion over creation as God’s
representatives. However, when they exercise that dominion without reference to God
and for their own ends, they tend to become subhuman, and even bestial in their behavior.
Ernest Lucas, Decoding Daniel: Reclaiming the Visions of Daniel 7-11 (Cambridge:
Grove, 2000), 8. Thus, the climactic delegitimating of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4 makes a
claim for Yahweh that is almost a liturgical response. Walter Brueggemann, Theology of
the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 239.
39
61. Then, there is proud Nebuchadnezzar, ruler of all the earth, eating grass like an ox
(Dan 4) until he learns (v. 25) who is really King over the affairs of men. And there is
King Belshazzar (Dan 5) who sees the handwriting on the wall announcing his doom
because he did not recognize the lordship of one greater than he (v. 23). John Bright, The
Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Its Meaning for the Church (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1953), 183-84.
40
Wolf, “Daniel and the Lord’s Prayer: A Synthesis of the Theology of the Book
of Daniel,” 401-02. The sovereign God is free to exalt the lowly or to humble the
arrogant, to grant kingship or to remove it (4:33-34). The exaltation of the lowly in this
case is evident in the success of Daniel through his imparting of insight. It is to him that
259
Any other ruler is derivative from and dependent on Yahweh, which means that neither
Nimrod nor Nebuchadnezzar can make a claim for themselves; in other words, any rule
not congruent with the rule of Yahweh is in the end illegitimate.41 Thus, throughout the
historic section of the book of Daniel (1-6), the power of God looms over all earthly
power.
Indeed, there is substantial coherence in the characterization of the rule of God,
unquestionably the most important theological theme in the book of Daniel. While the
text affirms that the power and authority of earthly rulers are, indeed, given by God, the
text is equally vehement in its insistence that these regimes, similar to the kingdom of
Babel (Gen 11), are but ephemeral and subject to destruction and removal by the divine
Sovereign. By contrast, the rule of God promises to be enduring, will not be impaired,
and is not a passing reality.42
God’s sovereignty over the proud and arrogant rulers of the world climaxes in
Michael’s final victory provided for all who are written in “the book” (12:1). In the
historical narratives (Dan 1-6), God was sovereign over all his enemies of the past. The
the rule of God is given and through him that it is evident to the world. Seow, “The Rule
of God in the Book of Daniel,” 229.
41
Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy,
240. In Dan 5 God again demonstrates his sovereignty over kings and kingdoms as he
announces in a startling, supernatural manner the demise of Babylon. Robert B. Chisholm
Jr., Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor
Prophets (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), 301. R. Maxon says that it is Yahweh’s
power that is the foundation on which his throne rests securely and from which he reigns
effectively as king. Rex Mason, Old Testament Pictures of God (Macon, GA: Smyth &
Helwys, 1993), 106.
42
Seow, “The Rule of God in the Book of Daniel,” 245-46.
260
visions (7-12) reveal how that sovereignty will play itself out in human history.43
The Theme of Judgment
Scholars have long ago recognized that God is depicted acting as a Judge44 in the
narratives of Genesis, especially in the primeval history (Gen 1-11). According to
Goldingay, the story from Eden to Babel comprises a narrative analysis of what went
wrong with humanity in its relationship with God.45 Claus Westermann, for example, has
identified in Gen 1-11 the motif of “crime and punishment,”46 as he called it, in which
God is described as Judge. Based on the work of Westermann, several scholars have
given especial consideration to the crime/punishment motif. Thus G. von Rad
emphasized and added the element of grace to this motif.47 Similarly, D. Clines
examined the work of both Westermann and von Rad, and combining their insights,
Clines added to the crime/punishment motif both judgment speech and an act of
mitigation, which both occur before the punishment. Thus Clines described a “sin-
43
Arnold, “Daniel, Theology of,” 141.
44
The Hebrew noun fpv, “judge,” is sometimes used in parallelism with or in
place of Klm, “king” (e.g., 1 Sam 15:4; Ps 2:10; Isa 16:5; Dan 9:12; Amos 2:3, etc.). fpv,
“judge,” is used as a divine appellation ten times in the Hebrew Bible: Gen 18:25; Judg
11:27; Isa 33:22; Jer 11:20; Pss 7:12; 9:5; 50:6; 58:12; 75:8; 94:2; Job 23:7. Marc Zvi
Brettler, God Is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor, JSOTSup 76 (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 44. Cf. Herbert Niehr, Herrschen und Richten: Die
Wurzel špṭ im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (Würzberg: Echter, 1986); Wolfgang
Richter, “Zu den ‘Richtern Israels’,” ZWA 77 (1965): 59-71.
45
John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1 of 3: Israel’s Gospel (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 131, 138.
46
Claus Westermann, The Promises to the Fathers: Studies on the Patriarchal
Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 48.
47
Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, 153.
261
speech-mitigation-punishment” structure that is displayed in narratives of Gen 3-11.48
According to these scholars, then, the account of the Tower of Babel displays a
similar sequence of events: sin, judgment speech of Yahweh, act of mitigation, and final
punishment. The presence of such a pattern suggests that “a righteous judgment begins
with an investigation, a search for facts and their evaluation before reaching a final
verdict. That is the case in any tribunal, including the heavenly one.”49 Thus as the first
couple were judged and thrown out of the garden lest they eat of the tree of life in their
wayward state (Gen 3), so the nations were judged and scattered lest they fulfill their
purpose to build a tower that would reach the heavens (Gen 11).50
48
Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, 68.
49
Ángel M. Rodríguez, Future Glory: The 8 Greatest End-time Prophecies in the
Bible (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2002), 35.
50
John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, vol. 3 of Israel’s Life (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 507. In recent years, a few OT scholars have begun
to question aspects of the traditional pride-and-punishment reading of the story of the
Tower of Babel and have given greater attention to the story’s theme of cultural origins
on its own terms. See Bernhard W. Anderson, “The Tower of Babel: Unity and Diversity
in God's Creation,” in From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 165-78; Walter Brueggemann, Genesis: A Bible
Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, Int (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 97-104;
Nancy L. deClaissé-Walf, “God Came Down . . . and God Scattered: Acts of Punishment
or Acts of Grace?,” RevExp 103 (2006): 403-17; Terence Fretheim, “Genesis,” Genesis
(1994), 410-14; Tiffany Houck-Loomis, “Homogeneity: Safe or Profane? The Journey
Toward the True Self: A Study of Genesis 11:1-9,” RefR 62 (2009): 90-101; van Wolde,
Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1-11, 84-109. Consequently, T.
Hiebert argues that the story of Babel in Gen 11:1-9 is exclusively about the origins of
cultural difference and not about pride and punishment at all. Theodore Hiebert, Toppling
the Tower: Essays on Babel and Diversity, ed. Theodore Hiebert (Chicago: McCormick
Theological Seminary, 2004); Theodore Hiebert, “Babel: Babble or Blueprint? Calvin,
Cultural Diversity, and the Interpretation of Genesis 11:1-9,” in Reformed Theology:
Identity and Ecumenicity II; Biblical Interpretation in the Reformed Tradition, ed.
Wallace M. Alston Jr. and Michael Welker (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 127-
45; Theodore Hiebert, “The Tower of Babel and the Origin of the World’s Cultures,” JBL
262
Therefore, “the primeval history represents the beginnings of human history as a
series of attempts to cross the boundary between humanity and the divine, always with
disastrous results. In the Garden of Eden and at the Tower of Babel, at the beginning and
end of the primeval history, it is human beings who presume to usurp divine
privileges.”51 Indeed, the narrative of Gen 11 displays a concern to maintain boundaries
between the heavens and the earth, together with an interest in polemicizing against the
Babylonian empire and its religious establishment.52 In conclusion, there are two main
characteristics of God’s judging activity that are attested in Gen 11, namely, God first
126 (2007): 29-58. For a thorough critique of Hiebert’s thesis, see Lacocque, “Whatever
Happened in the Valley of Shinar? A Response to Theodore Hiebert,” 29-41. See also
John Strong, “Shattering the Image of God: A Response to Theodore Hiebert’s
Interpretation of the Story of the Tower of Babel,” JBL 127 (2008): 625-34.
51
Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, 4.
52
Marvin A. Sweeney, Tanak: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the
Jewish Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 64. On the theme of judgment in the
prophetic books of the OT, see G. F. Hasel, “Divine Judgment,” HSDAT (2000), 12:823.
Patrick D. Miller, Genesis 1-11: Studies in Structure and Theme, ed. David Clines, Philip
R. Davies, and David M. Gunn, JSOTSup 8 (Sheffield, England: University of Sheffield,
Dept. of Biblical Studies, 1978), 27; Patrick D. Miller, Sin and Judgment in the Prophets,
SBLMS (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982), 5. Contra Klaus Koch, who argued that there is no
doctrine of retribution in the Old Testament, that is, that there is no judicial norm or set of
rules concerning punishment that, e.g., provides the basis for the judgments announced
by the prophets. Klaus Koch, “Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament,” ZTK
52 (1955): 1-42. G. Tucker, who seems to accept some of Koch’s interpretation,
comments that although Koch’s proposal stimulated a number of scholars to investigate
aspects of such a possibility in various Old Testament traditions, no scholar found his
extreme position acceptable, and many rejected it out of hand. Gene M. Tucker, “Sin and
‘Judgment’ in the Prophets,” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf
Knierim, ed. Henry T. C. Sun and Keith I. Eades (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997),
378. For further discussions and rejections of Koch’s conclusions, see Antony F.
Campbell, The Study Companion to Old Testament Literature: An Approach to the
Writings of Pre-Exilic and Exilic Israel (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989), 414-
27; F. Horst, “Recht und Religion im Bereich des Alten Testaments,” EvT 16 (1956): 49-
75; Robert L. Hubbard, “Dynamistic and Legal Processes in Psalm 7,” ZAW 94 (1982):
267.
263
investigates before executing his final judgment and God passes judgment upon those
who try to usurp divine privileges, in other words, the pride of the Babelites met God’s
judgment.
The Theme of Judgment in Daniel
Building upon the theme of judgment as found in the primeval history (Gen 3-11),
one of the first lessons that the book of Daniel teaches is that “God will judge sin and
evil.”53 Even the Hebrew name la´¥yˆn∂;d means “God judges, is judge,”54 which further
suggests the key role that the theme of judgment plays throughout the book. Indeed, the
event of the judgment lies at the heart of Daniel’s interest, and it is not a coincidence that
chap. 7, “the core of the book,” is mainly concerned with the judgment. Doukhan
convincingly argues that not only the middle of the book but also its two extremities
point to judgment (1:2; 12:13);55 and in between each story or prophetical section it is
packed with the theme of judgment (Dan 2:34-35, 44-45; 3:22-27; 4:33, 37; 5:22-28;
6:23-24; 8:25; 9:7, 11, 16, 24-27; 11:45).56 All kings and empires are accountable to God.
Ultimately, no individual or kingdom escapes the divine judgment (Dan 4; 5; 7:9-1 4;
53
De Haan, Daniel The Prophet, 24.
54
Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm, HALOT, s.v. “la´¥yˆn∂;d.”
55
Doukhan, Daniel: The Vision of the End, 11-12. In the beginning, judgment is
suggested by the hand of God being portrayed as being behind the exile, which tragically
brings about the end of Israel (Dan 1:2). Also at the end of the book the idea of judgment
is pointed out by reference to the goral, the eschatological retribution awaiting Daniel
(Dan 12:13). Furthermore, the prophecy of Daniel sees on the horizon of history a
heavenly Kippur described in terms of judgment and creation. Consequently, the God-
Judge will rise to seal the destiny of the human race and prepare for them a new kingdom.
Jacques Doukhan, “Kippur and Creation,” SS 54 (2007): 21.
56
Moskala, “The Struggles of Daniel with Religious Liberty,” 28.
264
12:1-2).57
As in the narrative of the Tower of Babel, the book of Daniel exposes the huge
pride of people and the divine judgment it attracts. Time and time again Daniel points to
human pride that reaches gigantic proportions.58 Whether it is Nebuchadnezzar,
Belshazzar, or the little horn, all of them display the ambition of Babel, namely, to usurp
the place of God. 59 Thus the prophet is merely reiterating what had long been believed
since the Tower of Babel account and through the Hebrew canon, that “pride goes before
a fall” in the affairs of nations as well as of individuals. All nations stand under the
judgment of the God who refuses to be mocked by people claiming the authority that is
his prerogative.60
The pride of the empire and the king leads to the loss of humanity, according to
the theology of the book of Daniel. The story of Nebuchadnezzar makes this point
eloquently (Dan 4:30-32).61 Similarly, in Dan 5, Belshazzar’s arrogant behavior harks
57
Ferch, “Authorship, Theology, and Purpose of Daniel,” 55.
58
Longman III and Dillard, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 394.
59
John Barton points out that the abhorrence of hubris that we find in the book of
Daniel is certainly common in other prophetic books. Nearest to this is perhaps Isa 47:10-
11: “You have trusted in your wickedness and have said, ‘No one sees me.’ Your wisdom
and knowledge mislead you when you say to yourself, ‘I am, and there is none besides
me.’ Disaster will come upon you, and you will not know how to conjure it away. A
calamity will fall upon you that you cannot ward off with a ransom; a catastrophe you
cannot foresee will suddenly come upon you.” John Barton, “Theological Ethics in
Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W.
Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 669. The prophet contrasts Babylon’s arrogant self-confidence
with the sudden and complete humiliation that will come on her. J. N. Oswalt, The Book
of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 248.
60
Barton, “Theological Ethics in Daniel,” 669.
61
Stephen Breck Reid, “The Theology of the Book of Daniel and the Political
265
back to Nebuchadnezzar’s pride and chastisement (vv. 2, 4, 5, 18-23). The sin of
Belshazzar led him to his judgment and to his death (Dan 5:30). Certainly, the whole
canon testifies to the one God’s resolute opposition to arrogance leading to idolatry.
Daniel 4-5 agrees with Isa 10:5-11, 14:12-15, and 47:10 that God must judge kings and
nations who exalt themselves as if God had not given them what they possess.
Egomaniacs tend toward self-worship, a brand of idolatry particularly evident in Dan 3.
In response to such pride, Daniel stresses that God gives breath, delivers, is sovereign, is
just, and lives forever.62 Therefore, Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar are perfect examples
of human leaders, who like the builders of the Tower of Babel, rebel against God’s
authority. In both cases, their pride reduces them to pathetic states of helplessness and
ridicule. After God has acted, they are hardly recognizable as kings of the great and
mighty Babylon (Dan 4:33; 5:6).63
As shown above, the seventh chapter of Daniel also deals with the judgment
motif. The pride of the world empires is central to the ideas of chaps. 7–12. The scheme
of empires in chaps. 7 and 8 is a succession of world leaders, which depicts the limits of
imperial pride, reaching its climax in the little horn with the big mouth (7:8). But a new
heavenly kingdom, led by the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man, replaces these proud
earthly reigns.64 Scholars agree that Dan 7 contains the best heavenly judgment scene
Theory of W. E. B. DuBois,” in The Recovery of Black Presence: An Interdisciplinary

