(Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 455) Michael Segal - Dreams, Riddles, And Visions_ Textual, Contextual, And Intertextual Approaches to the Book of Daniel-Walter de Gru

Michael Segal
Dreams, Riddles, and Visions

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft
Edited by
John Barton, Reinhard G. Kratz,
and Markus Witte
Band 455
Michael Segal
Dreams, Riddles,
and Visions
Textual, Contextual, and Intertextual Approaches
to the Book of Daniel
ISBN 978-3-11-033086-1
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-033099-1
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978–3-11–038997–5
ISSN 0934–2575
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Contents
0 Introduction | 1
0.1. Divinely Inspired Wisdom in Daniel | 2
0.2. Textual Questions: Alternate Editions of Daniel | 3
0.3. Intertextual Contexts: Daniel as Second Temple Literature | 7
0.4. Exegetical Insights: Rereading the Book of Daniel | 9
1 Introducing the Book of Daniel (Daniel 1) | 13

1.1. The List of Instructions to Ashpenaz | 15
1.2. How did God help Daniel vis-à-vis the ‫ | ?שר הסריסים‬19
1.3. A Story within a Story | 22
Appendix: The Third Year of Jehoiakim’s Reign | 26
2 Daniel as Interpreter of Dreams: The Literary Development of the Narra-

tive in Daniel 2 | 32
2.1. Description of Daniel 2 | 32
2.2. Contradictions within Daniel 2 | 33
2.3. Divine Names as Supporting Evidence for Different
Sources | 37
2.4. A More Precise Source Division | 41
2.5. Daniel as an “Improved” Joseph | 48
2.6. Possible Origin of the Addition | 51
3 Rereading the Writing on the Wall (Daniel 5) | 55

3.1. They Could Not Read the Writing | 55
3.2. The Riddle of the Writing | 68
3.3. The Narrativization of Prophecy | 79
3.4. Conclusions | 93
4 The Textual and Literary Development of Daniel 4 | 94

4.1. The Structure of MT Daniel 4 | 96
4.2. Secondary Elements in MT Daniel 4 | 102
4.2.1. Daniel 4:3–7a,15 | 102
4.2.2. Daniel 4:13a | 104
4.2.3. Daniel 4:14b | 108
4.3. Secondary Elements in OG | 109
4.3.1. Solving an Interpretive Crux – “in fetters of iron and
bronze” | 109
4.3.2. The Date of the Story | 115
VI Contents
4.3.3. Additional Secondary Elements in OG | 119

4.4. Summary Remarks on the Relationship between
MT and OG | 124
4.5. Does the Old Greek reflect a Semitic Vorlage? Evidence from a
Parabiblical Composition | 126
5 Reconsidering the Theological Background of Daniel 7 | 132

5.1. The Literary Unity of Daniel 7 | 132
5.2. Identifying the “One like a Man” | 134
5.3. Translating and Identifying ‫ | )עם( קדישי עליונין‬139
5.4. Eschatological Biblical Interpretation: Establishing Yhwh’s
Portion | 144
5.5. Daniel 7 and the Other Apocalypses in Daniel: Daniel 7:25 | 150
5.6. Theological Worldview or Literary Appropriation? | 153
6 The Chronological Conception of the Persian Period in

Daniel 9 | 155
6.1. Introduction: Chronology in Daniel 9 – The Interpretive
Consensus | 155
6.2. A New Interpretation of Daniel 9 | 157
6.2.1. Darius the Mede – Historiography as Exegesis | 159
6.2.2. Daniel’s Reading of Jeremiah | 162
6.2.3. Gabriel’s Response to Daniel’s Prayer | 165
6.2.4. A “Proto-Rabbinic” Chronological Conception in Daniel 9?
Towards a “New” Identification of the ‫ | משיח נגיד‬171
7 Rethinking Jewish Life in the Diaspora: The Story of Susanna | 180

7.1. Placement and Function of the Story of Susanna: Preliminary
Considerations | 181
7.2. The Interpretive Background of Susanna: Isaiah 2:3
Recontextualized | 184
7.2.1. Isaiah 2:1–4 | 185
7.2.2. Isaiah 51:3–5 | 187
7.2.3. Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 1:2 (18d–19a) | 189
7.3. Susanna | 193
7.3.1. Shared Elements | 196
7.3.2. Contrasting Elements | 196
Contents VII
8 Conclusion | 200
8.1. New Interpretive Insights into the Book of Daniel | 200
8.2. Daniel as Early Jewish Interpretation | 201
8.3. Interpretive Techniques in Daniel | 202
8.3.1. Literary Modelling of Characters | 202
8.3.2. Chronological Interpretation | 203
8.3.3. Eschatological Interpretation | 205
8.3.4. Ideological Interpretation | 206
8.3.5. Narrativization | 207
8.4. The Use of Textual Witnesses as Evidence for Literary
Growth | 208
8.5. The Literary Development of Daniel | 210
8.6. Implications for the Literary Structure of Daniel | 211
Index of Modern Authors | 229
Index of Ancient Texts | 233

Abbreviations
AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Double-
day, 1992
AbrNSup Abr-Nahrain: Supplement Series
ABL Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections
of the British Museum. Edited by R. F. Harper. 14 vols. Chicago, 1892–
1914
AfOB Archiv für Orientforschung: Beiheft
AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristen-
tums
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BDB A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. F. Brown, S. R.
Driver, and C. A. Briggs. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907
BEATAJ Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Juden-
tum
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
Ben-Yehuda A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew. Ed. E. Ben
Yehuda; vols. 8–9 ed. M. H. Segal; v. 10–16 ed. N. H. Tur-Sinai. 17 vols.
Berlin: Langenscheidt, 1909–1959
BJS Brown Judaic Studies
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament
BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago. Ed. I. J. Gelb et al. Chicago: Univerisity of Chicago Press, 1956–
2011
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
CEJL Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature
CHAN Culture and History of the Ancient Near East
DCH Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Ed. D. J. A. Clines. 8 vols. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2012
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DSD Dead Sea Discoveries
ErIsr Eretz Israel
Even-Shoshan Ha-Milon He-ḥadash: Otsar Shalem shel Ha-lashon ha-ˁIvrit
ha-sifrutit, ha-madaˁit ṿeha-meduberet, nivim ṿa-amarot ˁIvriyim ṿa-
X Abbreviations
Aramiyim, munaḥim benleˀumiyim. A. Even-Shoshan. 3 vols. Jerusalem:

Kiryat Sefer, 1981
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testa-
ments
HALOT Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic
Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the super-
vision of M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden, 1994–2000
HDR Harvard Dissertations in Religion
HeyJ Heythrop Journal
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
JAJ Journal of Ancient Judaism
JAJSup Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements
JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JHS Journal of Hebrew Scriptures
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman
Periods
JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplement Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament
KHC Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament
KTU Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Edited by M. Dietrich,
O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. AOAT 24.1. Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976. 2nd enlarged ed.: KTU:
The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other
Places. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 1995
Abbreviations XI
LCL Loeb Classical Library

LSTS Library of Second Temple Studies
NCB New Century Bible
NETS* A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by A. Pietersma and
B. G. Wright; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NJPS** Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation according to the
Traditional Hebrew Text
NTT Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
OIP Oriental Institute Publications
OLP Orientalia lovaniensia periodica
OTL Old Testament Library
OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën
PL Patrologia latina [= Patrologiae cursus completus: Series latina].
Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–1864
RB Revue biblique
RevQ Revue de Qumran
RTL Revue théologique de Louvain
SAA State Archives of Assyria
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and its Literature
SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies
SBLWAW Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SHR Studies in the History of Religions (supplement to Numen)
SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
SNT Studien zum Neuen Testament
STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
SVTG Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum
SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica
* English translations of the Septuagint throughout this monograph are based upon NETS, with
minor variation, unless otherwise noted.
** English translations of MT throughout this monograph are based upon NJPS, with minor va-
riation, unless otherwise noted.
XII Abbreviations
TB Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhun-

dert
Textus Textus: Annual of the Hebrew University Bible Project
TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum / Texts and Studies in
Ancient Judaism
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZBK Zürcher Bibelkommentare
0 Introduction
This monograph offers a study of those passages from the book of Daniel that
depict the protagonist as a divinely inspired wise man privy to God’s revelations,
as received both directly and through the medium of foreign kings. Each chapter
analyzes a story or vision from the book of Daniel (including the story of Susanna
in the Greek versions) that highlight this role. In each case, the proposed inter-
pretation offers a new understanding of the chapter in question, based upon
insights drawn from a combination of textual, philological, redactional, exegeti-
cal, literary, ideological, and theological analyses. Each of these methodologies
is valuable in its own right, but it is the complementary combination of multiple
approaches that allows for a new perspective on these texts. The choice of the
specific methods used in each case is a function of the passage under considera-
tion – I make no a priori assumptions as to which method should be invoked to
probe the intricacies of this biblical book.
The theme of wisdom, expressed through the conception of Daniel as a
divinely inspired sage, appears throughout most of the stories in the first half of
the book of Daniel (1–6), but also lies at the foundation of the apocalyptic revela-
tions contained in its second half (Daniel 7–12).¹ This motif thus serves as a the-
matic thread throughout Daniel, tying together its variegated contents; it there-
fore provides a fitting focus for the present study. While a synchronic perspective
succeeds in identifying unifying themes throughout the book, generations of
critical scholars have convincingly demonstrated that Daniel is not the product of
one individual writer from the exilic era. Rather, the book as a whole comprises
the contributions of multiple authors, who chose to tell these tales and describe
the apocalypses with great flourish; the latest authorial strata can be safely dated
to the second century bce. The purpose of this monograph is to analyze afresh
each of the passages under consideration in order to fully understand them and
to uncover the motivations and worldviews of their respective authors. The sub-
title of this book, “Textual, Intertextual, and Exegetical Studies of the Book of
Daniel,” notes three distinct, yet interrelated, methodological directions that are
explored extensively throughout these studies. The relevance and potential con-
tribution of each of these is described below.
1 In contrast to the clear generic division between the two halves of the book (Daniel 1–6: narra-
tives; 7–12: apocalypses), the contours of its linguistic profile are more complex; the book opens
in Hebrew (1:1–2:4a), transitions to Aramaic (2:4b–7:28), and then returns to Hebrew for the final
five chapters (8–12).
2 Introduction
The critical study of Daniel has generally proceeded from the (correct) assump-
tion that many of the details in the book are historically imprecise and therefore do
not reflect an accurate version of events. This was already recognized in antiquity
by Porphyry (third century ce Neo-Platonic philosopher); it has been further dem-
onstrated in modern scholarship with the discovery of additional documents from
the period during which the events narrated in Daniel purport to have transpired.
These extrabiblical sources have enabled us to reconstruct a more complete histor-
ical picture of the sixth-century BCE ancient Near East, and this reality, including
such seemingly simple issues as the identification of kingdoms and royal dynas-
ties, is at times noticeably in conflict with the information presented in Daniel.²
With the knowledge available to us today, it is abundantly clear that the authors
of Daniel were not offering firsthand, eyewitness accounts of the events in ques-
tion, but were rather describing how they perceived the past or, more precisely,
how they wanted their readers to perceive this past. The current monograph there-
fore does not attempt to further analyze the historical background of the events
described in Daniel, but rather addresses the literary-ideological questions of how
and to what ends the Danielic authors composed these stories.
0.1 Divinely Inspired Wisdom in Daniel
The book of Daniel tells of a Jewish exile who rose to prominence and served
in the courts of the great world empires from the beginning of the Babylonian
exile until the Restoration under king Cyrus of Persia. Daniel’s success in this
foreign milieu is attributed directly to divinely bestowed wisdom, which enables
him to reveal and interpret dreams, to solve riddles, and to receive apocalyptic
visions. This divinely inspired wisdom accompanies Daniel from his humble
beginnings in the court of Nebuchadnezzar, where he outshines all of his coun-
terparts (1:17, 20); it helps him to reveal the king’s dreams and their interpreta-
tions (Daniel 2 and 4)³ and subsequently to unlock the mystery of Belshazzar’s
2 It appears that the Persian period was a particular enigma to these Jewish authors of the third
and second centuries BCE, who were not acquainted with the minutiae of history of hundreds of
years before their time. See, for instance, the comprehensive summary in Collins (1993, 24–33).
See further chap. 6 below, where this is discussed in relation to Daniel 9. This lack of precise
historical awareness of the Persian period continued through to rabbinic literature and persists
until today amongst many traditional Jewish interpreters due to the influence of the early rab-
binic composition Seder Olam on classical rabbinic chronography.
3 The dream and interpretation in Daniel 2 were themselves revealed to Daniel through a dream
vision that connects Daniel 2 to Daniel 7; see below chap. 2, pp. 51–54.
Textual Questions: Alternate Editions of Daniel 3
vision of the writing on the wall. According to the story of Susanna, found in
both Greek versions of the book, Daniel was already endowed in his early youth
with the wisdom that allowed him to save the righteous heroine.⁴ The same wise
Judean courtier is also the recipient of four separate apocalyptic visions, the first
two during the reign of Belshazzar (Daniel 7 and 8), another during the reign
of Darius the Mede (Daniel 9), and the final one at the beginning of the reign
of Cyrus (Daniel 10–12). In each of these revelations, visions of broad periods of
history are presented to Daniel, culminating in the deliverance of Israel from the
hands of their foreign oppressors. The literary theme of Daniel’s divinely inspired
wisdom is therefore highlighted throughout the entire book and serves as one of
the central themes of the work. God’s gift of wisdom to Daniel demonstrates his
imminent involvement in the lives of those faithful to him,⁵ and the visions detail
his extended intervention in broader historical processes.
0.2 Textual Questions: Alternate Editions of Daniel
The most fundamental aspect of the study of any ancient composition is the
careful philological analysis of its text and textual history. This is true at the
most basic level of understanding, since the process of interpretation can only be
applied to specific versions and the investigation of their constituent textual ele-
ments. This has long been recognized in the critical study of the Bible, although
some scholars implement this insight more carefully than others. Discoveries of
the past century, including both the Dead Sea scrolls and Greek papyri in Egypt,
have led to further advances in the field of textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible,
and today we are abundantly aware of the variety of textual witnesses for these
works in antiquity. Daniel is no exception, and both the Qumran scrolls and the
Greek manuscripts provide significant evidence for the textual history of the
4 The wisdom element in this story differs from that found elsewhere in Daniel and is rooted in
the proper implementation of the laws of testimony and court procedure; although this wisdom,
too, is presented as divinely endowed (vv. 44–45). For a discussion of the ideological and exegeti-
cal background of Susanna, see the extensive discussion in chap. 7.
5 This is already emphasized in Daniel 1, where the refusal of Daniel and his companions to
defile themselves by partaking of the food provided by the king culminates in the description
of their divinely endowed success in training in the foreign court (1:17–20); see below, chap. 1,
regarding the literary development of Daniel 1. Their faithfulness is further demonstrated by the
stories in Daniel 3 and 6, which portray them as willing to risk their own lives rather than vio-
late their commitment to the divine will. However, these stories do not reflect the same wisdom
theme as that found in the other tales and are therefore not included in this volume.
4 Introduction
book. When combined with the details culled from other ancient translations, we
have a broad range of data regarding the transmission and early translation of the
book. This information provides the basic building blocks for the interpretation
of the book, and the analyses presented here all rest on this solid foundation.
The textual criticism of Daniel is not limited to the establishment of individ-
ual readings, although these can also be of great significance for the purposes
of exegesis and critical analysis.⁶ Studies in recent years have demonstrated the
contributions of textual witnesses towards our understanding of the literary
development of scriptural compositions. Large-scale differences between the
versions, when they are attested, afford a window onto the final stages of the
compositional process by which these works were created. When we find major
differences between textual witnesses, including the MT, LXX, and/or Qumran
manuscripts, these instances offer us a rare glimpse into the workings of bibli-
cal authors and scribes in antiquity.⁷ Due perhaps to the relatively late date of
its composition, the extant textual witnesses for the book of Daniel provide clear
evidence for such developments. In this respect, then, the book of Daniel pro-
vides potentially paradigmatic evidence for the contribution of textual witnesses
towards unlocking the complex processes of literary growth that underlie much
of biblical literature.
The primary textual witnesses to Daniel consist of: (1) the Masoretic text
(MT); (2) the Old Greek translation (OG); and (3) the Greek translation attributed
to Theodotion.⁸ In addition to the minor textual variations that may be identified
6 For example, the Qumran reading of Dan 5:12 (see below, chap. 3, pp. 63–65); or the Old Greek
of 2:18–19 (see below, chap. 2.3, pp. 37–41).
7 Cf. Tov (2012, 283–326), for a comprehensive summary of examples for which the extant textual
witnesses attest to the literary development of specific biblical books.
8 The texts of OG and Theodotion are presented throughout this monograph according to the
edition of Munnich (1999). While the version of Daniel attributed to Theodotion is preserved in
the overwhelming number of Greek manuscripts, the Old Greek version has been preserved in
only two Greek witnesses (ms 88 and Papyrus 967), along with the seventh-century Syro-Hexapla
translation by Paul of Tella. This disparity is the result of an early, sustained attempt to suppress
the OG version, which deviates significantly from the MT. See Jellicoe (1968, 83–87), who dates
the beginnings of this process to the second half of the third century ce, possibly due to the
work of Origen, who knew of both translations (see his Epistle to Africanus, § 2). See also Braver-
man (1978, 31–32 [esp. n. 61]), who demonstrates that Theod had already superseded OG before
Jerome; cf. the Preface to Jerome’s commentary on Daniel (where he note that the churches use
the version attributed to Theodotion) and his commentary to Dan 4:6 (in which he observes that
Origen in his Stromata preferred Theodotion’s edition). Cf. PL 28, col. 1291 and PL 25, col 514.
The publication of Papyrus 967 was a major step forward in the study of the Old Greek version of
Daniel, since it offered for the first time a pre-Hexaplaric version of the text. ms 88, also referred
Textual Questions: Alternate Editions of Daniel 5
between almost all ancient textual witnesses, these three textual traditions pre-
serve far-reaching differences, especially for the stories found in the first half of
the book. These differences are significant enough to lead to the conclusion that
the three versions in fact reflect different literary editions of the book (or at least
of its first half). The differences between the three editions can be summarized
as follows:
(a) The MT (together with Theodotion)⁹ differs extensively from the OG in
Daniel 4–6. These differences cannot be explained simply as individual variants
but rather reflect major differences that seem to originate at the level of literary
development. The most prominent case is found in Daniel 4, and the analysis of
the development of this divergence is of fundamental importance for interpreting
this chapter.¹⁰ Daniel 5 and 6 also exhibit numerous differences between the OG
and the other two versions, some of which reflect that they are alternate literary
editions, while others are due to the interpretive role of the OG translator.¹¹
to as “Codex Chisianus,” preserves a post-Hexaplaric copy of the OG, and therefore has been tex-
tually contaminated in places by attempts to bring it into line with MT or Theod. Unsurprisingly,
the Syro-Hexapla version has been heavily influenced by Hexaplaric revision. For a discussion
of these textual witnesses, see Munnich (1999, 9–87). See also the discussion of Amara (2006,
25–36), who criticizes the a priori assumption that Papyrus 967 should be privileged over the
other witnesses. However, it seems that this is indeed the case in the majority of instances.
9 In the sections of Daniel attested in the Masoretic text, the version attributed to Theodotion is
generally much closer to MT, and was almost certainly the product of an attempt to revise the Old
Greek translation (or a version close to it) to agree with MT (or a version close to it).
10 See chap. 4 for an extensive analysis of the two versions of Daniel 4, including references to
previous scholarship on this topic.
11 See chap. 3 regarding these differences in Daniel 5. A further argument for describing the MT
and OG versions as alternate literary editions may be made on the basis of their diverging chron-
ological frameworks. While some of the dates in OG appear to be corrections that solve exegetical
problems raised by MT (see below chap. 1, p. 13 [n. 1], in reference to Dan 10:1), the addition of
others was intended to integrate a new theme or idea into the composition; see below, chap. 4, in
reference to the dates at the beginning of OG 4:1, and similarly in 3:1, which connect the stories in
Daniel 3–4 to the desecration and destruction of the Temple. Furthermore, in Papyrus 967, Dan-
iel 7 and 8 appear prior to chapter 5. This is certainly a secondary rearrangement of the original
sequence; all other textual witnesses cluster stories in the first half of the book and apocalypses
in the second half, ordered chronologically within each genre. In Papyrus 967, all of the chapters
in the book were reordered chronologically, so that the apocalyptic sections dated to the reign
of Belshazzar (7:1 – 1st year; 8:1 – 3rd year) appear before the story describing the final night of
Belshazzar’s reign (Daniel 5). An additional argument can be offered to bolster the suggestion
that the order in Papyrus 967 is secondary. If one accepts that the MT of each of the chapters in
question reflects their original language (Daniel 5 and 7 – Aramaic; Daniel 8 – Hebrew), then
the sequence of Papyrus 967, considered as the reflection of a Semitic Vorlage, seems particu-
larly convoluted: Daniel 1–2:4a (Hebrew); 2:4b – 4, 7 (Aramaic); 8 (Hebrew); 5–6 (Aramaic); 9–12
6 Introduction
(b) The first six chapters of MT Daniel preserve six stories, while chapters 7–12
contain four apocalyptic visions. In contrast, both Greek translations contain three
textual expansions (the Additions to Daniel) in the narrative section of the book,
comprising two independent stories (Susanna, Bel and the Dragon), and a long
poetic insertion in Daniel 3 (the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Youths).¹²
(c) The two Greek versions exhibit large-scale differences in the text of the
Additions, which also probably indicates different literary editions of these com-
positions.¹³ The story of Susanna is significantly longer in Theodotion than in
OG,¹⁴ and Bel and the Dragon is presented in two parallel, yet different, versions
of about equal length.¹⁵ The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Youths
are nearly identical in the two Greek versions, but they have been integrated into
the narrative of Daniel 3 in different ways.
In light of these observations, we can describe three contemporary, yet differ-
ent, literary editions of Daniel:¹⁶ (1) MT, which contains the six stories in chapters
1–6;¹⁷ (2) Theodotion which preserves a text similar to MT for these six stories,
plus the three Additions noted above; and (3) OG, which covers the same liter-
ary passages as Theodotion, including chapters 1–6 and the three Additions, but
which manifests significant differences from the text shared by MT and Theodo-
tion, primarily in chapters 4–6; it also differs significantly from Theodotion in the
stories of Susanna and Bel. This complex web of literary relationships is one of
the most intricate specimens of textual evidence for literary development within
the entire corpus of biblical literature, and due to its paradigmatic significance,
is therefore a central focus of the studies presented here.¹⁸
(Hebrew). It is therefore more likely that this secondary reordering took place within the Greek
text, and not in a Hebrew/Aramaic text which was subsequently translated into Greek.
12 Regarding the different locations of the Additions in the respective manuscript traditions,
see chap. 7 below.
13 The two Greek translations also differ in character from one another: the Old Greek is a freer
translation characterized by Greek syntax, while Theodotion is more literal, characterized by
Semitic syntax, and is almost certainly a revision towards a Hebrew/Aramaic text similar to MT.
14 See below, chap. 7.
15 For attempts to explain the differences between the two different versions of this story, see
Amara (1996); Trotter (2013).
16 Alternatively, perhaps it would be more precise to speak of two distinct editions (MT and OG),
as well as a mixed edition (Theodotion) that is close to MT in the passages where they overlap but
also includes the Additions as in OG.
17 All of the Qumran biblical manuscripts of Daniel reflect the MT edition of the book; cf. Ulrich
(1987, 1989); Ulrich’s publication of the Qumran Cave 4 fragments of Daniel in DJD 16 (Ulrich
2000); Ulrich (2001); Segal (2015).
18 Cf. especially the studies of Daniel 4 (chap. 4); Daniel 5 (chap. 3); and Susanna (chap. 7).
Intertextual Contexts: Daniel as Second Temple Literature 7
0.3 Intertextual Contexts: Daniel as Second Temple Literature
According to the scholarly consensus, the apocalypses in the second half of the
book of Daniel may safely be dated to the second half of the second century BCE,
having been composed in response to the decrees under the reign of Antiochus
IV.¹⁹ Similarly, the stories found in the first half of the book (Daniel 1–6), while
earlier than the apocalyptic visions in the second half, were also composed during
the Second Temple period, perhaps during the fourth to third centuries BCE.²⁰
Therefore, the book of Daniel in its entirety should be conceived of as a literary
product of the Second Temple period, and should thus be critically approached
employing the same methods used to investigate contemporary compositions.
Scholars and interpreters often draw a distinction, consciously or unconsciously,
between Daniel, which belongs to all of the ancient canons of the Bible, and other
works of the Second Temple period, even though sections of compositions such
as 1 Enoch are in fact earlier than the apocalypses in Daniel. However, the clear
generic relationship between Daniel and these other compositions, coupled with
their chronological overlap, renders the traditional distinction between biblical
and “non-” or “post-”biblical meaningless. The demarcation between what is in
the Bible and what is out does not relate to the contents of these compositions,
but rather to whether or not they were accepted by specific communities. The
19 There is some debate among scholars regarding the precise process of literary development
of these four apocalypses, and I am of the opinion that they were not composed at the same time,
or necessarily by one author. See below, chap. 5, in which I posit that the apocalyptic authors in
(Hebrew) Daniel 8–12 may have been aware of and were reinterpreting the (Aramaic) apocalypse
of Daniel 7. Furthermore, as suggested in Segal (2010a), some of the apocalypses may also have
been subject to scribal additions and interventions following their original composition; thus
their current literary form may not necessarily reflect the work of one author (numerous scholars
suggest that the compositional history of Daniel 7 involves such a process, but I do not find their
arguments convincing; cf. below chap. 5). Despite these potential complications, the work as a
whole can still be safely assigned to the general date of the second century, and is therefore well
within the chronological boundaries of the compositions discussed here for comparison.
20 Daniel 1 and 3 were probably composed later than the rest of the stories in 1–6: Daniel 1 was
written as an introduction to the book (either to the first half or to the entire book), and the
theme of “Only Pure Food,” which, as will be suggested below, was already found in an extant
source adopted by the author of Daniel 1, is found in other works of the Hellenistic period (see
below chap. 1). Daniel 3 is the only story in the book that contains words of clear Greek origin
(vv. 5,7,10,15: ‫ סומפניה‬,‫ קיתר ֹס‬,‫ פסנתרין‬and variant spellings of these terms) and offers a distinc-
tively negative portrayal of the foreign king. Taken together, it seems likely that Daniel 3 may be
later than the other stories in Daniel (except perhaps for Daniel 1). The same point may be made
regarding the Additions to Daniel preserved in the two Greek versions, which should also be ana-
lyzed as part of the literary fabric of Second Temple Judaism. See further chap. 8.6, pp. 211–213.
8 Introduction
inclusion of Daniel in all ancient Jewish and Christian canons should therefore
not obscure the religious, ideological and cultural milieu from which it emerged,
that is, Judaism of the Hellenistic period. The studies included in this book there-
fore utilize the same methodological assumptions that apply to the study of other
literature from the Second Temple period. Of course, there is a recognition of dia-
chronic development within the literature of this period as well, and there is clear
reuse of Daniel in certain compositions from the apocrypha, pseudepigrapha,
and Dead Sea Scrolls, but this direction of development cannot be demonstrated
solely based upon the corpus to which they each belong.
The insight that Daniel should be studied as part of Second Temple literature
has been recognized primarily within the framework of the study of apocalyptic
literature.²¹ The numerous compositions of Second Temple Judaism that relate
apocalyptic visions, such as 1 Enoch, Jubilees, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, all provide
rich data for comparison, which allow for a broader understanding of this genre
and its inherent worldview. Similarly, the emphasis on apocalyptic and escha-
tology in numerous Qumran scrolls has contributed towards the appreciation of
these phenomena amongst Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman eras. This has had
a direct impact upon the recent study of Daniel, and in particular upon the assess-
ment of the four apocalyptic visions. The preponderance of apocalyptic literature
in the Second Temple period shows that Daniel belongs naturally with this body
of literature. It can be further demonstrated that many of these later apocalypses
were written by authors who were intimately aware of the book of Daniel, allud-
ing to the earlier apocalypses and often updating and rewriting their contents.
The phenomenon of adoption and adaptation of the Danielic apocalypses can
be found in other compositions from antiquity as well, including 4 Ezra,²² the
Gabriel Revelation,²³ and the New Testament.²⁴
The relationship between the Danielic apocalypses and these Qumran com-
positions is not, however, limited to the realm of genre. I suggest that we also
need to consider the implications of Daniel’s place within Jewish literature of the
Second Temple period for other areas of research. In recent decades, there has
been a growing appreciation of the invaluable contribution of Second Temple lit-
21 See in particular the numerous studies of John J. Collins, especially Collins (1998).
22 Stone (1990, 361, 366, 384, etc).
23 For discussion of this enigmatic inscription, see the helpful collection of studies in Henze
(2011).
24 The secondary literature on the use of Danielic texts and traditions (in particular regarding
the Son of Man) in the New Testament is too vast to review here. For a helpful summary of the
evidence and scholarly positions, see Adela Yarbro Collins (1993, 90–112).
Exegetical Insights: Rereading the Book of Daniel 9
erature for the history of biblical interpretation.²⁵ Second Temple authors read
and interpreted earlier, authoritative works and wove these exegetical elucida-
tions into their new compositions. Books such as Ben Sira, the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs, and Jubilees are all vast repositories of these interpretations
and interpretive traditions, and reflect the insights of some of the earliest readers
of the Bible.
Of course, the phenomenon of innerbiblical interpretation has long been rec-
ognized and analyzed,²⁶ for example with respect to Chronicles;²⁷ between and
within biblical legal corpora;²⁸ and even within the book of Daniel itself.²⁹ With
respect to the latter, studies have focused primarily on two areas: the relation-
ship between the Daniel stories (and Esther) and the Joseph novella;³⁰ and the
specific case of Daniel 9, which is frequently cited as a paradigm of this phenom-
enon.³¹ However, the extent of the reuse and recasting of biblical traditions in
Daniel is far more extensive than has previously been noted by scholars. It will
be suggested throughout the chapters of this monograph that Daniel should
also be studied as a repository of early interpretive traditions, to be read in dia-
logue with earlier biblical books, in the same way that other Jewish works of
the Second Temple period have been recognized for their hermeneutical signifi-
cance.
0.4 Exegetical Insights: Rereading the Book of Daniel
The studies presented in this book offer new perspectives on the interpretation of
the book of Daniel. Notwithstanding a rich tradition of over two thousand years
of interpretive history, I suggest that there are numerous innovative insights as
yet untapped that emerge based upon a careful textual and philological analysis
25 Note in particular the contributions of Kugel (1997, 1998); and numerous others.
26 See the foundational studies of Fishbane (1985); Zakovitch (1992); and numerous others.
27 See, e.g., Seeligmann ([1980] 2004); Shaver (1989); et al.
28 See, e.g., Levinson (1997); Chavel (2011).
29 See, e.g., Henze (2012).
30 For a discussion of the parallels between these stories, and of previous scholarship on the
subject, see below, chaps. 2 and 3.
31 See below, chap. 6, for a survey of scholarship on this aspect; my proposed interpretation
of Daniel 9 leads to a very different conclusion regarding the meaning and significance of this
chapter. At the same time, I suggest there that the chronology underlying that apocalypse is
in fact based upon a reading of earlier biblical compositions, and reflects early conceptions of
chronological exegesis of the biblical data.
10 Introduction
of the book, and that cast its component texts in a completely new light. These
insights range from the reinterpretation of a single word or an expression; to the
identification of allusions to earlier compositions; to fundamentally new under-
standings of entire passages. Each chapter in the monograph combines textual
and redactional analysis (cf. the studies of Daniel 1, 2, 4), and addresses the
reuse and transformation of earlier biblical texts and traditions (cf. the studies
of Daniel 4, 5, 7, 9, and Susanna). The methods employed in each case were
determined by the contours of the individual passage under interpretation. This
methodological flexibility opens up the possibility of choosing, as appropriate,
from among the vast array of exegetical tools available to the critical interpreter,
without the limitations that some studies impose upon themselves.
This book took form as preliminary studies in the course of preparation of
a full-scale exegetical commentary on the Book of Daniel.³² While some of the
material here included has been previously published in some form,³³ most of
these studies are completely new. Although methodological flexibility is a hall-
mark of my work in this volume, all the studies proceed from the same funda-
mental assumption that careful textual and philological analysis leads to new
interpretive insights. At the same time, each chapter is structured so that it can
be read on its own.³⁴
Although I have chosen to include in this monograph only those studies that
advance a new reading or interpretation in Daniel, my research has benefitted
extensively from the efforts and contributions of generations of scholars who
have carefully dissected and analyzed every word and verse in Daniel.³⁵ As is fre-
quently the case with innovative interpretations, not every reader will be con-
vinced of the arguments put forth in each of these chapters (although I will of
course be happy if they are). At the same time, it is my hope that the new readings
32 My commentary on Daniel and the Additions to Daniel is to be published in the framework of
the Yale Anchor Bible Commentary series.
33 The following chapters were published in earlier versions: Chap. 2, as Segal (2009); chap. 6,
as Segal (2011); chap. 7, as Segal (2013). In addition a version of the first part of chap. 3 was pub-
lished as Segal (2013a). I wish to express my appreciation to the editors and publishers of these
journals/collections for allowing me to republish them in this monograph. All other material is
published here for the first time.
34 For example, in relation to secondary scholarship. Rather than conducting an extensive sur-
vey of scholarship in this introduction, I have elected to present and assess the contributions and
interpretations of my predecessors as appropriate to each chapter.
35 Among others, see Montgomery (1927), Charles (1929), Hartman and Di Lella (1978), Goldin-
gay (1989), and Collins (1993).
Exegetical Insights: Rereading the Book of Daniel 11
proposed here will be a catalyst for further scholarly discussion of the book of
Daniel, and will perhaps help further refine our understanding of this work.
***
I have many people to thank for their assistance in bringing this book to fruition.
I am very fortunate to have daily interactions with colleagues and students at the
Hebrew University, who have helped me refine and improve my ideas about the
book of Daniel. I have also benefited from the reactions of scholars to my pres-
entations at academic conferences and publications. Special thanks to Reinhard
Kratz, a member of the Editorial Board of BZAW, for his encouragement to publish
this volume, and to the editorial staff of De Gruyter for their patience through-
out this process. Ruth Clements edited the studies in this volume, improving
their coherence and clarity, while also offering insightful comments about their
content. Daniel Olariu was involved intensively in the final stages of the editorial
process, and his work was invaluable for the completion of the book.
The research for and publication of this volume were supported by the Perry
Foundation for Biblical Research and the Father Takeji Otsuki Chair in Biblical
Studies, both at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
I have invested many years in writing this book, and would not have been able
to complete this without the close support of my family. Aliza, an accomplished
scholar in her own right, is a source of wisdom and inspiration for me, and has
selflessly provided support and encouragement (and constructively critical com-
ments on my ideas) throughout this process. Our four sons, Amichai, Elyashiv,
Sariel, and Ori, are each extraordinary in their own way (see Dan 1:4); taken
together, they enrich the daily tapestry of our lives in ways that are unimaginable.
They have been hearing about the book of Daniel for many years now, and I am
delighted to dedicate this book to them.
26 Tevet 5776
January 7, 2016
1 Introducing 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).¹ These two dates mark the
beginning and end of the Babylonian exile,² and thus establish the time frame
for the book as a whole. While the opening date could perhaps be construed spe-
cifically 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.³ Following this preparatory period, Daniel and his Judean com-
1 The date given at the beginning of Daniel 10 (v. 1) according to the Masoretic text, the third
year of King Cyrus’s reign, seems to contradict the date given in 1:21. The Old Greek version at 10:1
reads the “first” year. This may represent an attempt to harmonize the two dates; so Hartman and
Di Lella (1978, 262). Others have suggested that this difference is the result of textual corruption
in the Greek text, from τρίτῳ to πρώτῳ (cf. Pace Jeansonne [1988, 99–100], who refers to the sug-
gestion of harmonization as “the type of hyper-interpretation with which critics have beset the
OG of Daniel”). However, the fact that such a corruption would perfectly solve the interpretive
issue makes it less likely that the change simply occurred by chance. Goldingay (1989, 275) and
Collins (1993, 372) raise both possibilities.
2 For an extended discussion of the opening date of this chronological framework, see the ap-
pendix at the end of the present chapter. The return of the Temple vessels in the time of Cyrus
symbolizes the end of the exile in Ezra 1:7–11; 5:14–15; 6:3–5. On the theme of the return of the
vessels as a symbol of continuity between the two Temples, see Ackroyd (1972).
3 Shalom Paul has drawn attention to some interesting parallels between Daniel 1 and the
contents of a letter found in Mari, sent by king Zimrilim to his wife Šibtu. The letter mentions
the training of (female) captives who possess exceptional beauty for service in the royal court;
the assignment of two different officials to watch them; and the provision of specific food al-
lotments, “so that their countenance does not change” (Paul [1993] 2005a). According to Paul,
this instance (and some additional examples from Daniel) demonstrates that Akkadian culture,
traditions, language, and vocabulary continued to be transmitted by and influential in Israelite
literature throughout the Hellenistic period, whether by means of the Akkadian sources them-
panions 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 supe-
rior 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 compan-
ions 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.⁴ Chapter 1 thus serves as a
general introduction to Daniel 2–6.⁵
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,⁶ 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 spe-
cific, 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 1.⁷ However, they have not provided any solid
evidence for this conclusion. I suggest, though, that some rough spots in the nar-
rative bolster this possibility, while at the same time pointing to a more complex
selves or through an Aramaic conduit. Alternatively, however, these common themes may actu-
ally reflect the realia concerning the staffing, training, and provisions for those who served in
the royal courts of the Ancient Near East (though they are not documented together in any other
texts), and therefore the commonalities would not indicate a direct connection between these
two chronologically distant texts.
4 Humphreys (1973, 217–23) distinguishes between “tales of court conflict” and “tales of court
contest” in Daniel 1–6.
5 See Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 131–33). Daniel’s ability to understand “visions and dreams
(1:17) (‫ ”)חזון וחלמות‬specifically refers to the stories in the first half of the book (chapters 2–6),
and not to the apocalyptic visions (chapters 7–12), where he in fact does not understand what he
sees and needs the assistance of an intermediary angel. The word pair ‫ חלם‬and ‫ חזה‬appears in
Dan 2:28; 4:2,6,15; 7:1 (Dan 7:1–2aα is not an integral part of the apocalypses in chapters 7–12; this
can be seen from its description of Daniel in the third person, before the narrative switches into
the first person in v. 2aβ).
6 As described by Collins (1993, 130): “Daniel 1:1–21 is a coherent narrative that may have been
composed ad hoc as an introduction to the tales.”
7 Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 133) suggest that it is “more probable that the author used an
older Aramaic story for the account of the ‘food test’ in chapter 1.” Collins (1993, 130) allows that
“the story in vv. 8–16 could have circulated independently, but there is no clear evidence that
it did.” Redditt (2000, 242, 245) posits that vv. 8–16 comprise a second-century addition to the
original story, which described the competition over knowledge (and not food) in the royal court
during Daniel’s apprenticeship.
The List of Instructions to Ashpenaz 15
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.
1.1 The 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.”⁸
Dan 1:3–5
:‫( ויאמר המלך לאשפנז רב סריסיו‬3) (3) Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, his chief
‫( להביא מבני ישראל ומזרע‬a) officer:
‫( ילדים‬4) .‫המלוכה ומן הפרתמים‬ (a) to bring from the children of Israel, and
‫אשר אין בהם כל מאום וטובי‬ from the royal offspring, and from the
‫מראה ומשכלים בכל חכמה וידעי‬ nobles,⁹ (4) youths without blemish,
‫דעת ומביני מדע ואשר כח בהם‬ handsome, proficient in all wisdom,
‫לעמד בהיכל המלך‬ knowledgeable and intelligent, and
.‫( וללמדם ספר ולשון כשדים‬b) capable of serving in the royal palace,
‫( וימן להם המלך דבר יום ביומו‬5) (c) (b) and to teach them the writings and the
‫בג המלך ומיין משתיו‬-‫מפת‬ language of the Chaldeans.
‫( ולגדלם שנים שלוש‬d) (c) (5) The king allotted daily rations to them
.‫ומקצתם יעמדו לפני המלך‬ from the king’s food and from the wine
he drank,
(d) and to raise them for three years
at the end of which they (or: “and some of them”)
were to enter the king’s service.
8 See BDB, 56b, s.v. ‫ § ָא ַמר‬4; HALOT, 66b, s.v. ‫ אמר‬I § 6 (under the influence of the Aramaic root).
9 The translation here assumes distinct categories of candidates, distinguishing between the
Israelites and the Babylonian royalty and nobility. This distinction is also reflected in the addi-
tion of τῶν ἀλλογενῶν (“of another race”) as an attribute of νεανίσκους (“youths”) in OG 1:10,
which emphasizes the contrast between these two groups of youths. Alternatively, some modern
scholars have posited that the second and third categories actually modify the first, and that thus
all three refer only to the Jewish exiles; see Montgomery (1927, 119–20); Collins (1993, 136); NJPS:
“to bring some Israelites of royal descent and of the nobility.” Montgomery’s justification for this
interpretive approach – “the objective of the story is the fate of the Jewish captives solely” – is
perplexing. The story is presented as a contest between Daniel and his contemporaries on the
one hand, and the Babylonian youths on the other (cf. 1:19). Without the presence of non-Jewish
youths, the entire story loses its force.
Clauses (a), (b), and (d) each open with infinitival forms, all of which are gov-
erned by the initial verb in v. 3:¹⁰ “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 immedi-
ate context, clause (c) stands on its own as an independent sentence. The follow-
ing 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
‫“( המלך‬the 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”),¹¹ thus transforming clause (c) into yet another task that Nebuchadn-
ezzar had ordered Ashpenaz to perform. Thus, the Old Greek shows no rupture
between clauses (b) and (d); clauses (a)–(d) have been made syntactically con-
sistent. 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
10 For a similar construction see 1Sam 24:11; 1Chr 21:17; 2Chr 1:18; 29:27,30; 31:11; 35:21; Esth 1:17;
4:13,15; 6:1; 9:14; although in these cases only one infinitive form follows the finite verb. Charles
(1929, 11) suggests that the syntactical construction ‫ אמר‬+ ‫ להביא‬belongs to LBH. However, the
construction ‫ צוה‬+ -‫ ל‬+ infinitive is common in Classical BH (see, e.g., Gen 42:25 and the discus-
sion below), and it is therefore preferable to see the development in LBH as lexical rather than
syntactical.
11 On the phenomenon of OG Daniel’s use of the passive form where the MT has an active form,
see Amara (2006, 57–72). In this case, the passive form is the necessary result of the transfor-
mation of v. 5a into an infinitival clause subordinate to the king’s command in v. 3. In the new
construction, the king does not assign portions, but rather commands his subordinate that por-
tions are to be given to the youths. In order to compensate for the displacement of the king as
the syntactical subject, the OG notes that the prescribed portions come “from the king” (contra
Amara [2006, 58], who suggests that this phrase is superfluous, since “the king” appears at the
beginning of v. 3). Furthermore, this understanding of the construction negates the proposal that
the OG reflects a Hebrew Vorlage of ‫ ויתן‬instead of ‫ וימן‬suggested by Amara (2006, 58 [n. 124]), but
then qualified by her as well), since this lexical choice is also a function of the new syntactical
structure of v. 5a in the OG – the king could not command that he himself assign the portions, but
rather that the royal portions (= the assigned portions) were to be given to the youths.
The List of Instructions to Ashpenaz 17
initial verb and the infinitive in clause (d), so that the two are no longer syntacti-
cally 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).¹² Plöger
posits that the most natural place for v. 5a is immediately prior to v. 8 (thus allow-
ing 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.¹³
Montgomery adduces Gen 42:25 as an “exact parallel” for “the loose syntax of
the infin(itive)” in Dan 1:5:¹⁴
Gen 42:25
‫ויצו יוסף וימלאו את־כליהם בר ולהשיב כספיהם‬ Then Joseph commanded and they filled/to
:‫איש אל־שקו ולתת להם צדה לדרך ויעש להם כן‬ 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
12 BHK; BHS; Marti (1901, 3); Charles (1929, 16). Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 127), similarly
transpose the order of the two clauses in v. 5, but also reorder the elements of v. 4. While v. 5
does indeed present a syntactical difficulty, it is unclear why Hartman and Di Lella intervened
in v. 4 as well.
13 Plöger (1965, 39).
14 Montgomery (1927, 128); see also Lacocque (1979, 28), who refers to Gen 42:25 as an “interest-
ing precedent as regards the word order.” Both Montgomery and Lacocque mention GKC § 114p,
which identifies the LBH use of the infinitive construct form with -‫ ְל‬conjoined by a waw as the
continuation of a previous finite verb. However, Dan 1:5 presents the reverse case, where the
finite wayyiqtol would need to be understood as syntactically equivalent to the infinitival forms
before and after.
essentially reflects an elliptical construction; that is, the first clause subordinated
to the command is implicit, not stated, while its implementation is recorded
explicitly.¹⁵ 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 infini-
tive 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 imme-
diately ([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 compo-
nent 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.¹⁶ 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 com-
panions in the matter of eating prohibited foods.
15 So GKC § 120 f. Alternatively, Joüon–Muraoka (2006, § 177j), suggest that in verbs of com-
mand, the incomplete construction “he commanded and they did” is the virtual equivalent of
“he commanded [them] to do” (cf. also the infinitive form in LXX: ἐμπλῆσαι). Kogut (2005) has
described the syntactical aspects of commands in Biblical Hebrew, and devoted specific atten-
tion to Gen 42:25 (pp. 218–20), allowing for both of these interpretations of the syntax. He briefly
discusses Dan 1:3–5 (p. 212), but only to show that v. 5a assumes the fulfillment of the command
to bring the youths in vv. 3–4, without an explicit expression of that fulfillment. He does not ad-
dress the transition back to the infinitive in v. 5b.
16 This suggestion is a variation of Plöger’s reconstruction noted above (cf. n. 13). Ehrlich (1908–
1914, 7:127), viewed the information in v. 5a as superfluous, and therefore suggested that it should
be excised.
How did God help Daniel vis-à-vis the ‫ ?שר הסריסים‬ 19
1.2 How did God help Daniel vis-à-vis the ‫?שר הסריסים‬¹⁷
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,¹⁸ 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).¹⁹ 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 super-
vise 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 Dan-
iel’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
17 This exegetical issue was previously analyzed similarly by Amara (2005, 70–73; 2006,
180–81). While she identified the problem as “theological” in nature, I prefer to view it as an
interpretive tension within the development of the plot. Regarding Amara’s literary-critical con-
clusions concerning v. 9, see below.
18 As noted by Paul ([1993] 2005a, 208–9 [n. 20]), this title is borrowed from the Akkadian rab
ša rēši “head, commander of the court attendants or officers”; the interchange of ‫שר‬/‫ רב‬is found
in similar calques.
19 This parallel has been noted by HaCohen and Kil (1994, 13s). Similar language is also found
in 1Kgs 8:50; Ps 106:46; Neh 1:11. Numerous parallels have been identified between the stories
of Joseph and Daniel; cf., e.g., Rosenthal (1895); Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 56); Collins (1993,
39–40); n. 31 below; and the more extensive discussion of the Joseph stories in chap. 2.
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 posi-
tive disposition towards Daniel if in fact this attempt was ineffective?
Subsequently, Daniel approaches the ‫“( מלצר‬guard”)²⁰ 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
chief officer appoints this guard, a different character, as directly responsible for
Daniel and his companions. In contrast to the chief officer, the guard agrees to
the trial period, even though this flies in the face of the king’s explicit instruc-
tions (v. 14). However, the agreement of this minor character serves to heighten
the oddity described above: if God caused Daniel to find favor in the eyes of the
chief officer, why did the ‫ שר הסריסים‬refuse the request, while the functionary
that he appointed agrees to Daniel’s appeal?
Here, too, one can note previous attempts to solve this exegetical tension. For
example, HaCohen and Kil suggest that the chief officer’s response to Daniel’s
unusual request could have been much more severe, including punishment for
Daniel and his companions. His polite refusal to consent is actually a positive
outcome relative to what could have happened.²¹ However, besides the fact that
this explanation assumes details that are not expressed or implied in the bibli-
cal text, v. 9 appears to indicate a much more positive disposition than merely a
lack of punishment. A more complex situation appears to underlie the OG inter-
pretation of this passage.²² According to this version, the chief officer, known
in Hebrew as ‫אשפנז‬, was named Αβιεσδρι (v. 3).²³ The same Greek proper name
recurs in vv. 11 and 16, replacing the Hebrew term ‫המלצר‬. The identification of the
‫ שר הסריסים‬with the ‫ מלצר‬is also explicit in OG v. 11.²⁴ While the MT refers to the
“guard whom the chief officer had put in charge of Daniel … (‫המלצר אשר ִמנָּ ה שר‬
… ‫)הסריסים על דניאל‬,” OG translates: Αβιεσδρι τῷ ἀποδειχθέντι ἀρχιευνούχῳ ἐπὶ
τόν Δανιηλ. …, “(to) Abiesdri, who was appointed chief eunuch over Daniel. …” In
20 The meaning of the Hebrew ‫ מלצר‬probably reflects the same meaning as Akkadian maṣṣaru,
“guardian, watchman” (cf. CAD vol. 10: M, Part 1, s.v. maṣṣaru § 1, pp. 341–43); cf. Montgomery
(1927, 134); Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 130); Collins (1993, 144); Paul ([1993] 2005a, 209 [n. 22]);
BDB, s.v. ‫ ֶמ ְל ָצר‬, 576b; HALOT, s.v. ‫ ֶמ ְל ָצר‬, 594.
21 HaCohen and Kil (1994, 13).
22 Amara (2005, 70–73); Amara (2006, 180–81).
23 The same name is found in LXXB Judg 8:32 as a transliteration of ‫ ֲא ִבי ָה ֶﬠזְ ִרי‬.
24 Josephus, Ant. 10.190–194, also equates the ‫ מלצר‬with the ‫שר הסריסים‬, but refers to him by
the name Ασχανης (cf. the transliteration Ασχανη added by the corrector of ms 22 of Theodotion
Dan 1:3).
How did God help Daniel vis-à-vis the ‫ ?שר הסריסים‬ 21
addition to the replacement of the common noun ‫ מלצר‬with a proper name, this
reading also presupposes a vocalization of the piel verb as a pual form, ‫ ֻמנָּ ה‬, with
the passive meaning “was appointed.”²⁵ By merging these two characters into
one, the OG succeeded in offering a solution to the interpretive problem described
above. God indeed caused the chief officer to be positively disposed towards
Daniel; although he was originally reluctant to accede to his request, Daniel was
later able to persuade him to do so. According to v. 9, this eventual success was
the result of God’s intervention on behalf of Daniel and his friends. However, the
reduction of characters, in this instance by eliminating the ‫מלצר‬, may be identi-
fied as a secondary attempt to resolve the difficulty described above, and should
not be taken as reflecting the original relationship and identity of these two char-
acters.
Lambert noticed this tension and posited that two parallel versions of the
story had been combined: in one Daniel petitioned the ‫ שר הסריסים‬to switch the
food and he acquiesced (because of God’s positive influence); in the other Daniel
and his friends requested this from the ‫מלצר‬, who was at first afraid of the king,
but then was willing to test them for ten days.²⁶ This radical proposal, however, is
far from what is found in the text itself. Amara proposed that the tension between
v. 9 and the surrounding verses was due to the insertion of the former as a second-
ary interpolation into the story by a scribe who wished to emphasize God’s inter-
vention on behalf of those faithful to him. She suggested that the interpolation
was supposed to have been inserted after v. 13, immediately prior to the guard’s
acquiescence to Daniel’s request, which would resolve the tension described
above.²⁷
However, I suggest that if v. 9 is in fact an interpolation, it is more likely to
have been added (in its present position, after v. 8) in order to further assimilate
the Daniel and Joseph stories, a recurring phenomenon throughout the literary
evolution of Daniel 1–6;²⁸ the interpretive tension was the unintended conse-
quence of its insertion into the story. Alternatively, in an approach similar to that
posited above regarding the resolution of the interpretive issue in vv. 3–5, one
could suggest that this difficulty is also the result of the literary development of
the story (or stories) in chapter 1, and that v. 9 originally belonged to a different
literary strand than vv. 8,10–16. In any event, both of these possibilities (interpo-
25 Although this specific form is unattested in BH, the pual plural participle ‫ ְמ ֻמנִּ ים‬is found in
1Chr 9:29.
26 Lambert (1906, 2).
27 Amara (2006, 181).
28 See below, chaps. 3 and 4.
lation versus alternate literary source), intimate that v. 9 was not original to the
story of the youths’ refusal to eat from the royal rations.
1.3 A Story within a Story
I suggest that by combining the results of these two interpretive discussions, we

