Dreams, Riddles, and Visions

Michael Segal

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9783110389975
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

The volume contains eight original studies, each of which focuses on a different chapter or central passage in Daniel and offers a new interpretation or reading of the passage in question. The studies span the Danielic tales and apocalypses, offering innovative analyses that often challenge the scholarly consensus regarding the exegesis of this book. The eight chapters relate to Daniel 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, Susanna, and the conception of angelology in Daniel.
The studies are all based on careful textual analysis, including comparison between the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek versions (especially regarding Daniel 4–6), and, in each case, the larger arguments are built upon solid philological foundations. Many of the insights proposed in this volume are based upon the realization that the authors of Daniel were frequently interpreters of earlier biblical books, and that the identification of these intertextual clues can be the key to unlocking the meaning of these texts. In this sense, Daniel is similar to other contemporaneous works, such as Jubilees and Qumran literature, but the extent of this phenomenon has not been fully appreciated by scholars of the book. This volume therefore contributes to the appreciation of Daniel as both the latest book in the Hebrew Bible, and a significant work in the landscape of Second Temple Judaism.

1Introducing the Book of Daniel (Daniel 1)

The book of Daniel presents itself as a work of the Babylonian exile. It describes the career of a deported Judean youth, who rose to prominence in a foreign court along with three of his companions. Daniel 1, which serves as the introduction to the Masoretic version of the book, describes this general setting and establishes the narrative frame for the composition, both chronologically and thematically. The opening of the chapter tells of the exile of King Jehoakim and the Temple vessels from Jerusalem to Babylonia (vv. 1–2); its conclusion extends the period of Daniel’s activity until the first year of Cyrus (v. 21).38 These two dates mark the beginning and end of the Babylonian exile,39 and thus establish the time frame for the book as a whole. While the opening date could perhaps be construed specifically as the introduction to the story in Daniel 1, the conclusion extends far beyond the narrative’s chronological borders. It is intended to locate the entire book geographically and temporally during the Babylonian exile, in keeping with the parameters established in earlier biblical literature.

Within these chronological boundaries, two primary themes are stressed in Daniel 1: the training of the Judean youths brought to Nebuchadnezzar’s court; and their refusal to eat the royal rations provided during that time, so as not to become defiled.40 Following this preparatory period, Daniel and his Judean companions are seen to be skilled in matters of wisdom, and Daniel is even able to interpret visions and dreams; the young Judeans are in fact found to be superior to the Babylonian wise men and sorcerers (vv. 17–20). The competition in chapter 1 between these two groups foreshadows their contests in the stories of the first half of the book, and Daniel’s success at dream interpretation presages his abilities in Daniel 2, 4, and 5. Similarly, the theme of Daniel and his companions observing religiously motivated dietary restrictions in chapter 1, despite the threat of potential retribution, may anticipate their observance of Jewish law in Daniel 3 and 6, in the face of almost certain death.41 Chapter 1 thus serves as a general introduction to Daniel 2–6.42

What is the literary relationship between these two themes, divine wisdom and religious observance, in the opening chapter? The narrative appears at first to read smoothly,43 describing two different concurrent events or processes: the general motif of the youths’ training in the royal court (vv. 3–7,17–20); and the more specific, parochial concern of their consumption of prohibited foods (vv. 8–16). Some scholars have previously posited that the story of the “food test” was in existence prior to the composition of Daniel 1.44 However, they have not provided any solid evidence for this conclusion. I suggest, though, that some rough spots in the narrative bolster this possibility, while at the same time pointing to a more complex picture of the literary development and function of this chapter. I have identified two inconsistencies which together provide the keys to this more complex process.

1.1The List of Instructions to Ashpenaz

The story opens with King Nebuchadnezzar’s orders to his chief officer, Ashpenaz, to perform a number of tasks related to the training of these youths (vv. 3–5). Syntactically, the list of instructions in MT is governed by the verb אמר , which appears in the wayyiqtol form at the beginning of the list, with the Late Biblical Hebrew meaning “command.”46

Clauses (a), (b), and (d) each open with infinitival forms, all of which are governed by the initial verb in v. 3:47 “the king ordered … to bring … and (ordered) to teach … and (ordered) to raise. …” In the middle of this list, however, one finds a clause that breaks this structure, and that opens with a new finite verb marked by a waw consecutive: “The king allotted daily rations. …” In contrast to its immediate context, clause (c) stands on its own as an independent sentence. The following clause (d), which opens with an infinitive form, is once again governed by the main verb at the beginning of v. 3. The relationship of clause (c) to the rest of this syntactical structure is therefore unclear, and needs further explanation.

This anomaly has been noticed before, either consciously or unconsciously, and “corrected” in two different directions in ancient and modern translations. The Old Greek translation of this verse changed the finite verb in v. 5a, וימן להם המלך (“the king allotted daily rations”), into an infinitive (καὶ δίδοσθαι αὐτοῖς ἔκθεσιν παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως “and to be given to them [as] a prescribed portion from the king”),48 thus transforming clause (c) into yet another task that Nebuchadnezzar had ordered Ashpenaz to perform. Thus, the Old Greek shows no rupture between clauses (b) and (d); clauses (a)–(d) have been made syntactically consistent. The NJPS takes the opposite tack; it correctly translates clause (c) using a finite verb (“The king allotted …”), but then alters clause (d) to a finite verb as well, so that it no longer reflects the infinitival form governed by the verb :ויאמר “They were to be educated for three years” (v. 5b). This reading assumes that the transition to the finite verb in clause (c) severs the connection between the initial verb and the infinitive in clause (d), so that the two are no longer syntactically related. In yet a third approach, some scholars have suggested reordering the biblical text so that v. 5a does not interrupt the flow between clauses (b) and (d). Thus, for example, Marti suggests transposing clauses (c) and (d).49 Plöger posits that the most natural place for v. 5a is immediately prior to v. 8 (thus allowing for the natural continuation from clause [b] to [d]). He suggests, however, that the clause was deliberately moved to its present location in order to contrast the king’s intentions in implementing the royal training process with the subsequent divine assistance and favor that was the eventual cause of his success.50

