ApOLLOS OLD TESTAMENT

COMMENTARY

20

--
.:_\:. .

.:~
_.-;,,-- -. -
\

TITLES IN THIS SERIES ,'.':.:'

DEUTERONOMY,]. G. McConville
DAN IE L, Ernest Lucas

DANIEL
Series Editors
David W. Baker and Gordon]. Wenham

ERNEST LUCAS
Apollos
Leicester, England
InterVarsity Press
Downers Grove, Illinois 60515
APOLLOS CONTENTS
An imprint of Inter-Varsity Press
38 De Montfort Street, Leicester LEl 7GP, England
Email: ivp@uccf.org.uk
Website: www.ivpbooks.com
Editors' preface 7
INTERVARSITY PRESS
PO Box 1400, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515, USA Author's preface 9
Email: mail@ivpress.com 11
Abbreviations
Website: www.ivpress.com

© Ernest Lucas 2002 Introduction 17

1. Texts and versions 19
Ernest Lucas has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act,
1.1. The Hebrew and Aramaic text 19
1988, to be identified as Author of this work.
1.2. The Greek versions 19
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a 1.3. Other versions 20
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, 1.4. Text-critical guidelines 21
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission 21
2. Translation
of the publisher or the Copyright Licensing Agency.
3. Interpreting Daniell - 6 22
First published 2002 3.1. Types of literature and interpretation 22
3.2. Understanding stories 27
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
3.3. Learning from stories 29
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
4. Interpreting Daniel's visions 31
UK ISBN 0-85111-780-5 31
4.1. Visions and dreams
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 4.2. Daniel 7 - 8 and symbolic visions 32
This data has been requested. 4.3. The form of Daniel 9; 10 - 12 35
5. The historical context of the book of Daniel 37
US ISBN 0-8308-780-5
Dates relevant to understanding the book of Daniel 44
Set in Sabon 10/12pt
Typeset in Great Britain by CRB Associates, Reepham, Norfolk Text and commentary 45
Printed and bound in Great Britain by Creative Print & Design Group
(EbbwVale) Epilogue 306
1. Date 306
1.1. Historical inaccuracies 306
1.2. Linguistic arguments 307
1.3. Daniel and predictive prophecy 308
1.4. Daniel: prophecy or apocalypse? 309
1.5. Daniel and the Hebrew canon 311
1.6. Conclusion 312
2. Composition and authorship 312

02 2660. 3. A theological epilogue 315

Appendix: The Additions to Daniel 317
1. The Prayer of Azariah and The Song of the Three Young
Men 318
2. Bel and the Serpent 321
EDITORS' PREFACE
3. Susanna 324
Bibliography 327 The Apollos Old Testament Commentary takes its name from the
Index of references to Scripture and related literature 340 Alexandrian Jewish Christian who was able to impart his great learning
fervently and powerfully through his teaching (Acts 18:24-25). He ably
Index of authors 352 applied his understanding of past events to his contemporary society. This
Index of subjects 357 series seeks to do the same, keeping one foot firmly planted in the universe
of the original text and the other in that of the target audience, which
consists of preachers, teachers and students of the Bible. The series editors
have selected scholars who are adept in both areas, exhibiting scholarly
excellence along with practical insight for application.
Translators need to be at home with the linguistic practices and
semantic nuances of both the original and target languages in order to be
able to transfer the full impact of the one into the other. Commentators,
however, serve as interpreters of the text rather than simply as its
translators. They also need to adopt a dual stance, though theirs needs to
be even more solidly and diversely anchored than that of translators. On
the one hand, they too must have the linguistic competence to produce
their own excellent translations; they must, moreover, be fully conversant
with the literary conventions, sociological and cultural practices, historical
background and understanding and theological perspectives of those who
produced the text as well as of those whom it concerned. On the other
hand, they must also understand their own times and culture, and be able
to see where relevance for the original audience is transferable to that of
current readers. For this to be accomplished, it is necessary not only to
interpret the text, but also to interpret the audience.
Traditionally, commentators have been content to highlight and
expound the ancient text. More recently, the need for an anchor in the
present day has also become more evident, and this series self-consciously
adopts this approach, combining both. Each author analyses the original
text through a new translation, textual notes and a discussion of the
literary form, structure and background of the passage, as well as
commenting on elements of its exegesis. A study of the passage's
interpretational development in Scripture and the church concludes each
section, serving to bring the passage home to the modern reader. What we
intend, therefore, is to provide not only tools of excellence for the
academy, but also tools of function for the pulpit.

David W. Baker
Gordon J. Wenham

7
AUTHOR'S PREFACE

This commentary is written primarily for those who have the respons-
ibility of teaching and preaching the Bible, particularly those who do it in
a Christian context. Having the needs of this readership in mind has
shaped the commentary in various ways. The 'Notes on the text' are
intended not to be exhaustive, but only to deal with those issues of textual
criticism, grammar and semantics that are particularly significant for
establishing and understanding the Hebrew and Aramaic text.
The rest of the commentary deals primarily with the form of the text as
we now have it. There are three reasons for this. First, after careful study,
it is not clear to me that we can recover earlier forms of the traditions
behind the present stories and vision accounts with any reasonable degree
of certainty. It is only when earlier forms of the traditions can be recovered
with some certainty, enabling scholars to understand how the traditions
developed, that they can be used constructively in teaching and preaching
in the church or synagogue, as distinct from being the focus of academic
discussion and debate in the lecture theatre. Secondly, the stories and
vision accounts seem to be carefully crafted in the form in which we now
have them, and the integrity of that form deserves to be recognized and
studied. Thirdly, it is the final form of the text that is considered to be of
most significance for those who accept the Hebrew Bible as part of their
canonical Scriptures.
The attempt to discern the form and structure of the stories and vision
accounts is not a purely academic exercise in literary criticism (though
there is value in simply appreciating the artistry displayed in them); it is one
means of opening up the meaning of the text. The way a text is structured
can highlight its major concerns. The use made of particular words or
phrases can also be significant pointers in this regard. The 'Comment'
sections build on the insights gained in the study of 'Form and structure'
and seek to dig deeper into the meaning of the text, examining in some
detail various issues that arise from the text. Finally, in the 'Explanation'
sections the focus moves from the detail to the major theological issues
raised in the text. These are discussed primarily within their biblical and
historical context, but giving consideration to their implications for today.
There is no attempt at detailed application to our contemporary context,
because that will differ considerably in different situations, and each
teacher or preacher has the responsibility of making that application for
his or her own audience. The aim of this commentary is to provide a solid
basis in the understanding of the text from which this can be done.

Q
10 DANIEL

Two major commentaries on Daniel, by J. E. Goldingay (Word Biblical

Commentary, 1989) and J. J. Collins (Hermeneia, 1993), between them
provide more detailed introductions and more exhaustive bibliographies
than are provided in this commentary. Given the aims of this work, it ABBREVIATIONS
seemed both unnecessary and inappropriate to duplicate what is already
available in these commentaries, both of which are indispensable sources
for a detailed study of Daniel. It will be clear to the user of this volume
that it is deeply indebted to them. TEXTUAL
Several people have contributed to the production of this commentary
in various ways down the years, and to them I wish to express my thanks. 1QDan fragmentary texts of Daniel from Qumran Cave 1
Professor Alan Millard, who supervised my doctoral studies on Daniel at 4QDan fragmentary texts of Daniel from Qumran Cave 4
the University of Liverpool, taught me Akkadian and introduced me to the 6QDan fragmentary papyrus text of Daniel from Qumran Cave 6
material available in Akkadian that provides a valuable context for Akk. Akkadian
understanding the book. The Tyndale Fellowship awarded me a research Aq Aquila'S Greek translation of Daniel
grant, which helped to fund my doctoral studies. Of course, there would Aram. Aramaic
have been no commentary but for the Series Editors' invitation to write it. BHS K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (eds.), Biblia Hebraica Stutt-
I am thankful to them for that opportunity, and particularly to Professor gartensia, 2nd ed., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1977
Gordon Wenham for his helpful comments on its draft form. Thanks are CD Qumran Damascus Document
also due to IVP for taking on its publication, and for the editorial work CDC Cairo Genizah Documents of the Damascus Covenanters
done by Philip Duce and Jo BramwelL I want to thank my wife Hazel and Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah
our sons Craig and Stuart for the support they gave throughout the years Gk. Greek
spent writing the commentary. Above all, this volume is dedicated to HB Hebrew Bible
Hazel for the love, support and encouragement she has always given me, Hebr. Hebrew
but especially during the years of doctoral research and then the writing of K Kethibh (the written Hebrew text)
this work. Luc Lucian's Greek translation of Daniel
LXX Septuagint
Ernest Lucas MS(S) manuscript(s)
MT Masoretic Text (as published in BHS)
OG Old Greek
OL Old Latin
OP Old Persian
pap. papyrus
pesh. pesher
Pesh Peshitta (Old Syriac)
Q Qere (the Hebrew text to be read out)
Syh Syra-Hexapla
Sym Symmachus' Greek translation of Daniel
Syr Syriac version of Daniel
Vg Vulgate
vss versions
Zeigler J. Zeigler, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum
XVII2: Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, 2nd ed.,
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999
8 Theodotion's Greek translation of Daniel