can tentatively describe the literary development of Daniel 1. First, the contours
of the story of the refusal of Daniel and his friends to eat from the royal rations
may be identified with some confidence. Verse 5a, which was identified above as
syntactically problematic within the context of vv. 3–5, refers to the daily food and
drink apportioned by the king for each of these children. This thread is picked up
in v. 8, with their decision to refrain from partaking of this menu. Similarly, the
narrative moves seamlessly from v. 8 to v. 10, without the interruption of v. 9,
whose presence disturbs the logical progression of the story. Combining the prob-
lematic v. 5a with vv. 8,10–16 produces the following story (“Only Pure Food”),
which reads smoothly, without the tensions described above:
(5a) The king allotted daily rations to them from the king’s food and from the wine he drank.
(8) Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the king’s food or the wine he drank, so he
sought permission of the chief officer not to defile himself. (10) 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 your age – and you will put my life (lit. head)
in jeopardy with the king.” (11) Daniel said to the guard whom the chief officer had put in
charge of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah; (12) “Please test your servants for ten
days, giving us legumes to eat and water to drink. (13) Then compare our appearance with
that of the youths who eat of the king’s food, and do with your servants as you see fit.” (14)
He agreed to this plan of theirs, and tested them for ten days. (15) When the ten days were
over, they looked better and healthier than all the youths who were eating of the king’s food.
(16) So the guard kept on removing their food and the wine they were supposed to drink,
and gave them legumes.
This story, which shares the motif of Jewish concerns regarding the consumption
of Gentile foods with other compositions from the Second Temple period outside
the Hebrew Bible,²⁹ now reads without any interruption. The king apportioned
food for the youths, but Daniel took it upon himself not to consume the food since
this would lead to his defilement. He therefore requested from the chief officer
that he not be forced to eat these rations. The chief officer refused this request,
but the guard valiantly agreed to risk his safety in order to help Daniel and his
29 Compare Additions to Esther C 28; Judith 12:2; Tobit 1:10–11; 1Macc 1:62–63; 2Macc 7.
A Story within a Story 23
friends. By assigning the heroic role to this anonymous character in the face of
the danger mentioned explicitly by the chief officer, the story serves to highlight
the sacrifice of Daniel and his companions in this decision, whose position was
even more precarious. The guard essentially serves as a facilitator, making it pos-
sible for the Judean youths to successfully observe their religious commitments;
but he himself is not a developed character who in any way can outshine their
steadfastness under threat of punishment.
This story is enveloped by a narrative frame (“Training in the Royal Court”),
which describes the preparation of these youths for their service to the king. The
original command to the chief officer found in vv. 3–4,5b describes the charac-
teristics of the young people that Ashpenaz was ordered to find; the command
encompasses both intellectual and physical traits of the target group as well as
a description of the education they were to receive: specifically, as royal scribes
who could read and write in the Chaldean language. Among the candidates
selected were Judean youths, namely, Daniel and his companions (v. 6). The story
returns to the intellectual and physical characteristics of the youths at the end of
the chapter (vv. 17–20):
(3) Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, his chief officer, to bring from the children of Israel,
and from the royal offspring, and from the nobles, (4) youths without blemish, handsome,
proficient in all wisdom, knowledgeable and intelligent, and capable of serving in the
royal palace – and to teach them the writings and the language of the Chaldeans; (5b) and
to raise them for three years, at the end of which they (or: “and some of them”) were to
enter the king’s service. (6) Among them were the Judahites: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael
and Azariah.³⁰ (7) The chief officer gave them new names; he named Daniel Belteshazzar,
Hananiah Shadrach, Mishael Meshach, and Azariah Abed-nego.³¹ …
30 Many interpreters have noticed that Daniel is completely absent from chapter 3, which fo-
cuses on his three contemporaries, and that throughout the rest of the tales, they occupy at best
a secondary role vis-à-vis Daniel. Note (among many), e.g., Collins (1993, 129–30, 179); and Rofé
(2009, 142), who plausibly suggest that the combination of Daniel and his three companions in
chapter 1 is part of an editorial attempt to integrate the traditions and tales found in chapters
2–6. For a discussion of the secondary combination of the three companions within Daniel 2, see
below, chap. 2, pp. 36–37,47.
31 The origins and purpose of v. 7 are unclear: on the one hand it seems to parallel a name
change similar to that of Joseph (Gen 41:45); thus, it may reflect the adoption of that literary
motif, similar in nature to the adoption of other themes and language from the earlier story (cf.
n. 19 above; and Collins [1993, 141], who also adduces the example of Esther/Hadassah and Mor-
decai in the Persian court). Alternatively, the verse might function as an attempt to harmonize
the various stories in Daniel 2–6, which refer to the various protagonists using both Hebrew
and foreign names (see Hartman and Di Lella [1978, 131–32]); cf. also n. 30 on the possibility of
harmonization.
[(9) And God disposed the chief officer to be kind and compassionate toward Daniel …]³²
(17) And to all four of these young men God gave intelligence and proficiency in all writings
and wisdom, and Daniel had understanding of visions and dreams of all kinds.³³ (18) When
the time the king had set for their presentation had come, the chief officer presented them to
Nebuchadnezzar. (19) The king spoke with them, and of them all none was equal to Daniel,
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; so these entered the king’s service. (20) Whenever the
king put a question to them requiring wisdom and understanding, he found them to be ten
times better than all the magicians and exorcists throughout his realm.
As described above, this scene begins with the king commanding the chief officer
to bring children from the exiles in order to train them to work in the royal court.
The command of the king consists of three parts, each of which is fulfilled by the
end of this story: to bring the youths, to teach them reading and writing, and to
raise them for three years. Daniel and his friends are mentioned as among those
brought to the king, and Daniel, like Joseph many years before, merits special
status and treatment from the chief officer due to God’s beneficence. The theme
of God’s benevolence to the Judean youths continues from v. 9 to v. 17; he comes
to the aid of Daniel and his companions by giving them wisdom, which leads to
their success in the specific task for which they have been brought to the royal
court – their training in Chaldean writing and literature. For Daniel, however,
this divine assistance is not limited to earthly wisdom; he is also endowed with
the ability to interpret visions and dreams. This skill may have helped him stand
out in contrast to the Babylonian magicians and diviners (cf. v. 20); more likely,
however, it is mentioned here as a precursor of Daniel’s role throughout the first
half of the book. At the end of the appointed training period, the chief officer
brings them to Nebuchadnezzar, who finds them superior to all of the Babylo-
nian magicians and sorcerers, specifically in the area of wisdom (‫וכל דבר חכמת‬
‫ בינה‬v. 20). This conclusion demonstrates that this short story is a contest tale,
similar to the competitions between Daniel and the Babylonian sorcerers found
32 As already noted above, v. 9 was not originally part of the “Only Pure Food” story. However,
it remains an open question whether this verse was an independent interpolation into the nar-
rative, or whether it is part of the “Training in the Royal Court” frame that envelops the earlier
story. The reading presented here assumes a literary connection between v. 9 and vv. 3–4,5b and
17–20 respectively. However, it is equally plausible that the parallels between the commands in
vv. 3–4,5b and their fulfillment in vv. 17–20 reflect this narrative frame in its entirety.
33 The OG to this verse constructs a parallelism: “And to the young men the Lord gave knowl-
edge and clever insight in every literary art. And to Daniel He gave insight into every vision and
dreams and in all wisdom.”
A Story within a Story 25
in Daniel 2, 4 (MT), and 5, where God comes to the assistance of the faithful
Judean protagonists.³⁴
The identification of two independent narrative units in Daniel 1, each
emphasizing a different theme, is an outgrowth of the close textual analysis of
this chapter. The units are complementary and do not contradict one another, but
their combination has left its marks on the narrative in its current combined form.
I suggest that these two narrative units were deliberately woven together to
form a new story, the introduction to the book of Daniel. How then do they each or
both serve to introduce to the book (primarily to the stories in chapters 2–6),³⁵ and
what is the relationship between them? As already noted, the frame story (“Train-
ing in the Royal Court”) provides a fitting introduction to the contest stories in
Daniel. From the earliest stages of their education, Daniel and his friends are
more successful wise men than their non-Judahite counterparts, and this compe-
tition and superiority continues throughout the book, with Daniel proving more
successful and adept at interpreting the kings’ dreams and visions than his Baby-
lonian foils. In contrast, the “Only Pure Food” story, which forms the inner core of
the chapter, does not reflect the contest theme found in the surrounding narrative
frame, but rather relates a tale of religious piety. While similar to chapters 3 and
6 in its emphasis on religious observance in the shadow of potential punishment,
this episode differs in that it does not describe any elements of animosity or con-
flict between the Judeans and their Babylonian rivals, such as those found in the
other stories. The chief officer is unwilling to help Daniel and his companions,
but only because he is worried about protecting his own interests, not because
he wants to hurt them. Nebuchadnezzar himself never threatens the Judeans,
and in fact, never explicitly threatens the chief officer either. The guard agrees to
help them observe their dietary restrictions with no apparent self-benefit. There-
fore, in contrast to the function of the frame story (“Training in the Royal Court”)
which closely foreshadows the following chapters, this story is less of a “perfect
fit” as an introduction to the stories on chapters 3 and 6. It is therefore probable
that the “Only Pure Food” story existed independently prior to its inclusion in
Daniel 1, while the narrative frame, “Training in the Royal Court,” was composed
specifically to serve as an introduction to the book of Daniel. Furthermore, while
34 See Wills (1990, 81). The motif of the contest is absent from the Old Greek version of Daniel 4
(vv. 3–6,15), and probably reflects a secondary development in that story, perhaps as part of the
redactional process connecting that passage with the stories in chapters 2 and 5; cf. below, chap.
4.2.1, pp. 102–104.
35 Verse 17b (“and Daniel had understanding of visions and dreams of all kinds”) may fore-
shadow Daniel’s apocalyptic visions in chapters 7–12, although the emphasis on understanding
seems more immediately relevant to his role as dream interpreter in chapters 2–6.
both stories could have existed on their own and been combined by a subsequent
editor, the recognition that the frame story in chapter 1 was composed as an intro-
duction to the book leads to the more likely conclusion that the author of the
frame was in fact the author of this chapter, who integrated an extant tale into his
new composition.³⁶ This compositional process, in which the old was combined
with the new, created the textual and exegetical difficulties described above,
which in turn have allowed for the reconstruction of this development.
The opening chapter of MT Daniel thus sets the stage for the subsequent
stories, and directs the reader to understand them in the light of this background.
Chapter 1 emphasizes the potential for Jews to succeed as Jews in the Diaspora; it
portrays Daniel and his friends as excelling in their training in the foreign king’s
court, while all the while maintaining the strict restrictions which preserve their
unique identity in this context. The first chapter frames the book as a whole as an
exilic work, dating the events of Daniel’s career from the exile by Nebuchadnez-
zar until the rise of Cyrus; any success attributed to him during this period asserts
the same possibility for others as well.³⁷
Appendix: The Third Year of Jehoiakim’s Reign
Interpreters have often noted the presence of an interpretive difficulty in the

opening verse of Daniel, as seen in light of earlier biblical traditions and extra-
biblical sources. This verse dates “King” Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem,
and the exile to Babylon of the Judean king and Temple vessels, to the third year
of Jehoiakim’s reign.³⁸ This dating does not match the evidence of 2Kgs 23:36–24:7,
which describes how Jehoiakim reigned for a total of eleven years, three of them as
a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar, but does not mention the siege of Jerusalem, Jehoi-
akim’s exile, or the plundering of the Temple vessels. In fact, 2Kgs 24:6 implies
that Jehoiakim died while still in Jerusalem, at the end of his eleven-year reign.³⁹
36 This proposal follows along lines similar, yet not identical, to the suggestions of previous
scholars, cf. above n. 7.
37 Cf. Humphreys (1973).
38 One might also question the reference in the verse to Nebuchadnezzar as the king of Bab-
ylonia; he only ascended to the throne in 605 bce (= the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign; cf.
Jer 46:1), soon after defeating Pharaoh Neco at Carchemish, succeeding his father Nabopolassar.
However, as already suggested by many scholars, this can be taken as a proleptic reference to
Nebuchadnezzar by this later author; see, e.g., Montgomery (1927, 113).
39 For a discussion of the historical circumstances underlying the conflicting biblical traditions
regarding the end of Jehoiakim’s life, see Lipschits (2002).
Appendix: The Third Year of Jehoiakim’s Reign 27
According to 2Kgs 24:8–17, these events took place during the reign of Jehoiachin.
Similarly, Babylonian Chronicle 5, r. 11–13 dates Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jeru-
salem (“the city of Judah”) to the seventh year of his reign (598–597 bce),⁴⁰ which
coincides with the rule of Jehoiachin. As many scholars have suggested, the
source of the tradition in Dan 1:1 may be traced to 2Chr 36:5–7 (= 1Esd 1:37–39),
the parallel to 2Kgs 24, which explicitly mentions the bringing of both Jehoiakim
and the vessels to Babylon.⁴¹ While some scholars view the Chronicles account of
the events as complementary to the Kings version, and thus possibly reflecting
genuine historical traditions,⁴² it is simpler to assume a theological-exegetical
motive for this recasting.⁴³ In the descriptions of the reigns of both Jehoiachin
and Zedekiah, 2Kgs 24 notes that they each sinned just as Jehoiakim had done
(vv. 9,19; cf. also Jer 52:2). These two kings were punished by exile to Babylonia
and the plundering of the Temple vessels (24:13–16; 25:6–7,13–17), while Jehoiakim
avoided this fate (according to 24:2–4, Judah was attacked by various raiding
bands as part of his punishment, but Jehoiakim himself died relatively peace-
fully according to v. 6). Within Chronicles’ framework of an equitable system of
reward and punishment, it would be unjust for Jehoiakim, who is depicted as the
model of sin for these two subsequent kings, not to receive the identical punish-
ment to theirs (or at least one as severe).⁴⁴ For a further possible extension of
this principle within Chronicles, note that Manasseh was also taken off, bound in
fetters, to Babylonia (2Chr 33:11); this, too, represents a new detail not found in
2Kings. The addition of this detail may be due to the link made between these two
kings in 2Kgs 23. 2Kgs 23:37 relates that Jehoiakim behaved inappropriately “just
as his ancestors had done”; this note is followed by a description of the attacks
on Judah that occurred during Jehoiakim’s reign due to Manasseh’s sins (24:2–4).
The Chronicler thus interpreted the description of events in Kings to imply that
40 Grayson ([1975] 2000, 20, 102); cf. also Glassner ([1993] 2004, 230–31, Chronicle 24).
41 Montgomery (1927, 113–14); Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 128); Kalimi (2009, 17–19). 2Chr 36:6
is ambiguous about whether Nebuchadnezzar did in fact take Jehoiakim back to Babylonia, em-
ploying the infinitival ‫לה ִֹליכוֹ‬, which allows for the interpretation that he intended to lead him
there but eventually did not do so (although it is difficult to imagine that this indeed was the
original intent of the passage; note that LXX 2Chr 36:6 and 1Esd 1:38 both translate using a finite
form).
42 See the scholars quoted by Japhet ([1977/1989] 2009, 286 [n. 55]); Lipschits (2002, 31 [n. 54]).
43 Begg (1987, 82–83); Japhet (1993, 1065–66); Lipschits (2002, 12, § 4.3).
44 Interestingly, in the parallel verses in 2Chr 36:9, 12, the comparison of the sins of Manasseh to
the sins of Jehoiakim is no longer stated explicitly, probably because this identification can now
be deduced from their identical punishments. For the general interpretive Tendenz in Chronicles
to employ a principle of just retribution, see Japhet ([1977/1989] 2009, 129–38).
Jehoiakim and Manasseh were guilty of the same sins, and therefore liable for the
same punishment.⁴⁵
The specification of the “third year” of Jehoiakim’s reign in Dan 1:1 is gen-
erally assumed to be based upon a reinterpretation (misreading?) of the “three
years” during which Jehoiakim served as Nebuchadnezzar’s vassal, according
to 2Kgs 24:1.⁴⁶ This term does not appear in the Chronicles account, and this
explanation therefore assumes that the author of Dan 1:1 based his interpreta-
tion on a simultaneous reading of Kings and Chronicles. Various scholars have
offered alternative explanations as to the source of this date, but none of them
are wholly satisfying. Some traditional Jewish commentators interpret the third
year of Jehoiakim in Dan 1:1 as the third year of a three-year period of revolt (fol-
lowing the three-year period in which the king was Nebuchadnezzar’s vassal),
which coincided with the end of Jehoiakim’s reign.⁴⁷ This view, however, adds
details to the text that are not found in any source. Some modern scholars have
suggested that the author of Dan 1:1 intentionally moved the date back to the third
year of Jehoiakim’s reign in order to fix the starting date for the exile precisely
seventy years prior to Cyrus’s rise to power, matching the prophecies of Jer 25 and
29.⁴⁸ This is a tempting possibility, in particular since Daniel 1 seems to frame the
entire exile as stretching from the binding of Jehoiakim and the plundering of the
vessels in the third year of his reign until the first year of Cyrus in 1:21. However,
a number of arguments can be advanced against this idea.⁴⁹ First, nowhere else
in the Bible does the period of seventy years prophesied by Jeremiah begin prior
to the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim. The prophecy in Jer 25 is dated to that
year (25:1), while Jer 29:1–2 dates the letter sent by Jeremiah to some point in time
following the exile of Jehoiachin from Jerusalem. 2Chronicles 36:20–21 implies
that the seventy-year period commenced at the end of Zedekiah’s reign. Second,
45 Japhet ([1977/1989] 2009, 130 [n. 484]) posits that this is one of a number of examples in which
the Chronicler adds a punishment where Samuel–Kings describes a transgression without an ap-
propriate penalty. My suggestion here does not contradict her explanation, but rather attempts
to explain the specific punishment applied. Japhet, (ibid., 402) does allow for the possibility that
Manasseh’s punishment in 2Chr 33:11 might reflect historical reality. If this is the case, then the
possibility of an ideological-exegetical motivation becomes less likely.
46 See, among many, Montgomery (1927, 113–14); Charles (1929, 5); Jeffery (1956, 361–62); Japhet
([1977/1989] 2009, 286 [n. 55]); Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 129); Collins (1993, 132).
47 This interpretation is found first in Seder Olam 25, and later adopted by Rashi.
48 See Oettli and Meinhold (1889, 263); Curtis (1898–1904, 553); Jeffery (1956, 361–62); Larsson
(1967); Lacocque (1979, 24–25); Koch (1986, 27–30); Goldingay (1989, 15). Montgomery (1927, 114)
earlier raised and rejected this possibility.
49 See Collins (1993, 132–33).
within internal biblical chronology, from the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign until
the end of Zedekiah’s, one may count:
Jehoiakim: 9 years (3d–11th) (2Kgs 23:36; 2Chr 36:5)

Jehoiachin: 3 months [+ 10 days] (2Kgs 24:8; 2Chr 36:9)
Zedekiah: 11 years (2Kgs 24:18; 2Chr 36:11)
Total: 20 years
In order to complete seventy years until Cyrus’s reign, one would then need to
posit fifty years from the destruction of the Temple until Cyrus.⁵⁰ This would
seemingly fit the datum in 9:25; that is, that seven weeks of years is to elapse from
the time the divine word “went forth” until the rise of the anointed one (Cyrus,
according to this interpretation; cf. Isa 45:1). However, this period of seven weeks
begins, not from the destruction of the Temple at the end of Zedekiah’s reign, but
from the time that the divine message was transmitted about the rebuilding of
Jerusalem.⁵¹ Finally, according to the historical chronology known to us today,
moving back the beginning of the exile to the third year of Jehoiakim (606 bce)
would not complete the seventy years. Rather, the author should have dated this
event to the first year of Jehoiakim (608 bce), seventy years prior to Cyrus’ edict
(539/538 bce).⁵² In light of the problematic nature of previous attempts to explain
this date, most contemporary scholars assume that the author of Dan 1:1 did not
intend to write careful historiography with exact calculations, but rather was
composing a legend appropriate to the narrative frame of the book.⁵³
I would like to suggest an alternative explanation for the dating in Dan 1:1,
based on the author’s interpretation of a seemingly distant and unrelated passage.
References to Jehoiakim are found outside of the historiographical books (Kings
and Chronicles) in the opening two verses of Daniel, but even more prominently
in the book of Jeremiah,⁵⁴ whose prophecies span the period from the reign of
Josiah until that of Zedekiah, including the reign of Jehoiakim (Jer 1:2–4). The
sequence of Jeremiah’s prophecies as presented throughout the book does not
50 Koch (1986, 30).

51 For a discussion of the various interpretive possibilities for Dan 9:24–25, including my own
suggestion, see chap. 6 below.
52 It is difficult to assume that the author of Dan 1:1 was actually aware of the precise dates for
the Babylonian and Persian monarchies. While this final argument is only valid in response to
those who assume such knowledge, it is adduced here since there are modern interpreters who
attempt to synchronize this verse with historical chronological details.
53 Montgomery (1927, 114); Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 128–29); Collins (1993, 133).
54 Jer 1:3; 22:18,24; 24:1; 25:1; 26:1,21,22,23; 27:1,20; 28:4; 35:1; 36:1,9,28,29,30,32; 37:1; 45:1; 46:2;
52:2.
always follow the chronological order to which these prophecies are generally
assigned, and scholars have discussed the internal logic of the book’s structure.⁵⁵
Within the larger structure of the book, chapters 35 and 36 present a number of
dates that fall within the years of Jehoiakim’s reign:
Jer 35:1: The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord in the days of King Jehoiakim son
of Josiah of Judah.
Jer 36:1: In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim son of Josiah of Judah, this word came to
Jeremiah from the Lord.
Jer 36:9: In the ninth month of the fifth year of King Jehoiakim son of Josiah of Judah …
The chronological note at the beginning of Jer 35, the story of the Rechabites, does
not offer a precise date for these events during the reign of Jehoiakim. It seems
almost certain, however, as suggested by almost all interpreters, that the story in
chapter 35 took place after the story of the scroll in chapter 36, which is explic-
itly dated to the fourth and fifth year of Jehoiakim’s reign.⁵⁶ This can be deduced
from 35:11: “But when King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon invaded the country, we
said, ‘Come, let us go into Jerusalem because of the army of the Chaldeans and
the army of Aram.’ And so we are living in Jerusalem.” The Rechabites, righteous
observers of their ancestor Jonadab’s prohibition against drinking wine, offer an
explanation as to why they had violated the second half of his command, and
had come to live in Jerusalem instead of living in tents out in the fields. Their
explanation is based upon the specific historical circumstances which they had
encountered – namely, due to the dangers they had faced as a result of Nebu-
chadnezzar’s invasion of Judah, they had moved inside the walls of Jerusalem. In
light of the historical-chronological data already described above, this event had
to have taken place following the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign, the year that
marked Nebuchadnezzar’s ascent to the throne.
55 See, e.g., Rofé (1989, 393–96), who analyzed the structure of the book and attempted to un-
lock the literary logic behind its redaction and arrangement. He suggested that chapters 25–36
form the second of four collections in Jeremiah, which is structured “symmetrically,” with four
passages from the period of Jehoiakim (25; 26; 35; 36) bracketing five from the reign of Zedekiah
(27; 28; 29; 32; 34). Chapters 25 and 36, the beginning and end of collection 2, and chapter 45, the
end of collection 3 (Jer 37–45), according to Rofé’s divisions, are all dated to the fourth year of
Jehoiakim’s reign. For an attempt to reorganize the book of Jeremiah according to chronological
principles, see the somewhat confusing account of Bright (1965); Jer 36 is presented as chapter 23
in Bright’s division, while Jer 35 appears subsequently as chapter 25.
56 See, e.g., Holladay (1989, 23): “It is to be noted that chapter 35 is not in chronological order:
the setting of the incident is evidently 599 or 598 …”
However, early readers and interpreters of the biblical text did not always
read their sources with the same historical consciousness (and knowledge) that
we assume today.⁵⁷ In fact, reading through chapters 35 and 36 as a literary unit,
one could easily get the impression that they accurately reflect a chronological
sequence from earlier dates to later. This is certainly the case within chapter 36
itself, where the story progresses from year four to year five. Therefore, reading
chapters 35 and 36 in sequence could certainly lead to the understanding that
the story in the former, dated to “the days of King Jehoiakim,” indeed took place
prior to the story in the latter. According to this (secondary) interpretation of the
juxtaposition of these two stories in Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar would therefore
have invaded the land and threatened the people living in the environs of Jerusa-
lem prior to the fourth year of Jehoiakim (presumably in addition to the invasions
mentioned explicitly, as enumerated above). Dan 1:1, which dates Nebuchadnez-
zar’s siege of Jerusalem recounted in the account in 2Chr 36:5–7 to the third year
of Jehoiakim, corresponds precisely to this reconstructed exegetical tradition.
Therefore, while there is no historical basis for dating the siege of Jerusalem to the
third year of Jehoakim, the interpretive activity of the author of Dan 1:1 (or perhaps
an earlier tradition which he adopted) may have led him to redate this event from
the final days of the First Temple period.
57 For another example of the absence of critical historical consciousness within the context of
Daniel, see my discussion in chap. 6.
2 Daniel as Interpreter of Dreams: The Literary
Development of the Narrative in Daniel 2
The court narratives in Daniel 2–6 comprise a collection of individual stories
that describe the trials and successes of Jewish exiles in the service of a foreign
monarch. While these stories share a number of common themes, the differences
between them furnish evidence of their original, independent state. Even so,
some of the stories possess similar overall structures and plots; a comparison
suggests that there is some level of literary relationship between them.¹ Moreo-
ver, some of the tales also relate to other biblical stories, especially those that
describe Israelites or Jews in a foreign court. The most important of these are the
Joseph stories from Genesis and the tale of Esther.²
2.1 Description of Daniel 2
Scholars have previously noted that Daniel 2 is not the product of a single hand,
but rather reflects a complex process of literary development, since a number
of contradictions are discernible throughout the chapter. This conclusion is
undoubtedly correct, and I hope to further refine it here by presenting additional
evidence in order to more precisely describe this literary development.³
Daniel 2 describes a court contest between Daniel and the Babylonian magi-
cians and wise men.⁴ After King Nebuchadnezzar dreams his puzzling dreams, he
is greatly troubled and his sleep is disturbed. In order to understand the message
of the dreams, he summons the wise men of Babylonia to interpret them (vv. 1–2).
When they arrive, they request that the king reveal the dream to them so that
they can interpret it (v. 4). The ensuing dialogue between the king and the sor-
cerers may be divided into three successive stages. At each stage, Nebuchadnez-
1 We can identify prominent parallels between Daniel 2 and 5 (see below, pp. 48–51) and Daniel
3 and 6 (see chap. 8, p. 211, nn. 31–32).
2 For a discussion of these stories as a group, see Wills (1990).
3 The present study is limited to the narrative sections of chapter 2, and not to the contents and
interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (vv. 31–45). It can nevertheless be demonstrated that
this section also underwent a process of literary development, primarily within the description
of the fourth kingdom, which reflects an updating of historical circumstances; see Montgomery
(1927, 176–77); Hartman and di Lella (1978, 141, 148–49); Collins (1993, 166, 170, 174).
4 See Wills (1990, 81). A similar competition is found in Daniel 4 and 5, although in the former
it is probably a secondary development; see below, chap. 4.2.1, pp. 102–104. For the relationship
between Daniel 2 and 5, see below, chap. 3, pp. 61–68.
Contradictions within Daniel 2 33
zar narrows the possible outcomes of his challenge to the wise men. In the first
exchange, the king describes two possible results: if they successfully relate the
contents of the dream and its interpretation, then they will receive great rewards.
However, if they are unable to do so, then they will suffer the most severe of pun-
ishments (vv. 5–6). When the wise men request again that the king reveal the
contents of the dream, Nebuchadnezzar accuses them of “buying time,” and this
time limits his threat to the potential negative outcome if they are unsuccess-
ful in this endeavor (vv. 7–9). The wise men respond that the king’s request is
not humanly possible; and that such a request, interpreting a dream whose con-
tents have not been revealed, can only be accomplished by the gods. In the final
stage of their dialogue, Nebuchadnezzar no longer threatens them with what
would happen if they did not successfully report his dream and its interpretation,
but simply decrees that all of the wise men of Babylonia are to be put to death
(vv. 10–12).
Stage 1: Reward for success or Punishment for failure

Stage 2: Punishment for failure
Stage 3: Death Sentence
This draconian verdict both ends the first scene, and sets the stage for the subse-
quent events. The story reflects a coherent narrative until this point, structured
as a literary progression of three exchanges between the king and his wise men.
However, the continuation of the tale presents a more complex literary picture,
primarily due to various internal contradictions and tensions.
2.2 Contradictions within Daniel 2
Numerous commentators have already noted the most blatant of the internal con-
tradictions in this narrative:
(1) In the wake of the king’s rage at his magicians for their inability to relate his
dream and supply its interpretation, Daniel decides to approach Nebuchadnezzar
in order to offer his services. According to v. 16, “Daniel went to ask the king for
time, so that he might tell the meaning to the king.” In this verse, Daniel seems
to have easy access to the monarch, and is able to enter unannounced. Thus, the
king is undoubtedly aware of his existence, at least following this conversation, if
not before. By contrast, in v. 24, after Daniel successfully ascertains the meaning
of the dream by means of a night vision, he reports this to Arioch, the captain of
the royal guard, and requests that he bring him before the king in order to reveal
the interpretation. Arioch then introduces Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar (v. 25) by
announcing, “I have found among the exiles of Judah a man who can make the
34 Daniel as Interpreter of Dreams
meaning known to the king.” By the terms of this scene, Nebuchadnezzar does
not know of Daniel at all.⁵
This contradiction seems to be what led Josephus to eliminate Daniel’s first
audience with the monarch. Instead, in Josephus’s account Daniel sends Arioch
to perform this same task: “He requested Ariochēs to go in to the king and ask
him to give the Magi one night and to put off their execution. … Ariochēs, there-
fore, reported to the king this request of Daniel. …” (Ant. 10.198–199).⁶ In this
rewritten version of the story, Daniel only meets the king for the first time after
he receives the vision from God containing both the dream and its interpretation
(§ 202–203); Josephus’s narrative innovation thus removes the tension found in
the biblical text by necessitating Daniel’s introduction at the later stage.⁷
In addition to the internal contradiction within chapter 2, according to the
story in chapter 1 the king was already familiar with Daniel. As we have seen, the
frame narrative at the end of chapter 1 ends with the presentation of the Judahite
youths to the king:
(19) The king spoke with them, and of them all none was equal to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael,
and Azariah; so these entered the king’s service. (20) Whenever the king put a question to
them requiring wisdom and understanding, he found them to be ten times better than all
the magicians and exorcists throughout his realm. (21) Daniel was there until the first year
of King Cyrus. (Dan 1:19–21)
5 This contradiction is very similar to the order of events in 1 Samuel 16–18. In 16:17–23, David
is first brought to Saul in order to perform music, and “stands before” (i.e., serves) the king
(cf. Dan 1:19). The narrator then reports that Saul “loved him very much” and David is sub-
sequently appointed as his armor-bearer (1Sam 16:21). Later in the story (17:55–58), as David
emerges to battle against the Philistine, Saul inquires of Abner as to David’s identity, thus indi-
cating that he does not know him. The case of 1 Samuel 16–18 is of great methodological signifi-
cance because it demonstrates the validity of a source-critical explanation for this contradiction;
in this instance, the LXX provides textual evidence for the MT’s combination of two versions of
the story. See the discussions of Lust and Tov in Barthélemy et al. (1986); and Tov (1985, 97–130).
6 Translation according to Marcus (1937, 5:268–69). In a similar vein, it is possible that the lack of
representation of the words -‫ ַﬠל וּ‬in some of the manuscripts of Theodotion (including B and Q)
and in the Peshitta of v. 16 reflects a conscious omission of Daniel’s first audience with the king
(contrast BHS which suggests that the words were added in the other textual witnesses).
7 According to Collins (1993, 158), Josephus inserted this change because he recognized the
inherent impropriety of an uninvited individual entering the king’s inner court, comparing this
verse to Esth 4:11. Similarly, Feldman (1998, 648) suggests that the change was intended to avoid
brazenness by Daniel, who “observes protocol” by first approaching the king’s officer. Daube
(1980, 28–29) posits that Josephus models Daniel in his own image, since Josephus himself used
an intermediary to convey his “prophecy” to Vespasian (according to War 3.8.9.399). However,
in light of the interpretive import of this alteration, it appears more likely that it was intended to
harmonize the two contradictory verses.
Contradictions within Daniel 2 35
Thus, the conclusion of chapter 1 indicates that not only did Nebuchadnezzar
know of Daniel and his friends, but that they had already addressed some of the
king’s inquiries. Their status as attendants in the king’s court in that chapter
matches the description of Daniel’s free access to the royal ruler in 2:16. However,
this status does not correspond to the thrust of the primary narrative in chapter 2,
according to which Daniel and his friends were apparently not among the Baby-
lonian sorcerers whom the king originally challenged to reveal his dream and its
interpretation. Their fates are explicitly intertwined beginning only in v. 13: “The
decree was issued and the wise men were to be put to death; and Daniel and his
friends were about to be put to death” (cf. also vv. 17–18; see below). Only then
does Daniel approach the king to offer his services, a surprising delay when read
in light of the previous chapter.
(2) Second, in the main narrative of Daniel 2, the king requests that the magi-
cians and sorcerers reveal to him both his dream and its interpretation. When they
protest that his demand is impossible, the king accuses them of “buying time”
(v. 8). The king’s response that they are stalling is somewhat surprising, since the
magicians’ request in v. 7 for the king to tell them his dream actually seems rea-
sonable under the circumstances – they cannot interpret what they have not been
told. Whether the king’s angry retort to the sorcerers is sensible or not, the accu-
sation that they are “buying time” stands out in contrast to the ease with which
Daniel is able to receive an extension in v. 16 when he specifically requests that
the king “grant him time.” While the king’s response is left unrecorded, the fol-
lowing verses inform the reader that Daniel returned home and, together with his
three companions, implored God to provide them with the correct interpretation,
thus sparing their lives; clearly, then, the king had assented to Daniel’s request.
In light of these inconsistencies, Hartman and Di Lella proposed that vv.
13–23 represent a variant account of the story, which circulated independently,
and which was “combined, not very smoothly” with the surrounding narrative in
chapter 2.⁸ Their precise division is based upon two additional considerations:
(i) According to their reading, in v. 14 Arioch approaches Daniel, while in v. 24
Daniel comes to Arioch. This distinction would be questionable as a true “incon-
sistency” even if it reflected what is found in the Aramaic text. However even if
one were to accept this difference as a criterion for distinguishing between strata,
it is unclear how Hartman and Di Lella justify their reading of v. 14, as there is
no indication in this verse as to whether Arioch approached Daniel or vice versa.
(ii) The second tension flagged by Hartman and Di Lella between vv. 13–23
and the surrounding narrative is that Daniel’s companions appear in this chapter
8 Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 139). See also Lebram (1984, 48).
only in vv. 13,17–18 (in addition to v. 49, which Hartman and Di Lella correctly
view as a secondary addition).⁹ The companions are neither the recipients of
the revelation of the dream and its interpretation, nor do they participate in the
report back to the king.¹⁰
The status of Daniel and his friends in chapter 2 as a whole is unclear. On
the one hand, the king does not summon them explicitly in vv. 1–12, along with
the magicians and sorcerers, to reveal and interpret his dream. The culmination
of this opening scene in v. 12, in which the king angrily decrees that “all the wise
men of Babylonia” should be executed, is the result of the collective inability of
the professionals to reveal the interpretation. It therefore makes sense for this
command to apply specifically to those people who were unable to solve this
puzzle. Thus immediately after the king’s pronouncement in v. 12, “a decree was
issued and the wise men were about to be killed” (13a).¹¹
Were Daniel and his friends subject to this decree? Until v. 13a, there is
nothing to suggest that they should be, since in fact they did not personally fail
to fulfill the king’s challenge. Daniel and his companions are explicitly named
among those who are to be killed in two places in this chapter, vv. 13b and 17–18.
In contrast to the first scene of the story, where Daniel and his colleagues play no
explicit role, they are included in these two passages as part of the larger group
of Babylonian wise men. Later on in the chapter, the story again refers exclusively
to the Babylonian sages, without specifying Daniel and his friends among them.
Both vv. 14 and 24 refer to Arioch as the person appointed by the king to put the
9 Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 142) note that v. 49 “gives the appearance of being an after-
thought tacked on the end of the story.” Their explanation, that this verse originally belonged
to “the variant form of the story from which vss 12 [sic]–23 were taken,” seems less likely than
the suggestion of Collins (1993, 153), that the verse “may well have been introduced by the editor
or collector of the tales to prepare for ch. 3.” In particular, it is significant to note the difference
between v. 17, which refers to the friends using their Judean names, Hananiah, Mishael and Aza-
riah, and v. 49, which uses their court names, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, in agreement
with the usage in Daniel 3.
10 In contrast to Daniel’s reward in 2:48, the appointment of Daniel’s three friends in v. 49 is
not related to any direct participation on their part in the solving of the dream; see n. 9 above
regarding the secondary, editorial nature of v. 49. I will argue below that one can identify a direct
literary relationship between Daniel 2 and Daniel 5, and it is therefore significant that Daniel’s
Judean colleagues do not appear in that story in any capacity whatsoever. Daniel 5 is parallel to
the main narrative of Daniel 2, without the supplementary passage in vv. 15–23.
11 Jerome, in his commentary on Daniel 2:12–13 quotes Jewish interpreters as questioning why
Daniel and the three youths did not accompany the other Babylonian wise men, and if not, why
they were subsequently subject to the same punishment. As noted by Braverman (1978, 77–78),
there are no known rabbinic or medieval Jewish parallels to the solution quoted by Jerome.
Divine Names as Supporting Evidence for Different Sources 37
wise men of Babylon to death. While both of these verses could understand this
group as including the four Judean exiles, it is noteworthy that: (a) they use the
same terminology as the first part of the chapter to describe the intended victims;
and more significantly (b) v. 24 is followed by Arioch’s hasty conveyance of Daniel
before the king, where he introduces him not as one of the Babylonian wise men,
but rather as one “found among the exiles from Judah … who can make the inter-
pretation known to the king” (v. 25). Daniel’s distinction from the magicians and
sorcerers is further emphasized by his response to the king’s query as to whether
he can report and interpret the dream: “(27) The mystery about which the king
has inquired – wise men, exorcists, magicians, and diviners cannot tell to the
king. (28) But there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made
known to King Nebuchadnezzar what is to be at the end of days.” Daniel presents
himself as separate from the king’s sages, since his knowledge is based upon the
divine ‫ רז‬and not upon learned techniques of divination. The inclusion of “Daniel
and his companions” among the Babylonian wise men to be put to death in vv.
13b,17–18 stands in contrast to the rest of the chapter, and combined with the
evidence already presented above, bolsters the suggestion that materials of diver-
gent origins have been combined in the composition of this passage.
I would like to offer some additional evidence to strengthen Hartman and Di
Lella’s argument that the section is a secondary supplement to the primary nar-
rative in Daniel 2, although I will show that it is not an alternative version that
circulated independently. The consideration of an additional philological ques-
tion can help to redefine the boundaries of this passage more precisely. At the
conclusion of this analysis, I will offer a suggestion as to the origins and message
of the secondary passage, and the purpose behind its inclusion in this section of
Aramaic Daniel.
2.3 Divine Names as Supporting Evidence

for Different Sources
Divergences in divine epithets have been used since the inception of critical bibli-
cal scholarship as evidence for multiple authors. Although there is less certainty
today about the usefulness of this criterion alone to determine separate sources, it
can certainly be safely employed as supporting evidence for such determinations.¹²
The following chart illustrates the use of divine names in Daniel 2, according to
12 Cf. e.g., Schwartz (2011a, esp. 10–11; 2011b, 193–94). For the use of this criterion outside of
pentateuchal scholarship, see the recent study of 1QapGen by Bernstein (2009, 291–310).
the Masoretic Text, 4QDana (where preserved),¹³ and the two Greek witnesses, the
Old Greek and Theodotion: ¹⁴ ¹⁵ ¹⁶ ¹⁷
Daniel 2 MT 4QDana Theodotion LXX (OG)
v. 18 ‫אלה שמיא‬ [] τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τοῦ κυρίου τοῦ ὑψίστου
v. 19 ‫לאלה שמיא‬ ‫ לאלה שמיא‬τὸν θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν κύριον τὸν ὕψιστον
(v. 20) ‫אלהא‬ ‫ אלהא רבא‬τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ κυρίου τοῦ

μεγάλου¹⁴
v. 23 ‫אלה אבהתי‬ ‫ ]ל[אלה אבהתי‬ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων μου κύριε (967: θεὲ)¹⁵ τῶν
πατέρων μου
v. 28 ‫אלה בשמיא‬ [] θεὸς ἐν οὐρανοῷ κύριος¹⁶ ἐν οὐρανοῷ
v. 37 ‫אלה שמיא‬ [] ὁ θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ κύριος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
v. 44 ‫אלה שמיא‬ ‫ ]א[ל]ה[ שמיא‬ὁ θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
(v. 45) ‫אלה רב‬ ‫ אלה רב‬ὁ θεὸς ὁ μέγας ὁ θεὸς ὁ μέγας
(v. 47) ‫אלה אלהין‬ [] θεὸς θεῶν θεὸς τῶν θεῶν

καὶ κύριος τῶν κυρίων¹⁷
‫ומרא מלכין‬ καὶ κύριος τῶν βασιλέων καὶ κύριος τῶν
βασιλέων
MT Daniel features a consistent usage of the divine epithet ‫אלה שמיא‬, “God of
Heaven,” throughout the chapter (vv. 18,19,[28,]37,44).¹⁸ The same situation pre-
13 For the critical edition of this text, see E. Ulrich (ed.), “112. 4QDana,” in Ulrich (2000, 239–54).
14 The OG here apparently translated an Aramaic Vorlage identical or similar to the reading
found in 4QDana. For the use of κύριος to translate ‫אלהא‬, cf. vv. 18,19,23,28,37,47 (apparently a
translational doublet) in the table, and see n. 20 below.
15 Papyrus 967 reads both κύριος and θεὸς; Munnich presents only κύριε in his eclectic base
text, following ms 88. However, in light of the use of both κύριος and θεὸς in OG 2:47, it seems
preferable to adopt the reading of Pap. 967 in v. 23.
16 Ms 88 and Syh read θεὸς, but this is probably a correction towards MT.
17 Ms 88 and Syh omit the words καὶ κύριος τῶν κυρίων, either due to homoioteleuton or in an
attempt to correct the Greek text towards the MT reading. On the double rendering of the Aramaic
‫אלה אלהין‬, note OG v. 23 according to Pap. 967 (cf. n. 15 above).
18 This Aramaic epithet in also found in Ezra 5:11,12; 6:9,10; 7:12,21,23, and in the Elephantine
papyri (CAP 30:2,27–28; 32:3–4; 38:5). Note the parallel Hebrew epithet ‫אלהי השמים‬, found pre-
dominantly in LBH: Gen 24:3,7; Jonah 1:9; Ezra 1:2 (=2Chr 36:23); Neh 1:4,5; 2:4,20 (assuming that
Gen 24 exhibits a late text; for arguments in favor of this position, see Rofé [1990, 28]). It is also
used in the Apocrypha, including Tob 5:17; 6:18(GII); 7:11(GII),12(GII),17; 8:15; 10:11,12,13(GII);
Jdt 5:8; 6:19; 11:17.
Divine Names as Supporting Evidence for Different Sources 39
vails in the preserved material of 4QDana, which contains this divine name in
both vv. 19 and 44. Similarly, the Greek translation of Theodotion closely reflects
the employment of the divine names as found in MT, translating the Aramaic
‫ אלה שמיא‬with the Greek ὁ θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. In contrast, the evidence of the
OG version of Daniel, reflected in two Greek manuscripts (Pap. 967 and ms 88) as
well as the Syro-Hexapla, presents a different textual picture.¹⁹ In vv. (28),37, and
44, the OG translates ὁ θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, or ὁ κύριος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, reflecting a
Vorlage identical or similar to the MT ‫אלה שמיא‬.²⁰ However in vv. 18 and 19 a dif-
ferent epithet is used: ὁ κύριος ὁ ὕψιστος.
In an analysis of the treatment of the epithet “God of heaven” in the LXX,
James Aitken referred to “the earlier and freer rendering of the OG” of this divine
name; as a first example of this practice, he noted “the occasional use of ὕψιστος
in place of οὐρανός in 2:18 and 19.”²¹ However, as can be seen from the table above,
these are the only two verses in this chapter where the epithet is translated in this
fashion.²² In fact, apart from the interchange between κύριος and θεός, which
is common throughout OG Daniel,²³ the other components of the divine name
correspond consistently to the usage of the other textual witnesses throughout
the chapter. In this case, then, the OG translation of the divine epithets in vv. 18
and 19 should not be viewed as a free translation of the Aramaic ‫;אלה שמיא‬
rather, these translations reflect a Semitic Vorlage such as ‫מרא עלאה‬/‫ ה' עליון‬or
19 As noted in the Introduction, OG Daniel has been recognized as of great significance for trac-
ing the textual and literary history of the book. This is especially true for the first half of the book
(most prominently chapters 4–6), as the OG often preserves major differences from the MT. For
a discussion of the textual value of OG Daniel in comparison to Theodotion, see McLay (1996)
and Olariu (2015).
20 Verse 37 uses κύριος and not θεός, and it is unclear if this, too, reflects a slightly differ-
ent Vorlage. Against the possibility that OG κύριος reflects a different text is the variety of He-
brew and Aramaic divine epithets that this term apparently translates in LXX Daniel: ‫( אדני‬1:2;
9:3,4,7,9,15?,19); ‫( אדון‬1:10,16,17,19; 12:8); ‫( אלהים‬1:2,9,17; 9:9,18); ‫( אלה‬2:18?,19?,20,23; 3:28[OG 95]);
‫( מרא‬2:47) ‫( שליט‬4:14) '‫( ה‬9:4,10,13,14,20).
21 Aitken (2007, 263).
22 It is a methodological challenge to compare the MT and OG of Daniel 4 (MT 3:31–4:34), since
the two versions are significantly different from one another; for discussions of the relation-
ship between them, see Satran (1985, 62–94); Henze (1999, 23–49); and the discussion in chap.
4 below. The Aramaic version of that story does not use the divine name ‫ אלה שמיא‬at all, and
instead prefers ‫עליא‬/‫( עלאה‬3:32; 4:14,21,22,29,31). The OG uses both epithets (“Most High” in
4:11,21,30c,34,34a; and “God/Lord of heaven” in 4:14,[23],28,30a,30c,34a [2x], 34b).
23 See n. 20 above. Aitken (2007, 263), adduced this interchange as another sign of the OG trans-
lator’s free approach to translation, but did not address the consistency in the usage of the other
components of the divine names throughout Daniel 2.
‫אלהא עלאה‬/‫אל עליון‬.²⁴ While there is no attested biblical evidence for the former
epithet in Aramaic, the name ‫ ה' עליון‬is found in Pss 7:18; 47:3. The closely related
‫ אל עליון‬is encountered in Gen 14:18,19,20,22; Ps 78:35, and ‫ אלהים עליון‬in Pss 57:3;
78:56. Most significantly, the epithet ‫ אלהא עלאה‬is used in Dan 3:26,32; 5:18,21;²⁵
the name ‫עליה‬/‫ עלאה‬alone appears in 4:14,21,22,29,31; 7:25. While it is theoreti-
cally possible that ὁ κύριος ὁ ὕψιστος could reflect ‫ אלה שמיא‬in 2:18,19,²⁶ the OG
translator had no problem translating that epithet by the Greek ὁ θεὸς or ὁ κύριος
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ throughout the rest of the chapter.²⁷ It is therefore more likely that
2:18,19 reflect a different Aramaic Vorlage; namely, ‫עליא‬/‫אלהא עלאה‬/‫מרא‬.
While the use of the different divine epithets in the Old Greek version is not
sufficient by itself to determine the provenance of the passages in this chapter,
it is significant that the distribution of the names corresponds to the proposed
source division referred to above: vv. 18–19, which contain the variant name, fall
within the range of the alternate version of the story as defined by Hartman and
24 For the translational equivalence of ὕψιστος and ‫עליא‬/‫עליון‬, note especially OG Dan 3:26 (93);
7:18,22,25(2x),27 et al. in the Bible. The Hatch–Redpath concordance marks Dan 2:18,19 with a
cross, indicating that the editors did not take the Greek term to be equivalent to ‫ שמיא‬in those
verses; thus, they might have agreed with the general argument advanced here. On the inter-
changeability of κύριος and θεός, see n. 20 above.
25 Verses 18 and 21 in Daniel 5 are absent in OG, and therefore cannot serve as evidence for the
translation of this epithet in that version. In the Theodotion recension, they are indeed both
translated as ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὕψιστος (see n. 24). The absence of vv. 18–22 in OG chapter 5 presumably
reflects an earlier Aramaic version of that story, and their addition in MT may be explained as
the influence of and assimilation towards the story of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness in Daniel 4,
following the combination of the stories as part of the redactional development of the book; cf.
chap. 3, p. 58, n. 12.
26 The best evidence for this suggestion may be adduced from the Greek translation of 1Esd: 2:3
(= 2Chr 36:23 || Ezr 1:2 ‫ – )ה' אלהי השמים‬ὁ κύριος τοῦ Ισραηλ κύριος ὁ ὕψιστος; 6:30 (= Ezr 6:10
‫ – )לאלה שמיא‬τῷ θεῷ τᾦ ὑψίστῳ; 8:19 (= Ezr 7:21 ‫( – )]דתא די[ אלה שמיא‬τοῦ νόμου) τοῦ θεοῦ
τοῦ ὑψίστου; 8:21 (= Ezr 7:23 – ‫ – )לבית אלה שמיא‬τῷ θεῷ τῷ ὑψίστῷ. In each of these cases, the
Aramaic ‫ אלה שמיא‬is represented by a divine epithet juxtaposed with a form of ὕψιστος; cf. the
proposal of Muraoka (1998, 152b), s.v. ‫ ְשׁ ַמיָ א‬,‫( ְשׁ ִמין‬Aramaic) to add ὕψιστος as an equivalent
based upon these verses. See also Talshir (2001, 92, 340, 364, 395–96, 405–6), who plausibly
suggests that the tendency to reformulate the divine epithet ‫ אלה שמיא‬is a special characteristic
of the translator of 1Esd, and that it “may suggest a reading such as ‫עלאה‬/‫אלה עליא‬, common in
Daniel, but it is more likely the translator’s paraphrase” (quote from p. 405, italics mine).
27 The presence of different translations in Daniel 2 stands in contrast to the evidence adduced
in the previous footnote regarding 1Esd; in that document all instances of ‫ אלה שמיא‬in the paral-
lel passages in MT Ezra/Chronicles are paralleled by a nonliteral representation of the epithet.
This consistent evidence leads to the conclusion, already suggested by Talshir, that the differ-
ences in 1Esd are the result of the work of that Greek translator, and do not reflect a different
Semitic Vorlage.
A More Precise Source Division 41
Di Lella (vv. 13–23; on the precise division into sources, see below). The consistent
use of ‫ אלה שמיא‬throughout the chapter in all of the other textual witnesses apart
from OG probably reflects a relatively early²⁸ attempt to harmonize and homog-
enize the disparate material joined together in this passage.
2.4 A More Precise Source Division
Hartman and Di Lella posited that the insertion of new material into the text of
Daniel 2 begins in v. 13, since that verse contains a description of Daniel and
his friends among the potential targets of the king’s decree. Furthermore, they
posited that v. 14 stands in tension with v. 24, since they argued that those two
verses differ on the question of whether Arioch approached Daniel or vice versa.
While the first difference is of significance, the second is not only of lesser import,
but does not even accurately reflect the text itself.²⁹ There is therefore no a priori
reason to distinguish between v. 14 and the main narrative in the chapter. Further-
more, when one reads the story in sequence, v. 14 is understood as the natural
continuation of v. 13a, according to which “the decree condemning the wise men
to death was issued”; in the face of Nebuchadnezzar’s disproportionate response,
Daniel appears on the scene in order to save them. It should therefore not be
assumed that v. 14 is part of the addition to chapter 2.
I would like to suggest that a more precise source division can be obtained based
upon a better understanding of an Aramaic expression in v. 14, which has hith-
erto gone unremarked by various commentators. That verse reads, according to
the MT:
Dan 2:14
‫טבחיא‬-‫באדין דניאל התיב עטא וטעם לאריוך רב‬ Then Daniel ‫ התיב עטא וטעם‬to Arioch, the
.‫די מלכא די נפק לקטלה לחכימי בבל‬ king’s chief executioner, who had gone out to
execute the wise men of Babylon.
28 The Qumran scroll 4QDana is dated on paleographical grounds to the middle of the first cen-
tury BCE according to its editor (Ulrich 2000, 240).
29 At most it can be suggested that vv. 14 and 24 reflect a doublet in the Aramaic text, but as
will be suggested below, v. 24a is repeated for the purpose of resumptive repetition following the
addition of vv. 15–23.
This verse, which describes Daniel’s approach to Arioch, follows Nebuchadnez-

zar’s decision to execute the Babylonian sages, and immediately precedes Dan-
iel’s question to Arioch in the following verse. In keeping with the sequence of
chapter 2, v. 15 contains the substance of the speech mentioned in the previous
verse: “He [Daniel] answered and said to Arioch, officer of the king, ‘Why is the
decree so urgent from the king?’ Then Arioch informed Daniel of the matter” (MT).
Based upon the content of v. 15, it would appear that the phrase ‫התיב עטא וטעם‬
in v. 14, which describes the interaction between Daniel and Arioch, indicates
that Daniel made some sort of inquiry from this officer. This, for example, is the
interpretation of the Vulgate, which translates v. 14 as: (tunc Danihel) requisivit
de lege atque sententia (ab Arioch), “(Then Daniel) inquired about the law and
sentence (from Arioch).” While this contextual translation suits the progression
from v. 14 to v. 15, can it be justified as the meaning of the Aramaic expression
‫?התיב עטא וטעם‬³⁰
Each of the three elements of this expression appears in some form elsewhere
in the Bible, but they appear together only in this verse. The verb ‫התיב‬, cognate to
the Hebrew hiphil form ‫השיב‬, generally carries the meaning “return, reply.” The
verb here is accompanied by two accusative complements, ‫עטא וטעם‬. The noun
‫עטא‬, although it appears only here in the Biblical Aramaic corpus, is relatively
straightforward in its meaning. It is related to the root ‫יע"ט‬,³¹ which appears in
Dan 6:8; Ezra 7:14–15, with the meaning “advice, counsel,” and is cognate with
the common Hebrew noun ‫“( ֵﬠ ָצה‬advice, counsel”). The Aramaic noun ‫ טעם‬else-
where in the Bible possesses various connotations, including:³² taste (Dan 5:2);
30 Note Collins’s (1993, 149 [n. 40]) description of the Vulgate reading: “which fits the context
but has no basis in the Aramaic or Greek.” Similarly, some modern translators and commenta-
tors have offered a contextual translation of this phrase, without justification. See, e.g., Hartman
and Di Lella (1978, 135): “But Daniel prudently took counsel with Arioch” (italics mine); although
on p. 139 they remark that the translation is “literally, ‘Daniel returned counsel and prudence to
Arioch.” NJPS reads: (13b) “Daniel and his companions were about to be put to death (14) when
(‫ )באדין‬Daniel remonstrated with Arioch …” (italics mine).
According to Sokoloff (1990, 576), s.v. ‫תוב‬, in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, the verb ‫ תוב‬in the (h)
afel conjugation without a complementary object often carries the meaning “to ask a question.”
However, it is preferable to view these “questions” as reactions to previous statements, and thus
the etymology of the term should still be understood as “reply.” However, even though such a
meaning exists for this Aramaic verb, this only obtains in cases where the verb appears without
a direct object, unlike Dan 2:14.
31 Note the collocation of ‫ יעט‬and ‫ ע)י(טא‬in Fragment Targum ms P Gen 15:11; Num 24:14.
32 I am not discussing here the meaning of the title ‫טעם‬-‫( בעל‬Ezra 4:8,9,17), which has been
the subject of vigorous scholarly debate. The lexical categorization presented here follows the
general outlines of HALOT and BDB, with some minor differences.
attention or deference (Dan 3:12; 6:14);³³ advice or report (Ezra 5:5; Dan 6:3); and
command (Ezra 4:19,21; 5:3,9,13,17; 6:1,3,8,11,12,14; 7:13,21,23; Dan 3:10,29; 4:3;
6:27). Which meaning is appropriate here?
The closest biblical parallel to this expression is found in Prov 26:16, which
uses two of the three elements:
Prov 26:12,16
… ‫( ראית איש חכם בעיניו תקוה לכסיל ממנו‬12) (12) If you see a man who thinks himself
.‫( חכם עצל בעיניו משבעה משיבי טעם‬16) wise, there is more hope for a dullard than for
him … (16) The lazy man thinks himself wiser
than seven ‫משיבי טעם‬.
This passage from Proverbs describes the folly of a slothful man who is certain
that his laziness is to his own benefit. He is convinced that he is a wise man, and
as noted there in v. 12, such an individual is hopeless. According to this adage,
the lazy man perceives himself as smarter than seven ‫משיבי טעם‬. What is the
meaning of the expression ‫ משיבי טעם‬in this verse, and what is the significance
of the number seven?³⁴
I would like to suggest that these Aramaic and Hebrew expressions in Daniel
and Proverbs are the precise parallels of a common Akkadian collocation, ṭēmu
turru.³⁵ The object ṭēmu is the cognate equivalent of the Aramaic ‫ =( טעמא‬Hebrew
‫)טעם‬, while the verb turru, the D form of târu (“to return”), means “to give an
answer (with terms for message, order), to respond, to send back an answer, a
33 BDB, 1094, s.v. ‫ טעם‬includes Dan 2:14 under the same definition as these two verses and of-
fers the definition “judgment, discretion.” As will be suggested below, the more accurate mean-
ing of the term in 2:14 is “report, advice,” therefore making it closer to Ezra 5:5; Dan 6:3.
34 Most modern commentators assume that the number seven here does not have particular
significance; see, e.g., Toy (1899, 477); McKane (1970, 601); Whybray (1994, 376); Murphy (1998,
201); Longman (2006, 468). As noted to me by Menahem Kister, it is possible that the structure
of this proverb, and specifically the use of the number seven, is a function of the wisdom genre;
cf. Sir 37:14. It is unlikely that the reference in Proverbs 26 is to seven mythical wise men, apkallu,
known from the Ancient Near East, as was suggested by Clifford (1999, 233). Rather, the verse re-
fers to earthly wisdom and its human practitioners, in recognizable (royal) social contexts. Thus
the medieval Jewish commentator Abraham Ibn Ezra (ad Prov 26:16) suggested that the seven
‫ משיבי טעם‬are perhaps the equivalent of the seven princes in Esther “who had access to the royal
presence” (Esth 1:14); see the discussion below.
35 HALOT, 1885b, s.v. ‫( ְט ֵﬠם‬3, “advice, report”) notes the Akkadian expression, but associates it
with two other instances in Biblical Aramaic: Ezra 5:5 (‫ )טעמא לדריוש יהך‬and Dan 6:3 (‫יהבין להון‬
‫)טעמא‬, and places Dan 2:14 in a different category.
report. …”³⁶ Biblical lexicographers have already noted the semantic correspond-
ence between this Akkadian verb and the Aramaic and Hebrew verbs ‫שוב‬/‫ת‬.³⁷ In
Akkadian texts, the meaning of the complete expression, which appears from
Old Babylonian to Neo-Assyrian texts, is: “send or make a report; report to; send
instruction; make an announcement.”³⁸ Thus for example:
(a) ul kaspam tublam ul ṭēmka tuterram