Exploration: Essays in Honor of Dr. Charles B. Copher, ed. Randall C. Bailey and
Jacquelyn Grant (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 41.
62
63
Arnold, “Daniel, Theology of,” 141.
64
Ibid.
266
ever recorded in the Scriptures.65 Thus the judgment in Dan 7 commences while the little
horn blasphemes God and persecutes his people. The tribunal then continues for a time in
heaven while at the same time the godless despot functions on the earth. It therefore
becomes apparent that a phase of the heavenly assize precedes the setting up of the
everlasting kingdom, and it could be designated a pre-calam judgment,66 which clearly
parallels the same God’s investigative pattern also attested in Gen 11. Again, the main
characteristics of God’s judging activity are shared both in Gen 11 and in the book of
Daniel. In the same vein, Angel M. Rodriguez has suggested that Dan 7 displays a similar
judgment pattern as the one first attested in Gen 3 and through the Tower of Babel
narrative. Thus Rodriguez says that God is the one who searches for the truth, conducts
the trial, and pronounces a verdict.67 Thus in Dan 7 as well as in Gen 11 the judgment is
65
Jiří Moskala, “Toward a Biblical Theology of God’s Judgment: A Celebration
of the Cross in Seven Phases of Divine Universal Judgment (An Overview of a
Theocentric-Christocentric Approach),” JATS 15 (2004): 139. Cf. Margaret Barker, The
Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem (London: SPCK,
1991), 154-56. According to W. Shea, in Dan 7 God’s judgment is twofold. On the one
hand, God justifies, and saves the saints. On the other hand, God judges and condemns
the little horn for blasphemy. William H. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic
Interpretation, ed. Frank Holbrook, DARCOM 1 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald,
1982), 146. Cf. Bruce Birch et al., A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, 2nd
ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 456.
66
Arthur J. Ferch, “The Judgment Scene in Daniel 7,” in The Sanctuary and the
Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies, ed. Arnold V. Wallenkampf
and W. Richard Lesher (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981), 169. In Dan 7, God
carries out a judgment that benefits his people (v. 22) by delivering them from an
oppressive “little horn” power, which claims divine authority (v. 25). In Dan 8 the
justification of the sanctuary (v. 14) in the “time of the end” (see vv. 17, 19) is God’s
answer to the “little horn” (vv. 9-13; compare vv. 23-26). Thus in Dan 8 Judgment =
cleansing of the sanctuary. Roy E. Gane, Altar Call (Berrien Springs, MI: Diadem, 1999),
238-39.
67
Dan 7 follows the same pattern during the eschatological judgment in that it
267
marked by its thoroughgoing effect on and correspondence to the sin.68
Similarly, in the vision of Dan 11 we read about a king who will come in the
future who “will exalt himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the
God of gods. . . . He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired
by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all” (11:36-37).
Here, as in Dan 7 and 8, is the apex of human hubris. Once again it is an attempt to usurp
God’s place, which is highly reminiscent of the sin of the builders of the Tower of Babel.
Pride propels the evil actors of the book of Daniel. Yet, the God of the book of Daniel
turns human pride and arrogance to shame and ridicule. A line is drawn between God and
his creatures. There is a line that cannot be transgressed. But when human beings cross
that line, God has to do something. As in the case of Adam and Eve, the Babelites, and
the anti-God power here in Dan 11, they wanted to step out of their created order and
position to cross over the divine line.69
No kingdom will escape judgment. With the stone of God’s judgment (or his
kingdom) all other sovereignty is destroyed. Rulers who would be like God will be
condemned (11:36). Kings cannot usurp what belongs to God. So all world empires
(6:25) will be judged and a final world empire, which even foreign sovereigns will
recognize, will be set up. The judgment will come from the God of Israel as he prepares
to establish his kingdom in the latter days (5:25-28; 7:9). The dominant note placed on
portrays God opening the books (investigating the evidence), conducting the trial, and
passing a final sentence (in favor of His people and against the enemy). Rodríguez,
Future Glory: The 8 Greatest End-time Prophecies in the Bible, 36.
68
Margaret Dee Bratcher, “The Pattern of Sin and Judgment in Genesis 1-11”
(PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1984), 219.
268
this judgment and kingship of God is significant in Daniel.70
Therefore, a highly visible theme throughout the book of Daniel, which recalls the
narrative of Gen 11, is the pride of people that leads to their eventual downfall.
Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image and his pride over his accomplishments in building the
city of Babylon (chaps. 3-4), and Belshazzar’s pride demonstrated in the desecration of
the utensils from the temple and his rebuke by Daniel (5:18-23) —all provide specific
examples of this characteristic, which alludes to the same pride and rebellion manifested
by the builders of Babel (Gen 11). Pride is seen further in the actions of the fourth beast
of chap. 7, the little horn of chap. 8 and the king of the South in chap. 11.71 So the hubris
and rebellion of the Babelites in Gen 11 is paralleled by the pride and presumption of the
kings in the book of Daniel. Both narratives of human pride (Gen 11; Dan 1-11) met
God’s judgment. The Babel of the book of Daniel as well as the Babel of Gen 11
demonstrates the folly of the most illustrious civilization and religious system of the day.
Their attempt to reach up to heaven is the acme of folly and prompts mankind’s judgment
and dispersal over the face of the globe.72
69
Lim, Grace in the Midst of Judgment: Grappling with Genesis 1-11, 205-06.
70
Wolf, “Daniel and the Lord’s Prayer: A Synthesis of the Theology of the Book
of Daniel,” 402.
71
Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 459-60.
72
J. Gordon McConville, God and Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political
Theology, Genesis-Kings (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 23.
269
The Theme of the Temple
Introduction
The theme of the temple is well developed in the Old Testament.73 In the ancient
polytheistic world, kingship and temple were the two institutions that bound the divine
73
Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the
Pentateuch, 130-31; Gregory K. Beale, “Eden, the Temple, and the Church’s Mission in
the New Creation,” JETS 48 (2005): 3-31; Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, “‘Who Is the King of
Glory?’ Solomon’s Temple and Its Symbolism,” in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays
on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, ed. Michael D. Coogan, J.
Cheryl Exum, and Lawrence E. Stager (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1994), 18-31;
Richard Davidson, “Cosmic Metanarrative for the Coming Millennium,” JATS 11 (2000):
102-09; Elias Brasil De Souza, The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew
Bible: Function and Relationship to the Earthly Counterparts, ATSDS 7 (Berrien
Springs, MI: ATSP, 2005); Lloyd Gaston, “The Theology of the Temple,” in Oikonomia.
Heilgeschichte als Thema der Theologie. Oscar Cullmann zum 65, ed. Felix Christ
(Hamburg-Bergstedt: Reich, 1967), 32-41; Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-service
in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical
Setting of the Priestly School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978); Menahem Haran, “Temples and
Cultic Open Areas as Reflected in the Bible,” in Temples and High Places in Biblical
Times: Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor of the Centennial of Hebrew Union
College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Jerusalem, 14-16 March 1977, ed. Avraham Biran
(Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew Union College-
Jewish Institute of Religion, 1981), 31-37; Larry G. Herr, “Temple, Semitic,” NIDB
(2009), 5:510-16; Frank B. Holbrook, “The Israelite Sanctuary,” in The Sanctuary and
the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies, ed. Arnold V. Wallenkampf
and W. Richard Lesher (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981), 1-36; Craig R.
Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental
Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical
Association of America, 1989), 6-22; John M. Lundquist, “The Legitimizing Role of the
Temple in the Origin of the State,” in SBL 1982 Seminar Papers, ed. Kent Harold
Richards (Chico, CA: Scholars Press 1982), 271-97; Ángel M. Rodríguez, “Sanctuary
Theology in the Book of Exodus,” AUSS 24 (1986): 127-45; M. Weinfeld, “Sabbath,
Temple and the Enthronement of the LORD: The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of
Genesis 1:1-2:2,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de H. Cazelles, ed. A.
Caquot and M. Delcor, AOAT 212 (Kevelaer: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 501-12; G. J.
Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” in I Studied Inscriptions
from before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to
Genesis 1-11, ed. Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1994), 399-404; G. Ernest Wright, “The Significance of the Temple in the
Ancient Near East Part III: The Temple in Palestine-Syria,” BA 7 (1944): 65-77.
270
and human worlds together.74 Scholars suggest that the whole stability and order of
society and nature were believed to be dependent on what went on in the temple services.
The temple was indeed “none other than the house of God . . . the gate of heaven” (Gen
28: 17), or “ the foundation platform of heaven and earth” (such being the name given the
temple-tower of Babylon).75
From the days of king David on, Jerusalem became the chief place for worship in
ancient Israel. YHWH was the national god of Israel, and Jerusalem was the royal capital
of a kingdom that acquired imperial status under David and Solomon. Thus, the theology
associated with the Temple in Jerusalem takes on imperial qualities.76 Daniel takes up the
subject of the temple’s significance in Israelite worship and the theology of kingdom. The
book opens with the description of the tragic ending of the Davidic dynasty as well as the
deliberate connection of that event with the Temple of Jerusalem: “In the third year of the
74
In Mesopotamia the king was the representative of the gods selected to rule the
earthly society. In Israel he was conceived in a similar way, and could in this sense be
called God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7). G. Ernest Wright, Biblical Archaeology
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 143-44.
75
Ibid., 144. See Victor A. Hurowitz, “Yhwh’s Exalted House—Aspects of the
Design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel,
ed. John Day (London: T & T Clark, 2005), 96. For further discussions on temple
building in the Bible and in Messopotamia, see the thorough study also by Victor A.
Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of
Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings, JSOTSup 115 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992).
76
J. J. Roberts, “Temple, Jerusalem,” NIDB (2006), 500. Cf. Carol L. Meyers,
“Temple, Jerusalem,” AYBD (1996), 6:351. L. T. Geraty has drawn attention to the fact
that the Hebrew terms used for the temple— bayit, hekal, ulam, and others—are
linguistically related to Akkadian words used in Mesopotamian temple traditions. Thus
bayit = Akkadian bit, hekal = Akkadian ekallu (palace) from Sumerian E-GAL (great
house), ’ulam = Akkadian ellamu (front). Lawrence T. Geraty, “The Jerusalem Temple of
the Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” in The Sanctuary and the
Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies, ed. Arnold V. Wallenkampf
271
reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem
and besieged it. And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along
with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of
his god in Babylonia (Shinar) and put in the treasure house of his god” (Dan 1:1-2).77
It seems clear that in the book of Daniel there is a marked theological contrast
between the house of God in Jerusalem, and Nebuchadnezzar’s temple in Shinar. In the
following section, I explore the theme of the temple in the book of Daniel and its
theological significance in the light of the narrative of the Tower of Babel.
Theology of the Temple/House of God
As noted above, it is significant that at the beginning of the book of Daniel, along
with the capture and deportation of Jehoiakim, the King of Judah, a cultic concern is
expressed by the reference to the house of God, My$IhølTa`Dh_tyEb.78 The Hebrew phrase
My$IhølTa`Dh_tyEb occurs fifty-five times in the Hebrew Bible,79 while the same expression, but
without the definite article, occurs forty-three times.80 The OT speaks frequently of the
and W. Richard Lesher (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981), 56, 64, n. 58.
77
It appears that the policy of Nebuchadnezzar was to place captured religious
implements or statues in the temple of Marduk in the city of Babylon in order to
symbolize the capture of the people and the defeat of their gods. Daniel L. Smith-
Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile, OBT (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 60.
78
79
Judg 18:31; Eccl 4:17; Dan 1:2; Ezra 1:4; 2:68; 3:8–9; 6:22; 8:36; 10:1, 6, 9;
Neh 6:10; 8:16; 11:11, 16, 22; 12:40; 13:7, 9, 11; 1 Chr 6:33; 9:11, 13, 26–27; 22:2;
23:28; 25:6; 26:20; 28:12, 21; 29:7; 2 Chr 3:3; 4:11, 19; 5:1, 14; 7:5; 15:18; 22:12; 23:3,
9; 24:7, 13, 27; 25:24; 28:24; 31:13, 21; 33:7; 35:8; 36:18–19.
80
Gen 28:17, 22; Josh 9:23; Judg 9:27; 17:5; Isa 2:3; Jer 43:12–13; Hos 9:8; Amos
2:8; Mic 4:2; Nah 1:14; Pss 42:5; 52:10; 55:15; 84:11; 135:2; Dan 1:2; Ezra 1:7; 8:17, 25,
272
“house of God” or “house of the Lord.” This was generally applied to the temple or
earlier to the tabernacle (Judg 18:31), which was indeed some kind of physical
accommodation.81
The anarthrous phrase My$IhølTa ty∞E;b is first used in the book of Genesis, in a passage
that has some intertextual connections with the Tower of Babel. The text reads: “He
[Jacob] was afraid and said, ‘How awesome is this place! This is none other than the
house of God (My$IhølTa ty∞E;b); this is the gate of heaven (Mˆy`DmDÚvAh rAo¶Av)’” (Gen 28:17). Here in
this passage Jacob declares the obvious: The residence of God in that place means that it
is a divine sanctuary, “the house of God.”82 Thus, in Gen 28:17 Myhla tyb designates not
the stone pillar set up by Jacob but rather hwhy Mwqm: This place is the dwelling place of
God!83 Wenham explains that “House of God” (My$IhølTa ty∞E;b) anticipates the name Jacob is
about to give to the place, “Bethel” (v. 19).84 Interestingly, the phrase Mˆy`DmDÚvAh rAo¶Av occurs
only here (Gen 28:17) in the OT, but the idea that heaven, the divine abode, has one or
more entrances is a familiar idea in ancient thought. 85
Biblical scholars have noted that the etymology of Babylon (bab-ilim), “the gate
30, 33; 9:9; Neh 10:33–35, 37–40; 13:4, 14; 1 Chr 10:10; 29:2–3; 2 Chr 24:5; 32:21;
34:9.
81
D. G. McCartney, “House, Spiritual House,” DLNT (2000), 509.
82
Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, NAC 1B (Nashville, TN:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2007), 452.
83
Claus Westermann, Genesis 12-36 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995), 457.
84
G. J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, WBC 2 (Dallas: Word, 2002), 223.
85
Ibid.
273
of the god,” is similar to that of Mˆy`DmDÚvAh rAo¶Av.86 Moreover, scholars have also shown that
the Tower of Babel account has a connection with Jacob’s ladder in Gen 28. Thus Gen
28:12 refers to the ladder when it says, “its head reached into the heaven,” a phrase
comparable to Gen 11:4, “its head was in the heaven.” Both expressions approximate the
Esagila Temple’s characterization as “the house whose head is lifted.”87
Significantly, in Sumerian mythology the function of the Temple Mountain was
critical. Since earth and heaven had been separated from an original unity, the raison
88
d’être for Sumerian temple-towers was the reunion of heaven and earth. Thus the l∂;d◊gIm
86
Sarna, Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with New JPS Translation, 199.
87
Robert Gnuse, “The Tale of Babel: Parable of Divine Judgment or Human
Cultural Diversification?,” BZ 54 (2010): 241; Victor A. Hurowitz, “Babylon in Bethel—
New Light on Jacob’s Dream,” in Orientalism, Assyriology and the Bible, ed. Steven W.
Holloway (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007), 436; J. G. Janzen, Abraham and All the
Families of the Earth: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 12-50, ITC (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 108; D. Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC
1 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 170; Nahum M. Sarna, Understanding
Genesis (New York: Schochen Books, 1966), 193; Laurence A. Turner, Genesis
(Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 124.
88
D. Kellermann, “‫מגדל‬,” TDOT (1997), 8:72; K. N. Schoville, “‫מגדל‬,” NIDOTTE
(1997), 2:842. OT scholars have advanced two main suggestions regarding the nature
and function of the Tower of Babel. First, many scholars are convinced that the biblical
author intends the term “tower” (l∂;d◊gIm), used of the structure at Babel, to refer to a
Mesopotamian “temple tower” or ziggurat. So W. Osborne, “Babel,” DOTP (2003), 74.
Second, there are some who argue that the tower was meant to be only a fortification, so
Sanglae Kim, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple in the Hebrew Bible” (PhD diss.,
Sheffield University, 2002), 49-52. According to J. Walton, the frequent objection that
the Hebrew term l∂;d◊gIm is used primarily in military contexts or as a watch tower, but
never used of a ziggurat, is easily addressed on three fronts:
“(1) We do not expect to see the term l∂;d◊gIm (migdal) used of ziggurats in Hebrew because
the Israelites did not have ziggurats.
(2) We do not expect the Israelites to have a ready term for ziggurats because ziggurats
were not a part of the Israelite culture.
(3) Given the absence of a term in Hebrew, we would expect them to either borrow the
word if they had to talk about them, use a suitable existing term, or devise a word. To call
274
of Gen 11:4 presumably served that purpose.89 Y. Zacovitch has argued that the
juxtaposition of the Tower of Babel account and the narrative of Abraham’s call (Gen
12:1-9) seem to indicate that the nature of the building project in Gen 11 was both
arrogant and religious in nature.90 Some of the intertextual parallels between Gen 11 and
12 include:
Gen 11:1-9 Gen 12:1-8
Men said, Go to, let us build [hnb] us a Abraham built [hnb] an altar to the LORD
city and a tower (v. 4) and called on the name [M¶EvV;b ] of the LORD
(v. 8)
Men want to make a name [Mv] (v. 4) YHWH will make Abraham’s name great
[ÔK¡RmVv h™Dl√;dÅgSa] (v. 2)
Therefore, the intertextual relations between the two juxtaposed chapters (Gen 11:1-9;
12:1-8) further strengthen the argument that the nature of the Tower of Babel was indeed
religious; in other words, the building project of Gen 11 reassembled one of the many
Mesopotamian ziggurats.91 Thus the Bible condemns Mesopotamian religion with its
the ziggurat a tower is not inaccurate, and as a matter of fact, the term they used is
derived from the Hebrew term (to be large), which is somewhat parallel to the
etymological root of the Akkadian word, ziqqurat (zaqaru, to be high).” John H. Walton,
“The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications,”
BBR 5 (1995): 155-56.
89
Paul T. Penley, “A Historical Reading of Genesis 11:1-9: The Sumerian Demise
and Dispersion under the Ur III Dynasty,” JETS 50 (2007): 706. See Samuel Noah
Kramer, Sumerian Mythology (New York: Harper, 1961), 41-43.
90
Yair Zakovitch, “Juxtaposition in the Abraham Cycle,” in Pomegranates and
Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature
in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 511.
91
L.-H. Vincent, “De la tour de Babel au temple,” RB 53 (1946): 403-09. Huber
Bost, Babel: Du texte au symbole, Le monde de la Bible (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1985),
275
pyramids or temple-towers (or ziggurats) made of bricks that serve as mounds for
temples.92 Given the fact that Mesopotamian tradition so often describes these buildings
as reaching to heaven, the biblical phrase Mˆy$AmDÚvAb wâøvaør◊w l∂;d◊gIm…w (Gen 11:4) can hardly be
dismissed as purely hyperbolic, however fossilized it may have been. On some level,
these structures were believed capable of serving as a bridge between the divine and
human realms.93
Therefore, the Tower of Babel in Gen 11 may well have been an example of such
temple-like towers. In fact, the similarities between the Tower of Babel and Gen 28
suggest that the latter is the true counterpoint to the former, which was a vain attempt to
experience God’s presence.94 Like the Tower of Babel, the purpose of the ladder or
stairway in Gen 28:17 is to link heaven and earth, that is, gods and humans. Unlike the
Tower of Babel, however, this ladder in Jacob’s dream is overseen by God who allows
his angels to go up and down freely.95 Bethel and Babylon represent opposing ways to
79-80; Colette Briffard, “Sem, une clé de lecture pour Babel (Gn 11/1-9), ou de
l’importance du contexte,” ETR 75 (2000): 412-14. Cf. Allan K. Jenkins, “A Great Name:
Genesis 12:2 and the Editing of the Pentateuch,” JSOT 10 (1978): 45-46; Pury, “La tour
de Babel et la vocation d’Abraham notes exégétiques,” 92-93. Peter Machinist, “On Self-
Consciousness in Mesopotamia,” in The Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations,
ed. S. N. Eisenstadt (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986), 194. Laurence
A. Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1990), 52.
92
Bill T. Arnold, Encountering the Book of Genesis, EBS (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 1998), 62.
93
Greenspahn, “A Mesopotamian Proverb and Its Biblical Reverberations,” 36-37.
94
Gregory K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology
of the Dwelling Place of God, NSBT (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004),
102.
95
Susan Brayford, Genesis, SEPT (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 354-55. See also Niels-
276
reach the divine realm. In Gen 11, people built the tower of Babel in order to get up to
the divine level of immunity from accountability to God. They built from the ground up.
But Jacob’s ladder originated in heaven, let down from above by God. It was a ladder of
revelatory rather than anthropological origin.96
Furthermore, the first occurrence of the expression My$IhølTa ty∞E;b in the Hebrew Bible
which is found in the narrative of Jacob’s dream, and in which the ladder’s base is seen,
suggests that My$IhølTa ty∞E;b is to be understood as the place or temple where God is to be
worshipped, and the ladder’s top as the house where He dwells.97 G. von Rad
convincingly argues that there was a general distinction in the ancient Near East between
the place where the gods dwelt and the place where they were worshipped.
To understand the whole, however, one must know that in the ancient Orient a rather
general distinction was made between the earthly place of a god’s appearing and his
actual (heavenly) dwelling place. Thus on the gigantic Babylonian temple towers, the
dwelling place is symbolized by the uppermost chamber, while below on earth there
is a temple where the god appears; and from top to bottom, as the characteristic mark
of this cultic building, there runs a long ramp. Thus Jacob too makes a distinction in
this sense: this is a house of God, i.e., the place where God appears, which is to
become a cultic centre with a cultic building, “and this is the gate of heaven” (v.
17).98
The contrast between Babel and Bethel succeeds brilliantly in emphasizing both
that the vision of the ladder was an unambiguous sign of God’s approval, and that the
Erik Andreasen, “The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Old Testament,” in The Sanctuary and
the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies, ed. Arnold V. Wallenkampf
and W. Richard Lesher (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981), 68.
96
Roy E. Gane, Syllabus for OTST565 Pentateuch (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews
University, 2003), 35-36.
97
Diana Lipton, Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal
Dreams of Genesis, ed. David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies, JSOTSup 288
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 91.
277
scattering to the corners of the earth in Gen 28 is not a punishment, but a stage in the
divine plan. In Gen 11, God comes down to see a towering structure that the people of
Babel have built for themselves, and expressly without his approval.99 Therefore, the
Tower of Babel story presents Babylon negatively, speaks about its abandonment because
of divine intervention, and views the construction of the city and its tower as one sin of
humankind in a chain of primordial transgressions starting in paradise and distancing
humanity from God.100 For K. Barth “the attempt of the nations (Gen 11:4) to build a
tower whose top was to reach heaven is therefore both impertinent and ridiculous.”101 On
the other hand, the Bethel story (Gen 28) describes the Israelite site positively. Thus the
biblical text clearly indicates that humans cannot ascend to heaven by the tower of bricks
they attempted to build in Babylon, but Israelites bridge the gap between heaven and
earth by means of Bethel, where one finds “a staircase standing on the ground and its
head reaches to heaven, and angels of God go up and down on it.”102
Significantly, one can also see a marked contrast between My$IhølTa`Dh_tyEb (the temple
of the God) and wy¡DhølTa ty∞E;b in Dan 1:2 (the temple of his god). The opposition in this verse
between “the God” and “his god” may reflect the author’s belief that Yahweh was not
just one God among the many in the Babylonian pantheon, but he was the God. Yahweh
98
Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, 284.
99
Lipton, Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal Dreams
of Genesis, 103-04.
100
Hurowitz, “Babylon in Bethel—New Light on Jacob’s Dream,” 448.
101
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (CD), vol. III-1 of The Doctrine of Creation, ed.
Geoffrey William Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975),
140.
278
is the real God; all other gods are illusions.103 Thus Daniel wishes, it would seem, to
emphasize that this is the temple of the true God, in opposition to the false deities of the
Babylonian court.104 Furthermore, the article (Ah) is attached to the name MyIhølTa when it
refers to the true God in 1:2a, 9, 17, and 9:3, 11. When the name refers to false gods in
1:2b (twice) and 11:8, 37, the article is lacking due to attached pronouns. In 1:2 and 9:3,
Daniel uses apposition rather than prepositions or a construct state but still maintains the
use of the pronoun with the true God. 105
In Dan 5:2-3, the prophet takes up and elaborates further on the temple/house
motif. Thus the biblical text records the banquet and the sacrilegious behavior of King
Belshazzar. The same articles that were removed from the temple in Jerusalem as a sign
of judgment on the conquered now become symbols of judgment on the conquerors
(5:30-31). The message is clear: Only Yahweh has the rightful cultic authority which he
jealously guards against any usurper, and only he can give himself and his cultic activity
to be present among the people when he desires.106 The theological meaning of the
temple articles goes beyond their immediate function in the sanctuary service and lies in
102
Hurowitz, “Babylon in Bethel—New Light on Jacob’s Dream,” 448.
103
Miller, Daniel, 58.
104
Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 38.
105
In Dan 9:4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 (twice); 10:12, and 11:32, the
attached pronoun makes it clear that this is the true God. Peter A. Steveson, Daniel
(Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2008), 4. According to B. K. Waltke and M.
O’Conner, sometimes the noun + article combination becomes the equivalent of a proper
name (My$IhølTa`Dh [the God]= God). Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical
Hebrew Syntax, 249.
106
Winfried Vogel, “The Cultic Motif in Space and Time in the Book of Daniel”
(PhD diss., Andrews University, 1999), 281.
279
their identification with the temple itself as the center of God’s dominion. It has been
observed that the furnishings of the temple were full of cosmic symbolism, as was true
for the temple as a whole.107
Furthermore, the temple cult as a symbol of national existence is highlighted by
the use of Hebrew terms for the sanctuary that most frequently occur in the context of the
history of Israel and Judah at a time when the temple had been built and the central cult
had been reestablished: lAkyEh and My$IhølTa`Dh_tyEb. Their use in the OT as well as in Daniel
shows that the connotation here is one of “royal palace” of Yahweh, his sacred
residence.108 Thus the selection of the terms is also an indication for the attempt to
underline the juxtaposition of Yahweh’s temple and the temple of the pagan god,
probably also for polemical purposes.109 As scholars have noted, the book of Daniel
adopts some polemical attitudes over certain core issues, which were also tackled in the
book of Genesis, especially in the first eleven chapters. Thus the book of Daniel picks up
from Gen 1-11 the biblical polemic against paganism,110 or false worship. Thus in the
107
Ibid., 108. See also Ackroyd, “The Temple Vessels—A Continuity Theme,”
166-81; Clements, God and Temple, 65-67; Menahem Haran, “The Divine Presence in
the Israelite Cult and the Cultic Institution,” Bib 50 (1969): 251-67; Josef Schreiner,
“Tempeltheologie im Streit der Propheten,” BZ 1 (1987): 1-14.
108
109
Ibid.
110
Sarna, Understanding Genesis, 3. Commenting on the biblical creation story, J.
Doukhan states that the biblical author is very well aware of the cultural world around
him and of its mythological cosmogonies to which he responds in a definite polemic
manner. Jacques Doukhan, “The Genesis Creation Story: Text, Issues, and Truth,”
Origins 55 (2004): 18. For further discussions on the polemic against paganism in Gen 1-
2, see also Doukhan, “The Literary Structure of the Genesis Creation Story,” 116-32; G.
F. Hasel, “The Significance of the Cosmology in Gen 1 in Relation to Ancient Near
280
book of Daniel, serving other gods is strongly condemned and carries with it political and
social consequences. Furthermore, J. McConville states that the early chapters of Genesis
display a critical orientation towards Babylonian religion in particular, most pronounced