11
 12 DANIEL
ABBREVIATIONS 13

ARAMAIC AND HEBREW GRAMMAR

lit. literally
fern. feminine n(n). note(s)
info infinitive NEB New English Bible
masc. masculine NRSV New Revised Standard Version
pi. piel NT New Testament
pi. plural OT Old Testament
ptc. participle p(p). page(s)
sg. singular rev. revised (by)
RSV Revised Standard Version
RV Revised Version
ANCIENT WORKS trans. translated (by)
v(v). verse(s)
Adv. Haer. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses
Ant. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews
2 Apoc. Bar. 2 Apocalypse of Baruch (Syriac Baruch) JOURNALS, REFERENCE WORKS, SERIES
Apoc. Elijah Apocalypse of Elijah
Contra Ap. Josephus, Contra Apionem AB Anchor Bible
Hist. Herodotus, Polybius, Histories ABD D. N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols.,
Jerome Jerome's Commentary on Daniel, trans. G. Archer, New York: Doubleday, 1992
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1958 AfO Archiv fur Orientforshung
Jub. Jubilees AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature
m. Ber. Mishnah, Berakah ANET J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating
1,2 Mace. 1, 2 Maccabees to the Old Testament, 3rd ed., Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Praep. Ev. Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica University Press, 1969
Syb. Or. Sybilline Oracle(s) AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies
Syr. Appian, Syriake BA Biblical Archaeologist
T. Levi Testament of Levi BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
T. Moses Testament of Moses Bauer & H. Bauer and P. Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch··
T. Naphtali Testament of Naphtali Leander Aramiiischen, Halle: Niemeyer, 1927
T. Reuben Testament of Reuben BCBC Believers Church Bible Commentary
Wis. Wisdom of Solomon BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs (eds.), A Hebrew
and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford:
Clarendon, 1979.
MISCELLANEOUS BSac Bibliotheca sacra
CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary
ANE Ancient Near East(ern) CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
AV Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible CB Century Bible
cent(s). century/ies CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
ch(s). chapter(s) CP Classical Philology
ed(s). edited by; editors; edition CTA A. Herdner (ed.), Corpus des tablettes en cuneiformes
esp. especially alpha betiques decouvertes a Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929
EVV English versions a 1939, Paris: Guethner, 1963
GNB Good News Bible CW Christentum und Wissenschaft
JB Jerusalem Bible DJD Discoveries in the Judean Desert
DSB Daily Study Bible
 14 DANIEL ABBREVIATIONS 15

EvQ Evangelical Quarterly NCB New Century Bible

FoiVie Foi et vie NIDOTTE W. A. VanGemeren (ed.), New International Dictionary
FOTL Forms of Old Testament Literature of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, 5 vols., Grand
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Rapids, MI: Zondervan; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997
Neuen Testaments NTS New Testament Studies
GC Geneva Commentaries OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology
GKC E. Kautzsch (ed.), Gesenius' Hebrew Grammer, 2nd ed. on Old Testament Library
(rev. and trans. A. E. Cowley), Oxford: Clarendon, OtSt Oudtestamentische Studien
1990 PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
HDR Harvard Dissertations in Religion PTA Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen
HO Handbuch der Orientalistik RB Revue biblique
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs RevQ Revue de Qumran
HR History of Religions Rosenthal F. Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic,
HTS Harvard Theological Studies Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1974
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual SAA State Archives of Assyria
IB G. A. Buttrick et al. (eds.), The Interpreter's Bible, SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
12 vols., Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1952-57 SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
ICC International Critical Commentary SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature, Septuagint and Cognate
IDB G. A. Buttrick et al. (eds.), Interpreter's Dictionary of the Studies
Bible, 4 vols., Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962 SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
IDBSup K. Crim (ed.), Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
Supplementary Volume, Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1976 SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
lOS Israel Oriental Studies SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
ITC International Theological Commentary Stevenson W. B. Stevenson, Grammar of Palestinian Jewish
JA Journal asiatique Aramaic, 3rd ed., Oxford: Clarendon, 1962
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society StPB Studia post-biblica
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature StTh Studia theologica
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies StudOr Studia orientalia
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society SVT Studia in Veteris Testamenti
llS Journal of Jewish Studies SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies TAPS Transactions of the American Philosophical Society
Jotion P. Jotion, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2 vols. (trans. TBC Torch Bible Commentaries
and rev. T. Muraoka), Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, TCS Texts from Cuneiform Sources
1966 TDNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review of the New Testament, 10 vols., (trans. G. W. Bromiley),
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-76.
Hellenistic and Roman Periods TGUOS Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement TTZ Trierer theologische Zeitschrift
Series TynB Tyndale Bulletin
JSPSuP Journal for the Study of the Psdeudepigrapha, Supplement VT Vetus Testamentum
Series VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements
JTS Journal of Theological Studies Waltke & B. K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to
KPG Knox Preaching Guides O'Connor Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
LBBC Layman's Bible Book Commentary 1990
16 DANIEL

WEC Word Biblical Commentary

WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament
WTJ Westminster Theological Journal
ZA Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie
ZAW Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

INTRODUCTION

In the form in which it appears in the HB and in the Protestant canon of

the Christian Bible, the book of Daniel is part of a wider 'Daniel
literature'. The Greek form of the book, which goes back to the pre-
Christian era, contains additional material. The Prayer of Azariah and
the Song of the Three Young Men are added to ch. 3, as prayers uttered
by the Jews while in the fiery furnace. In Theodotion's version the story of
Susanna appears before Dan. 1. In the other Greek versions it is added
after ch. 12, sometimes before and sometimes after the pair of stories
known as Bel and the Dragon (or Serpent). These Greek additions are
considered apocryphal by Jews and Protestants, but deuterocanonical by
Roman Catholics. This commentary is concerned primarily with the form
of the book found in the HB. An English translation of the Greek additions
is provided as an appendix so that they are readily available to the users of
the commentary.
Four fragmentary Aramaic texts found at Qumran also belong to this
wider literature (see Brooke & VanderKam [eds.] 1996). 4Q243-244
seems to be a court tale about Daniel which includes an apocalyptic survey
of Israel's history. 4QpsDanc mentions Daniel and a book and gives lists of
priests and kings that span the history of Israel, concluding with an
eschatological finale. 4QpsDand does not actually mention Daniel, but
refers to 'the son of man' and 'the son of the Most High', suggesting a
relationship with Dan. 7. 4QPrNab is a story about Nabonidus which has
some similarity to Dan. 4, though Daniel is not named in it.
18 DANIEL
The book of Daniel is in many ways an enigma. It is made up of two
different kinds of material: stories about Judean exiles working in the
court of pagan kings (chs. 1 - 6) and accounts of visions experienced by
one of these exiles (chs. 7 - 12). It is written in two languages: Hebrew
(1:1 - 2:4a and chs. 8 - 12) and Aramaic (2:4b - 7:28). The language
division does not match the division into stories and vision accounts. In
the Christian Bible, Daniel is numbered with the Old Testament prophets.
In the HB, it comes in the third section of the canon, 'The Writings'.
Related to this difference is the ongoing debate about whether the book's
affinities lie more with the Hebrew prophets or with the later Jewish
apocalypses, not to mention its affinities with the wisdom traditions of
both Israel and Babylon. Discussion of these enigmas inevitably involves
discussion of the unity of the book, its authorship, the date of its
composition and issues of historicity.
Most commentaries discuss these issues in some depth in an 'Introduc-
tion', and the conclusions reached there then guide the way the text is
read. Sometimes the commentary then becomes an attempt to justify
the conclusions. This is a valid academic exercise, but would not serve the
purpose of this commentary well. The postponement of much of the usual
'Introduction' material to an 'Epilogue' is intended as an invitation to
approach the text in a different way: in the way in which the commentary
actually came into being. I approached the text with the issues outlined in
the previous paragraph in mind, but attempting to keep options open
while garnering relevant evidence from the text. This evidence is pulled
together in the Epilogue in order to try to resolve the enigmas as far as
possible. Not surprisingly, along the way some of the conclusions
expressed in the Epilogue begin to appear, as decisions are made about
how to interpret the text. However, it is hoped that the reasons for those
decisions arise from the text, and are explained clearly, rather than that
the decisions are imposed upon it. So the user of the commentary is invited
to join the commentator in investigating the meaning of the text, rather
than being conducted on a tour of it that is intended to justify a particular
set of conclusions about it.
An interesting aspect of this study has been the realization that, to a
considerable extent, the theological meaning of the stories and visions in
Daniel is not closely tied up with decisions about the issues traditionally
dealt with in the Introduction. The rest of this Introduction will deal with
matters that are directly related to the interpretation of the text.
INTRODUCTION 19
1. TEXTS AND VERSIONS
1.1. The Hebrew and Aramaic text
Montgomery (1927: 12) comments that the MT of Daniel has an unusual
amount of variation both in the K and the Q and in variant readings of the
MS. Many of the variants correspond to those found in the vss.
Eight fragmentary MSS of Daniel have been identified from Qumran. The
oldest of these, 4QDanc , comes from the late second century BC (Ulrich
1987: 17), and the most recent from the last phase of the occupation of
Qumran in the first century AD (Trever 1970). The change from Hebrew to
Aramaic at 2:4b is attested in 1QDanb (Barthelemy & Milik [eds.] 1955:
150-151), and the change from Hebrew to Aramaic at 8:1 is attested in
4QDan a and 4QDan b • The text of ch. 3 in 1QDanb and 4QDand did not
contain the prayers found in the vss (Ulrich 1987: 18).
Collins (1993: 3) sums up the evidence from the Qumran texts by
saying, 'On the whole, the Qumran discoveries provide powerful evidence
of the antiquity of the textual tradition of the MT.'
1.2. The Greek versions
Jerome, writing at the end of the fourth century, says that in Christian use
the Septuagint (LXX) text of Daniel was replaced by Theodotion's version
(e) because the former differed so widely from the Hebrew and Aramaic
text (see quotation in Collins 1993: 3-4). What Jerome called the LXX text
is now usually referred to as the Old Greek (OG), because its relationship
to the LXX versions of other books, especially the Pentateuch, is unclear. Its
rejection was so complete that only three witnesses to this text are known.
Codex Chisianus (MS 88) comes from about the tenth century. It represents
the recension of the OG found in Origen's Hexapla. The literalistic
translation of the Syro-Hexapla is also a witness to this same form of the
OG text. Papyrus 967, now divided between Dublin (Chester Beatty
Library), Cologne and Barcelona, comes from the third century AD and
contains most of Daniel in a pre-Hexaplaric form of the OG text. It places
chs. 7 - 8 before chs. 4 - 5, presumably to put the chapters in the correct
chronological order. The OG does differ considerably from the MT,
especially in chs. 4 - 6. The reasons for this (free translation, incorporation
of glosses, a different Semitic text-base) are still a matter of debate. The
OG is usually dated to about 100 BC (Montgomery 1927: 38).
The text attributed to Theodotion replaced the OG around about AD 200
(Hartman & Di LelIa 1978: 78-79). It is a literalistic translation of a text
close to the MT. Theodotion is traditionally thought to have lived towards
the end of the second century AD. However, a number of citations of
Daniel in the New Testament follow the e text rather than the OG (see