You neither sent me money nor sent me your instructions in response.³⁹
(b) ša … ṭēmu ina pan šarri bēli[ja] uterrū[ni]

“who … made a report to the king, [my] lord”⁴⁰
(c) ṭēmu ina ekalli tēri, b[at]iqtu šî asaparakka

Make (your) report to the palace! I have sent you that information!⁴¹
Many of the instances of this expression reflect a court context; those who report
or make announcements are frequently the officers or advisors of the monarch,
speaking or being sent to speak before him. For Proverbs 26, this advisory role
provides the key to the meaning of the passage. A lazy man believes that he is
wiser than seven counsellors. The motif of seven royal advisors is found explicitly
in Ezra 7:14–15:⁴² “For you are commissioned by the king and his seven advisers
(‫ )יעטהי‬to regulate Judah and Jerusalem.” Similarly, in Esth 1:14, when Ahas-
uerus turns for counsel to his advisors, the text mentions seven of them by name:
“the seven ministers of Persia and Media who had access to the royal presence
(‫)ר ֵֹאי ְפּנֵ י ַה ֶמּ ֶלך‬.”⁴³ According to the proverb, the lazy man views himself on the
same plane of wisdom as the most select group of royal counselors, and such a
person has less hope than a “dullard.”
36 The definitions for this verbal form are taken from CAD T:271, s.v. târu 10.
37 See, e.g., HALOT, 1428.
38 The examples and definitions for this expression are taken from CAD T:271–72, s.v. târu 10a1´.
In the translations accompanying the examples adduced in CAD Ṭ:88, s.v. ṭēmu 1g, the expres-
sion is translated as “send, bring or make a report.”
39 Goetze (1956, 45 [no. 21, lines 4–5]).
40 ABL 773, in Parpola (1993, 138 [lines 10–13]).
41 ABL 830, in Fuchs and Parpola (2001, 124–25 [lines 7–10]).
42 Abraham Ibn Ezra (apud Dan 2:14) explicitly connects the verse in Daniel to the seven wise
men of Ezra 7.
43 See above, n. 34.
Furthermore, the word pair ‫ עטא וטעם‬in Daniel can be understood as a

cognate of a different Akkadian expression, ṭēmu u milku, a common collocation
that has the meaning of “decision and counsel.” See, for example:⁴⁴
(a) ša dIgigi ṭēnšúnu tīdēma ša dAnunnakī milikšun

You know the decision of the Igigu and the counsel of the Anunnakī.⁴⁵
(b) Arbela bīt ṭēme u milki

Arbela, temple of reason and counsel.⁴⁶
While the relationship between ‫ טעם‬and ṭēme was already noted above, a con-
nection likewise obtains between ‫יעץ‬/‫עצה‬/‫יעט‬/‫ עטא‬and Akkadian milki/malaku
(“counsel/give counsel”). The Aramaic substantive ‫ *מלך‬appears in Dan 4:24:
‫מלכי ישפר עליך‬, “let my counsel be acceptable to you.” The root is attested for Late
Biblical Hebrew in Neh 5:7: ‫וימלך לבי עלי‬, “And I pondered the matter carefully.”
Similarly, in postbiblical Hebrew, this meaning is highly common, especially in
the niphal conjugation.⁴⁷ In the Targumim, words generated from the root ‫מל"ך‬
translate Hebrew ‫יע"ץ‬/‫עצ"ה‬.⁴⁸ Similarly in Syriac, the verb and noun of the same
stem have the meaning “to counsel, advise, exhort,” and “counsel, advice.”⁴⁹
In the context of Dan 2:14, then, the entire expression, ‫התיב עטא וטעם‬, would
mean “sent a report⁵⁰ (or: instruction) and counsel” – Daniel sent an announce-
ment or instructions to Arioch, who was commanded by the king to put the
Babylonian magicians to death. However, as noted above, v. 15 does not present
instructions, report, or an announcement, but rather a question posed by Daniel
to the king’s officer. If so, where and what is the content of Daniel’s instruction
or announcement to Arioch? I suggest that the content of the instruction, and
thus the natural continuation of v. 14, does not occur until v. 24b: “and thus he
said to him: ‘Do not kill the wise men of Babylonia! Bring me before the king and
I will relate the interpretation to him.’” That is, upon hearing of the impending
punishment looming over the Babylonian wise men, Daniel offers his services to
the king, in order to save the sages. He is then immediately rushed by Arioch to
44 The examples quoted here are selected from CAD Ṭ:92–93, s.v. ṭēmu 3b.
45 Cagni (1969, 98–99).
46 Livingstone (1989, 20 [line 11]).
47 See, e.g., Jastrow (1903, 790–91), s.v. ‫ ָמ ַלְך‬, Nif.
48 See e.g., Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J. to Exod 18:19; Num 24:14; Tg. Jon. to 2Sam 16:23 (2x); 17:7 (2x),15
(2x); 1Kgs 1:12 (2x); 12:6,8 (2x),9,13 (2x); Jer 38:15; Tg. Ps. 16:7; 32:8; 62:5; 71:10; 83:4,6; Tg. Prov.
13:10; Tg. Chr. 2Chr 10:6,8 (3x),9; Tg. Job 26:3.
49 See Payne-Smith (1903, 277); Sokoloff (2009, 771–72).
50 This appears to be the meaning of the collocation of ‫ יהב‬+ ‫ טעמא‬in Dan 6:3 (“give a report”).
Nebuchadnezzar, and introduced to him for the first time. The intervening mate-
rial, vv. 15–23, comprises a secondary addition to this chapter. According to the
narrative progression proposed here, in the primary narrative strand of chapter 2,
without the large secondary addition, Daniel was aware of the punishment
decreed on the Babylonian sages, and thus does not need to ask Arioch why it
has been decreed (in contrast to v. 15).
Verse 24a (“Thereupon Daniel went to Arioch, whom the king had appointed
to do away with the wise men of Babylon”⁵¹), which Hartman and Di Lella had
identified as contradictory to v. 14, more plausibly should be described as a
doublet of that verse; it is most likely the result of the employment of the literary
technique of resumptive repetition by the writer responsible for the addition of
the material in vv. 15–23. This literary technique is often used in order to integrate
a secondary passage into a larger context, and the present case fits this general
pattern of usage. Following the insertion of vv. 15–23, in order to return the reader
to the point in the main story at which the material was inserted, v. 24a replays
the interaction between Daniel and Arioch from v. 14; the narrative resumes from
the place where it temporarily stopped.⁵²
It is often at the seam between passages of different provenance that one finds
rough edges – thus the uneven transition from v. 14 to v. 15 reveals the beginning
of the secondary passage. I suggest that v. 13b provides us with another example
of such a transition. Following the king’s decree in v. 12, “to annihilate all of the
51 MT reads the word ‫ על‬twice consecutively, while it is found only once in 4QDana and some
MT manuscripts (see BHS). It is possible that the verb ‫ ֲאזַ ל‬, which has been joined to v. 24b in the
Masoretic division, was originally the main verb in v. 24a. When the preposition ‫ ַﬠל‬was dupli-
cated, due to dittography, the first instance was understood as a perfect form of the geminate
verb ‫עלל‬, thus rendering the original verb ‫ אזל‬extraneous. The division of MT, in which ‫ אזל‬has
been shifted to v. 24b, is the result of its redundancy following the erroneous duplication of the
word ‫על‬. For a similar syntactical structure, with ‫ אזל‬at the end of the sentence, note v. 17.
52 In addition to the use of resumptive repetition, an additional indication of this editorial pro-
cedure can perhaps be identified at the border between the original story and the addition, in
vv. 14–15. Verse 14 refers to Arioch as “the chief of the royal executioners, who had gone out to
execute the sages of Babylon.” Verse 15 (according to MT), at the beginning of the secondary ad-
dition, again introduces Arioch by name, and refers to him as “the officer of the king.” OG omits
the entire phrase “to Arioch, officer of the king” in v. 15, while Theodotion omits only his name.
Collins suggests that the OG reflects the original reading in this detail, and describes the slightly
longer MT text as an “explicating plus.” However, in light of the identification of the transition
from the original narrative to the addition in vv. 14–15, it is more likely that the duplication in the
introduction of Arioch as preserved in MT, each time in a different manner, is the original read-
ing, and is the result of the combination of materials of varying provenance. In order to mitigate
this repetition, in both OG and Theodotion, (different) elements of his name and/or title were
omitted from v. 15.
wise men of Babylonia,” v. 13a describes the early stage of its implementation,
as the sages are being killed. Verse 13b, which includes Daniel and his compan-
ions among those targeted, adds a piece of information that was absent until this
point – although they were not part of the original consultation, they were none-
theless subject to the same decree as the other wise men. The structure of verse
13 is itself odd, as if v. 13b had been tacked on as an afterthought to the story
in vv. 1–13a. Furthermore, assuming that the division suggested above is correct,
then v. 13b only makes sense in light of the addition in vv. 15–23, since the threat
to Daniel and his friends is found only in the secondary passage. Finally, vv. 13b
and 17–18 contain the only instances of the expression ‫רוֹהי‬
ִ ‫דניאל וְ ַח ְב‬, “Daniel and
his friends”:⁵³
(13b) Daniel and his companions were about to be put to death (‫)ובעו … להתקטלה‬
(17) Then Daniel went to his house and informed his companions, Hananiah, Mishael, and
Azariah, of the matter, (18) that they might implore the God of Heaven for help regarding
this mystery, so that Daniel and his colleagues would not be put to death together with the
other wise men of Babylon.
At the same time, I have proposed here that v. 14 belongs to the primary nar-
rative. It may therefore be concluded that v. 13b was probably interpolated into
the primary narrative along with the secondary passage (vv. 15–23) in order to
link Daniel and his friends among the Babylonian wise men, by describing their
impending death.
The isolation of vv. 15–24a from the primary narrative in this chapter allows
for a new analysis of the literary structure of Daniel 2. The primary narrative
can essentially be divided into two scenes, which stand in direct contrast to one
another. In the opening scene, following Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, the Baby-
lonian wise men are summoned and claim that it is an impossible task for any
human being to both recount and interpret his dream (vv. 10–11). In the second
half of the story (vv. 14,24b–48), Daniel, the foil to these wise men, is brought
before the king, and in fact is successful in meeting this challenge. While this
seemingly disproves the claims of the Babylonian sages, Daniel’s attribution of his
knowledge and ability to interpret the dream to God in v. 28 confirms the essential
claim of those magicians – there is no human being who can solve such a mystery,
53 Daniel appears together with his three companions only in this passage (and the later addi-
tion in v. 49) in chapter 2, and in the introductory tale in chapter 1. The three appear by them-
selves (with their foreign names) in chapter 3, and Daniel appears by himself in all of the other
chapters; Collins (1993, 35) notes the significance of this literary division for the reconstruction
of the compositional process of the book of Daniel.
but only God in heaven, who reveals these secrets to specific individual(s).⁵⁴ The
two scenes are therefore complementary, with the words of the Babylonian sages
foreshadowing the eventual conclusion in the second scene.
2.5 Daniel as an “Improved” Joseph
The sheer quantity of the parallels between the Daniel stories in chapters 1–6
and the Joseph novella is readily apparent to almost any reader:⁵⁵ Both Joseph
and Daniel are taken into exile against their will. They are each physically hand-
some or perfect (Gen 39:6; Dan 1:4), and both are eventually recognized for their
unsurpassed wisdom by the Gentile monarch (Gen 41:39; Dan 1:17–20). Both rise
to become royal courtiers, and are appointed over the whole kingdom (Gen 41:40;
Dan 2:48; 5:29; 6:3). They are both given new, non-Hebrew names by the king
(Gen 41:45; Dan 1:7), and as a symbol of the king’s appreciation for their abilities,
they are decorated with chains around their necks (Gen 41:42; Dan 5:29).
Within the broader correspondences between these two stories, numerous
scholars have noted the more specific parallels of Daniel 2 and 5 to the story of
Joseph interpreting Pharaoh’s dreams in Genesis 41. Genesis 41 and Daniel 2 each
open when the foreign king, Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar respectively, has trou-
bled spirits because of his dreams:
Gen 41:7–8 Dan 2:1
‫( … וייקץ פרעה והנה‬7) (7) … Then Pharaoh ‫… חלם נבכדנצר חלמות‬ … Nebuchadnezzar
‫( ויהי בבקר‬8) .‫ חלום‬awoke: it was a ‫ותתפעם רוחו ושנתו‬ had a dream; his
…‫ ותפעם רוחו‬dream! (8) Next ‫נהיתה עליו‬ spirit was agitated,
morning, his spirit yet he was overcome
was agitated … by sleep
In a similar fashion, Dan 5:6 records the king’s extreme reaction of fear after
seeing the writing on the wall, though with a different formulation:⁵⁶
54 In chap. 3 below, I make a similar argument regarding the divine origins of wisdom as pre-
sented in Daniel 5.
55 These shared aspects only represent some of the many parallels between the Joseph and Dan-
iel narratives. Among the many scholars who have noted these commonalities, see, e.g., Rosenthal
(1895, 278–84); Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 56); Collins (1993, 39–40); Henze (1999, 11–12).
56 See chap. 3 for a fuller analysis of Daniel 5, which addresses the nature of Belshazzar’s reac-
tion, and also suggests that the parallel between Daniel 2 and 5 is even closer than generally
assumed.
Daniel as an “Improved” Joseph 49
Dan 5:6
‫ אדין מלכא זיוהי שנוהי ורעינהי יבהלונה וקטרי‬The king’s countenance changed, and his
‫ חרצה משתרין וארכבתה דא לדא נקשן׃‬thoughts alarmed him; the joints of his loins
were loosened and his knees knocked together.
All three foreign kings call for their wise men and magicians to interpret their
dreams or visions, but the native professionals are unsuccessful (Gen 41:8;
Dan 2:2–13a,27; 5:7–8). The visions and their interpretations are only revealed by
means of an Israelite or Judahite youth, exiled from his homeland. In each case,
an individual in the royal service introduces the Israelite/Judahite exile to the
king – the cupbearer in Genesis 40–41; Arioch the chief executioner in Dan 2:14,
25; and the queen mother in 5:10–12. The foreign youth is brought speedily before
the king (Gen 41:14; Dan 2:25) and successfully interprets the king’s dream or
vision, an action described employing the terminus technicus ‫פשר‬/‫פתר‬, a root
found either in verbal or nominal forms only in Genesis 40–41 and Daniel 2–7.
Each dream not only has implications for the king himself, but also has repercus-
sions for the entire kingdom. The protagonist insists that his interpretive gifts are
based neither on his own abilities, nor on any techniques that he has learned or
acquired; rather, God has revealed this wisdom to him (Gen 40:8; 41:16; Dan 2:28).
Following their success at dream or vision interpretation, each is promoted by the
Gentile king to be a national leader (Gen 41:40; Dan 2:48; 5:16,29), even in those
instances in which he predicted the ruler’s imminent downfall.⁵⁷
In light of all of these parallels, it has been correctly suggested that the
Joseph story served as a literary model for the Daniel tale. It was probably chosen
since the former describes an Israelite or Jew in the Diaspora, who was able to
succeed in the court of a foreign king. Daniel and his predecessor Joseph both
present examples of Israelites or Jews who succeed at the highest levels of their
host society. The later author(s) adopted Joseph as the paradigm of success in
the foreign court, but transformed this character into an “improved” model for
contemporary behavior for Jews in the Diaspora.⁵⁸ One can rise to greatness in
the court of a gentile king, like Joseph, but not at the expense of compromising
one’s core religious beliefs and practices. The stories emphasize not only the faith
of Daniel and his companion in the God of Israel, but also the recognition by the
57 These stories should be viewed as type-scenes, and therefore some of the standard elements
are included even when they do not seem appropriate, such as the king’s praise and reward of
Daniel at the end of Daniel 5 for reading and interpreting the writing on the wall, even when he
had offered a message of doom.
58 Humphreys (1973).
foreign kings of His power and supremacy, a major theme of the tales in the first
half of Daniel.
The transformation of Daniel into an “improved” Joseph also occurs on
the narrative level. While Joseph was able with divine assistance to interpret
the dreams that Pharaoh or the members of his court related to him, Daniel’s
actions are even more impressive. Answering the challenge presented explicitly
by Nebuchadnezzar, he successfully both reveals and interprets the king’s dream,
a feat that surpasses his paradigmatic predecessor. The author’s motivation for
this transformation was not merely to present Daniel as an upgraded version of
Joseph. Daniel’s success in the face of the failure of the Babylonian magicians
is also intended to contrast with and demonstrate the limitations of Babylonian
wisdom. There are areas of knowledge which are inaccessible to those wise men,
despite their extensive training, and which can only be ascertained with divine
assistance: “there is no one who can tell it to the king except the gods whose
abode is not among mortals.” (2:11).⁵⁹
I suggest that the literary dependence of Daniel 2 upon the Joseph stories
further supports the suggestion that the passage in Dan 2:15–24a should be viewed
as secondary. That passage describes how, upon hearing the king’s challenge to
the sages, Daniel requests more time, which is granted by the king. He returns
home, informs his companions of the decree, and then receives a night vision
in which the contents of the king’s dream and its interpretation are revealed to
him. It is precisely in these final details that the narrative in Daniel 2 departs from
the story in Genesis 41. In the earlier story, after Pharaoh describes his dreams
to the Hebrew youth, Joseph immediately reveals the meaning of both dreams to
him (cf. the transition in Genesis 41 from vv. 17–24 to 25 ff.). He does not request
an extension of time so that God can reveal the information to him, nor does he
return to his quarters to receive such a revelation. The immediacy with which
Joseph responds to Pharaoh in Genesis 41 is duplicated in Daniel 2, but only in
the original stratum of the story.⁶⁰ The author of the earliest version of the tale
59 This motif could also be formulated as an exegetical issue that arises when reading the Jo-
seph stories: why was it so difficult for the Egyptian wise men to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams?
They were of symbolic nature and therefore not fully clear, yet they do not appear to be particu-
larly complex either in their symbolism or their interpretation. The Daniel stories demonstrate
that divinely inspired dream interpretation is in fact of a different caliber and nature than its
foreign counterparts.
60 In chap. 3 below, I will argue that a similar literary pattern can be identified in Daniel 5, re-
garding the circumstances of Belshazzar’s vision of the Writing on the Wall. There, like Joseph,
Daniel is able to interpret the writing on the wall immediately upon reading it, without any re-
quest for an extension.
Possible Origin of the Addition 51
has borrowed the character of Joseph, and the interpretation of dreams for the
foreign king, in order to present the dream about the four kingdoms in a similar
context. If Pharaoh’s dreams were interpreted correctly by Joseph with divine
assistance, then the same authority could be attributed to the dream ascribed to
Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2.
2.6 Possible Origin of the Addition
Once vv. 15–23 have been shown to be a secondary interpolation into this chapter,
one can ask some fundamental questions about the passage: why was it added?
When was it inserted? Is this passage connected to any other material throughout
the book? Hartman and di Lella identified this secondary material as an alternate,
independent version of the same story.⁶¹ One of their arguments, the presence
of a doublet of Daniel approaching Arioch, in both vv. 14 and 24, I have shown
above to be the result of the use of resumptive repetition as an editorial technique
in order to incorporate the secondary section. Instead of a parallel version of the
story, I would suggest that vv. 15–23 were added as a supplement to the chapter. As
noted already by Collins, the medium by which Daniel receives his revelation in
vv. 15–23, a “night vision (‫ ;חזוא די ליליא‬2:19),” “resembles the apocalyptic revela-
tion of chaps. 7–8 … It is possible that these sections were inserted when chapter 7
was added or in the final redaction of the apocalyptic book”⁶² (italics mine).
I will now offer additional evidence, specifically from the language of the
addition, that bolsters the claim of a connection between Daniel 7 and this addi-
tion, and which perhaps offers insight into the origin of the passage. Hartman
and Di Lella noted the reuse in this section, a “hymn of thanksgiving,” of ideas
and expressions found in other biblical passages; yet at the same time they
observe that “this is an original composition, which not only fits the occasion, but
which also, in its praise of God as the one who ‘brings about changes in the times
and the eras’ and who ‘deposes kings and sets up kings,’ strikes the keynote of the
whole Book of Daniel, that Yahweh is truly the Lord and Master of human history”
(italics mine).⁶³ I suggest that a possible key to identifying the provenance of the
passage can be found in v. 21a, specifically in those expressions that they identi-
fied as reflecting the fundamental message of the book:
61 Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 139, 144–45).

62 Collins (1993, 153).
63 Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 145).
Dan 2:21a
‫והוא מהשנא עדניא וזמניא מהעדה מלכין ומהקים‬ He changes seasons and times, removes
… ‫מלכין‬ kings and sets up kings …
This description of God appears within the context of a doxology (vv. 20–23). When
examined on their own, these sentences describe God’s control of the natural
order by which the seasons operate, in addition to His sovereignty over all human
rulers. He can remove or install rulers according to His will. But comparison with
another passage in Daniel 7 may offer more insight into this description:⁶⁴
Dan 7:24–26
‫( וקרניא עשר מנהּ מלכותה עשרה מלכין‬24) (24) And the ten horns [mean] – from that
‫ ואחרן יקום אחריהון והוא ישנא מן קדמיא‬,‫יקמון‬ kingdom, ten kings will arise, and after them
‫( ומלין לצד עליא ימלל‬25) .‫ותלתא מלכין יהשפל‬ another will arise. He will be different from
‫ ויסבר להשניה זמנין ודת‬,‫ולקדישי עליונין יבלא‬ the former ones, and will bring low three
‫( ודינא‬26) .‫ויתיהבון בידהּ עד עדן ועדנין ופלג עדן‬ kings. (25) He will speak words against the
.‫יתב ושלטנה יהעדון להשמדה ולהובדה עד סופא‬ Most High, and will “speak (against)” ‫קדישי‬
‫עליונין‬. He will think of changing times and
laws, and they will be delivered into his power
for a time, times, and half a time. (26) Then
the court will sit and his dominion will be
taken away, to be destroyed and abolished for
all time.
It is accepted today as virtually axiomatic that the final horn in this vision refers
to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who is described as personally responsible for the
downfall of three kings.⁶⁵ He is accused of blasphemy against the Most High, and
64 Numerous scholars have identified a process of textual development throughout Daniel 7,

either due to multiple literary layers or to scribal-editorial additions. In contrast, many schol-
ars defend the unity of Daniel 7; for a summary of scholarship on this chapter, cf. below, chap.
5.1, pp. 132–133. While I tend to agree with the latter position, both views regarding the literary
history of Daniel 7 are compatible with the theory proposed here, since all scholars agree that
7:24b–25, the basis for comparison with 2:15–23, is Maccabean in origin.
65 Cf. also the reference to the toes in 2:41a,42a, which is missing in OG and in the dream report
itself (v. 33), and thus denotes a secondary addition, perhaps under the influence of the ten
horns/kings motif in Dan 7:7,24 (Hartman and Di Lella 1978, 141, 148–49). The historical question
of the precise identification of ten specific kings that preceded Antiochus, and of the three whose
downfall is attributed directly to him, is beyond the scope of the discussion here (cf. Collins 1993,
320–21). However, it is also possible that the number in this vision is typological, and thus cau-
tion must be exercised in any attempt to construct a historically accurate list.
Possible Origin of the Addition 53
of afflicting ‫קדישי עליונין‬.⁶⁶ This king is accused that he will “think of changing
times and laws,” presumably a reference to Antiochus’ decrees, which related
both to calendar and general religious law.⁶⁷ The author of this vision placed a
limit on the length of this king’s reign (cf. also 8:14; 9:27; 12:11,12). Since there
is no hint of the desecration of the Temple in this chapter, the entire vision is
usually dated to the short period between the decrees and the profanation, i.e.,
to 167 bce.⁶⁸
I want to tentatively suggest that the addition in 2:15–23 was composed simul-
taneously with this passage in Daniel 7, and was intended both to foreshadow and
offer a contrast to Antiochus’s problematic behavior in 7:24–25.⁶⁹ First, the addi-
tion in chapter 2 includes a doxology praising the Most High (2:19 according to the
OG – see above), which contrasts with Antiochus’s blasphemous words against
the Most High. More significantly, the two accusations raised against Antiochus
in chapter 7, namely, that he will overthrow three kings and that “he will think
to change times and law,” find parallels in the language used to describe God in
Dan 2:21a. The description of God’s ability to install and remove kings (v. 21aβ)
stands in opposition to the portrayal of Antiochus as the agent of the downfall of
the three kings before him. While 7:24 describes the perceived political perspec-
tive, the author of the addition in chapter 2 stresses that the rise and fall of kings
is the result of one cause alone, God’s intervention in the workings of the world.
According to 7:26, which uses the same verb as 2:21, Antiochus’ dominion will
eventually be removed by divine decree:
God (Dan 2:21) Antiochus (Dan 7:24…26)
… ‫מהעדה מלכין ומהקים מלכין‬ ‫( ושלטנה יהעדון‬26) … ‫( ותלתא מלכין יהשפל‬24)
Removes kings and sets up kings … (24) He will bring about the downfall of three
kings … (26) and his dominion will be taken
away
66 For an extensive discussion of the meaning of this expression within the broader context of
the book of Daniel, see below, chap. 5.3, pp. 139–143.
67 Cf. 1Macc 1:41–61; 2Macc 6:1–11.
68 For the chronological data, cf. the table provided by Goldstein (1983, 115–16).
69 Admittedly, as suggested to me by Menahem Kister, even if one accepts the parallels adduced
below, it is still possible to arrive at a conclusion regarding the literary relationship between the
two passages different than the one cautiously suggested here, namely that the formulation of
7:24–26 is based upon the language of the addition in Daniel 2.
Similarly, the accusation against Antiochus for changing times and laws in
Daniel 7 is parallel to the formulation of the praise to God in Daniel 2:21aα:
God (Dan 2:21) Antiochus (Dan 7:25)
‫והוא מהשנא עדניא וזמניא‬ ‫ויסבר להשניה זמנין ודת‬

And He changes seasons and times He will think to change times and law
For this parallel, too, one can place the praise of God in Dan 2:21 within a broader
context of biblical acclamations of the divine, and more specifically, expressions
of praise for divine control over the natural order. The meaning of the accusa-
tion against Antiochus in 7:25 is very different – i.e., that he will think or plan to
change the cultic calendar and Jewish laws. At the same time, the use of similar
language in the two verses is significant, despite the admittedly different mean-
ings of the parallel terms. This contrast is accomplished by the use of shared lin-
guistic constructions, in addition to the common terminology: both verses use
the verb ‫ שני‬in the haphel conjugation with a compound accusative object, which
includes the substantive ‫ זמנין‬in each case.⁷⁰ The power of Antiochus in the vision
of chapter 7 is thus contrasted with that of the true sovereign of the world – God
is the one who truly installs and removes kings, and he is the one who truly estab-
lishes the world order. Daniel 2:21 thus serves as a foreshadowing foil to 7:24–25.
The identification of the parallels between these passages is of potential
significance for identifying the date and background of the addition in 2:15–23,
since they suggest that it was composed as a contrast to the description in
7:24–25, which was composed some time around 167 bce. The literary develop-
ment of chapter 2 would thus have continued into the reign of Antiochus IV, con-
current with the redaction of the book,⁷¹ and the combination of its two primary
sections, the stories in chapters 1; 2–6, and the apocalyptic visions in chapters
7–12.⁷²
70 One other verse in Daniel (2:9) also includes the juxtaposition of ‫ שני‬and ‫( עדנא‬as found in
2:21). In that case the verb is in the ithpaal conjugation, indicating the passage of time in a pas-
sive sense, and is related to the notion of “buying time” in 2:8.
71 Contra Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 139): “The present conflation, however, was probably
made before the whole Book of Daniel was compiled in the first half of the second century B. C.”
72 Further parallels have already been observed between chapters 2 and 7, most prominently
the use of the four-kingdom scheme in both sections; such parallels support the conception of
literary development proposed here. For an analysis of these parallels in the context of the larger
structure of Daniel 2–7, see Lenglet (1972).
3 Rereading the Writing on the Wall (Daniel 5)
As noted in the previous chapter, the theme of Daniel as a “second Joseph” con-
tinues in the story of the writing on the wall (Daniel 5). In this well-known tale,
the Babylonian king Belshazzar convenes a banquet for his nobles, during which
he orders that the vessels from the Jerusalem Temple be brought so that those in
attendance can drink from them. As they drink from the sacred vessels and praise
their idolatrous gods, the king sees the fingers of a hand, writing on the wall,
a vision which terrifies him. He summons his sages and interpreters and prom-
ises them great rewards if they can read and interpret the inscription, but they
are unable to do so. The queen(-mother) then appears and tells the king about
Daniel, who was successful at dream interpretation in the time of Nebuchadnez-
zar when all of the other wise men had failed (5:10–12); this is a reference to the
stories related in Daniel 2 and MT Daniel 4.¹ Daniel is introduced to Belshazzar
as one of the exiles from Judea (5:14), and is promised great rewards if he success-
fully reads and interprets the writing on the wall. Daniel, after rebuking Belshaz-
zar for using the Temple vessels and glorifying idols as opposed to the true God,
proceeds to read the writing on the wall and interpret its meaning, for which he is
rewarded both materially and professionally.
3.1 They Could Not Read the Writing
Interpreters have offered various suggestions as to why the diviners were

“stumped” by the writing on the wall. The most explicit of all of the sources that
address this issue is the presentation of the opinions of four different Amoraim
found in b. San. 22a:²
But what can the phrase, “they could not read the writing” (Daniel 5:8) mean? Rab said: The
passage was written in Gematria: ‫יטת יטת אדך פוגחמט‬. How did he interpret it to them? As
“‫מנא מנא תקל ופרסין‬: MENE–God has numbered [the days of] your kingdom and brought it
to an end. TEKEL–You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. PERES–Your
kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.” Samuel said: ‫ממתוס‬
‫ננקפי אאלרן‬. R. Johanan said: ‫אנם אנם לקת ניסרפו‬. R. Ashi said: ‫נמא נמא קתל פורסין‬.
1 The element of competition between Daniel and the Babylonian wise men was added second-
arily to MT Daniel 4; see chap. 4 below.
2 A parallel to this passage is found in Song of Songs Rab. 3 (see below for a different excerpt
from that passage), in which three of the four options here are represented, although they are
attributed to different sages.
None of these four suggestions is particularly complex, and all involve very sim-
plistic techniques of encoding: Rab suggests that the words were written in an
‫( א"ת ב"ש‬atbash) cipher, according to which each letter of the alphabet is paired
with the one which is equidistant from either end (thus ‫ א‬is paired with ‫ת‬, ‫ ב‬with
‫ש‬, etc.);³ Samuel suggests that the words of the inscription were laid out vertically
in five columns of three rows, but were cryptic since they were read horizontally;⁴
R. Johanan inverts the order of the consonants in each of the words, reading from
end to beginning; and R. Ashi posits that the order of the first two consonants was
reversed. It is unclear why any of these solutions would pose an insurmountable
challenge for the wise men to solve. The need for the bestowal of divine wisdom
upon Daniel in order to arrive at the correct reading and interpretation is also
puzzling, if in fact all that was needed was the simple manipulation of a few con-
sonants.
Modern commentators also assume that the wise men could make out the
letters on the wall, but were precluded from understanding them because the
words were encrypted, scrambled, or otherwise difficult to comprehend. Mont-
gomery suggested that the sages lacked the “reading, i.e., intelligent pronuncia-
tion (= ḳrê) of the consonants forming the inscription (= ktîb).”⁵ In other words,
they were able to see the consonants, but were not able to string them together
to form coherent words. This is of course hard to accept, considering that scribes
in that period would have been trained in the Aramaic language, and there is
nothing extraordinarily difficult about the words found in the writing. Hartman
and di Lella posit that
When the story says that the king’s wise men “could not read the writing or tell the king
what it meant,” the meaning is probably, not that the writing was in an unknown script, but
that it did not make sense. For the storyteller, the writing was apparently in regular Aramaic
script, giving ordinary Aramaic words, but the message conveyed by the words was beyond
the understanding of the pagan wise men.⁶
3 The use of the atbash cipher in ancient literature has been recognized by Demsky (1977, 19–20);
Fishbane (1985, 464–65); Steiner (1996, 81–83). This evidence, however, has no bearing on the
question of whether the use of atbash constitutes an appropriate interpretation of Daniel 5.
4 The layout reflected in this interpretation was subsequently adopted by Rembrandt in his
painting, “Belshazzar’s Feast,” as has been noted by scholars who have investigated the rela-
tionship between the famous Dutch painter and his Jewish neighbors; cf. Zell (2002, 59–72) and
the literature quoted there.
5 Montgomery (1927, 264). The use of the pseudo-Masoretic terms kethib and qere here seems
oddly out of place.
6 Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 188).
They Could Not Read the Writing 57
Similarly, John Collins notes: “The failure to read need not be attributed to igno-
rance of the language in which the writing appears or to a cryptic disposition of
the letters. It may mean only that they did not perceive the sense of the words”;⁷
subsequently, Collins observes that
[T]he range of possible meaning is extended by the fact that Daniel does not directly inter-
pret the words but uses related verbal forms in new instances. The element of tension
between the writing and its interpretation confirms the mysterious character of the writing
and helps explain why the Chaldeans could not decipher it.⁸
These interpretations assume that the Babylonian wise men did not have any
difficulty discerning the actual writing, but that they were unable to take the
next step of interpretation, to understand “the message conveyed by the words.”
However, this is not what the text of MT Dan 5:8 explicitly tells us: “they could not
read the writing or make known its meaning to the king.” According to this, they
were unable to achieve even the first stage of comprehending the text, reading the
writing. Goldingay attempts a solution to the issue of why they would have been
unable to read the writing:
“Perhaps they were difficult because of their use of ideograms or their peculiar cunei-
form. … Weights could be abbreviated, as in English, and perhaps the inscription consisted
in a series of abbreviations that were not immediately recognizable as such. …⁹ But most
straightforwardly the story envisages the words written as unpointed consonants: being
able to read out unpointed text is partly dependent on actually understanding it, and Daniel
later reads the words out one way and interprets them another.”¹⁰
The first options pertain to techniques used in writing (abbreviations or ideo-

grams), and do address why “they were unable to read the writing.” Here, once
again, if Goldingay’s solution is on the mark, it seems that the sages’ inability
to read is more of a sign of their ineptitude than of the absence of any divinely
endowed, unique intellectual gifts such as those bestowed upon Daniel. The
second option Goldingay suggests is similar to those mentioned previously, and
does not contribute to the issue at hand. Building upon the possibility of the divin-
7 Collins (1993, 248). Collins goes on to say, “The point is that the writing is a mystery, just as
surely as the king’s dream in chap. 2, and the Chaldeans do not have access to it” (p. 248).
8 Collins (1993, 252). The comparison that Collins makes to Daniel 2 (p. 248, see previous note)
is particularly apt. However, he limits the similarity between the two to the general realm of
“mystery,” by which he means the inability of the sages to decipher the enigmatic phenomena.
9 This suggestion was first put forth by Alt (1954).
10 Goldingay (1989, 109).
ers’ ineptitude, Polaski distinguishes between chapter 2, on the one hand, where
readers can identify with and sympathize with the Babylonian wise men (since
neither the Babylonian nor the Jewish interpreters has access to the dream); and
chapter 5, on the other, in which the wise men should have been able to interpret
the inscription, but were incompetent, and would therefore viewed as such by
readers of the chapter: “Given that Daniel’s earliest readers were probably scribes
skilled at reading and interpreting what was considered God’s own writing, there
is little chance for sympathy to develop between ancient reader and Chaldean
here.”¹¹ All of these interpretations share the same basic assumption about the
story – viz., that the inscription on the wall was visible to the entire cast of char-
acters in this chapter, including Belshazzar, his entourage, all of those in attend-
ance at the feast, the Chaldeans who were summoned by the king, and finally
Daniel. However, I suggest that this assumption is not borne out by the text itself.
This interpretive assumption, however, goes back even earlier than the
Amoraic period; it is found in the Old Greek version of Daniel 5 (generally dated
to the first century bce). In general, the OG translation of Daniel 4–6 is recognized
for its importance for understanding the literary development of these chapters,
since it frequently offers a version that differs significantly from the Masoretic
Text (and from the revision attributed to Theodotion). Thus for example, MT
5:17–22 is missing in the OG, and it may plausibly be argued that these verses were
added secondarily to what became the MT text.¹² At the same time, the focus
on the textual and literary issues should not cause us to ignore the exegetical
aspects of the OG translation. Throughout the chapter, the OG replaced every
11 Polaski (2004, 654–655). Polaski develops the concept that the writing in this story is an ex-
pression of resistance against imperial power. The analysis below leads to a different under-
standing of the tale, and therefore a different interpretation of its Tendenz.
12 It is likely that vv. 18–22 were added to the MT account in the process of the redaction of the
stories in the first half of Daniel, since they explicitly connect the story in chapter 5 with that
in Daniel 4 (Collins 1993, 242). Verse 17 (MT) was also likely added to MT at a secondary stage,
since Daniel’s refusal in 5:17 to accept any of the rewards promised in v. 16 is then contradicted
by v. 29, where he is “clothed … in purple, with a gold chain on his neck” and appointed to a high
rank in the kingdom, in explicit fulfillment of the king’s earlier promise. While the motivation
for this addition is less clear, it perhaps related to the motif of the rejection of gifts from a foreign
king (cf., e.g., Gen 14:23). Some scholars have suggested that this verse is integrally related to the
plot. They construe, for example, that Daniel is suggesting that the king wait to decide whether
to reward him until after he has heard the interpretation (Plöger 1965, 87–88); or that Daniel is
refusing to be unduly influenced by monetary rewards in Belshazzar’s attempt to change his fate,
an issue which no longer applied after Belshazzar had internalized the disastrous message (La-
cocque 1979, 101, 105–6). However, these constructions are not especially convincing, especially
in light of the textual evidence.
instance of the Aramaic “read the writing and tell its meaning” (vv. 7,8,[12 – see
below],15,16,17) with ἀπαγγεῖλαι τὸ σύγκριμα τῆς γραφῆς “to explain¹³ the inter-
pretation of the writing” (OG vv. 7 [3x],8,9,16), condensing into one, the two activi-
ties described in the MT.¹⁴ According to this rephrasing, these sages did not have
any difficulty reading the writing; the primary challenge presented to them was to
interpret that which they had read, a challenge that they did not meet.¹⁵ The Old
Greek does not offer a further clarification as to what made this challenge too dif-
ficult for them, but shares the same basic approach to the problem as most sub-
sequent interpreters. As I noted above regarding the rabbinic source, none of the
proposed difficulties are particularly mysterious. Equally as troubling as the fact
that the Babylonian wise men were unable to interpret the writing is the empha-
sis in the story on the divine assistance that Daniel received in order to succeed at
this task (5:11–12,14,24–28), which implies that this knowledge was unattainable
without God’s direct intervention and revelation.
In light of a careful reading of the Aramaic text of Daniel 5, I would like to suggest
an alternative interpretation of the chapter. The vision of the hand begins in
v. 5, after Belshazzar and those in attendance at his feast drink from the Temple
vessels, which had been brought out at his command, and praise man-made idols
(vv. 1–4). According to Dan 5:5–6:
(5) Just then, the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of
the king’s palace opposite the lampstand, so that the king could see the hand as it wrote
(‫( )ומלכא חזה פס ידא די כתבה‬6) The king’s countenance changed, and his thoughts alarmed
him (‫ ;)אדין מלכא זיוהי שנוהי ורעינהי יבהלונה‬the joints of his loins were loosened and his
knees knocked together.
This description clearly emphasizes that it is specifically the king who sees the
hand writing, and therefore he is the one who shows the physical and emotional
effects of this terrifying sight. These verses do not record that any other people
present at the banquet saw this writing, nor mention that anyone else in the
13 Note the specific technical usage of ἀπαγγεῖλαι here with reference to interpretation of a
dream or riddle; cf. LXX Gen 41:8; Judg 14:12; and LSJ, s.v. ἀπαγγέλω II.
14 Meadowcroft (1995, 76–77).
15 See Collins (1993, 248 [ad v. 8]), who reveals this shared assumption: “The OG, more rea-
sonably, says only that they could not interpret” (italics mine). Amara (2007, 23–24) noted the
distinction between reading and interpreting, and correctly concluded that according to OG the
reading did not present a problem for the wise men, who were only limited in their ability to
interpret. She does not, however, consider the question of why they were able neither to read nor
to interpret, according to MT.
crowd became afraid as a result of this vision. I suggest that we take the story
here at face value – the king was the only one who saw the vision of the hand and
the resulting inscription on the wall.¹⁶ The writing actually took place and the
inscription was on the wall, but it was a revelation that was visible to the king
alone. The message is directed specifically towards Belshazzar, since, as noted
at the beginning of chapter 5, he is the person responsible for the decision to use
the Temple vessels at the feast (vv. 2–3). The notion that the vision was revealed
to him alone is also appropriate in light of its contents, which foretell the end of
his rule because of this action (although the vision also has implications for the
Babylonian empire in general; see below regarding the meaning of the writing).
The limitation of the vision to Belshazzar alone also offers new insight into
the emphasis that the spectacle took form “on the plaster of the wall of the king’s
palace opposite the lampstand.”¹⁷ The statement has generally been explained as
an attempt to emphasize that “since the writing was done near a lamp, all those
present could see it.”¹⁸ However, in light of the interpretation suggested here,
this emphasis takes on a very different meaning – it is not to inform the reader
that the writing was clearly seen by all those present; rather, the lamp should
have made the vision and the writing visible to all those present, and yet this was
not the case. By situating the writing opposite the lampstand, the story accom-
plishes a two-fold task: first, it accentuates the miraculous nature of the writing,
since only the king can see it; second, it increases the bewilderment of all those
16 Contra Goldingay (1989, 109): “Although we are only told of the king’s reaction to the portent
(v 6), this need not suggest that only he saw it.” The text not only records the king’s reaction to
the exclusion of the others present, but also limits the description of those who saw it to him
as well. Porteous (1976, 78) states that “there is evidence that the king sat by himself at a table
with his back to the wall and so would have all his guests before him as he drank …” (he does
not, however, provide this evidence). Meadowcroft (1995, 60–61, 72–73, 76–77) recognizes that
only the king saw the hand writing but, building upon Porteous’ assumption of the layout of the
room, suggests that it was because everyone else in the room had their backs to what the king
saw behind them. However, this presumed layout does not find any basis in the text of Daniel 5
itself. Meadowcroft further suggests as one of a number of possibilities, that “it is also possible
that Belshazzar had experienced some sort of vision to which only he was privy” (pp. 77–78),
although this seems to be at odds with the necessity of postulating a different layout of the room
according to which the nobles did not see the hand writing due to their positioning.
17 There is general agreement about the meaning of the Aramaic ‫נברשתא‬, although scholars
disagree about its origins (as a Persian or Akkadian loanword); see the discussion of Millard
(1987).
18 Hartman and di Lella (1978, 188). Similarly, Collins (1993, 246): “so that the writing can be
clearly seen or so that it appears like a shadow on the wall.”
present at the king’s claims that he has seen a hand writing on the wall, as the
next verses indicate.
In vv. 7–8, the king calls all of the wise man and challenges them to fulfill
two separate, albeit related, tasks – “read this writing and tell me its meaning” –
and promises that those who do so will receive extensive rewards. However,
they could not fulfill either of these directives: “but they could not read the
writing or make known its meaning to the king.” “Reading” and “interpreting”
are presented throughout the Masoretic text of chapter 5 as a pair (vv. 7,8,[12 –
see below],15,16,17), and reflect separate activities (see below on vv. 25,26–28).¹⁹
The former is a necessary precondition for the latter, and although many of us
perform both activities simultaneously when we read, the author here takes pains
to keep them differentiated. The wise men fail at both of these challenges, and
could neither read the writing nor (as a consequence) interpret it. The situation
presumed in vv. 5–6 continues in vv. 7–8, and underlies the expression ‫ולא־כהלין‬
‫“ כתבא למקרא‬they could not read the writing.” There was no special code or
symbols, nor did they have difficulty reading an unvocalized text – they were
well-trained wise men! Rather, they could not read it simply because it was visible
to the king alone. This interpretation creates a fundamental parallel between the
story of Belshazzar’s feast in Daniel 5 and Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2,
and as already noted in the previous chapter, these stories share a number of addi-
tional similarities with each other (and the Joseph cycle). In Daniel 2, Nebuchad-
nezzar dreams a dream and challenges the wise men both to tell him the dream
and to reveal its interpretation (vv. 1–11). There, too, they fail, with the explicit
(and understandable) excuse that it is impossible for them to interpret a dream if
they do not have access to its contents. The expression of their inability to fulfill
Nebuchadnezzar’s request is reminiscent of 5:8: ‫לא־איתי אנשׁ על־יבשׁתא די מלת‬
‫“ מלכא יוכל להחויה‬There is no one on earth who can satisfy the king’s demand”
(Dan 2:10). Only an individual endowed with divine wisdom as embodied in the
character of Daniel can successfully crack this conundrum, first by revealing the
unseen, and then, in many ways the easier step, by interpreting the contents. The
same situation obtains here in chapter 5 – the wise men do not have access to the
writing, since it has not been revealed to anyone but the king (who himself does
not understand it); because they thus cannot “read the writing,” they are unable
“to tell its meaning” either.
Verse 9 in MT continues by relating the reactions of all those in attendance
at the banquet, “King Belshazzar grew exceedingly alarmed (‫ )שׂגיא מתבהל‬and
19 As already noted by Eissfeldt (1951, 108).