in the story of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:1–9), which lampoons Babylonian temple-
towers.111 It is not surprising then to see how Daniel purposely picks up this theological
conflict between the true Temple that was in Jerusalem and the Babylonian temple-
towers, more specifically the temple of Nebuchadnezzar’s god (Dan 1:2) located at
Shinar.
Despite the fact that the exile was a catastrophe precisely because the house of
God had been destroyed,112 yet, the experience of Israel in the exile served not only to
enhance the importance of the temple but also to show that the temple was not
indispensable to the worship of Yahweh.113 Thus, by relocating the presence of God away
Eastern Parallels,” AUSS 10 (1972): 1-20; G. F. Hasel, “The Polemic Nature of the
Genesis Cosmology,” EvQ 46 (1974): 81-102.
111
McConville, God and Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political Theology,
Genesis-Kings, 23. Cf. John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan,
JSOTSup, 265 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 100; Hasel, “The
Significance of the Cosmology in Gen 1 in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Parallels,”
1-20; Hasel, “The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,” 81-102.
112
Enno Janssen, Juda in der Exilszeit: Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Entstehung des
Judentums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956), 59; Vogel, The Cultic Motif in
the Book of Daniel, 51. Thus the destruction of the Temple meant nothing less than the
loss of God’s presence (Ezek 9:3; 10:4-5; 11: 23; cf. 1 Sam 4: 21). God had apparently
fulfilled the prediction of 1 Kgs 9:6-7. R. J. McKelvey, The New Temple: The Church in
the New Testament (London: Oxford Universify Press, 1969), 7.
113
The assurance of the prophets that God could and would come to his people
and bless them wherever they were, without temple and cult (Ezek 11: 16), was happily
realized (Ps 139:7-12). McKelvey, The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament,
26. Just as remarkably, we read in Ezek 11:16 that the Lord has himself become a miqdas
me’at (f$AoVm vâ∂;dVqIm) to his people; he himself is to be their sanctuary ‘in some measure.’
281
from the royal cult and the Temple liturgy and towards a realm above all space and time,
Daniel, along with the Psalter, was able to create a faith that transcended the very liturgy
out of which it had first come.114
Thus the book of Daniel shows a concern for the defilement of the Temple (the
“abomination of desolation” [M$EmOvVm ‹MyIx…w;qIv] in 9:27; 11:31), and it also express the central
idea of the Temple’s restoration (Dan 8:11-14).115 Indeed, the visions of the book of
Daniel stress that the restoration of the Temple would mark the climax of the history of
God’s salvation of his people and the establishment of his eternal rule over the world.
Paul Joyce, “Temple and Worship in Ezekiel 40-48,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical
Israel, ed. John Day (London: T. & T. Clark, 2005), 154.
114
Susan Gillingham, “Psalmody and Apocalyptic in the Hebrew Bible: Common
Vision, Shared Experience?,” in After the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason, ed.
Joffohn Barton and David J. Reimer (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996), 167.
115
Ibid., 154. The Hebrew word v®dOq, which is used in Dan 8:13-14, is another
term used to designate the sanctuary. It could refer to the sanctuary in its totality (Exod
30:13; Num 3:28; 1 Chr 9:29), the holy place (Exod 28:29; 29:30; 1 Kgs 8:8), or even to
the most holy place (Lev 16:2). v®dOq is the word used throughout Lev 16 to designate the
sanctuary as the subject of purification. Rodríguez, “Significance of the Cultic Language
in Daniel 8:9-14,” 531. Cf. H. Ringgren and W. Kornfeld, “‫קדש‬,” TDOT (2003), 12:541-
42. Moreover, the use of the term v®dOq in the Hebrew expression MyÌv∂dá∂q v®dõOq (“the most
holy [place]”) in Dan 9:24, that is the sanctuary, seems to indicate that the anointing of
the sanctuary in heaven is the prelude to the postlude of the “cleansing” of the sanctuary
to which 8:13-14 points. Hasel, “The ‘Little Horn,’ the Heavenly Sanctuary, and the
Time of the End: A Study of Daniel 8:9-14,” 446. Concerning the meaning of the Hebrew
phrase MyÌv∂dá∂q v®dõOq in Dan 9:24, and which also is used in 2 Chr 23: 13, Lacocque
mistakenly has suggested that MyÌv∂dá∂q v®dõOq not only designates the restored Temple, but
also the faithful priesthood around whom is gathered the community of Israel. Lacocque,
The Book of Daniel, 194. On the other hand, Theophane Chary has shown that MyÌv∂dá∂q v®dõOq
is never applied to human beings: “C’est en effet le temple qu’il faut entendre par le
‘Saint des Saints’ qui recevra une onction. L’expression qodes qodasim ne s’applique
jamais à des personnages humains. La seule exception éventuelle: 1 Chron., 23,13 repose
sur une texte incertain.” Théophane Chary, Les Prophètes et le Culte à partir de l’ Exil
(Paris: Desclée et Cie, 1955), 43. See also Delcor, Le Livre de Daniel, 196; Goldingay,
Daniel, 229; Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 244; Shea, “Unity of Daniel,”
282
Temple and salvation history are interrelated in this case.116 The hope of Daniel, and with
him, of all the exiled Israelite community, is directed towards the one institution where
atonement can be obtained—the Temple (Dan 6:10; 9:1-19). Therefore, by contrasting
the two worship systems epitomized by Jerusalem and Babel (Dan 1:2) and their
respective Temple and ziggurat —reminiscent of the Tower of Babel—the prophet
Daniel gave some insights concerning the true Temple that was in Jerusalem, which was
pointing to a heavenly reality. Thus in the Temple, the separation between heaven and
earth is suspended. “The LORD is in his holy temple; the LORD is on his heavenly
throne. He observes everyone on earth; his eyes examine them” (Ps 11:4).
Summary
The three themes examined here—the theme of the kingdom of God, the theme of
judgment, and the theme of the Temple—have been selected for my study here because
they are the ones for which intertextual connections with Gen 11 seem most discernable.
It has been shown that the sovereignty of God is a key theme well developed from Gen 1-
11 through the book of Daniel. Thus in the later books of the Old Testament God is “the
king of the whole earth” (Ps 47:8) and “the king of all peoples” (Jer 10:7, Ps 47:9). He is
“king over the whole world” (Ps 47:3). Thus Daniel affirms that God is “the king of
heaven” (Dan 4:34).117
233.
116
James Valentine, “Theological Aspects of the Temple Motif in the Old
Testament and Revelation” (PhD diss., Boston University, 1985), 145.
117
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (CD), vol. III-3 of The Doctrine of Creation, ed.
Geoffrey William Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975),
155.
283
Indeed, the biblical text affirms that the Most High rules over the kingdom of
humans, but he does not go unchallenged or unopposed. According to Scripture, the
human opposition to the kingdom of God is more than evident in the Babylonian
antagonistic attitude. Thus starting with Nimrod in Gen 10-11 and ending with the
arrogance of Nebucahdnezzar (Dan 1-4), Belshazzar (Dan 5), the little horn (Dan 7-8),
and the antagonistc king of the north (Dan 11), the same spirit of Babel, the anti-God
power, is attested in the book of Daniel. The God who is high above all peoples is also
the God of Israel who is great in Sion (Ps 99:2). And it is as Judge of the whole world
that Yahweh is King in Mount Sion and Jerusalem (Isa 24:23).118
118
Ibid.
284
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this dissertation was to examine the allusions to Gen 11:1-9 in the
book of Daniel, and to demonstrate on exegetical and intertextual grounds the references
and allusions to Gen 11:1-9 in Daniel and the theological implications of those
connections. The following summarizes the findings of this study and draws some
conclusions.
The first chapter surveyed the different types of intertextuality and set forth the
methodological approach for identifying the allusions to Gen 11 in the book of Daniel. In
recent years biblical scholars have increasingly appreciated that the biblical authors
explain, revise, and allude to texts written by their predecessors. Thus this study suggests
that the book of Daniel prefers allusion to citing references (the only exception is a
reference to Jeremiah in Dan 9:2), and since it can be assumed that the author of the book
was familiar with the book of Genesis, that he alludes to Gen 11 seems likely. The
indicators of textual relation between Gen 11 and the book of Daniel identified in this
dissertation were evaluated according to one or more of three criteria: (1) verbal parallels
or lexical correspondences, (2) thematic similarities, and (3) structural similarities. This
study has found ample evidence that the book of Daniel alludes to Gen 11.
Chapter 2 traced the allusions to Gen 11 in the historical section of the book of
Daniel (Dan 1-6). This chapter has shown that in Gen 11 lRbD;b became a symbol of the
anti-God power found throughout the Bible. And in the historical section of the book of
285
Daniel were found allusions to this arrogant politico-religious power. Therefore, in the
book of Daniel, lRbD;b, the city, stands for a human institution organized over against God,
God’s kingdom, God’s Temple, and God’s people.
Furthermore, this study indicated that the first lexical allusions to the Tower of
Babel narrative are found in Dan 1:1-2, namely, the two striking parallels (1) lRbD;b_JKRl`Rm,
t…wkVlAmVl // l$RbD;b ‹wø;tVkAlVmAm (Gen 10:10; 11:2, 9); and (2) r™Do◊nIv_X®r`Ra // r`Do◊nIv X®r™RaV;b (Gen 10:10;
11:2, 9). This first allusion to Babel in the book of Daniel is theologically significant. In
the context of Dan 1:1, the fall of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jewish people seemed at
first sight to be proof that Marduk/Nebuchadnezzar/Babylon had defeated
Yahweh/Jehoiakim/Jerusalem. But the narrative affirms, “The Lord delivered Jehoiakim
king of Judah into his hand” (Dan 1:2).
Therefore, the book of Daniel begins by proclaiming the sovereignty of God. The
author thus foreshadows the power struggle between the true God, the God of Israel, and
those who worship pagan idols. He does so by juxtaposing y∏ÎnOdSa, Jerusalem, Yahweh’s
temple and its vessels with Nebuchadnezzar, Babel, and the temple of King
Nebuchadnezzar’s false god. Consequently, in Dan 1:1-2a the Lord (y∏ÎnOdSa) is clearly
demonstrating his sovereignty; in other words, the real King is neither Jehoiakim nor
Nebuchadnezzar, but the Lord (cf. Ps 96:10; 1 Chr 29: 11-12).
An examination of the use of the terms for king, kingdom, Babel, and Shinar
(Klm, t…wäkVlAm, lRbD;b,rDo◊nIv) in Dan 1:1-2 provides also linguistic allusion to Gen 10 and 11
where the first kingdom is identified, namely, the kingdom of Babel. The use of these
terms links the theological emphasis concerning God’s sovereignty as found in both the
book of Genesis and the book of Daniel. The study has further shown that the literary
286
structure of Dan 1:1-2 reveals that at the very core of the allusions to Gen 11 is the
understanding of a cosmic and religious conflict between Yahweh/Jerusalem and
Marduk/Babylon. Thus the building project the Bible describes at Babel is a temple
complex featuring a ziggurat. Like the Temple at Jerusalem, Esagil was primarily
regarded as the home of the deity, where he dwelt when on earth and where he could be
approached. In conclusion, the “land of Shinar” was the center for the worship of the god
Bel (Dan 4:8; Isa 46:1) or Marduk, whose worship was anathema to those who served the
God of Israel. Thus throughout the Old Testament, from Gen 11 to Daniel, Babel forms a
world-historical antithesis to Zion.
As shown above, Babylon is the first kingdom ever recorded in the whole Bible
(Gen 10:8-10; 11:1-9), and Daniel elaborates the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s
dream in Dan 2 in the light of Genesis. Furthermore, the study of Dan 2 has shown that
Daniel combines the motif of the first Adam and the first king. Thus the title “king of
kings” and the dominion given to Nebuchadnezzar over all living things indicate
Babylon’s superiority over the others. Nevertheless, the golden splendor of
Nebuchadnezzar’s empire is God-given. God gave Nebuchadnezzar not only Jerusalem
(1:2) but royal might and power (v. 37, cf. 5:18), and indeed authority over all creation
(v. 38).
The investigation of the expression hÎgyIlVp …wôkVlAm has further shown that Dan 2:41
might alludes to Gen 10:25, where first use of glp is found in the Bible in the context of
the Tower of Babel. Thus the division referred to in Gen 10:25 was the geographic
division resulting from the confusion of tongues at Babel. Therefore, the prophecy of
Daniel thus foretells an event related to that of the Tower of Babel. In the Genesis story
God descends from heaven at the moment when, in fear of being destroyed, the people of
287
the earth unite to erect a tower and give themselves a name (Gen 11:4).
This dissertation identifies several allusions to Gen 11 in Dan 3, the story of
Nebuchadnezzar’s fashioning of a golden statue and his command that all subjects
worship it or face death. The first allusion to Gen 11 in Dan 3 is thematic. Thus the
ceremony to which Nebuchadnezzar calls his guests is, as in the episode of Babel, a
religious one. Second, reminiscent of the Tower of Babel story, Dan 3 relates an attempt
to once again unite the whole world, as they would focus on worship—with one language
and with one common ritual (cf. Gen 11:1)—the great gods of Babylon on the plain of
Dura. This study demonstrated that the common use of the word hDoVqI;b at the head of both
passages (Gen 11; Dan 3) and the use of the construct chain r™Do◊nIv X®r¶RaV;b in Gen 11:1,
which parallels the noun l`RbD;b in Dan 3:1, all attest to the literary link between the two
passages. Therefore, the grandeur of the image, the religious nature of the event, and the
intended unity among the worshipers at the valley of Dura all clearly allude to the Tower
of Babel account. At the time of Babel X®r™DaDh_lDk, “the whole world” (Gen 11:1, 4, 8, 9),
clustered in the plain to unite in a common sacred act. Nebuchadnezzar gathers in the
same plain not only his officials but a`D¥yÅnDÚvIl◊w a™D¥yA;mUa a$D¥yAmVmÀo, “all peoples, nations and men of
every language” (Dan 3:4) to unite them in a sacred ceremony in his honor.
The analysis of Dan 4 has led to the conclusion that the expression “reaching into
the heaven” is used in a theologically significant way, which alludes to the language of
Gen 11: 4. Thus based on similar language of the divine council and the Holy One (vy$î;dåq◊w
ry∞Io) who came down from heaven, it seems safe to conclude that Dan 4 alludes to Gen
11. As shown above, when the inhabitants of the land of Shinar decided to build “a city,
with a tower that reaches to the heavens” (Mˆy$AmDÚvAb wâøvaør◊w l∂;d◊gIm…w ryIo, Gen 11:4), God came
288
down and confused their language. Thus both narratives (Dan 4 and Gen 11:1-9) share a
manifested in his humbling actions. As in the case of the builders of Babel,
Nebuchadnezzar’s pride in his achievement displays arrogance that calls for judgment.
In addition, the examination of the expression a¡DtV;bår l∞RbD;b and the verb hAt◊yÅnTb in
Dan 4:27 provides another literary link with the Tower of Babel. Thus beginning in Dan
4 the boastful title a¡DtV;bår l∞RbD;b became a negative symbol in later Jewish literature. Thus
the builders of the Tower of Babel and Nebuchadnezzar are paradigmatic Old Testament
examples of Prov 16:18: “pride goes before destruction.” Nebuchadnezzar shared in the
hubris of the people of Babel when their motivation in building the tower was to “make a
name for themselves” (Gen 11:4). This dissertation further has shown that the connection
of these key expressions with the Tower of Babel in Gen 11 is warranted.
In conclusion, it has been demonstrated that the story of Dan 4 alludes to Gen 11
by using common concepts and themes as the motif of reaching to the heaven, the
building motif, the motif of a Holy One coming down from heaven, and the judgment
motif.
This dissertation suggests that the episode of Belshazzar and the handwriting on
the wall in Dan 5 also points back to Gen 11. The desecration of the sacred temple
vessels in Dan 5 again underscores the theme of human pride and its consequences.
Belshazzar is as a haughty character, sharing the same attitude attested in the builders of
the Tower of Babel. Thus the attempt of the tower builders (Gen 11) and Belshazzar (Dan
5) to challenge God is condemned in both biblical narratives.
The setting of the Belshazzar narrative displays another thematic link with the
289
Tower of Babel narrative, namely, the religious nature of the event and the transgression
of the boundary set by God. Belshazzar’s banquet is the occasion of the revelry and
excess that led to sacrilege and idolatry. The element of idolatry and sacrilegious
insolence adds a special nuance to this story. The removal of the Temple vessels as well
as their desecration crossed the cultic boundaries into God’s judgment. Just as the
builders of Babel had transgressed the boundary set by God, Belshazzar defied God and
he invited God’s judgment. Thus the prophet Daniel rebuked the king saying: “You have
set yourself up against the Lord of heaven” (Dan 5:23). Therefore, both the people of
Babel and Belshazzar are guilty of arrogance and overt rebellion.
Another strong link to the Tower of Babel incident in Dan 5 is the use of the
judgment motif and the confusion motif. As in the narrative of Gen 11, the Divine’s
reaction to Belshazzar’s sin was swift. Through the mysterious and terrifying apparition
of the hand writing incomprehensible words on the wall, God once again expresses
judgment and reconfirms God’s power over the king (5:24-28). Indeed, in Dan 5 as at
Babel (Gen 11), arrogance and false worship give way to confusion. Thus as the Tower
of Babel was an assault on the divine, Belshazzar’s sacrilegious conduct was the apex of
arrogance: he set himself “against the Lord of heaven” (a∞D¥yAmVv_aáérDm l∞Ao). Therefore, both
stories (Gen 11; Dan 5) are stories of hubris, rebellion, and confusion.
Babylon is not the “Gate to the Divine” it claims to be, but a gateway to
confusion. The story of the first Babylon (Gen 11) and the story of the last Babylon (Dan
5) are brought to an end by means of judgment and confusion: In Gen 11 no one could
understand each other and in Dan 5 no wise men could read the inscription except Daniel.
Despite the fact that Dan 6 narrates the faithfulness of Daniel in the Medo-Persian
290
court, this study has demonstrated that there are thematic links between Gen 11 and Dan
6. This dissertation has shown that in Dan 6 the same Babel spirit that opposes God found
its way into Darius’s court. Thus the first thematic link involving Gen 11 and Dan 6 is the
conflict between the kingdom of men and their law and the kingdom of God and His law.
As in the narrative of Gen 11, in Dan 6 the men’s actions are in opposition to God’s
actions. Furthermore, another thematic link between Dan 6 and Gen 11 is that in both
narratives “God descends” to perform his acts of judgment and salvation, respectively.
Chapter 3 of this dissertation traced the allusions to Gen 11 in the visionary
section of the book of Daniel (Dan 7-12). The first lexical allusion to Gen 11 in the
apocalyptic section of the book is the construct l$RbD;b JKRl∞Rm found in Dan 7:1. This study
notes that the expression l$RbD;b JKRl∞Rm is used in the book of Daniel only twice (Dan 1:1; 7:1).
Thus the phrase l$RbD;b JKRl∞Rm links the only two Babylonian monarchs mentioned in the
book: Nebuchadnezzar the empire builder and Belshazzar the last king of Babylon. As
discussed above, in Dan 4 and 5 both kings are characterized among other things by their
hubris, which is humbled.
The position of Babylon as the first empire in the book of Daniel seems to depend
upon the important role of this empire in this book and its correspondence with the first
empire mentioned in the Bible in the context of the Tower of Babel (Gen 10-11).
Therefore, l$RbD;b JKRl∞Rm in the book of Daniel conveys the idea of empire, guilty of the
oppression and destruction of God’s people, explicit in Dan 1, and provides the
interpretive context for Dan 7 where empire is anti-God. This anti-God empire in Dan 7
alludes to the Gen 11 Babel.
This work identifies three thematic allusions to Gen 11 in Dan 7: the motif of
291
universality, the motif of pride, and the motif of judgment. First, the motif of universality
demonstrates that Dan 7 takes a comprehensive, universal view of history, similar to that
of the first chapters of the book of Genesis, especially Gen 11. From the beginning the
vision of Dan 7 functions on a universal level, and the symbolic language suggests that
the prophecy concerns the entire earth. The four beasts predict the succession of four
world empires, culminating in their judgment and the establishment of God’s kingdom
forever. These four beasts express the totality of world history, just as the narrative of
Gen 11 highlights the involvement of the totality of humankind in the offense committed
in the valley of Shinar by the use of the expression “the whole earth,” X®r™DaDh_lDk (Gen
11:1, 4, 8, 9 [2x]).
Second, the motif of pride in Dan 7 alludes to the narrative of Gen 11. This
section of the dissertation has given especial attention to the arrogant entity of the little
horn on the fourth animal. This work has further shown that the arrogant little horn and
its activity constitutes a challenge to heaven itself, like the challenge set by the builders
of the Tower of Babel. The little horn has a mouth speaking boastfully against the Most
High, persecutes the saints of the Most High, and intends to change the set times and the
law (Dan 7:25). In other words, the objective of the little horn is to usurp God, to replace
Him on the level of history. Clearly, the arrogant attitude of Babel is manifested in this
politico-religious power.
Finally, another link to the account of Gen 11 in Dan 7 is the shared motif of
judgment. Once the hubris of the little horn went too far and reached its zenith, then it
calls upon itself the judgment of God. Thus, Gen 11:1-9 and Dan 7 are the same in their
expression of God’s judgment toward presumptuous world domination by human rulers.
292
The same movement exhibited in Gen 11, namely, human sin and punishment, is thus
attested in Dan 7. As in Gen 11, here in Dan 7 it is judgment, which puts an end to the
evil one. The biblical text indicates that this judgment in Dan 7 is final by taking away
the dominion of the little horn, and in establishing the dominion of the kingdom of God.
Yet in Dan 7, this dissertation has further shown that the judgment takes on another
perspective, for here it is primarily concerning “the saints of the Most High.” Thus the
judgment is pronounced “in favor of the saints of the Most High” (v. 22). Therefore, the
literary allusion to Gen 11 (l$RbD;b JKRl∞Rm) in Dan 7 and the thematic allusions to Gen 11 (the
motif of universality, the motif of pride, and the motif of judgment) all convincingly
demonstrate that Dan 7 alludes to the narrative of Gen 11.
The next section traced the allusions to Gen 11 in Dan 8. The lexical link between
the little horn and the Tower of Babel receives further confirmation by the use of the verb
ldg. Significantly, the Hebrew Bible uses a word from the same root to characterize the
Tower of Babel (l∂;d◊gIm). Thus the aggrandizement of the pagan empires is viewed as a
gradual crescendo leading up to the assault of the little horn on the heavenly host. As in
Dan 7, here in Dan 8 this power wants to usurp God. As the Tower of Babel, the little
horn “grew (ldg) until it reached the host of the heavens” (Dan 8:10).
The investigation of the expressions Mˆy¡DmDÚvAh a∞DbVx_dAo läå;d◊gI;tÅw and lyóî;d◊gIh a™DbD…xAh_rÀc d¶Ao◊w
in Dan 8 has further shown that the arrogance of the little horn knows no limit and even
aspires to equal the “Price of the host.” This is the attempt to ascend to heaven, and the
challenge to the stars (Dan 8:10), as well as the claim to rival even God himself (Dan
8:11, 25). Furthermore, the arrogance of the little horn as well as his fate is reminiscent of
the fate that befell the builders of the Tower of Babel. In Dan 8:11 this arrogant king
293
sought to be classed with God, and Dan 8:25 indicates the other side of his ambitions: He
aims to set himself against God. Therefore, the political and religious power the little
horn aspires to is reminiscent of the same attitude shown by the builders of the Tower of
Babel.
The last section of chapter 3 of this dissertation dealt with the allusions to Gen 11
in Dan 11. This work has shown that like Dan 8, Dan 11 is linked to Gen 11 by the use of
the Hebrew root ldg. The author of Daniel thus introduced in Dan 11:36 an end-time king
who is mainly characterized by his willful arrogance. Unlike other arrogant kings already
seen in the book of Daniel, this last king’s arrogance is characterized as primarily
religious in nature (11:36-39). This end-time king recalls the political and religious nature
of the Tower of Babel event, representing thus the power that is striving to usurp God.
This interpretation is further supported by the analysis of the Hebrew phrase l$Ea_lD;k_lAo in
11:36. Therefore, the exaltation of the king in Dan 11:36-37 has a precedent in Gen 11
and Isa 14:13-14. The king of Dan 11:36-37 shares Babel’s hubris, which is expressed in
two ways: Either he seeks to be like God, or he attempts to climb up to heaven or to
construct for himself as high a throne as possible. Both ways are expressions of the same
sin.
Chapter 4 of this dissertation deals with the main theological themes that link the
book of Daniel with the narrative of the Tower of Babel, namely, the theme of the
kingdom of God, the theme of judgment, and the theme of the sanctuary/temple.
In recent scholarly discussion, those who study the book of Daniel from a
theological perspective agree that the central theme is the sovereignty of the God of
Israel. Thus, in both sections the God of Israel, Yahweh and Yahweh alone, among all the
so-called deities of Babylon is the sovereign ruler of heaven and earth, of mighty kings
294
and the exiled Israelites. The Deity is repeatedly called “the God of gods” (2:47; 11:36),
“the Lord of kings” (2:47), and “the Most High God” (3:26; 4:2, 17, 24, 25, 32, 34; 5:18,
21; 7:18, 22, 25 [twice], 27). That sovereign God is the one who gives kingship and
power and glory “to whom[ever] he will[s]” (4:17, 25, 32; 5:21).
This dissertation further has shown that God’s supremacy is rooted in his unique
immortality (Dan 4:34; 6:26), his endless dominion (2:44; 4:3; 6:26; 7:9), and that he is
accountable neither to the powers in heaven nor to the peoples on earth. Thus beginning
in Dan 1 the prophet proclaims that the only real King in the book is neither the king of
Judah nor the king of Babylon, but Adonai.
The sovereignty of God is proclaimed in the rest of the book in the conflict
between the proud and arrogant rulers of the world and the kingdom of God, and the
contrast between God’s kingdom and all earthly kingdoms is displayed. Therefore, the
central theological theme of Daniel—that the arrogant, God-denying sovereignty of
human political powers will be eliminated so that God will reign—finds unequivocal
fulfillment in the eternal dominion of his saints who, despite all apparent evidence to the
contrary, will eventually prevail. The very God who displayed His sovereignty in Gen 11
by confusing the languages of the people of Babel is the same God who in Daniel rules
over all peoples and whose kingdom remains forever.
The next section of chapter 4 focuses on the theme of judgment. It was observed
that Daniel followed in the footsteps of the author of the Primeval History (Gen 1-11) by
using a similar pattern of transgression and act of punishment. Thus Daniel, consistent
with other OT authors, shows that God exercises judicial control not just over Israel, but
also over the affairs of the nations. Indeed, the book of Daniel exposes the hubris of
295
human rulers and the divine judgment it invites. Whether it is Nebuchadnezzar,
Belshazzar, the little horn, or the king of the North all of them display the ambition of
Babel, namely, to usurp the place of God. Thus God judges and condemns all human
powers that resist His will, no kingdom will escape judgment. Therefore, the hubris and
rebellion of the people of Babel in Gen 11 is paralleled by the pride and presumption of
the kings in the book of Daniel.
The last section of chapter 4 deals with the theme of the sanctuary/Temple. This
work demonstrates that the Temple in Jerusalem was not only attacked and looted but
also was confronted and replaced with another house of god —that was at Shinar—(Dan
1) and another system of worship (Dan 1, 3, 5).
The theological analysis of Daniel has further shown that the conflict between the
two systems of worship is reminiscent of the one already attested in Genesis. In Genesis,
Babel (Gen 11) and Bethel (Gen 28) represent opposing ways to reach the divine realm.
In Gen 11, people built the Tower of Babel in order to get up to the divine level of
immunity from accountability to God. They built from the ground up. But Jacob’s ladder
originated in heaven, let down from above by God. The emphasis on the Temple in
Daniel demonstrates that the conflict described is between two systems of worship:
Babylon and the pagan god-kings against Jerusalem and the divine king Yahweh who
resides in his house. Furthermore, it was shown that in the visionary section of the book
of Daniel (7-12), the triumph of God is very closely associated with the cleansing and
restoration of the Temple (Dan 8:13; 12:11). Yet, Daniel displays a similar theological
insight regarding the presence of the true God, which was not limited to His Temple in
Jerusalem, similar to what is found in the book of Genesis (Gen 28) and evidenced
296
throughout the OT writings.
Despite the fact that God was worshiped in his Temple in Jerusalem, the biblical
authors were aware that “God has in some sense His residence in heaven, so that in later
parts of the Canon He can be called ‘the God of heaven’ (Jonah 1:9; Dan 2:18).”1 Thus
the psalmist says: “The LORD is in his holy temple; the LORD is on his heavenly
throne” (Ps 11:4). “The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom
rules over all” (Ps 103:9). Thus Daniel proclaims: “As I looked, thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat” (Dan 7:9). The true God of Israel is still sitting on
his throne in the heavenly Temple.
1
Barth, Church Dogmatics (CD), vol. III-1 of The Doctrine of Creation, 140.
297
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aalders, G. C. Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981.
Abasciano, Brian J. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:1-9: An Intertextual
and Theological Exegesis. Library of New Testament Studies, Supplement Series
301. New York: T&T Clark International, 2005.
Abegg, M. G. “‫גדל‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and

Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1997. 1:823-27.
Abraham, Kathleen. “An Inheritance Division among Judeans in Babylonia from the
Early Persian Period.” In New Seals and Inscriptions, Hebrew, Idumean, and
Cuneiform, edited by Meir Lubetski, 206–21. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007.
________. “West Semitic and Judean Brides in Cuneiform Sources from the Sixth
Century BCE: New Evidence from a Marriage Contract from Al-Yahudu.” Archiv
für Orientforschung 51 (2005/2006): 198-219.
Ackroyd, P. R. “The Temple Vessels—A Continuity Theme.” In Studies in the Religion

of Ancient Israel, 166-81. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
Aichele, George, and Gary A. Phillips. “Introduction: Exegesis, Eisegesis, Intergesis.”

Semeia 69-70 (1995): 6-18.
Al-Rawi, F. N. H., and A. R. George. “Tablets from the Sippar Library.” Iraq 56 (1995):
131-39.
Albertz, R. Der Gott des Daniel: Untersuchungen zu Daniel 4-6 in der

Septuagintafassung sowie zu Komposition und Theologie des aramäischen
Daniel. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, 131. Stuttgart: KBW, 1988.
Albrektson, Bertil. History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as
Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East and in Israel. Cultura Biblica.
Lund: Gleerup, 1967.
Albright, W. F. From the Stone Age to Christianity. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press, 1957.
298
Alexander, John B. “New Light on the Fiery Furnace.” Journal of Biblical Literature 69
(1950): 375-76.
Alexander, P. S. “Remarks on Aramaic Epistolography in the Persian Period.” Journal of

Semitic Studies 23 (1978): 155-70.
Alexander, T. D. From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the

Pentateuch. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.
Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 20-48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas: Word, 2002.
________. “Isaiah LIII. 11 and Its Echoes.” Vox evangelica 1 (1962): 42-28.
________. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1976.
Alobaidi, Joseph. The Book of Daniel: The Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon: Edition and
Translation. Bible in History. Bern: Peter Lang, 2006.
Alomía, Merling K. Daniel: el profeta mesiánico. Vol. 2. Lima, Peru: Ediciones

Theologika, Universidad Peruana Unión, 2007.
Alonso Schökel, Luis, and L. Sicre Diaz. Nueva Biblia Espanola: Profetas Comentarios
II. Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1980.
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.
________. The Pleasures of Reading in an Ideological Age. New York: Norton &
Company, 1989.
Andersen, F. I. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. The Hague: Mouton, 1974.
Anderson, Bernhard W. “The Tower of Babel: Unity and Diversity in God's Creation.” In
From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives, 165-78.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.
Anderson, Bernhard W., and Steven Bishop. Contours of Old Testament Theology.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999.
Anderson, Robert A. Signs and Wonders: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel.

International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 1984.
Andreasen, Niels-Erik. “The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Old Testament.” In The

Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies,
edited by Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher, 67-86. Washington,
DC: Review and Herald, 1981.
299
Andrews, D. K. “Yahweh and the God of the Heavens.” In The Seed of Wisdom: Essays
in Honour of T. J. Meek, edited by W. S. McCullough, 45-57. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1964.
Aranda, Gonzalo. Daniel. Comentarios a la nueva Biblia de Jerusalem. Bilbao, Spain:

Desclee de Brouwer, 2006.
Archer, G. L. “Daniel.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by F. E. Gaebelein.

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985.
Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1979.
Arnold, Bill T. “Babylon, OT.” New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by
Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006. 1:378-79.
________. Encountering the Book of Genesis. Encountering Biblical Studies. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998.
________. “What Has Nebuchadnezzar to Do with David? On the New-Babylonian

Period and Early Israel.” In Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative
Explorations, edited by Mark W. Chavalas and K Lawson Younger, Jr., 330-55.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002.
________. “Word Play and Characterization in Daniel 1.” In Puns and Pundits: Word
Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature, edited by Scott B.
Noegel, 231-248. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2000.
________. “Wordplay and Narrative Techniques in Daniel 5 and 6.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 112 (1993): 479-85.
Arnold, William T. “Daniel, Theology of.” Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology.

Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996:140-42.
Ashley, T. R. The Book of Numbers. New International Commentary on the Old

Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993.
Aune, D. E. Revelation 6-16. Word Biblical Commentary 52B. Dallas, TX: Word, 2002.
Austel, Hermann J. “‫שנער‬.” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. L.

Harris and G. L. Archer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999:943.
Avalos, Hector. “The Comedic Function of the Enumerations of Officials and

Instruments in Daniel 3.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 580-88.
300
Badenas, Roberto. “New Jerusalem—The Holy City.” In Symposium on Revelation—
Book II, edited by Frank B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 7,
243-71. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1992.
Bailey, Daniel P. “The Intertextual Relationship of Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah 26:19:
Evidence from Qumran and the Greek Versions.” Tyndale Bulletin 51 (2000):
305-308.
Bailey, Wilma A. “‫בלל‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
1997. 1:663-4.
Baker, David W. “Further Examples of the Waw Explicativum.” Vetus Testamentum 30

(1980): 129-36.
________. Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. TOTC. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988.
Baker, David W., T. D. Alexander, and Bruce K.Waltke. Obadiah, Jonah and Micah: An
Introduction and Commentary. TOTC. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988.
Baker, David W., and Philip J. Nel. “‫שרר‬.” New International Dictionary of Old
Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. 3:1294-95.
Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament

Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-varsity, 1978.
________. “Daniel: Theology of.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament

Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1997. 4:499-505.
________. “Some Literary Affinities of the Book of Daniel.” Tyndale Bulletin 30 (1979):
77-99.
Bar, Shaul. A Letter That Has Not Been Read: Dreams in the Hebrew Bible. Monographs
of the Hebrew Union College 25. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2001.
Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989.
Barker, Margaret. The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in
Jerusalem. London: SPCK, 1991.
Barnes, Albert. Barnes’ Notes on the Old Testament. Vol. 9. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
1950.
301
Barnhouse, D. G. Genesis: A Devotional Exposition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1970.
Barry, Phillips. “Daniel 3:5, Sumponyah.” Journal of Biblical Literature 27 (1908): 99-
127.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Volume III-1: The Doctrine of Creation. Edited by
Geoffrey William Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1975.
________. Church Dogmatics. Volume III-3: The Doctrine of Creation. Edited by

Geoffrey William Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1975.
Barton, John. “Theological Ethics in Daniel.” In The Book of Daniel: Composition and
Reception, edited by J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint, 2, 661-70. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Bauckham, Richard J. The Theology of the Book of Revelation. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1993.
Bauer, Dieter. Das Buch Daniel. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar-Altes Testament.

Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996.
Bauer, H., and P. Leander. Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen. Hildesheim: Georg

Olms, 1962.
Beal, Timothy. “Glossary.” In Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew
Bible, edited by Danna Nolan Fewell, 21-24. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John
Knox Press, 1992.
Beale, Gregory K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New
International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999.
________. “Eden, the Temple, and the Church’s Mission in the New Creation.” Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 48 (2005): 3-31.
________. John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. Journal for the Study of the
New Testament Supplements 166. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press,
1998.
________. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling
Place of God. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-
Varsity Press, 2004.
Beasley-Murray, G. R. “The Interpretation of Daniel 7.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45

(1983): 44-58.
302
Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. “The Babylonian Background of the Motif of the Fiery Furnace in
Daniel 3.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009): 273-90.
________. The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1989.
Becking, Bob. “‘A Divine Spirit Is in You’: Notes on the Translation of the Phrase ruah
’lahin in Daniel 5, 14 and Related Texts.” In The Book of Daniel in the Light of
New Findings, edited by A. S. van der Woude, 515-19. Leuven-Louvain,
Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993.
Beek, M. A. Das Danielbuch. Leiden: Ginsberg, 1935.
Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Discovering a New Path of Intertextuality: Inverted Quotations

and Their Dynamics.” In Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the
Hebrew Bible, edited by L. J. de Reg, J. de Waard, and J. P. Fokkelman, 31-50.
Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1996.
Ben-Porat, Ziva. “Intertextuality.” Ha-Sifrut 34 (1985): 170-78. [Hebrew].
________. “The Poetics of Literary Allusion.” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics
and Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 105-28.
Bennett, Douglas. “The Stone Kingdom of Daniel 2.” In Symposium on Daniel:

Introductory and Exegetical Studies, edited by Frank B. Holbrook, 331-77.
Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986.
Bentzen, Aage. Daniel. Tübingen: Mohr, 1937.
________. Daniel. 2d ed. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 19. Tübingen: Mohr, 1952.
Berger, Yitzhak. “Ruth and the David-Bathsheba Story: Allusions and Contrasts.”
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (2009): 433-452.
Bergey, Ronald. “The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32.1-43) and Isaianic Prophecies: A
Case of Early Intertextuality?” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28
(2003): 33-54.
Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Sheffield: Almond Press,
1983.
Bertoluci, José M. “The Son of the Morning and the Guardian Cherub in the Context of
the Controversy Between Good and Evil.” PhD diss., Andrews University, 1985.
303
Bevan, A. A. A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel for the Use of Students.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892.
Beyerle, Stefan. ‘The “God of Heaven’ in Persian and Hellenistic Times.” In Other
Worlds and Their Relation to This World: Early Jewish and Ancient Christian
Traditions, edited by Tobias Nicklas et al., 17-36. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Bible Works for Windows, Version 8.0. Big Fork, MT: Hermeneutika Bible Research
Software, 2008.
Bidmead, Julye. The Akitu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in
Mesopotamia. Gorgias Dissertation 2 Near Eastern Studies 2. Piscataway, NJ:
Gorgias Press, 2004.
Biggs, R. D. “More Babylonian Prophecies.” Iraq 29 (1967): 117-32.
Birch, Bruce, et al. A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 2005.
Black, Denroy. “A Study of the Term Bar Elahin in the Context of Daniel 3:24-28, the
Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Literature.” PhD diss., Andrews
University, 2010.
Black, Jeremy, Anthony Green, and Tessa Rickards. Gods, Demons and Symbols of
Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. Austin: University of Texas
Press, 1992.
Black, Matthew. “Servant of the Lord and Son of Man.” Scottish Journal of Theology 6
(1953): 1-11.
Blenkinsopp, Josehp. Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A Discursive Commentary on

Genesis 1-11. New York: T & T Clark, 2011.
Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth. “‘Who Is the King of Glory?’ Solomon’s Temple and Its
Symbolism.” In Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and
Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, edited by Michael D. Coogan, J. Cheryl
Exum, and Lawrence E. Stager, 18-31. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1994.
Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25-48. New International Commentary on
the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997.
________. “Preaching Old Testament Apocalyptic to a New Testament Church.” Calvin

Theological Journal 41 (2006): 17-52.
________. “When Nightmares Cease: A Message of Hope from Daniel 7.” Calvin
Theological Journal 41 (2006): 108-14.
304
Boccaccini, Gabriele. Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to
Daniel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.
Boda, Mark J. Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9.
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 277. Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter, 1999.
Boehmer, J. Reich Gottes und Menschensohn im Buch Daniel. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899.
Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Daniel 3 LXX et son suplement Grec.” In The Book of Daniel
in the Light of New Findings, edited by A. S. van der Woude, 13-37. Leuven-
Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993.
Boice, James Montgomery. Genesis: An Expositional Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker, 1998.
Boogaart, Thomas Arthur. “Daniel 6: A Tale of Two Empires.” Reformed Review 39

(1986): 106-12.
Bosman, Hendrik L. “‫חנכה‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology

and Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1997. 5:201-202.
Bost, Huber. Babel: Du texte au symbole. Le monde de la Bible. Geneva: Labor et Fides,
1985.
Botterweck, G. J. “‫ארי‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J.

Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. 1:374-88.
Boutflower, C. In and Around the Book of Daniel. New York: Macmillan, 1923.
Bowman, R. A. “North Country, The.” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited
by George Arthur Buttrick. New York: Abingdon Press, 1962. 3:560.
Boyarin, D. “Watchers.” Encyclopaedia Judaica. Edited by Cecil Roth. Jerusalem, Israel:

Keter Publishing House, 1971. 16:365.
Bratcher, Margaret Dee. “The Pattern of Sin and Judgment in Genesis 1-11.” PhD diss.,
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1984.
Brayford, Susan. Genesis. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Brenner, Athalya. “Who’s Afraid of Feminist Criticism? Who’s Afraid of Biblical

Humour? The Case of the Obtuse Foreign Ruler in the Hebrew Bible.” Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament 63 (1994): 38-54.
305
Brensinger, Terry L. “Compliance, Dissonance and Amazement in Daniel 3.”
Evangelical Journal 20 (2002): 7-19.
Brettler, Marc Zvi. God Is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. Journal for the
Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 76. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1989.
Brewer, David Instone. “Mene Mene Teqel Uparsin: Daniel 5:25 in Cuneiform.” Tyndale
Bulletin 42 (1991): 310-16.
Briffard, Colette. “Sem, une clé de lecture pour Babel (Gn 11/1-9), ou de l’importance du
contexte.” Etudes theologische et religieuses 75 (2000): 411-414.
Bright, John. The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Its Meaning for the
Church. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1953.
Brodie, T. L. Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary.

New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew

and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.
Brownlee, W. H. “The Servant of the Lord in the Qumran Scrolls.” Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 132 (1953): 8-15.
Bruce, F. F. Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.
________. “The Oldest Greek Version of Daniel.” In Introduction and Interpretation:

Studies in Hebrew Language, Palestinian Archaeology and Biblical Exegesis,
edited by H. A. Brongers et al., 22-40. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Brueggemann, Walter. “At the Mercy of Babylon: A Subversive Rereading of the

Empire.” Journal of Biblical Literature 110 (1991): 3-22.
________. Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Interpretation.

Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.
________. Reverberations of Faith: A Theological Handbook of Old Testament Themes.

Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002.
________. “The Old One Takes Notice.” Christian Century 109 (1992): 867.
________. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1997.
306
Brunson, Andrew C. Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John: An Intertextual Study on the New
Exodus Pattern in the Theology of John. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament 2, Series 158. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Buber, Martin, and Franz Rosenzweig. Scripture and Translation. Bloomington: Indiana
Buchanan, George Wesley. The Book of Daniel. The Mellen Biblical Commentary, vol.
25. Lewiston, NY: Mellen Biblical Press, 1999.
________. Introduction to Intertextuality. Lewiston, NY: Mellen Biblical Press, 1994.
Budd, P. J. Numbers. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 5. Dallas: Word, 2002.
Burkholder, Byron. “Literary Patterns and God’s Sovereignty in Daniel 4.” Direction 16
(1987): 45-54.
Bush, Frederic William. “Ruth 4:17: A Semantic Wordplay.” In “Go to the Land I will
Show You”: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young, edited by J. E. Coleson and V.
H. Matthews, 3-14. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996.
Calvin, Jean. Daniel. Vol. 20. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993.
Campbell, Antony F. The Study Companion to Old Testament Literature: An Approach to

the Writings of Pre-Exilic and Exilic Israel. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier,
1989.
Caragounis, C. C. “History and Supra-History: Daniel and the Four Empires.” In The
Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, edited by A. S. van der Woude, 387-
97. Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993.
Carpenter, Eugene. “Daniel.” Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. Vol. 9. Edited by P. W.

Comfort. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2010.
Carr, G. Lloyd. “‫מנה‬.” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. L.

Harris and G. L. Archer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.
Carroll, Robert P. “Razed Temple and Shattered Vessels: Continuities and

Discontinuities in the Discourses of Exile in the Hebrew Bible: An Appreciation
of the Work of Peter R. Ackroyd on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday.”
Carson, D. A., and H. G. M. Williamson. It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays

in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SFF. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988.
307
Casey, Maurice. Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7. London:
SPCK, 1979.
Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part 2 from Noah to

Abraham. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964.
Charles, R. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with

Introduction, Indexes and a New English Translation. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1929.
________. The Book of Enoch. Oxford: Clarendon, 1912.
Charlesworth, James H. “Intertextuality: Isaiah 40:3 and the Serek Ha-yahad.” In The
Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of
James A. Sanders, edited by Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon, 197-224.
Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Chary, Théophane. Les Prophètes et le Culte à partir de l’ Exil. Paris: Desclée et Cie,
1955.
Chatman, Seymour. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978.
Chia, Philip. “On Naming the Subject: Postcolonial Reading of Daniel 1.” In The
Postcolonial Biblical Reader, edited by R. S. Sugirtharajah, 171-85. Malden, MA:
Blackwell, 2006.
Childs, Brevard S. “The Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradition.” Journal of
Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 187-98.
________. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.
Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations,
Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002.
Cho, Chung Hyeon. “Humiliation and Exaltation: Intertextuality and the Influence of
Daniel 4 on Philippians 2:6-11.” PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, 2008.
Clements, R. E. God and Temple. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965.
Clermont-Ganneau, C. “Mané, thécel, pharés et le festin de Balthasar.” Journal asiatique

8, no. 8 (1886): 36-67.
308
Clifford, Richard J. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1972.
________. “History and Myth in Daniel 10–12.” Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 220 (1975): 23-26.
Clines, D. J. A. “‫בוא‬.” The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by D.J.A. Clines.

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. 2:102-26.
________. “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6:1-4) in the
Context of the ‘Primeval History’ (Genesis 1-11).” Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament 13 (1979): 33-46.
________. The Theme of the Pentateuch. Sheffield, England: University of Sheffield,

Dept. of Biblical Studies, 1978.
Cole, R. D. Numbers. New American Commentary 3B. Nashville: Broadman & Holman,
2001.
Collins, John Joseph. “Apocalyptic Genre and Mythic Allusions in Daniel.” Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament 21 (1981): 83-100.
________. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic

Literature. The Biblical Resources Series. Edited by Astrid B. Beck and David N.
Freedman. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984.
________. “The Apocalyptic Technique: Setting and Function in the Book of Watchers.”
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982): 91-111.
________. The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel. Harvard Semitic Monographs,
no. 16. Edited by Frank Moore Cross. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press for Harvard
Semitic Museum, 1977.
________. “The Court-Tales in Daniel and the Development of Apocalyptic.” Journal of

________. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis:

Fortress Press, 1993.
________. “Daniel and His Social World.” In Interpreting the Prophets, edited by James
Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier, 249-60. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.
________. “Daniel, Book of.” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N.
Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992:29-37.
309
________. Daniel, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees: With an Excursus on the
Apocalyptic Genre. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1981.
________. Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. Forms of the Old

Testament Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1984.
________. “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre.” Semeia 14 (1979): 1-20.
________. “The Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the Book of Daniel.”
Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974): 50-66.
________. “Stirring Up the Great Sea: The Religio-Historical Background of Daniel 7.”
In The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, edited by A. S. van der
Woude, 121-36. Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993.
________. “Watcher ‫עיר‬.” Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by K.
V. D. Toorn, B. Becking and P. W. V. D. Horst. Leiden: Brill, 1999:893-94.
Collon, D. First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Colpe, Carsten. “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972. 8:400-77.
Contenau, Georges. Everyday Life in Babylon and Assyria. New York: Norton, 1966.
Cook, Edward M. “Word Order in the Aramaic of Daniel.” Monographic Journals of the
Near East Afroasiatic Linguistics 9 (1986): 1-16.
________. “In the Plain of the Wall.” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 115-16.
Cook, Stephen L. “Mythological Discourse in Ezekiel and Daniel and the Rise of
Apocalypticism in Israel.” In Knowing the End from the Beginning: The
Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and their Relationships, edited by Lester L. Grabbe
and Robert D. Haak, 85-106. London: T & T Clark International, 2003.
Coxon, Peter W. “Greek Loan-Words and Alleged Greek Loan Translations in the Book
of Daniel.” Glasgow University Oriental Society Transactions 25 (1973): 24-40.
________. “Daniel III 17: A Linguistic and Theological Problem.” Vetus Testamentum
26 (1976): 400-09.
________. “The Great Tree of Daniel 4.” In A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of
William McKane, edited by James D. Martin, Philip R. Davies, and William
McKane, 91-111. Sheffield: JSOT, 1986.
310
________. “The ‘List’ Genre and Narrative Style in the Court Tales of Daniel.” Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament 35 (1986): 95-121.
________. “Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David

Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday 1992. 5:1150.
________. “Another Look at Nebuchadnezzar’s Madness.” In The Book of Daniel in the

Light of New Findings, edited by A. S. van der Woude, 211-22. Leuven-Louvain,
Cross, F. M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of
Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.
________. “‫אל‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J.