20 DANIEL
examples in Hartman & Di LelIa 1978: 80). This has led to the suggestion
of a pre-Christian 'proto-Theodotion', whose work was revised in the
second century. Others would break the link with Theodotion of the
second century and argue that the 8 text of Daniel was a either a new
translation or a major revision of the OG that brought it more into line
with the proto-MT, made in the first century Be.
The translations of Aquila (Aq) and Symmachus (Sym) are known from
the Syro-Hexapla and patristic quotations. They are literalistic renderings
of a Semitic text close to the MT. Their differences from the MT are so slight
that they contribute little to the critical study of the text except as witness
to the fixation of the MT form (Montgomery 1927: 28). The Lucianic
Recension is a revision of Theodotion's text, drawing on the OG, and
possibly Aquila and Symmachus. It was made in the late second century AD
(Zeigler 53-56).
1.3. Other versions
The Old Latin (OL) vss, namely those which pre-date Jerome's work, are
known from patristic citations and a few fragmentary MS (see the list in
Montgomery 1927: 29-32). They are sub-versions of the OG and e.
Jerome translated Daniel into Latin between 389 and 392 (Hartman & Di
LelIa 1978: 75). Although he based his Vulgate (Vg) version on the
consonantal Hebrew and Aramaic text, he was aware of the earlier
versions, at least through the Hexapla, and so was open to influence from
them.
The Peshitta (Pesh), or Old Syriac, version is a Christian translation
made in the third century. It was translated directly from the consonantal
Hebrew and Aramaic text, but is also dependent on the Greek 8 text. The
Syro-Hexapla (Syh) is a literal translation of the OG text in Origen's
Hexapla, made by Paul of Tella in 61617, which retains Origen's critical
marks and an extensive apparatus of variant readings (Montgomery
1927: 33).
Both Coptic vss are sub-versions of the Greek. The Sahidic exists only in
fragments and follows the 8 text form. The Bohairic has a definite
Hexaplaric character (Gehman 1927).
A number of other vss exist. The Arabic is a translation of a form of the e
text (Gehman 1925). The Armenian version probably originated in
the early fifth century. It began as a translation of the Peshitta which also
made reference to Lucian's Recension of 8, and was then subjected to a
revision which brought it closer to the earlier form of e and also introduced
more literalistic renderings of the Peshitta (Cowe 1992: 419-453). The
Armenian version was the primary base of the Georgian version (Cowe
1992: 239-252, 288). The Ethiopic version is a very free translation of 8
(Charles 1929: lviii).
INTRODUCTION 21
1.4. Text-critical guidelines
This survey of the texts and vss shows that the primary witnesses to the
original Hebrew and Aramaic text of Daniel are the MT~ the qum.ran MS,
the Greek vss the Vulgate and the Peshitta. The followmg gutdelmes for
textual critici;m are adapted from Montgomery (1927: 56-57) in the light
of later scholarship (see esp. the summary in Hartman & Di LelIa 1978:
72-84).
1. In general, the older the version the greater its interest, and perhaps
its authority. However, account must be taken of the interdependen~e of
various vss which means that groups of vss are to be taken as a smgle
witness, and differences within such groups are worth close inspection.
2. The agreement of the pairs OL + 8, 8 + Pesh, Vg + 8 are often the
result of interdependence, and disagreements within these pairs are
significant. . . ,
e
3. The combination of OG + agamst the MT IS weak, smce 8 may
depend on the OG.
4. Where the members of the pair disagree, OG readings are always to
be respected against 8, though it must be remembered that 8 sometimes
preserves OG readings no longer extant in the OG wit?esses.
5. The combination MT + OG is to be taken very senously.
6. The combination MT + 8 is a strong one against later vss.
7. The combination of 4QDan MS(S) with OG against the MT, or MT + 8,
must be taken seriously.
2. TRANSLATION
Translating a text from one language into another involves some di~cult
choices and some compromises. There are a number of reasons for thIS. To
begin with, words are more than simply labels for things. Most words
have a greater or a lesser range of meaning. This may mean that, although
two words in different languages may seem to be equivalent to each other,
there may be contexts where the assumption of a simple equiv~lence
results in misunderstanding because of the different ranges of meanmg of
the words in the two languages. An example of this, which I shall discuss
when considering Dan. 5, is the differing range of meanings of the words
'king' (in English), mele/s (in Aramaic) and sarru (in Akkadian). Words
also often have a 'feel' about them, so that although two words may have a
very similar range of meaning, the native speaker of a lan~u~ge int~iti~ely
uses one rather than the other in certain contexts because It feels nght to
do so. For example, dictionaries define the meaning of the verbs 'to speak'
and 'to talk' in terms of each other, but in practice one or the other feels
more appropriate in particular contexts. Other problems arise because of
the differences in the grammatical structure of different languages. The