his face darkened, and his nobles were perplexed (‫)משתבשין‬.”²⁰ The king’s fear
is now heightened due to their failure,²¹ probably because they do not see what
he sees plainly before him. This increasing distress is emphasized by the repeti-
tion of the verbal root ‫בה"ל‬, now intensified by the addition of the adverb ‫שׂגיא‬
“very.” In contrast, the nobles who are in attendance at the banquet (cf. v. 1), and
have been present throughout the wise men’s appearance and failure to read and
interpret, react quite differently – not fear or terror or as ascribed to the king – but
rather they are “perplexed.” What is the meaning of this reaction, and why is it
different from the reaction of the king? According to the prevailing reading of this
chapter, in which everyone present sees the same vision, it is difficult to justify
this distinction, no matter how one translates this participle. However, according
to the reading proposed here, the answer is rather straightforward – these nobles
are perplexed because they have not understood the entire chain of events. One
moment they are feasting with the king, and the next he seems to be the victim of
an inexplicable panic attack. They do not react in fear because they are unaware
of the terrifying sight he has seen, but this lack of awareness leaves them unable
to read the entire situation, perplexed and confused at the king’s behavior.
The next character to appear on the scene is the queen mother, who offers the
king sage advice about whom to turn to for help. The description of her interac-
tion is somewhat different in MT/Theod and OG; however in both versions she
addresses only the king’s fearful reaction to the vision. This is pronounced in MT
v. 10, which opens with the explanation that she arrived as a consequence of the
interaction between the king and the nobles: ‫מלכתא לקבל מלי מלכא ורברבנוהי‬
20 This is the translation of the hitpaʿal participle of ‫ שב"ש‬suggested by BDB, 1114b, s.v.
‫ ; ְשׁ ַבשׁ‬similarly Qimron (2002, 149 [‫ ;)]מתבלבלים‬Collins (1993, 236). HALOT, 1991, s.v. ‫ שׁבשׁ‬is
notably ambiguous about the meaning of this root, first translating it in Dan 5:9 (its only oc-
currence in the entire Bible) as “to become perplexed,” and then offering “to be terrified, be-
come anxious” (presumably reflecting the primary meaning). Theodotion translates this verb as
συνεταράσσοντο, a prefixed form of the verb ταράσσω, which earlier in the verse translates the
Aramaic ‫]שׂגיא[ מתבהל‬, to describe the reaction of the king (έταράχθη “was troubled, disturbed,
agitated”). συνταράσσω serves as a formal equivalent of ‫ בה"ל‬in other passages of Theod Daniel
(4:2,16; 5:6; 7:28). At the same time, according to LSJ, 1725, s.v. συνταράσσω carries the meaning
“be confused, confounded, troubled,” which would correspond to the translation adopted here;
the Vulgate similarly reads turbantur. In Rabbinic Hebrew, the hitpaʿel form has a similar basic
meaning: “to be entangled” or “confounded”; cf. Jastrow (1903, 1518); Moreshet (1980, 354 [esp.
at n. 2]); see also Sokoloff (2002, 1106–7), s.v. 1‫שבש‬. The roots šbš and šwš have the same meaning
in Mandaic (Drower and Macuch 1963, 448, 457). See also Ibn Ezra’s comment ad loc: “like its
literal meaning: like a person who does not know what to do.” OG preserves a completely differ-
ent text at this point, and therefore does not contribute to this discussion.
21 Goldingay (1989, 101 [9a]); Collins (1993, 248).
(‫“ לבית משׁתיא עללת )עלת‬The queen, because of the words of the king and his
nobles, came into the banquet hall.”²² However, she speaks only to the king,
first assuaging his fears (“Let your thoughts not alarm you or your countenance
change”) and then suggesting to him that he summon Daniel, who had demon-
strated his abilities during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2). According to
the prevalent interpretation, she speaks exclusively to the king because he is the
head of the court, with the ability and power to have Daniel brought before him.
However, once again, a simpler explanation may be suggested – that is, that she
turns to him alone since he is the one who is specifically in need of assistance.²³
Verse 12b in MT would seem to be one of the few verses in this chapter which
poses a problem for the interpretive approach proposed here.²⁴ In this verse,
22 NJPS translates “Because of the state of the king and his nobles,” perhaps because there was
no explicit dialogue between the king and his nobles in v. 9. This difference in translation does
not affect the larger argument here.
23 In the OG as well, the queen limits her contact to the king alone. In that version, MT v. 9 has
no parallel. Instead, the king summons her specifically in order to ask for her assistance in ad-
dressing the mystery of the writing after the Babylonian wise men have failed:
Dan 5:9 (OG)
τότε ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐκάλεσε τὴν βασίλισσαν Then the king summoned the queen about the
περὶ τοῦ σημείου καὶ ὑπέδειξεν αὐτῇ, ὡς sign, and he explained to her how great it was
μέγα ἐστί, καὶ ὅτι πᾶς ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἠδύνατο and that no person was able to tell the king
ἀπαγγεῖλαι τῷ βασιλεῖ τὸ σύγκριμα τῆς the meaning of the writing.
γραφῆς.
In light of the parallels to Daniel 2 and the Joseph cycle, where helpful members of the royal court
appear on their own, as in MT 5:9, it is most likely that OG here reflects a secondary element. The
OG motif of the queen appearing only after the king summons her, may be due to the influence
of Esth 1:10–11; 4:11; 5:1–2, according to which the permission (or demand) to appear before the
king was a matter of life and death. For an instance of reverse influence, i.e., the influence of the
Belshazzar story on subsequent interpretive traditions regarding Esther, note the widespread
rabbinic tradition that the Temple vessels were used at Ahasuerus’s feast in the opening of that
book (cf., e.g., Esth. Rab. 2:11; b. Meg. 11b; Pirqe. R. El. 48; Tg. Esth. I & II 1:7).
24 OG vv. 11–12 differs in its formulation from the MT, reflecting two primary issues of divergent
content. First, while in both texts, the queen praises Daniel’s special wisdom and abilities, par-
ticularly his success at interpretation during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, MT also notes that he
was appointed the chief of all of the Babylonian wise men and magicians: ‫ומלכא נבכדנצר אבוך‬
‫רב חרטמין אשׁפין כשׂדאין גזרין הקימה אבוך מלכא‬. This comment is somewhat surprising within the
immediate context of chapter 5, since if Daniel was in fact the head of all of the other magicians,
it is unclear why in this episode, he should only have appeared on the scene after they had failed.
He should have been included in the original group that was summoned and appeared in vv. 7–8.
the queen concludes her speech to the king with a summons for Daniel to be
brought to the royal banquet, “Let Daniel be called and explain the interpretation
(‫)דניאל יתקרי ופשרה יהחוה‬.” In keeping with the interpretive approach suggested
to this point, the queen should have summoned Daniel to both read and interpret.
However, according to the text, his only task was to interpret the writing. One pos-
sible solution to this problem is that by this stage in the story, the call to interpret
is to be understood as essentially shorthand for the connected acts of reading
and interpreting.²⁵ However, this suggestion is unnecessary in this instance; in
fact, other early textual witnesses present a reading of this verse consistent with
the approach outlined here. Two different scrolls of Daniel from Qumran Cave
4 preserve this section, and jointly reflect a different reading than that found in
MT (= Theodotion, Peshitta, Vulgate). 4QDaniela 10–11 3 contains the additional
phrase ‫“( וכתבא יקרא‬and read the writing”) in v. 12;²⁶ 4QDanielb 1–4 i 8 preserves
the letters ]‫וכת‬
̇ ‫ [א‬exactly at this point, which Eugene Ulrich, the editor of Cave 4
manuscripts of Daniel, has plausibly reconstructed as [‫וכת]בא יקרא‬ ̇ ‫[“ ]יתקר[א‬he
According to a simple reading of the stories in sequence, one has to assume that Daniel was
chief of all of the wise men during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (2:48) but subsequently lost this
status, leading to his relative anonymity to King Belshazzar. However, this harmonistic approach
is unconvincing. It is likely, however, that in the original form of the story in chapter 5, Daniel
was not serving as the chief of the wise men, and that this element was secondarily added under
the influence of 2:48, which serves as a fitting conclusion to chapter 2: “The king then elevated
Daniel and gave him very many gifts, and made him governor of the whole province of Babylon
and chief prefect of all the wise men of Babylon.” MT of Dan 5:11 is thus an attempt to more
fully interconnect the two narratives. Daniel 1–6 features a number of similar editorial additions
which seem intended to interconnect the several narratives that have been joined together, such
as in 4:3–6; 5:18–22 (see below, chap. 4, and above, n. 12).
The second difference between MT and OG concerns the nature of the queen’s suggestion. Ac-
cording to OG, she describes Daniel’s merits, but does not go as far as proposing that he be sum-
moned. That would presumably be under the king’s purview. In contrast, according to MT v. 12,
she is the one who calls for Daniel to be summoned to help solve the mystery. This difference
between the versions is probably connected to the variant formulations of vv. 9–10 discussed
above. According to OG v. 9, the queen only appeared at the king’s behest, which minimizes her
role in the story. In contrast, the queen in MT is an active, autonomous character, who enters the
scene on her own, offers her advice, and actively implements the initiative by sending for Daniel
to be brought before the king. The originality or secondary nature of MT 5:12b is thus directly
connected to the relationship of the two versions of vv. 9–10. Since I suggested above that the
summoning of the queen in OG v. 9 is secondary, and that MT v. 10, where she arrives on her
own, is original, I will tentatively conclude that MT v. 12b, in which the queen summons Daniel,
is also original to the story.
25 Compare the discussion of v. 15b below, at n. 30.
26 Ulrich (2000, 250–51). The scroll is dated to the middle of the first century bce based upon
paleographical considerations (p. 240).
will be cal]led and [read the] wri[ting].”²⁷ Ulrich suggested that the reading of the
Qumran texts is secondary, and was intended to harmonize v. 12 with the other
verses in the chapter that use the double expression.²⁸ However, it seems more
likely here that the words ‫ וכתבא יקרא‬were omitted in MT due to a homoioteleu-
ton with ‫יתקרא‬.²⁹ The Qumran reading thus preserves Daniel’s double task, “to
read and to interpret.”
The distinction between the two activities of reading and interpreting contin-
ues in vv. 15–16, in which the king addresses Daniel, describing the failure of the
Babylonian wise men and the potential for reward if he succeeds:
(15) Now the wise men and exorcists have been brought before me to read this writing and
to make known its meaning to me. But they could not tell what it meant. (16) I have heard
about you, that you can give interpretations and solve problems. Now if you can read the
writing and make known its meaning to me, you shall be clothed in purple and wear a
golden chain on your neck and rule as one of three in the kingdom.
Verse 15b admittedly only refers to interpreting; but, considering both the begin-
ning of the verse and the explicit description of the failure of the wise men in
v. 8, it should be understood as connoting both tasks, reading and interpreting.³⁰
A similar phenomenon of abridgement may be identified in chapter 2. In that
tale, there is no doubt that Nebuchadnezzar challenges the wise men to perform
two separate tasks – first to reveal the contents of the dream, and then to interpret
them. Throughout that chapter, the author generally makes sure to distinguish
the two tasks; the cast of characters repeatedly refers to the double challenge
and their ability or inability to complete both assignments (Dan 2:5,6,7,9,11,26,28
+ 36,45). However in three instances, the story specifically mentions the inter-
pretation of the dream without reference to the prior revelation of its contents
(vv. 16,24,25).³¹ It is clear in all of these cases, however, that the process of inter-
pretation includes the prior description of the dream, without which the interpre-
tation would be impossible. This is of course what happens narratively in 2:28–45,
27 Ulrich (2000, 258). The scroll is dated c. 20–50 ce based upon paleographical considerations
(p. 256).
28 Ulrich (2000, 251, 258).
29 As had already been suggested by Collins (1993, 238).
30 Unfortunately both 4QDana and 4QDanb are fragmentary, and neither preserves v. 15; so it is
therefore impossible to know whether they had readings similar to MT for that verse, or, like their
texts for v. 12, possessed the double phrase (see the argument above regarding v. 12).
31 While v. 16 is a secondary addition to the story in Daniel 2, vv. 24 and 25 both belong to the
original stratum (cf. chap. 2 above), and therefore may be adduced to strengthen the argument
here.
where Daniel reveals first the dream (28–35), and then its interpretation (36–45).
It therefore need not surprise us here that, although the general pattern through-
out chapter 5 refers to both reading and interpreting, there might be exceptions to
this rule, in which the formulation refers to interpreting alone.
The story reaches its climax near the end of the chapter, when Daniel finally
reveals what has been a mystery to the reader throughout the story: the contents
of the writing and its interpretation. These two aspects are clearly demarcated
from one another. The first, the reading of the contents of the writing, is found
in v. 25:
Dan 5:25
.‫ודנה כתבא די רשים מנא מנא תקל ופרסין‬ This is the writing that is inscribed: MENE
MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN.
At this stage, the meaning of the writing is still a mystery or a riddle, but its con-
tents have now been made accessible to the reader. The explicit interpretation
of the writing follows immediately in vv. 26–28, introduced by the phrase ‫דנה‬
‫“ פשר־מלתא‬and this is its meaning” (26a). These structural markers are almost
identical to those found in Daniel 2:28 and 36:
Dan 2:28,36
.‫( חלמך וחזוי ראשך על־משכבך דנה הוא‬28) (28) This is your dream and the vision that
entered your mind in bed.
.‫( דנה חלמא ופשרה נאמר קדם־מלכא‬36) (36) Such was the dream, and we will now tell
the king its meaning.
In both stories, Daniel must first disclose the contents of the divine revelation to
the king and only then make known its interpretation.³²
32 OG Daniel 5 also preserves a division of Daniel’s response to the king into two stages, al-
though in its current form the distinction between them is insufficiently clear. Daniel reads the
writing in OG v. 17 (parallel to MT v. 25). However, the translator did not give the Aramaic words
in transliteration (as found, e.g., in Theod v. 25 or the Preface to OG Daniel 5); rather, he trans-
lated them into Greek, already offering a certain level of interpretation. While this may have been
a function of the translator’s attempt to represent the source in his target language, it may also be
related to the larger interpretive move in the OG, i.e., that the wise men (and Daniel) only needed
to reveal the interpretation, and not to read and interpret (see preceding discussion). That is,
according the OG, the writing was never mysterious per se, and the primary challenge was in
how it was to be understood. The translation of the writing into Greek verbs in OG v. 17 may,
then reflect this assumption. As in MT, the interpretation of the words is presented as a second
As we have seen throughout this analysis, this understanding of Daniel 5 has

the added benefit of highlighting the narrative parallels to chapter 2. In the earlier
chapter, Nebuchadnezzar demanded that the magicians perform two separate
tasks, first reveal the dream and then interpret it, a task that they declared to be
impossible since there was no way for them to ascertain its contents. Similarly
in chapter 5, according to the interpretation proposed here, Belshazzar proposes
a challenge composed of two tasks, to read and to interpret. Reading Daniel 5 in
light of Daniel 2 strengthens the suggestion that the sages’ inability to read the
writing was because they could not see it, just as they did not “see” the king’s
dream vision in chapter 2. I will return below to the question of the necessity of
two such similar stories.
Perhaps more significantly, both stories concern knowledge that is beyond
the reach of the wise men, yet fully accessible to Daniel, who is endowed with
divine wisdom. This contrast is intended to demonstrate the superiority of
divinely inspired knowledge to the extensive educational training of Mesopota-
mian scribes and scholars in antiquity. Both stories demonstrate that there are
situations in which divine wisdom trumps any human or earthly knowledge,
which is by definition limited; both thus give precedence to the prophetic revealed
word over the scholastic training that royal courtiers received. This argument is
put forth in a somewhat subversive manner, since the interpretation offered by
Daniel shares features with Mesopotamian divination texts.³³ Daniel appears to
prevail over the Babylonian wise men through the use of the same techniques
that they themselves are supposed to employ; however, he succeeds only follow-
ing the divine revelation of the contents of the mysterious message. This stance
towards Mesopotamian divination and mantic techniques is not identical with
that found in Daniel 1, in which Daniel and his three companions received stand-
ard training as royal courtiers, but were more successful than their compatriots
due to divine assistance (1:17). The two court tales in chapters 2 and 5 thus make a
fundamental epistemological claim regarding the ultimate source of knowledge,
championing the divine bestowal of wisdom upon those who are faithful, and
step (vv. 26–28). However, in the OG narrative, the distance from the translation of the words to
their “interpretation” is negligible, and there would seem to be no inherent reason for these two
distinct stages. The superfluous character of the division in OG is almost certainly an echo of the
original division of MT, which is itself internally consistent; it thus seems likely that this feature
of OG is due to the secondary nature of the interpretive move by which reading and interpreting
were combined into a single act.
33 As recently argued by Broida (2012).
simultaneously undermining the validity and stature of Mesopotamian mantic

training and techniques, along with their practitioners.³⁴
3.2 The Riddle of the Writing
Having just examined the function of the writing within the plot of Daniel 5,
I now turn to the content of the writing itself in an attempt to better appreciate
its meaning and message. In order to properly assess the writing it is necessary, if
possible, to determine the original text of this inscription. The following list com-
pares the different versions of the writing on the wall as preserved in the various
textual witnesses of Daniel 5:
ַ ‫ = ְמנֵ א ְמנֵ א ְתּ ֵקל‬Peshitta ‫ܡܢܐ ܡܢܐ ܬܩܠ ܘܦܪܣܝܢ‬

(i) MT 25: ‫וּפ ְר ִסין‬
(ii) MT 26–28:³⁵ ‫ = ְמנֵ א … ְתּ ֵקל … ְפּ ֵרס‬Theod 25 (26–28):³⁶ Μανη θεκελ φαρες = Vulg 25 (26–28)
mane thecel fares ≈ OG 17: Ἠρίθμηται, κατελογίσθη, ἐξῆρται
(iii) OG Preface:³⁷ Μανη φαρες θεκελ
34 The interpretation of Daniel 5 presented here aligns it with the notion of the “distinctive reli-
gious quality of the tales” in Daniel 1–6, as described by Henze (2001, 20–24), especially with re-
gard to his third and fourth theses (out of four). Henze does not include Daniel 5 in that context,
and this study therefore complements his analysis.
35 The text of the writing appears twice in MT. It is first quoted in v. 25 when Daniel reads the
inscription off the wall. It then appears again with each word of the inscription differentiated
within the interpretation of vv. 26–28. While one could argue that the quotation of each of the ele-
ments as a lemma introducing the interpretation is not an actual witness to the inscription (thus,
for example, the double use of ‫ מנא‬in MT v. 25 would not need to be repeated in the interpretation
in v. 26), the corroborating evidence of the other textual witnesses allows us to view MT vv. 26–28
as a potential “internal” textual witness (for this concept, cf. chap. 4, pp. 104–108, regarding the
text of Daniel 4), although see below at nn. 52 and 76.
36 The same reading is found in Josephus, Ant. 10.243–244.
37 The nature and function of the Preface in OG Daniel 5 is still an open question. Wills (1990,
121–25) proposed that this passage was actually the earliest kernel of the chapter, from which the
longer version, reflected in the rest of the chapter, emerged (Amara [2007, 34] states that that this
approach is accepted by most scholars; however, the studies that she cites [n. 75] as examples –
Collins [1993, 242]; Meadowcroft [1995, 58] – do not bear out this claim.). However, it can be dem-
onstrated that the Preface is in fact secondary to the longer version, as shown by a comparison of
the number of participants at the king’s banquet as recounted in each of these versions. Accord-
ing to MT 5:1, “King Belshazzar gave a great banquet for his thousand nobles, and in the presence
of the thousand he drank wine.” The parallelism between the two stichs of the verse implies that
the thousand people mentioned in the first half of the verse are the same as those in the second,
so that there were only one thousand people in total at this party. In contrast, the Preface to OG
Daniel 5 states that the king “invited two thousand men of his nobles.” As has been suggested by
The Riddle of the Writing 69
From a purely formal standpoint, readings (ii) and (iii) reflect a more standard-
ized form than reading (i). Both consist of three passive forms, all morphologi-
cally similar to one another. Despite the difference of order, reading (iii) is clearly
related to reading (ii), and reflects a rearrangement of the second and third ele-
ments in the phrase. Reading (i) is the most singular of the versions, exhibiting
two differences from reading (ii): (a) the first word ‫ מנא‬is doubled,³⁸ so that there
are four words in the writing and not three, as in the other two versions; (b) the
final word ‫ ופרסין‬differs from the morphological pattern found in all of the other
elements in all of the other versions. In addition (i) differs from (iii) in the order
of the final two elements. Any discussion of the meaning of the writing must also
take into account the version of the text which is being analyzed.
Most scholars prefer reading (ii).³⁹ Not only is reading (ii) attested in most of
the ancient witnesses, but it represents a unified pattern, according to which both
Collins (1993, 241), this doubling of the number of participants “may be understood as an overly
literal misunderstanding of the Aramaic”; Amara (2007, 34) has similarly noted that this number
could be the result of a miscalculation of the numbers in MT.
Montgomery (1927, 267); Collins (1993, 241); Amara (2007, 27–30); and others, have suggested that
the Preface was added because the OG of chapter 5 does not contain the actual Aramaic text of
the inscription, but rather a translation into Greek (cf. above, n. 32). However, if the Preface was
added to serve this purpose, it is odd that the order of the elements in its quotation of the mysteri-
ous writing does not match the text within the chapter itself. Collins therefore suggests that this
account is not simply a summary of the MT or OG versions, but reflects “an independent form
of the tradition … and it may itself be an abbreviation of another form of the story”; cf. similarly
Albertz (1988, 80–83), who describes the Preface as a variant narrative tradition, included as
part of the redactional process of the book of Daniel. However, in addition to the mention of
the two thousand participants, the only “new” plot element in the Preface is the mention that
the feast took place “on the day of the dedication of his palace” (cf. Grelot [1974, 57–58], who
notes that this detail is found in neither MT nor OG, amid a longer list of details that he suggests
demonstrates the independence of the Preface from the rest of OG Daniel 5). This, however, is a
rather generic element which functions to solve the simple interpretive question of why Belshaz-
zar decided to host a banquet; therefore, it is probably simply a literary embellishment in order
to provide context for the story (cf. Amara 2007, 34). Amara (2007, 34–41) adduces further argu-
ments for the secondary nature of the Preface by comparison with the MT and OG versions of the
chapter, and suggests that the Tendenz most prominent in the shorter, secondary version is the
omission of any mention of the desecration of the vessels, which was intended to protect their
honor while they were kept in Babylonia.
38 Montgomery (1927, 265) posits that this doubling is due to the secondary influence of v. 26,
where the quotation of the word ‫ מנא‬from the writing is followed by ‫מנה‬, which opens the in-
terpretation. For a different explanation, supporting the originality of the doubled ‫ מנא‬in v. 25,
see below.
39 Torrey (1909, 276–80); Montgomery (1927, 262); Charles (1926, 136–37), who allows for both
readings [i] and [ii], but determines that “the textual evidence … is decidedly in favour” of the
the explicit quotations of the writing and its “internal” citations within the inter-
pretation in each text (including MT vv. 26–28) are identical to one another. Of
course, this same argument can be used a priori to argue for the secondary status
of readings (ii) and (iii), a position that I will defend below. The phenomenon
of harmonization in the process of textual transmission, in which two disparate
elements are standardized by changing one to match the other, is well known in
the transmission history of the biblical text.⁴⁰ In the present context, I therefore
propose that if we can find a reason for the seemingly anomalous formulation
of MT, we should then presume that the direction of development in the ver-
sions is towards standardization of the text. In order to justify this hypothetical
direction of development, I now turn towards an analysis of the meaning of the
writing.
At first glance, the “meaning of the writing” would seem to be a closed topic,
since Daniel himself tells Belshazzar what it means in vv. 26–28 (MT):
And this is its meaning:

MENE – God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end;
TEKEL – you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting;
PERES – your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.
Each of the elements denotes a play on words; the general gist is that the king’s
days are over. The three derivations are as follows:
‫ְמנֵ א – ְמנָ ה‬ MENE – has numbered

(‫יל ָתּ ) ְבמֹאזַ נְ יָ א‬
ְ ‫ְתּ ֵקל – ְתּ ִק‬ TEKEL – you have been weighed (in the balance)
‫וּפ ָרס׃‬
ָ … ‫יסת‬
ַ ‫ְפּ ֵרס – ְפּ ִר‬ PERES – has been divided … and (to) the Persians
This method of interpretation is straightforward, and the use of paronomasia is

one of the tools of the trade for biblical authors and tradents.⁴¹ The first two ele-
ments mobilize metaphors of measurement, but with an interesting difference
between them. While the first indicates that the measure of Belshazzar’s years
has been completed, the second signifies that Belshazzar himself has been meas-
ured and found deficient. However, these two expressions in fact complement
shorter reading); Ginsberg (1948, 24–26); Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 189); Lacocque (1979, 102–
103); Haag (1983, 56); Albertz (1988, 95 [regarding the doubled ‫ ;)]מנא‬Wolters (1991, 156–157);
Amara (2007, 28–29).
40 See Tov (2012, 82–84; 258–59).
41 See e.g., the classic study of Casanowicz (1894) where Dan 5:25–28 is listed as example 218 on
p. 62; and more recently, the essays in Noegel (2000).
each other: the deficiency in the king’s behavior has led directly to the termina-
tion of his life. Finally, the interpretation of the last clause involves a double use
of the root ‫פרס‬: first, as the verb, “to divide”⁴²; and then, as the proper noun,
“Persians” – those to whom the kingdom will be apportioned. Many interpreters
have suggested that the use of the plural form ‫ ופרסין‬in MT is due to this doubled
interpretation offered for the final component of the writing.⁴³
While this is the explicit meaning offered for the writing, scholars since
the late nineteenth century have recognized that the words themselves reflect
another more mundane meaning.⁴⁴ Clermont-Ganneau was the first to offer the
insight that each of the three elements in the writing also refer to ancient weights
or measures, known explicitly from archeological finds and from rabbinic lit-
erature.⁴⁵ The maneh/minah had a value of 4 gold dinars or 100 zuz; the tekel
(= shekel) is equivalent to one-fiftieth of the minah (or 2 zuz); and the peras = one-
half of a minah (or 50 zuz).⁴⁶ He raised a number of possibilities for how to parse
the sentence in MT, including possibly reading some of the elements as verbs (the
first ‫ מנא‬and [‫ )תקל]ו‬and the others as nouns (the second ‫ מנא‬and ‫ ;)פרסין‬but all of
these potential readings understand the writing as a saying or riddle that speaks
exclusively of these measures.⁴⁷ Clermont-Ganneau further proposed, picking up
on a similar metaphorical usage in rabbinic literature, that perhaps the weights of
the different measures refer to the symbolic value of different kings or kingdoms,
with some weightier than others.
This last aspect of the proposal has been adopted by many scholars, although
there is disagreement between them about the precise identification of which
king(dom) goes with which measure.⁴⁸ However, the attempt to match specific
monarchs with the different weights and measures seems to be a result of the
42 BDB, 1108, s.v. ‫( ְפּ ַרס‬cf also p. 828, s.v. ‫ ;) ָפ ַרס‬HALOT, 1958, s.v. ‫( פרס‬cf. also p. 969, s.v. ‫)פרס‬.
43 According to this argument, it is more likely that the plural form of MT is original, and not a
secondary element. Further support for this approach will be provided below.
44 Collins (1993, 250): “As regards the meaning, there is reason to believe that the interpretation
given by Daniel was not that originally envisaged in the riddle.”
45 Clermont-Ganneau (1887). This suggestion has been adopted by almost all subsequent critical
scholars; note that the standard biblical lexica, BDB (pp. 1101, 1108, 1118) and HALOT (pp. 1919,
1958–9, 2008–9), accordingly translate ‫ ְמנֵ א‬, ‫ ְפּ ֵרס‬, and ‫ ְתּ ֵקל‬as specific weights and/or measures.
46 It is possible to explain the difference between readings (ii) and (iii) as the result of the rear-
rangement of the measures in (iii) so that they appear in descending order. The opposite argu-
ment, according to which (iii) is more original than (ii) because it is more “logical,” has been
proposed by Collins (1993, 242).
47 See below for a similar method of syntactical parsing of the sentence, leading to very differ-
ent meaning.
48 For a review of the numerous suggestions, see Goldingay (1989, 111); Collins (1993, 251–52).
influence of the content of the dream in Daniel 2 upon the scholars who are inter-
preting Daniel 5.⁴⁹ The interpretation of that dream explicitly emphasizes the
descending value of the metals that make up the statue, as reflecting progres-
sively weaker king(dom)s. In contrast, there is nothing in the writing on the wall
or its explicit interpretation that suggests a reference to any king other than Bels-
hazzar, whose blasphemy and desecration of the Temple vessels are perceived
to have caused the final downfall of the Babylonian empire. It seems preferable
instead to understand the riddle of weights and measures as a message consist-
ing of basic symbols that are open to interpretation, in the same way that any
symbolic dream in the Bible allows for interpretation. After successfully reading
the words, Daniel’s job is still not done, since although the astute reader would
immediately recognize the literal meaning of each of these elements from their
daily lives, their application to the current situation was the responsibility of
the interpreter. At the same time, there is an inherent connection between the
literal meaning of the riddle and the interpretation offered by Daniel, beyond the
aspect of paronomasia already noted above, since the literal meaning already
points in the direction of Daniel’s interpretation by indicating that some form
of assessment has taken place. A perceptive reader, who identifies the underly-
ing meaning of v. 25 with reference to weights and measures, will easily appre-
ciate Daniel’s interpretation, since it is precisely this motif that is picked up in
vv. 26–28. Belshazzar’s punishment, although drastic, is indeed “measured” in
light of his blasphemous behavior.
Thus far I have discussed the literal meaning of the writing in v. 25 and the inter-
pretation proposed by Daniel (vv. 26–28). I would like to suggest that the writing
on the wall conveys an additional meaning, although as is frequently the case in
riddles, this meaning is implicit and necessitates interpretive intervention and
participation on the part of the reader.⁵⁰
I want to start by examining the double usage of the word ‫ מנא‬in v. 25. In the
light of readings (ii) and (iii), many scholars have assumed that the reading of MT
is secondary, perhaps the result of simple dittography, or of the influence of v. 26
upon v. 25.⁵¹ However, as noted above, it is perhaps simpler to assume that the
text of the inscription in readings (ii) and (iii) is in fact the result of the secondary
49 The analogy is explicitly drawn by Ginsberg (1948, 26); Kratz (1991, 124); Collins (1993, 252).
50 As noted by Cook (1996, 114): “With riddle and enigma, as with the detective story, the reader
is invited to join in solving the question.”
51 See e.g., Torrey (1909, 278–79); Montgomery (1927, 265); Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 183);
Albertz (1988, 95); cf. above nn. 38–39.
influence of the interpretive verses upon v. 25.⁵² I would like to propose an alter-
native interpretation for the specific formulation of MT, based upon its iden-
tification as a riddle, which opens up a new avenue of interpretation for the
mysterious writing on the wall. This level of interpretation assumes that the
reader of this story is familiar with its broader context relative to other biblical
books.
First, the (unvocalized) word ‫ מנא‬in v. 25 may be read as a homophone of the
noun ‫“ ָמאנֵ י‬vessels” in vv. 2–3, which denotes the Temple vessels that Nebuchad-
nezzar had brought to Babylonia.⁵³ Belshazzar’s decision to take out the vessels
and use them at his feast was the blasphemous act which led to the revelation of
the writing, and his immediate downfall. According to the chronological frame-
work of the book of Daniel, Belshazzar was immediately succeeded by Darius the
Mede, a nonhistorical character who is credited with having reigned for only one
year,⁵⁴ and was then succeeded by Cyrus of Persia. As told in the opening chapter
of Ezra, in the first year of Cyrus’s reign, following the edict calling for the rebuild-
ing of the Temple and the return of the Judeans to Jerusalem, the king took out all
of the Jerusalem Temple vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had placed in the temple of
his gods (cf. Ezra 5:14; 6:5). Ezra 1 then tells that these vessels were counted (v. 8),
and we are even provided with the quantities of the gold and silver vessels that
were to be returned from the Exile (vv. 9–11). The picture of Belshazzar ordering
these very same Temple vessels to be brought out would thus immediately raise
an association in the reader’s mind with Ezra 1, which describes an event that
took place only a year later according to the narrative context of Daniel. Two kings
took the vessels out of the Babylonian temple – the first desecrated them in the
process, while the second afforded them respect, returning them to their proper
place as part of the process of the restoration of the Temple cult to its former glory.
The connection between the two events is implicit if one reads Daniel and Ezra
52 Cf. Eissfeldt (1951, 112–13).

53 This connection between the doubled ‫ מנא‬and the Temple vessels (‫ )מאני‬has been previously
suggested by Zakovitch (2005, 103–6), who also interprets v. 25 as a riddle, although he does not
read the sentence as proposed here. He suggests that the second ‫ מנא‬is related to the determina-
tion of one’s fate, citing the use of the verb in Isa 65:11–12 as evidence for this meaning; cf. BDB,
584, s.v. ‫ § ָמנָ ה‬2 “reckon, assign, appoint”; HALOT, 599, s.v. ‫מנה‬, qal § 3 “remit.” According to this
view, the use of the vessels sealed Belshazzar’s fate. This interpretive approach does not assume
a syntactical relationship between the two components of the doubled ‫מנא‬. Regarding the use of
the Temple “vessels” motif as a symbol for exile and restoration, see chap. 1, n. 2.
54 See below, n. 85; and chap. 6, n. 18. According to extrabiblical sources (see below), Cyrus con-
quered Babylonia and immediately rose to power, and therefore the juxtaposition and contrast
between Belshazzar and Cyrus would be emphasized even more starkly.
together canonically, and the author of Daniel 5 would expect this of his readers.⁵⁵
From the perspective of this literary motif, Belshazzar is portrayed as the antith-
esis of Cyrus, God’s anointed king (cf. Isa 45:1).⁵⁶
Returning to the writing on the wall in Daniel 5, the recognition of the con-
trast between these two kings offers a new way to interpret the first two words of
the writing (which was of course unvocalized both on the wall and in the original
text of Daniel): the phrase may be revocalized from ‫ ְמנֵ א ְמנֵ א‬to ‫( ְמנָ א ָמנֵ א‬or ‫ְמנָ ה‬
‫) ָמאנֵ י‬,⁵⁷ meaning “he counted the vessels.” This interpretation of course bolsters
the implicit association with the Cyrus story and highlights the linguistic associa-
tion between Daniel 5 and Ezra 1.
The next word of the phrase, ‫תקל‬, is taken in both of its obvious textual mean-
ings (weights and measures, and the explicit interpretation offered by Daniel)
with reference to measuring and weighing. This term is the Aramaic cognate of
the Biblical Hebrew ‫שׁקל‬, which carries the same meaning of “weigh” or “weight”
(often, but not limited to, the weight of twenty gera).⁵⁸ The root ‫ תק"ל‬does not
appear in Biblical Hebrew, and only entered into the Hebrew lexicon during the
Second Temple period. In a study published a decade ago, David Talshir analyzed
the use of this root in Second Temple Hebrew (including Qumran and Ben Sira).⁵⁹
As he noted, the word begins to be used at that time in Hebrew with the meaning
that is subsequently well-attested in Rabbinic Hebrew, “stumble, fail,”⁶⁰ seman-
tically equivalent to the biblical Hebrew ‫כש"ל‬.⁶¹ Thus we read in the wisdom
55 The argument here assumes that Daniel 5 was composed subsequent to the composition of
Ezra 1, and the former was aware of the latter, although not necessarily precisely in its current
literary form.
56 Medan (2006, 141–143) recognized a connection between Cyrus’s actions and Belshazzar’s
feast, but then offered a pseudo-historical interpretation of their relationship. In his estimation,
Cyrus must have heard of the miraculous divine response at Belshazzar’s feast, and out of fear of
the vessels’ dangerous power, sent the Judeans away from Babylonia with them.
57 Morphologically, the form ‫ ָמאנֵ י‬reflects the plural noun in status constructus, while theoreti-
cally we would have expected the emphatic form ‫( ָמאנַ יָּ א‬cf. e.g., v. 23). Its use here is perhaps due
to literary considerations, since this is the form used in vv. 2–3 (where the construct is expected).
Alternatively, the form ‫ ָמאנֵ י‬/‫ ָמאנֵ א‬is the standard morphology for masculine plural emphatic
nouns in Eastern Aramaic and therefore appropriate from a grammatical perspective.
58 See BDB, 1053–54, s.v. ‫ ָשׁ ַקל‬, ‫ ֶשׁ ֶקל‬, ‫ ִמשׁקוֹל‬, ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָקל‬, ‫קלת‬ ֶ ‫ ; ִמ ְשׁ‬HALOT, 1642–44, s.v. ‫שׁקל‬, ‫; ֶשׁ ֶקל‬
652–53, s.v. ‫ ִמשׁקוֹל‬, ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָקל‬, ‫קלת‬ ֶ ‫ ִמ ְשׁ‬.
59 The linguistic analysis of Aramaic ‫ תקל‬here is a summary of the first section of Talshir (2003).
60 See Aruch 1892: 8:264a–b, s.v. ‫( ְתּ ַקל‬3rd meaning); Levy ([1924] 1963, 4:662–63), s.v. ‫ ָתּ ַקל‬,
‫ ְתּ ַקל‬, ‫ ְתּ ָק ָלה‬, ‫ ִתּ ְק ָלא‬I; Jastrow (1903, 1691), s.v. ‫ ָתּ ַקל‬, ‫ ְתּ ַקל‬II, ‫ ַתּ ְק ָלא‬, ‫ ; ַתּ ָקּ ָלה‬all these lexicographers note
the equivalence of the term to biblical Hebrew ‫( כש"ל‬see below)
61 See BDB, 505–6, s.v. ‫כּ ַשׁל‬, ָ ‫כּ ָשּׁלוֹן‬,
ִ ‫מ ְכשׁוֹל‬,
ִ ‫ ; ַמ ְכ ֵשׁ ָלה‬HALOT, 502–3, s.v. ‫כשׁל‬, ‫ ; ִכּ ָשּׁלוֹן‬582, s.v.
‫ ַמ ְכ ֵשׁ ָלה‬,‫ ִמ ְכשׁוֹל‬.
composition from Qumran, 4QBeatitudes (4Q525) 14 ii 26:⁶² ‫ומת ֶקל לשו̇ ן השמר‬ֶ
‫“ מואדה‬and from the stumbling of your tongue be very careful!” These words of
⁶³
warning refer to the moral failure to be careful in one’s speech, and we observe
similar advice in biblical wisdom compositions:
Prov 21:23
‫שׁמר פיו ולשׁונו שׁמר מצרות נפשׁו׃‬ He who guards his mouth and tongue guards
himself from trouble.
A similar warning is found in Psalm 34:14:⁶⁴
‫נצר לשׁונך מרע ושׂפתיך מדבר מרמה׃‬ Guard your tongue from evil, your lips from
deceitful speech.
The word ‫ תקל‬in 4Q525 should therefore be understood in a similar vein, referring
not to a physical stumbling, but to a metaphorical negligence in one’s behavior.
Similarly, we find in the “Plea for Deliverance,” an otherwise unknown Apocry-
phal psalm found in the Psalms Scroll from Cave 11:
11QPsa (11Q5) 19:14–15:⁶⁵ García Martínez et al. (1998: 42–44)
‫רוח אמונה ודעת חונני אל אתקלה בעווה‬ Bestow upon me a spirit of faith and knowl-
edge, let me not stumble in transgression.
⁶⁵
62 Puech (1998, 145).

63 The vocalization here follows the linguistic analysis of Talshir (2003) and more briefly in
Talshir and Talshir (2000, 653), according to which the leading ‫ מ‬of ‫ מתקל‬functions as the prepo-
sition ‫מן‬, necessitated by the verb ‫השמר‬, and not as part of a nominal pattern. I have provided
the translation accordingly. Puech (1998, 148) translated “et d’un écart de langage garde-toi
surtout”; he noted that he had parsed it as a nominal form ‫ מתקל‬similar to Targumic Aramaic
(p. 151). DSSR 4:254–55 translates “Be very careful of causing offense with your tongue.”
64 As many scholars have noted, the second half of Psalm 34, vv. 12–22, has particularly strong
affinities with Wisdom literature (some scholars suggest that this section begins in v. 9); cf. e.g.,
Murphy (1963, 162–63); Perdue (1977); Hurvitz (1991, 62–75 [34:14 is discussed on pp. 64–67]);
Whybray (1995, 158).
65 The title “Plea for Deliverance” was assigned by Sanders. For the text of this passage, see
Sanders (1965, 40). He provides a translation and analysis on pp. 76–79. Sanders translated this
stich as “Vouchsafe me a spirit of faith and knowledge, and let me not be dishonoured in ruin”;
cf. the identical translation in Sanders et al. (1997: 194–95). DSSR 5:192–93, 200–201 translates
“Favour me with a constant and knowing spirit and let me not be shamed by ruin.” Presumably
they parsed the verb as the t-form of ‫ה‬/‫קל"ל‬. The poem is also preserved in fragmentary form in
‫ תק"ל‬is used here in a verbal form referring to moral stumbling or failure, in the
context of sin. Significantly the root appears a number of times in the Hebrew ver-
sions of Ben Sira, both in verbal (niphal and hiphil conjugations) and in nominal
(‫ )תקלה‬forms:⁶⁶ ⁶⁷
Ben Sira Skehan and Di Lella (1987)
‫ ואת שכלו‬,‫( עשיר דובר הכל נסכתו‬13:23; ms A) The rich speaks and all are silent; his wisdom
‫ ואם נתקל גם‬,‫עד עב יגיעו; דל דובר מי זה יאמרו‬ they extol to the clouds. The poor speaks and
.‫הם יהדפוהו‬ they say, “Who is that?” If he stumbles, they
knock him down.
‫( בדרך מוקשת‬32:20; ms B; cf. also mss E,F) Go not on a way that is set with snares, and
‫אל תלך ואל תתקל בנגף פעמים‬ do not stumble over an obstacle twice.
‫ כי‬,‫( אל תאמר מאל פשעי‬15:11–12; ms A⁶⁷) Say not, “It was God’s doing that I fell
‫ פן תאמר הוא התקילני‬.‫את אשר שנא לא עשה‬ away”; for what he hates, he does not do.
‫כי אין צורך באנשי חמס‬ Say not, “It was he who set me astray
(lit. caused me to stumble),” for he has no
need of the wicked.
‫( כי תקלה הוא לאויל וכל פותה‬31:7; ms B) This is a stumbling block for fools, by it any
‫יוקש בו‬ simpleton will be ensnared.
Ben Sira, however, also continues to use verbal and nominal forms of ‫כש"ל‬
with the same meaning as in classical Biblical Hebrew (4:22; 14:9; 25:23; 30:21;
34:25; 37:12; 41:2,9; 42:8). In Tannaitic Hebrew, however, the use of ‫ כש"ל‬meaning
“stumble, failure” disappeared almost completely, with a very clear transition to
the use of ‫תק"ל‬. In terms of Aramaic texts, the root ‫ תק"ל‬serves as a formal equiv-
11Q6 (11QPsb), frgs. 4–5, including the word ‫( אתקלה‬line 15) from this stich, but what remains of
this line does not offer any variant to the fuller text of 11QPsa. The translation here follows García
Martínez et al. (1998: 42–44). They correctly note that ‫ אתקלה‬should be parsed as a niphal form
of ‫“ תקל‬stumble,” and reference Sir 15:12 (see below). The translation of ‫ עווה‬as “transgression”
is confirmed by the context here, and by the similar usage in Dan 4:24. See also the brief analysis
in Kottsieper (2006: 141–42).
66 The texts are quoted here according to the Academy of the Hebrew Language (1973); and
supplemented by Beentjes (1997). The translations generally follow Skehan and Di Lella (1987),
with slight modifications.
67 The text is preserved in ms B as well, which presents some variants in these verses vis-à-vis
ms A (including a textual doublet of all of v. 11). These variants do not, however, affect the argu-
ment here regarding the meaning of ‫תק"ל‬.
alent of Hebrew ‫ כש"ל‬in all of the classical Targumim.⁶⁸ The root ‫ כש"ל‬appears
twice in the Pentateuch, and in both cases, all of the Aramaic translations use
equivalents from ‫תק"ל‬:
Lev 19:14 Lev 26:37
MT ‫ולפני עור לא תתן ִמ ְכשׁ ֹל‬ ‫וְ ָכ ְשׁלוּ איש־באחיו כמפני־חרב‬

Tg. Onq ‫קלא‬
ָ ‫וקדם דלא חזי לא תסים ַת‬ ‫ גבר באחוהי כיד מןקדם דקטלין בחרבא‬⁶⁹‫קלון‬
ֻ ‫יִת‬
ַ ְ‫ו‬
Tg. Neof. ‫וקדם מן דלא חמי לא תתן תקלה‬ ‫ויתקלון גבר באחוי כמןקדם שלפי חרבה‬
Tg. Ps.-J. ‫וקדם סמיא לא תשוון תוקלא‬ ‫ויתקלון גבר באחוי הי כמןקדם שלופי חרבא‬
Peshitta ‫ܘܩܕܡ ܥܘܝܪܐ ܐܠ ܬܣܝܡ ܬܘܩܠܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܢܬܬܩܠܘܢ ܓܒܪ ܒܐܚܘܗܝ ܐܝܟ ܕܡܢ ܩܕܡ ܚܪܒܐ‬
It is also used in the majority of translations of BH ‫ כש"ל‬in Targum Jonathan to

the Prophets, and in the various Aramaic translations of the Writings.⁷⁰ The earli-
est explicit attestation of ‫ תק"ל‬in Aramaic with this meaning is found in verbal
form in the Targum of Job from Qumran Cave 11, translating Job 34:30:
Job 34:30 (MT/NJPS) 11QTargJob 15:6⁷¹
‫ממֹלך אדם חנף ממקשי עם‬ ‫[ ̇ך אנש רשיעיא התקלו‬
The impious man rules no more, nor do those ] … the wicked men. They tripped
who ensnare the people.
68 It also serves as a translational equivalent of Hebrew ‫יק"ש‬, with similar meaning (see, e.g.,
Exod 10:7; 23:33; 34:12; Deut 7:25; 12:30)
69 Ms Or. 9400 (British Museum) reads ‫ויתקטלון‬, but this is clearly secondary. For a similar vari-
ant, see the targum to Jer 20:11; 46:6; 50:32; Ezek 33:12.
70 The equivalence is found in 1Sam 25:31; Isa 3:8; 5:27; 8:15; 28:13; 31:3; 40:30 (2x); 57:14; 59:10,14;
63:13; Jer 6:15,21(2x); 8:12; 18:23; 20:11; 31:9; 46:6,12,16; 50:32; Ezek 3:20; 7:19; 14:3,4,7; 18:30; 21:20;
33:12; 44:12; Hos 4:5 (2x); 5:5 (2x) 14:2, 10; Nah 2:6; 3:3; Mal 2:8; Psalms 9:4; 27:2; 31:11; 64:9; 105:37;
107:12; 109:24; 119:165; Prov 4:12,16,19; 16:18; 24:16,17; Job 4:4; Lam 1:14; 5:13; 2Chr 28:15,23; 25:8
(2x). Talshir (2003, 209–10) argues that ‫תקל‬ ַ ‫( )כיף( ַמ‬with a pataḥ instead of qameṣ under the qof),
which translates ‫ אבן מכשול‬in Isa 8:14, refers in fact to “a weighing unit” and should therefore
not be considered an example where ‫ תק"ל‬refers to “stumbling.”
71 The text here is according to García Martínez et al. (1998, 135–37), with a slightly modified
form of their translation. In light of the correspondence to MT, ‫ התקלו‬should be taken as a
haphʿel form of ‫תק"ל‬, and not hitpeʿel as suggested by Sokoloff (1974, 76–77, 135). The difference
between the two morphological analyses does not affect the overall evidence for the use of ‫תק"ל‬
in Second Temple Aramaic sources. Cf. also the medieval Targum of Job: ‫ממני מלכא בר נש דילטור‬
‫( מטול תוקליא דבעמא‬text according to Stec [1994, 239]).
This makes the Aramaic evidence about as old as the earliest Hebrew attesta-
tions from Ben Sira and the two Qumran scrolls adduced above. However, Talshir
argues convincingly that although no earlier Aramaic evidence for this usage of
‫“( תק"ל‬fall, stumble”) has survived, it can be demonstrated that the root entered
Hebrew from the Aramaic. The argument for this direction of influence here is
twofold: first, Ben Sira and the Qumran texts demonstrate that Hebrew ‫כש"ל‬
continued to be used alongside ‫ תק"ל‬during this transition period; and second,
‫“ תק"ל‬stumble” is common in Eastern dialects of Aramaic that have not been
influenced at all by Hebrew.⁷² Taking both of these factors into account, the
logical inference is that Aramaic ‫ תק"ל‬entered Hebrew in the Hellenistic period.
In order to do so, however, it had to have been a standard, commonly used word
in Aramaic at that time. Although the root is not attested explicitly at an earlier
stage of Jewish Aramaic, we can reasonably conjecture that it must have existed
prior to the Hellenistic era.
Returning to Daniel 5:25, I suggest that this meaning of ‫ תק"ל‬may be alluded
to in its usage in the writing on the wall. As proposed above for the doubled ‫מנא‬,
this sense is not given in the explicit interpretation offered by Daniel, but is rather
part of an implicit riddle that the reader must discern. Following up on the inter-
pretation offered for the first two words, we can now continue by adding this
meaning for the third: “He counted the vessels, he stumbled,” referring to Bels-
hazzar’s sinful behavior. The final element of the writing is perhaps the simplest.
The plural ‫ופרסין‬, which differs morphologically from the previous words of the
writing, can most simply be parsed as the plural absolute form of the gentilic
‫פרסי‬, and translates easily into “and Persians.” The identical form of this word is
found in a ketubah from 420 bce from Elephantine, in a list of the items included
in the bride’s dowry: ‫“ שנן זי צל פרסין‬a pair of Persian leather [sandals?]” (lit.
“leather of Persians”; line 20).⁷³ The full sentence would thus read: “He counted
the vessels, he stumbled, and (the) Persians.” Reading the writing with this
meaning precisely matches the context of the story in Daniel 5 and in fact articu-
lates the direct connection between Belshazzar’s blasphemous use of the Temple
72 For this meaning in Syriac, see Payne-Smith (1903, 618), s.v. ‫ ܬܩܠ‬II; Sokoloff (2009, 1660–61),
s.v. 2‫ ;ܬܩܠ‬Drower and Macuch (1963, 489), s.v. TQL II.
73 The text and translation are according to Porten and Yardeni (1989, 78, 81). As noted by Fol-
mer (1995, 213–17), this is the regular plural masculine absolute form of the gentilic in Aramaic
texts from the Achaemenid period. The question of whether the yod in Daniel is consonantal,
reflecting a nisbéh noun, is beyond the scope of the discussion here; see Muraoka and Porten
(1998, 61–62, § 18b). The use of the absolute form in the Elephantine text is due to its adjectival
function, while in the riddle may be due to the multiple meanings accrued to the term in the dif-
ferent interpretations posited above.
The Narrativization of Prophecy 79
vessels and his immediate downfall at the hands of the Persians (and/or Medes).⁷⁴
This third meaning of the phrase, neither a simple saying about measures nor
Daniel’s explicit interpretation, is unique in that it demands that the reader go
beyond what the story has stated explicitly.⁷⁵ This should not come as a surprise,
however, since we are dealing here with a riddle that demands that we as readers
look beyond the overt to detect the covert, in order to reveal additional layers
of meaning. Having discovered this third meaning, the reader is drawn into the
story by its author, no longer as a passive observer, but as an active interpreter
alongside Daniel. This proposed third meaning also supports the originality of
the text of MT v. 25, since both the doubled ‫ מנא‬and the plural, morphologically
distinct ‫ ופרסין‬take on new functions and meanings. The three identical forms
found in the other versions of this verse can therefore confidently be deemed a
secondary “correction” of the puzzling MT formulation, under the influence of
vv. 26–28.⁷⁶
3.3 The Narrativization of Prophecy
In the final section of this chapter, I will address the historical and literary back-
ground of Daniel 5. The story (according to both MT and OG) does not describe
the context of Belshazzar’s feast. The Preface to chapter 5 in the OG version adds
that the party took place “on the day of the dedication of his palace” (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ
ἐγκαινισμοῦ τῶν βασιλείων αὐτοῦ). Rabbinic interpretation suggests that Bel-
shazzar was celebrating because he had erroneously calculated the end point of
Jeremiah’s seventy-year prophecy (see Jer 25:29). Convinced that the time limit
had passed, Belshazzar decided to symbolically demonstrate the failure of the
God of Israel to redeem his people from exile, by taking out and using the Temple
vessels at his feast.⁷⁷ The OG’s interpretation appears to be a detail created by the
author himself. The rabbinic reading can be seen as emerging from an analysis of
biblical chronological data.⁷⁸ However, neither of these interpretations emerges
74 The historical relationship between these two empires and their relationship as portrayed
within the literary context of Daniel will be discussed below. However, it is interesting that ac-
cording to the “hidden” interpretation suggested here, the Persians immediately follow the Bab-
ylonians, as in the actual historical events.
75 Zakovitch (2005, 105–6).
76 Similarly Lacocque (1979, 100); Goldingay (1989, 102).
77 See b. Meg. 11b.
78 Belshazzar’s death at the end of chapter 5 marks the end of the Babylonian empire, and he
is immediately succeeded by Darius the Mede. The rise of the Median monarch thus marks in
from Daniel 5 itself, which is not dated to a specific year of Belshazzar’s reign,
although we know that it became his last.⁷⁹
Many scholars have already noted that the story of the downfall of Babylonia
on the night of a feast or banquet in Daniel 5 corresponds to an interesting detail
in the description of the events found in Hellenistic historiographical sources.⁸⁰
Herodotus, Histories, 1.191:⁸¹ … Now if the Babylonians had known beforehand or learnt
what Cyrus was planning, they would have suffered the Persians to enter the city and
brought them to a miserable end; for then they would have shut all the gates that opened
on the river and themselves mounted up on to the walls that ran along the river banks, and
so caught their enemies as in a trap. But as it was, the Persians were upon them unawares,
and by reason of the great size of the city – so say those who dwell there – those in the outer
parts of it were overcome, yet the dwellers in the middle part knew nothing of it; all this time
they were dancing and making merry at a festival which chanced to be toward, till they learnt
the truth but too well.
Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 7.5:⁸² (13) Thus, then, his [Cyrus’s] men were employed, while the
enemy upon the walls laughed his siege-works to scorn, in the belief that they had provi-
sions enough for more than twenty years. Upon hearing of this, Cyrus divided his army into
twelve parts as if intending each part to be responsible for sentry duty during one month of
each year. … (15) … Then, when Cyrus heard that a certain festival had come round in Babylon,
during which all Babylon was accustomed to drink and revel all night long, he took a large
number of men, just as soon as it was dark, and opened the heads of the trenches at the
river. (16) As soon as that was done, the water flowed down through the ditches in the night,
and the bed of the river, where it traversed the city, became passable for men.
While it is unclear whether the descriptions of the festivities have a common his-
torical basis, they at least seem to support the conclusion that the city of Babylon
fell without much opposition to the Persian invaders. This is further bolstered by
Daniel the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy that the Babylonian empire would fall after seventy
years (see the argument below, in chap. 6, regarding Daniel 9). The midrash therefore paints an
ironic, almost tragic, picture. Belshazzar prematurely celebrated the end (without incident) of
the seventy years of Jeremiah, which were supposed to mark the downfall of the Babylonian
kingdom; but he was essentially correct in his calculations, since the seventy years were in fact
completed on that very same day with his death.
79 Daniel 7 is dated to the first year of Belshazzar’s reign (7:1), and Daniel 8 to the third year (8:1).
We do not have any further biblical evidence regarding the length of his rule. As has been noted
by many scholars, he never actually served as king of the Babylonian empire, but rather as the
viceroy, while his father Nabonidus disappeared into the desert of Teima.
80 Cf. e.g., Collins (1993, 243–44); Asheri et al. (2007, 208).
81 The translation is according to Godley (1960, 1:238–41).
82 The translation is according to Miller (1914, 2:266–69).
two well-known ancient Near Eastern sources.⁸³ First, the neo-Babylonian Nabo-
nidus Chronicle 3.12–16 describes the downfall of Babylon without any fight:
In the month Tašrītu, when Cyrus did battle at Opis on the [bank of] the Tigris against the
army of Akkad, the people of Akkad retreated. He carried off the plunder (and) slaughtered
the people. On the fourteenth day (of Tašrītu), Sippar was captured without a battle. Nabo-
nidus fled. On the sixteenth day (of Tašrītu), Ugbaru, governor of Guitum, and the army
of Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle. Afterwards, after Nabonidus retreated, he was
captured in Babylon.
Similarly, the Cyrus Cylinder recounts Cyrus’ advance on Babylon, and also notes
explicitly that the city was taken without a fight:
Without combat or battle, he [Marduk] caused him [Cyrus] to enter Babylon, his city. He
saved Babylon from oppression. He delivered into his hands Nabonidus, the king who did
not worship him.
Neither of these sources mentions a festival in this context, but it is extremely