Montgomery adduces Gen 42:25 as an “exact parallel” for “the loose syntax of the infin(itive)” in Dan 1:5:51

Gen 42:25
ויצו יוסף וימלאו את־כליהם בר ולהשיב כספיהם איש אל־שקו ולתת להם צדה לדרך ויעש להם כן:	Then Joseph commanded and they filled/to fill their bags with grain, and to return each one’s money to his sack, and to give them provisions for the journey; and this was done for them.

This verse also begins with a wayyiqtol verb of command, צוה , which governs subordinate clauses. The following clause opens with a wayyiqtol verb, וימלאו ,while the second and third clauses open with infinitival forms. At the end of the verse, there is a general notation that the commands were fulfilled, “and this was done for them.” At first blush, this verse seems to offer a parallel to Dan 1:5, in the alternation of the subordinate clauses between finite and infinitival forms; if this were the case, this passage would demonstrate that the verse from Daniel is not problematic as suggested here. However, the syntactical structure of Gen 42:25 is fundamentally different. In that verse, the use of the second wayyiqtol form essentially reflects an elliptical construction; that is, the first clause subordinated to the command is implicit, not stated, while its implementation is recorded explicitly.52 Thus, the construction of the verse is essentially as follows:

Then Joseph ordered [to fill their bags with grain] and they filled their bags with grain; and to return each one’s money to his sack, and to give them provisions for the journey; and this was done for them (Gen 42:25).

The use of the wayyiqtol is not a function of its interchangeability with the infinitive form, but rather the latter can be inferred from the former. The case of Dan 1:5 is fundamentally different – in clauses (a), (b) and (d), the king has commanded Ashpenaz to perform certain actions, which are certainly not all completed immediately ([b] and [d] are accomplished over the three-year period mentioned in v. 5). In contrast, clause (c), which opens with the wayyiqtol form, is not a component of the king’s command, fulfilled or not. It is a description of an action that the king himself performed! This is further demonstrated by v. 10, in which the chief officer informs Daniel that he is afraid not to give him the food that the king has allotted for him. It is thus impossible to read v. 5a as part of the king’s command to Ashpenaz.

In contrast, however, to these approaches towards resolving the difficulty in Dan 1:3–5, I would like to suggest that the syntactical problem I have identified here is the result of the process of the literary development of this chapter. If one excises clause (c) from this passage, the verses read smoothly, as three clauses governed by the verb of command.53 This clause cannot, however, be discarded as the addition of some very late scribe; rather, as I will suggest below, it can be shown to belong to a complete story about the vigilance of Daniel and his companions in the matter of eating prohibited foods.

1.2How did God help Daniel vis-à-vis the שר הסריסים ?54

According to the order of events later in the story, Daniel decided not to defile himself by consuming the food and drink provided by the king, and appealed to the good graces of the שר הסריסים,55 so that he would not be forced to do so (v. 8). Verse 9 then recounts that God caused this official to be sympathetic towards Daniel: “And God disposed the chief officer to be kind and compassionate towards Daniel.” Daniel 1:9 is reminiscent of the description of Joseph in prison: “The Lord was with Joseph; He extended kindness to him and disposed the chief jailer favorably toward him” (Gen 39:21).56 In the Joseph story, the consequences of this favor are immediately explained and expounded in the following verses:

(22) The chief jailer put in Joseph’s charge all the prisoners who were in that prison, and he was the one to carry out everything that was done there. (23) The chief jailer did not supervise anything that was in his charge, because the Lord was with him, and whatever he did the Lord made successful (Gen 39:22–23).

In Daniel 1, one might expect the order of events after v. 9 to follow a pattern similar to that of the Joseph story – that is, the royal officer should accede to Daniel’s request; otherwise, the emphasis on God’s intervention on Daniel’s behalf would appear meaningless. However, this is not what occurs in the next stage in the story:

The chief officer said to Daniel, “I fear that my lord the king, who allotted food and drink to you, will notice that you look out of sorts, unlike the other youths of your age – and you will put my life (lit.: head) in jeopardy with the king (Dan 1:10).

The chief officer in fact does not agree to Daniel’s request, and the story provides an explicit reason for his refusal: he is concerned that the king will notice their diminished state and therefore punish the chief officer for failure to fulfill his orders. What is the significance of God influencing the chief officer to have a positive disposition towards Daniel if in fact this attempt was ineffective?

Subsequently, Daniel approaches the מלצר (“guard”)57 and proposes that he perform a ten-day experiment, during which Daniel and his friends would refrain from eating the king’s allotment, and at the end of which he would be allowed to observe their appearance (vv. 11–13). According to the MT of v. 11, the chi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• 0 Introduction
• 1 Introducing the Book of Daniel (Daniel 1)
• 2 Daniel as Interpreter of Dreams: The Literary Development of the Narrative in Daniel 2
• 3 Rereading the Writing on the Wall (Daniel 5)
• 4 The Textual and Literary Development of Daniel 4
• 5 Reconsidering the Theological Background of Daniel 7
• 6 The Chronological Conception of the Persian Period in Daniel 9
• 7 Rethinking Jewish Life in the Diaspora: The Story of Susanna
• 8 Conclusion
• Index of Modern Authors
• Index of Ancient Texts
• Fußnoten