22 DANIEL
fact that the verbal system in Hebrew and Aramaic is quite different from
that in English can cause difficulties for the translator. The rhetorical
devices that are often used to convey meaning in more subtle ways will
frequently differ between languages.
Faced with such problems, translators adopt policies that lie somewhere
between the two extremes that are often called 'formal equivalence' and
'dynamic equivalence'. A 'formal equivalence' translation seeks to keep as
close to the form of the original language as it can while still making
reasonably intelligible sense in the language into which it is being
translated. An example of this approach is the (English) Revised Version
of the Bible (1881/5) and the similar American Standard Version (1901). A
'dynamic equivalence' translation aims to produce the same impact on the
reader of the translation as the original would have produced on readers
for whom that language was their native tongue. The Good News Bible
(also known as Today's English Version) is an example of such a
translation.
Each of these approaches to translation has its strengths and weak-
nesses. Dynamic equivalence produces translations that are more readable
and more readily understandable than does formal equivalence. But this is
achieved by the translators' taking the freedom and responsibility to do a
good deal of interpretation as part of the translation. This will mask many
problems and uncertainties in the original text. The translation provided
in this commentary aims at readable, idiomatit, modern English.
However, where it seems important for various reasons (which will be
discussed in the 'Comment' sections), features of the original text are
preserved even if it means sacrificing the quality of the English to some
degree. On the whole, ambiguities in meaning are left open and are then
discussed in the comments on the text or the meaning of the passage.
3. INTERPRETING DANIEL 1 - 6
3.1. Types of literature and interpretation
The stories in Dan. 1 - 6 come from a culture different, to a greater or
lesser extent, from that of any modern reader - simply because they come
from a culture that no longer exists. It might seem obvious to a naive
modern reader that they are historical reports of the experiences of Jewish
exiles in the sixth century Be (perhaps because of the 'date formulas' in 1:1
and 2:1), or that they are fictional stories of the kind told about legendary
heroes in many cultures (perhaps because they report 'miraculous' events).
However, that 'obviousness' is rooted in our modern intuitions. Before
accepting it, it would be wise to ask questions about the types of literature,
or genres, that existed in the culture from which the stories come and how
those would have guided both the original writers and their readers. Of
INTRODUCTION 23
course, it might turn out that the questions are unanswerable, but they are
certainly worth asking.
The reason they are worth asking is that all readers have some sense of
the different genres of literature that exist in their culture, and so approach
a given text with expectations arising from the type of literature that they
intuitively take it to be. Genre guides not only the expectations of readers,
but also the approaches adopted by authors. An author who wants to
communicate to readers in a particular culture will adopt one of the genres
that belong in that culture, or else risk misunderstanding or incomprehen-
sion. Of course, an author need not be a slave to a given genre, but can
modify and adapt it.
Genre recognition, then, is an important step in the understanding of a
text. For most readers it is an intuitive step. Sometimes the intuition may
be wrong. That is why a conscious, and careful, classification of a text to
its genre is valuable. 'Genre criticism', as this is often called, is not
classification for its own sake, concerned simply to pigeon-hole a text. Its
aim is to clarify a text by. indicating what are the right and wrong
expectations that the reader might have of it. There is a particular
likelihood that intuition may lead readers astray when they read some-
thing from a culture different from their own. Some genres are quite
culture-specific, but may, to the unwary reader, seem to fit a genre from
their own, different, culture. Other genres may occur in several cultures,
but, even so, may differ somewhat in each culture.
In fact, finding answers to the questions about genres relating to the
stories in Daniel has proved difficult for two different kinds of reasons.
The first is theoretical. This relates to the definition of a genre. A simple
definition of a genre is: 'a group of texts that have one or more
characteristics in common'. (There is some confusion between the terms
'genre' and 'form'. Here 'genre' will be used of a text as a whole, which
can be made up of smaller units of differing 'form'.) But what kind of
'characteristics' should qualify to be included in the definition? Some
scholars think they should be as general and objective as possible, and so
emphasize the outward form, or 'surface structure', of texts. Others prefer
a more subjective, intuitive approach, which, their critics argue, tends to
put the emphasis on the content of the text. In practice, it seems sensible to
accept that both form and content need to be considered in genre
classification if we are to avoid extreme generality on the one hand and
extreme specificity on the other. For example, modern soap-powder
adverts and stories of miraculous healings in the New Testament Gospels
share a common surface structure: a distressing problem is presented, the
manner of its resolution is recounted, and the perfect state that resulted is
described. However, most people would think it makes good sense to take
the content of the stories into account also (soiled clothes cleaned with the
aid of soap-powder in one case, a sick person healed by meeting Jesus in
the other), and so make a distinction between the genres of 'soap-powder
24 DANIEL
advert' and 'healing-miracle story'. In fact, what this example shows is
that genre classification can operate on different levels. Emphasis on form
tends to lead to more general classifications, which can lead to the
perception of illuminating connections across a wide range of texts.
Emphasis on content tends to lead to narrow classifications, which can
lead to the recognition of helpful distinctions between broadly similar
texts. These distinctions are often clues to the specific meaning or purpose
of the texts.
A factor I have not yet mentioned, but which some consider very
important in genre classification, is the social setting, or social function, of
a text. The problem with this is that the argument can get dangerously
circular. The social setting has to be deduced from the text, and is then
read back into it. It seems better to let the social setting or function (as far
as it can be discerned) be seen as part of the content, without giving it
special emphasis. We might expect, then, that any helpful genre classifica-
tion of the stories in Dan. 1 - 6 (i.e. one that clarifies the meaning) will rest
on characteristics of both form and content.
The practical problem is the shortage of other similar texts from the
same cultural setting as the stories in Daniel, with which to compare them.
The book of Esther is the only real candidate. If we extend the scope to
include the whole of the HB, we can then include the story of Joseph, as
found in the book of Genesis. This is still a very small group of texts! This
fact has led scholars to look even further afield and to include stories about
courtiers from throughout the ANE during the biblical period. The story
of Ahikar is the only example known from ancient Mesopotamia. An
Aramaic version of it has been found at Elephantine in southern Egypt,
where there was a colony of Jews; so it was known in Jewish circles.
Several such stories are known from ancient Egypt, the best-known being
the stories of Sinuhe and Wenamun (Redford 1970: 87-105).
The most obvious affinities of the stories about Daniel are with the story
of Joseph: both heroes are taken into captivity, both rise to prominence
because of a God-given ability to interpret dreams and both become
courtiers of foreign kings; and there are similarities in words and phrases
in the stories (though much of this may be due to the common subject-
matter rather than to any literary dependence). This has led some to
classify Dan. 1 - 6 as a genre of Jewish exegetical literature called
'midrash'. However, this is to use the term 'midrash' very loosely. Porton
(1981: 62) defines midrash as 'a type of literature, oral or written, which
has its starting point in a fixed, canonical text, considered the revealed
word of God by the Midrashist and his audience, and in which this
original verse is explicitly cited or clearly alluded to ... For something to
be considered Midrash it must have a dear relationship to the accepted
canonical text of Revelation.' The story of Joseph is certainly not explicitly
cited in Dan. 1 - 6, and it is questionable whether there is any clear
allusion to it. Moreover, midrash proper is 'a work that attempts to make
INTRODUCTION 25
a text of Scripture understandable, useful and relevant for a later
generation', and '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' (Addison 1967:
74). This does not seem to be a good description of the relationship
between the stories in Dan. 1 - 6 and the story of Joseph.
A variety of other genre labels have been applied to the Daniel stories
(see the list in Collins 1993: 42). The category 'novel' is a broad one, doing
little more than indicating that the work concerned is an entertaining story.
It does, though, distinguish such works from historical reports. The 'date
formulas' in Dan. 1:1 and 2:1, mentioned above, do not necessarily
indicate that these stories are historical reports. A very similar date formula
occurs at the beginning of the story of Judith, which no-one would want to
classify as a historical narrative. The 'romance' is a novel with an erotic
element. This might be applicable to the stories of Joseph and Esther, but
does not fit those of Dan. 1 - 6. The definition of 'legend' as a genre is much
debated (Wills 1990: 12-19). A simple definition is 'a narrative primarily
concerned with the wonderful and aimed at edification' (Collins 1984: 41).
The stories in Daniel do contain some 'wonderful' elements (dreams,
writing on the wall, miraculous escapes), but it is questionable whether
they can be said to be 'primarily concerned' with these. They do, however,
seem to be concerned with the edification of the reader. It is this 'teaching'
aspect of the stories, together with the presentation of Daniel and his
companions as 'wise men', that has led some to group these stories, with
some others from the ANE, as 'wisdom tales'.
The most widely accepted categorization of the stories in Dan. 1 - 6 is
'court tales'. This has the advantage of clearly linking these stories with
several others about wise courtiers (sages) from the ANE that they
resemble in various ways. Redford (1970: 94-97) has listed various motifs
that occur in these stories. 1. The sage may act primarily as an entertainer
by the marvellous tricks he can perform, though sometimes in the course
of them he may solve a problem that has been annoying the king.
2. Supposedly wise courtiers may be shown up as bumbling or timorous.
3. The sage may, often on his death-bed, impart words of wisdom. 4. The
sage may act in the role of a saviour, delivering the king and/or his land
from some calamity. 5. The sage may experience disgrace, followed by
rehabilitation.
Wills (1990: 55-70) has extended the range of tales studied to include
those told by the Greek writer Herodotus. Among the common features he
notes are the following. 1. The tales of foreign courtiers seem to express
ethnic pride, intended to bolster a sense of worth in conquered people.
2. The tales express a basically optimistic outlook. Wise courtiers will
succeed, even at the court of a foreign king. 3. The occurrence of
stereotypical features (the impetuous king, the wise hero escapes death).
One can debate whether the work of Redford and Wills provides
enough evidence to define clearly a distinctive genre, 'court tales'. It does,