tempting to draw a connection between the ease at which Cyrus’ army conquered
Babylon according to the ancient Near Eastern sources, and the circumstances
described in the classical sources, as well as perhaps Daniel 5.⁸⁴ The feast in
83 The sources and their translations are quoted here according to Beaulieu (1989, 224–25), who
carefully reconstructed the history of Nabonidus’ reign, including his final year. See also Smith
([1924] 1975, 113, 117).
84 The relationship between these five sources has been assessed in various ways by different
scholars. Thus, e.g., Beaulieu (1989, 226) concludes that the “tradition of the festivities might
reflect historical fact.” The occasion for Belshazzar’s feast, as well as the festival mentioned in
the classical sources has further been connected by some interpreters with the akītu New Year
festival celebrated in Babylonia, although there is nothing in any of these sources that refers to
this occasion. The arguments for this connection include: (a) the celebration of the festival with
a huge feast provided by the Babylonian monarch. Wills notes that in the Wadi Brissa inscrip-
tion of Nebuchadnezzar, the New Year’s festival is described in the context of the dedication
of the palace, and is accompanied by a large feast (Wills 1990, 123–24); (b) historical data from
the Nabonidus Chronicle which demonstrates that the akītu festival was celebrated in the final
year of the Babylonian kingdom. Beaulieu (1989, 226) suggests that the dating of the festival
and downfall of Babylon to the 16th of Tašritu may be a reflection of the celebration of the akītu
festival according to the calendar of Harran, instead of the expected month of Nisānu. While
this is possible, it must remain in the realm of speculation since it is unclear that Nabonidus did
indeed institute the calendar from the cult of Sîn upon his return from Teima, and moreover there
is no record of a special date of celebration in that year. (c) The description of the akītu festival
includes wine and the presence of local deities (cf. Nabonidus Chronicle 3.7–10). Collins suggests
that this is similar to the opening of Daniel 5:1–4 (Collins 1993, 243–44).
Daniel 5 might thus be a literary reflection of the historical scenario of the fall of
the Babylonian empire, although it is presented here in a new fashion, with very
different points of emphasis and motifs that have no parallels in the extrabiblical
texts.
The common denominator in all of these presumably unrelated sources is
the easy capture of Babylon by Cyrus’s army. However, the comparison of these
sources, which all refer to literally the last days of the Babylonian kingdom, with
the story in Daniel 5 allows us to note the unique aspects of the latter account,
and then raises the question of the origins and background of these new details.
I note the following distinctions between Daniel and all of the other sources:
(i) In all of the nonbiblical sources, it is the Persian army that attacked the city and
brought down the Babylonian kingdom, and not the Medes as in Daniel 6:1 (and 9:1).⁸⁵
(ii) In the nonbiblical accounts, the downfall of the Babylonian king had nothing to do
with blasphemy or improper use of the Temple vessels at a feast hosted by the king.
(iii) Outside of the biblical account, there is no mention of the miraculous “writing on the
wall.” There is therefore also no description of the king’s terrified reaction to this event,
nor of summoning any wise men (including a Judean exile named Daniel) to interpret this
writing.
I suggest that the key towards understanding the origins of some of these motifs
lies in the recognition of the intertextual relationship of this tale with a specific
prophecy from the oracles against the nations in the book of Isaiah, a prophecy
of doom in Isaiah 21. Scholars debate whether this is an authentic Isaianic proph-
ecy or was composed at a later date, either close to or after the fall of Babylonia
to Cyrus and his armies. The keys to this historical question are the references to
Babylonia in v. 9, and to Media and Elam in v. 2. For those interpreters who view the
passage as an authentic eighth-century prophecy, Media and Elam were potential
allies of Babylonia against Assyria, while for those who view it as a product of
the sixth century, Media and Elam fought against Babylonia.⁸⁶ According to the
85 Graf (1984) traced how the term Mede (and its various forms) was used by Hellenistic authors
in reference to the Persian empire. According to Graf (1984, 21–22) a similar dynamic of replace-
ment is found in biblical literature, and he suggests that this was the case through the sixth
century bce. By the end of the fifth century, the Persian empire and Persians were referred to
using the term “Persia.” Thus, Graf suggests that Media in Isaiah 13 and 21, as well as Jeremiah
51, refers to the Persia; while in subsequent compositions such as Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah,
Daniel, and Esther, the Achaemenid empire is labeled “Persian,” although sometimes in con-
junction with Media. Most scholars today assume that Darius the Mede is a fictional character;
cf. among many Rowley (1935, 12–66); and see fuller discussion in chap 6 below.
86 Amongst those who argue for an eighth-century setting, see Watts (1985, 266–74); Sweeney
(1996, 279–83 [late eighth – early seventh]). Amongst those who argue for a sixth-century set-
latter possibility, Media and Elam are used to denote the Persian empire, since
both were subsumed under Achaemenid rule by 550 bce. The same prediction,
that the Medes would overcome the Babylonians, is found elsewhere in prophetic
literature, in Isa 13:17 and Jer 51:11,28. This prophetic prediction has been used by
numerous scholars to explain the “origins” of the nonhistorical figure of Darius
the Mede in Daniel (6:1; 9:1; 11:1), who accordingly may have been created as the
literary fulfillment of these prophecies.⁸⁷
It seems to me that this same argument can, and perhaps should, be extended
to Daniel 5 as a complete literary unit. As I will attempt to demonstrate here,
many of the unique features in this tale can be explained as a narrativization of
this prophecy. I use the term narrativization to refer to instances in which a nar-
rative is created or generated based upon a text or passage of a different genre.
This phenomenon can take place across a broad range of genres – laws, wisdom
sayings or epic poems can be transformed into a narrative which reflects the
content of the other genre. The new prose version often transforms the earlier text
into a more readable, more accessible or more relevant work for the reader. In the
specific case of the narrativization of prophecy there is an added goal or benefit,
since in this case, the generation of the new narrative also embodies the fulfill-
ment of the prophecy, especially in cases in which the prophecy did not histori-
cally come to fruition. The new narrative confirms that the words of the prophet
are true and binding, and not lacking in any way. The literary phenomenon that
I am describing here is but one of a number of approaches in antiquity by which
authors and interpreters attempted to make sense of prophecies that were either
no longer relevant, or, as in this instance, never came to fruition. One common
option for biblical interpreters throughout history was to reinterpret the meaning
of the prophecy, to refer it to something other than its original context or aim.⁸⁸
An alternative approach was to retain the meaning of the original prophecy, but
to claim that it had indeed come true. In the ensuing analysis, I will demonstrate
such a relationship between Isaiah 21 and Daniel 5, and the framework of inter-
pretation by which the latter read the former.
ting, see Gray (1912, 350–51); Wildberger (1997, 310–14). For a summary of scholarship on this
issue, see Macintosh (1980, 63–75); Childs (2001, 148–51). Macintosh (1980, 103–30), followed by
Childs, suggests that the prophecy is a “palimpsest,” with an original eighth-century, Isaianic
basis, subsequently revised and reinterpreted in the sixth century.
87 Cf. e.g., Bevan (1892, 109, 121); Charles (1929, 141–42); Koch (1992, 38); Rofé (2009, 139–40).
For another (complementary) exegetical explanation for the addition of Darius the Mede in 9:1,
see below chap. 6.
88 This is the commonly held explanation for the background of Daniel 9; but see below, chap. 6,
for an alternative interpretation.
A connection between Daniel 5 and Isaiah 21 was already recognized in rabbinic

literature, as can be seen from the following passage found in Song of Songs
Rabbah 3, in the commentary on Song of Songs 3:4:
Song of Songs Rabbah 3:4
‫באותה שעה נתקבצו כל ישראל אצל דניאל ואמרו‬ At that time [i.e., Belshazzar’s feast], all of
‫ "רבינו דניאל כל הנבואות הרעות והקשות‬:‫לו‬ Israel gathered around Daniel and said to
‫שנתנבא ירמיה באו עלינו ונבואה אחת טובה‬ him, “Our teacher, Daniel, all of the bad and
‫שנתנבא עלינו )ירמיה כ"ט( 'כי לפי מלאת לבבל‬ difficult prophecies which Jeremiah proph-
‫ "הביאו‬:‫שבעים שנה' עדיין לא באה!" אמר להם‬ esied came upon us, yet the one positive
‫ התחיל קורא והולך עד שהגיע‬."‫לי ספר ישעיה‬ prophecy which he prophesied upon us:
… ‫ "משא מדבר ים כסופות בנגב‬,‫לפסוק זה‬ ‘When seventy years are completed for Baby-
"‫ממדבר בא מארץ נוראה חזות קשה הוגד לי‬ lonia’ (Jer 29:10) has not yet come!” He said
… (1–2 ‫)ישעיה כ"א‬ to them, “Bring me the book of Isaiah.” He
began to read and continued until he got to
this verse, “The pronouncement on the desert
of the sea: Like the gales that race through
the Negeb … it comes from the desert, the
terrible land. A harsh prophecy has been
announced to me” (Isa 21:1–2)…
Daniel’s response to the Israelites’ claim that Jeremiah’s seventy-year prophecy

had not come to fruition, which is placed in the context of Belshazzar’s feast,
demonstrates that what is to come that evening is the fulfillment of the prophecy
of Isaiah 21. Moreover, this pronouncement shows that the events of that evening
serve a double purpose – they are the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s seventy years, and
at the same time, provide an example of yet another “positive prophecy” coming
true, albeit the words of Isaiah and not Jeremiah. The midrashic homily then
continues by systematically analyzing each of the expressions from Isa 21:1–10,
explaining how they relate to the events of Daniel 5 and the downfall of the Baby-
lonian empire. While many of the interpretations proposed there seem forced,
the fundamental connection between the two biblical passages is programmati-
cally established.⁸⁹ Similarly, some modern scholars have noticed connections
between Isaiah 21 and Daniel 5, almost always with reference to Isa 21:5.⁹⁰
89 See also Seder Olam 28; and the commentaries of Rashi, Radak and Abraham ibn Ezra to Isa
21:1–10. The same connection between Daniel 5 and Isaiah 21 is reflected in the lines opening
with letters ‫ פ‬and ‫ צ‬in an acrostic piyyut by R. Eleazar ben Kalir (sixth–seventh centuries CE),
‫בוּרוֹתיָך‬
ֶ ְ‫א ֶֹמץ גּ‬: ‫ צפה הצפית ערוך השלחן בפסח‬/ ‫ ;פס יד כתבה לקעקע צול בפסח‬cf. Safrai and Safrai
(2009, 248–53).
90 See Wildberger (1997, 318–19); Oswalt (1986, 393–94); Collins (1993, 244).
Given the strong intertextual connections between the two passages, I

would like to suggest that the author of Daniel 5 had Isaiah 21 in mind when
he constructed his narrative. However, his narrativization features one signifi-
cant departure from the contextual meaning of the latter in its original context.
Isaiah 21 represents a first person speech by the prophet himself regarding what
will happen to Babylonia. He describes his own reaction and perspective on
the events surrounding the downfall of Babylonia. In contrast, according to the
reading which I will suggest here, the author of Daniel 5 interpreted Isaiah 21 as
if it related the words of the Babylonian king, Belshazzar. Not every detail in the
Daniel narrative matches the prophecy, but the cumulative effect of the cluster of
parallels between the two is particularly striking.
Isaiah 21:2
MT
‫חזות קשה הגד־לי הבוגד בוגד והשודד שודד עלי‬ A harsh vision has been announced to me:
‫עילם צורי מדי כל־אנחתה השבתי׃‬ “the betrayer is betraying (or “is betrayed”),
the ravager ravaging (or “is ravaged”).
Advance, Elam! Lay siege, Media! I have put
an end to all her sighing.”
The speaker opens with a description of a divine communication that he received,

which he describes as a “harsh vision.” The vision opens with a call to Elam and
Media to attack and lay siege to Babylonia (cf. v. 9 for an explicit reference to
Babylonia). Babylonia, who is guilty of being the ‫ שודד‬and the ‫ בוגד‬will have the
tables turned on it and will be punished for its behavior.⁹¹ Similar language is
91 It is not necessary to revocalize the text of MT (‫שּׁוֹדד שׁוּדד‬ ֵ ‫ )וְ ַה‬in order to understand Isa 21:2
as a prediction that the ‫בוגד‬/‫( שודד‬Babylonia) will receive its just punishment (cf. Isa 33:1). This
suggestion is difficult to accept since it would necessitate the revocalization of the MT ‫ בּוֹגֵ ד‬with
an otherwise unattested pu‘al verb ‫ ) ַהבּוֹגֵ ד( בּוּגד‬in the parallel stich. However, both the immedi-
ate and broader contexts suggest that the difficult vision refers to the way in which Babylonia’s
enemies (or God by means of the enemies – cf. Jer 51:53,55–56) will treat it, meting out to them
poetic justice in response to their problematic behavior; see Targum Jonathan, Rashi, Radak ad
Isa 21:2, and also the language of Ps 137:8–9. It is tempting to suggest that the accusation against
Babylon as a ‫שׁוֹדד‬ֵ “ravager/despoiler” was interpreted in Daniel 5 to reflect Nebuchadnezzar’s
plundering of the Temple vessels, a crime which was punished on the night of Belshazzar’s
death. However, this association between the chapters is less grounded than some of the others
suggested below.
used to describe the punishment of Babylon in Jer 51:48,53,55,56, another chapter

that describes its downfall at the hands of the Medes. The image of a harsh vision
with the meaning that the Medes will overturn the Babylonian empire is precisely
the narrative situation in Daniel 5.
Isaiah 21:3–4a
MT
‫( על־כן מלאו מתני חלחלה צירים אחזוני כצירי‬3) (3) Therefore my loins are seized with trem-
‫( תעה לבבי‬4) ‫יולדה נעויתי משמע נבהלתי מראות׃‬ bling; I am gripped by pangs like a woman in
… ‫פלצות בעתתני‬ travail, too anguished to hear, too frightened
to see. (4) My mind is confused, I shudder in
panic …
Verses 3–4 describe the speaker’s reaction at receiving the “harsh vision” of v. 2.
The extensive description of the physical effects on the speaker, including trem-
bling and shuddering, pains, anguish, panic, fear, and terror, is quite similar to
Belshazzar’s reaction of terror to seeing the writing on the wall, which is also
described in graphic terms: “The king’s countenance changed, and his thoughts
alarmed him; the joints of his loins were loosened⁹² and his knees knocked
together” (Dan 5:6). The king’s terror in Daniel 5 is the immediate result of the
vision of the hand writing on the wall, although the real basis for the fear is not
yet apparent at this stage of the tale to either the reader or to Belshazzar. Belshaz-
zar should in fact be frightened because of the message expressed in the writing
that his kingdom will imminently be taken away from him and given to the Medes
and/or Persians, but he has no access at this stage to this meaning. However, he
has already understood that the hand communicating on the wall is an ominous
sign.
In the context of Isaiah 21, the speaker is the prophet himself, who is so dis-
turbed or frightened by what he saw in the vision against Babylonia that he dis-
plays signs of terror and fright.⁹³ According to the method of reading proposed
92 For an analysis of this expression (‫ )קטרי חרצה משתרין‬in Dan 5:6 and the play on these terms
in v. 16 (‫)קטרין למשרא‬, see Wolters (1991a, 91–97); Paul ([1993] 2005). Paul ([1993] 2005, 195–196)
analyzes the possible Mesopotamian background of the convention of describing extreme physi-
ological reactions upon hearing bad tidings. Hillers adduced Ugaritic evidence for parallels to
biblical reactions to alarming news, although he does not mention Daniel 5; cf. Hillers (1965).
93 For similar responses to bad news throughout the Hebrew Bible, see Hillers (1965).
here, the author of Daniel 5 understood the speaker in Isaiah 21 not as the prophet
Isaiah, but rather as the King of Babylonia. We can identify two exegetical issues
within the Isaiah passage which might have led to the transfer of these words
from the mouth of the prophet to that of the foreign king. First, medieval Jewish
commentators had already asked why Isaiah would have been disturbed by a
harsh vision against Babylonia; in fact, one would expect the prophet to react
positively at the news of the downfall of his enemies.⁹⁴ As already noted, the
seer’s reaction is an uncontrollable physical response to the terror of the vision,
and not a direct function of the content of the revelation. The question raised
by these commentators therefore reflects an assumption about the nature of this
reaction that differs from the original context of the prophecy. The answer that
they propose is that the fear referred to in these verses is not a description of
the prophet’s response to what he saw, but rather the Babylonians’ fear concern-
ing their impending punishment.⁹⁵ Perhaps early readers (such as the author of
Daniel 5) were bothered by the same interpretive question, and offered a similar
solution.
A second interpretive issue surfaces in view of the broader context in Isaiah.
Isaiah 21 is not the only oracle against Babylonia within the oracles against the
nations in Isaiah 13–23, and in fact, an extensive prophecy against Babylon in
chapters 13–14 opens the entire collection. In contrast to the somewhat enigmatic
Isa 21:1, where interpreters are compelled to unlock its meaning and relate it to
Babylonia (in light of 21:9), the labeling of chapters 13–14 as a prophecy against
Babylonia is made explicit in 13:1 – “The Babylon pronouncement, a prophecy
of Isaiah son of Amoz.” That oracle, too, describes the impending defeat of the
Babylonians at the hands of the Medes (13:17), and thus can be seen as a paral-
lel prophecy to Isaiah 21. Within the oracle of Isaiah 13, we find a description of
the Day of the Lord, an event which will wreak havoc on the cosmos, and instill
terror and fear into the hearts of those who terrorized and persecuted the Isra-
elites/Judeans. The formulation of this fear and terror is particularly instructive
(13:7–8):
94 See Rashi, Radak, and Ibn Ezra in their commentaries to Isa 21:2–4.
95 Cf. Rashi and especially Radak on Isa 21:3 – “the prophet speaks in the voice of every one of
the Babylonians, or in the voice of King Belshazzar”; and Ibn Ezra on Isa 21:2 who posits that
while Isaiah 21 reflects the words of the prophet, he presented his message from the perspective
of the Babylonians or the Babylonian king.
Isa 13:7–8
‫( על־כן כל־ידים תרפינה וכל־לבב אנוש‬7) (8) Therefore all hands shall grow limp, and
‫( ונבהלו צירים וחבלים יאחזון כיולדה‬8) ‫ימס׃‬ all men’s hearts shall sink; (8) and, overcome
‫יחילון איש אל־רעהו יתמהו פני להבים פניהם׃‬ by terror, they shall be seized by pangs and
throes, writhe like a woman in travail. They
shall gaze at each other in horror, their
faces livid with fright (or: “shall be faces of
flame [?]”)
The imagery used in these verses to describe physiological responses to feelings

of terror is strikingly similar to that of 21:3–4, especially the idea of the pangs of
birth. However, in contrast to Isaiah 21, where it is the prophet who sees the vision
and recoils in terror, in Isaiah 13 those who are terrified appear to be those who
are themselves the object of the Lord’s wrath, namely the Babylonians. They have
arrogantly oppressed the people of the Lord, and now they will receive their just
punishment. Reading chapters 13–14 and 21 together, with the recognition that
they both describe the downfall of Babylonia at the hands of the Medes, could
very easily lead to a harmonization of these two descriptions of physiological
responses to terror, such that both are seen to describe the same reaction by the
same people. According to this reading, since the reaction in Isaiah 13 was that
of the Babylonians, so, too, the first person speaker in Isaiah 21 was seen to be a
part of the same group, and perhaps even its leader, the king of Babylonia.⁹⁶ This
reconstructed interpretive process paves the way for the analysis proposed here,
i.e., that Daniel 5 is a narrativization of Isaiah 21, in which the speaker of the latter
is understood to be Belshazzar the King of Babylonia, and not Isaiah the Prophet.
In this reading, it is the former who sees a “harsh vision” and he is the one whose
body reacts violently to this revelation.
96 I do not mean to suggest this is in any way a necessary reading of these two chapters, but
that it is a possible interpretation that emerges from the harmonization of parallel, yet distinct,
prophecies, so that the differences between them are blurred.
Isaiah 21:4b
MT
‫את נשף חשקי שם לי לחרדה׃‬ My night of pleasure he has turned to terror.
The term ‫ נֶ ֶשׁף‬in Biblical Hebrew refers to nighttime, and most often to its begin-
ning or end (dusk or dawn, i.e., twilight).⁹⁷ The meaning of this verse in its origi-
nal Isaianic context seemingly relates to the prophet’s troubled spirit, the result
of receiving this vision which does not allow him to relax at night as he is wont to
do. Instead of rest, he now suffers from anxiety and terror. In Modern Hebrew, the
word ‫ נֶ ֶשׁף‬has taken on the meaning “ball, banquet,” although this meaning is not
explicitly attested in antiquity.⁹⁸ This “modern” meaning may perhaps be derived
from another passage in Isaiah which uses the word:
Isa 5:11–12
‫( הוי משכימי בבקר שכר ירדפו מאחרי ַבנֶּ ֶשׁף‬11) (11) Ah, those who chase liquor from early
‫( והיה כנור ונבל תף וחליל ויין‬12) :‫יין ידליקם‬ in the morning, and till late in the evening
‫משתיהם ואת פעל ה' לא יביטו ומעשה ידיו לא‬ are inflamed by wine! (12) Who, at their
‫ראו׃‬ banquets, have lyre and lute, timbrel, flute,
and wine; but who never give a thought to
the plan of the Lord, and take no note of
what He is designing.
The prophet Isaiah rails here against those who attend parties instead of behaving
piously. They drink from morning to night, living for a moment of pleasure, and
at the same time they fail to see the acts of God that occur right before their eyes.
Reading these two verses in sequence, the description of the drinking of wine ‫בנשף‬
in v. 11 is continued in v. 12 with their participation in banquets. By equating the
two, the word ‫ נשף‬in Isa 21:4 could be reinterpreted to mean just such an event, a
‫משתה‬, i.e., a banquet at which wine is served; in this context, the carefree revelry
97 Cf. BDB, 976; HALOT, 730; and various commentaries.

98 The lack of attestation is stressed by Hacham (1984, 53 [n. 23a], 215 [n. 10]), who correctly
wanted to avoid the misinterpretation of the word in its original context as a reference to a ban-
quet. The Even-Shoshan dictionary (rev. ed.), s.v. ‫ § נֶ ֶשׁף‬3, lists only modern sources with this
meaning, although it suggests that this definition is derived from Isa 21:4 (in which ‫ נשף‬denotes
“night”). There is no mention of this meaning in Ben-Yehuda’s dictionary. The argument pre-
sented here does not posit a historical process of semantic development in the meaning of ‫נשף‬,
but rather an associative impetus for interpreting the specific phrase ‫ נפש חשקי‬in this context (as
posited by Even-Shoshan for its use in modern sources).
was quickly transformed from a time of merriment and pleasure (‫ )נשף חשקי‬to
a terrifying event (‫)שם לי לחרדה‬. This secondary interpretation of ‫ נשף‬was also
influenced by the context of Isaiah 21, which immediately turns to a description
of the setting of a table for such an event. Once the phrase is reinterpreted in this
fashion, it is but a short distance to the setting described in Daniel 5.⁹⁹
Isaiah 21:5
MT
‫ערך השלחן צפה הצפית אכול שתה קומו השרים‬ (a) “Set the table!” (b) “Lay out the rug”
:‫משחו מגן‬ or “Let the watchman watch!” (c) “Eat and
drink!” (d) “Up, officers! Grease the shields!”
This verse has been seen as the primary point of contact between Isaiah 21 and
Daniel 5 for most interpreters who draw such a connection.¹⁰⁰ Isaiah 21:5 describes
the setting of the table, eating and drinking, all prominent elements in Daniel 5.
The original context of this verse in Isaiah 21 appears to be the officers’ prepara-
tion for battle during a banquet, although the precise interpretation of the entire
verse depends upon a number of factors, including the meaning of clause (b),
‫ ָצפֹה ַה ָצּ ִפית‬. Commentators have suggested various meanings for ‫צפ"ה‬, including
“lay out (a rug),”¹⁰¹ “light (the lamp),”¹⁰² “(set the) watch.”¹⁰³ The exact meaning
of the expression affects how one interprets the relationship between clause (b)
and those that surround it, and thus the interpretation of the verse as a whole. If
it refers to preparation for a banquet, then the first three clauses all refer to these
arrangements. The rabbinic interpretation (“light the lamp”) works well with the
picture of preparations for a banquet, and specifically with the lampstand men-
tioned explicitly in Dan 5:5, although the interpretation itself may result from the
99 Essentially all medieval Jewish commentators interpret Isa 21:4b with reference to Daniel 5
(cf. Rashi, Radak, Ibn Ezra, Joseph Qara, Eliezer of Beaugency, Isaiah of Trani, Joseph Kaspi).
100 Cf. the midrash and piyyut discussed above (n. 89).
101 BDB, 860 and HALOT, 1045, classify this verb under the root 2‫צפה‬, which has a general
meaning of “cover, lay out, overlay.” However regarding Isa 21:5, HALOT notes “precise meaning
uncertain,” and lists a number of possible suggested meanings, including: (1) “to arrange a row
of tables”; and (2) “to spread out a cushion, or rugs, in preparation for a meal.” 1‫ צפה‬is defined as
“to keep watch, look out or about; look” (BDB, 859; HALOT, 1044–1045).
102 Gen. Rab. 63; cf. above Song of Songs Rab. ‫“ אקימת מנרתא אדלקת בוצינא‬set up the lamp,
light the wicks.”
103 For a summary of opinions on the meaning of this expression, see Macintosh (1980, 24–25.)
attempt to interpret Isaiah 21 in light of Daniel.¹⁰⁴ Covering with a cloth does not
find an explicit parallel in Daniel 5, but does perhaps refer to the general prep-
arations for a festive banquet. If the clause refers to watchmen manning their
posts, using the same root as the ‫ ְמ ַצ ֶפּה‬in v. 6, then the verse appears to alternate
between the scenes of revelry inside at a banquet as described in clauses (a) and
(c), and the impending threat of attack from the outside, which is expressed in
clauses (b) and (d).
According to the hermeneutical framework followed here, it can be suggested
that the author of Daniel 5 reads the expression ‫ ָצפֹה ַה ָצּ ִפית‬with a different shade
of meaning, which then plays a prominent role in his narrative. In its connection
with the meaning “watch, see,” the phrase may also be translated as “see the
sight.” Isaiah 21:5 could then be understood to mean, “While in the middle of the
banquet, when the table was set and those in attendance were eating and drink-
ing, the sight was seen.” In the framework of Daniel 5, it is King Belshazzar, the
speaker of these words, who saw the ‫צפית‬, and this sight was none other than the
hand writing on the wall. According to this interpretation, the author of Daniel 5
has equated the ‫ צפית‬of v. 5 and the ‫ חזות‬of v. 2;¹⁰⁵ both refer to the divine revela-
tion received by the King, which contained the terrifying message about Babylo-
nia’s imminent downfall.
Isa 21:6
MT NJPS
‫כי כה אמר אלי אדני לך העמד המצפה אשר יראה‬ For thus my Lord said to me: “Go, set up a
,‫יגיד‬ sentry; let him announce what he sees.
In the context of Isaiah 21, the ‫ מצפה‬described in this verse can refer to an actual
sentry who is to be set up to look out for the impending attack upon Babylonia.
Alternatively, it can refer to the prophet himself, whom the Lord has set up to
announce what he sees (cf. Hab 2:1 for a similar image).¹⁰⁶ In Daniel 5, after he sees
the writing on the wall, and after his wise men fail to read it, the king summons
104 In Gen Rab. 63, R. Abba b. Kahana attests to the existence of this meaning for this word
within specific local dialects, although it is hard to know whether this can be used as authentic
linguistic evidence.
105 Both terms are nominal forms of Hebrew roots that mean “see,” and therefore it is not sur-
prising that they are identified with each other.
106 See this discussion of Macintosh (1980, 28–29) and his summary of previous commentators.
Daniel to read and interpret it, since he “has the spirit of the holy gods in him”
(5:11). Daniel too sees what the king has seen, and hence he functions, with divine
assistance, as a ‫מצפה‬, able to read and interpret the writing on the wall.
This suggested interpretation may receive additional support from the reading
of 1QIsaa to Isa 21:8, which also describes the role of the sentry. MT of that verse
reads: ‫ויקרא ַא ְריֵ ה על־מצפה אדני אנכי עמד תמיד יומם ועל־משמרתי אנכי נצב כל־‬
‫הלילות‬. Most of the verse is relatively straightforward, describing the role of the
sentry, and may be translated as “… on a lookout, Lord, I stand perpetually by day,
and at my post I am stationed every night.” However, the syntactical relationship
between the first two words of the verse, ‫ויקרא אריה‬, and their possible meaning
in this context are unclear. Perhaps they may translated as a verb of speech, fol-
lowed by a direct quotation of that speech, “And he called out: ‘A lion!,” referring
to an impending attack. Alternatively, the word ‫ אריה‬may understood adverbially,
modifying the calling out of the sentry: “And he called out [like] a lion.”¹⁰⁷ In
contrast, 1QIsaa 16:22 attests the graphically similar reading, ‫“ הראה‬the seer”;¹⁰⁸
i.e., in this reading the ‫ מצפה‬is also described as a ‫ר ֶֹאה‬. The term ‫ ר ֶֹאה‬is used
in classical Biblical Hebrew to denote a prophet (see especially 1Sam 9:9), as is
‫( צֹפה‬e.g., Jer 6:17; Ezek 3:17; 33:7; Hos 9:8).¹⁰⁹ According to this lectio, the “seer”
declares that he stands at the ready at all times, and will now inform the first
person speaker in Isaiah 21 of what he has seen. This, too, matches the order of
events in Daniel 5, where Daniel is first summoned, and then after reading and
interpreting the writing, turns to the king to explain its meaning.
Isaiah 21:9
MT
‫ויען ויאמר נפלה נפלה בבל וכל־פסילי אלהיה שבר‬ Then he spoke up and said, “Fallen, fallen is
.‫לארץ‬ Babylon, and all the images of her gods have
crashed to the ground!”
The divine message of both Isaiah 21 and Daniel 5 is that reign of Babylonia is
now come to an end.¹¹⁰
107 See this discussion of Macintosh (1980, 33) and his summary of previous commentators.
108 Ulrich and Flint (2010, 32–33).
109 Cf. BDB, 859 (s.v. 1‫) ָצ ָפה‬, 909 (s.v. 1‫ ;)ר ֶֹאה‬HALOT, 1044 (s.v. 1‫)צפה‬, 1161–62 (s.v. 1‫)ר ֶֹאה‬. For
Daniel’s status as a prophet in ancient sources, see Collins (1993, 52).
110 Admittedly the content of the vision in Isa 21:7,9a (referring to horsemen riding) differs from
Conclusions 93
3.4 Conclusions
Taken together, I suggest that the parallels just enumerated between Isaiah 21
and Daniel 5 have the cumulative effect of demonstrating a thematic and liter-
ary relationship between the two texts. Such connections were already noticed
in antiquity and have also been noted by some modern scholars, although not
to the extent to which I have developed them here. Furthermore, the recognition
that Daniel 5 both narrativizes and interprets Isaiah 21 allows for a more nuanced
understanding of the precise relationship between the two, revealing the her-
meneutical assumptions underlying the later author’s reading and reuse of the
earlier prophecy. Traditional commentators viewed this intertextual relationship
as the realization of the prophetic word in Daniel 5. However, this analysis has
shown that in fact it was the desire to present the divine word as realized that led
to the creation of this narrative. In this case, we can profit from the literary sensi-
tivity of the ancient readers, while at the same time, reassessing the relationship
between these two texts through a modern critical lens.
The proposed process of narrativization of Isaiah 21 through the composition
of Daniel 5 may also offer some insight into the question raised earlier in this
chapter, regarding the relationship between Daniel 2 and 5. As discussed above,
Daniel 2 and 5 follow very similar plot lines, with many shared motifs and details.
Many of these shared literary characteristics in turn go back to the story of Joseph
and his dream interpretation in the court of Pharaoh. According to the interpreta-
tion of the plot of Daniel 5 suggested in the first section of this chapter, the rela-
tionship between the two stories is even closer. In fact, they are so similar that
one might ask why there was in fact a need for another such story. The foregoing
analysis has shown that the motivation for Daniel 5 was to portray the final down-
fall of Babylonia as the fulfillment of an earlier biblical prophecy, by means of the
narrative transformation of that prophecy. In this view, the author shaped his new
narrative using existing literary models with which he was very familiar, from
both Genesis 41 and Daniel 2. The compositional process of Daniel 5 was thus an
ingenious combination of historical memory (the ease with which Babylon was
conquered; the context of a festival) and literary ingenuity (narrativization of a
prophecy, utilizing the basic form of earlier literary models), to create a riddle for
later readers that can only be solved through careful reading and interpretation.
the writing on the wall in Daniel 5. However, the message, Babylonia’s downfall, is essentially
identical in both. The motif of the images of her gods as “crashing to the ground” in Isaiah 21
is perhaps echoed in the blasphemous praise of the gods of gold, silver and other materials in
Dan 5:4,23, which play a part in the loss of his kingdom.
4 The Textual and Literary Development
of Daniel 4
In recent decades, scholars have recognized the contribution of the evidence of
biblical textual witnesses to the understanding of the literary development of
scriptural compositions. Large-scale differences between the versions, when they
exist, allow us to untangle the various threads from which biblical literature was
woven, at least in the final stages of its composition. Different editions of the same
passage or book can sometimes be found in the MT, LXX, and Qumran, and these
examples offer us rare glimpses into the workings of biblical scribes in antiquity.
Among these diverse compositions, chapter 4 of Daniel presents one of the most
pronounced examples of extensive differences between textual witnesses, and
therefore serves as an important example of the intersection of textual and liter-
ary criticisms, and their combined contribution towards tracing their develop-
ment. In the pages that folow, I will analyze the two primary textual versions of
chapter 4 – the Aramaic Masoretic Text and the Old Greek translation – in order
to uncover the literary-textual history of this section.¹ This avenue of inquiry has
been the topic of some recent studies, but I suggest that the advantages of com-
paring these two versions have not yet been fully appreciated. In the first section
of this analysis, I will propose that we can reconstruct an original form of this
chapter, from which each of the versions developed, and will try to show that this
putative original is both structurally and thematically coherent. In the process, I
1 Although I will refer throughout this chapter to Daniel 4, the literary unit under discussion
here actually opens with 3:31–33 in the MT. This opening doxological section forms an inclusio
with the end of the story (4:31,34), and together these passages emphasize the primary mes-
sage of this story, divine sovereignty over all creatures (Henze 1999, 16–17). These opening verses
are formulated as the prescript of an epistle, beginning with a salutation from the sender, King
Nebuchadnezzar, to the recipients of the letter (in this instance, all of the nations of the world), a
form that finds parallels in late biblical and postbiblical literature. For a description of the com-
ponents of the epistle genre in Aramaic documents, see Fitzmyer (1974, 205), who asks whether
the epistolary label should perhaps be relegated to 3:31 alone, since the rest of the chapter does
not follow the general literary pattern. Verses 31–33 were mistakenly perceived as the conclusion
of the previous story in chapter 3, and thus the standard chapter division here does not match
the literary evidence. As noted below in section 4.3.3(i) (p. 119) in the OG version of the story,
these verses have been transferred to the end of chapter 4. The story in OG therefore begins at 4:1.
Theodotion, however, agrees with MT regarding the location of 3:31–33, and the recognition by
some that this passage opens the literary unit has led to two different systems of numbering the
verses in the Greek versions of this chapter, reflecting the 3-verse shift. Throughout the present
discussion, I have numbered the OG verses according to the system in which the first verse of the
story is 4:1 (and not 4:4).
The Textual and Literary Development of Daniel 4 95
will offer a new solution to an interpretive crux regarding the image of the root of
the tree being bound “in fetters of iron and bronze” (vv. 12,20). I will then clarify
the exegetical and literary functions of some of the secondary elements in each of
the textual witnesses, tracing their growth. Finally, I will introduce new evidence
for the existence of a Semitic (presumably Aramaic) Vorlage for the Old Greek
version, in view of the possible use of such a source for parabiblical compositions
from Qumran.
Daniel chapter 4 describes Nebuchadnezzar’s dream vision of a tree of cosmic
proportions. In response to the command of an angelic being, the tree is chopped
down, and only a root remains. The tree is transformed into a beast of the field for
seven seasons, until it realizes that God is the only true sovereign in the world.
With Daniel’s assistance, the Babylonian king learns that the tree represents his
monarchy, which will be taken away from him, and that he will literally be trans-
formed into a beast of the field, until he recognizes the sovereignty of the God of
Israel over the world. This in fact then happens to the king, who is banished to the
wilderness for seven years, and is returned to his throne only when he recognized
God’s greatness. Much of the scholarly discussion on this chapter has focused on
the origins of this story and its original connection to the figure of Nabonidus,
the Babylonian monarch known from ancient Near Eastern sources and from the
Aramaic Qumran composition entitled the Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242).² This
connection to my mind has been sufficiently demonstrated, and will therefore
not be a focus of my discussion here.³
The scholars who have assessed the relationship between the MT and OG
in Daniel 4 have each suggested one of the three logical possibilities in order to
explain the differences between them: (1) the Vorlage of the Old Greek version
constitutes an earlier Aramaic edition, from which the Masoretic text later devel-
oped independently;⁴ (2) the Masoretic text reflects the earlier edition, from
which the Old Greek developed;⁵ or (3) the two versions developed in parallel
and independently from a theoretical third version, which forms the kernel of the
2 For the official publication of this scroll, see Collins (1996).

3 See e.g. Collins (1993, 217–19); Henze (1999, 51–73); and the recent discussions of Newsom
(2010) and Kratz (2011). Newsom expands the boundaries of Jewish Nabonidus literature to in-
clude all four stories in Daniel 2–5, but the arguments for those other than Daniel 4 are somewhat
tenuous.
4 Riessler (1899, 28–44); Jahn (1904, esp. 36–48); Charles (1929, lvi–lvii, 79–82, 103–6); Albertz
(1988, 19–76); Albertz (2001, 179–81); Wills (1990, 87–121); Munnich (2003, 99–107).
5 Bludau (1897, 143–54); Montgomery (1927, 37–38, passim [esp. 247–48]); see especially Satran
(1985, 62–94), who sees the Old Greek as the earliest interpretation of this chapter.
96 The Textual and Literary Development of Daniel 4
chapter in both.⁶ As will become apparent in the analysis below, I tend towards
this third possibility, since secondary elements may be identified in both edi-
tions; although my analysis differs in a number of details from those previously
conducted.
The following discussion of Daniel 4 will first identify the general structure
of the chapter, which obviates the need to posit a complex source-critical division
and process of development.⁷ This will then allow for the identification of those
elements in the MT that are in my estimation secondary, and then move on to
some aspects of the OG that can be determined to be unoriginal. While the differ-
ences between these two textual witnesses are extensive enough that a number of
commentators have opted to present the two versions synoptically and to refrain
from reconstructing a putative original version,⁸ I submit that it is possible to
isolate the core elements common to both versions of the story, and that this
shared material allows us to identify an earlier stage of the narrative.⁹
4.1 The Structure of MT Daniel 4
We begin with a look at the structure of Daniel 4 in the MT version in order to

better perceive both its underlying organization and potential (secondary) devia-
tions from that organization. Daniel 4 is composed of three primary sections, all
included within the literary framework of Nebuchadnezzar’s letter to the peoples
of the world (A 1 and 2): (B 1) the dream as told by the king (vv. 1–2, 7–14); (B 2)
Daniel’s interpretation of the dream (vv. 15–24); and (B 3) the realization of the
interpretation (vv. 25–30). Each of these sections is interwoven with the following
one, leading to a progression from one section to the next. I have divided the text
according to this structure, using the Aramaic MT as a basis:¹⁰
6 Ulrich (1999, 40–44, 49, 70–72; originally published as Ulrich [1988, 107–10, 115] and Ulrich
[1992, 283–86]); Collins (1993, 220–21); Henze (1999, 38–49); Tov (2008).
7 Haag (1983, 13–25, 99–132) and Wills (1990, 87–121) offered extensive arguments for a source-
critical division of the chapter and subsequent development; although, as will be argued here,
these arguments are ultimately unconvincing.
8 See Collins (1993, 208–15); Henze (1999, 244–50).
9 Although I refer throughout to an original version of the chapter, I do not believe that it can
be reconstructed down to the last detail; that task is not possible within the limits of the textual
evidence. However, I suggest that the contours of this base narrative can be determined with
some degree of reliability.
10 The translation throughout is that of the NJPS, slightly modified
A 1. Nebuchadnezzar’s Letter – Introduction (3:31–33)
(‫( נבוכדנצר מלכא לכל־עממיא אמיא ולשניא די־דארין )דירין‬31) (31) “King Nebuchadnezzar to all people and nations and languages that inhabit
‫( אתיא ותמהיא די עבד עמי אלהא‬32) :‫בכל־ארעא שלמכון ישגא‬ the whole earth: May your well-being abound! (32) The signs and wonders that the
‫( אתוהי כמה רברבין ותמהוהי‬33) :‫עליא )עלאה( שפר קדמי להחויה‬ Most High God has worked for me I am pleased to relate. (33) How great are His
:‫כמה תקיפין מלכותה מלכות עלם ושלטנה עם־דר ודר‬ signs; how mighty His wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and His
dominion endures throughout the generations.”
B 1. Report of the Dream (4:1–14)
‫( חלם חזית‬2) :‫( אנה נבוכדנצר שלה הוית בביתי ורענן בהיכלי‬1) (1) I, Nebuchadnezzar, was living serenely in my house, flourishing in my palace.
:‫וידחלנני והרהרין על־משכבי וחזוי ראשי יבהלנני‬ (2) I had a dream that frightened me, and my thoughts in bed and the vision of my
mind alarmed me.
:‫( ומני שים טעם להנעלה קדמי לכל חכימי בבל די־פשר חלמא יהודענני‬3)]]] [[[(3) I gave an order to bring all the wise men of Babylon before me to let me know the meaning
‫( באדין עללין )עלין( חרטמיא אשפיא כשדיא )כשדאי( וגזריא וחלמא אמר‬4) of the dream. (4) The magicians, exorcists, Chaldeans, and diviners came, and I related the
‫( ועד אחרין על קדמי דניאל די־שמה‬5) :‫אנה קדמיהון ופשרה לא־מהודעין לי‬ dream to them, but they could not make its meaning known to me. (5) Finally, Daniel, called
:‫בלטשאצר כשם אלהי ודי רוח־אלהין קדישין בה וחלמא קדמוהי אמרת‬ Belteshazzar after the name of my god, in whom the spirit of the holy gods was, came to me,
‫( בלטשאצר רב חרטמיא די אנה ידעת די רוח אלהין קדישין בך וכל־רז‬6) and I related the dream to him, saying, (6) “Belteshazzar, chief magician, in whom I know the
[[[‫( וחזוי ראשי על־משכבי‬7) :‫לא־אנס לך חזוי חלמי די־חזית ופשרה אמר‬ spirit of the holy gods to be, and whom no mystery baffles, tell me the visions of my dream that
I have seen and its interpretation. (7) In the visions of my mind in bed]]]¹¹
The Structure of MT Daniel 4
97
11 Note the use here of resumptive repetition, echoing the end of v. 2 and marking the end of a secondary addition (cf. similarly below, nn. 12,23).
‫( רבה אילנא ותקף‬8) :‫חזה הוית ואלו אילן בגוא ארעא ורומה שגיא‬ I saw a tree of great height in the midst of the earth; (8) The tree grew and became mighty; Its
98
‫( עפיה שפיר ואנבה‬9) :‫ורומה ימטא לשמיא וחזותה לסוף כל־ארעא‬ top reached heaven, (9) And it was visible to the ends of the earth. Its foliage was beautiful and
(‫שגיא ומזון לכלא־בה תחתוהי תטלל חיות ברא ובענפוהי ידרון )ידורן‬ its fruit abundant; there was food for all in it. Beneath it the beasts of the field found shade,
‫( חזה הוית בחזוי ראשי על־‬10) :‫צפרי שמיא ומנה יתזין כל־בשרא‬ and the birds of the sky dwelt on its branches; all creatures fed on it. (10) In the vision of my
‫( קרא בחיל וכן אמר גדו‬11) :‫משכבי ואלו עיר וקדיש מן־שמיא נחת‬ mind in bed, I looked and saw a holy Watcher coming down from heaven. (11) He called loudly
‫אילנא וקצצו ענפוהי אתרו עפיה ובדרו אנבה תנד חיותא מן־תחתוהי‬ and said: ‘Hew down the tree, lop off its branches, strip off its foliage, scatter its fruit. Let
‫( ברם עקר שרשוהי בארעא שבקו ובאסור‬12) :‫וצפריא מן־ענפוהי‬ the beasts of the field flee from beneath it and the birds from its branches, (12) But leave the
‫די־פרזל ונחש בדתאא די ברא ובטל שמיא יצטבע ועם־חיותא חלקה‬ essence of its roots in the ground in fetters of iron and bronze in the grass of the field, let it
[[[‫( לבבה מן־אנושא )אנשא( ישנון ולבב חיוה יתיהב לה‬13)]]] :‫בעשב ארעא‬ be drenched with the dew of heaven, and share earth’s verdure with the beasts. [[[(13) Let his
‫( בגזרת עירין פתגמא ומאמר קדישין‬14) :‫ושבעה עדנין יחלפון עלוהי‬ mind be altered from that of a man, and let him be given the mind of a beast,]]] and let seven
‫שאלתא ]]]עד־דברת די ינדעון חייא די־שליט עליא )עלאה( במלכות אנושא‬ seasons pass over it. (14) This sentence is decreed by the Watchers; this verdict is commanded
[[[:(‫)אנשא( ולמן־די יצבא יתננה ושפל אנשים יקים עליה )עלה‬ by the Holy Ones [[[so that all creatures may know that the Most High is sovereign over the
realm of man, and He gives it to whom He wishes and He may set over it even the lowest of
men.’]]]
B 2. Interpretation of the Dream (4:15–24)
‫( דנה חלמא חזית אנה מלכא נבוכדנצר ואנתה )ואנת( בלטשאצר‬15) (15) “I, King Nebuchadnezzar, had this dream; now you, Belteshazzar, tell me its
‫פשרא אמר כל־קבל די כל־חכימי מלכותי לא־יכלין פשרא להודעותני‬ meaning, since all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make its meaning
The Textual and Literary Development of Daniel 4
‫( אדין דניאל די־‬16) :‫ואנתה )ואנת( כהל די רוח־אלהין קדישין בך‬ known to me, but you are able, for the spirit of the holy gods is in you.” (16)
‫שמה בלטשאצר אשתומם כשעה חדה ורעינהי יבהלנה ענה מלכא‬ Then Daniel, called Belteshazzar, was perplexed for a while, and alarmed by his
‫ואמר בלטשאצר חלמא ופשרא אל־יבהלך ענה בלטשאצר ואמר מראי‬ thoughts. The king addressed him, “Let the dream and its meaning not alarm you.”
:(‫)מרי( חלמא לשנאיך )לשנאך( ופשרה לעריך )לערך‬ Belteshazzar replied, “My lord, would that the dream were for your enemy and its
meaning for your foe!
‫( אילנא די חזית די רבה ותקף ורומה ימטא לשמיא וחזותה‬17) (a) (a) (17) The tree that you saw grow and become mighty, whose top reached heaven,
‫( ועפיה שפיר ואנבה שגיא ומזון לכלא־בה תחתוהי‬18) :‫לכל־ארעא‬ which was visible throughout the earth, (18) whose foliage was beautiful, whose
:‫תדור חיות ברא ובענפוהי ישכנן צפרי שמיא‬ fruit was so abundant that there was food for all in it, beneath which the beasts of
the field dwelt, and in whose branches the birds of the sky lodged —
‫( אנתה )אנת(־הוא מלכא די רבית )רבת( ותקפת ורבותך‬19) (a′) (a′) (19) it is you, O king, you who have grown and become mighty, whose great-
:‫רבת ומטת לשמיא ושלטנך לסוף ארעא‬ ness has grown to reach heaven, and whose dominion is to the end of the earth.
‫( ודי חזה מלכא עיר וקדיש נחת מן־שמיא ואמר גדו אילנא‬20) (b) (b) (20) The holy Watcher whom the king saw descend from heaven and say, Hew
‫וחבלוהי ברם עקר שרשוהי בארעא שבקו ובאסור די־פרזל ונחש‬ down the tree and destroy it, but leave the root of its roots in the ground in fetters of
‫בדתאא די ברא ובטל שמיא יצטבע ועם־חיות ברא חלקה עד די־‬ iron and bronze in the grass of the field, Let it be drenched with the dew of heaven,
:‫שבעה עדנין יחלפון עלוהי‬ and share the lot of the beasts of the field until seven seasons pass over it —
‫( דנה פשרא מלכא וגזרת עליא )עלאה( היא די מטת על־‬21) (b′) (b′) (21) this is its meaning, O king; it is the decree of the Most High which has
‫( ולך טרדין מן־אנשא ועם־חיות ברא להוה‬22) :‫מראי )מרי( מלכא‬ overtaken my lord the king. (22) You will be driven away from men and have your
‫מדרך ועשבא כתורין לך יטעמון ומטל שמיא לך מצבעין ושבעה‬ habitation with the beasts of the field. You will be fed grass like cattle, and be
(‫עדנין יחלפון עליך )עלך( עד די־תנדע די־שליט עליא )עלאה‬ drenched with the dew of heaven; seven seasons will pass over you until you
:‫במלכות אנשא ולמן־די יצבא יתננה‬ come to know that the Most High is sovereign over the realm of man, and He
gives it to whom He wishes.
‫( ודי אמרו למשבק עקר שרשוהי די אילנא‬23) (c) (c) (23) And the meaning of the command to leave the essence of the roots of the
tree is —
‫( להן מלכא‬24) :‫( מלכותך לך קימא מן־די תנדע די שלטן שמיא‬c′) (c′) the kingdom will remain yours from the time you come to know that Heaven
‫מלכי ישפר עליך )עלך( וחטיך )וחטאך( בצדקה פרק ועויתך במחן‬ is sovereign. (24) Therefore, O king, may my advice be acceptable to you:
:‫ענין הן תהוה ארכה לשלותך‬ Redeem your sins by beneficence and your iniquities by generosity to the poor;
then your serenity may be extended.”
B 3. Realization of the Dream (4:25–33)
‫( לקצת ירחין תרי־עשר על־‬26) :‫( כלא מטא על־נבוכדנצר מלכא‬25) (25) All this befell King Nebuchadnezzar. (26) Twelve months later, as he was
‫( ענה מלכא ואמר הלא דא־‬27) :‫היכל מלכותא די בבל מהלך הוה‬ walking on the roof of the royal palace at Babylon, (27) the king exclaimed, “There
The Structure of MT Daniel 4
:‫היא בבל רבתא די־אנה בניתה לבית מלכו בתקף חסני וליקר הדרי‬ is great Babylon, which I have built by my vast power to be a royal residence for the
glory of my majesty!”
99
‫( עוד מלתא בפם מלכא קל מן־שמיא נפל לך אמרין‬28) (a) (a) (28) The words were still on the king’s lips, when a voice fell from heaven, “It
100
‫( ומן־אנשא לך טרדין ועם־‬29) :‫נבוכדנצר מלכא מלכותא עדת מנך‬ has been decreed for you, O King Nebuchadnezzar: The kingdom has passed out of
‫חיות ברא מדרך עשבא כתורין לך יטעמון ושבעה עדנין יחלפון עליך‬ your hands. (29) You are being driven away from men, and your habitation is to be
‫)עלך( עד די־תנדע די־שליט עליא )עלאה( במלכות אנשא ולמן־די‬ with the beasts of the field. You are to be fed grass like cattle, and seven seasons
:‫יצבא יתננה‬ will pass over you until you come to know that the Most High is sovereign over the
realm of man and He gives it to whom He wishes.”
‫( בה־שעתא מלתא ספת על־נבוכדנצר ומן־אנשא טריד‬30) (a′) (a′) (30) There and then the sentence was carried out upon Nebuchadnezzar. He
‫ועשבא כתורין יאכל ומטל שמיא גשמה יצטבע עד די שערה‬ was driven away from men, he ate grass like cattle, and his body was drenched
‫( ולקצת יומיא אנה נבוכדנצר‬31) :‫כנשרין רבה וטפרוהי כצפרין‬ with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like eagle’s feathers and his nails
‫עיני לשמיא נטלת ומנדעי עלי יתוב ]]]ולעליא )ולעלאה( ברכת‬ like the talons of birds. (31) “When the time had passed, I, Nebuchadnezzar,
‫ולחי עלמא שבחת והדרת די שלטנה שלטן עלם ומלכותה עם־‬
lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason was restored to me. [[[I blessed the
‫( וכל־דארי )דירי( ארעא כלה חשיבין וכמצביה עבד‬32) :‫דר ודר‬
‫בחיל שמיא ודארי )ודירי( ארעא ולא איתי די־ימחא בידה ויאמר‬ Most High, and praised and glorified the Ever-Living One, whose dominion is an
:‫לה מה עבדת‬ everlasting dominion and whose kingdom endures throughout the generations.
(32) All the inhabitants of the earth are of no account. He does as He wishes with
the host of heaven, and with the inhabitants of the earth. There is none to stay
His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’
‫( בה־זמנא מנדעי יתוב עלי[[[ וליקר מלכותי הדרי וזיוי יתוב עלי‬33) (33) There and then my reason was restored to me,]]]¹² and my majesty and splen-
:‫ולי הדברי ורברבני יבעון ועל־מלכותי התקנת ורבו יתירה הוספת לי‬ dor were restored to me for the glory of my kingdom. My companions and nobles
sought me out, and I was reestablished over my kingdom, and added greatness
The Textual and Literary Development of Daniel 4
was given me.
A 2. Nebuchadnezzar’s letter – Conclusion (4:34)
‫( כען אנה נבכדנצר משבח ומרומם ומהדר למלך שמיא די כל־‬34) (34) So now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt, and glorify the King of Heaven, all of
:‫מעבדוהי קשט וארחתה דין ודי מהלכין בגוה יכל להשפלה‬ whose works are just and whose ways are right, and who is able to humble those
who behave arrogantly.”
12 Note the use of the nearly identical phrases in vv. 31 and 33, “my reason was restored to me.” Collins (1993, 231) suggests that this is perhaps indicative of
“a redactional seam, since the intervening doxology is a feature of the collected tales.” The brackets here reflect the possible use of resumptive repetition as a
technique for adding this material (see nn. 11,23). See below, chap. 5, pp. 136–138 for discussion of the parallels between the doxological passages in Daniel.
The Structure of MT Daniel 4 101
Section B 1 (“Report of the Dream”) is presented in the first-person voice of King