Dahood, Mitchell J. Psalms I: 1-50: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. 1st ed. Anchor
Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966.
David, Pablo S. “The Composition and Structure of the Book of Daniel: A Synchronic
and Diachronic Reading.” PhD diss., Katholicke Universiteit Leuven, 1991.
Davidson, Maxwell J. Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1–36, 72–108

and Sectarian Writings from Qumran. Journal for the Study of the
Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 11. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.
Davidson, Richard. “Cloud, Cloud of the Lord.” Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical

Theology. Edited by W. A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker 1996:102-103.
________. “Cosmic Metanarrative for the Coming Millennium.” Journal of Adventist

Theological Society 11 (2000): 102-09.
Davies, G. I. “Apocalyptic and Historiography.” Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 5 (1978): 15-28.
Davies, Philip R. “Daniel Chapter Two.” Journal of Theological Studies 27 (1976): 392-
401.
________. Daniel. Old Testament Guides, vol. 24. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament, 1985.
Davilla, James R. “Shinar.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman.
New York: Doubleday, 1996. 5:1220.
Day, John. God’s Conflict With the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in
the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
311
________. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament: Supplement Series 265. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2000.
De Guglielmo, A. “Daniel 5.25—An Example of a Double Literal Sense.” Catholic

Biblical Quarterly 11 (1949): 202-06.
De Haan, M. R. Daniel the Prophet. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1995.
De Moor, J. C. “The Semitic Pantheon at Ugarit.” Ugarit-Forschungen 2 (1970): 187-

228.
De Savignac, J. “Mote Sur le Sens du Terme ‫ צפון‬Dans Quelques Passages de la Bible.”

Vetus Testamentum 3 (1953): 95.
De Souza, Elias Brasil. The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible:
Function and Relationship to the Earthly Counterparts. Adventist Theological
Society Dissertation Series 7. Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society
Publications, 2005.
De Viviés, Pierre de Martin. “Les séjours de Daniel dans la fosse aux lions: Regard
narrative synoptique.” In Analyse narrative et Bible: Deuxième colloque
international du Rrenab, Louvain-la-Neuve, avril 2004, edited by Camille Focant
and André Wénin, 131-143. Leuven: Peeters, 2005.
DeClaissé-Walf, Nancy L. “God Came Down . . . and God Scattered: Acts of Punishment
or Acts of Grace?” Review and Expositor 103 (2006): 403-17.
Delcor, M. “L’histoire selon le livre de Daniel, notamment au chapitre XI.” In The Book
of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, edited by A. S. van der Woude, 365-86.
Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993.
________. Le Livre de Daniel. Paris: Gabalda, 1971.
________. “Les Sources du chapitre VII de Daniel.” Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968): 290-
312.
________. “Le trésor de la maison de Yahweh des origines à l'exil.” Vetus Testamentum
12 (1962): 353-77.
Dempster, Stephen G. Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible.
New Studies in Biblical Theology 15. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003.
Dequeker, Luc. “Daniel VII et les saints du très haut.” Ephemerides theologicae
lovanienses 36 (1960): 353-92.
312
Der Toor, K. van, and P. W. der Horst. “Nimrod Before and After the Bible.” Harvard
Theological Review 83 (1990): 1-29.
Di Lella, Alexander A. “Daniel 4:7–14: Poetic Analysis and Biblical Background.” In

Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de H. Cazelles, edited by A. Caquot
and M. Delcor, 212, 247–58. Kevelaer: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981.
________. Daniel: A Book for Troubling Times. Spiritual Commentaries. Hyde Park,
NY: New City Press, 1997.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman. An Introduction to the Old Testament.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.
Dimant, D. “The Seventy Weeks Chronology (Dan 9, 24-27) in the Light of New
Qumranic Texts.” In The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, edited by
A. S. van der Woude, 57-76. Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press,
1993.
Dommershausen, W. “‫חנך‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J.

Dossin, G. Enkidou dans l’«Epopée de Gilgames». Bulletin de la classe des lettres et des
sciences morales et politiques, 5th Series, Vol. 42. Brussels: Palais des Académies,
1956.
Doty, W. G. “The Classification of Epistolory Literature.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31

(1969): 183-99.
Doukhan, Jacques. “From Dust to Stars: The Vision of Resurrection(s) in Daniel 12,1-3
and Its Resonance in the Book of Daniel.” In Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical
Traditions in Dialogue, edited by Geert Van Oyen and Tom Shepherd, 85-98.
Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2012.
________. “All in All: Hebrew Conception of the Human Person.” Shabbat Shalom 43,
no. 3 (1996): 18-20.
________. “Allusions à la création dans le livre de Daniel.” In The Book of Daniel in the
________. Daniel: The Vision of the End. Rev. ed. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews
________. “Genesis.” Seventh-day Adventist International Biblical Commentary. Edited

by Jacques Doukhan, forthcoming.
313
________. “The Genesis Creation Story: Text, Issues, and Truth.” Origins 55 (2004): 12-
23.
________. “Humor in the Book of Daniel.” Shabbat Shalom 55, no. 1 (2008): 22-23.
________. “Kippur and Creation.” Shabbat Shalom 54, no. 2 (2007): 20-22.
________. “Lekh, Lekha: Go!” Shabbat Shalom 50, no. 1 (2003): 14-15.
________. “The Literary Structure of the Genesis Creation Story.” ThD diss., Andrews
University, 1978.
________. “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 17
(1979): 1-22.
________. Secrets of Daniel: Wisdom and Dreams of a Jewish Prince in Exile.

Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000.
________. Secrets of Revelation: The Apocalypse Through Hebrew Eyes. Hagerstown,

MD: Review and Herald, 2002.
________. “Seven Perspectives in the Book of Daniel.” Shabbat Shalom 51, no. 1 (2004):
10-13.
________. “The Worship of Babel.” Shabbat Shalom 44, no. 3 (1997): 31-32.
Draisma, Sipke. Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel.
Edited by Sipke Draisma. Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989.
Drinkard, Joel F. “North.” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman.
New York: Doubleday, 1996. 4:1135-36.
Driver, S. R. The Book of Daniel: With Introduction and Notes. Cambridge: The
________. The Book of Genesis. London: Methuen & Co., 1913.
________. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. New York: Meridian
Books, 1956.
Duguid, Iain M. Daniel. Reformed Expository Commentary. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub.,
2008.
Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation: An Old Testament Covenantal Theology.

Exeter: Paternoster, 1984.
314
Dummelow, John R. A Commentary on the Holy Bible. New York: Macmillan, 1958.
Düsterwald, Franz. Die Weltreiche und das Gottesreich nach den Weissagungen des
Propheten Daniel. Freiburg im Bresgau: Herder, 1890.
Dyer, C. H. “The Musical Instruments in Daniel 3.” Bibliotheca Sacra 157 (1990): 426-
36.
Edlin, Jim. Daniel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. The New Beacon Bible
Commentary. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 2009.
Eerdmans, B. D. “Origin and Meaning of the Aramaic Part of Daniel.” In Actes du xviiie
Congrès International des Orientalistes, 198-202. Leiden: Brill, 1932.
Eissfeldt, Otto. “Die Menetekel-Inschrift und ihre Deutung.” Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 63 (1951): 105-14.
________. “El and Yahweh.” Journal of Semitic Studies 1 (1956): 25-37.
________. “Renaming in the Old Testament.” In Words and Meanings: Essays Presented
to David Winton Thomas, edited by P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars, 69-79.
Cambridge: The University Press, 1968.
Emerton, John A. “The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery.” Journal of Theological
Studies 9 (1958): 225-42.
Endres, John C. “Daniel, Additions to.” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by
David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2000:312-14.
Erlandsson, S. The Burden of Babylon. A Study of Isaiah 13:2-14:23. Lund: Gleerup,

1970.
________. “Nȧgra exempel pȧ waw explicativum.” Svensk exegetisk årsbok 41-42 (1977-
76): 69-76.
________. “Some Examples of Waw Explicativum.” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly

74 (1977): 306-13.
Eslinger, Lyle M. “Hosea 12:5a and Genesis 32:29: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis.”
________. “Inner-biblical Exegesis and Inner-biblical Allusion: The Question of

Category.” Vetus Testamentum 42 (1992): 47-58.
315
Estelle, Bryan. “The Use of Deferential Language in the Arsames Correspondence and
Biblical Aramaic Compared.” Maarav 13 (2006): 43-74.
Ferch, Arthur J. “Authorship, Theology, and Purpose of Daniel.” In Symposium on

Daniel, edited by Frank B. Holbrook, 3-83. Washington, DC: Biblical Research
Institute, 1986.
________. “The Judgment Scene in Daniel 7.” In The Sanctuary and the Atonement:
Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies, edited by Arnold V. Wallenkampf
and W. Richard Lesher, 157-76. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981.
________. The Son of Man in Daniel 7. Andrews University Seminary Doctoral

Dissertation Series 6. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1979.
Ferguson, Paul. “Nebuchadnezzar, Gilgamesh, and the ‘Babylonian Job’.” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 37 (1994): 321-31.
Ferguson, Sinclair B. Daniel. The Preacher’s Commentary Series, vol. 21. Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson, 1988.
Fewell, Danna Nolan. Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in Daniel 1-6. Bible and
Literature Series 20. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988.
________. Circle of Sovereignty: Plotting Politics in the Book of Daniel. Nashville, TN:
Abingdon, 1991.
________. Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible. 1st ed. Literary
Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press,
1992.
Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford, Oxfordshire:

Clarendon Press, 1985.
________. The Garments of Torah: Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics. Indiana Studies in

Biblical Literature. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1989.
________. “Inner Biblical Exegesis.” In Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its
Interpretation, edited by M. Saebo, 33-48. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, 1996.
________. “Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient

Israel.” In Midrash and Literature, edited by Geoffrey H. Hartman and Sanford
Budick, 34 19-37. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986.
________. Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts. New York:
Schocken Books, 1979.
316
________. “Types of Biblical Intertextuality.” In Congress Volume: Oslo 1998, edited by
André Lemaire and Magne Sæbø, 39-44. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
________. “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis.” Journal of

Fisk, Bruce Norman. Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story and Exegesis in the
Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
Supplements 37. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Aramaic Epistolography.” Semeia 22 (1981): 25-57.
________. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I: A Commentary. Rome: Biblical

Institute Press, 1971.
________. “Some Notes on Aramaic Epistolography.” Journal of Biblical Literature 93

(1974): 201-25.
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. “The High Priest as Divine Mediator in the Hebrew Bible:
Dan 7:13 as a Test Case.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 36
(1997): 161-93.
Ford, Desmond. Daniel. Nashville: Southern Publishing, 1978.
Ford, J. Massyngberde. Revelation: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Anchor

Bible 38. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975.
Fouts, David M. “Peleg in Gen 10:25.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41
(1998): 17-21.
Freedman, David Noel, B. E. Willoughby, and H. J. Fabry. “‫מלאך‬.” Theological

Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. 8:308-25.
Freedman, H. Midrash Rabbah: Genesis. London: The Soncino Press, 1983.
Fretheim, Terence. “Genesis.” New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck.

Nashville: Abingdon, 1994:320-674.
Fyall, Robert S. Daniel. Focus on the Bible. Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 1998.
Gaebelein, A. C. The Prophet Daniel. New York: Publication Office Our Hope, 1911.
Gaide, C. Le Livre de Daniel. Paris: Mame, 1969.
317
Gammie, John. “On the Intention and Sources of Daniel I-VI.” Vetus Testamentum 31
(1981): 282-292.
Gane, Roy E. Altar Call. Berrien Springs, MI: Diadem, 1999.
________. “Genre Awareness and Interpretation of the Book of Daniel.” In To

Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, edited by David
Merling, 137-48. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1997.
________. “Hurrian Ullikummi and Daniel’s ‘Little Horn’.” In Birkat Shalom: Studies in
the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to
Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Volume 1, edited by
Chaim Cohen et al., 485-98. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008.
________. Leviticus, Numbers. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 2004.
________. Syllabus for OTST565 Pentateuch. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University,
2003.
________. “The Un-Manifestation of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel 11:1-22.”

Boletín Bíblico de Teología 1 (2009): 13-31.
________. Who’s Afraid of the Judgment? The Good News about Christ’s Work in the
Heavenly Sanctuary. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2006.
Gangel, Kenneth O., and Max E. Anders. Daniel. Holman Old Testament Commentary
18. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2001.
García Santos, Angel. “Gn 11,1-9: Crítica literaria y de la redacción.” Estudios Bíblicos
47 (1989): 289-318.
Gardner, Anne E. “The Way to Eternal Life in Daniel 2:1e-2 or How to Reverse the
Death Curse of Genesis 3.” ABR 40 (1992): 1-19.
Gaster, T. H. “Watcher.” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by George

Arthur Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. 4:805-06.
Gaston, Lloyd. “The Theology of the Temple.” In Oikonomia. Heilgeschichte als Thema
der Theologie. Oscar Cullmann zum 65, edited by Felix Christ, 32-41. Hamburg-
Bergstedt: Reich, 1967.
Gemünden, P. von. “L’arbre et son fruit. Analyse d’un corpus d’images comme ‘méthode
exégétique’.” Etudes theologiques et religieuses 69 (1994): 315-27.
318
Geraty, Lawrence T. “The Jerusalem Temple of the Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near
Eastern Context.” In The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and
Theological Studies, edited by Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher,
37-66. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981.
Gertz, Jan Christian et al. T&T Clark Handbook of the Old Testament: An Introduction to
the Literature, Religion and History of the Old Testament. New York: T. & T.
Clark, forthcoming.
Gesenius, Friedrich Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 2nd English ed. Edited by E.
Kautzsch and Sir Arthur Ernest Cowley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1909.
Gibson, John C. L. Canaanite Myths and Legends. 2nd ed. Old Testament Studies.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978.
________. Genesis. The Daily Study Bible Series, vol. 1. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1981.
Gillingham, Susan. “Psalmody and Apocalyptic in the Hebrew Bible: Common Vision,
Shared Experience?” In After the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason, edited
by Joffohn Barton and David J. Reimer, 147-69. Macon, GA: Mercer University
Press, 1996.
Ginsberg, H. L. “Baal’s Two Messengers.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research 95 (1944): 25-30.
________. “The Book of Daniel.” In The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Hellenistic
Age, edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, 2:504-23. Cambridge: Cambridge
________. “The Composition of the Book of Daniel.” Vetus Testamentum 4 (1954): 246-
75.
________. “‘King of Kings’ and ‘Lord of Kingdoms’.” American Journal of Semitic

Languages and Literature 57 (1940): 71-74.
________. “The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant.” Vetus Testamentum 3

(1953): 400-04.
________. Studies in Daniel. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1948.
Ginzberg, L. Legends of the Jews. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
2003.
319
Gispen, W. H. “Who Was Nimrod?” In The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament
Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis, edited by J. H. Skilton,
207-214. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974.
Glaze, Andrés. “Daniel.” Comentario Bíblico Mundo Hispano, Tomo 12: Ezequiel y
Daniel. Edited by J. C. Cevallos and R. O. Zorzoli. El Paso, TX: Editorial Mundo
Hispano, 2009:395-492.
Gmirkin, R. E. Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the
Date of the Pentateuch. London: T. & T. Clark, 2006.
Gnuse, Robert. “The Tale of Babel: Parable of Divine Judgment or Human Cultural
Diversification?” Biblische Zeitschrift 54 (2010): 229-44.
Goldingay, John. “Daniel in the Context of Old Testament Theology.” In The Book of
Daniel: Composition and Reception, edited by J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint, 2,
639-60. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
________. Daniel. Word Biblical Themes. Dallas. TX: Word Books, 1989.
________. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary 30. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989.
________. Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Gospel. Vol. 1. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2003.
________. Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Life. Vol. 3. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2009.
________. “The Stories in Daniel: A Narrative Politics.” Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 37 (1987): 99-116.
Goldstein, Jonathan. Peoples of an Almighty God: Competing Religions in the Ancient

World. Anchor Bible Reference Library. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New
York: Doubleday, 2002.
Goldwurm, Hersh. Daniel: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from

Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources. 2nd rev. & corr. ed. The ArtScroll
Tanach Series. New York: Mesorah, 1980.
González, Antonio. Reinado de Dios e imperio: Ensayo de teologia social. Santander,

Spain: Sal Terrae, 2003.
Good, E. M. “Apocalyptic Comedy: The Book of Daniel.” Semeia 32 (1984): 41-70.
Gooding, W. P. “The Literary Structure of the Book of Daniel and Its lmplications.”
Tyndale Bulletin 32 (1981): 43-79.
320
Gordon, C. H. Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform
Selections, Glossary, Indices. Analecta biblica 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1965.
Goswell, Greg. “The Divisions of the Book of Daniel.” In The Impact of Unit
Delimitation on Exegesis, edited by Raymond de Hoop, Marjo C.A. Karpel, and
Stanley E. Porter, 89-114. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Gowan, Donald E. Daniel. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville, TN:

Abingdon Press, 2001.
Grabbe, Lester L. “Daniel: Sage, Seer . . . and Prophet?” In Constructs of Prophecy in the
Former and Latter Prophets and Other Texts, edited by Lester L. Grabbe and
Martti Nissinen, 87-94. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.
Gray, George B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. International

Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956.
Gray, John. The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979.
Grayson, A. K. Babylonian Historical-literary Texts. Toronto: University of Toronto

Press, 1975.
Grayson, A. K., and W. G. Lambert. “Akkadian Prophecies.” Journal of Cuneiform

Studies 18 (1964): 7-30.
Greenspahn, Frederick E. “A Mesopotamian Proverb and Its Biblical Reverberations.”

Journal of the American Oriental Society 114 (1994): 33-38.
Gregor, Paul Z. Life and Visions of Daniel. Mandeville, Jamaica: Northern Caribbean
University, 2005.
Gregory, Peter F. “Its End Is Destruction: Babylon the Great in the Book of Revelation.”
Concordia Theological Quarterly 73 (2009): 137-53.
Greidanus, Sidney. Preaching Christ from Daniel: Foundations for Expository Sermons.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012.
Grelot, Pierre. “La Septante de Daniel iv et son substrat sémitique.” Revue biblique 81
(1974): 5-23.
________. “Le chapitre v de Daniel dans la Septante.” Semitica 24 (1974): 45-66.
________. “L’orchestre de Daniel iii, 5, 7, 10, 15.” Vetus Testamentum 29 (1979): 23-38.
321
Gressmann, Hugo. The Tower of Babel. New York: Jewish Institute, 1928.
Grisanti, Michael A. “‫נתן‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
1997:205-11.
Grogan, Geoffrey W. “Isaiah.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E.

Gaebelein, 1986. 6:1-354.
Grohmann, Marianne. “Psalm 113 and the Song of Hannah (1 Samuel 2:1-10).” In
Reading the Bible Intertextuality, edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and
Leroy A. Huizenga. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009.
Groß, Heinrich. “Weltherrschaft als Gottesherrschaft nach Genesis 11,1-9 und Daniel 7:
Bibeltheologische Überlegungen.” In Gottesherrschaft, Weltherrschaft:
Festschrift Rudolf Graber zum Abschied von seiner Diözese Regensburg, edited
by Johann Auer and Franz Mussner, 15-22. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet Verlag,
1980.
Gruenthaner, M. J. “The Four Empires of Daniel.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 8 (1946):

72-88, 201-12.
Gulley, Norman R. “Why the Danielic Little Horn Is Not Antiochus IV Epiphanes.” In
To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, edited by
David Merling, 191-97. Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, Siegfried
H. Horn Archaeological Museum, Andrews University, 1997.
Gunkel, H. Genesis. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997.
Gunkel, Hermann. Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. Eine religions-
geschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
und Ruprecht, 1895.
Gunn, David M. “The Anatomy of Divine Comedy: On Reading the Bible as Comedy
and Tragedy.” Semeia 32 (1984): 115-29.
Gunn, David M., and Danna Nolan Fewell. Narrative in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford Bible
Series 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Gurney, R. J. M. “The Four Kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7.” Themelios 2 (1977): 39-45.
Gzella, Holger. Cosmic Battle and Political Conflict: Studies in Verbal Syntax and
Contextual Interpretation of Daniel 8. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2003.
Haag, Ernst. “Israels Exil im Lande Schinar Beobachtungen zu Daniel 1,1-2.” In

Christlicher Glaube und säkulsres Denken: Festschrift zum 50. Jahrestag der
322
Wiedererrichtung der Theologischen Fakultät Trier, 1950-2000, edited by
Theologische Fakultät Universität Trier, 41-53. Trier: Paulinus, 2000.
________. Daniel. Die neue Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1993.
________. “Die drei Männer im Feuer nach Dan 3, 1–30.” Trierrer theologische
Zeitschrift 96 (1987): 21-50.
________. “Die drei Männer im Feuer nach Dan. 3:1–30.” In Die Entstehung der
Jüdischen Martyrologie, edited by J. W. van Henten, 20-50. Leiden: Brill, 1989.
________. Die Errettung Daniels aus der Löwengrube: Untersuchungen zum Ursprung
der biblischen Danieltradition. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 110. Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983.
Hall, Bert Harold. “The Book of Daniel.” The Wesleyan Bible Commentary. Edited by
Charles W. Carter. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969. 500-59.
Hallo, W. W. “Akkadian Apocalypse.” Israel Exploration Journal 16 (1966): 230-42.
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis. Vol. 1. New International Commentary on the
Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.
Hammer, Raymond. The Book of Daniel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Han, Jin Hee. Daniel’s Spiel: Apocalyptic Literacy in the Book of Daniel. Lanham:
University Press of America, 2008.
Handy, Lowell K. Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as

Bureaucracy. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994.
Haran, Menahem. The Divine Presence in the Israelite Cult and the Cultic Institution.”
Biblica 50 (1969): 251-67. “
________. Temples and Cultic Open Areas as Reflected in the Bible.” In Temples and
High Places in Biblical Times: Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor of the
Centennial of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Jerusalem, 14-
16 March 1977, edited by Avraham Biran, 31-37. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck
School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of
Religion, 1981. “
________. Temples and Temple-service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character
of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1978.
323
Hardy, Frank W. “An Historicist Perspective on Daniel 11.” MA thesis, Andrews
University, 1983.
Harland, P. J. “Vertical or Horizontal: The Sin of Babel.” Vetus Testamentum 48 (1998):

515-533.
Harman, Allan M. A Study Commentary on Daniel. Darlington, England: Evangelical

Press, 2007.
Harrington, Daniel J. “The Ideology of Rule in Daniel 7-12.” Society of Biblical

Literature Seminar Paper 38 (1999): 540-51.
Harris, R. L., and G. L. Archer. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago:
Moody Press, 1999.
Hartley, John E. Genesis. New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000.
________. “North.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by G. W.

Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. 3:550-51.
________. “Zaphon.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by G. W.

Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. 4:1173.
Hartman, Louis. “The Great Tree and Nabuchodonosor’s Madness.” In The Bible in
Current Catholic Thought, edited by J. L. McKenzie, 75-82. New York: Herder
and Herder, 1962.
Hartman, Louis Francis, and Alexander A. Di Lella. “Daniel.” The New Jerome Biblical
Commentary. Edited by Raymond E. Brown et al., 406-20. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1990.
________. The Book of Daniel. Anchor Bible, vol. 23. Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1978.
Hasel, G. F. “Dawn; Dawning.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by G.

W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. 1:876-77.
________. “Divine Judgment.” Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology. Edited by

R. Dederen. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000. 12:815-56.
________. “The First and Third Years of Belshazzar (Dan 7:1; 8:1).” Andrews University
Seminary Studies 15 (1975): 153-68.
________. “The Identity of “The Saints of the Most High” in Daniel 7.” Biblica 56
(1975): 173-92.
324
________. “The ‘Little Horn,’ the Heavenly Sanctuary, and the Time of the End: A Study
of Daniel 8:9-14.” In Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical Studies,
edited by Frank B. Holbrook, 378-460. Washington, DC: Biblical Research
Institute, 1986.
________. “The ‘Little Horn,’ the Saints, and the Sanctuary in Daniel 8.” In The
Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies,
edited by Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher, 177-227. Washington,
________. “The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology.” Evangelical Quarterly 46

(1974): 81-102.
________. “The Significance of the Cosmology in Gen 1 in Relation to Ancient Near

Eastern Parallels.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 10 (1972): 1-20.
________. “‫פלט‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J.