26 DANIEL
at the very least, provide evidence that the stories in Dan. 1 - 6 fit into the
context of a type of literature that was quite widespread, in terms of both
time and geography, in the ANE.
Many scholars have recognized, more or less intuitively, a distinction
between the stories in Dan. 3 and 6 and the others in chs. 1 - 6.
Humphreys (1973) labelled the two types as 'tales of court conflict' (chs.
3; 6) and 'tales of court contest' (chs. 2; 4; 5). Dan. 1 does not fit exactly
into either category. Collins (1977: 34-54) sets out the pattern of each
type of tale (which also applies to the stories of Esther, Joseph and
Ahikar). The tales of court contest have the following pattern. 1. The king
is confronted with a problem he cannot resolve. 2. The king's resident
sages fail to resolve it. 3. The hero is called in and succeeds. 4. The hero is
elevated, or restored, to high position.
The tales of court conflict are structured as follows. 1. The heroes are in
a state of prosperity. 2. The heroes are endangered, usually because of a
conspiracy. 3. The heroes are condemned to death or prison. 4. The heroes
are released, for various reasons. 5. The heroes are restored to positions of
honour and, in some cases, promoted.
Dan. 1 can be seen as a variant of the court-contest pattern. The king is
unaware of a problem that faces the fulfilment of his plans, and there is an
implicit, rather than explicit, contest between Daniel and his companions
and the other trainee sages. Daniel solves the problem and he and his
friends are elevated to high position.
Some scholars have criticized the use of 'court tale' as a genre on the
ground that it is not based firmly enough on a common structural pattern.
Milne (1988) has attempted a detailed structural analysis of the stories in
Dan. 1 - 6 using as her basis the analysis of heroic fairytales made by the
Russian folklore scholar Vladimir Propp. She found that none of the tales
can be fully described by his detailed schema. Dan. 3 and 6 come closest to
it, and are similar to each other, while being quite distinct from the other
stories. Thus her analytical structural study confirms the intuitive recogni-
tion of this distinction. Although Dan. 4 is similar to Dan. 2 and 5 in
content, it has a quite different structure, which is not surprising, since it is
presented as a letter.
What help does this discussion of genre give with regard to the
interpretation of the stories in Dan. 1 - 6? The ways in which the stories
differ from the other 'court tales', and among themselves, highlight some
significant points, which will be discussed when considering each story.
Their similarities with them suggest some general points that are worth
noting. The 'court tales' in the ANE seem to have been written for three
main reasons. First, they were written for entertainment, intended to be
enjoyed by the readers or hearers. This suggests that they are better treated
as stories rather than as historical reports. The occurrence in them of
stereotypical features supports this. In fact, some of the characters and
other features in the stories have something of a cartoon-like nature.
INTRODUCTION 27
Clearly, we have here the art of the storyteller rather than the concerns of
the scholarly historian. This is not to say that the stories are necessarily
completely fictional, but that they lie somewhere on the continuum that
runs from imaginative writing to historical reporting. It may not be
possible for us to say quite where they lie on this continuum. Hasty
judgments either way should be avoided. I shall discuss specific historical
issues as and when they arise in the stories. Fiction and truth are not
mutually exclusive. For example, a well-researched historical novel may
give a truer account of what it was like to take part in an event than can be
given in a scholarly historical monograph about that event. It is a question
of what kind of truth a story is intended to convey. If our discussion of the
genre of the stories in Dan. 1 - 6 has reached something like the right
conclusion, then an excessive concern with the historicity of the stories
might lead us to miss the truth they are intended to convey.
Secondly, many of the 'court tales' seem to have been intended to edify
the readers as well as to entertain them. Imaginative storytelling, which
draws the readers or hearers into the story so that they identify with the
characters, can do this more effectively than a straightforward report of
events. Conversely, the power of a story to persuade people to accept and
live by the theological, moral or other claims it is making may depend on
their believing that there is some connection between the story and events
in the real world outside the story. At the very least, it is unlikely that the
stories of Dan. 1 - 6 would have come to be accepted as Scripture by
which people sought to live their lives if those who originally received the
stories had not believed that they rang true to the kind of situations
experienced by faithful Jews in the Diaspora.
Finally, some 'court tales', those about courtiers in the service of foreign
kings, seem to have had the added intention of encouraging conquered
peoples to maintain their sense of ethnic identity and worth, while taking a
generally positive attitude to their situation. In the stories in Daniel, the
basis of this encouragement is not belief in some kind of inherent ethnic
superiority, but trust in the Most High God, who rules supreme even over
human rulers and their affairs. So these are essentially theological stories -
while remaining entertaining.
3.2. Understanding stories
Most readers probably think there is no problem in understanding a good
story. They get drawn into it and enjoy reading it, and at the end feel they
know what it was about. However, most stories are worth a second, more
considered, reading, which seeks to go beneath the surface and analyse
carefully what is going on. It is particularly important that teachers and
preachers do this, because otherwise they may have nothing more to offer
their hearers than they could get for themselves by simply hearing the story
28 DANIEL
read. Analysing a story in the way that students of literature are
accustomed to do may well produce insights that a straightforward
reading misses. This is not the place for a detailed discussion of how to
do this, but a brief outline of some of the factors that need consideration
follows.
Every story has a setting. This may relate it to the world of history
outside the narrative. It certainly serves to generate 'atmosphere', and
contributes to the meaning of the story. The stories in Dan. 1 - 6 are all set
in the courts of various rulers of the ANE, who are known as historical
personages. This both relates the stories to the flow of Israel's history as
presented in the HB and provides the distinctive atmosphere of the stories.
It also points to their meaning. They are concerned, among other things,
with the issues of sovereignty, both human and divine. Who really does
rule in human affairs? How is that rule exercised? And to what end?
It was Aristotle who said that a good plot has a beginning, a middle and
an end. Some kind of problem or conflict occurs at the beginning of the
narrative. It is complicated in various ways through the middle, and is
finally resolved at the end. The difference that people intuitively recognize
between Dan. 3 and 6 and the other stories is due in part to the fact that
the two groups of stories have quite different types of plot. In Dan. 3 and 6
the basic plot is that the envy of certain officials results in Daniel's or his
companions' being faced with a life-threatening situation, from which they
are miraculously delivered. In the other stories the plot basically shows
Daniel being faced with a difficult task, in which he succeeds with help
from God, and so is rewarded. It is significant that the involvement of God
is crucial in the move from the middle to the end of the plot in all six
stories.
Of course, some stories have more than one plot. These may be
intertwined, or more usually there are sub-plots to the main plot. This is
not the case in the Daniel stories. Most of them, though, do have what
might be called sub-settings, so that the plot develops through distinct
episodes. Thus the action in Dan. 6 starts in the king's presence, moves to
Daniel's house, returns to the king's presence, moves to the lion's den,
returns briefly to the palace and ends back at the lion's den. All this,
though, occurs in the royal court in its wider sense.
In a story, plot is closely linked to characters, because it is the characters
who generate the actions that make up the plot. Berlin (1994: 23-24)
identifies three kinds of characters in Hebrew narrative: the fully fledged,
the type, and the agent. The 'fully fledged' characters are those which
manifest a range of character traits. The 'type' characters display a single
trait. The 'agent' simply fulfils a function in the narrative and is usually
not characterized at all. It is the high proportion of types and agents in
the stories in Dan. 1 - 6 that give them their cartoon-like quality. For
example, in ch. 3 the only fully fledged character is the king, who likes
giving commands, gets furious and shows astonishment. Shadrach,
INTRODUCTION 29
Meshach and Abednego are a composite type character, displaying
faithfulness to their God. All the other characters, including the fourth
person in the furnace, are agents. As we shall see, this di~trib~tion of
characters may indicate the point of the story. God appears pnmanly as an
agent in these stories, a fact that deserves some thought when pondering
the theology expressed in them.
An author can use several techniques of characterization. Hebrew
narrative tends to give little in the way of detailed description of
characters. For this reason, when details are given they may be significant
for the plot or for the meaning of the story; for example, the characteristics
of the young Judeans in 1:3, or Nebuchadnezzar's eagle-like appearance in
4:33. More usually, character in Hebrew narrative is expressed through
words and action. The words may be those the character speaks, or what
others say about him or her, or the character's own unspoken thought~.
Daniel warns Nebuchadnezzar about his 'sins' in general in 4:27, but hiS
own words in 4:30 expose his hubris in particular. Belshazzar's action in
5:2 shows his disdain for the God of the Jews.
Point of view, or the perspective from which the story is told, is a vital
part of how the story is told. There are various ways in which a switch in
perspective can be brought about. A particularly clear example is found
in Dan. 4. Here, first-person speech, by means of which the readers see
things through Nebuchadnezzar's eyes (4:1-18, 34-37) alternates with
third-person narration. In the latter, there are two points of view. In
vv. 19-27 we are caught up in Daniel's point of view, but in vv. 28-33 we
see events from the perspective of the narrator. Here, 'change of voice'
effects the change in point of view. Another technique is to change the
'focus' of the story. Dan. 3 begins with a panoramic view of the great
crowd on the plain of Dura, but in v. 8 the readers' attention is focused to
encompass only 'certain Chaldeans', and from v. 13 the story focuses on
the king and his words, actions and reactions.
Of course, an author has considerable power in terms of determining
the perspective from which the story is read. However, it is not an absolute
power. The reader is free to look at the story from perspectives other than
that chosen by the author, and this can be an effective way of gaining fresh
insights into a well-known story.
3.3. Learning from stories
We have seen that the 'court tales' in Daniel were written to edify the
readers and to encourage them to live in a particular way. Those for whom
they are part of Holy Scripture will want to take this very seriously. But
how can these stories, which come from a very different time, place and
culture, speak to the modern reader? How can a preacher or teacher make
use of them today?
 INTRODUCTION 31
30 DANIEL

story, the application of that truth or the practice based on that principle
Goldingay (1993: 302) speaks of the need for two acts of imagination if
will often be different in different life situations.
we are to appreciate the significance of such stories for us and for our lives
The challenge, then, that faces the preacher or teacher is to enable
in today's world. The first is the act of imaginatiop that is needed to let the
people to see the significance that the story may have for them, without, on
story grasp us as it would have grasped the hearers or readers for whom it
the one hand, being so vague that no practical application is given, or, on
was first composed. In practice, that means entering imaginatively into the
the other, being so prescriptive that possible differences of application to
world of the story so that we can understand and share the concerns and
questions it expresses. But, since our aim is not to live in the story, but to different life situations are ignored.
live by the story, we need the second act of imagination, which is to set
some of our own concerns and questions alongside those of the story in a
way that is open to seeing how the story addresses these, so that we may
4. INTERPRETING DANIEL'S VISIONS
then respond to it. In practice, these two acts of imagination will not
usually be clearly separate, but there will be a moving backwards and 4.1. Visions and dreams
forwards between them.
The book of Daniel, in the form in which we have it, falls into two distinct
Some may think that this is a dangerously subjective approach. It is
parts. The court tales of chs. 1 - 6 form an introduction to four reports
certainly true that there is an influential school of literary criticism today
of visionary experiences in chs. 7 - 12. In the first of these, Daniel's
that denies that there is any 'final' or 'normative' meaning of a text and
experience is described as a 'dream' as well as a 'vision' (7:1-2). This
asserts that 'readers make sense' (McKnight 1985: 12). That is not what is
suggests that a comparison of the form of these vision reports and that of
being advocated here. To begin with, the acts of imagination should be
dream reports in the ANE might be relevant. Oppenheim (1956: 187) has
informed by what has been said about the importance of appreciating the
genre of the story and understanding how its meaning is expressed in terms given a clear statement concerning the form of dream reports:
of setting, plot, characters and point of view. If that is done, then the
The typical dream-report of our source-material appears within a
'making sense' that will take place will be a process of discovering the sense
strictly conventionalized 'frame', the pattern of which can be
that is already there in the story. But there is still truth in the aphorism that
reconstructed from evidence that is surprisingly uniform from
'readers make sense', and room for different readers to make different
Sumer of the third millennium up to Ptolemaic Egypt and
senses out of the same story.
from Mesopotamia westward to Greece ... The 'frame' ...
There are at least tWD reasons for this. One is that stories are complex,
consists of an introduction which tells about the dreamer, the
and, whatever the author's intention, they can be read in different ways
locality and other circumstances of the dream which were con-
according to the reader's interest. Thus Humphreys (1973) sees the
sidered of import. The actual report of the dream-content follows
meaning of the stories in Daniel in terms of the possibility of living as a
and is succeeded by the final part of the 'frame' which describes
successful but faithful Jewish courtier of a foreign king. Fewell (1991),
the end of the dream and often includes a section referring to the
however, sees it in terms of the opposition of human and divine
reaction of the dreaming person, or, also, to the actual fulfillment
sovereignty. There is no need to choose between these two, insisting that
only one can be the 'right' meaning. The fact is that both issues, and no of the prediction or promise contained in the dream.
doubt others (e.g. idolatry in Dan. 3) are inherent in the stories. Different
readers will concentrate on different elements in the stories according to The reports in chs. 7 and 8 fit into this pattern:
their own interests and situations. Wise readers will be open to having the
Introduction 7:1 8:1
other elements brought to their attention, either by the text itself or by
Report of the vision 7:2-27 8:2-25
other readers.
The end of the vision 7:28a 8:26
Another reason why different readers will make sense differently of
Daniel's reaction 7:28b 8:27
stories like these is that, even when they agree on a 'meaning' of the story,
they may well come to different conclusions about its significance for them
The reports in chs. 9 and 10 - 12 do not fit this pattern. In ch. 9 there is
- not only because they live in a situation different from that depicted in
a lengthy introduction, including Daniel's prayer of confession (9:1-21).
the stories, but because each lives in a situation different from those of
This is followed by the description of the vision (9:22-27), which has
others. Another way of putting this is to say that, even when there is
no formal closure statement or report of Daniel's reaction. The report in
agreement about the theological truth or moral principle expressed in a
32 DANIEL INTRODUCTION 33