Nebuchadnezzar. Section B 2 (“Interpretation of the Dream”) is structured accord-
ing to the contours of B1, and consists of three subsections. Each subsection first
presents an excerpt from the dream, which is then followed by Daniel’s inter-
pretation, formulated in second person voice addressed to Nebuchadnezzar. This
structure is relatively straightforward: section B 2a is a “quotation” of vv. 7–9;
section B 2b recounts vv. 10–13; and section B 2c refocuses specifically on v. 12a.¹³
Section B 3 (“Realization of the Dream”) details how all the aspects of Daniel’s
interpretation come to fruition. The heart of this section is the reprisal of Daniel’s
interpretation from vv. 21–22 (B 2b′) in vv. 28–29 (B 3a), followed by section B 3a′,
which recounts the fulfillment of B 3a in the third-person voice. The repetition
of the dream report in the dream interpretation, followed by the repetition of the
dream interpretation within the dream realization, structures the chapter as three
linked passages, which together form a coherent unit. Each section is marked
by a progression of different voices – first person for the dream report, second
person for the dream interpretation, and third person for the realization of the
dream. As the third section comes to a close, the text returns to first-person voice
once again, to conclude the epistle as it opened.¹⁴
13 This structure may be brought into relief by comparison with the Qumran pesharim which, as
already noted by many scholars, share both terminology and literary form with biblical dreams
(Genesis 40–41; Daniel). In the pesharim, the biblical text is quoted and then its interpretation
is marked off by the technical term (‫ פשר)ו‬or some variant thereof. The pesharim also contain
examples in which a complete unit (usually a verse or more) is interpreted, followed by the re-
quotation and interpretation of a specific expression or clause from within the complete unit
(generally introduced by ‫ ;)ואשר אמר‬cf. Nitzan 1986, 8–10; and note the following examples:
1QpHab 5:12–16 (quotation of Hab 1:14–16) followed by 6:2–3 (Hab 1:16a) and 6:5 (Hab 1:16b); 8:13
(Hab 2:7–8a) and 9:3–4 (Hab 2:8a); 9:12–15 (Hab 2:9–11) and 10:2 (Hab 2:10b) (although Bernstein
[1994] has argued that this is more distinctively characteristic of Pesher Habakkuk than the other
pesharim).
14 Henze (1999, 15) notes these transitions in the narrative voice, and suggests that they demar-
cate the progression between scenes. Charles (1929, 81) did not appreciate the literary aspect of
these transitions, and blamed a negligent redactor for this supposed anomaly (adduced as sup-
port for his assertion that OG preserved the more original version of the chapter): “The redactor
has here forgotten to transform these features of the narrative form in the third person into that of
the prescript form in the first.” In contrast, Montgomery (1927, 223), Hartman and Di Lella (1978,
174 [citing a similar transition from first to third person in Tobit]), Meadowcroft (1995, 34–37), all
noted potential literary aspects of these transitions.
4.2 Secondary Elements in MT Daniel 4
Having outlined the structure of this passage (using the MT text as a basis for
discussion), I now turn towards identifying the secondary elements in MT,
starting with a relatively straightforward addition, accepted as such by most
scholars.
4.2.1 Daniel 4:3–7a,15
Many scholars have already noted that OG does not feature a parallel to MT 4:3–7a,
in which Nebuchadnezzar summons the Babylonian wise men, who are unable to
interpret his dream.¹⁵ In keeping with this passage, MT v. 15 contrasts the abilities
of Daniel with those of the Babylonian magicians, describing Daniel’s success at
interpreting the dream where the Babylonian wise men have failed:
Dan 4:15
‫דנה חלמא חזית אנה מלכא נבוכדנצר ואנתה‬ I, King Nebuchadnezzar, had this dream;
‫)ואנת( בלטשאצר פשרא אמר כל־קבל די כל־‬ now you, Belteshazzar, tell me its meaning,
‫חכימי מלכותי לא־יכלין פשרא להודעותני ואנתה‬ since all the wise men of my kingdom are not
:‫)ואנת( כהל די רוח־אלהין קדישין בך‬ able to make its meaning known to me, but
you are able, for the spirit of the holy gods is
in you.
In contrast, OG v. 15 has no such comparison at this point:¹⁶
15 Identified as secondary to MT by Charles (1929, 81–82); Henze (1999, 14 [n. 13], 26–27). Mont-
gomery (1927, 247) suggests the reverse process, viz., that MT vv. 3–6 are original and omitted
secondarily in OG, since the king should have learned his lesson in chapter 2. Satran (1985, 70–
72) raises both possibilities for the direction of development, suggesting that ultimately a deci-
sion in this matter is dependent upon “one’s basic orientation regarding the nature of the Old
Greek.”
16 The specific formulation of OG 4:15 is similar to OG 2:48, which reads: καὶ ἀπέδειξεν αὐτὸν
ἄρχοντα καὶ ἡγούμενον πάντων τῶν σοφιστῶν Βαβυλωνίας “(…) and designated him ruler
and leader of all the savants of Babylon”; contrast MT 2:48: ‫]והשׁלטה …[ ורב־סגנין על כל־חכימי‬
‫[“ בבל‬and made him] … chief prefect of all the wise men of Babylon.” This may suggest that
OG 4:15 also reflects the result of harmonization with Daniel 2, and therefore, while represent-
ing an earlier textual stage than MT 4:15, still does not reflect the original formulation of this
verse.
Secondary Elements in MT Daniel 4 103
Dan 4:15 (OG)
καὶ ἀναστὰς τὸ πρωὶ ἐκ τῆς κοίτης μου And when I arose in the morning from my bed,
ἐκάλεσα τὸν Δανιηλ τὸν ἄρχοντα τῶν I called Daniel, the ruler of the savants and
σοφιστῶν καὶ τὸν ἡγούμενον τῶν κρινόντων τὰ the leader of those who decide dreams, and I
ἐνύπνια καὶ διηγησάμην αὐτῷ τὸ ἐνύπνιον, καὶ described the dream for him, and he showed
ὑπέδειξέ μοι πᾶσαν τὴν σύγκρισιν αὐτοῦ. me its entire interpretation.
The OG version preserves no trace of the competition between Daniel and the
Babylonian wise men. It has been plausibly suggested that vv. 3–6 were added to
the MT version under the influence of chapters 2 and 5, as part of the redactional
process by which the stories of chapters 1–6 were combined.¹⁷ This addition led
in turn to the reformulation of v. 15, to state that Daniel had been invited to the
king’s court only after the Babylonians had failed. According to this understand-
ing, there was no contest motif in chapter 4 in the original form of the story.
The secondary nature of vv. 3–6 may also be discerned from the somewhat
odd order of events in MT. According to MT, Nebuchadnezzar relates that he had a
dream, called the wise men, told it to them, and asked them to interpret it, a task
which they were unable to fulfill. The reader, however, is left in the dark at this
stage regarding the contents of the dream. Nebuchadnezzar’s story then continues
with the entry of Daniel, to whom the king recounted the dream.¹⁸ At this point,
the reader and Daniel are simultaneously informed of the dream in its entirety,
and the latter is seen to be successful at its interpretation. A more consistent liter-
17 The same phenomenon of connecting the originally distinct stories is found in 5:18–22, where
Daniel rebukes Belshazzar for behaving haughtily just like his father Nebuchadnezzar, with a
clear reference to the story in Daniel 4. These verses are missing from the Old Greek version of
chapter 5, and were probably added in the version reflected in the MT in order to tighten the
connection between the stories; see chap. 3 above, p. 58 [at n. 12]. Meadowcroft (1995, 32–33)
suggests that OG Daniel 4–5 reflects a stage when the various Daniel stories were still independ-
ent from one another, but also allows for the possibility that OG Daniel 4 has systematically
reworked MT so as to avoid having Daniel appear in the same category as the Babylonian magi-
cians. However, this latter suggestion is unlikely, since: (a) (as I have just noted) a similar harmo-
nistic technique is used in chapter 5 MT, with identical textual evidence; (b) in chapters 2 and 5,
OG has not removed the explicit contest motif between Daniel and the Babylonians, thus making
it unlikely that this motif was originally present in its version of Daniel 4.
18 The formulation of MT v. 6b – ‫“ ֶחזְ וֵ י חלמי די־חזית ופשׁרה אמר‬tell me the visions of my dream
that I have seen and its interpretation” – also seems to reflect influence from chapters 2 and
5, since according to 4:4 the king had already revealed his dream to the Babylonian wise men
(I thank Amanda Bledsoe for pointing this out to me). Numerous commentators (e.g. Montgom-
ery [1927, 228]; BHS; Collins [1993, 208]) note this tension between vv. 4 and 6, and therefore
suggest reading ‫“ ֲחזִ י‬behold (my dream)!” instead of MT ‫ ֶחזְ וֵ י‬.
ary sequence would have been achieved had the narrator described the dream
in detail at the first stage, either before or along with the appearance of the wise
men before the king. In contrast, the order of OG is logically consistent: the king
first describes his dream, and only after he completes this step does he call Daniel
and ask for his assistance in interpretation (cf. Pharaoh’s dreams in Genesis 41,
which are first recounted to the reader; only subsequently are the various poten-
tial interpreters summoned). This illogical sequence can also be understood as an
indication of the secondary influence of chapters 2 and 5 upon chapter 4. In those
stories, both the interpreters and the reader are left uninformed of the contents of
the revelation when the interpreters are first summoned, since ascertaining the
contents is part of the challenge posed by the king. In those contexts, it makes
eminent sense that the contents of the revelation be revealed only following Dan-
iel’s appearance. Verses 3–6 were added into MT Daniel 4 under the influence of
chapters 2 and 5, and I suggest that the pattern of those stories was also superim-
posed upon chapter 4, even if its fit was not entirely appropriate.
4.2.2 Daniel 4:13a
Additional secondary elements in MT within Nebuchadnezzar’s recounting of his

own dream have escaped the notice of some scholars, most particularly the case
of v. 13a.
Verses 7–12 relate the vision of the growth of an enormous tree. When the tree
has grown to colossal proportions, an angel appears and decrees that it should
be chopped down, leaving only the essence of its roots. Verse 13a then reads:
‫“ לבבה מן־אנושא )אנשא( ישנון ולבב חיוה יתיהב לה‬Let its/his mind be altered from
that of a man, and let it/him be given the mind of a beast.” The placement of this
verse at this point in the narrative is puzzling within the context of the dream
report. The subject of the preceding verses, both grammatically and topically, is
either the tree that has been felled or the solitary root that was left, neither of
which has a human heart that can be altered. There is no indication until now
that the tree itself has been anthropomorphized, and it is therefore difficult to
justify this transition on internal literary grounds; rather, it denotes “a lapse of
internal consistency.”¹⁹ Some scholars have previously suggested that a transi-
tion from the tree imagery to the human subject occurs within the dream report,
but they generally locate this transition in v. 12, with reference to the image of
19 Collins (1993, 227), in reference to v. 12.

binding in fetters of iron and bronze.²⁰ As will be argued below, this imagery in
fact still refers to the tree, and therefore the problematic transition does not occur
until v. 13.
Some have suggested that we have here a literary technique or phenomenon,
a kind of foreshadowing through which the interpretation has crept into the alle-
gory itself,²¹ and we should therefore not rush to assume that v. 13 constitutes
a secondary addition to the dream. However, two further pieces of information
bolster the suggestion that the passage is an insertion. First, MT v. 13a has no par-
allel in OG.²² Second, an examination of the structure of MT chapter 4 delineated
above helps to further demonstrate the secondary nature of this half-verse. In
order to assess the original or secondary nature of v. 13a, let us reexamine section
B 2b (v. 20), which parallels vv. 10–13. I submit that B 2b functions as an “inter-
nal” textual witness to these latter verses, quoted within the text of Daniel 4. If
we examine B 2b carefully, it immediately becomes apparent that v. 13a is absent
from this citation as well; the narrative “skips” to the time frame of seven years. I
suggest that the original formulation of Daniel 4 did not contain v. 13a, and there-
fore when the author referred back to the dream report within the interpretation,
he did so according to the version of the dream which he found in the previous
section, and which he presumably penned himself. When v. 13a was added to the
text of Daniel 4 (as attested in MT), the execution was imperfect; it was added in
the dream report, but the scribe neglected to add it to the interpretation as well.
This incomplete execution, however, allows us to trace the process of the devel-
opment of the text.
20 See Haag (1983, 18); Collins (1984, 63–64; 1993, 227); Wills (1990, 108–9), all of whom suggest
that this problematic transition resulted from the combination of two different sources, each
with distinctive imagery.
21 HaCohen and Kil (1994, 92 [n. 48]), suggest that this is characteristic of biblical allegory
(‫ ;)משל‬see also Meadowcroft (1995, 48–49).
22 The motif of the changed heart is not completely absent from the chapter in OG, and appears
in v. 30bα: καὶ αἱ τρίχες μου ἐγένοντο ὡς πτέρυγες ἀετοῦ, οἱ ὄνυχές μου ὡσεὶ λέοντος· ἠλλοιώθη
ἡ σάρξ μου καὶ ἡ καρδία μου, γυμνὸς περιεπάτουν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων τῆς γῆς. “And my hair be-
came like wings of an eagle, my nails like those of a lion. My flesh and my heart were changed. I
would walk about naked with the animals of the field” (NETS). This however is already referring
to the fulfilment of the dream and therefore makes sense in that context. Furthermore, as will
be suggested below (n. 23), v. 30bα itself appears to be secondary within the OG, and therefore it
will not be brought to bear on the question of the place of v. 13a in the textual history of Daniel 4.
Similarly, the allusion in 5:21 (MT) to the transformation of Nebuchadnezzar’s heart and mind to
those of a beast refers to this same enactment of the dream, and not to the image of the tree (and
see n. 17 above on the secondary nature of this passage).
Why would a scribe decide to add such a text? The most plausible possibil-
ity is that it was added in order to assimilate the dream report and the eventual
fulfillment at the end of the chapter to one another. According to v. 30, “He was
driven away from men, he ate grass like cattle, and his body was drenched with
the dew of heaven until his hair grew like eagle’s feathers and his nails like the
talons of birds” (cf. also vv. 22,29). If v. 30 describes how the king underwent a
process of “animalization” that lasted for seven years then it would have been
troubling for a scribe that such an important element of his punishment was
missing from the original heavenly decree. Furthermore, vv. 31 and 33 both refer
to the king’s “reason” or “wits” being “restored” to him at the end of the seven-
year period. Verse 13a was therefore added to provide a “source” for these fea-
tures that are so prevalent in this realization.²³ This scribal phenomenon is well-
attested, of course, in the (pre-)Samaritan version of the Pentateuch, where the
source or fulfillment of biblical commands were frequently added by a scribe.²⁴
While this explanation offers a convincing reason for why a scribe felt the need to
add this verse, he did so by extending the original intent of Daniel 4. According to
v. 30, the king is to become animal-like because he is to be removed from civiliza-
tion for seven years, without recourse to any of the normal grooming activities
that people perform regularly, such as cutting one’s hair and nails. This does not
mean that he will actually be transformed into an eagle or a bird. He will live
outside and be forced to eat “grass” because he will be unable to avail himself of
23 The motif of animalization is found at a later point in OG, at 4:30a–c, but there too one finds
signs of its secondary status within its context. Verse 30a refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s supplica-
tion before God regarding his sins following the seven-year period during which he was forced to
eat like an animal. Verse 30bα then moves backwards chronologically to the topic of his animali-
zation, going beyond the description found in 30a and referring to his intrinsic transformation
and reception of the heart of an animal. (Verse 30bβ, which describes Nebuchadnezzar’s dream
and foreboding, seems completely out of place, connected neither to that which precedes or suc-
ceeds it. It may represent an alternative translation of 4:2 – ‫חלם חזית וידחלנני והרהרין על־משכבי‬
‫ – וחזוי ראשי יבהלנני‬somehow transposed to the end of the chapter.) Verse 30c returns once again
to the king’s supplication to God and recognition of divine sovereignty over the world. This is
probably another instance of resumptive repetition. That is, v. 30b was added to the text fol-
lowing the king’s supplication (the break in sequence already hints at its secondary nature);
cf. similarly Wills (1990, 95). Following this addition, the scribe repeated the supplication in
order to refocus the text and the reader back to the point at which the new material was added
(cf. above, nn. 11–12). If this is the case, the motif of actual animalization was originally absent.
Instead, the author portrayed the king as descending socially to the polar opposite position of his
current status, describing the king as acting in an animal-like fashion in outward behavior and
appearance, but not having undergone an internal transformation.
24 See Tov (1998); Segal (2007a, 10–17).
any of civilization’s amenities, and will therefore be forced to live like an animal.
But it is a further logical jump to assume that he has been transformed internally
and acquired the nature of a beast.²⁵ The addition in v. 13a reflects an interpreta-
tion of the text in v. 30, which transforms the thrust of the original passage.
Perhaps I can also offer an explanation for the specific formulation of the sec-
ondary interpolation, which also accounts for its content. The Aramaic of v. 13a
reads: ‫לבבה מן־אנושא )אנשא( ישנון ולבב חיוה יתיהב לה‬. This formulation is mir-
rored by one other verse in Daniel, 7:4: ‫ונטילת מן־ארעא ועל־רגלין כאנש הקימת ולבב‬
‫“ אנש יהיב לה‬and it was lifted off the ground and set on its feet like a man and
given the mind/heart of a man.” Most scholars who have noted this parallel have
generally assumed that the direction of influence is from chapter 4 to chapter 7,
and that the description of the transformation of the first kingdom from beast to
man is a reversal of the description in this earlier chapter.²⁶ However, in light of
the analysis here, perhaps the direction of influence needs to be reversed, and
we can suggest that chapter 7 has influenced the formulation of the addition in
chapter 4.
25 Satran (1985, 76) similarly suggests that neither MT nor OG posit a true metamorphosis, but
rather describe the natural result of the king’s sojourn in the wilderness (although he does not
incorporate v. 13a explicitly in this analysis). Henze (1999, 30) correctly distinguishes between
v. 13 which describes the king’s (or the tree’s) metamorphosis and v. 30 which refer to his mental
confusion, although he does not suggest that the earlier verse is secondary to the pericope.
26 Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel, 4.2.9–10 (cf. Bonwetsch [2000, 198–99]) and Jerome (ref-
erenced by Collins [1993, 297]) viewed 7:4 as an allusion to the restoration of the king at the end
of Daniel 4 (although Jerome also raised the possibility that 7:4 referred to the kingdom of Baby-
lonia in general, which became aware of its frail, “human” nature after its defeat at the hands of
the Medes and Persians). Collins (1993, 297) suggests regarding 7:4 that “the remarkably positive
comment on the first beast is presumably influenced by the conversion of Nebuchadnezzar in
the earlier chapter [4].” Ginsberg (1948, 65 [n. 7]), which was subsequently adopted by Hart-
man and Di Lella (1978, 202, 212–13), posited an overly invasive rearrangement of the text of 7:4,
such that the final clauses in the verse did not refer originally to the first kingdom; cf. chap. 5
below [n. 44], for an argument against this reading. It can be further observed that the similari-
ties between the verses in chapters 4 and 7 (irrespective of the question of the direction of influ-
ence) bolsters the assumption that they both refer to the Babylonian monarch(y), as reflected in
chapter 7.
4.2.3 Daniel 4:14b
Verse 14b may also be demonstrated to be secondary. As already noted by Haag,

and subsequently adopted by Collins, the meter of this clause is no longer bal-
anced, as was the previous section of the dream report:²⁷
This sentence is decreed by the Watchers; this verdict is commanded by the Holy Ones so
that all creatures may know that the Most High is sovereign over the realm of man, and He
gives it to whom He wishes and He may set over it even the lowest of men.
This half-verse seems out of place in the dream report, and makes better sense
within the context of the interpretation. At the current stage, the king does not
understand what he has seen and therefore needs Daniel to interpret on his
behalf. If v. 14b had originally been part of the dream, it would have been rela-
tively straightforward for the king to determine its message, i.e., that Nebuchadn-
ezzar should recognize the sovereignty of the Most High over all humanity.
This argument can be strengthened by the presence of this verse subsequently
in the chapter, at vv. 22 and 29. Verse 22 is part of Daniel’s interpretation in section
B 2b′, and v. 29 is part of the quotation of the heavenly voice in B 3a. Both of those
verses pertain to stages in the narrative at which the meaning of the vision had
already been clarified to Nebuchadnezzar and therefore fit the context well. At
the same time, the clause is absent from the quotation of the dream in section
B 2b, which, as in the case of v. 13a discussed above, functions as an “internal”
textual witness to the original content of the dream. In this instance, however,
since there is no textual witness from which v. 14b is absent, I offer the sugges-
tion of this verse’s secondary status more tentatively than my other arguments for
secondary interpolations in Daniel 4.
I propose that a very common textual phenomenon led to the addition of
v. 14b. The phrase ‫“ ושבעה עדנין יחלפון עלוהי‬and let seven seasons pass over
him” appears at the end of v. 13. This is almost identical to a phrase that appears
in vv. 22 and 29, apart from the fact that in those verses it is formulated in the
second person instead of the third person (‫ושבעה עדנין יחלפון עליך )עלך‬. In each
of the latter two verses, this phrase is followed by a clause, ‫עד די־תנדע די־שליט‬
‫עליא )עלאה( במלכות אנשא ולמן־די יצבא יתננה‬, which is nearly identical to v. 14b.
Perhaps the similarity of the phrase at the end of v. 13 led to the secondary attrac-
tion of the following clause in vv. 22 and 29; with the addition of v. 14b, the dream
report was harmonized with those later sections.²⁸
27 Haag (1983, 18); Collins (1993, 228).

28 Haag (1983, 18) suggests that this clause was added by the same scribe who added v. 13a,
Secondary Elements in OG 109
4.3 Secondary Elements in OG
The discussion until this point has focused on a number of examples in which OG
preserves an earlier form of the text than MT. The discussion from now until the
end of this section will address those details in which the form of OG is demon-
strably secondary to that of MT.²⁹
4.3.1 Solving an Interpretive Crux – “in fetters of iron and bronze”
Having established above what I suggest is the original text of the dream report
(Section B 1), I would like here to analyze its meaning and investigate one inter-
pretive crux that has until now gone unsolved. The meaning of the dream as
explained by Daniel is that the tree represents King Nebuchadnezzar, who due
to his strength has become haughty, and who does not recognize that the Most
High God is greater than he. As noted by many scholars, the use of tree imagery to
represent a proud king or sovereign is not an innovation of the author of Daniel 4,
but rather can be identified in other biblical texts, especially in various pro-
phetic passages.³⁰ Perhaps the best examples of this metaphor can be found in
Ezekiel 31:
due to the presence of the identical form ‫ אנושא‬in both verses. However, this seems to me to
be too common a word to serve as the basis for such a claim, even if it is written in distinctive
orthography, and I therefore refrain from drawing a direct connection between them. It must
be admitted that the presence of v. 14a (between vv. 13b and 14b) weakens the transmissional
process posited here. Perhaps it can be further conjectured that v. 14a is also secondary, or even
tertiary, to the addition of v. 14b, since otherwise the somewhat technical slip of the quill posited
here would have been less likely to occur. Verse 14 in its entirety is absent from the recapitulation
of the dream in Section B 2b, which ends its quotation with v. 13b. In addition, v. 14a is somewhat
redundant with the beginning of v. 10, which already makes it clear that these are the words
of the Watcher. However, neither of these factors is conclusive, and the half-verse in question
(v. 14a) does not actually affect the content of the dream. Therefore its presence or absence is not
significant for its interpretation.
29 Some of these elements have been discussed by scholars previously, and they will therefore
be addressed here only briefly. In particular, see the extensive discussion of the secondary nature
of OG in Satran (1985, 62–94). Taking into consideration the discussion above regarding second-
ary elements in MT Daniel 4, it will be argued below that OG rewrote an earlier version of Daniel
4 different from MT (contra Satran who views OG as an exegetical reworking of MT).
30 See Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 176); Di Lella (1981, 255). Coxon (1986) surveys the meaning
and use of tree metaphors in the Bible, focusing in on Ezekiel 17 and 31 among others. He also
briefly mentions Isa 10:33 and 11:1, but skips 10:34 (p. 106). See also Kvanvig (1988, 476–80);
Goldingay (1989, 83); Henze (1999, 77–78).
(1) In the eleventh year, in the third month, on the first day of the month, the word of the
Lord came to me: (2) Mortal, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his hordes: Whom are
you like in your greatness? (3) Consider Assyria, a cedar of Lebanon, with fair branches
and forest shade, and of great height, its top among the clouds. (4) The waters nourished
it, the deep made it grow tall, making its rivers flow around the place where it was planted,
sending forth its streams to all the trees of the field. (5) So it towered high above all the trees
of the field; its boughs grew large and its branches long, from abundant water in its shoots.
(6) All the birds of the air made their nests in its boughs; under its branches all the animals of
the field gave birth to their young; and in its shade all great nations lived. (7) It was beautiful
in its greatness, in the length of its branches; for its roots went down to abundant water …
(10) Therefore, thus says the Lord God: Because it towered high and set its top among the
clouds, and its heart was proud of its height, (11) I gave it into the hand of the prince of the
nations; he has dealt with it as its wickedness deserves. I have cast it out. (12) Foreigners
from the most terrible of the nations have cut it down and left it. On the mountains and in
all the valleys its branches have fallen, and its boughs lie broken in all the watercourses of
the land; and all the peoples of the earth went away from its shade and left it. (13) On its
fallen trunk settle all the birds of the air, and among its boughs lodge all the wild animals …
The prophet warns Pharaoh, king of Egypt, that he will suffer the same fate as
the king of Assyria. The king or kingdom of Assyria is represented by a tree of
almost identical description to that found in Daniel 4. Ezekiel’s tree is also of
great height, reaching the clouds. All animals and birds, and even the nations of
the world, benefit from its abundance and protection. But due to its pride, God
declared that this tall tree would be cut down and deserted by the peoples of the
earth or world. Ezekiel 31 (and especially vv. 5–6) parallels Daniel 4, both in terms
of the physical description of the tree, and in the symbolism of its grandeur and
subsequent destruction.
Similarly, in Ezekiel 17, when the prophet describes the exile to Babylonia of
the Judean King Jehoachin, his replacement by Zedekiah, and Zedekiah’s subse-
quent betrayal of Babylonia and alliance with Egypt, he does so using metaphors
of trees. Jehoachin is represented as a great cedar, while Zedekiah is symbolized
by the much more humble grapevine, which eventually dries up. In this instance,
it is the Davidic kings who are identified with trees, while the Babylonian and
Egyptian kingdoms are each represented by eagles. The prophecy ends on a posi-
tive note in Ezekiel 17:22–24:
(22) Thus says the Lord God: I myself will take a sprig from the lofty top of a cedar; I will set
it out. I will break off a tender one from the topmost of its young twigs; I myself will plant it
on a high and lofty mountain. (23) On the mountain height of Israel I will plant it, in order
that it may produce boughs and bear fruit, and become a noble cedar. Under it every kind of
bird will live; in the shade of its branches will nest winged creatures of every kind. (24) All the
trees of the field shall know that I am the Lord. I bring low the high tree, I make high the
low tree; I dry up the green tree and make the dry tree flourish. I the Lord have spoken; I
will accomplish it.
At some future point, God will replant a tree in Israel’s lofty highlands, and like
the tree in Daniel 4, this tree will be fruitful and offer protection to animals (v. 23).
It is here that we see why the tree is such an apt biblical metaphor for kingdoms –
a proud tree can be felled, and a vine can wither away, but there is always the
realization and the hope that with divine assistance, the tree can grow back to its
original glory. As long as a small part of the tree survives, there is always a chance
for the tree to regenerate. Therefore, in Dan 4:12, when the angelic being declares
that the tree representing Nebuchadnezzar will be cut down, he announces that
a root should be left in the ground. In light of the passages from Ezekiel that we
have just seen, it is clear why the root will remain – it will allow for the return
of the tree when Nebuchadnezzar realizes that God alone is sovereign in the
world.
But what is the meaning of the expression of “in fetters of iron and bronze”
(Dan 4:12, 20)? Two primary approaches to this question have been suggested,
although neither of them is entirely satisfactory. According to the first approach,
the iron and bronze refer to some kind of reinforcement for the root that will
strengthen it and help it survive until its recovery, perhaps even to prevent it
from cracking.³¹ As noted by many scholars, however, no real parallels exist in
the ancient world to this technique.³² Evidence for a Mesopotamian custom of
placing metal bands on trees has been unearthed, and some interpreters relate
this to Daniel 4.³³ In Khorsabad, archeologists discovered the remains of a
cedar staff or “tree” with bronze rings or bands at the entrance of the Temple of
Shamash (from the reign of Sargon II, 721–705 BCE).³⁴ Similarly, cylinder seals
and slabs from the palace of Ashurbanipal II (885–856 BCE) at Nimrud feature
heavy bands of metal around the trunks of trees.³⁵ Furthermore, the throne-room
of Nebuchadnezzar’s palace in Babylon contained a façade depicting palm trees,
each with four green and yellow rings encircling the trunks.³⁶ However, in none
31 Von Lengerke (1835, 172): “Dass der Wurzelstamm mit Eisenbanden umklammert wird, ge-
schieht, um ihn vor Sprüngen und Rissen und völligem Untergange zu bewahren”; Coxon (1986,
107).
32 Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 176); Collins (1993, 226); Henze (1999, 85).
33 The survey of the Mesopotamian evidence here is based upon Henze (1999, 85–90).
34 Loud (1936, 104–5); Kvanvig (1988, 479–80); Collins (1993, 226); Henze, (1999, 88–90).
35 Stearns (1961, 67–69); Moortgat (1969, plates 257–258); Collins (1993, 226); Henze (1999, 79,
85–88). Smith (1926, 72) describes the use of these bands as part of the liturgical service of the
Assyrian New Year’s festival.
36 Strommenger (1964, plate 278 and pp. 462–63); Moortgat (1969, 161 and plate 292); Orthmann
(1975, 284, 326 [plate XXV]); Koch (1993, 104–6); Henze (1999, 85–86).
of these instances does one find metal bands around the root of a tree. As Collins
has noted, “the application of a bond or fetter to the root of a tree that has been
cut down is unintelligible.”³⁷
A second line of interpretation, followed from antiquity until today, is that
the text here has already moved from the metaphorical image of the tree to the
real world of the punished king, and it is this flesh-and-blood king who is to be
bound with metal restraints. In such a reading, the shackles serve as a further
punishment for the king, and not as a positive attempt to preserve the tree.³⁸ The
OG version interprets the dream in this fashion, accomplishing this by moving
the bronze and metal fetters two verses later, to v. 14a, as part of the description
of the king who was transformed into a beast of the field:³⁹ “It ate grass with the
wild beasts of the earth. It was imprisoned and was bound by them with bronze
fetters and manacles”; compare v. 30a, “I, Nebuchadnezzar was shackled for
seven years.” However, the Greek text in v. 14a is somewhat unclear, since at the
beginning of the verse the subject of the sentence is the tree itself, which is being
cut down. Many modern commentators are explicit about the punitive function of
these shackles; however this results in an unusual reference to animal-like pun-
ishment in the middle of the description of the tree.
I would like to offer an alternative explanation of this difficult phrase as
resulting from the dynamics of inner-biblical interpretation.⁴⁰ Another prophetic
passage that refers to the fall of kingdoms using a similar tree metaphor is Isa
10:32–11:1, in which the prophet relates to the mighty Assyrian empire.⁴¹ As he
notes at the end of chapter 10, the Assyrian army will approach Jerusalem:
37 Collins (1993, 226). Koch (1993, 106–9) intriguingly suggests that the best parallels to the im-
agery of Daniel 4 can be found in stelae from Harran and Teima that depict Nabonidus holding
a long scepter encircled by metal rings. While this option is appealing due to the combination of
Nabonidus and metal rings, it does not seem to pertain to bands around the root of a tree.
38 Albertz (1988, 72); Collins (1993, 26–27); Henze (1999, 84–85).
39 OG 4:14a reflects a fulfillment of the warning within the dream itself, and is therefore almost
certainly secondary (Bruce 1977, 29; Satran 1985, 74–75); see below for a discussion of the Semitic
Vorlage of the verse.
40 A similar explanation was suggested independently by Zakovitch (2010, 68). He suggests that
the root ‫ נק"ף‬was understood to have the meaning “to tie,” close in its semantic range to ‫נִ ְק ָפּה‬
“rope” of Isa 3:24 (ibid., n. 15).
41 Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 176); Coxon (1986:106); Wills (1990, 108).
Isa 10:32–34
(-‫( עוד היום בנב לעמד ינפף ידו הר בית)בת‬32) (32) This same day at Nob He shall stand and
‫( הנה האדון ה' צבאות‬33) .‫ציון גבעת ירושלם‬ wave his hand. O mount of Fair Zion! O hill
‫מסעף פארה במערצה ורמי הקומה גדועים‬ of Jerusalem! (33) Lo! The Sovereign Lord of
‫( וְ נִ ַקּף סבכי היער בברזל‬34) .‫והגבהים ישפלו‬ Hosts will hew off the tree-crowns with an ax:
.‫והלבנון באדיר יפול‬ the tall ones shall be felled, the lofty ones cut
down. (34) The thickets of the forest shall be
hacked away with iron, and the Lebanon trees
shall fall in their majesty (or: by the bronze –
NJPS).
The advancing Assyrian army wishes to reach Nob, within sight of Jerusalem, on
that very day, in order to threaten the holy city. Just as they are about to achieve
their goal the invaders are thwarted, an event described here using the imagery
of trees. Following multiple metaphors for the felling of trees, such as ‫ורמי הקומה‬
‫“( גדועים והגבהים ישפלו‬the tall ones shall be felled, the lofty ones cut down”), we
find in v. 34 the expression ‫וְ נִ ַקּף סבכי היער בברזל‬. Based upon the context, we can
deduce that the meaning of the verb ‫ נקף‬here is not the predominant sense of ‫נקף‬
in the Bible (to which we will momentarily return), but is the relatively rare root
with the meaning “hit, strike off; cut down (undergrowth).”⁴² This root appears
as a verb only one more time, in Job 19:26, in a somewhat different context. More
directly related to our verse is the nominal form, found twice in the collocation
‫“ ְכּנ ֶֹקף זית‬as when the olive tree is beaten” (Isa 17:6; 24:13). In these verses, the
noun refers to the striking of an olive tree in order to cause the olives to fall to
the ground, leaving the tree mostly bare with only gleanings remaining. This
is done with the assistance of a hard stick or instrument, which is applied with
force to the tree. Returning to Isa 10:34, the contextual meaning of this verse is
that God will hit or beat the ‫ סבכי היער‬with an iron rod. The term ‫ סבך‬refers to
a thicket or undergrowth, in this case in the forest; the verse conveys that God
will both fell the highest tree and clear away the low brush surrounding it. In
the following verse, Isa 11:1, we find the famous messianic prophecy regarding
the Davidic line, which continues this same tree imagery: ‫ויצא חטר מגזע ישי ונצר‬
‫משרשיו יפרה‬. “But a shoot shall grow out of the stump of Jesse, a twig shall sprout
from his roots.” In contrast to the humbling of the Assyrian empire, as reflected
in the cutting down of the tall trees and the clearing away of any underbrush,
Isaiah prophesies that the lowly root or stump of the Davidic line, which in his
42 Biblical dictionaries list these as two separate verbs 1‫ נקף‬and 2‫נקף‬. BDB, 668–69; HALOT, 722;
DCH (5:753–54); Kaddari (2006, 729).
time paled in comparison to the mighty foreign kingdoms, will return and grow
again.
How does all of this relate to the iron fetters in Daniel 4? I suggest that the
crucial line in Isaiah is the phrase ‫ונקף סבכי היער בברזל‬. As already noted, the
more common meaning of 2‫ נקף‬is “encircle, surround.” Thus, for example: ‫וסבתם‬
‫“ את העיר כל אנשי המלחמה הקיף את העיר פעם אחת‬Let all your troops march
around the city (and) complete one circuit of the city” (Josh 6:3); ‫והקפתם על המלך‬
‫“ סביב‬You shall surround the king on every side” (2Kgs 11:8). If an interpreter
read the passage in Isaiah 10–11 describing the fall of empires using metaphors of
trees, they could easily understand this verb according to its more common usage
(2‫)נקף‬:⁴³ God will cut down the tall tree representing the foreign king, and he will
surround the underbrush with iron. According to this understanding of the verse,
the iron no longer refers to the instrument used to hack away at the underbrush,
but rather to the material used to encircle it. The Isaianic prophecy then continues
with the description of the regeneration of the root of Jesse, the opposite process
of what is to happen to the Assyrian king. The foreign king has been reduced to
a root contained by iron, while the Davidic “root” will arise once again. This is
of course an incorrect understanding of the original prophecy, but I suggest it is
precisely this reading which led to the imagery in Daniel 4. The Babylonian king
Nebuchadnezzar, represented by a tree, will be cut down, and the remnant of
this tree, the roots, will be surrounded by iron fetters. The expression therefore
belongs to the description of the tree, as is found in the order of MT, and was not
originally part of the transition to the allegorical interpretation of the dream (as in
OG). Only by tracing the biblical roots of this imagery is it possible to identify the
interpretive (or mis-interpretive) background of this passage in Daniel 4.
43 This phenomenon of “etymologizing” or “etymological exegesis” has been noted previously

with reference to the ancient translations; cf. Barr (1968, 253–55): “Etymologizing is the pro-
cedure of interpreting a word by reference to the meaning of another (usually a better-known)
Hebrew word which had a similarity to it and could, in more modern terminology, be taken as its
root …” (p. 253); and Tov (1997, 172–80). A similar phenomenon is common in classical midrashic
literature in which the rabbinic interpreters searched for alternate meanings for words from the
biblical text, but those semantic moves have been correctly understood to be a conscious in-
terpretive move by the exegete; cf. the foundational works of Heinemann (1970, 108–30); and
Fraenkel (1991, 89–137).
4.3.2 The Date of the Story
Another secondary element in OG can be found in the unique date formula

appended to the beginning of the story.⁴⁴ The narrative in MT Daniel 4 is not dated
with any precision. It is clear that the episode occurred during the reign of Nebu-
chadnezzar, but there is no further information as to a more specific date.⁴⁵ In
contrast, OG opens the entire story with a date formula: Ἔτους ὀκτωκαιδεκάτου
τῆς βασιλείας Ναβουχοδονοσορ “In the eighteenth year of the reign of Nebuchad-
nezzar.” The same date formula is also found at the beginning of chapter 3 in
the OG, while there is once again no parallel in the MT.⁴⁶ Most scholars assume,
I think correctly, that these formulae are intended to anchor these independ-
ent stories within an appropriate narrative-historical context (using “historical”
here to reflect the perceptions of the biblical authors). Now, if this is the case, we
can ask how identifying the context of the stories in Daniel 3–4 as Nebuchad-
nezzar’s eighteenth year enhances the narrative. This question has been posed
previously, and scholars have looked for the answer by searching throughout the
Bible for events dated to that year. A concordance search reveals that Jer 52:29
(cf. also Jer 32:1) specifies that year as one of three deportations perpetrated by
Nebuchadnezzar, in the seventh, eighteenth, and twenty-third years of his reign
(Jer 52:28–30). While the first and last exiles refer to the Judeans in general, the
middle exile refers specifically to those expelled from Jerusalem: ‫בשנת שמונה‬
‫“ עשרה לנבוכדראצר מירושלם נפש שמנה מאות שלשים ושנים׃‬In the eighteenth
year of Nebuchadrezzar, 832 persons [were exiled] from Jerusalem” (Jer 52:29).
This verse by itself does not give very much historical background to the event
44 Charles (1929, 81) posits that this date is actually original, but was inadvertently omit-
ted when the prescript from the end of chapter 4 (cf.the discussion at p. 119 [n. 57] below for
Charles’s claim that OG is original with regard to the placement of this passage) was transferred
to the beginning of chapter 4 (or end of chapter 3 according to the division in MT).
45 According to the internal logic of the narrative, the episode must have occurred at least eight
years prior to the end of his reign, since twelve months plus seven years pass from the time when
he dreams the dream until he returns to his former status at the end of the story. However, it
is doubtful whether the original story intimated any broader chronological-literary perspective.
46 Bruce (1977, 28) interprets the date in OG to refer to the end of the seven-year period of mad-
ness; if the erection of the golden image in Daniel 3 took place in that same year, then, notes
Bruce, Nebuchadnezzar’s “repentance” described in Daniel 4 “must have been short-lived in-
deed.” He concludes that this is an instance of “editorial ineptitude” and that “presumably there
was no intention of implying such a sequence of events: the date is simply repeated thought-
lessly from its earlier occurrence.” However, it is more likely that the date refers to the point in
time prior to the king’s madness, and therefore coincides with Nebuchadnezzar’s expression of
hubris in chapter 3.
described. Was the exile specifically connected to the destruction of the Temple
and the city of Jerusalem? The interpretation of these three terse verses in Jer-
emiah is complicated by the differences in details that it presents when compared
to the description of Judah’s final years in 2 Kings 24–25 (and its parallel in the
previous section of Jeremiah 52). Among these differences, we find the date of the
deportation from Jerusalem; according to the more extensive descriptions in 2Kgs
25:8,11 and Jer 52:12,15, both the destruction of the Temple and the exile from the
city took place in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.⁴⁷ The question
of the relationship between these two chronologies, and the literary history of
Jeremiah 52, which includes both, is beyond the scope of this discussion.⁴⁸ More
pertinent to the issue at hand is how subsequent interpreters read both of these
accounts. Most modern commentators of Daniel posit that OG 4:1 and 3:1 date the
stories to the eighteenth year on the basis of Jer 52:29 (rather than 2Kgs 24–25 and
Jer 52:1–27),⁴⁹ and suggest that the scribe intended to draw an explicit connection
between the second of these deportations (the Jerusalem deportation) and the
haughtiness of which the king is accused in the dream.⁵⁰ While this connection
capitalizes on the explicit use of the year found in the date formula of OG Dan 4:1,
it offers a somewhat unsatisfying solution. Why would the less prominent dating
of this exile suddenly play the primary role in the dating of Daniel 3–4, instead of
the explicit date of the destruction of the Temple, in the nineteenth year, found
in both 2 Kings 25 and earlier in Jeremiah 52? Are we to assume that the scribe
47 The year is missing from the date formula in LXX Jer 52:12, and thus may have been supple-
mented in MT from 2Kgs 25:8. Alternatively, the year was deliberately omitted in LXX Jeremiah 52
in order to mitigate the tension with v. 29.
48 This question has been discussed by historians who wish to reconstruct the chronological
details of the final years of the kingdom of Judah, in an attempt to synthesize the sometimes
internally contradictory biblical data with the Babylonian Chronicles. For a summary bibliogra-
phy of many of these views, see Green (1982, especially the extensive bibliography on pp. 57–58
[n. 2]). Green himself suggests that the deportations dated to the eighteenth and nineteenth years
of Nebuchadnezzar in fact denote two distinct events. On the level of historical analysis, Green’s
proposed reconstruction appears harmonistic. However, it offers a helpful model for the poten-
tial exegetical motivations of ancient interpreters, who would be interested in offering similar
solutions, as will be suggested below. The broader question of the relationship between Jeremiah
52 and the rest of the book of Jeremiah is also beyond the scope of this study.
49 Montgomery (1927, 198–99, 247); Collins (1993, 180, 222); Henze (1999, 25–26).
50 Collins (1993, 180) notes the deportation mentioned on this date in Jer 52:29 in his discussion
of the date in OG 3:1. Subsequently, on p. 222, he discusses the same date in reference to OG 4:1,
but here associates the destruction of Jerusalem with this date, based upon the same verse in Jer-
emiah. However, it is a matter of interpretation whether the deportation in this verse necessarily
implies the destruction of Jerusalem at the same time.
responsible for the additions in OG Dan 3:1 and 4:1 was completely unaware of the
other passages? This seems to me to be a difficult supposition.⁵¹
I suggest, instead, that we need to slightly expand our temporal horizon
within Daniel 4 in order to properly assess the date given in OG. Nebuchadnezzar
receives his dream vision in the eighteenth year of his reign. However, according
to the internal chronology of Daniel 4 (v. 26), it is only twelve months later, as the
king smugly recounts his accomplishments, that the heavenly voice condemns
him to living out in the field like a beast. If so, while the warning to Nebuchad-
nezzar was communicated to him in the form of a dream in the eighteenth year,
the punishment actually went into effect only in the nineteenth. As noted above,
in contrast to the eighteenth year, the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s king-
ship carries great significance for the history of the destruction of the Judean
kingdom; this was the year that Nebuzaradan, the captain of the king’s guard,
burned down the Temple, at Nebuchadnezzar’s command (2Kgs 25:8 || Jer 52:12).
There could be no greater act of insolence than this destruction, an insolence
even more pronounced when combined with the king’s boastfulness regarding
the great city of Babylon as a sign of his power.
I suggest that in addition to forging a narrative connection between the Dan-
ielic stories and the history of the last days of the Judean kingdom, the addition of
this specific date formula may also address the exegetical question posed by the
presence of the two different dates in Jeremiah 52 (or both 2 Kings 25 and Jeremiah
52). The scribe who added this date formula to the beginning of Daniel 4 may have
understood the twelve-month delay, already present in the Danielic account, as
a way to bridge the gap between the two contradictory dates found in the biblical
sources. According to this reading, Nebuchadnezzar’s lack of recognition of God’s
sovereignty began in his eighteenth year when he exiled the Jerusalemites, but
only reached its zenith twelve months later with his destruction of the Temple,
and it was this act of arrogance that was ultimately answered by the divinely
inflicted punishment of exile.
The emphasis on the destruction of the Temple at the hands of the Baby-
lonian king is further emphasized in another secondary element in the OG,
which appears in v. 19, as part of the dream interpretation that Daniel presents to
Nebuchadnezzar:⁵²
51 It is of course possible that the scribe responsible for OG 4:1 knew of a scroll of Jeremiah that
did not specify the nineteenth year in 52:12 (cf. above n. 47). However, we know of no textual
witness of 2Kgs 25:8 in which this chronological datum is absent or different, and it is therefore
unlikely that the scribe would have been unaware of this date for the burning of the Temple.
52 Charles (1929, 81) recognized that OG 4:19 goes hand-in-hand with the date at the beginning
Dan 4:19(22)
σύ, βασιλεῦ, ὑψώθης ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς You, O king, have been exalted above all
ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ὄντας ἐπὶ προσώπου πάσης humans who are upon the face of the whole
τῆς γῆς, ὑψώθη σου ἡ καρδία ἐν ὑπερηφανίᾳ earth. Your heart was exalted with pride and
καὶ ἰσχύι τὰ πρὸς τὸν ἅγιον καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους power vis-à-vis the holy one and his angels.
αὐτοῦ· τὰ ἔργα σου ὤφθη, καθότι ἐξερήμωσας Your works were seen, how you desolated the
τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος ἐπὶ ταῖς house of the living God pertaining to the sins
ἁμαρτίαις τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ ἡγιασμένου. of the sanctified people.
MT v. 19 provides a short, general description of the greatness of the king and his
sovereignty over the entire world. The description in OG is more detailed and lists
some of the king’s sins: the exaltation of his heart against God and his angels and
particularly his desolation of the Temple.⁵³ If this analysis of the date assigned
to the events of OG Daniel 4 is correct, then the presence of the same date in
chapter 3 can be attributed to one of two possible causes: either a somewhat
mechanical influence of the date of the subsequent chapter on the previous one;⁵⁴
or a conscious attempt to connect the various events of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign,
so that the arrogance demonstrated by the erection of the statue in the plain of
Dura as described in chapter 3 culminates in the destruction of the Temple, an
association created in OG Daniel 4.
of the chapter; similarly Satran (1985, 70), although they differ as to whether both elements are
original (Charles) or secondary (Satran) to this chapter.
53 See below for discussion of the rhetorical function of this addition in linking the portrait of
Nebuchadnezzar with that of Antiochus IV in Daniel 7–12. It must be admitted that one could
argue that there is a certain logical inconsistency within OG’s plot here, since it casts Daniel as
speaking to Nebuchadnezzar in the eighteenth year of his reign, before the Temple had actu-
ally been destroyed, and informing him that one of the primary reasons for his punishment was
that he had ravaged the Temple. Alternatively, one might suggest that the accusation against the
king could refer to the plundering of the Temple (rather than its complete destruction), an event
that occurred a decade earlier, as detailed in 2Kgs 24:13. For a similar context of the Greek verb
(ἐξ)ερημόω “strip bare, desolate, lay waste,” see the discussion below, p. 122.
54 For an example of this phenomenon albeit in the reverse direction, note the secondary date
formula at the beginning of MT Jeremiah 27, ‫“ בראשית ממלכת יהויקם בן־יאושיהו מלך יהודה‬At
the beginning of the reign of King Jehoiakim,” lacking in the LXX, and almost certainly added
under the influence of the opening of Jeremiah 26. Its secondary character is underscored by the
explicit references to Zedekiah in 27:3,12; cf. Tov ([1979] 1999, 321).
4.3.3 Additional Secondary Elements in OG
There are numerous additional elements in the text of OG Daniel 4 that are
demonstrably secondary. Many of these have already been discussed previously
by other scholars, and will therefore only be mentioned briefly here:⁵⁵
(i) As noted above, MT 3:31–33 open the literary unit, which takes the form of
an epistle.⁵⁶ In the OG, these doxological verses were secondarily transferred to
the end of chapter 4 (v. 34c), in order to have this episode conform to the other
stories in Daniel where the same structure is present (cf. Daniel 2:46–48; 6:26–28).
While Charles posited that the OG placement of this pronouncement at the end
of chapter 4 was more original,⁵⁷ it has been convincingly argued that the use of
the future tense of the verb (καὶ νῦν) ὑποδείξω “(and now) I will show/tell” in OG,
following the relation of the entire story, demonstrates its secondary location.⁵⁸
OG’s form of the story is no longer in the form of an epistle, which is only men-
tioned in the final verse of the chapter after the recitation of the story has come
to completion.⁵⁹ The epistolary genre in MT explains the use of first person voice
throughout the dream report until Daniel appears on the scene. The transfer of the
doxology in OG, however, necessitated a new introduction to Nebuchadnezzar’s
first-person voice at the beginning of the chapter, and thus a third-person frame
was introduced in 4:1 – (Ἔτους ὀκτωκαιδεκάτου τῆς βασιλείας) Ναβουχοδονοσορ
εἶπεν εἰρηνεύων ἤμην ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μου καὶ εὐθηνῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου μου “In the
eighteenth year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar said, “I was living at peace in my
home and prospering on my throne.”⁶⁰
(ii) MT vv. 8–9 depicts the size of the tree in general, cosmic proportions:
“The tree grew and became mighty; its top reached heaven. And it was visible
to the ends of the earth …” This description is greatly expanded in the OG, and
includes grander, perhaps even astrological or mythological overtones:⁶¹
55 In particular, the summary here is indebted to chapter 2 of David Satran’s unpublished He-
brew University doctoral dissertation (Satran 1985, 62–94), which offers the most comprehensive
analysis of the secondary nature of OG. At the same time, the larger discussion here regarding the
precise nature of the relationship between MT and OG differs from his.
56 Cf. the discussion in n. 1.
57 Charles (1929, 80–81, 103–6).
58 Montgomery (1927, 248); Grelot (1974a, 17); Satran (1985, 69–70); Henze (1999, 37).
59 Meadowcroft (1995, 33–34).
60 See above for a discussion of the added date formula.
61 Ulrich (1999, 41, 71) suggested that the motif of the luminaries finding shelter in the tree is
a Babylonian astrological motif; see the careful appraisal of this hypothesis by Henze (1999,
81–83).
“And its appearance was great. Its crown came close to heaven, and its span to the clouds,⁶²
filling the area under heaven. The sun and the moon dwelled in it and illuminated the whole
earth. Its branches were about thirty stadia long …”
(iii) OG v. 14a: See the discussion below in my exploration of the Semitic

Vorlage of OG Daniel 4.
(iv) MT v. 16 notes that Daniel was alarmed by the vision (‫)ורעינהי יבהלנה‬
after hearing the contents of the dream from the king. Daniel’s reaction is further
embellished in OG v. 16, including a physical manifestation of his terror at what
he has been told by the king, and at the interpretation to which he was privy:
But since Daniel was greatly amazed and since foreboding pressed him (καί ὑπονοίᾳ
κατασπευθείς) and since he was afraid, as trembling seized him and his appearance
changed (καὶ ἀλλοιωθείσης τῆς ὀράσεως αὐτοῦ), having shaken his head, having marveled
for one hour …”
This addition or expansion serves a literary function within the context of

Daniel 4, but at the same time, its formulation is based upon the language and
content of Belshazzar’s reaction to seeing the writing on the wall, as recounted
in Dan 5:6:⁶³
Dan 5:6 (MT) Dan 5:6 (OG)
‫אדין מלכא זיוהי שנוהי‬ The king’s face καὶ ἡ ὅρασις αὐτοῦ and his appearance
‫ורעינהי יבהלונה‬ darkened, and his ἠλλοιώθη, καὶ was changed, and fore-
‫וקטרי חרצה משתרין‬ thoughts alarmed ὑπόνοιαι αὐτὸν boding pressed him …
‫וארכבתה דא לדא נקשן‬ him; the joints of his κατέσπευδον …
loins were loos-
ened and his knees
knocked together.
OG v. 16 appears to have replaced Daniel’s reaction of general fear with the more
extreme and explicit reflection of terror attributed to the foreign king one chapter
later. It can therefore be described as a harmonization of the story in Daniel 4 to
62 Collins (1993, 224) notes that OG conflates the description of MT here (the tree reaching
heaven) and Ezek 31:3 (its top among the clouds). This bolsters the argument that OG here is
secondary.
63 For a discussion of the meaning of Dan 5:6 in its literary context, see above, chap. 3,
pp. 61–63, 86–87.
the broader context of the book, and therefore by definition reflects a secondary
version of the text of this story.⁶⁴
(v) MT v. 19 follows vv. 8–9 in providing a general description of the great size
of the tree, which represents the greatness of the king and his sovereignty over
the entire world:
Dan 4:19 (MT)
‫אנתה־)אנת־( הוא מלכא די רבית )רבת( ותקפת‬ It is you, O king, you who have grown and
‫ורבותך רבת ומטת לשמיא ושלטנך לסוף ארעא׃‬ become mighty, whose greatness has grown
to reach heaven, and whose dominion is to
the end of the earth.
As we have already seen above, the description in OG goes beyond that of MT,
portraying Nebuchadnezzar’s defiance against God and his angels and linking it
to the ravaging of the Temple. The portrayal of the king’s arrogance against God
and his angels is strongly reminiscent of the depiction of the king who occupies
the central role in the second half of the book, Antiochus IV Epiphanes.⁶⁵ In the
apocalypse of the four beasts in chapter 7, we read the following description of
the fourth beast, representing Greece (MT):
(7) After that, as I looked on in the night vision, there was a fourth beast … (8) While I was
gazing upon these horns, a new little horn sprouted up among them; … and a mouth that
spoke arrogantly. … (20) … the horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spoke arrogantly … (21)
I looked on as that horn made war with the holy ones and overcame them, … (25) He will
speak words against the Most High, and will “speak (against)” ⁶⁶ the ‫קדישי עליונין‬.
According to the generally accepted interpretation of this vision,⁶⁷ Antiochus,

represented here by the little horn, will speak out against God in an act of blas-
phemy, although we do not know the precise contents of his words. He will
somehow harm the ‫קדישי עליונין‬, the heavenly representative(s) of Israel. Accord-
ing to 8:10, the horn “grew as high as the host of heaven and it hurled some stars
64 Satran (1985, 72–74).