Hasslberger, Bernhard. Hoffnung in der Bedrängnis: Eine formkritische Untersuchung zu

Dan 8 und 10-12. St. Ottilien: EOS, 1977.
Hays, J. Daniel Hays. The Message of the Prophets: A Survey of the Prophetic and
Apocalyptic Books of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010.
Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1989.
Heaton, E.W. The Book of Daniel: Introduction and Commentary. London: SCM Press,
1956.
Hebbard, Aaron. Reading Daniel as a Text in Theological Hermeneutics. Eugene, OR:

Pickwick Publications, 2009.
Heller, Roy L. ““But if Not” What? The Speech of the Youths in Daniel 3 and a
(Theo)logical Problem.” In Thus Says the Lord: Essays on the Former and Latter
Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, edited by John J. Ahn and Stephen L.
Cook, 244-55. New York: T & T Clark, 2009.
Hendel, Ronald S. “Isaiah and the Transition from Prophecy to Apocalyptic.” In Birkat
Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical
Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth
Birthday, edited by Chaim Cohen and et al., 1:261-79. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2008.
325
Henze, Matthias. “Daniel.” The New Interpreter’s Bible One-Volume Commentary.
Edited by Beverly Roberts Gaventa and David Petersen. Nashville: Abingdon,
2010:482-92.
________. The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and
Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
________. “The Narrative Frame of Daniel: A Literary Assessment.” Journal for the
Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 32 (2001): 5-24.
________. “The Use of Scripture in the Book of Daniel.” In A Companion to Biblical

Interpretation in Early Judaism, edited by Matthias Henze, 279-307. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012.
Hepner, Gershon. “Verbal Resonance in the Bible and Intertextuality.” Journal for the
Study of the New Testament 96 (2001): 3-27.
Herman, Luc, and Bart Vervaeck. Handbook of Narrative Analysis. Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press, 2005.
Herr, Larry G. “Temple, Semitic.” New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by
Hibbard, Todd T. Intertextuality in Isaiah 24-27: The Reuse and Evocation of Earlier
Texts and Traditions. Forshungen zum Alten Testament, Series 16. Tübingen,
Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
Hiebert, Theodore. “Babel: Babble or Blueprint? Calvin, Cultural Diversity, and the
Interpretation of Genesis 11:1-9.” In Reformed Theology: Identity and
Ecumenicity II; Biblical Interpretation in the Reformed Tradition, edited by
Wallace M. Alston Jr. and Michael Welker, 127-45. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2007.
________. Toppling the Tower: Essays on Babel and Diversity. Edited by Theodore
Hiebert. Chicago: McCormick Theological Seminary, 2004.
________. “The Tower of Babel and the Origin of the World’s Cultures.” Journal of
Hill, Andrew. “Daniel-Malachi.” Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Tremper

Longman III and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.
Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2000.
326
Hill, John. Friend or Foe? The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah MT. Biblical
Interpretation Series 40. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Hillers, D. R. “A Convention in Hebrew Literature: The Reaction to Bad News.”

Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (1965): 86-90.
Hilton, Michael. “Babel Reversed—Daniel Chapter 5.” Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 66 (1995): 99-112.
Himmelfarb, Martha. Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993.
Hippolytus. Commentary on Daniel. Ante-Nicene Fathers 5:178-79.
Hoffmeier, James K. The Archaeology of the Bible. Oxford: Lion, 2008.
Holbrook, Frank B. “The Israelite Sanctuary.” In The Sanctuary and the Atonement:
Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies, edited by Arnold V. Wallenkampf
and W. Richard Lesher, 1-36. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981.
Hollander, John. The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1981.
Hölscher, Gustav. “Die Entstehung des Buches Daniel.” Theologische Studien 92 (1919):
113-38.
Hom, Mary Katherin Y.H. “A Mighty Hunter before YHWH: Genesis 10:9 and the
Moral-Theological Evaluation of Nimrod.” Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010): 63-68.
Hooker, Morna D. The Son of Man in Mark. London: SPCK, 1967.
Horn, Siegfried H. “New Light on Nebuchadnezzar’s Madness.” Ministry, April 1978,

38-40.
Horst, F. “Recht und Religion im Bereich des Alten Testaments.” Evangelishe Theologie
16 (1956): 49-75.
Hossfel, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100.

Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005.
Hossfeld, F. L., and E.-M. Kindl. “‫קרא‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament.
Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004.
13:126-31.
Houck-Loomis, Tiffany. “Homogeneity: Safe or Profane? The Journey Toward the True
Self: A Study of Genesis 11:1-9.” Reformed Review 62 (2009): 90-101.
327
House, Paul R. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998.
Houtman, C. Der Himmel im Alten Testament. Israels Weltbild und Weltanschauung. Old
Testament Studies, 30. Leiden: Brill, 1953.
Howard-Brook, Wes. “Come out My People!” God’s Call out of Empire in the Bible and
Beyond. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2010.
Hubbard, Robert L. “Dynamistic and Legal Processes in Psalm 7.” Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (1982): 267-79.
Hummel, Horace D. Ezekiel 21-48. Concordia Commentary. St. Louis: Concordia, 2007.
Humphreys, W. L. “A Lifestyle for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel.”
Hurowitz, Victor A. “Babylon in Bethel—New Light on Jacob’s Dream.” In Orientalism,

Assyriology and the Bible, edited by Steven W. Holloway, 436-48. Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix, 2007.
________. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of
Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament: Supplement Series 115. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992.
________. “Yhwh’s Exalted House—Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of

Solomon’s Temple.” In Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, edited by John
Day, 63-110. London: T & T Clark, 2005.
Husser, Jean-Marie. Dreams and Dream Narratives in the Biblical World. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Hylen, Susan. Allusion and Meaning in John 6. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2005.
Ironside, H. A. Lectures on Daniel the Prophet. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1973.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion.

New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976.
Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. A Commentary, Critical and

Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1945.
Janssen, Enno. Juda in der Exilszeit: Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Entstehung des
Judentums. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956.
328
Janzen, J. G. Abraham and All the Families of the Earth: A Commentary on the Book of
Genesis 12-50. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1993.
Jeffery, Arthur, and Gerald Kennedy. “The Book of Daniel.” Interpreter’s Bible. Edited
by G. A. Buttrick et al., 6:339-549. New York: Abingdon Press, 1956.
Jenkins, Allan K. “A Great Name: Genesis 12:2 and the Editing of the Pentateuch.”
Jepsen, A. “Bemerkungen zum Danielbuch.” Vetus Testamentum 11 (1961): 386-91.
Jerome. Commentary on Daniel. Translated by G. L. Archer Jr. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
1985.
Joannès, Francis, and André Lemaire. “Trois tablettes cunéiformes à onomastique ouest-
sémitique.” Transeu 17 (1999): 17-33.
Johnson, Philip C. The Book of Daniel: A Study Manual. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1964.
Jonker, Louis. “‫קרא‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
1997. 3:971-74.
Jordan, James B. The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel.
Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007.
Joüon, Paul, and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Editrice Pontificio
Intituto Biblico, 2006.
Joyce, Paul. “Temple and Worship in Ezekiel 40-48.” In Temple and Worship in Biblical
Israel, edited by John Day. London: T. & T. Clark, 2005.
Kac, Arthur W. The Rebirth of the State of Israel. Chicago: Moody Press, 1958.
Kaiser, Walter C. A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age Through the Jewish Wars.
Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1998.
________. The Messiah in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995.
________. More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1992.
________. Toward an Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978.
329
Kalimi, Isaac. “Shinar.” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by David Noel
Freedman. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000, 1213.
Kalimi, Isaac, and James D. Purvis. “King Jehoiachin and the Vessels of the Lord’s
House in Biblical Literature.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 (1994): 449-57.
Kaufmann, S. “Prediction, Prophecy, and Apocalypse in the Light of New Akkadian

Texts.” In Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, edited by
A. Shinan, 221-28. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic, 1977.
Kee, Min Suc. “The Heavenly Council and Its Type-scene.” Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament 31 (2007): 259-73.
Keil, C. F., and F. Delitzsch. Bible Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1968.
________. Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1959.
Kellermann, D. “‫מגדל‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J.

Keown, Gerald Lynwood. “A History of the Interpretation of Isaiah 14: 12-15.” PhD
diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1979.
Kidner, D. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament

Commentaries 1. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967.
Kim, Hyun Chul Paul. “Jonah Read Intertextually.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126
(2007): 497-528.
Kim, Sanglae. “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple in the Hebrew Bible.” PhD diss.,
Sheffield University, 2002.
Kim, Sung Ik. “Proclamation in Cross-cultural Context: Missiological Implications of the

Book of Daniel.” PhD diss., Andrews University, 2005.
King, Geoffrey R. Daniel: A Detailed Explanation of the Book. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1966.
Kissling, Paul J. Genesis. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College
Press, 2004.
Klein, Ralph W. “Psalms in Chronicles.” Current in Theology and Mission 32 (2005):

264-275.
330
Klingbeil, G. A. ‘Rocking the Mountain’: Text, Theology, and Mission in Daniel 2.” In
For You Have Strengthened Me: Biblical and Theological Studies in Honor of
Gerhard Pfandl in Celebration of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, edited by Martin T.
Pröbstle, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Martin G. Klingbeil, 117-39. St. Peter am Hart,
Austria: Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen, 2007.
Klingbeil, M. G. “Creation in the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament: An

Intertextual Approach.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 20 (2009):
19-54.
Klouda, Sheri Lynn. “An Analysis of the Significance of Isaiah’s Use of Psalms 96-99.”
PhD diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002.
Knibb, Michael A. “The Book of Daniel in Its Context.” In The Book of Daniel:
Composition and Reception, edited by John Joseph Collins and Peter W. Flint,
16-35. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
________. “You Are Indeed Wiser Than Daniel: Reflections on the Character of the
Book of Daniel.” In The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, edited by
A. S. van der Woude, 399-411. Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University
Press, 1993.
Knight, Douglas A. Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel. Society of Biblical Literature

Dissertation Series 9. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975.
________. “Tradition History.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel

Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1996. 6:633-38.
Knight, George A. F. “The Book of Daniel.” In The Interpreter’s One-Volume

Commentary, edited by C. M. Laymon, 436-50. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1971.
Koch, Klaus. Daniel. Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament 22. Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchner Verlag, 1986.
________. Daniel. Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament 22/6. Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchner Verlag, 2005.
________. Das Buch Daniel. Erträge der Forschung 144. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1980.
________. “Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament.” Zeitschrift für

katholische Theologie 52 (1955): 1-42.
________. “Gottes Herrschaft über das Reich des Menschen. Daniel 4 im Licht neuer
Funde.” In The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, edited by A. S. van
der Woude, 77-119. Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993.
331
Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament. Translated by M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Koester, Craig R. The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament,
Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament. Washington, DC:
Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989.
Kooij, Arie van der. “The City of Babel and Assyrian Imperialism: Genesis 11:1-9
Interpreted in the Light of Mesopotamian Sources.” In Congress Volume Leiden
2004, edited by André Lemaire, 1-17. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
________. “The Concept of Covenant (Berit) in the Book of Daniel.” In The Book of
Daniel in the Light of New Findings, edited by A. S. van der Woude, 495-501.
Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993.
Kraeling, Emil G. Daniel-Malachi. Commentary on the Prophets. Vol. 2. Camden:

Nelson, 1966.
________. “The Handwriting on the Wall.” Journal of Biblical Literature 63 (1944): 11-
18.
Kramer, Samuel Noah. “The Epic of Gilgamesh and Its Sumerian Sources: A Study in
Literary Evolution.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 64 (1944): 7-23.
________. Sumerian Mythology. New York: Harper, 1961.
Krašovec, Jože. The Transformation of Biblical Proper Names. Library of Hebrew Bible
418. New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2010.
Kratz, Reinhard G. Translatio imperii: Untersuchungen zu den aramäischen

Danielerzählungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld.
Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 63.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991.
________. “The Visions of Daniel.” In The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception,
edited by John Joseph Collins and Peter W. Flint, 91-113. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Kristeva, Julia. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1980.
Krodel, Gerhard. Revelation. Augsburg Commentaries on the New Testament.

Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989.
Kugel, James L. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Beginning
of the Common Era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
332
Kutscher, E. Y. “Aramaic.” In Current Trends in Linguistics VI: Linguistics in South
West Asia and North Africa, edited by T. Sebeok, 361-82. The Hague: Mouton,
1971.
________. “Dating the Language of the Genesis Apocryphon.” Journal of Biblical

Literature 76 (1957): 288-92.
________. “The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon—A Preliminary Study.” Scripta

hierosolymitana 4 (1957): 1-34.
Kvanvig, Helge S. Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch

Figure and of the Son of Man. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und
Neuen Testament 61. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988 .
________. “Struktur und Geschichte in Dan. 7, 1–4.” Studia theologica 32 (1978): 95-
117.
Labonté, G. G. “Genèse 41 et Daniel 2: Question d’origine.” In The Book of Daniel in the

Labuschagne, C. J. “‫קרא‬.” Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Jenni E.

and C. Westermann. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. 3:1158-64.
Lacocque, André. “Allusions to Creation in Daniel 7.” In The Book of Daniel:

Composition and Reception, edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, 114-31.
________. The Book of Daniel. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979.
________. The Captivity of Innocence: Babel and the Yahwist. Eugene, OR: Cascade
Books, 2010.
________. “Daniel.” The International Bible Commentary: A Catholic and Ecumenical

Commentary for the Twenty-first Century. Edited by William R. Farmer et al.
Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998. 1085-1107.
________. Daniel in His Time. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988.
________. “The Liturgical Prayer in Daniel 9.” Hebrew Union College Annual 47
(1976): 119-42.
________. “The Socio-Spiritual Formative Milieu of the Daniel Apocalypse.” In The

Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, edited by A. S. van der Woude, 315-
43. Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993.
333
________. “Whatever Happened in the Valley of Shinar? A Response to Theodore
Hiebert.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009): 29-41.
Lambert, W. G. “Myth and Mythmaking in Sumer and Akkad.” Civilizations of the

Ancient Near East. Edited by J. M. Sasson. New York: Scribner, 1995. 3:1825-35.
Lange, John Peter. Genesis: Or, the First Book of Moses: Together with a General
Theological and Homiletical Introduction to the Old Testament. A Commentary
on the Holy Spirit, vol. 1. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1915.
Larue, Gerald A. Babylon and the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1969.
Laurin, Robert B. “The Tower of Babel Revisited.” In Biblical and Near Eastern Studies:
Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor, edited by Gary A. Turtle, 142-145.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.
Lawlor, John I. “Vessels.” The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by
Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2009. 5:765.
Leatherman, Donn Walter. “Structural Considerations Regarding the Relation of Daniel 8

& Daniel 9.” In The Cosmic Battle for Planet Earth: Essays in Honor of Norman
R. Gulley, edited by Ron du Preez and Jiri Moskala, 293-305. Berrien Springs,
MI: Andrews University, 2003.
Lebram, Jürgen-Christian. Das Buch Daniel. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1984.
Lederach, Paul M. Daniel. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, PA: Herald
Press, 1994.
Leipzig, J. Conrad. “‫מנה‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J.

Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. 396-401.
Lemaire, André, and Magne Sæbø. Congress Volume: Oslo 1998. Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum 80. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Lenglet, A. “La structure litteraire de Daniel 2-7.” Biblica 53 (1972): 169-90.
Leonard, Jeffery M. “Identifyings Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case.”

Lester, G. Brooke. “Daniel Evokes Isaiah: The Rule of the Nations in Apocalyptic
Allusion Narrative.” PhD diss., Princeton University, 2007.
334
Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1942.
________. Exposition of Daniel. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1949.
Levin, Adina. “A New Context for Jacob in Genesis and Hosea 12. ” In From Babel to
Babylon, edited by Joyce Rilett Wood, John E. Harvey, and Mark Leuchter, 226-
236. New York: T & T Clark, 2006.
Levin, Y. “Nimrod the Mighty, King of Kish, King of Sumer and Akkad.” Vetus
Testamentum 52 (2002): 350-64.
Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 21-36: A New Translation with Introduction and

Commentary. Anchor Bible 4B. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Li, Tarsee. “The Characterization of God in the Aramaic Chapters of Daniel.” In For You
Have Strengthened Me: Biblical and Theological Studies in Honor of Gerhard
Pfandl in Celebration of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, edited by Martin T. Pröbstle,
Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Martin G. Klingbeil, 106-16. St. Peter am Hart, Austria:
Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen, 2007.
Liddell, H. G., et al. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.
Lim, Johnson T. K. Grace in the Midst of Judgment: Grappling with Genesis 1-11.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002.
Lind, Millard. Ezekiel. BChBC. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1996.
Lipinski, E. “‫נתן‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J.

Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. 90-107.
________. “‫צפון‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J.

Lipton, Diana. Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal Dreams
of Genesis. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 288.
Edited by David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1999.
Longman, Tremper, III. Daniel. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1999.
________. “‫צבא‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and

1997. 3:733-35.
335
Lucas, Ernest. Daniel. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries 20. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2002.
________. “Daniel, Book of.” Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible.
Edited by K. J. Vanhoozer et al. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005: 156-59.
________. Decoding Daniel: Reclaiming the Visions of Daniel 7-11. Cambridge: Grove,
2000.
________. The Source of Daniel’s Animal Imagery.” Tyndale Bulletin 41 (1990): 161-85.
Lundquist, John M. “The Legitimizing Role of the Temple in the Origin of the State.” In
SBL 1982 Seminar Papers, edited by Kent Harold Richards, 271-97. Chico, CA:
Scholars Press, 1982.
Lust, Johan. “Cult and Sacrifice in Daniel: The Tamid and the Abomination of
Desolation.” In Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, edited by J.
Quaegebeur, 283-99. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oriëntalistiek,
1993.
________. “The Septuagint Version of Daniel 4-5.” In The Book of Daniel in the Light of
New Findings, edited by A. S. van der Woude, 39-53. Leuven-Louvain, Belgium:
Leuven University Press, 1993.
Luzarraga, J. Las tradiciones de la nube en la Biblia y en el judaismo primitivo. Analecta

Biblica 54. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1973.
Machinist, Peter. “Nimrod.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman,
1992. 4:1116-18.
________. “On Self-Consciousness in Mesopotamia.” In The Origins and Diversity of

Axial Age Civilizations, edited by S. N. Eisenstadt, 183-202, 511-18. Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1986.
MacLay, R. Timothy. “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel IV-VI and the Formation of
the Book of Daniel.” Vetus Testamentum 55 (2005): 304-23.
________. “The Relationship Between the Greek Translations of Daniel 1-3.” Bulletin of
the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 37 (2004): 29-
53.
MacLay, Tim. The OG and Th Versions of Daniel. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series
43. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1996.
Maier, Gerhard. Der Prophet Daniel. Wuppertaler Studienbibel. Wuppertal: Brockhaus,

1982.
336
Mangano, Mark. Esther & Daniel. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO:
College Press, 2001.
Margain, Jean. Le livre de Daniel: commentaire philologique du texte araméen. Les

classiques bibliques. Paris: Beauchesne, 1994.
Margueron, Jean-Claude, and Duane F. Watson. “Babylon.” The Anchor Bible

Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. 1:563-66.
Martens, Elmer A. “‫בוא‬.” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. L.

Harris and G. L. Archer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999. 93-95.
Martin, H. J. “The Hebrew of Daniel.” In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel,
edited by D. J. Wiseman et al., 28-30. London: Tyndale, 1965.
Mason, Rex. Old Testament Pictures of God. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 1993.
Mason, Rex A. “The Treatment of Earlier Biblical Themes in the Book of Daniel.” In
Perspectives on the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Walter J. Harrelson, edited
by James L. Crenshaw, 81-100. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988.
Massinger, Martin. “Babylon in Biblical Prophecy.” ThD diss., Dallas Theological

Seminary, 1967.
Mastin, B. A. “Wāw Explicativum in 2 Kings 8:9.” Vetus Testamentum 34 (1984): 353-

55.
________. “The Meaning of Hala’ at Daniel IV 27.” Vetus Testamentum 42 (1992): 234-
47.
Mathews, H. Victor. Old Testament Turning Points: The Narratives That Shaped a
Nation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005.
Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1-11:26. New American Commentary 1A. Nashville, TN:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996.
________. Genesis 11:27-50:26. New American Commentary 1B. Nashville, TN:

Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2007.
Mathews, Susan F. “When We Remembered Zion: The Significance of the Exile for
Understanding Daniel.” In The Bible on Suffering: Social and Political
Implications, edited by Anthony J. Tambasco, 93-119. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press,
2001.
337
Maurer, Bernard. “The Book of Ecclesiastes as a Derash of Genesis 1-4: A Study in Old
Testament Literary Dependency.” PhD diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological
Seminary, 2007.
Maxwell, C. Mervyn. The Message of Daniel: God Cares. Mountain View, CA: Pacific
Press, 1981.
McArthur, Harvey K., and Robert M. Johnston. They Also Taught in Parables: Rabbinic
Parables from the First Centuries of the Christian Era. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1990.
McCartney, D. G. “House, Spiritual House.” Dictionary of the Later New Testament and
Its Developments. Edited by R. P. Martin and P. H. Davids. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2000. 507-11.
McConville, J. Gordon. Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Prophets. Vol. 4.
London: SPCK, 2002.
________. God and Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political Theology, Genesis-
Kings. New York: T&T Clark, 2006.
McGee, J. Vernon. Daniel. Thru the Bible Commentary: The Prophets. Vol. 3. Nashville,
TN: Thomas Nelson, 1991.
McKelvey, R. J. The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament. London: Oxford
McKeown, James. Genesis. The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.
McNamara, M. “Daniel.” A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. Edited by

Leonard Johnston, 650-75. London: Nelson, 1969.
Meadowcroft, T. J. Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison. Journal

for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series. Edited by David J.A.
Clines and Philip R. Davies. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
Menn, Esther Marie. “Inner-Biblical Exegesis in the Tanak.” In A History of Biblical

Interpretation: The Ancient Period, edited by Alan J. Hauser and Duane F.
Watson, 55-79. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.
Mercer, Mark Kent. “An Historical, Exegetical, and Theological Study of Daniel 11:2b-
12:4.” PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987.
338
Merino, L. D. “Los ‘vigilantes’ en la literatura intertestamentaria.” In Simposio Bíblico
Español, Salamanca, edited by N. Fernandez-Marcos, 575-609. Madrid:
Universidad Complutense, 1984.
Merrill, Eugene H. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker, 2008.
Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. “YHWH SABAOTH—The Heavenly King on the Cherubim

Throne.” In Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays:
Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5-7
December, 1979, edited by Tomoo Ishida, 109-38. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
1982.
Meyers, Carol L. The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the
Biblical Cult. American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 2,
Edited by D. N. Freedman. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974.
________. “Temple, Jerusalem.” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N.
Michaelis, J. D. Deutsche Übersetzung des Alten Testaments 10 Theil. Göttingen:

Dieterich, 1781.
Milik, J. T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave Four. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1976.
Millard, A. R. “The Etymology of Nebrasta, Daniel 5:5.” Maarav 4 (1987): 87-92.
Miller, Patrick D. “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew.” Ugarit-

Forschungen 2 (1970): 177-86.
________. “Cosmology and World Order in the Old Testament: The Divine Council as
Cosmic-Political Symbol.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 9 (1987): 53-78.
________. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Harvard Semitic Monographs 5.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.
________. Genesis 1-11: Studies in Structure and Theme. Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament: Supplement Series 8. Edited by David Clines, Philip R. Davies,
and David M. Gunn. Sheffield, England: University of Sheffield, Dept. of Biblical
Studies, 1978.
________. Sin and Judgment in the Prophets. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation
Series. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982.
339
Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. New American Commentary 18. Nashville, TN: Broadman &
Holman, 1994.
Mills, M. Genesis: A Study Guide to the Book of Genesis. Electronic ed. Dallas: 3E
Ministries, 1999.
Milne, Pamela Jeanne. “Narrative Structure in Daniel 1-6: An Analysis of Structure in a

Group of Old Testament Texts, Based on Vladimir Propp’s Morphology of the
Folktale.” PhD diss., McGill University, 1982.
Miner, Earl. “Allusion.” Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Edited by Alex Preminger.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965: 18.
________. “Allusion.” The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Edited by
A. Preminger and V. Brogan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. 38-
39.
Miscall, Peter D. “Texts, More Texts, a Textual Reader and a Textual Writer.” Semeia
69/70 (1995): 247-259.
Mitchell, T. C. “The Music of the Old Testament Reconsidered.” Palestine Exploration

Quarterly 124 (1992): 124-43.
Mitchell, T. C., and R. Joyce. “The Musical Instruments in Nebuchadnezzar’s Orchestra.”