chs. 10 -12 has a short introduction (10:1-4) before the lengthy account A request for interpretation, often because of fear
of the vision (10:5 - 12:3). The conclusion (12:4-12) contains a double An interpretation, usually by an angel
charge to Daniel to keep the vision secret 'until the time of the end', and an Concluding material, which may include the reaction of the
assurance that 'all these things would be accomplished'. Again, there is no seer, instructions, or parenesis
report of Daniel's reaction.
There is another difference between the vision reports in chs. 7 and 8 The visions in Dan. 7 and 8 fit this pattern, though with a duplication of
and those in chs. 9 and 10 - 12 besides that of their form. They differ in the request and interpretation sections in ch. 7.
the nature of content of the visions. Both chs. 7 and 8 are examples of
symbolic visions, because what is seen are images and actions that Circumstances 7:1 8:1
symbolize something else. The visions in chs. 9 and 10 - 12 are examples Description of vision 7:2-14 8:2-14
of epiphany visions, in which a supernatural being appears and conveys a Request for interpretation 7:15-16 8:15-18
message. Interpretation by an angel 7:17-18 8:19-26a
Dreams are recognized in the HB as an authentic means of divine Second request 7:19-22
revelation (e.g. Gen. 28:12ff.; 37:5ff.; Num. 12:6; Judg. 7:13-14; 1 Kgs. Second interpretation 7:23-27
3:5ff.). However, it is sometimes argued, on the basis of Deut. 13:1-5[2-6] Charge to the seer 8:26b
and Jer. 23:25-32, that dreams came to be viewed with distrust in the later Seer's reaction 7:28 8:27
pre-exilic period. For this reason Collins (1977: 83) thinks it significant
that, in Dan. 7, what is clearly a dream is also described as a 'vision'. Niditch (1983) has presented a detailed diachronic study of the
Despite this fairly common view, it is not in fact clear that either of the development of the form of the symbolic vision. She identifies three major
passages referred to does express distrust of dreams per se as a means of stages in its development. The first stage is found in the visions of pre-
divine communication. In both passages, the issue at stake is the problem exilic prophets. In particular, she analyses visions in Amos 7 - 8 and Jer. 1;
of false prophets. In both cases, the prophets are identified not by the means 24 and finds the following form:
by which they get their message, but by the message itself. In the
Deuteronomy passage the prophets also perform signs ('at) and wonders Indication of a vision
(mopet), which elsewhere in Deuteronomy are actions that Yahweh Description of the visions (not Jer. 1)
performs (4:34; 6:22). The false prophets who opposed Jeremiah relied The deity's question to the seer
on 'visions' (Jer. 23:16) as well as 'dreams'. The prominence of 'dreams' The seer's reply, giving or repeating the description
in the denunciation of Jer. 23:25-32 is probably due to a wordplay The interpretation of the vision by God
between the word for 'dream' (",a/Om) and the similar-sounding slogan
peddled by the false prophets, 'Peace!' (sa/Om) (so Carroll 1986: 471). It is The language is simple but rhythmic, with short thought lines and a
striking, however, that in the Hebrew tradition dream interpretation is not repetition of key terms to bind the account into a unity. The symbol is
a divinatory skill. Rather, either the dreams are self-interpreting (God quite simple and its interpretation fairly straightforward, and may use a
speaks directly to the dreamer in the dream) or the interpreter receives the play on words.
interpretation as a result of particular God-given wisdom (as in the stories The second stage is found in the early post-exilic period; in particular, in
of Joseph and Daniel). the visions of Zech. 1 - 6. There is some variation in these visions. The
main change that occurs in all of them is that an angel replaces God as the
interpreter, and there is no direct wordplay in the interpretation. In some,
4.2. Daniel 7 - 8 and symbolic visions the seer takes the initiative and asks for the interpretation. These are
visions where the symbolism becomes more complex, and so does its
Collins (1993: 54-55) outlines the form of symbolic visions as they occur relationship to the meaning. The whole account becomes longer, with
in historical apocalypses, giving the following schema: longer thought lines. In fact, it becomes a prose narrative account of
the vision. In one or two cases, the vision account ends with a charge
An indication of the circumstances to the seer. Niditch suggests that this stage reflects a period when the
A description of the vision, introduced by a term such as traditional form, which had been fixed for at least two centuries, was
'behold' beginning to change and develop.
34 DANIEL
Dan. 7 - 8 represents a third stage, when a new form has taken shape.
The main innovation is the motif of the reactions of the seer, both in the
form of a sense of fear, which motivates the request for interpretation, and
as the concluding element of the account. The imagery becomes even more
complex, prompting Niditch (1983: 177) to describe it as 'baroque'. What
Niditch has shown is that, although at first sight the complex symbolic
visions of Daniel seem to bear no relation to the very simple ones of Amos,
there is in fact a line of development connecting them. Koch (1983) has
come to the same conclusion from a careful comparison of Amos 7:1-3
and Dan. 8. As a result, Dan. 7 - 8 can be seen to fit into a developing
formal tradition of symbolic vision accounts in the HB. The fairly
straightforward symbolism of the pre-exilic visions, sometimes depending
on a wordplay, makes appreciation of them reasonably unproblematic. By
contrast, the relatively complex imagery of Daniel's visions has produced
considerable discussion and disagreement about background against
which it should be understood, as we shall see in the detailed discussion
of these chapters.
Collins (1993: 55) suggests that the significance of the appearance of an
angelic interpreter in the symbolic visions is that this underlines the
transcendent character of the revelation. Its meaning is beyond purely
human interpretation. However, he seems to ignore the fact that in the
pre-exilic visions it is God who gives the interpretation, not the seer. It
seems rather that it is the transcendence of God that is being emphasized in
the later visions. The increasing complexity of the symbolism in the visions
increases the sense of awe and mystery surrounding the revelation, a point
emphasized by the seer's reaction to it.
It is important to recognize that, in these visions, 'The symbols are not a
random allegorical code speaking of realities that could just as adequately
be referred to directly; they contribute to the text's meaning' (Goldingay
1989: 149). The individual images in the visions are not like the ciphers in
a code, whose meaning is exhausted once the code has been broken. Thus
to identify the 'horns' with particular kings does not exhaust the meaning
of the 'horns', which were a symbol of strength in the ANE. Symbols draw
on the images, ideas and stereotypes of a culture, and their associated
sentiments and values. Therefore, they carry 'resonances' or have a 'feel'
about them that simple ciphers do not have. As a result, they have an
evocative quality that goes beyond any simplistic 'this is that' interpreta-
tion. However, it is exactly these non-cipher aspects of symbols that may
be hard to discern, because they are usually specific to the culture in which
the symbols become current. The search to capture something of the wider
significance of the symbols used has led to extensive discussion and debate
about the religio-historical background of the imagery used in Dan. 7 - 8. I
shall deal with this in the 'Comment' sections of those chapters. One might
question the value of all this discussion and debate. After all, the symbols
are interpreted within the visions. However, while the interpretation
INTRODUCTION 35
settles the question of the reference (the 'this is that' aspect) of the
symbols, it still leaves open the possibility that the symbols carried a
wider meaning that would have been sensed by the author and original
readers because of the significance of these images as symbols in their
culture. This is a possibility that is at least worth exploring.
In the Epilogue, I shall discuss how valid it is to describe all or part of
Daniel as an 'apocalypse'. What is clear is that the use of symbolic imagery
in Dan. 7 - 8 is considerably similar to that in the undisputed apocalypses.
This suggests that something of value for the interpretation of these
chapters can be learned from considering the use of symbolic imagery in
apocalyptic literature. Beasley-Murray (1974: 78) has compared apoca-
lyptic writing to the modern political cartoon. Russell (1996) has
developed this comparison in a way that helps to highlight some of the
features of apocalyptic imagery. He lists the following points that the two
forms of communication have in common. 1. They give pictorial expres-
sion to what they want to say in exaggerated form. The aspects of what is
portrayed that will aid recognition or emphasize the point being made are
exaggerated for effect. The result may be humorous or satirical. 2. Ample
use is made of traditional and stereotyped imagery. This makes it readily
understandable to the original recipients of the communication. The use of
traditional imagery that is deeply rooted in the culture gives the message
added impact. 3. The imagery is allusive and there is a degree of
intentional obscurity. As a result it has to be pondered a while until the
truth dawns. This experience of 'enlightenment' heightens the impact.
4. The presentation is topical, arising out of a particular situation. For this
reason alone, those distanced from the situation may find it hard to
understand.
These are all valid points that readers of apocalyptic literature do well to
bear in mind as they seek to grasp its message.
4.3. The form of Daniel 9; 10 - 12
The form of these epiphany visions differs from that of the symbolic
visions in Dan. 7 - 8. The structure of them is:
Circumstances 9:1-2 10:1
Supplication 9:3-19 10:2-3
Appearance of messenger 9:20-21 10:4-9
Word of assurance 9:22-23 10:10 -11:1
Revelation 9:24-27 11:2 -12:3
Charge to seer 12:4
There is no clear parallel to this form elsewhere in the HB. There is
considerable similarity between Dan. 8:15-19 and 10:4 - 11:1. Also,
 36 DANIEL
similar terminology is used to introduce the revelation in 8:16b, 17b;
9:22b, 23b; 10:14a, 14b; note the stress on the need to understand the
'vision', when in 9; 10 - 12 there is no vision to be interpreted. It may be
that the form of the epiphany visions here is a truncated and adapted form
of the symbolic-vision form, with the 'supplication' replacing the 'request
for interpretation' and what follows before the 'charge to the seer'.
Another aspect of Dan. 9; 10 - 12 that is new in the Hebrew tradition is
the content and style of the revelation - a quite detailed survey of future
history, presented in short, enigmatic phrases. Dan. 8:23-25 shares these
characteristics. Outside the book of Daniel, the predictive prophecies in
the HB relate to a single event or situation. The only extended historical
surveys are those in Ezek. 16; 20; 23. These differ from the Danielic ones
in a number of ways. 1. They are concerned mainly with the past, as a
means of exposing the sin and readiness for judgment of Judah and Israel,
though they do end with a statement of what God will do in the (near)
future. 2. They do not present history in any detail, but simply paint in the
outline with broad strokes. There is much more detail in the allusion to
specific rulers and events in Daniel, especially in 11:4ff. 3. Their style is
quite different. Ezek. 20 is ordinary prose. Ezek. 16 and 23 are patent
allegories whose meaning is quite transparent, especially in light of the
well-established prophetic use of the marriage relationship as a picture of
the Israel-Yahweh relationship.
The only other passages in the HB that are in any way comparable with
these Danielic ones are the Testaments (or Blessings) of Jacob (Gen. 49)
and Moses (Deut. 33). Both have a future orientation, though this is more
marked in Gen. 49 both in the rubric ('what will happen to you in days to
come') and in the contents, but neither presents anything like a detailed
survey of future events. The statements made about the future of each tribe
are broad generalizations. The style is poetic, with considerable use of
poetic imagery. Although some of the allusions are obscure, it is quite
unlike the enigmatic style in Daniel. In addition, the TestamentsIBlessings
are the deathbed utterances of men, whereas in Daniel we have angelic
revelations given in the context of a visionary experience. There is no
obvious connection between the Testament/Blessing form and the vision
form in Dan. 9; 10 - 12. It is interesting that this distinction of form
continues in post-biblical literature, even when the content of the
historical surveys in the two forms becomes similar (Kalenkow 1975).
The lack of paraIIells in the HB to the content and style of these
revelations in Daniel suggests that we need to look elsewhere. In the
discussion of these passages it will be argued that there is an illuminating
parallel in the so-called Akkadian Prophecies.
INTRODUCTION 37
5. THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE BOOK OF
DANIEL
The Neo-Assyrian Empire is generally dated from the usurpation of the
throne of Assyria by Tiglath-Pileser in 745 BC to the fall of Nineveh in
612 BC. During most of this period the Assyrians dominated the Fertile
Crescent. They finally destroyed the kingdom of Israel in 722/1, and from
then on the remaining kingdom of Judah was subservient to Assyria.
With the death of Ashurbanipal in 627, Assyria went into rapid decline.
Taking advantage of a struggle for the succession to the Assyrian throne,
Nabopolassar, a Chaldean prince, marched on Babylon, defeated an
Assyrian army outside the city, occupied it and declared himself king of
Babylon in 626. This was the beginning of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.
Despite repeated efforts, the Assyrians could not remove him. Before long,
the Medes joined the Babylonians in attacking Assyria. Egypt decided to
support Assyria rather than take sides against her, and sent an army to aid
her. In 616 and 615, combined Assyrian-Egyptian armies repelled attacks
by Nabopolassar. Then in 614 the Medes, under Cyaxares, captured the