65 Grelot (1974a, 15); Bogaert (1984, 206); Meadowcroft (1995, 52–53).
66 See below, chap. 5, p. 151, n. 53 for a discussion of the etymology and meaning of this verb.
67 The discussion here of the apocalypse in Daniel 7 follows a different interpretation than what
I have proposed for the original meaning of the apocalypse, and specifically for the expression
‫( קדישי עליונין‬see below, chap. 5). As I note there, Daniel 7 was reinterpreted soon after its incor-
poration within the Book of Daniel, in accordance with the theological-cosmological approach
outlined here. Not surprisingly, OG Daniel 4 interprets this apocalypse as part of the book as a
whole.
of the heavenly host to the ground and trampled them”; and similarly in the final
vision, at 11:36: “The king will do as he pleases; he will exalt and magnify himself
above every god, and he will speak awful things against the god of gods” – Anti-
ochus indeed will damage the divine retinue. Thus this addition in chapter 4
equates Nebuchadnezzar with Antiochus, and attributes to the former what is
made explicit about the latter in the second half of the book.
A similar attempt to paint Nebuchadnezzar in the colors of Antiochus can
perhaps be found in the linked accusation against Nebuchadnezzar, concerning
his ravaging of the Temple: “Your works were seen, how you ravaged the house of
the living God pertaining to the sins of the sanctified people.” The use of the Greek
verb translated here as “ravaged,” ἐξερήμωσας, appears to be intentional – both
nominal and verbal forms of the Greek word ἔρημος (“desert, desolation”) appear
several times in OG Daniel, almost all of them in the second half of the book, with
the majority in reference to the profaning of the Temple by Antiochus IV. Thus
for example 11:31: “They will defile the sanctuary of fear. And they will remove
the sacrifice and will give an abomination of desolation (βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως)”
(cf. also 8:13; 9:27; 12:11).⁶⁸
(vi) MT v. 28 features a very brief pronouncement regarding the king’s status
as ruler: “the kingdom has passed out of your hands,” before describing how he
is to be driven away from civilization (v. 29). In contrast, OG v. 28 expands and
emphasizes the political implications of Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment:
(The kingdom of Babylon has been taken away from you) and is being given to another,
a contemptible person in your house. Lo, I establish him over your kingdom, and he will
receive your authority and your glory and your luxury so that you may recognize that the
God of heaven has authority in the kingdom of human beings, and he will give it to whom-
ever he desires. Now, by sunrise, another king will rejoice in your house and will take your
glory and your power and your authority.
While this may reflect a secondary identification of a specific successor to Nebu-

chadnezzar’s throne,⁶⁹ Satran notes that may instead represent an “exegetical
development” of MT v. 14: (‫“ ושפל אנשים יקים עליה )עלה‬and He may set over it
68 For a similar usage of (ἐξ)ερημόω “strip bare, desolate, lay waste,” cf. Dan 11:24: ἐξάπινα
ἐρημώσει πόλιν καὶ ποιήσει ὅσα οὐκ ἐποίησαν οἱ πατέρες αὐτοῦ οὐδὲ οἱ πατέρες τών πατέρων
αὐτοῦ · προνομὴν καὶ σκῦλα καὶ χρήματα αὐτοῖς δώσει … “Without warning he will desolate a city
and will do what none of his ancestors nor his ancestors’ ancestors had ever done; he will give
plunder and spoil and money to them …”. Cf. the scholars quoted in n. 65 above.
69 Historically, and as reflected in rabbinic literature, Nebuchadnezzar’s replacement was Evil-
Merodach; cf. Lev. Rab. 18:2 (Margulies ed., 403–4); Montgomery (1927, 222 [n. 2], 248); Satran
(1985, 165–66). Wills (1990, 100), suggests either Evil-Merodach or Nabonidus.
even the lowest of men.” According to the passage in OG, this “lowest of men”
is to emerge from within Nebuchadnezzar’s own house, a most direct reversal of
fortunes. If this identification is the result of such exegetical considerations, then
this would also be an indication of a secondary addition.
(vii) MT Dan 4:22 (as part of the Interpretation of the Dream) and 29 (as part
of the Realization of the Dream) describe the punishment of the king, but leave
the agent of the punishment unstated: “You will be driven away from men … You
will be fed grass like cattle … seven seasons will pass over you …” In contrast, OG
explicitly identifies those forces who will implement this sentence: either “the
Most High and his angels” (vv. 21–22) or “the angels” (v. 29).⁷⁰ The source for
this identification appears to be the presence of an angelic being in MT vv. 10, 20
(‫“ עיר וקדיש‬holy Watcher”), who descends to announce the judgment against the
proud king. According to MT v. 14, “this sentence is decreed by the Watchers; this
verdict is commanded by the Holy Ones so that all creatures may know that the
Most High is sovereign over the human realm.” Satran also notes the addition of
an angel in OG v. 30c, who appears in order to urge Nebuchadnezzar to recognize
divine sovereignty over the world. Satran therefore also suggests the possibility
of a broader theological Tendenz in OG Daniel to insert angels within the cosmo-
logical framework reflected in the biblical text.⁷¹ Whether the addition of these
divine beings is due to exegetical or theological reasons, they can be deemed as
secondary in the textual history of this chapter.
(viii) The theme of the king’s confession and repentance is greatly expanded
and developed in OG vv. 30a, 30c: “(30a) And after seven years I gave my soul to
supplication, and I petitioned before the Lord, the God of heaven, concerning
my sins, and I entreated the great God of gods concerning my ignorance … (30c)
I entreated the great God of gods concerning my ignorance” as compared to MT
v. 31 (“I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven”).⁷²
(ix) OG 4:30b describes the animal-like consequences of Nebuchadnezzar’s
punishment: “And my hair became like wings of an eagle, my nails like those
of a lion (ὡσεὶ λέοντος)”. The second part of this imagery differs from MT 4:30:
“his hair grew like eagle’s feathers and his nails like the talons of birds (‫”)כצפרין‬.
OG 4:30b in its present form corresponds fully with the fauna described in 7:4a:
“The first was like a lion but had eagles’ wings”; this difference between the OG
70 Satran (1985, 78–79). The double agent of the punishment in OG v. 22 appropriately corre-
sponds to the double object of Nebuchadnezzar’s blasphemy in OG v. 19 (as suggested to me by
Ruth Clements).
71 Satran (1985, 79).
72 Satran (1985, 80–81, 85).
and MT was thus probably the result of secondary harmonization in OG 4:30b.⁷³

Theodotion 4:30 (“until his hair lengthened like that of lions and his nails like
those of birds”) is apparently dependent upon both OG and MT, or related textual
witnesses.⁷⁴
(x) Nebuchadnezzar’s hymn of praise in MT v. 34 is greatly expanded in OG
v. 34, primarily by the incorporation of phrases and motifs from elsewhere, creat-
ing “a pastiche of themes and imagery drawn from the book of Daniel and the
wider context of biblical literature.”⁷⁵ In particular, one can see the secondary
influence of Daniel’s prayer in 2:20–23 on the OG version of Nebuchadnezzar’s
hymn, including the following close parallel:⁷⁶
Dan 2:21 (MT) Dan 2:21 (OG) Dan 4:34 (OG)
‫והוא מהשנא עדניא וזמניא‬ καὶ αὐτὸς ἀλλοιοῖ καιροὺς καὶ καὶ ἀλλοιοῖ καιροὺς καὶ
χρόνους χρόνους
He changes times and seasons And he changes seasons and And (he) changes seasons
times and times
‫מהעדה מלכין ומהקים מלכין‬ μεθιστῶν βασιλεῖς καὶ ἀφαιρῶν βασιλείαν

καθιστῶν βασιλέων καὶ καθιστῶν
ἑτέρους ἀντ᾽ αὐτῶν
removes kings and installs deposing kings and setting removing the reign of kings
kings up and setting others in their
place
The examples here can be joined with those discussed earlier in this chapter, to
reinforce the argument that OG reflects a secondary text in numerous details.
4.4 Summary Remarks on the Relationship between

MT and OG
While much of the discussion above related to specific differences between the
textual witnesses to Daniel 4, we can now present more general conclusions
regarding their relationship:
73 Satran (1985, 76–77). Collins (1993, 231) notes that “the physical change is more vivid in the
OG,” but does not relate it to 7:4.
74 Satran, ibid.
75 Satran (1985, 81–82). See the list of biblical references in Satran (1985, 93 [n. 53]); Henze (1999,
37, [n. 75]).
76 See the more detailed discussion of Daniel 2:21 in chap. 2 above.
Summary Remarks on the Relationship between MT and OG 125
(a) Both MT and OG reflect some original and some secondary readings. The
choice of which is more original in a specific detail should not affect the decision
as to the original reading in other instances. Any attempt to classify all of the
readings in one version as either original or secondary is bound to lead to special
pleading with regard to the originality of certain aspects of the text of the chapter.
(b) Once a determination has been made regarding which elements in the
textual witnesses are original and which are secondary, it is possible to recon-
struct a putative original text of the chapter, at least in a schematic fashion. This
original version was revised in different directions in the extant textual witnesses,
leading to the creation of two distinct versions of the same composition. The
existence of two editions with major differences between them does not neces-
sitate the assumption of two parallel but distinct, “pristine” texts of Daniel 4,
which developed independently from one another in Greek and Aramaic. Rather,
it is suggested here that the MT and OG emerged from a common ancestor.⁷⁷
(c) Overall, notwithstanding the secondary additions one finds in MT,
it seems that this textual witness reflects a literary stage closer to the original
version of the chapter. These additions (e.g. vv. 3–7a) can be identified with rela-
tive confidence, and once they are recognized and omitted, the text of the chapter
flows logically and smoothly. In contrast, the secondary elements in OG reflect
a more thorough rewriting, including expansion and elaboration (often based
on exegetical or harmonistic considerations), further removed from the putative
original kernel (and demonstrably not a rewriting of the MT version). To use an
analogy, OG Daniel 4 is typologically similar to what was originally referred to
as the 4QReworked Pentateuch scrolls, which I, among others, have suggested in
fact reflect variant versions of the Pentateuch itself. These scrolls have undergone
significant revision and rewriting, including expansion, paraphrase, and rear-
rangement, but remain within the general contours of their textual predecessors.⁷⁸
Of course, this argument for Daniel 4 is complicated by the nonpreservation of
this putative original, but as can be deduced from the discussion above, I am of
the opinion that the original version of the story can be best reconstructed with
recourse to the nonsecondary elements in the MT.
77 The approach here differs from the methodological conclusion of Henze (1999, 47–48), who
posits that “the misguided quest for the ‘original’ legend about the raving monarch, then, the
supposed common source of all versions is circular at best and deflects attention from the true
character of the Daniel literature, its multifaceted character and wide-spread popularity.”
78 For a similar conclusion see Tov 2008. On the nature of 4QReworked Pentateuch and its status
as a biblical or nonbiblical work, see Segal (1998, 2000); Ulrich (2000a). Cf. also White Crawford
(1999); Brooke (2001); Bernstein (2008); Zahn (2008); Tov (2009, 2010); Zahn (2011).
4.5 Does the Old Greek reflect a Semitic Vorlage?

Evidence from a Parabiblical Composition
Any study of biblical translations, and the Septuagint in particular, encounters

the basic issue of the relationship between the translation and its presumed
Vorlage, since methodologically, we are caught in a circular argument. On the
one hand, we discuss whether a translation is literal or free based upon a com-
parison with its Vorlage; on the other hand, we reconstruct this Vorlage based
upon the translation that is being analyzed. If there is no Archimedean point to
which one can compare the translation, then it is difficult to determine whether
the differences between the MT and the translation are the result of free transla-
tion technique, or perhaps are due to a different Vorlage.
One may divide the arguments for a Semitic Vorlage of any Greek text into
internal and external arguments. Internal arguments focus on the use of Semitic
syntactical constructions, expressions, or vocabulary that only make sense when
retroverted into Aramaic or Hebrew. Pierre Grelot analyzed Daniel 4 from this per-
spective in an article published almost forty years ago; he demonstrated, on the
one hand, the predominance of paratactic syntactic structures (καὶ … καὶ) in this
chapter, and on the other, the presence of terms and expressions that are easily
rendered if understood according to a Hebrew or Aramaic background, but are
not present or common in classical Greek. Grelot arrived at the somewhat ques-
tionable conclusion that the Vorlage of chapter 4 was a Hebrew text, but most
of his considerations would apply to an Aramaic original as well.⁷⁹ However,
though his arguments based upon the internal evidence are strong, they still do
not provide an ironclad proof, since we know of Greek authors who intentionally
copied the style of the Septuagint in order to “biblicize” their works, and it is
therefore theoretically possible that this is the reason for the Semitic character of
the Old Greek translation of Daniel 4, as well.
Due to the methodological problems with relying upon internal evidence
alone, I now turn to the question of external evidence. The best proof for the exist-
ence of an alternate Vorlage would be the discovery of that text itself. However,
while there is fragmentary evidence for chapter 4 in two biblical scrolls from
Qumran – 4QDana,d – they both reflect the literary edition found in MT.⁸⁰ However,
although there is no direct evidence in a biblical manuscript for the existence of
79 Grelot (1974a, 18–22).

80 The eight (or nine) Qumran manuscripts of Daniel generally reflect the same edition as that
found in MT, with only minor textual variations; cf. Collins (1993, 2–3); Ulrich (2001, esp. at 581–
83); Segal (2015, 171–198).
Does the Old Greek reflect a Semitic Vorlage? 127
the Aramaic Vorlage of the Septuagint of Daniel 4, I would like to suggest that
indirect evidence can be adduced from another composition preserved among
the Dead Sea Scrolls, which either rewrites or is dependent upon the Bible to
some degree.⁸¹ There is no doubt that this kind of evidence is less definitive than
a biblical manuscript itself would be, and as will be demonstrated below, the
argument for literary dependence is more complex as well. However, it seems to
me that methodologically, the combination of the evidence of the Greek transla-
tion together with that of a parabiblical composition reinforces the argument for
a Semitic Vorlage of OG Daniel 4; furthermore, it can be argued that this Vorlage
was the biblical source for the author of the parabiblical composition. The follow-
ing example allows for such a conclusion:
According to MT v. 11, the Watcher ordered that the tree be chopped down,
but within the dream report itself there is no illustration of the enactment of this
command:
He called loudly and said: ‘Hew down the tree, lop off its branches, strip off its foliage,
scatter its fruit (‫)אתרו עפיה ובדרו אנבה‬. Let the beasts of the field flee from beneath it and
the birds from its branches …
We are shown the fulfillment of the command only in Daniel’s interpretation

(vv. 21–23) and in the account of the realization of the dream, when the proud
king is punished and driven away from civilization (vv. 25–30):
(25) All this befell King Nebuchadnezzar … (30) There and then the sentence was carried out
upon Nebuchadnezzar. He was driven away from men, he ate grass like cattle, and his body
was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like eagle’s feathers and his nails
like the talons of birds.
According to MT, the heavenly threat is first directed at the tree in the dream
(v. 11), interpreted by Daniel to the king (vv. 21–23), and then repeated in the
earthly realm (vv. 28–29); this final time, it is accompanied by the description
of its fulfillment against Nebuchadnezzar (v. 30). The omission of the fulfillment
of the command from the original report of the dream, and the lack of symmetry
between the dream report and its realization, are apparently the motivations for
an addition found in the OG text after v. 14. OG v. 14a reads:
81 For a similar argument in which evidence from a parabiblical composition was adduced to
support the existence of a variant reading in a biblical text, cf. Rofé (1988).
Dan 4:14a (OG)
ἑνώπιόν ἑμοῦ ἐξεκόπη ἐν ἡμέρᾳ μιᾷ, καὶ ἡ It was cut down before me in one day, and
καταφθορὰ αὐτοῦ ἐν ὥρᾳ μιᾷ τῆς ἡμέρας, καὶ its destruction was in one hour of the day.
οἱ κλάδοι αὐτοῦ ἐδόθησαν εἰς πάντα ἄνεμον, And its branches were given to every wind,
καὶ εἱλκύσθη καὶ ἐρρίφη … and it was dragged and thrown away …
According to OG, the fulfillment of the angel’s command is recounted within

the framework of the dream report itself. The hermeneutical motivation behind
the addition of this verse is similar to that behind the additions known from the
(pre-) Samaritan Pentateuch, the purpose of which is to supply the execution of
various commands when this fulfillment is absent from the source-text on which
it was based.⁸² In light of this phenomenological parallel, it can be concluded that
v. 14a is a secondary addition to OG Daniel 4. Returning to the question stated
above, can we determine whether this addition is the work of the translator, or
was already found in an Aramaic Vorlage of Daniel 4?
In this case, I suggest that evidence for an Aramaic text of this verse can be
found in the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran Cave 1.⁸³ Columns 13–15 of the
scroll include an expansion of the biblical text which describes in detail a dream
revelation to Noah. The contents of the dream (or dreams) extend over these
three columns, and in the first two, the biblical events are described using the
imagery of trees. Column 13 tells of the felling of various trees, apparently in con-
nection with the Flood story; in column 14, Noah is portrayed as a cedar, and
his sons as the boughs of the tree. Column 13, lines 13–17 offers the following
description:⁸⁴
] ‫ ו̇ ̇אתפנית למחזה זיתא וארי הא זיתא גבר ברומא ושען שגיאן ̇בז̇ י̇ ו̇ ̇עו̇ פיאן שגיאן‬13
] ̇‫שגי̇ ת עלו̇ ̇הי‬
̇ ‫ ומתחזה בהן מתבונן הוית בזיתא דן וארי הא ̇מ‬⁸⁵‫בב)?( ושפ]י[ ̇ר‬ ̇ ‫ ̇אנ̇ ][ ̇ב ̇ר‬14
] ‫תמהת‬
̇ ‫מה על ז̇ יתא ̇דן̇ ו̇ ̇עלוהי שגי לחדא‬ ̇ ‫קשרן בה והוית ̇ת‬
̇ ̇‫ ] [ו ] [י̇ ̇אן‬15
[‫ומתברן לה לקדמין ]אתת‬ ̇ ‫ומענפן לה‬
̇ ‫וח ̇בלא בזיתא דן‬ ̇ ‫ ]ארבע[ ̇רוחי שמיא נשבן בתקוף‬16
] ‫ ]רוחא מן[ מערב וחבטתה ואתרת מן ̇עלו̇ ̇הי̇ ו̇ ̇מן̇ ̇אנ̇ ̇ב ̇ה ו̇ בדרתה לרוחיא ובתרה‬17
13. I turned to observe the olive tree, and behold, the olive tree grew in its height. And for
many hours in the glory of the great foliage …
82 Cf. n. 24 above.
83 Henze (1999, 76–77) noted a parallel between Daniel 4 and 1QapGen 19:14–16, Abram’s dream
prior to his entry into Egypt, which also describes the felling of a cedar tree (representing Abram
himself); but to my knowledge the parallel under discussion here has not been noted previously.
84 The text is quoted here according to Fitzmyer (2004, 88). The English translation is according
to the edition of the Genesis Apocryphon in Morgenstern and Segal (2013, 248).
85 This reading of this word follows Machiela (2009, 58), and is based upon photograph BZ13TM.
Does the Old Greek reflect a Semitic Vorlage? 129
14. … and bea[u]tiful and appeared amongst them. I was examining this olive tree, and
behold, the majority of its leaves …
15. they were casting and tying with it. And I marveled at this olive tree and its leaves.
I marveled greatly …
16. the [four] winds of heaven blowing strongly and violently against this olive tree, remov-
ing its branches and smashing it. First (came)
17. the West [wind] and struck it and stripped off some of its leaves and its fruit and cast
them in all directions. After it [came the Nor]th wind …
The large tree in this passage is an olive tree, in contrast to both Ezekiel 17; 31 and
Daniel 4, but it shares with them the imagery of the height of the tree, the numer-
ous branches, leaves, and fruits. Furthermore, the description of the destruction
of the tree uses language that is clearly borrowed from MT Daniel 4. The most
important expression that demonstrates this dependence is ‫אתרו עפיה ובדרו אנבה‬
in MT Daniel 4:11, which may be compared to ‫ואתרת מן ̇עלו̇ ̇הי̇ ו̇ ̇מן̇ ̇אנ̇ ̇ב ̇ה ו̇ בדרתה‬
‫“ לרוחיא‬and stripped off some of its leaves and its fruit and cast them in all direc-
tions” (line 17) in the scroll.⁸⁶ Notwithstanding the general dependence of the
passage upon biblical descriptions of trees, it is difficult to identify a source for
the appearance of the winds in lines 16–17, since they do not appear in any of the
relevant biblical tree-centered prophecies.⁸⁷ Ezekiel 17:10 mentions an east wind
which dries up the grapevine; yet this point in the prophecy does not refer to a tall
tree, but rather to a lowly vine that cannot survive. There are no ‫ רוחיא‬mentioned
in MT Daniel 4.
I would like to suggest, however, that the source for the ‫ רוחיא‬is none other
than the lost Aramaic Vorlage of the Old Greek translation of Daniel 4. Accord-
ing to OG v. 14a, the work of the winds is part of the description of the destruc-
86 The argument proposed here is admittedly complicated by the fact that this expression ap-
pears in MT, but does not feature explicitly in OG Daniel 4. The motif of the tree bearing plentiful
fruits is found in OG v. 9 (which appears prior to v. 8): ὁ καρπὸς αὐτοῦ πολὺς καὶ ἀγαθὸς “its fruit
was abundant and good,” but is not found subsequently in the chapter. In contrast, it appears
three times in MT (vv. 9,11,18), both in the dream report where the verdict is rendered against the
tree (v. 11), and again in the dream interpretation section (B 2a, v. 18), where the contents of the
dream are retold. It is possible that the OG translator has paraphrased these details, eliminat-
ing some of the redundancies between the different sections. Alternatively, the author of 1Qap-
Gen 13–15 was aware of both versions of Daniel 4 (MT and the Vorlage of OG), and therefore
conflated MT v. 11 and OG v. 14a in his new composition.
87 Fitzmyer (2004, 165); Eshel (2009, 45), note the use of ‫“ ]ארבע[ רוחי שמיא‬the [four] winds of
heaven” (line 16) in Dan 7:2. This certainly bolsters the general Danielic context of this passage
in the Apocryphon, but does not explain how they came to be associated with this dream. Cf. also
Dan 8:8; 11:4; Zech 2:10; 6:5.
tion of the tree – “and its branches were given to every ἄνεμον.” This sentence
can be interpreted in a number of ways, depending upon the different meanings
of the Aramaic (or Hebrew) ‫רוח‬, the putative Vorlage of ἄνεμον.⁸⁸ If ‫ רוח‬carries
the meaning “wind,” then the sentence means that the tree was damaged by the
winds. And if ‫ רוח‬signifies direction, then the sentence describes how the tree
was thrown every which way, an interpretation of Dan 4:14a which seems prefer-
able to me.⁸⁹ It appears that both meanings have been combined in this passage
in the Genesis Apocryphon: “(16) the [four] winds of heaven blowing strongly
and violently against this olive tree, removing its branches and smashing it. First
(came) (17) the West [wind] and struck it and stripped off some of its leaves and its
fruit and cast them in all directions. After it [came the Nor]th wind.”
In addition, we may be able to identify one more parallel between these texts,
in the use of the word “hour(s).” Verse 14a of OG Daniel 4 states that “its destruc-
tion was in one hour of the day.” If this picture of instant destruction is the antith-
esis of the growth of the tree before being cut down, then the pre-destruction
stage could be formulated in a fashion similar to the Apocryphon’s description of
the olive tree: ‫“ ושען שגיאן ̇בז̇ י̇ ו̇ ̇עו̇ פיאן שגיאן‬And for many hours in the glory of the
great foliage” (l. 13). Instead of speculating that these motifs were created by the
author of the Apocryphon, I suggest that their combination in the Qumran text
may be traced back to the version of Daniel 4 used by this author. And if this was
his textual source, then we have succeeded in identifying an echo of the Aramaic
Vorlage of the Old Greek to Daniel 4 – since it is certain that the author of the
Genesis Apocryphon was not dependent upon a Greek text.⁹⁰
88 The Greek noun ἄνεμος translates only ‫ רוח‬throughout LXX (including Dan 2:35; 7:2; 8:8;
11:4).
89 Wills (1990, 102) translates “spread to all the winds,” which implies directionality. Satran
(1985, 74); Collins (1993, 209); Henze (1999, 245); and NETS all translate: “were given to every
wind.” Meadowcroft (1995, 298) translates: “were given over to every wind.” Both of these trans-
lations seemingly reflect the natural phenomenon of blowing wind.
90 This analysis has potential implications for the question of the dating of the composition of
the Genesis Apocryphon, since according to the proposal here it was composed subsequent to the
Aramaic Vorlage of OG Daniel 4 (this implication was noted to me by Reinhard Kratz following
an oral presentation of this example). While the date of the latter is difficult to pin down with any
precision, there are elements therein which have been influenced by combination with the sec-
ond half of the book of Daniel (see above), which can be dated to the second century bce. If one
assumes that the secondary elements in OG Daniel 4 are all from the same hand, then this im-
plies that 1QapGen is subsequent to the second half of Daniel. This conclusion can theoretically
be applied to the lively scholarly discussion regarding the relationship of the Genesis Apocryphon
to Jubilees, the latter of which is generally dated to sometime in the second century bce (Segal
2007, 35–40). In a previous study, I attempted to demonstrate the priority of the Genesis Apocry-
Conclusions 131
I suggest that the methodology employed in this final section, the use of
parabiblical or rewritten bible compositions as indirect, supporting evidence for
textual variants or variant editions found in the ancient translations, and most
prominently the Septuagint, is an avenue that needs to be further explored and
exploited. Admittedly, this method cannot be used indiscriminately, since para-
biblical is not the same as biblical, and rewritten bible is not the Bible itself. Only
through careful, detailed analysis of the biblical text in all of its textual witnesses,
as well as of the parabiblical composition, taking each of these on its own terms
and then comparing them to one another, can this methodology be employed
both responsibly and effectively as another potential tool in the field of textual
criticism.
4.6 Conclusions
Through the foregoing analysis, I have tried to tackle one of the most text-criti-
cally complex pericopes in the Bible. Along the way I have offered a number of
new interpretive insights, including the identification of those elements that are
secondary in each version of the text, and the motivations for their addition; a
reconstruction of the putative original form of the account; an explanation for the
exegetical origins of an interpretive crux; and new evidence for a Semitic Vorlage
for the OG version of this text. As I have attempted to show in this brief study,
the text history of Daniel 4 is bound up with questions of composition, exege-
sis, interpretative traditions, translation technique, and reception history. One
cannot address these issues in isolation, investigating one area without recourse
to the others. In the case of Daniel 4, we are fortunate to have evidence of more
than one literary stage for the work. While much of the complex textual and liter-
ary history of biblical books will remain shrouded in mystery, the specific case of
Daniel 4 has allowed us a rare window onto the variety of processes at work in the
development of Scriptural compositions in antiquity.
phon to Jubilees at least in reference to the chronological framework of Abram’s descent to Egypt
(Segal 2010). The discussion here demonstrates that caution must be exercised before reach-
ing definitive conclusions regarding this issue. Alternatively, if the secondary elements in OG
Daniel 4 developed over time, then perhaps some were added/changed prior to the date of com-
position of Daniel 7–12, allowing for an earlier date of the Genesis Apocryphon.
5 Reconsidering the Theological Background
of Daniel 7
Daniel 7 functions as a pivotal episode within the book of Daniel as a whole,
completing the section of Aramaic court tales (chapters 2–7), while also constitut-
ing the first of the four apocalyptic visions (chapters 7–12). This chapter presents
perhaps the most complex interpretive issues of all of the chapters in Daniel, in
terms of both determining the theological worldview of its author, and unlocking
the cultural and literary background of this text. Previous studies have correctly
drawn attention to the extrabiblical parallels to this vision. The purpose of the
present analysis, however, is to highlight the inner-biblical interpretive elements
of Daniel 7, an aspect of this chapter which I suggest has not yet received suf-
ficient attention. I will suggest here that a full appreciation of the message of
this pivotal text can only be achieved by means of a precise identification of the
biblical passages alluded to in this chapter, and a nuanced analysis of how they
are reused and recast.
5.1 The Literary Unity of Daniel 7¹
Daniel 7 presents a double apocalyptic vision – double in the sense that, in

addition to the general dichotomy between the symmetric heavenly and earthly
realms, two planes of activity may be identified within the heavenly, mythic realm
itself (vv. 1–14).² On one plane is the scene of the four beasts which arise from the
Great Sea, and on the other is the divine court where these beasts are judged and
1 This brief summary of research is indebted to the more extensive discussion in Collins (1993,
277–94).
2 This observation is supported by the description of Daniel’s reaction following the vision. Ac-
cording to v. 15, “As for me, Daniel, my spirit was disturbed within me and the vision of my mind
alarmed me.” This phrasing in itself generally seems to mark the end of symbolic dreams or vi-
sions, as in 2:1,3; 4:2; 5:6 (cf. also 7:28 following the interpretation of the vision). However, in this
instance, the ensuing dialogue takes place in the same plane as the vision itself: “I approached
one of the attendants [‫קאמיא‬, lit.: “those standing”] and asked him the true meaning of all this.
He gave me this interpretation of the matter” (7:16). This term refers back to one of the “myriads
of myriads” who stand before the throne of the Ancient of Days in service (v. 10). The interaction
between Daniel and a character from the vision demonstrates that the apocalyptic revelation is
not merely symbolic, but reflects a reality to which Daniel is privy. This is similar to the visions
related in 1Kgs 22:19; Isaiah 6; and Ezekiel 1, all of which describe a prophet to whom the divine
court has been revealed.
The Literary Unity of Daniel 7 133
punished, and where sovereignty is given to the “one like a man.” Each of these
planes is characterized by its own literary style, with the four beasts described
in prose and the court scene in poetic style. The differences between these two
scenes have led to the suggestion that they in fact represent the work of two
different authors, combined here.³ However, it seems more likely that instead,
we have in this case a subtle literary technique by which the author of Daniel 7
distinguished between the two scenes within the mythic realm. Following this
vision, Daniel approaches one of the heavenly attendants and requests his assis-
tance in understanding the vision, which is given to him in the verses that follow
(vv. 15–27). There are those who have suggested that the interpretation offered
by the heavenly attendant does not fully correspond to the vision itself, and that
perhaps it likewise reflects the hand of a different author;⁴ but here too, I find the
arguments unconvincing. Finally, there are many scholars who have identified
scribal additions within the interpretation itself, which reflect an updating of the
apocalypse.⁵ However, many of the arguments put forth in these studies are based
upon a priori assumptions regarding the historical background of the composi-
tion of this passage. A careful literary analysis does not reveal any serious fissures
or cracks within this chapter, and I therefore agree with those scholars who have
posited that Daniel 7 reflects a unified text, and is the work of a single author.⁶ I
will now present an interpretation of the chapter as a whole, which emerges from
a close reading of the text, with an emphasis on the inner-biblical connections
within the passage.
3 For this position, see, e.g., Noth ([1926] 1969, 14–19). See more recently Boyarin (2012, 141–48).
4 See, e.g., Müller (1972), who holds that vv. 19–24, in addition to vv. 9–10 and 13–14, were added
by a Maccabean redactor. Boyarin (2012, 150–62) views the pesher of the vision (7:15–27) as a
reinterpretation and demythologization of the throne vision, according to which the originally
divine “One like a Son of Man” was transformed into a reference to the Maccabean heroes who
redeemed the Temple. This pesher was composed by the author of Daniel 7, who relied on earlier
sources to compose the throne vision (cf. n. 3).
5 Sellin (1910, 233–34), posited that the references to the final horn (following the ten) in 7:8,20–
22,24–25 are editorial additions to an original, pre-Maccabean stratum. This suggestion has been
adopted, with various minor alterations, by many subsequent scholars, for example Hölscher
(1919, 119–21), who excised from the “original” stratum any reference to horns (vv. 7bβ + 11a, in
addition to the verses proposed by Sellin). Ginsberg (1948, 11–13) proposed a process of literary
development similar to that put forth by Sellin (he viewed vv. 7bβ, 20aα, and 24a as belonging
to the primary stratum), but claimed that even the original stratum (ten horns) was composed
during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes; this position was adopted by Hartman and Di Lella
(1978, 202–4, 209, 215–17).
6 See Montgomery (1927, 95–96); Rowley (1950–1951, 255–59); Zevit (1968, 388–89); Collins (1977,
127–32; 1993, 277–80); Goldingay (1989, 156–57).
134 Reconsidering the Theological Background of Daniel 7
5.2 Identifying the “One like a Man”
One of the central exegetical issues in the interpretation of Daniel 7 is the identi-
fication of the character in the vision described as ‫כבר אנש‬. This has frequently
been translated literally as “One like the Son of Man,” but the Aramaic ‫בר אנש‬,
is equivalent to the Hebrew ‫בן אדם‬,⁷ and therefore a more appropriate trans-
lation is “one like a man.”⁸ In the vision of the four beasts, the character that
appears as a man reflects a being of higher or more advanced standing than the
other animals. A similar situation obtains in the Animal Apocalypse, where those
beings depicted as animals represent humans, and those portrayed as human
beings are unique in the apocalypse, reflecting their divine or semi-divine status
(1En. 87:2; 90:14,17,21–22). In 1En. 89:1,9 Noah is represented as having been trans-
formed from a bull into a man, and according to 89:36 Moses was transformed
from a sheep into a man.⁹ Within Daniel, the heavenly interpreters of the apoca-
lypses are also described as “men” (8:15; 9:21; 10:5,16,18; 12:6–7).¹⁰ The formula-
tion “like a man ‫ ”כבר אנש‬uses the -‫ כ‬to denote that this character is part of the
original vision of the four beasts, which are similarly marked: the first beast is
‫“ כאריה‬like a lion,” the second ‫“ דמיה לדב‬like a bear,” and the third ‫“ כנמר‬like a
leopard.” Interestingly, the fourth creature is not compared to any other animal
because it is indeed incomparable to any other: “It was different from all the other
beasts which had gone before it” (v. 7). However, it is subhuman, and within the
realm of beast. The use of the same stylistic device in the divine court drama
demonstrates that both heavenly scenes were composed as one, and its use in
introducing the “one like a man” displays the author’s skill in weaving these two
heavenly planes together.¹¹
7 The expression appears over 100 times in the Bible, with a primary concentration in the book
of Ezekiel.
8 Zevit (1968, 393–94); Collins (1993, 304–5).
9 Collins (1993, 306). See Tiller (1993, 245, 259, 295–96); Nickelsburg (2001, 374–75, 381). Dillmann
(1853, 257); Charles (1912, 190); Black (1985, 267), all suggest that they were transformed into
humans so that they would be able to build a boat or house. However, as Tiller (1993, 295) and
Nickelsburg (2001, 375 [n. 27]) noted, 1En. 89:72–73 demonstrates that animals can build as well.
Black (1985, 262) and Tiller (1993, 259) propose that the tradition about Noah’s transformation,
absent from the Aramaic version of the text, was added under the influence of 89:36.
10 Zevit (1968, 394–96); Boyarin (2012, 148).
11 Boyarin (2012, 146–47, 151) claims that the preposition -‫ כ‬is used differently with respect to
the beasts than the man. In his estimation, the former use refers to elements in a symbolic vision,
which appear like an animal, while the latter refers to “a real divine entity that has the form of a
human being.” However, this distinction does not seem to be borne out by the text itself.
Identifying the “One like a Man” 135
What are the characteristics of the “one like a man,” which assist in identify-
ing him within the context of the heavenly vision?¹² According to v. 13, he came
with the heavenly clouds: ‫וארו עם־ענני שמיא כבר אנש אתה הוא‬. This picture
appears in a number of instances in the Bible, all in reference to Yhwh him-
self:¹³
Ps 68:5 (MT) Ps 104:3 (MT) Isa 19:1 (MT)
‫שירו לאלהים זמרו שמו סלו‬ ‫השם־עבים רכובו המהלך על־‬ ‫)משא מצרים( הנה יהוה רכב‬
‫לרכב בערבות ביה שמו ועלזו‬ ‫כנפי־רוח‬ …‫על־עב קל ובא מצרים‬
‫לפניו‬
Sing to God, chant hymns to He (Yhwh) makes the clouds Mounted on a swift cloud,
his name; extol him who rides his chariot, he moves on the Yhwh will come to Egypt …
the clouds; Yhwh is his name, wings of the wind.
exult in his presence.
(cf. also vv. 33–34 – O

kingdoms of the earth, sing
to God; chant hymns to the
Lord, selah, to him who rides
the ancient highest heavens,
who thunders forth with his
mighty voice.)
This biblical motif was almost certainly borrowed from Canaanite myth, in which
the same image was attributed to Baal. Baal was referred to as rkb.ʿrpt “Cloud-
rider” in the following passage, whose significance for the comparative study of
Daniel 7 has been noted previously:¹⁴
12 Collins (1993, 304–10), offers an extensive excursus regarding the interpretive possibilities
that have been suggested for identifying ‫בר אנש‬. He himself supports the option that it refers to
the angel Michael.
13 Cf. also Deut 33:26.
14 For a discussion of the Canaanite background of Daniel 7, see Emerton (1958); Cross (1973,
16–17); and Mosca (1986), who also raises potential biblical links, including Psalms 89 and 8.
Collins (1993, 286–94), closely analyzes the relevant Canaanite material and addresses the pas-
sage quoted here. He also investigates the question of possible avenues of transmission of this
Canaanite material to Daniel 7, a text composed over a millennium later. The parallels to Ca-
naanite literature that have been noted are more extensive than discussed in the current study,
including a pantheon headed by a senior deity described explicitly as elderly.
lrgmt/lk.lzbl.bʿl Indeed, I tell you, Prince Baal,

tnt.lrkb.ʿrpt. I reiterate, O Cloud-rider:
ht.ibk./ bʿlm. Now your enemy, Baal,
ht.ibk.tmḫṣ. Now smash your enemy,
ht.tṣmt.ṣrtk. Now vanquish your foe.
tqḥ.mlk.ʿlmk. So assume your eternal kingship,
drktdtdrdrk. Your everlasting dominion.
…
ym.lmt.bʿlm.yml[k] So Yamm is dead! Baal reig[ns! (?)]¹⁵
The speaker in this passage is the craftsman Kôtar-wa-Hassis, who is encouraging

Baal in his battle against Yamm. The context of this battle is the struggle between
the gods for kingship over the world, similar to the primary topic of Daniel 7.¹⁶
A second parallel between this passage and Daniel 7 is also significant for the
identification of the “one like a man.” Baal is the recipient of eternal kingship and
everlasting dominion. This is almost identical to what the one like a man receives
in Dan 7:14:
Dan 7:14
‫ולה יהב שלטן ויקר ומלכו וכל עממיא אמיא‬ Dominion, glory, and kingship were given
‫ולשניא לה יפלחון שלטנה שלטן עלם די־לא יעדה‬ to him; all peoples and nations of every
.‫ומלכותה די־לא תתחבל‬ language must serve him. His dominion is
an everlasting dominion that shall not pass
away, and his kingship, one that shall not be
destroyed.
Who receives eternal dominion and kingship elsewhere in the book of Daniel?
Interestingly, the language and content of 7:14 parallels and overlaps that found
in the doxologies in the narrative half of the book:
15 KTU 1.2 IV 7–10, 32, in Smith (1997, 103–5).

16 See also the discussions of Cross (1973, 112–16); Day (1985, 8–9, 151–77). Smith (1986) identi-
fied this as the overarching framework of the Baal Cycle.
Dan 7:14 Dan 7:27 Dan 3:31–33 Dan 4:31 Dan 6:26–27
Dominion , glory, and The kingship and (31) “King Nebuchadn- “When the time had (26) Then King Darius wrote
kingship were given to him; dominion and grandeur ezzar to all people and passed, I, Nebuchadn- to all peoples and nations of
All peoples and nations of belonging to all the nations of every language ezzar, lifted my eyes to every language that inhabit
every language must serve kingdoms under Heaven that inhabit the whole heaven, and my reason the earth, … (27) … for He is
him. His dominion is an will be given to the people earth: …(33) How great are was restored to me. I the living God who endures
everlasting dominion that of ‫קדישי עליונין‬. Their His signs; how mighty His blessed the Most High, forever; His kingdom shall
shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall be an wonders! His kingdom is and praised and glori- not be destroyed, and His
kingship , one that shall not everlasting kingdom, and an everlasting kingdom, fied the Ever-Living One, dominion is to the end of
be destroyed. all dominions shall serve and His dominion Whose dominion is an time.
and obey them. endures throughout the everlasting dominion and
generations.” whose kingdom endures
throughout the genera-
tions.
Identifying the “One like a Man”
137
The phrases common to these passages, such as ‫( שלטנה שלטן עלם‬7:14 and 4:31;
note the variant form ‫ מלכותה מלכות עלם‬shared by 7:27 and 3:33), ‫כל עממיא אמיא‬
‫( ולשניא‬7:14; 3:31; 6:26), and ‫( ומלכותה די־לא תתחבל‬7:14 and 6:27),¹⁷ demonstrate
their interdependence. This shared language could be the result of the activity of
a single author in all three spots, but more likely stems from a conscious attempt
to draw a connection between chapter 7 and these earlier passages.¹⁸ In either
case, these literary allusions point toward the identification of the “one like a
man” in the vision of Daniel 7 with the subject of the doxologies in the previous
chapters. Each figure receives an eternal kingdom and dominion over all of the
nations of the world. The reuse of the language of the earlier chapters in relation
to this figure, in addition to the use of the cloud-riding motif, allows for a some-
what theologically radical suggestion: the one like a man is to be identified with
Yhwh himself!¹⁹
Further evidence for this identification can perhaps be adduced from the
heavenly chariot vision in Ezekiel 1, where Yhwh is depicted as sitting on a
throne: ‫“ ועל דמות הכסא דמות כמראה אדם … הוא דמות כבוד יהוה‬and upon this
semblance of the throne, there was the semblance of a human form … that was
the semblance of the Presence of Yhwh” (vv. 26,28).²⁰ That vision, and especially
the description of the divine figure sitting upon a throne, demonstrably inspired
elements of the imagery of Daniel 7.²¹ While one cannot assume a direct equiva-
17 As noted to me by Prof. Alexander Rofé, an additional parallel to this verse can also be found
in Dan 2:42: “And in the time of those kings, the God of Heaven will establish a kingdom that
shall never be destroyed (‫)מלכו די לעלמין לא תתחבל‬, a kingdom that shall not be transferred
to another people. …” This parallel also conforms to the larger parallel scheme structured be-
tween the dream in chapter 2 and the apocalyptic vision in chapter 7, both of which refer to the
sequence of four kingdoms to be followed by an eternal kingdom. In 2:44, the reference is clearly
to the establishment of a kingdom in which Israel will be sovereign. This verse appears within
the interpretation of the dream; it is parallel to 7:27, which states that the ‫עם קדישי עליונין‬, also a
designation for Israel, are to receive the kingdom, (see below). The discussion in this section ad-
dresses the identification of ‫ )כ(בר אנש‬in the vision itself, who functions, according to the claim
here, as Israel’s heavenly representative.
18 Additional parallel phrases between these verses, support the conclusion that they are inter-
related; cf. Towner (1969), who suggests that 3:31–33; 4:31–32; and 6:26–28 can be considered a
group; cf. also Kratz (1991, 156–60).
19 See already (Emerton 1958); Boyarin, (2012, 149–50). We will return to a discussion of the
implications of such a reading in section 6 below.
20 Procksch (1920, 148–49); Goldingay (1989, 171); Boyarin (2012, 149).
21 See Collins (1993, 300), who mentions Ezek 1 as parallel to Daniel 7 along with 1Kgs 22:19 and
Isa 6, but correctly emphasizes the particularly close affinity of Daniel 7 to 1En. 14. A specification
of the relationships between Daniel 7 and 1En. 14 is beyond the scope of this discussion; see the
recent studies of Stokes (2008); Trotter (2012).
Translating and Identifying ‫ )עם( קדישי עליונין‬ 139
lence of meaning between the symbols in each of these visions, it is telling that
in Ezekiel 1, Yhwh is also depicted in human form.²² However, caution must be
exercised in this comparison; although there does appear to be some relationship
between the two visions, the complex of elements and the theological and cul-
tural background reflected in each one are different, and specific symbols might
reflect different analogues in each case.
5.3 Translating and Identifying ‫)עם( קדישי עליונין‬
The table of parallels identified between 7:14 and the doxologies in the first half of
the book also illustrated parallelism between 7:14, the final verse in the report of
the initial vision and 7:27, the final verse of the heavenly interpreter’s explanation
of the dream. The following chart illustrates these correspondence:
7:14 7:27
‫ולה יהב‬ ‫ומלכותא ושלטנא ורבותא די מלכות תחות‬
‫שלטן ויקר ומלכו‬ ‫כל־שמיא‬
‫וכל עממיא אמיא ולשניא‬ ‫יהיבת לעם קדישי עליונין‬
‫לה יפלחון‬ ‫מלכותה מלכות עלם‬
‫שלטנה שלטן עלם די־לא יעדה ומלכותה די־לא‬ ‫וכל שלטניא‬
‫תתחבל‬ ‫לה יפלחון וישתמעון׃‬
Despite the differences between these verses, their common basis is very appar-
ent, and allows us to read v. 27 as a word-for-word interpretation of v. 14. Verse
14 describes the details of the vision in the heavenly realm, while v. 27 provides
the earthly counterpart to various elements of that vision. According to the cor-
respondences illustrated in the above chart, the “one like a man,” who was
granted eternal dominion and sovereignty in the vision, corresponds to the ‫עם‬
‫ קדישי עליונין‬in the interpretation.²³ Of course, this expression itself is fraught
22 Compare the earlier Priestly conception of the creation of the human being in the image of
God (Gen 1:26–27; 9:6).
23 In Theodotion’s version of v. 27, there is no reflection of the Hebrew ‫עם‬, and instead we find
‫ קדישי עליונין‬alone (ἁγίοις ὑψίστου); contrast OG λαῷ ἁγίῷ ὑψίστου. The absence of the nomen
regens “people, nation” in Theod may result from harmonization of this phrase with the three
additional occurrences of the construct ‫( קדישי עליונין‬vv. 18,22, and 25); see ensuing discussion.
While it is theoretically possible to posit a different Vorlage in which the word ‫ עם‬was not pre-
sent, this possibility seems less likely, since the interpretation of the vision relates to earthly
kingdoms, which are ultimately superseded by the nation of ‫קדישי עליונין‬.
with interpretive difficulties to which we will turn momentarily. Correspond-

ence indicates, not synonymity, but rather symmetry, between the heavenly and
earthly realms. The one like a man is the heavenly representative of the “people”
of the ‫ קדישי עליונין‬on earth. But who or what are the ‫עם קדישי עליונין‬, and how
does this people relate to the one like a man?
In order to analyze this construct chain, it is first necessary to consider the
construct expression ‫ קדישי עליונין‬which serves as the nomen rectum of the ‫עם‬.
This collocation appears in three additional verses in chapter 7, all in the section
that presents the interpretation of the vision. ²⁴
7:18 7:22 7:25
‫ויקבלון מלכותא קדישי עליונין‬ ‫עד די־אתה עתיק יומיא ודינא‬ ‫ומלין לצד עליא ) ִﬠ ָלּ ָאה( ימלל‬
‫ויחסנון מלכותא עד־עלמא ועד‬ ‫יהב לקדישי עליונין וזמנא מטה‬ … ‫ולקדישי עליונין יבלא‬
.‫עלם עלמיא‬ .‫ומלכותא החסנו קדישין‬
Then ‫ קדישי עליונין‬will receive Until the Ancient of Days He will speak words against
the kingdom, and will inherit came and judgment was the Most High, and will “speak
the kingdom forever – forever rendered in favor of ‫קדישי‬ (against)”²⁴ ‫קדישי עליונין‬.
and ever. ‫עליונין‬, for the time had
come, and the holy one(s)
inherited the kingdom.
The context of these passages is the transition from the reign of the four kingdoms
to the subsequent bestowal of dominion upon ‫קדישי עליונין‬.
The identification of the ‫ עם קדישי עליונין‬in v. 27 with ‫ בר אנש‬in the vision
is mediated by the occurrence of ‫ קדישי עליונין‬in these three verses. To whom
does this latter appellation refer? Much ink has been spilled over precisely this
question, among the many interpretive issues in this chapter. The form ‫קדישי‬ ֵ is a
plural noun in construct form, generally translated as “holy ones.” The substan-
tival form of the adjective ‫ קדוש‬in Biblical and Qumranic Hebrew overwhelmingly
refers to heavenly beings.²⁵ The plural can reflect number, as in this translation,
yet it can also be the result of other considerations. Among alternative expla-
nations, the most likely is the pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis, which is often
used to refer to God (GKC § 124g–h). The most common example of this usage is
24 For a discussion of the meaning of the verb ‫יבלא‬, see below n. 53.
25 Cf. Noth ([1955] 1966); Collins (1993, 313–17), and the biblical and postbiblical, Qumranic pas-
sages that they quote. ‫ קדישין‬in the plural appears in Dan 4:14, parallel to ‫עירין‬, both of which
refer to angelic beings. Admittedly, this could be used as an argument that mitigates the inter-
pretation proposed here.
of course ‫אלהים‬. Interestingly enough, in Biblical Hebrew the same usage occurs
with the appellative ‫קדושים‬. Thus in Prov 9:10 one finds:
.‫תחלת חכמה יראת יהוה ודעת קדשים בינה‬ The beginning of wisdom is fear of Yhwh, and
knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
The verse exhibits a clear synonymous parallelism, in which Yhwh and ‫קדשים‬
(“the Holy One”) can be viewed as equivalent elements.²⁶ Most commentators
already assume that this same use of the plural is in fact the most plausible expla-
nation for the plural form of the word ‫ עליונין‬in vv. 18,22,25, and therefore translate
the term in Daniel 7 as a singular adjective, functioning as a substantive referring
to God: “the Most High (One).”²⁷ The earliest source for this interpretation is both
Greek translations of Daniel, which render the Aramaic as ὑψίστου; and they
have influenced almost all subsequent analyses of this expression. Alternatively,
scholars such as Bauer and Leander, posit that ‫ עליונין‬is singular in meaning but
plural in form due to the attraction to the plural (‫קדישי)ן‬.²⁸
When the collocation is analyzed as a unit, the issue that needs to be
addressed is the syntactical relationship between the two words. Almost all com-
mentators, starting with OG and Theod, interpret this as a construct relationship
in which the first element signifies a plural noun and the second a plural noun
26 Note the parallel in Prov 2:5 of ‫ ;יראת יהוה || דעת אלהים‬cf. Fox (2000, 308). See also Prov 30:3 –
although the parallelism is not explicit in that verse, it can be ascertained from the general con-
text (Fox 2009, 855). In both locations, Fox suggests that the plural can be understood either as
a plural of majesty, or as a “plural of abstraction,” carrying the meaning “holiness,” which is
perhaps an appropriate epithet for God. Cf. also Hos 12:1. In contrast, Collins (1993, 314 [n. 326])
interprets ‫ קדשים‬in these instances as references to the heavenly court.
27 Note in contrast the use of the singular (‫“ עליא ) ִﬠ ָלּ ָאה‬the Most High (One)” in 7:25, without
any complement (see below).
28 Bauer and Leander (1927, § 53o). Scholars have noted that morphologically ‫ עליונין‬reflects a
Hebrew form, despite the Aramaic plural ending with nun; see Montgomery (1927, 308); Fassberg
(1992, 56–57). While an -on suffix is known from various Aramaic dialects, including Biblical
Aramaic, Fassberg has observed that since this noun is attested in Hebrew, but nowhere else in
Aramaic (except for the clearly Hebraistic ‫ אל עליון‬attested ten times in 1QapGen), its linguistic
origins are probably from Hebrew. Noth ([1955] 1966, 218) suggested that in light of the Hebrais-
tic morphology of ‫)קדישי( עליונין‬, it must go back to a Hebrew original. He further claimed that
this Hebrew form is recoverable from CD 20:8 – ‫כל קדושי עליון‬. However, it is more likely that
CD generated a Hebrew expression based upon the Hebraism (with Aramaic plural ending) in
Daniel 7.
with singular meaning, as described above, translated, “the holy ones of the Most
High.” This in turn is interpreted in reference to a collective body, whether it be
angelic beings or Israel itself. However, in light of the use of ‫ קדושים‬as a reference
to Yhwh in the biblical passages cited above, and in light of the analysis of the
vision itself, I would like to offer two alternative proposals for the syntax of this
phrase:
(1) It could be understood as the construct of a synonymous word pair, whose
components complement one another. This phenomenon has been documented
extensively by Avishur, in both the Bible and in Semitic languages more gener-
ally, although he did not discuss this example.²⁹ The terms can be shown to be
synonymous based upon expressions in which they can be interchanged. Thus
we find in Prov 9:10; 30:3 – ‫ דעת קד ֹשים‬and in Num 24:16 – ‫( דעת עליון‬parallel
to ‫“ אמרי־אל‬God’s speech”). In each of these contexts, the reference is to divine
wisdom. The terms also appear in semi-parallelism in Deut 26:19:
‫ולתתך עליון על כל־הגוים אשר עשה לתהלה ולשם‬ And that He will set you, in fame and renown
‫ולתפארת ולהיתך עם־קדש ליהוה אלהיך כאשר‬ and glory, high above all the nations that
:‫דבר‬ He has made; and that you shall be, as He
promised, a holy people to the Lord your
God.
The construct expressions in this subcategory denote single concepts where one
element modifies the other, functioning similarly to the phenomenon of hendi-
adys.³⁰ The phrase ‫ קדישי עליונין‬could therefore be translated as “the most high
holy one(s).”
(2) Morphologically, the word ‫קדישי‬
ֵ is clearly in the construct state. This
simple observation has been the trigger that has led scholars to analyze the
phrase as two nouns in a construct relationship. However, there is another gram-
matical precedent for this configuration, which although it reflects a much less
common phenomenon, offers yet another way to read the expression ‫קדישי עליונין‬.
One finds in a number of biblical passages the collocation of a nomen regens and
an adjective in agreement with that noun. In these instances, there is no nomen
rectum to “complete” the noun in construct state. Instead, the meaning of the
expression is essentially identical to the more common collocation of absolute
29 Avishur (1984, 153–211 [Chapter 4: “Pairs in Construct State”]).