In Notes on Some Problem in the Book of Daniel, edited by D. J. Wiseman et al.,
19-27. London: Tyndale, 1965.
Mitchell, Terence C. “Shared Vocabulary in the Pentateuch and the Book of Daniel.” In
He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12-50, edited by Richard S.
Hess, P. E. Satterthwaite, and Gordon J. Wenham, 131-41. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 1994.
Mobley, G. “The Wild Man in the Bible and the Ancient Near East.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 116 (1997): 217-33.
Moffatt, James. A New Translation of the Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments.
New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954.
Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel.

New York: Scribner, 1927.
Moor, Johannes C. Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament

Exegesis. Oudtestamentische Studien. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
340
Moore, Anne. Moving Beyond Symbol and Myth: Understanding the Kingship of God of
the Hebrew Bible through Metaphor. Studies in Biblical Literature 99. Edited by
Hemchand Gossai. New York: Peter Lang, 2009.
Moore, Carey. “Daniel, Additions to.” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Edited by
David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. 2:18-28.
Moore, Carey A. Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions. 1st ed. Anchor Bible.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977.
Moran, William L. “Ovid’s Blanda Voluptas and the Humanization of Enkidu.” Journal
of Near Eastern Studies 50 (1991): 121-27.
Morris, H. M. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book
of Beginnings. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1976.
Morris, H. M., and J. C. Whitcomb. The Genesis Flood. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1961.
Mosis, R. “‫גדל‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck

and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975. 2:390-416.
Moskala, Jiří. “The Struggles of Daniel with Religious Liberty.” Shabbat Shalom 54
(2007): 25-28 .
________. “Toward a Biblical Theology of God’s Judgment: A Celebration of the Cross

in Seven Phases of Divine Universal Judgment (An Overview of a Theocentric-
Christocentric Approach).” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 15
(2004): 138-62.
________. “Worship in the Book of Daniel.” In Encountering God in Life and Mission: A
Festschrift Honoring Jon L. Dybdahl, edited by Rudi Maier, 20-38. Berrrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University, 2010.
Motyer, J. A. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary. Downers Grove,

IL: InterVarsity, 1993.
Moule, C. F. D. “From Defendant to Judge —And Deliverer.” Society for New Testament
Studies Bulletin 3 (1952): 40.
Moulton, J. H., and N. Turner. Grammar of New Testament Greek III, Syntax. Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1963.
Mounce, R. H. The Book of Revelation. New International Commentary on the New

Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
341
Moyise, Steve. The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation. Journal for the Study of the
New Testament: Supplement Series, 115. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1995.
________. The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series, 189. Sheffield,
England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Mullen, E. Theodore. The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature.
Harvard Semitic Monographs 24. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1980.
Müller, Ulrich B. Messias und Menschensohn in jüdischen Apokalypsen und in der

Offenbarung des Johannes. Studien zum Neuen Testament 6. Gütersloh: Mohn,
1972.
Munnich, O. “Texte Massorétique et Septante dans le Livre de Daniel.” In The Earliest

Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the
Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, edited by A. Schenker, 93-120.
Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
Murray, Robert. “The Origin of Aramaic ‛ir, Angel.” Orientalia 53 (1984): 303-17.
Naudé, Jackie A. “‫חנך‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
1997. 2:200-201.
Nel, Marius. “Daniel 7, Mythology and the Creation Combat Myths.” Old Testament
Studies 19 (2006): 156-70.
________. “A Literary-Historical Analysis of Daniel 2: Two Powers in Opposition.” Acta

theologica 22 (2002): 77-97.
Nel, Philip J. “‫מלך‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
1997. 2:956-965.
Nelson, William B. Daniel. UBCS. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012
Neusner, Jacob. The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2011.
________. What Is Midrash? Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Philadelphia: Fortress,

1987.
Newell, Philip Rutherford. Daniel: The Man Greatly Beloved and His Prophecies.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.
342
Newman, R. C. “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and the Old Testament Sabbath-Year Cycle.”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 16 (1973): 229-34.
Newsom, Carol A. “Daniel.” Theological Bible Commentary. Edited by Gail R. O’Day

and David L. Petersen. Lousville, KY: Westmister John Knox, 2009. 257-60.
________. “God’s Other: The Intractable Problem of the Gentile King in Judean and
Early Jewish Literature.” In The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in
Honor of John J. Collins, edited by Daniel C. Harlow et al., 31-48. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 2011.
________. The Past as Revelation: History in Apocalyptic Literature.” Quarterly Review

4 (1984): 40-53.
Nichol, Francis, ed. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Vol. 4. Washington,
Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch. Hermeneia.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.
________. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Literary and
Historical Introduction. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
________. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and

Early Christianity. Expanded ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2006.
Nicol, B. “Isaiah’s Vision and the Visions of Daniel.” Vetus Testamentum 29 (1979):
501-04.
Niditch, Susan. The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition. Chico, CA: Scholars Press,
1983.
Niditch, Susan, and Robert Doran. “The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal
Approach.” Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977): 179-93.
Niehr, Herbert. “God of Heaven ‫השמים אלהי‬.” Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the
Bible. Edited by K. Toorn and et al. Leiden: Brill, 1999. 370-72.
________. Herrschen und Richten: Die Wurzel špṭ im Alten Orient und im Alten
Testament. Würzberg: Echter, 1986.
________. “Host of Heaven ‫השמים צבא‬.” Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible.
Edited by K. Toorn et al. Leiden: Brill, 1999: 428-30.
343
________. “‫שר‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J.
Nielsen, Kirsten. “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible.” In Congress Volume: Oslo
1998, edited by André Lemaire and Magne Sæbø, 17-31. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
________. There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 65. Sheffield, England: JSOT
Press, 1989.
Niskanen, Paul. The Human and the Divine in History: Herodotus and the Book of
Daniel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 396. New
York: T&T Clark, 2004.
North, C. R. The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study.

London: Oxford University Press, 1950.
Northrup, B. “Continental Drift and the Fossil Record.” In Repossess the Land, edited by
Walter Lang, 165-70. Minneapolis: Bible-Science Association, 1979.
Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,

1972.
________. “Zur Komposition des Buches Daniel.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken
98/99 (1926): 143-63.
O’Day, Gail R. “Jeremiah 9:22-23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26-23: A Study in Intertextuality.”

O’Connel, Robert H. “Isaiah XIV 4b-23: Ironic Reversal through Concentric Structure
and Mythic Allusion.” Vetus Testamentum 38 (1988): 406-18.
Oded, B. “The Table of Nations (Genesis 10)—A Socio-cultural Approach.” Zeitschrift

für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 98 (1986): 14-31.
Ogden, Graham S. “Literary Allusions in Isaiah: Isaiah 44.28-45.13 Revisited.” The Bible
Translator 54 (2003): 317-25.
Olley, John W. “The God of Heaven: A Look at Attitudes to Other Religions in the Old
Testament.” Colloquium 27 (1995): 76-94.
Oppenheim, A. Leo. “Belshazzar.” The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by

George Arthur Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. 1:379-80.
Oppert, Jules. Expédition scientifique en Mésopotamie. Vol. 1. Paris: Impériale, 1863.
344
Ortlund, Eric. “An Intertextual Reading of the Theophany of Psalm 97.” Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 20 (2006): 273-285.
Osborne, G. R. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002.
Osborne, W. “Babel.” Dictionary of Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond

Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
773-775.
Oswalt, J. N. The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 1-39. New International Commentary of the
________. The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 40-66. New International Commentary of the
Owusu-Antwi, Brempong. The Chronology of Dan 9:24-27. Adventist Theological

Society Dissertation Series 2. Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society
Publications, 1995.
Pace, Sharon. “Diaspora Dangers, Diaspora Dreams.” In Studies in the Hebrew Bible,
Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich, edited by Peter W.
Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam, 21-59. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
________. Daniel. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys
Publishing, 2008.
Page, Hugh Rowland, Jr. “The Astral Revolt: A Study of Its Reflexes in Canaanite and
Hebrew Literature.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1990.
Parker, S. B. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Writings from the Ancient World 9. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1997.
Parpola, Simo. “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism
and Greek Philosophy.” Journal of New Easter Studies 52 (1993): 161-208.
________. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal.
Alter Orient und Altes Testament 5/2. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1983.
Parrot, André. The Tower of Babel. New York: Philosophical Library, 1955.
________. Ziggurats et tour de Babel. Paris: Michel, 1949.
Parry, Jason Thomas. “Desolation of the Temple and Messianic Enthronement in Daniel
11:36-12:3.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54 (2011): 485-526.
345
Patrick, Dale. “The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament.” In The Kingdom of God in
20th-century Interpretation, edited by Wendell Willis, 67-79. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1987.
Paul, Shalom M. “Daniel 3:29: A Case Study of ‘Neglected’ Blasphemy.” Journal of

Near Eastern Studies 42 (1983): 291-94.
________. “Dan 6, 8: An Aramaic Reflex of Assyrian Legal Terminology.” Biblica 65

(1984): 106-110.
________. “Decoding a ‘Joint’ Expression in Dan 5:6, 16.” Journal of the Ancient Near
Eastern Society 22 (1993): 121-27.
________. “The Mesopotamian Background of Daniel 1–6.” In The Book of Daniel:

Composition and Reception, edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, 55-68.
Paulien, Jon. Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets: Literary Allusions and Interpretation of

Revelation 8:7-12. Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series,
vol. 2. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1988.
________. “Elusive Allusions: The Problematic Use of the Old Testament in

Revelation.” Biblical Research 33 (1988): 37-53.
Pearce, Laurie E. “New Evidence for Judeans in Babylonia.” In Judah and the Judeans in
the Persian Period, edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming, 399–411.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006.
Penley, Paul T. “A Historical Reading of Genesis 11:1-9: The Sumerian Demise and
Dispersion under the Ur III Dynasty.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 50 (2007): 693-714.
Perri, Carmela. “On Alluding.” Poetics 7 (1978): 289-307.
Petersen, David L. “Zechariah 9-14: Methodological Reflections.” In Bringing out the

Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9-14, edited by Mark J. Boda and
Michael H. Floyd, 210-224. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.
Petersen, Paul B. “God—The Great Giver.” In For You Have Strengthened Me: Biblical
and Theological Studies in Honor of Gerhard Pfandl in Celebration of His Sixty-
fifth Birthday, edited by Martin T. Pröbstle, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Martin
Gerhard Klingbeil, 97-106. St. Peter am Hart, Austria: Seminar Schloss
Bogenhofen, 2007.
Pfandl, Gerhard. Daniel: The Seer of Babylon. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald,
2004.
346
Pinches, T. G. “Dura.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James
Orr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957. 2:883.
________. The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of
Assyria and Babylonia. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
1903.
Plöger, Otto. Das Buch Daniel. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus G. Mohn, 1965.
Polak, Frank. “The Daniel Tales in Their Aramaic Literary Milieu.” In The Book of
Daniel in the Light of New Findings, edited by A. S. van der Woude, 249-65.
Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1993.
Polaski, Donald C. Authorizing an End: The Isaiah Apocalypse and Intertextuality.

Biblical Interpretation Series 50. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
________. “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin: Writing and Resistance in Daniel 5 and 6.”
Pope, Marvin H. “Aṯtar.” Götter und Mythen im vorderen Orient. Edited by H. W.

Haussig. Stuttgart: Klett, 1965.
________. El in the Ugaritic Texts. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 2. Leiden: Brill,

1955.
________. “Numbers.” The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by George

Arthur Buttrick. New York: Abingdon, 1962. 3:561-67.
Porteous, Norman. Daniel: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965.
Porter, Paul A. Metaphors and Monsters: A Literary-Critical Study of Daniel 7 and 8.

Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1983.
Portier-Young, Anathea. Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early

Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011.
Porton, G. “Defining Midrash.” In The Study of Ancient Judaism I: Mishnah, Midrash,

Siddur, edited by J. Neusner, 55–92. New York: KTAV, 1981.
________. “Midrash: Palestinian Jews and the Hebrew Bible in the Greco-Roman
Period.” In Judentum: Palastinisches Judentum, edited by Wolfgang Haase.
Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt 2, 103-38. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1979.
347
________. “Midrash.” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel
Prince, John Dyneley. “Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin.” PhD diss., Johns Hopkins
University, 1893.
Prinsloo, G. T. M. “Daniel 3: Intratextual Perpectives and Intertextual Tradition.” Acta

Patristica et Byzantina 16 (2005): 70-90.
Pröbstle, Martin. “A Linguistic Analysis of Daniel 8:11, 12.” Journal of the Adventist
________. “Truth and Terror: A Text-Oriented Analysis of Daniel 8:9-14.” PhD diss.,
Andrews University, 2006.
________. “Who Is the Little Horn in Daniel 8?” In Interpreting Scripture: Bible
Questions and Answers, edited by Gerhard Pfandl, 245-48. Silver Spring, MD:
Biblical Research Institute, 2010.
Pritchard, J. B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1969.
Provan, Iain. “Daniel.” Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Edited by James Dunn.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. 665-75.
Pury, Albert de. “La tour de Babel et la vocation d’Abraham notes exégétiques.” Etudes
Theologiques et Religieuses 53 (1978): 80-97.
Pyeon, Yohan. You Have Not Spoken What Is Right about Me: Intertextuality and the
Book of Job. Studies in Biblical Literature 45. New York: Peter Lang, 2003.
Raabe, Paul. “Daniel 7: Its Structure and Role in the Book.” Hebrew Annual Review 9
(1985): 267-75.
Ramsey, G. W. “Is Name-Giving an Act of Domination in Genesis 2:23 and Elsewhere?”

Rankin, Oliver S. The Origins of the Festival of Hanukkah: The Jewish New-Age
Festival. Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1930.
Rast, Walter E. “Daniel 9: Its Form and Theological Significance.” PhD diss., University
of Chicago, 1966.
Redditt, Paul L. Daniel: Based on the New Revised Standard Version. New Century Bible
Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
________. Introduction to the Prophets. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.
348
Reid, Stephen Breck. “The Theology of the Book of Daniel and the Political Theory of
W. E. B. DuBois.” In The Recovery of Black Presence: An Interdisciplinary
Exploration: Essays in Honor of Dr. Charles B. Copher, edited by Randall C.
Bailey and Jacquelyn Grant, 37-49. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995.
________. “Tradition History, OT.” The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.
Edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. Nashville, TN Abingdon Press, 2009.
5:637.
Reif, Stefan C. “Dedicated to ‫חנך‬.” Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972): 495-501.
Reyburn, William D., and Euan McG. Fry. A Handbook on Genesis. United Bible
Societies Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1997.
Rhodes, Arnold B. “The Kingdoms of Men and the Kingdom of God: A Study of Daniel
7:1-14.” Interpretation 15 (1961): 411-30.
Richard, Pablo. “El pueblo de Dios contra el Imperio: Daniel 7 en su contexto literario e
histórico.” Revista de Interpretación Bíblica Latinoamericana 7 (1990): 25-46.
Richardson, M. Hammurabi’s Laws: Text, Translation, and Glossary. New York: T. & T.
Clark, 2004.
Richter, Wolfgang. “Zu den ‘Richtern Israels’.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 77 (1965): 40-72.
Rindge, Mattew S. “Jewish Identity under Foreign Rule: Daniel 2 as a Reconfiguration of

Genesis 41.” Journal of Biblical Literature 129 (2010): 85-104.
Ringgren, H. “lbb.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J.

________. “‫צבא‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J.

Ringgren, H., and W. Kornfeld. “‫קדש‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament.
Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.
12:521-45.
Roberts, J. J. “Temple, Jerusalem.” New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by

________. “Zaphon in Job 26:7.” Biblica 56 (1975): 554-57.
349
Robertson, O. P. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah. New International
Commentary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.
Robinson, A. “Zion and ‫ צפון‬in Psalm XLVIII 3.” Vetus Testamentum 24 (1974): 118-23.
Rodríguez, Ángel M. Future Glory: The 8 Greatest End-time Prophecies in the Bible.
Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2002.
________. “Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus.” Andrews University Seminary

Studies 24 (1986): 127-45.
________. “Significance of the Cultic Language in Daniel 8:9-14.” In Symposium on

Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical Studies, edited by Frank B. Holbrook, 527-
49. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986.
Rogers, Cleon L. “‫צפון‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
1997. 834-37.
Roloff, Jürgen. The Revelation of John. Continental Commentary. Minneapolis, MN:

Roos, Deomar. “Babylon in the Book of Isaiah.” Concordia Journal 30 (2004): 350-75.
Rosenthal, Franz. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1974.
Rosenthal, L. “Die Josephgeschichte mit den Büchern Ester und Daniel verglichen.”
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 15 (1895): 278-85.
Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998.
________.“The Dispersion of the Nations in Gen 11:1–9.” Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (1981):
119-38.
________. “Genesis.” Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. Edited by P. W. Comfort.

Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2008. 1:1-258.
________. “Genesis.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the

Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B.
Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983: 15-101.
________. “‫שם‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis.
Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. 4:147-
51.
350
Rowley, H. H. Darius, the Mede and the Four Empires in the Book of Daniel: A
Historical Study of Contemporary Theories. Cardiff: University of Wales Press,
1935.
________. “The Unity of the Book of Daniel.” In The Servant of the Lord and Other
Essays on the Old Testament, 249-60. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965.
Ruiz, Jean-Pierre. Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation of Prophetic Language

in Revelation 16:17-19:10. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1989.
Russell, D. S. Daniel. Daily Study Bible Series. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1981.
________. Daniel, an Active Volcano: Reflections on the Book of Daniel. Louisville, KY:
Westminster/J. Knox Press, 1989.
Sabourin, Léopold. “Biblical Cloud: Terminology and Traditions.” Biblical Theology

Bulletin 4 (1974): 290-311.
Sailhamer, J. “Genesis.” Genesis-Leviticus. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E.

Garland. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.
Santoso, Agus. Die Apokalyptik als jüdische Denkbewegung: eine literarkritische

Untersuchung zum Buch Daniel. Marburg: Tectum, 2007.
Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with New JPS Translation. 1st
ed. The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish
Publication Society, 1989.
________. “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis.” In Biblical and Other Studies,
edited by Alexander Altmann, 29-46. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1963.
________. Understanding Genesis. New York: Schochen Books, 1966.
Satran, David. “Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation of the Fourth Chapter of the
Book of Daniel.” PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1985.
Savran, G. “Beastly Speech: Intertextuality, Balaam’s Ass, and the Garden of Eden.” In
The Pentateuch, edited by John W. Rogersor, 296-318. Sheffield: Sheffield
Savran, George. Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative. London: T.

& T. Clark, 2005.
Schedl, Gaus. “Hnkt ‘bnt auf Neupunischen grabinschriften.” Vetus Testamentum 12

(1962): 343-45.
351
Scheetz, Jordan M. The Concept of Canonical Intertextuality and the Book of Daniel.
Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2011.
Schökel, Luis A. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico,
1989.
Schoors, Antoon. “(Mis)use of Intertextuality in Qohelet Exegesis.” In Congress Volume:

Oslo 1998, edited by André Lemaire and Magne Sæbø, 49-59. Leiden: Brill,
2000.
Schoville, K. N. “‫מגדל‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and

1997. 2:841-42.
Schreiner, Josef. “Tempeltheologie im Streit der Propheten.” Biblische Zeitschrift 1

(1987): 1-14.
Schultz, Richard. The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets. Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 180. Sheffield: Sheffield
Schwantes, S. J. “Ereb Boqer of Daniel 8: 14 Re-examined.” Andrews University

Segal, Michael. “From Joseph to Daniel: The Literary Development of the Narrative in
Daniel 2.” Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009): 123-149.
________. “Qumran Evidence for a Semitic Vorlage of LXX Daniel 4.” Paper Presented
at the Annual Meeting of the SBL, Atlanta, November 21, 2010.
Seilin, Ernst. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1910.
Selman, Martin J. “The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament.” Tyndale Bulletin 40
(1989): 161-83.
Seow, C. L. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John

Knox, 2003.
________. “The Rule of God in the Book of Daniel.” In David and Zion: Biblical Studies
in Honor of J.J.M. Roberts, edited by Bernard Frank Batto and Kathryn L.
Roberts, 219-46. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004.
Serra, R. M. “Una Raíz, afín a la raíz ugarítica gyr ‘guardar’, en algunos textos bíblicos.”
Claretianum 4 (1964): 161-76.
352
Settembrini, Marco. Sapienza e Storia in Dn 7-12. Analecta Biblica 169. Rome: Editrice
Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2007.
Seybold, K. “‫מלך‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J.

Shaffer, A. “The Sumerian Sources of Tablet XII of the Epic of Gilgamesh.” PhD diss.,
University of Pennsylvania, 1964.
Shea, William H. Daniel: A Reader’s Guide. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2005.
________. “Daniel 3: Extra-biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of Dura.”
Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (1982): 29-52.
________. Daniel 1-7: Prophecy as History. Abundant Life Bible Amplifier. Boise, ID:
Pacific Press, 1996.
________. Daniel 7-12: Prophecies of the End Time. The Abundant Life Bible
Amplifier. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1996.
________. “Darius the Mede: An Update.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 20

(1982): 229-47.
________. “Darius the Mede in His Persian-Babylonian Setting.” Andrews University

________. “Further Literary Structures in Daniel 2-7: An Analysis of Daniel 4.” Andrews
University Seminary Studies 23 (1985): 193-202.
________. “Further Literary Structures in Daniel 2-7: An Analysis of Daniel 5, and the
Broader Relationships Within Chapters 2-7.” Andrews University Seminary
Studies 23 (1985): 277-295.
________. “History and Eschatology in the Book of Daniel.” Journal of the Adventist
________. “Intertextuality within Daniel.” In Wort und Stein: Studien zur Theologie und
Archäologie: Festschrift für Udo Worschech, edited by Herausgegeben Von and
Friedbert Ninow, 219-29. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2003.
________. “Nabonidus, Belshazzar, and the Book of Daniel: An Update.” Andrews

________. “The Neo-Babylonian Historical Setting for Daniel 7.” Andrews University
353
________. Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation. Daniel and Revelation
Committed 1. Edited by Frank Holbrook. Washington, DC: Review and Herald,
1982.
________. “The Search for Darius the Mede (Concluded), or, The Time of the Answer to
Daniel’s Prayer and the Date of the Death of Darius the Mede.” Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society 12 (2001): 97-105.
________. “Spatial Dimensions in the Vision of Daniel 8.” In Symposium on Daniel:

Introductory and Exegetical Studies, edited by Frank B. Holbrook, 497-526.
Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986.
________. “An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid (Part
1).” Andrews University Seminary Studies 9 (1971): 51-67.
________. “Unity of Daniel.” In Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical

Studies, edited by Frank B. Holbrook, 165-255. Washington, DC: Biblical
Research Institute, 1986.
________.“Wrestling with the Prince of Persia: A Study on Daniel 10.” Andrews

Shepherd, Michael B. Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible. New York: Peter Lang,
2009.
Sherman, P. M. “Shinar.” The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by

Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009. 5:234.
________. “Translating the Tower: Genesis 11 and Ancient Jewish Interpretation.” PhD
dissertation, Emory University, 2008.
Shipp, R. Mark. Of Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b-21.
Society of Biblical Literature Academia Biblica 11. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2002.
354
Shum, Shiu-Lun. Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans: A Comparative Study of Paul’s Letter
to the Romans and the Sibylline and Qumran Sectarian Texts. Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2, Series 156. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2002.
Sims, James H. “Daniel.” In A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, edited by Leland
Ryken and Tremper Longman III, 324-36. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993.
Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. International Critical

Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1910.
Smith, B. K., and F. S. Page. Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. New American Commentary 19B.
Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.
Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. “The Additions to Daniel.” The New Interpreter’s Bible.

Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. 7:153-94.
________. A Biblical Theology of Exile. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis:

Fortress, 2002.
________. “Daniel.” New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville:

Abingdon, 1996. 7:19-152.
________. “The Politics of Ezra: Sociological Indicators of Postexilic Judaean Society.”

In Second Temple Studies 1: Persian Period, edited by Philip R. Davies, 73-97.
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.
________. “Prayers and Dreams: Power and Diaspora Identities in the Social Setting of
the Daniel Tales.” In The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, edited by
John J. Collins and Peter Flint, 266-90. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Snanoudj, Sergine. Visions du prophète Daniel sur la fin des temps: Ses jeûnes, ses
intercessions, ses victoires. Panassac: Impact du plein Évangile, 2003.
Soggin, J. A. “‫מלך‬.” Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Ernst Jenni and
Claus Westermann. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997:672.
Sommer, Benjamin D. “Allusions and Illusions: The Unity of the Book of Isaiah in Light
of Deutero-Isaiah's Use of Prophetic Tradition.” In New Visions of Isaiah, edited
by Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney, 156-186. Sheffield: Sheffield
________. “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to

Lyle Eslinger.” Vetus Testamentum 46 (1996): 479-89.
355
________. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Speiser, E. A. “Ancient Mesopotamia: A Light That Did Not Fail.” National Geographic
99 (January 1951): 41-57.
________. Genesis. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964.
________. “In Search of Nimrod.” Eretz-Israel 5 (1958): 32-36.
Spronk, Klaas. “Down with Helel! The Assumed Mythological Background of Isa.
14:12.” In Und Mose Schrieb dieses Lied auf: Studien zum Alten Testament und
zum Alien Orient, edited by M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper, 717-26. Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 1988.
Stamm, Johann Jakob. “Ein ugaritisch-hebräisches Verbum und seine Ableitungen.”

Theologische Zeitschrift 35 (1979): 5-9.
Stead, Michael R. The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1-8. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament Studies 506. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2009.
Stefanovic, Ranko. Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation.

Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2002.
Stefanovic, Zdravko. “Daniel: A Book of Significant Reversals.” Andrews University

________. Daniel: Wisdom for the Wise: Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Nampa,
ID: Pacific Press, 2007.
________. Thematic Links Between the Historical and Prophetic Sections of Daniel.”
________. “The Roles of the Babylonian and Medo-Persian Kings in the Book of
Daniel.” In Creation, Life, and Hope: Essays in Honor of Jacques B. Doukhan,
edited by Jiri Moskala, 383-94. Berrien Springs, MI: Old Testament Department,
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 2000.
Steinmann, Andrew E. Daniel. Concordia Commentary. Saint Louis: Concordia, 2008.
________. “Is the Antichrist in Daniel 11?” Bibliotheca Sacra 162 (2005): 195-2009.
________. The Shape of Things to Come: The Genre of the Historical Apocalypse in
Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature.” PhD diss., University of Michigan,
1990.
356
Steinmann, Jean. Daniel. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1950.
Stele, Artur A. “Resurrection in Daniel 12 and Its Contribution to the Theology of the
Book of Daniel.” PhD diss., Andrews University, 1996.
Steussy, M. J. Gardens in Babylon: Narrative and Faith in the Greek Legends of Daniel.
Society of the Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 141. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1993.
Stevenson, Kenneth, Michael Glerup, and Thomas C. Oden. Ezekiel, Daniel. Ancient
Christian Commentary on Scripture. Old Testament, vol. 13. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2008.
Steveson, Peter A. Daniel. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2008.
Steymans, Hans Ulrich. “The Blessings in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33: Awareness
of Intertextuality.” In South African Perspectives on the Pentateuch between
Synchrony and Diachrony, edited by Jurie H. Le Roux and Eckart Otto, 71-89.
New York: T&T Clark, 2007.
Stone, Michael E. “The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century B.C.E.”
Stordalen, T. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical
Hebrew Literature. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 25. Leuven,
Belgium: Peeters, 2000.
Strack, H. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark,
1991.
Strazicich, John. Joel’s Use of Scripture and Scripture’s Use of Joel: Appropriation and
Resignification in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity. Biblical
Interpretation Series 82. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Strong, John. “Shattering the Image of God: A Response to Theodore Hiebert’s

Interpretation of the Story of the Tower of Babel.” Journal of Biblical Literature
127 (2008): 625-34.
Struthers, Elizabeth, and Malbon Adele Berlin. “Characterization in Biblical Literature.”

Semeia 63 (1993): 1-226.
Stuart, Douglas K. “Exegesis.” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel
________. Hosea–Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary 31. Dallas: Word, 2002.
357
________. Exodus. New American Commentary 2. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman,
2007.
________. Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors. 3rd ed.
Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001.
Sullivan, Kevin. Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship Between Angels and
Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament. Arbeiten zur
Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 55. Leiden: Brill,
2004.
Sulzbach, Carla. “Nebuchadnezzar in Eden? Daniel 4 and Ezekiel 28.” In Stimulation

from Leiden: Collected Communications to the XVIIth Congress of the
International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, edited by Hermann
Michael Niemann and Matthias Augustin, 125-36. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang, 2006.
Süring, Margit Linnéa. “The Horn-Motifs in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East.”
Sweeney, Marvin A. “The End of Eschatology in Daniel? Theological and Socio-Political

Ramifications of the Changing Contexts of Interpretation.” In Form and
Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature, edited by Bernd Janowski
and Mark S. Smith, 248-61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
________. Tanak: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.
Swiggers, Pierre. “Babel and the Confusion of Tongues (Genesis 11:1-9).” In Mythos im
Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt, 182-195. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999.
Szold, Benjamin. “The Eleventh Chapter of the Book of Daniel.” In Semitic Studies in
Memory of A. Kohut, edited by G. A. Kohut, 573-600. Berlin: Calvary, 1897.
Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Daniel.” In The Literary Guide to the Bible, edited by Robert
Alter and Frank Kermode, 343-56. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard
Tanner, Beth LaNeel. The Book of Psalms through the Lens of Intertextuality. Studies in
Biblical Literature 26. New York: Peter Lang, 2001.
Taylor, John B. Ezekiel: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament

Commentary 22. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1969.
Taylor, William M. Daniel: The Beloved. New York: Doran, 1919.
358
Thomas, D. W. “A Consideration of Some Unusual Ways of Expressing the Superlative
in Hebrew.” Vetus Testamentum 3 (1953): 209-224.
Thompson, Thomas. The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel. Sheffield: JSSOT Press,
1987.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press, 1982.
Torrey, C. C. “Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel.” Transactions of the Connecticut

Academy of Arts and Sciences 15 (1909): 241-82.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2001.
Towner, W. Sibley. Genesis. Word Biblical Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster

John Knox Press, 2001.
________. Daniel. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching.

Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984.
________. “Daniel 1 in the Context of the Canon.” In Canon, Theology, and Old
Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs, edited by Gene
M. Tucker, David L. Petersen, and Robert R. Wilson, 285-98. Philadelphia, PA:
________. “The Poetic Passages of Daniel 1-6.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 (1969):
317-26.
Treiyer, Alberto R. The Day of Atonement and the Heavenly Judgment: From the
Pentateuch to Revelation. Siloam Springs, AR: Creation Enterprises International,
1992.
Tsumura, D. “A Ugaritic God, MT-W-SR, and His Two Weapons.” Ugarit-Forschungen

6 (1974): 407-13.
Tucker, Gene M. “Sin and “Judgment” in the Prophets.” In Problems in Biblical

Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim, edited by Henry T. C. Sun and Keith
I. Eades, 373-88. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997.
Tull, Patricia. “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures.” Currents in Research: Biblical
Studies 8 (2000): 59-90.
Turner, Laurence A. Announcements of Plot in Genesis. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press, 1990.
359
________. Back to the Present: Encountering Genesis in the 21st Century. Grantham,
England: Autumn House, 2004.
________. Genesis. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
________. “Genesis, Book of.” Dictionary of Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T.

Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2003:350-59.
Ulrich, Eugene C. “Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran, Part 1: A Preliminary Edition of

4QDan.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 268 (1987): 17-
37.
Valentine, James. “Theological Aspects of the Temple Motif in the Old Testament and
Revelation.” PhD diss., Boston University, 1985.
Valeta, David M. Lions and Ovens and Visions: A Satirical Reading of Daniel 1-6.
Hebrew Bible Monographs 12. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008.
Van der Horst, Peter. “Nimrod after the Bible.” In Essays on the Jewish World of Early
Christianity, 220-32. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, 1990.
Van der Merwe, Christo, et al. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Van der Toorn, Karel. “The Iconic Book: Analogies between the Babylonian Cult of
Images and the Veneration of the Torah.” In The Image and the Book: Iconic
Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East,
edited by Karel van der Toorn, 229-48. Bondgenotenlaan: Uitgeverij Peeters,
1997.
________. “In the Lions’ Den: The Babylonian Background of a Biblical Motif.”
________. “Scholars at the Oriental Court: The Figure of Daniel against Its
Mesopotamian Background.” In The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception,
edited by John Joseph Collins and Peter W. Flint, 39-54. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Van Deventer, Hans. “Another Wise Queen (Mother)—Women’s Wisdom in Daniel

5.10-12?” In Prophets and Daniel: Feminist Companion to the Bible, edited by
Athalya Brenner, 247-61. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
________. “The Bold, the Beautiful and the Beasts in the Book of Daniel.” Scriptura 90
(2005): 722-30.
360
________. “The End of the End, or, What Is the Deuteronomist (Still) Doing in Daniel?”
In Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets, edited
by Johannes C. de Moor and Harry F. van Rooy, 62-75. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Van Henten, Jan Willem. “Daniel 3 and 6 in Early Christian Literature.” In The Book of
Daniel: Composition and Reception, edited by John Joseph Collins and Peter W.
Flint, 149-69. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
________. “The Reception of Daniel 3 and 6 and the Maccabean Martyrdoms in Hebrews
11:33-38.” In Myths, Martyrs, and Modernity: Studies in the History of Religions
in Honour of Jan N. Bremmer, edited by Jitse Dijkstra, Justin Kroesen, and Yme
Kuiper, 359-77. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Van Selms, A. “The Name Nebuchadnezzar.” In Travels in the World of the Old
Testament: Studies Presented to Professor M. A. Beek on the Occasion of His
65th Birthday, edited by M. S. H. G. Heerma van Voss et al. Assen, The
Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1974.
Van Seter, John. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1975.
Van Wolde, E. J. “Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar
Narratives.” Biblical Interpretation 5 (1997): 1-28.
________. Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1-11. Leiden: Brill,
1994.
VanderKam, James. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. Catholic

Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 16. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical
Association of America, 1984.
Vassar, John S. Recalling a Story Once Told: An Intertextual Reading of the Psalter and
the Pentateuch. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2007.
Venter, P. M. “A Study of Space in Daniel 1.” Old Testament Essays 19 (2006): 993-
1004.
Vincent, Albert. La Religion des Judéo-Araméennes d’Eléphantine. Paris: Paul Geuthner,

1937.
Vincent, L.-H. “De la tour de Babel au temple.” Revue biblique 53 (1946): 403-40.
Visotzky, Burton L. “Midrash.” The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by
361
Vogel, Winfried. “The Cultic Motif in Space and Time in the Book of Daniel.” PhD diss.,
Andrews University, 1999.
________. The Cultic Motif in the Book of Daniel. New York: Peter Lang, 2010.
Vogt, E. Lexicon linguae Aramaicae Veteris Testamenti documentis antiquis illustratum.

Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1971.
Von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1972.
________. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1966.
________. “‫יהוה מלאך‬.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G.

Kittel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964. 1:76-80.
Vriezen, T. C., and A. S. van der Woude. Ancient Israelite and Early Jewish Literature.
Waetjen, Herman C. “Millenarism, God’s Reign, and Daniel as the Bar Enash.” In To
Break Every Yoke: Essays in Honor of Marvin L. Chaney, edited by Robert B.
Coote et al., 236-61. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007.
Waltke, Bruce K., and Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2001.
Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Waltke, Bruce K., and Charles Yu. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical,
Canonical, and Thematic Approach. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007.
Walton, John H. “The Anzu Myth as Relevant Background for Daniel 7?” In The Book of
Daniel: Composition and Reception, edited by John Joseph Collins and Peter W.
Flint, 69-89. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
________. “The Decree of Darius the Mede in Daniel 6.” Journal of the Evangelical
________. “The Four Kingdoms of Daniel.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological

Society 29 (1986): 25-36.
________. “Genesis.” Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Zondervan

Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. Edited by J. H.
Walton. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009. 1:1-159.
362
________. “The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its
Implications.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 5 (1995): 155-75.
________. “The Tower of Babel.” PhD diss., Hebrew Union College, 1981.
Walton, John H., Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas. The IVP Bible
Background Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2000.
Walvoord, John F. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation. Chicago: Moody Press,
1971.
Watson, Daniel R. “The Writing on the Wall: A Study of the Belshazzar Narrative.” PhD
diss., Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 2004.
Watts, John D. W. “Babylonian Idolatry in the Prophets as a False Socio-Economic

System.” In Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K.
Harrison, edited by Avraham Gileadi, 115-22. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988.
Weinfeld, M. “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the LORD: The Problem of the
Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1-2:2.” In Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en
l’honneur de H. Cazelles, edited by A. Caquot and M. Delcor, 501-12. Kevelaer:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1981.
________. “The Worship of Molech and of the Queen of Heaven and Its Background.”
Ugarit-Forschungen 4 (1972): 133-54.
Wenham, G. J. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary 1. Dallas: Word, 1998.
________. Genesis 16-50. Word Biblical Commentary 2. Dallas: Word, 2002.
________. Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament

Commentaries 4. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981.
________. “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story.” In I Studied Inscriptions

from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic
Approaches to Genesis 1-11, edited by Richard S. Hess and David Toshio
Tsumura, 399-404. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994.
Wesselius, J. W. “Discontinuity, Congruence and the Making of the Hebrew Bible.”

Scandinavian Journal for the Old Testament 13 (1999): 24-77.
________. “Language and Style in Biblical Aramaic: Observations on the Unity of

Daniel II-VI.” Vetus Testament 38 (1988): 194-209.
363
________. “The Literary Nature of the Book of Daniel and the Linguistic Character of Its
Aramaic.” Aramaic Studies 3 (2005): 241-83.
Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.
________. Genesis 12-36. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995.
________. Elements of Old Testament Theology. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.
________. The Promises to the Fathers: Studies on the Patriarchal Narratives.

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.
Westphal, G. “‫השמים צבא‬.” In Orientalische Studien Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten

Geburtstag (2. März 1906) gewidmet von Freunden und Schülern, edited by C.
Bezold, 2, 719-28. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1906.
Weyde, Karl William. “Inner-biblical Interpretation: Methodological Reflections on the

Relationship between Texts in the Hebrew Bible.” Svensk exegetisk arsbok 70
(2005): 287-300.
Whitcomb, John Clement. Daniel. Everyman’s Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody

Press, 1985.
________. Darius the Mede: A Study in Historical Identification. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1959.
White, R. T. “The House of Peleg in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In A Tribute to Geza Vermes,
edited by P. Davies and R. White, 67-98. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990.
Widengren, G. The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion. Uppsala:
Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1951.
Widyapranawa, S. H. The Lord Is Savior: Faith in National Crisis: A Commentary on the

Book of Isaiah 1-39. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: MI:
Eerdmans, 1990.
Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Resolute (Daniel): Determining to Go God’s Direction.

Colorado Springs, CO: Victor, 2000.
Wildberger, H. Isaiah 13-27. Continental Commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press,

1997.
Willett, Herbert. “Daniel.” The Abingdon Bible Commentary. Edited by Frederick Carl
Eiselen. New York: Abingdon, 1929:746-58.
364
Willey, Patricia Tull. Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts
in Second Isaiah. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997.
Williams, Ronald J. Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. 2d ed. Toronto: University of Toronto

Press, 1976.
Willis, Amy C. Merrill. Dissonance and the Drama of Divine Sovereignty in the Book of
Daniel. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2010.
Willis, Timothy M. “Name, Naming.” The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.
Edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009. 4:217-19.
Wills, Lawrence M. The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court
Legends. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 26. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
Wilson, R. D. “MNH, ‘To Appoint’ in the Old Testament.” Princeton Theological

Review 16 (1918): 645-54.
Wilson, Walter T. “Translating the Tower: Genesis 11 and Ancient Jewish

Interpretation.” PhD diss., Emory University, 2008.
Wilson, William Norris. “The Theological and Symbolic Significance of Babylon in the
Pentateuch and the Prophets.” PhD diss., Queen’s University, Belfast, 2006.
Wilton, Patrick. “More Cases of Waw Explicativum.” Vetus Testament 44 (1994): 125-28.
Wiseman, D. J. Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum.

London, Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.
________. Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. Schweich Lectures 1983. Oxford: Oxford

________. “Peleg.” The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J.D. Douglas. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1962: 957.
________. “Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel.” In Notes on Some

Problems in the Book of Daniel, edited by D. J. Wiseman et al., 9-18. London:
Tyndale, 1965.
Wiseman, D. J., et al. Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. London: Tyndale,
1965.
Wolf, G. Umhau. “Daniel and the Lord’s Prayer: A Synthesis of the Theology of the
Book of Daniel.” Interpretation 15 (1961): 398-410.
Wolff, H. W. Jesaja 53 im Urchristentum. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1950.
365
Wolters, Al. “Belshazzar’s Feast and the Cult of the Moon God Sîn.” Bulletin for Biblical
Research 5 (1995): 199-206.
________. “Untying the King’s Knots: Physiology and Wordplay in Daniel 5.” Journal
of Biblical Literature 110 (1991): 117-22.
Wood, Leon James. A Commentary on Daniel. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973.
Wooden, R. Glenn. “Changing Perceptions of Daniel: Reading Daniel 4 and 5 in

Context.” In From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith: Essays in Honor of Lee
Martin Mcdonald, edited by William H. Brackney and Craig A. Evans, 9-23.
Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2007.
Woods, Clyde M., and Justin Rogers. Leviticus-Numbers. The College Press NIV
Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 2006.
Wright, G. Ernest. Biblical Archaeology. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962.
________. The Literary Genre Midrash. Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1967.
________. “The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East Part III: The
Temple in Palestine-Syria.” Biblical Archaeologist 7 (1944): 65-77.
Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. London: SPCK, 1992.
Würthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia
Hebraica. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.
Yamauchi, Edwin M. “Daniel and Contacts Between the Aegean and the Near East
Before Alexander.” Evangelical Quarterly 53 (1981): 37-47.
________. Greece and Babylon: Early Contacts between the Aegean and the Near East.
________. “Greece and Babylon Revisited.” In To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in

Honor of William H. Shea, edited by David Merling, 127-35. Berrien Springs, MI:
Andrews University Press, 1997.
________. “The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near
East.” In New Perspectives on the Old Testament, edited by J. Barton Payne, 170-
200. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1970.
Young, E. J. The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,

1949.
366
Youngblood, R. The Heart of the Old Testament: A Survey of Key Theological Themes.
Zadok, Ran. “The Origin of the Name Shinar.” Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie 74 (1984):
240-44.
Zakovitch, Yair. “And You Shall Tell Your Son . . . ”: The Concept of the Exodus in the
Bible. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University.
________. “Juxtaposition in the Abraham Cycle.” In Pomegranates and Golden Bells:

Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in
Honor of Jacob Milgrom, edited by David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and
Avi Hurvitz, 509-24. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995.
________. “Inner-biblical Interpretation.” In A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in

Early Judaism, edited by Matthias Henze, 27-63. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2012.
________. “Through the Looking Glass: Reflections/Inversions of Genesis Stories in the

Bible.” Biblical Interpretation 1 (1993): 139-52.
Zalcman, Lawrence. “Intertextuality at Nahum 1:7.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche

Wissenschaft 116 (2004): 611-15.
Zeitlin, S. “Midrash: A Historical Study.” Jewish Quarterly Review 44 (1953): 21-36.
Zerbe, Gordon. “‘Pacifism’ and ‘Passive Resistance’ in Apocalyptic Writings: A Critical

Evaluation.” In The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, edited by
J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans, 65-95. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Vol. 2.
Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.
Zimmermann, F. “The Writing on the Wall.” Jewish Quarterly Review 55 (1964-65):

201-07.
Zöckler, Otto. The Book of the Prophet Daniel. New York: Charles Scribner, 1890.
367

Báez, Enrique - Tesis Gen. 11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Báez, Enrique - Tesis Gen. 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABSTRACT

ALLUSIONS TO GENESIS 11:1-9 IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL: AN

EXEGETICAL AND INTERTEXTUAL STUDY

Adviser: Jacques B. Doukhan

Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary

Title: ALLUSIONS TO GENESIS 11:1-9 IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL: AN

Name of researcher: Enrique Báez

Name and degrees of faculty adviser: Jacques B. Doukhan, D.H.L., Th.D.

Date completed: June 2013

“uncertain allusions,” and “nonallusions.”

Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary

ALLUSIONS TO GENESIS 11:1-9 IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL

AN EXEGETICAL AND INTERTEXTUAL STUDY

Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

AN EXEGETICAL AND INTERTEXTUAL STUDY

APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE:

Faculty Adviser, Director, PhD in Religion

Jiri Moskala Dean, SDA Theological Seminary

Tremper Longman III Date approved

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................... vii

Background to the Problem .............................................................................. 1

II. ALLUSIONS TO GENESIS 11:1-9 IN DANIEL 1-6............................................. 34

III. ALLUSIONS TO GENESIS 11:1-9 IN DANIEL 7-12........................................... 190

IV. THEOLOGICAL ROLE OF BABEL IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL ...................... 251

ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary

ACNT Augsburg Commentaries on the New Testament

AcT Acta theologica

AFO Archiv für Orientforschung

AJSLL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature

AnBib Analecta biblica

AOTC Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries

APetB Acta Patristica et Byzantina

ArS Aramaic Studies

ATSDS Adventist Theological Society Dissertation Series

ATSP Adventist Theological Society Publications

AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BChBC Believers Church Bible Commentary

BCOTWP Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms

BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

BLS Bible and Literature Series

BNC The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BT The Bible Translator

BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin

BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

BZNT Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBMH Comentario Bíblico Mundo Hispano

ChrArt Christianity and the Arts

ChrCent Christian Century

ClassPh Classical Philology

ComHS A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures

ConC Concordia Commentary

ConJ Concordia Journal

CPNIVOTI College Press NIV Commentary Old Testament Introduction

CriS Cristianismo y sociedad

CTJ Calvin Theological Journal

CTQ Concordia Theological Quarterly

DARCOM Daniel and Revelation Committee Series