ancient Assyrian capital of Asshur, and in 612 Nineveh fell to a combined
attack by the Babylonians and Medes. The Assyrians fell back to Haran on
the Euphrates, but were driven out of there by the Babylonians in 610. An
attempt by the Assyrians and Egyptians to retake Haran in 609 failed, and
Assyrian power was finally ended.
These events had repercussions in Judah. With the weakening of
Assyria's power, king Josiah of Judah made moves to gain his independ-
ence. No doubt wanting to avoid simply exchanging Assyrian domination
for Egyptian, he tried to oppose the Egyptian army under Necho II that
went to Assyria's aid in 609. Josiah was killed in battle at Megiddo (2 Kgs.
23:29-30). This set off the train of events which eventually led to the end
of Judah as a kingdom. On return from Haran, Necho set his own
nominee, Jehoiakim, one of Josiah's sons, on the throne of Judah (2 Kgs.
23:31-35). The Egyptians tried to prevent any Babylonian advance across
the Euphrates. In 605 the Babylonians, under the crown prince Nebuchad-
nezzar, defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish on the Euphrates, forcing
them to withdraw to Hamath in Syria, where they suffered a crushing
defeat. Soon after the battle, Nabopolassar died and Nebuchadnezzar
became king of Babylon. Following the Battle of Hamath, Syria and
Palestine, including Judah, came under Babylonian hegemony. The de-
portation of Daniel and his friends seems to relate to the initial subjugation
of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar (see the 'Comment' on Dan. 1:1).
Nebuchadnezzar left Jehoiakim on the throne of Judah. In 601 an
attempt by Nebuchadnezzar to invade Egypt was foiled. This seems to
have prompted Jehoiakim to rebel against Babylon, no doubt with the
hope of Egyptian support. Nebuchadnezzar could not respond immedi-
ately, apart from using local contingents of his own and allied forces to
 38 DANIEL
harass Judah (2 Kgs. 24:1-2). In late 598 he set out from Babylon with an
army to crush the rebellion. Before the army got to Jerusalem, Jehoiakim
had died, possibly assassinated, and was replaced by his son Jehoiachin,
who had to face the Babylonian siege of the city (2 Kgs. 24:6). After three
months the city surrendered, and Jehoiachin, his mother, many officials,
leading citizens and a great deal of booty were taken to Babylon (2 Kgs.
24:10-17). Nebuchadnezzar made Mattaniah, Jehoichin's uncle, ruler in
his place, renaming him Zedekiah (2 Kgs. 24:17). He seems to have been a
regent rather than king in his own right.
A pro-Egyptian, anti-Babylonian, group agitated for rebellion through-
out Zedekiah's reign. Some prophets in Judea seem to have encouraged
this group (Jer. 28:1-4). Finally, in 589, Judah, Tyre and possibly Ammon
rebelled against Babylonian rule. Nebuchadnezzar reacted swiftly this
time, and a Babylonian army was soon besieging Jerusalem (2 Kgs. 25:1).
Egyptian intervention caused only a temporary lifting of the siege (Jer.
37:5). After about eighteen months, in July 587, the walls were breached
and the Babylonians took the city and sacked it, burning down the palace
and the temple (2 Kgs. 25:2-4, 8-9). Zedekiah fled, but was captured. He
was shown no mercy. After witnessing the execution of his sons, he was
blinded and taken to Babylon in chains, where he died (2 Kgs. 25:4-7). A
large number of captives and a great deal of booty were taken to Babylon
(2 Kgs. 25:13-21). Judah ceased to be an independent state. It was
incorporated into the Babylonian Empire as a province, with a provincial
governor appointed by the Babylonians (2 Kgs. 25:22).
When the Assyrian Empire collapsed, the Medes annexed its northern
and eastern portions, leaving to the Babylonians most of Mesopotamia
and the lands to the west of the Euphrates. Throughout the lifetime of the
Neo-Babylonian Empire, Media could be seen as at least its equal in
power, and a potential rival. This was particularly true following
Nebuchadnezzar's death in 562, when court intrigues weakened Babylon,
and Babylonian power rapidly declined. Nabonidus, who was from a
noble family but not the royal line, seized the Babylonian throne in 556.
His devotion to Sin, the moon-god, and various religious innovations
caused friction with the priests of Marduk in Babylon, and the populace of
the city. This seems to have been one reason why he moved his residence
to the oasis of Teima in Arabia. He may also have been concerned to
control the lucrative trade along the Arabian caravan routes. He stayed
there for ten years, during which time affairs in Babylon were left in the
hands of the crown prince, Belshazzar. Because of the king's absence,
the New Year Festival, the climax of the Babylonian cultic year, could not
take place. Many of the citizens regarded this as sacrilege.
Fairly early in Nabonidus' reign, rebellion broke out in the Median
Empire. Cyrus, vassal king of Anshan in southern Iran, rebelled against his
Median overlord, Astyages. Cyrus carne from the Persian royal house, but
was half-Median through his mother. He began his reign around about
INTRODUCTION 39
559. By 550 he had captured the Median capital, Ecbatana, and dethroned
Astyages. Soon after this he set about a series of rapid conquests. Babylon,
Egypt and Lydia formed an alliance against him, but in 547/6 he
conquered Lydia, apparently annexing part of northern Mesopotamia in
the process. After that he campaigned in the East, extending his Empire in
central Asia. As the threat from Cyrus grew, Nabonidus returned to
Babylon and, to boost morale, the New Year Festival was held in Babylon
in 539. But the Persian armies had already invaded Babylonia and crushed
a Babylonian army at Opis on the Tigris. Cyrus' general Gubaru (Gobryas
in Greek) took the city of Babylon without a fight in October 539. When
Cyrus himself arrived a few weeks later, much of the population welcomed
him as a liberator, a testimony to the unpopularity of Nabonidus. In the
first year of his reign in Babylon, 538, Cyrus issued a decree ordering
the restoration of the Jewish community and cult in Judea (Ezra 1:2-4;
6:3-5). This was part of his general policy of respecting the customs of his
subject peoples, protecting and fostering their established cults, and
entrusting responsibility to native princes who proved trustworthy. Most
of his successors continued this policy.
Cyrus is referred to in Dan. 1:21; 6:28; 10:1. The capture of Babylon by
the Medes and Persians is the climax of the story of Belshazzar's feast in
Dan. 5. However, here the conqueror is called 'Darius the Mede'
(5:31[6:1]). The relationship between Darius the Mede and Cyrus the
Persian is a major issue in the study of Daniel and is discussed at some
length in the 'Comment' on 5:30-31[6:1].
Dan. 11:2b gives a brief summary reference to the Persian Empire (see
the 'Comment' on that verse). At its greatest extent, the empire stretched
from central Asia to Egypt and from Thrace in south-eastern Europe to the
river Indus on the north-eastern border of the Indian sub-continent. Signs
of stress and strain began to show in the fourth century. Egypt rebelled in
401 and remained free for about 60 years. The western part of the empire
was shaken by 'the revolt of the satraps' in c. 360. This growing weakness
helps to explain the rapid collapse of the empire under the onslaught of
the army of Alexander the Great, which is depicted in the vision in Dan.
8:5-7.
Alexander carne to the throne of Macedonia in 336. His father, Philip II
of Macedon, had gained control of all of Greece except Sparta. In 334
Alexander invaded the Persian Empire with the aim of 'liberating' the
Greek cities in Asia Minor. He routed the local Persian forces at the river
Granicus and soon gained control of the whole of Asia Minor. The
following year, he defeated the main Persian army under Darius III at the
Battle of Issus. He then headed south through Syria and Palestine to Egypt,
where he was welcomed in 332 as a liberator and recognized as Pharaoh.
At this time, Judah carne under his control. In 331 he marched east and
finally crushed the Persian forces at Gaugamela in Iran. Darius fled the
battlefield but was captured and assassinated by one of his satraps.
 40 DANIEL
Alexander campaigned in central Asia and across the Indus river into
India, until his army refused to go further and he had to return to Babylon.
He died there of a fever in 323. His demise at the height of his power is
reflected in Dan. 8:8; 11:3-4. As these verses indicate, after his death his
empire was divided. This was the result of quarrelling among his generals.
After a lengthy period of fighting among themselves, following the Battle
of Ipsus in 301, four successor kingdoms came into being.
Dan. 11:5ff. is concerned with the relationships between two of these
kingdoms: the Ptolemaic kingdom in Egypt and the Seleucid kingdom of
Syria and Mesopotamia. Initially, Palestine, including Judea, was ruled by
the Ptolemies for about a century. They seem to have pursued much the
same policy towards the states of the region as the Persians had. The
Seleucids never accepted Ptolemaic rule of Palestine, but Antiochus III was
the first Seleucid ruler to attempt to wrest control of the area from Egypt.
Dan. 11: 11-16 records the struggle for control of Palestine that took place
from 217 until Antiochus' victory at the Battle of Paneas finally settled the
matter in his favour. From then on, Palestine was part of the Seleucid
Empire. The Jews welcomed Antiochus' victory, and he in turn treated
them favourably. They were guaranteed the right to live by their
traditional law and were given a fixed sum from the state to support the
cult, and cult personnel were exempted from taxation.
~exander saw himself as an emissary of Greek culture. He sought to
umte east and west under this cultural aegis. Even in the short period
bef?re ~is death, this policy made considerable headway, helped by the
emIgratIOn of many Greeks from Hellas or Asia Minor in the footsteps of
his armies. His successors continued his cultural policies. Tensions grew
within the Jewish community in Palestine in the face of this cultural
pressure. Some welcomed Greek ways and the possibilities of social and
economic advancement that came with the adoption of the ways of their
rulers. ~thers resisted moves in this direction because of the departures
from thetr laws and customs that it inevitably involved.
The tensions within the Jewish community came to the fore after the
death of Antiochus III. At the height of his power he challenged the might
of Rome, only to be crushed by a Roman army at the Battle of Magnesia in
~90. T~e humiliating peace terms included having to pay an enormous
mdemmty. In 187 he was killed while robbing a temple in Elam in order to
get money to pay the Romans. Dan. 11:18--19 refers to his downfall. His
son, Seleucus IV, inherited his father's debts. With the connivance of some
pro-Hellenistic Jews he sent Heliodorus, his chief minister, in an un-
~uccessful attempt to expropriate the private funds deposited in the temple
m Jerusalem (Dan. 11:20). There was now open factionalism in Jerusalem.
When Seleucus was murdered, his younger brother came to the throne
as Antiochus IV. His path to power is not quite clear (see the 'Comment'
on 11:21). Dan. 11:21-39 is concerned with his career, and he is generally
seen as the person represented by the 'small horn' in Dan. 7 - 8. A struggle
INTRODUCTION 41
for control of the high-priesthood in Jerusalem between the pro- and anti-
Hellenists gave him the opportunity to make much-needed money by
selling the office to the highest bidder among the pro-Hellenists. This
meddling of a pagan monarch in the highest religious office outraged
orthodox Jews, and especially so when he eventually appointed some-
one, Menelaus, who was not from the traditional high-priestly family.
Menelaus compounded the problem by having Onias III, the ousted
conservative high priest, murdered. Antiochus invaded Egypt twice. On
the second occasion, after initial success, he was forced to withdraw when
an emissary arrived from the Roman Senate and ordered him to do so.
Faced with the power of Rome, he had no option but a humiliating retreat
(11:30). As he passed through Palestine after each campaign in Egypt,
unrest in Jerusalem came to his attention and provoked action. In 169,
with Menelaus' connivance, he plundered the temple. In 167 he sent an
army led by Apollonius to deal with the problem. Having given the
impression of coming with peaceful intentions, he attacked and sacked
the city on a Sabbath day. A strong citadel, the Acra, was built in
Jerusalem. It was a colony of hellenized pagans and renegade Jews, and
had it own constitution as a Greek city (11:31a).
Antiochus, apparently exasperated by the religious intransigence of the
orthodox Jews, tried to break it by outlawing traditional Jewish religious
practices: reading the Torah, keeping the Sabbath, practising circumcision,
keeping the food laws and offering Jewish sacrifices in the temple,
including the regular daily sacrifices. Antiochus' agents desecrated the
temple by rededicating it to the pagan god Zeus/Jupiter, setting up an
image to this god, and then offering swine-flesh on the altar of burnt
offerings (11:31b). A fierce persecution was then unleashed against Jews
who remained faithful to their God and his Torah (11:32-35; see also
1 Mace. 1; 2 Mace. 6 - 7). Eventually, armed revolt flared up. It began in
the village of Modein, to the north-west of Jerusalem. When one of
Antiochus' agents arrived in the village and tried to get people to offer a
pagan sacrifice, an elderly priest, Mattathias, killed both Antiochus' agent
and a renegade Jew, who was willing to offer the sacrifice. Mattathias and
his sons then fled, and became the leaders of a guerrilla band (1 Mace. 2).
When Mattathias died, his son Judas became the leader. He was given the
nickname 'Maccabeus' ('Hammer'). He lead a successful campaign
against the Antiochene forces in Judea. After a series of victories over
them, he marched on Jerusalem and took over the whole city except the
Acra. He and his followers were then able to purify and rededicate
the temple in December 164, a little over three years after it had been
desecrated (1 Mace. 4:36-58). They instituted the annual feast of
Hanukkah ('Dedication') to commemorate this event (1 Mace. 4:59). It
may be Maccabean forces that are referred to (somewhat disparagingly)
as the 'little help' in Dan. 11:34a. Whether or not this is the case, it is
notable that the Maccabean forces are given no positive notice in the book
42 DANIEL INTRODUCTION 43

of Daniel. At about the time the Jerusalem temple was rededicated, DATES RELEVANT TO UNDERSTANDING THE
Antiochus met an untimely death while attempting to rob a temple in BOOK OF DANIEL
Persia (see the 'Comment' on Dan. 11:4-45).
Babylon Media Persia
Nebuchadnezzar 605-562 Cyaxares 625-585
Jerusalem sacked 586
Amel-Marduk 562-560
Neriglissar 560-556
Nabonidus 556-539 Astyages 585-550 Cyrus the Great 550-530
(Belshazzar 549-539) defeats Astyages 550
captures Babylon 539
Jewish exiles return 538
Cambyses 530-522
Darius I 522-486
Xerxes I 486-465
Artaxerxes I 465-424
Xerxes II 423
Darius II 423-404
Artaxerxes II 404-358
Artaxerxes III 358-338
Arses 338-336
Darius III 336-331

Macedonia
Alexander the Great
336-323
Invades Asia Minor
334
Defeats Darius III
331

The Ptolemies The Seleucids

Ptolemy I Lagi 323-285 Seleucus I 312-280
Palestine under Ptolemaic control Antiochus I 280-261
Ptolemy II Philadelphus 285-246 Antiochus II 261-246
Ptolemy III Euergetes 246-221 Seleucus II 246-226
Seleucus III 226-223
Ptolemy IV Philopater 221-203 Antiochus III the Great 223-187
Ptolemy V Epiphanes 203-181 Gains control of Palestine 198
Seleucus N 187-175
Ptolemy VI Philometor 181-146 Antiochus N Epiphanes 175-164
Persecution of the Jews 167-164