30 See the classic study of Melamed (1945).
noun + adjective. This phenomenon can be identified in the following expres-

sions, for example, according to the Masoretic vocalization:³¹
Isa 36:2 (= 2Kgs 18:17): ‫ְבּ ֵחיל ָכּ ֵבד‬

Zech 14:4: ‫דוֹלה ְמאֹד‬
ָ ְ‫גֵּ יא גּ‬
Qoh 8:10: ‫וּמ ְמּקוֹם ָקדוֹשׁ‬
ִ
According to this explanation too, the expression can be translated as “the most
high holy one(s).” The plural forms of both noun and adjective are the result of
the agreement in number (and gender) of both elements, and not due simply to
the syntactical juxtaposition of two independent nouns. The use of the plural
would therefore have the same connotation for both the noun and the adjective.
According to both of these alternatives, the decision whether to interpret
‫ קדישי‬as a reference to one or multiple divine figures would therefore be a matter
of interpretation. The use of the pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis in this phrase
is already acknowledged by almost all scholars with reference to the word ‫עליונין‬.
The interpretation proposed here suggests that the same argument can be made
regarding the word ‫קדישי‬.³² In that case, the phrase may be read “the most high
Holy One,” identified as Yhwh himself, who stands out among the various divine
characters in Daniel 7. The correspondence of the “one like a man” in the vision to
the ‫ קדישי עליונין‬in the interpretation would on this reading be eminently plausi-
ble – both refer to Yhwh, who is to receive eternal dominion and sovereignty. The
extended phrase ‫ עם קדישי עליונין‬would then refer to the nation of Yhwh, a refer-
ence to the people of Israel, who will benefit in the earthly realm from Yhwh’s
dominion in the heavenly plane.³³
31 These examples were identified by GKC § 128w (in footnote), but they were analyzed differ-
ently, “[they] must be intended as forms of the absolute state, shortened in consequence of their
close connexion.” However, it seems more likely that in fact these patterns reflect a syntactical
structure that should be considered as normative within biblical Hebrew.
32 The use of the plural verb in vv. 18,22 with the subject (‫ קדישי)ן‬could perhaps be used as
an argument against the suggestion proffered here. However, evidence for a similar usage of a
plural verb is found in the Hebrew Bible, including, e.g., Gen 20:13 (corrected to singular in SP);
31:53 (corrected to singular in SP and LXX); 35:7 (corrected to singular in SP and the Versions);
2Sam 7:23 (corrected to singular in 1Chr 17:21) (similarly Exod 32:4,8 as compared to Neh 9:18); cf.
GKC § 132h and 145i.
33 The motif of Israel as Yhwh’s nation is attested extensively throughout the Bible, and is
found inter alia in Exod 19:5–6; Deut 7:6; 14:2; 26:18–19; 32:9.
5.4 Eschatological Biblical Interpretation:

Establishing Yhwh’s Portion
Verses 18 and 22 both employ haphel forms of the Aramaic verb ‫חס"ן‬, govern-
ing the object ‫מלכותא‬. As noted already by lexicographers and commentators,
the Aramaic root ‫ חס"ן‬carries two distinct meanings: “strong/strength” (see,
e.g., Dan 2:37; 4:27)³⁴ or “to inherit.”³⁵ The latter meaning related to inherit-
ance, especially in the (h)aphel conjugation, is attested in most Jewish dialects
of Aramaic,³⁶ as well as in Samaritan and Egyptian Aramaic.³⁷ Since Daniel 7’s
interpretation of the vision treats of the rise and fall of empires, and who is to
receive the kingdom, it is much more likely that the second meaning is the one
attested here.³⁸ This suggestion is further bolstered by the structure of v. 18, in
which ‫ ויחסנון‬appears in parallel to ‫ויקבלון‬, “and they will receive.”
It is significant that this root serves as a frequent, stereotypical equivalent of
Hebrew ‫( נח"ל‬as well as ‫ אח"ז‬and ‫ )יר"ש‬in the Aramaic Targumim.³⁹ I suggest that
the use of this term within the context of Daniel 7 is part of an intentional effort
to evoke the language of two biblical passages, Deut 32:8–9 and Psalm 82,⁴⁰ texts
34 This is also the standard meaning of the root in Syriac.

35 See BDB, 1093 which classifies them as two separate entries: s.v. ‫ ֲח ַסן‬vb. haphel “take posses-
sion of” (Dan 7:18,22); s.v. ‫ ֵח ֶסן‬n.m. “(royal) power” (Dan 2:37; 4:27); similarly HALOT, 1878–79;
Qimron (2002, 134): s.v. ‫( קנה בעלות = חסן‬acquire ownership), referring to 7:18,22; s.v. [‫חוסן = ] ֲח ֵסן‬
(strength, power), referring to 2:37; 4:27.
36 Jastrow (1903, 40), s.v. ‫ אחסנתא‬,‫ ;אחסנא‬Jastrow (1903, 488–89), s.v. ‫ ;חסן‬Sokoloff (1990,
46–47); Sokoloff (2002, 104–5), s.v. ‫ ;אחסנתא‬Sokoloff (2002, 475), s.v. ‫ ;חסן‬Sokoloff (2003, 50),
s.v. ‫ חשׂן‬,‫חסן‬.
37 Tal (2000, 286–87) classifies two separate verbs: 1‫ = חסן‬strength; 2‫ = חסן‬possession (of land),
including the verb in aphel; Hoftijzer and Jongeling (1995, 391–92), s.v. ḥsn1.
38 Charles (1929, 192); Porteous (1976, 94); HaCohen and Kil (1994, 180). Collins (1993, 276) trans-
lates “possess,” but then interprets the verbs in vv. 18 and 22 under the influence of 2:37 and 4:27,
with the meaning that “the holy ones” will have a strong hold over their dominion.
39 This assertion can be demonstrated statistically for the Targumim of the Pentateuch (the evi-
dence adduced here is based upon the data of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project). For
example, verbs from the root ‫ חס"ן‬appear thirty-eight times in Targum Onqelos, thirty-four of
which can be identified as directly reflecting a word in the Hebrew Vorlage (and not an addi-
tion to or paraphrase of the biblical text). Of these, twenty-four translate Hebrew ‫( נח"ל‬70 %),
followed by ‫( יר"ש‬five; 15 %), and ‫( אח"ז‬three; 9 %) – all essentially identical semantically. The
same analysis in Targum Neofiti of the Aramaic verb ‫ אחסן‬yields even more definitive results –
thirty-six instances, twenty-nine with direct Hebrew equivalents: ‫( נח"ל‬twenty-four; 83 %), ‫אח"ז‬
(three; 10 %).
40 These two passages are associated with Daniel 7 by Lacocque (2001, 121). However, he does
not further develop the potential meaning behind these parallels.
Eschatological Biblical Interpretation: Establishing Yhwh’s Portion 145
that greatly interested and influenced many writers in antiquity, and which also
exhibit a distinct, Canaanite imprint. Let us examine the language of the passage
from Deuteronomy 32:⁴¹
Deut 32:8–9
‫( בהנחל עליון גוים בהפרידו בני אדם‬8) (8) When the Most High gave nations their
inheritance, and set the divisions of man,
.‫יצב גבלת עמים למספר בני אלהים‬ He fixed the boundaries of peoples in rela-
tion to the number of “sons of God”/divine
beings.
.‫( כי חלק יהוה עמו יעקב חבל נחלתו ישראל‬9) (9) For the Lord’s portion is His people Jacob,
His own allotment is Israel.
These verses present a distinctive theological-cosmological view of the origins of

the division of the world into nations and peoples. According to this perspective,
this allotment was not by chance or due to historical developments, but rather
the result of a primordial process in which each “son of God” was assigned a
nation and a plot of land. The theological picture here is of a head deity, named
‫עליון‬, with other subordinate, lesser divine figures, the ‫בני אלהים‬. Scholars have
debated the position of Yhwh within this theological scheme, suggesting either
that he is one of the ‫בני אלהים‬, or alternatively that he himself should be iden-
tified with ‫עליון‬. According to the first possibility, which I will label the mythic
option, when the supreme deity ‫ עליון‬originally distributed the lands and peoples
amongst the lesser divine beings, Yhwh, as one of these second-tier deities,
received Israel as his inheritance. According to the second possibility, the demy-
thologized option, when Yhwh, designated as ‫עליון‬, distributed the lands and
peoples, he decided to keep Israel to himself as his own personal possession.
These two options offer significantly different perspectives on the role of the God
of Israel in the universe, and a potential distinction can be (and has been) made
between the myth in its original form, and its inclusion within the context of Deu-
teronomy 32.⁴² How do these verses, which were addressed and interpreted in
numerous ancient sources, relate to Daniel 7?
41 The end of v. 8 has been quoted here according to the reading of 4QDeutj and LXX; the pres-
ence of the name ‫ ישראל‬at the end of v. 9 is attested in SP and LXX.
42 See the recent, thorough discussion of Goldstein (2010–2011). The mythological motifs which
form the basis of this passage survived into the postbiblical period, as demonstrated by Bar-On
and Paz (2010–2011). The persistence of these traditions in the sources which Bar-On and Paz
adduce lends credence to the articulation of the similar phenomenon in Daniel 7.
Both Deuteronomy 32 and Daniel 7 describe a theological-cosmological

picture with a leading divine entity and subordinate divine beings. In Deuter-
onomy 32, we find ‫ עליון‬and the ‫בני אלהים‬, while in Daniel 7 we find ‫עתיק יומין‬
and ‫ בר אנש‬alongside the four other creatures. Most significantly, the context of
each of these passages is the inheritance of the nations and lands by the subor-
dinate divinities. Deuteronomy 32 describes the dawn of history, at which time
the division of all of the lands took place, and at that time Yhwh and Israel were
paired together. Daniel 7 describes a process in which the four beasts, each of
which apparently serves as the heavenly representative of one of the nations,
emerge one after another from the Great Sea. This is generally interpreted to refer
to four successive kingdoms, to eventually be succeeded by the fifth, eternal king-
dom.⁴³ However, it seems that the apocalypse does not simply envision a suc-
cession of kingdoms. According to 7:11, the fourth beast was killed and its body
was destroyed and consigned to flames. At the same time, the dominion of the
other beasts was taken away, but they were given an unspecified extension of life
(v. 12). This implies that these kingdoms coexisted until the end of the kingdom
represented by the fourth beast, and in fact, as the text emphasizes, they will con-
tinue to persist even after the fourth kingdom has been destroyed. This picture is
actually very similar (yet not identical) to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2,
according to which each of the metals in the statue that he envisioned reflects
another kingdom. There too, the kingdoms coexisted, and only came to an end
when the stone struck the base of the statue and brought the entire structure
crashing down.⁴⁴
43 While the origins of this scheme are beyond the scope of the present study, they have been
discussed extensively in scholarship; see e.g. Swain (1940); Flusser (1972); Hartman and Di Lella
(1978, 30–33); Mendels (1981); Collins (1993, 166–70). The four-kingdom pattern was adopted
from non-Israelite/Jewish sources, and adapted to match the Judean reality. In the original (Per-
sian) form of this scheme, Assyria appeared in place of Babylon, leading to a more logical pro-
gression of the kingdoms, since Media did indeed take over part of the Assyrian empire.
44 Ginsberg (1948, 6–7) noted this aspect, but used it to draw historical conclusions. Instead,
I suggest that it reflects an exegetically motivated reflection upon the theological-cosmological
issue. Contra Ginsberg, Daniel 7 posits the persistence of all of the previous monarchies, and
does not claim that the first has been destroyed. Ginsberg (1948, 65 [n. 7]) assumed that the
phrase ‫( ונטילת מן ארעא‬v. 4) means “it was taken away from earth,” i.e., “it perished.” He was
therefore forced to assume the incompatibility of this clause with the continuation of the verse
(“only one of many indications that it is out of place”) and proposes that the end of v. 4 originally
belonged to the description of the second beast. This approach has been adopted by Hartman
and di Lella (1978, 202, 212–13). However, it is simpler to translate this Aramaic phrase as “it was
raised/lifted up from the ground,” and understand it as part of the transformation from beast to
human.
I do not mean to suggest that Daniel 7 offers no chronological progression

whatsoever; the vision emphasizes that the animals emerged from the mythic
waters one after the other. However, unlike the apocalypse in chapter 8, where
there is an explicit description of the he-goat trampling the ram (8:5–7), reflecting
Greece’s defeat of Persia and Media, there is no explicit reference in chapter 7 to
combat between the different kingdoms. In fact, the only strife described takes
place within the fourth kingdom itself, in which the king symbolized by the arro-
gant horn uproots the three preceding horns of that empire (imagery that reflects
Antiochus IV’s political struggles against other leaders/monarchs). The empha-
sis in chapter 7 is on the wresting of dominion from these four kingdoms, and
its bestowal upon ‫קדישי עליונין‬. Therefore, while Deuteronomy 32 focuses on the
process of distribution of peoples and lands at the Urzeit, Daniel 7 focuses on the
Endzeit, at which time the land is to be reappropriated and redistributed. Unlike
the previous distribution, however, in the eschatological age the land will be
granted to only one divine character – the one like a man, or ‫קדישי עליונין‬.
In the analysis above, it was suggested that one can identify the one like a
man, and ‫קדישי עליונין‬, with Yhwh, and the ‫עם קדישי עליונין‬, with his people,
Israel. This identification further strengthens the connection to and transforma-
tion of Deuteronomy 32. In that earlier poetic text, Yhwh received only a small,
yet significant, portion of the nations and lands of the world under his direct
care. However, Daniel 7 envisions a transformation of the world order, in which
Yhwh will be sovereign over all of the nations of the world, thus transforming the
national God of Israel into a universal God, to whom all nations will be subser-
vient.⁴⁵ Daniel 7 is not intended to replace Deuteronomy 32, since they describe
different periods in the history of the world. The first describes the creation of
the cosmos, while the second reaches towards a new creation of the theological-
cosmological world order.⁴⁶
Another potential inner-biblical source for the notion of the appropriation
of the lands from the members of the divine, heavenly retinue, and their grant to
Yhwh can be identified in Psalm 82. That somewhat enigmatic psalm describes a
45 See the discussion of Knohl (1994), who addresses this theme in a number of biblical texts
(including Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82) although he does not consider Daniel 7.
46 Perhaps this transition to Yhwh as the sole divine power is already hinted at within the con-
text of Deuteronomy 32: “See, then, that I, I am He; there is no god beside me. I deal death and
give life; I wounded and I will heal: none can deliver from My hand.” (v. 39) (as suggested to me
by B. Bruning). Rabbinic sources similarly combine Deut 32:39 with Dan 7:9 in order to negate a
potential “heretical” reading of the latter; see Mek. R. Y., Ba-ḥodeš 5; Šîrā 4; Mek. RŠB”Y, Bešallaḥ
15 (cf. also Sifre Deut. 329 which adduces Deut 32:39 without Dan 7:9) and the discussion of
A. F. Segal (1977, 32–36).
heavenly scene in which one deity accuses others in a juridical context. Although
the name Yhwh does not appear in this mythic psalm, numerous scholars have
surmised that it has been removed due to the editorial process by which the Elo-
histic Psalter (Psalms 42–83) was composed, and has been replaced by ‫ אלהים‬in
vv. 1 and 8.⁴⁷ According to this reading, Yhwh stood as an accuser in the divine
court, alleging that other divine beings were guilty of judicial misconduct, since
they mistreated the poor and downtrodden. The psalm continues with a pro-
nouncement directed against these divine beings, that they will in fact perish like
humans; it concludes with an address to ‫=( אלהים‬Yhwh) that he will judge the
earth and should/will inherit among all the nations (‫)כי אתה תנחל בכל הגוים‬.
The theological-cosmological picture of this psalm is not completely clear, and
many scholars have debated whether this scene can be defined as monotheis-
tic or not. All critical scholars have recognized the Canaanite, polytheistic back-
ground of this scene, although most understand that the author of the psalm has
transformed this earlier myth by promoting Yhwh to the head of the pantheon.
Furthermore, this psalm “corrects” the theological-cosmological model posited
in Deuteronomy 32, which had suggested that the various ‫ בני אלהים‬have power
and/or sovereignty over the nations. In this psalm, Yhwh is able to take away
their divinity and transform them into humans, thus subjugating these subor-
dinate deities to Yhwh himself. They do not have independent authority that
allows them to act upon their own will.⁴⁸
More recently, David Frankel has suggested that Psalm 82 reflects the earlier
polytheistic conception known to us from the Canaanite pantheon, in which
Yhwh stands and accuses these divine beings within the divine court of El.⁴⁹
This has been suggested before; even within the more circumscribed interpre-
tive framework just outlined, many commentators have suggested that the terms
‫( עדת אל‬v. 1) and ‫( בני עליון‬v. 6) preserve vestiges of such a polytheistic pantheon
and court. However, Frankel extends this argument further, and posits that vv.
6–8 of Psalm 82 are not the words of Yhwh or the psalmist, but rather those of
El.⁵⁰ In his proposed reading, the psalm presumes a pantheon with El standing
47 For a summary of this scholarship and an analysis of the statistical distribution of divine
names within the Elohistic Psalter, see Joffe (2001). With specific reference to Ps 82:1, 8, see e.g.,
(among many) Rofé (2009, 420–21). Alternatively, and less radically, one can suggest, that the
figure named ‫ אלהים‬in vv. 1 and 8 should be interpreted as Yhwh.
48 See among many, the studies of Wright (1950, 30–41); Cross (1973, 44, 186–88); Rofé ([1979]
2012, 62–73); Smith (2001, 48–49; 2008, 131–43); Parker (1995).
49 Frankel (2010).
50 Most commentators suggest that v. 8 is a declaration of the psalmist, or another individual
outside of the divine scene, to Yhwh. Frankel’s suggestion obviates the need to assume that the
at its head. In light of the indictment that Yhwh brings against the ‫ בני עליון‬in El’s
court, it is El who decides to demote the ‫ בני עליון‬to mere mortals, confiscating
their lands and inheritances; and it is El who turns to Yhwh in v. 8 and designates
him to receive the inheritance of all of the nations. This picture is in many ways
a direct development of Deut 32:8–9, according to the mythic reading, featuring
Elyon as the one who distributes the lands to the various ‫בני אלהים‬. In a rever-
sal of this original plan, El (=Elyon) appropriates these lands and grants them to
Yhwh alone.
This second interpretation of Psalm 82, Frankel goes on to argue, finds its
natural continuation in the apocalypse of Daniel 7. As already noted above, Daniel
7 also describes a heavenly court scene in which a senior deity (the Ancient of
Days) convicts subordinate divine characters (the four beasts) to death, while
granting dominion over all the nations of the world to a divine character of special
status, the one like a man. The emphasis on the sovereignty over the nations
throughout Daniel 7, and in particular, the use of the Aramaic root ‫( חס"ן‬cognate
with the Hebrew ‫)נח"ל‬, suggest that this is the primary theme of this chapter, as
it is in Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82. Moreover, if the ultimate message of the
psalm is that Yhwh is to inherit sovereignty over all the nations of the world, then
the correspondence to the analysis of Daniel 7 above is even more striking.
Of course, Frankel’s interpretation of Psalm 82 needs to be further considered
in order to assess whether it indeed bears out the position which he stakes out.
The psalm is open to multiple interpretations, two of which were outlined briefly
above, and others which were not addressed here at all. However, I would suggest
that at the very least, we have an example here of inner-biblical interpretation,
in which the author of the apocalypse in Daniel 7 has read Psalm 82 in accord-
ance with the interpretation outlined above. It would therefore not be necessary
to establish the original meaning of Psalm 82, since the reception history of this
chapter is more significant for this evaluation. Even if Psalm 82 were to reflect
a monotheistic reaction to Deut 32:8–9 (against the interpretation posited by
Frankel), then Daniel 7, which interprets Psalm 82, can be termed a remytholo-
gization of this scene. This tendency within Second Temple literature has been
noted previously by scholars,⁵¹ and its presence here is not atypical for this
speaker has changed between vv. 7 and 8. At the same time, it can be questioned whether the
description of the ‫ בני עליון‬in 3rd person in v. 5, in contrast to the 2nd person in vv. 2–4, 6–8, is a
necessary sign of a shift in speaker (from Yhwh to El). Alternatively, it can be explained as a liter-
ary device intended to differentiate between the crimes of these divine beings and their punish-
ment, each delineated by Yhwh.
51 Note the studies of Stone (1985; 1987).
genre. In the view of this apocalyptic author, the heavenly plane and its earthly
parallel functioned according to the plan established at creation, but will both be
transformed in the eschatological era, when the sovereignty over the nations of
the world will be bestowed upon Yhwh in the divine court.
5.5 Daniel 7 and the Other Apocalypses in Daniel: Daniel 7:25
Chapter 7 is simultaneously the first of the apocalypses and the last of the Aramaic
chapters. Many scholars have offered explanations for the different contours of
the generic (chapters 1–6: narratives; 7–12: apocalypses) and linguistic (chapters
1, 8–12: Hebrew; 2–7: Aramaic) divisions in Daniel. The most convincing expla-
nation, to my mind, is that this overlap is the result of the literary development
of the book. Chapters 2–7 existed as a complete composition in Aramaic before
the Hebrew apocalypses in chapters 8–12 and introduction in chapter 1 were
added to the book.⁵² There are obviously many nuances within this argument
which need to be clarified, including the composition history of chapters 2–7 as
a unit, and subsequently the order in which the supplementary chapters were
added. But setting those questions aside, if one accepts the general distinction
between chapters 2–7 and 8–12, and the notion that the Aramaic book preceded
the Hebrew apocalypses, then methodologically one should avoid interpreting
the former based upon the latter. They were not composed by the same author or
at the same time, and therefore they cannot be assumed a priori to have the same
meaning. Daniel 7 needs to be evaluated independently of the other apocalypses,
and only then can it be compared to the subsequent chapters of the book.
This methodological point is crucial for the argument made above since, as
just noted, inner-Danielic parallels could have a secondary impact upon the inter-
pretation of Daniel 7. I suggest that such caution is necessary particularly with
regard to the exegesis of 7:25, which contains another instance of ‫קדישי עליונין‬:
Dan 7:25
‫ומלין לצד עליא ) ִﬠ ָלּ ָאה( ימלל ולקדישי עליונין‬ He will speak words against the Most High,
‫יבלא …׃‬ and will “speak (against)” the ‫קדישי עליונין‬.
These two parallel stichs are generally viewed as referring to two separate nega-
tive actions perpetrated by Antiochus against two separate targets – 1) the blas-
52 For a thorough discussion of this issue, see Collins (1993, 24–38), and below, pp. 211–213.
Daniel 7 and the Other Apocalypses in Daniel: Daniel 7:25 151
phemy directed against the Most High; and 2) the negative action (‫)יבלא‬⁵³ carried
out against the ‫קדישי עליונין‬. The parallelism corresponds to the twofold division
in the first part of the vision, with ‫ עליא‬referring to the Ancient of Days and ‫קדישי‬
‫עליונין‬, already present earlier in the apocalypse corresponding to the one like
a man, generally understood as Yhwh and the heavenly host (or Israel) respec-
tively.
This interpretation seems to be supported by the parallel passages elsewhere
in the subsequent apocalypses in chapters 8–12, which similarly describe the
blasphemous actions of Antiochus IV. Thus in chapter 8, the small horn attacks
both the stars of the heavenly host and the chief of the host itself (‫)שר הצבא‬:⁵⁴
(10) It grew as high as the host of heaven and it hurled some stars of the heavenly host to
the ground and trampled them. (11) It vaunted itself against the very chief of the host; on its
account the regular offering was suspended, and his holy place was abandoned.
53 As discussed by previous interpreters and scholars, the meaning of this verb is not sufficiently
clear, although its generally negative tone is apparent from the context. The general meaning of
the Hebrew root ‫ בל"י‬is “wear out, wear down” (BDB, 115, s.v. ‫ ; ָבּ ַלה‬HALOT, 132, s.v. ‫)בלה‬, and
usually refers to a physical object that is worn out, although in 1Chr 17:9 it concerns the nation
of Israel. It could perhaps therefore be used metaphorically here to refer to some sort of blow
against God. Variations of this meaning are found in the ancient translations and subsequent
interpreters. The OG translates: κατατρίψει “wear out” – the same Greek equivalent translates
‫ בל"י‬in Deut 8:4 (LXXA); 29:4(5); Theod: παλαιώσει “decay, wear out” the same Greek equivalent
translates ‫ בל"י‬in the Septuagint to Deut 8:4; 29:4(5); Jos 9:5,13; Neh 9:21; Job 13:28; Ps 32(31):3;
49(48):15(14); 102(101):27(26); Isa 50:9; 51:6; 65:22; Lam 3:4; Vulgate: conteret “wear out”; Rashi:
‫“ יטריח ויציק‬bother and badger”; BDB, 1084, s.v. ‫“ ְב ָלא‬wear away, out,” fig. for “harass continu-
ally”; HALOT, 1834, s.v. ‫בלה‬: “wear out.” (The Peshitta mss reads ‫“ ܢܟܐܠ‬deceit,” but should per-
haps be emended to ‫ܢܒܐܠ‬, using the same Semitic root as MT). Further consideration should be
given to a suggestion first put forth by Noth ([1955] 1966, 224–25), according to which the verb is
based upon a Semitic root related to the Arabic balā with the meaning “to offend, test, handle
roughly, torment.” In fact, that Semitic root is actually broader semantically, and refers to speech
in general, as in the Ethiopic behla which is the standard verb of speech. Akkadian baʾālu, bâlu
carries the meaning “to beseech,” usually in the context of human requests to deities (CAD, vol.
B, 2, s.v. bẚālu B). Wolf Leslau (1987, 89), s.v. behla, also compares the Geèz verb to the Akkadian
verb and to the Arabic (bhl) ibtahala “implore, beseech.” In view of the parallel ‫ומלין לצד … ימלל‬
“speak words against” in this verse, it should perhaps be translated here as “speak (against)”
(cf. VanderKam [1977], who identifies a similar meaning for the Biblical Hebrew verb ‫ בהל‬in
Ps 2:5, offering “speak passionately”).
54 For the scholars that have identified all verses that mention the small horn as redactional
additions to chapter 7 (see above n. 5), these verses were likely added under the influence of
chapter 8. The present study posits the opposite direction of development.
Subsequently in chapter 11, the contemptible King of the North also acts against
two distinctly defined heavenly groups:
(36) … The king will do as he pleases; he will exalt and magnify himself above every god
(‫)על־כל־אל‬, and he will speak awful things against the god of gods (‫…)ועל אל אלים‬
When 7:25 is read in light of these verses, then its most natural reading is that it
refers to Yhwh and a group of subordinate divine entities as the targets of Antio-
chus’ problematic behavior.⁵⁵
However, in light of the process of literary development of the book of Daniel
outlined here, we must be careful not to equate chapter 7 with the later apocalypses.
As already discussed, the identity of each of these characters in Dan 7:25 depends
on one’s interpretation of the dramatis personae in the first half of the chapter, in
the vision of the heavenly court scene. As I have attempted to show, the charac-
ters in that section can also be interpreted as a reference to the head of the pan-
theon (El/Elyon) and Yhwh. If that is the case, then perhaps we should read v. 25a
as a reference to blasphemy against these divine entities. The alternative picture
in the parallel verses in chapters 8 and 11 is then seen to result from the second-
ary, inner-Danielic interpretation of the earlier “source” apocalypse in chapter 7.⁵⁶
If the above claim is correct, that Daniel 7 reflects the same contours as the
heavenly scenes in Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82, in which Yhwh received domin-
ion over the world, then subsequent interpretations transformed this theological-
cosmological picture, promoting Yhwh to the head of this court, and equating
him with the Ancient of Days. This promotion, however, created a vacuum for
the identification of the one like a man, and opened up the possibility of a new
character, a divine second-in-command over Israel, a notion that is developed in
subsequent chapters of Daniel (identified as Michael in 10:13,21; 12:1)⁵⁷ and in the
New Testament (Jesus).⁵⁸
55 See e.g., Collins (1993, 321–22), who thus interprets the parallelism, and explicitly adduces
the parallel to Dan 8:10 in this context.
56 Similarly Collins (1993, 280) suggests, “Chapter 8 was surely influenced by chap. 7,” with
reference to the motif of the little horn.
57 Michael is not mentioned in chapter 7, and in light of the methodological caution noted here,
should not be assumed to be part of its theological-cosmological worldview (Goldingay 1989,
172), contra, e.g., Schmidt (1900, 26–28); Emerton (1958, 242); Collins (1977, 144–46); Lacocque
(1979, 133–34); Day (1985, 172); Collins (1993, 310). Zevit (1968, 394–96) suggests that ‫בר אנש‬
should be identified with Gabriel (Dan 9:21), but this possibility is less appropriate than Michael
in terms of their roles in Daniel. In any event, the same methodological qualification applies to
this suggestion as well.
58 For the New Testament identification of Jesus with ‫ בר אנש‬of Daniel 7, see the survey essay of
Yarbro Collins (1993, 90–112 [especially pp. 90–105]).
Theological Worldview or Literary Appropriation? 153
5.6 Theological Worldview or Literary Appropriation?
The interpretation proposed here for Daniel 7 is at first glance striking in its theo-
logical assumption of the existence of a deity above Yhwh, who is responsible for
the distribution and redistribution of lands and empires. While this theological-
cosmological construct is familiar from an earlier context, it is more surprising to
find its expression in a passage which can be safely dated, at least in its current
form, to the second century bce. Simply expressed – is it conceivable that there
were Jews in this period who believed in the existence of a deity superior to Yhwh?
As a methodological rule, such a priori arguments should be avoided, since we
should not expect authors to conform to our assumptions about what they could
or could not have believed or intended to express, in a specific period of time.
Rather, the texts in question need to be analyzed and interpreted on their own
terms, and only after we succeed in interpreting each work in its own framework
of assumptions can we then continue to the next stage of assessing the place
of the text in question within the larger literary, cultural, and ideational matrix
from which it emerged. This is the only way to successfully avoid the potential
pitfall of anachronistic scholarly assumptions and interpretations. At the same
time, if the proposed interpretation leads to the conclusion that the passage in
question is indeed unique in its worldview, then caution must be exercised before
positing a radical reading of the evidence. Some early rabbinic sources do inter-
pret Daniel 7:9–10 with reference to two divine figures, although they conceive
of Yhwh as the more senior deity, and the one like a man as a subordinate heav-
enly being. Others polemicize against the notion of two divinities using this same
verses.⁵⁹ These later traditions may hint at the earlier cosmological conception,
reinterpreted now through a nonpolytheistic lens.
Due to the uniqueness of the worldview described here (at least unique to the
period to which the composition of Daniel 7 is attributed), it is perhaps however
preferable to explain this hierarchy of deities not as the result of an exceptional
theological perspective, but rather due to the literary and exegetical dependence
of the author of Daniel 7 upon the ancient myths of the division of the world as
expressed in Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82. The contours of the description of
the eschatological period in this apocalypse are not therefore a direct descrip-
59 Cf. the sources presented by A. F. Segal (1977, 33–67). As he notes, some of the rabbinic
sources ostensibly employ Dan 7:9–10 as a prooftext against the idea of “Two Powers in Heaven,”
but the content and context of these verses “makes it more likely that Dan. 7:9 f. is as central to
the heresy as it is to the defense against it …” (p. 36), and “is also the locus of the same heretical
traditions” (p. 37) against which it is polemicizing.
tion of this author’s religious worldview, but instead a literary reflection of these
foundational passages of biblical cosmogony, which were then further developed
in Daniel 7’s description of the eternal kingdom of Yhwh. Following this line
of thought, the author of Daniel 7 intended for his audience to identify and be
aware of these familiar biblical passages, and to understand the new composi-
tion against this religio-literary backdrop. The theological hierarchy is therefore
not the primary point of this passage, but rather an echo of its mythical sources.
The above identification of each of the divine characters in this heavenly drama,
while perhaps precise on the literary level, is only part of the appropriate evalua-
tion of the theological worldview of this apocalypse. A complete appreciation of
the meaning of the apocalypse can only be obtained by reading it in light of the
biblical sources which form its basis.⁶⁰
60 As I argued in a separate article (Segal 2014), the relationship between Daniel 7 and these ear-
lier sources was further developed in a subsequent composition discovered at Qumran (4Q246).
I suggested there that the identification of the intertextual connections between these biblical
passages allows for the interpretation of this enigmatic scroll, and solves an interpretive crux
which is fundamental for understanding the religious worldview of that later composition.
6 The Chronological Conception of the Persian
Period in Daniel 9
6.1 Introduction: Chronology in Daniel 9 –

The Interpretive Consensus
The second half of the book of Daniel (chapters 7–12) has long attracted the atten-
tion of interpreters, both for its contribution towards understanding the develop-
ment of the genre of apocalyptic literature, and also for its contribution towards
understanding the historiographical approaches and assumptions of Jewish
compositions from the Hellenistic period. Each of the four visions in this section
describes an extended period of history, culminating in the reign of Antiochus IV
and his evil decrees, followed by a forecast of miraculous redemption and sal-
vation for the Judeans suffering under his rule. Among these visions, chapter 9
stands apart from the rest on account of its explicit relationship to earlier biblical
material, in particular the seventy-year prophecy found in Jeremiah 25 and 29. It
is generally accepted by scholars today that Dan 9:24–27 provides an example of
Second Temple era inner-biblical interpretation; the later text has transformed
Jeremiah’s seventy years of exile into seventy weeks of years, namely, 490 years.
According to this commonly accepted reading, the author of Daniel 9 did not con-
sider the dismal Judean reality of the Persian and Hellenistic periods to be the ful-
fillment of Jeremiah’s words of hope and restoration. Therefore, this writer found
it necessary to extend the expiration date of these prophecies, originally directed
at the Babylonian exiles, until the mid-second century bce.¹
The method by which this presumed reinterpretation was accomplished is
similar to some degree to the mode of dream interpretation found in chapters 7
and 8. These chapters contain vivid visions, which are interpreted symbolically
for Daniel by an angelic interpreter. Each aspect of the visions is understood to
reflect a particular idea, entity, or event, and the divine revelation to Daniel is only
coherent on the symbolic level. This approach to Daniel 9 presumes a similar use
of “symbolic exegesis,” by which Jeremiah’s “year” was reinterpreted as “week.”²
1 See, among others, Ackroyd (1968, 242–43); Wacholder (1975, 204); Knibb (1976, 254); Hart-
man and Di Lella (1978, 244, 249–50); Fishbane (1985, 479–85); Grabbe (1987); Zakovitch (1992,
129–30); Collins (1993, 352); Sommer (2004, 1831–32).
2 I use the term “symbolic exegesis” here since there seems to be no self-evident philological
basis for understanding the word ‫“ שנה‬year” as ‫“ שבוע‬week-year.” It is possible, however, to
suggest an exegetical reason for transforming years into week-years (see n. 7 below).
156 The Chronological Conception of the Persian Period in Daniel 9
The primary difference in this conception between the interpretive model of chap-
ters 7 and 8 on the one hand, and that of chapter 9 on the other, is that the former
draw correspondences between the symbolic elements of the dream and histori-
cal entities and events, while the latter treats Jeremiah’s prophetic utterance in
the same way. Thus, the method of interpretation found in Daniel 9 (according to
the prevailing view) is most similar to pesher exegesis, as evidenced extensively
in the Qumran scrolls.³
An interesting consequence of this scholarly approach is that thus read,
Daniel 9 stands in opposition to the understanding of history expressed explicitly
at the end of the Book of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 36), which clearly assumes
that Jeremiah’s prophecy was indeed fulfilled in the time of Cyrus, when the
Judeans were allowed to return to the land and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem
(2Chr 36:20–23):⁴
(20) Those who survived the sword he exiled to Babylon, and they became his and his
sons’ servants till the rise of the Persian kingdom, (21) in fulfillment of the word of the Lord
spoken by Jeremiah, until the land paid back its sabbaths; as long as it lay desolate it kept
sabbath, till seventy years were completed. (22) And in the first year of King Cyrus of Persia,
when the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah was fulfilled, the Lord roused the spirit of
King Cyrus of Persia to issue a proclamation throughout his realm by word of mouth and in
writing, as follows: (23) “Thus said King Cyrus of Persia: …”
This difference in chronological framework is generally held to reflect the varying

approaches of the biblical authors, each of whom presents their own perspective
of the Second Temple period.⁵ 2 Chronicles 36 has also been analyzed extensively
as an example of inner-biblical interpretation, which brings together Jeremiah’s
seventy years and the rules for observance of the sabbatical years prescribed
in Leviticus 25 and 26, especially Lev 26:34–35,43.⁶ According to this reading,
the seventy years of exile are a function of the years spent in the land of Israel
during which the Israelites neglected the sabbatical law. It has been proposed
that a similar idea provides the basis for the 490 years of Daniel. Rather than
a reference to the years of nonobservance of the sabbatical law in the past, the
3 Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 245); Lacocque (1979, 177, 191); Collins (1993, 359).
4 Another interpretation can be identified in Zech 1:12, which holds that the seventy years of
God’s wrath (presumably a reference to Jeremiah 25 and 29) came to a conclusion in the second
year of the reign of Darius of Persia (v. 7; 520/519 bce).
5 See e.g. Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 247); Collins (1993, 352).
6 The material parallel to the Leviticus passage is presented in italics above. See Fishbane (1985,
479–85) and Zakovitch (1992, 129–30) for discussions of this interpretation.
A New Interpretation of Daniel 9 157
length of time in Daniel reflects the projection of this same time period into the
future.⁷
This study will reexamine the text of Daniel 9, with a side look at other chrono-
logical elements in the book of Daniel, and suggest an alternative interpretation
of the chronology of this chapter and its relationship to Jeremiah’s seventy-year
prophecy. In particular, it will be argued that the seventy weeks of Daniel do not
reinterpret the seventy years of Jeremiah nor do they overlap with or replace them.
Instead, the seventy weeks reflect a subsequent, successive period of time, imme-
diately following the completion of the seventy years of exile. This new conception
has implications both for the understanding of this chapter in Daniel, and more
generally, for the history of a number of Jewish traditions in the Hellenistic period.
6.2 A New Interpretation of Daniel 9
The analysis of Daniel 9 must begin with an examination of the two passages in
Jeremiah that refer to the period of seventy years. Jeremiah 25 reads:
(1) The word which came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year
of King Jehoiakim son of Josiah of Judah, which was the first year of King Nebuchadrezzar
of Babylon. (2) This is what the prophet Jeremiah said to all the people of Judah and all the
inhabitants of Jerusalem: … (11) This whole land shall be a desolate ruin. And those nations
shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. (12) When the seventy years are over, I will
punish the king of Babylon and that nation and the land of the Chaldeans for their sins –
declares the Lord – and I will make it a desolation for all time. (13) And I will bring upon
that land all that I have decreed against it, all that is recorded in this book – that which
Jeremiah prophesied against all the nations. (14) For they too shall be enslaved by many
nations and great kings; and I will requite them according to their acts and according to
their conduct.
7 As Collins (1993, 352) has suggested, Daniel’s 490 years of exile could derive from a calcula-
tion of one year of exile for every missed sabbatical year, since each one takes place every seven
years. This interpretation differs from the notion of “symbolic” exegesis described above, since
it offers an exegetical basis for the reinterpretation. Alternatively, it has been suggested that the
multiplication of seventy years by a factor of seven results from the application of the sevenfold
punishment recorded in Lev 26:18,28 (Hartman and Di Lella 1978, 250; Collins 1993, 352). This
interpretation of Daniel 9 assumes the same combination of Jeremiah 25 and 29 with Leviticus
25–26 as that found in 2 Chronicles 36. However, no clear traces of such a connection are ex-
pressed explicitly in Daniel 9 (other than possibly the multiplication of seventy by seven), and I
suggest that this avenue of interpretation has been overly influenced by the explicit interpretive
approach found in 2 Chronicles 36.
This prophecy predicts the downfall of the Babylonian kingdom, seventy years
after the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Just as Judah received punish-
ment for its sins, so, too, will Babylon eventually receive just punishment for its
errant behavior. From a historical perspective, the beginning of Nebuchadnez-
zar’s reign is generally dated to 605/4 BCE, and therefore, the rise of Persia and
defeat of Babylon in 539/538 did indeed take place approximately seventy years
later. While it is tempting to take this relative precision as possible evidence for an
ex eventu prophecy, in light of both biblical (Isa 23:15–17) and extrabiblical paral-
lels (Essarhaddon) to this chronological prognostication, the number seventy in
Jeremiah 25 and 29 should be understood as a typological reflection of exile.⁸
The prophecy in Jeremiah 29 similarly relates to the seventy years of Babylo-
nian sovereignty, but also to Israel’s restoration at the end of that period:
(1) This is the text of the letter which the prophet Jeremiah sent from Jerusalem to the
priests, the prophets, the rest of the elders of the exile community, and to all the people
whom Nebuchadnezzar had exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon – (2) after King Jeconiah, the
queen mother, the eunuchs, the officials of Judah and Jerusalem, and the craftsmen and
smiths had left from Jerusalem. … (10) For thus said the Lord: When Babylon’s seventy years
are over, I will take note of you, and I will fulfill to you My promise of favor – to bring you
back to this place. (11) For I am mindful of the plans I have made concerning you – declares
the Lord – plans for your welfare, not for disaster, to give you a hopeful future. (12) When
you call Me and come and pray to Me, I will give heed to you. (13) You will search for Me and
find Me, if only you seek me wholeheartedly. (14) I will be at hand for you – declares the
Lord – and I will restore your fortunes. And I will gather you from all the nations and from
all the places to which I have banished you – declares the Lord – and I will bring you back
to the place from which I have exiled you.
In this letter, supposedly sent to the leadership in the Babylonian exile (dated
by the biblical text to some time after 597 BCE),⁹ Jeremiah encourages the exiles
to settle down for an extended stay, since they will return to the land only at the
completion of the seventy-year period which will bring the end of the Babylonian
empire. Jeremiah warns the exiles not to listen to false prophets, who claim that
the length of the exile will be much shorter. At the end of this predetermined
period, they are turn to God in prayer, and God will bring them back to the land
(vv. 10–14).
8 For a discussion of the nature of typological periods (and fixed periods of time in general) in
the Bible and in the Ancient Near East, see Ephʿal (2006–2007).
9 If one dates the letter sent in Jer 29:1 according to the date found at the beginning of 28:1 (the
fourth year of Zedekiah), it was written in 594 bce.
Daniel 9 in its entirety needs to be read against this literary backdrop. A close
examination of the text reveals its extensive relationship to the Jeremianic proph-
ecies. The first two verses of the chapter correlate the words of Jeremiah with the
supposed history of the fortunes of the Babylonian empire:
Dan 9:1–2
‫( בשׁנת אחת לדריושׁ בן־אחשׁורושׁ מזרע מדי‬1) (1) In the first year of Darius son of Ahas-
‫( בשׁנת אחת‬2) ‫אשׁר המלך על מלכות כשׂדים׃‬ uerus, of Median descent, who was made
‫למלכו אני דניאל בינתי בספרים מספר השׁנים‬ king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans; (2) in
‫אשׁר היה דבר־יהוה אל־ירמיה הנביא למלאות‬ the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, consulted
‫לחרבות ירושׁלם שׁבעים שׁנה׃‬ the “books” concerning the number of years
that, according to the word of the Lord that
had come to Jeremiah the prophet, were to be
the term of Jerusalem’s devastation – seventy
years.
6.2.1 Darius the Mede – Historiography as Exegesis
The most immediately anomalous element in this introductory passage is the

figure of Darius the Mede. Previous generations of scholars attempted to identify
this Median monarch,¹⁰ but today there is a general consensus that he is a ficti-
tious character.¹¹ A historical King Darius is known from both within and outside
of the Bible – in fact, we find more than one by that name – but they were Kings
of Persia, not Media. Furthermore, the Medians did not overthrow the Babylo-
nian kingdom – the Persians did. The same fictitious Darius the Mede is found in
10 This position has primarily been the purview of pre-critical and conservative interpreters;
see the critical response to some of these suggestions by Grabbe (1988). At the same time, there
have been a handful of notable critical scholars who have tried to connect the Median king with
known figures of the period. A few scholars have suggested identifying Daniel’s Darius the Mede
as the historically recognizable Ugbaru/Gobryas, governor of Guitum, who played an important
role in the taking of Babylon and was subsequently appointed governor over parts of Babylonia
for a short period of time, from this conquest until his death soon after (for the historical back-
ground of this individual, cf. Beaulieu [1989, 226–31]); and note especially Albright (1921, 112–13
[n. 19]); Koch (1983, 1992). However, it is not clear that Ugbaru was a Median, and in fact he de-
fected from the Babylonian to the Persian side. It is furthermore unconvincing to assume that he
was renamed Darius, which is unattested anywhere else (Albright [ibid.] suggested that “Darius”
was “perhaps an old Iranian royal title”; cf. also Koch [1992, 39]).
11 The list here is far too long and includes almost all critical scholars; see especially the oft-
cited work of Rowley (1935, 12–66).
Dan 6:1 as the successor to Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans (5:30),¹² as well as
in 11:1.¹³ Why did the author/editor of Daniel create this fictional character? Two
primary explanations have been suggested.¹⁴ First, it has been noted that some
earlier biblical prophecies predict the downfall of the Babylonian kingdom at the
hands of the Medes (Isa 13:17; 21:2; Jer 51:11,28).¹⁵ According to this view, the writer
responsible for the date in chapters 6 and 9 was describing the downfall of the
Babylonian kingdom as a fulfillment of these prophecies, which thus came to
fruition through the rise of a fictional Median monarch. The second approach is
to view the addition of a Median king as a necessary element of the four-kingdom
scheme found in both Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2, and in the vision in
chapter 7.¹⁶ According to this interpretation, the editor of the book structured its
chronological framework according to the kingdoms represented in those visions,
12 Darius’s Median descent is not mentioned again anywhere in chapter 6, and many schol-
ars take the opening verse as an editorial gloss. According to this view, the king Darius found
throughout the rest of chapter 6 may be Darius of Persia, one of three historical kings of the
Persian Empire by that name. Collins (1993, 36) suggests that, like the chronological notice at
the beginning of chapter 9, the redactional verse was added in order to reflect the four-kingdom
sequence found elsewhere in Daniel. However, he posits that the verse at the beginning of chap-
ter 6 was originally part of an Aramaic, pre-Maccabean collection of tales that comprised chap-
ters 1–6. In this construction, the influence of the four-kingdom scheme would thus be the result
of the connection with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2. However, as Collins (1993, 36 [n.
326]) himself notes, the presence of the same chronological sequence in both halves of the book
(stories in chapters. 1–6 and apocalypses in 7–12), incorporating the figure of Darius the Mede,
could lead to the conclusion that 6:1 is part of the larger redaction of the entire book and not
limited to its first half (a possibility he rejects). As I suggest below, there is an inherent connec-
tion between the content of chapter 9 and its chronological positioning, including the invocation
of the figure of Darius. In that case, the dating of the story in chapter 6 to the reign of the same
Darius the Mede may reflect the influence of the date in chapter 9 on chapter 6. This influence
in turn may be the result of a thematic connection between these two chapters, since they both
describe Daniel praying in the direction of (6:3) or on behalf of (9:4–20) Jerusalem.
13 While the current chapter division between Daniel 10 and 11 seems primarily meant to fa-
cilitate the chronological marking of chapter 11 in a way similar to that of chapters 6 and 9, this
chronological note should more likely be understood as an attempt to identify the speaker in
chapter 10 with the angel Gabriel from chapter 9 (see, e.g., Collins [1993, 376]). In 4QDanc ii 13–14
(Ulrich 2000, 274), there is no division between 10:21 and 11:1 (as noted by Collins [1993, 376]),
an indication that at a relatively early date (the scroll is dated to the late second century bce ac-
cording to its editor; see Ulrich [2000, 270]), this clause mentioning Darius was not understood
as the opening of a new section.
14 Both of these options are briefly noted by M. H. Segal (1967, 745–46).
15 See the extended discussion of these prophecies in chap. 3 above. See also Bevan (1892, 109,
121); Charles (1929, 141–42); and more recently Rofé (2009, 139–40).
16 See the discussions of the origins of this motif at p. 146, n. 43.
Babylon–Media–Persia–Greece. He artificially added this date in our chapter in

order to “fill in” the lacuna of a second kingdom. Neither of these approaches
presupposes an inherent connection between the date assigned to the vision in
chapter 9 and its contents, since each presumes a motivation for the dating based
upon broader issues in Daniel or in the Bible as a whole.
It is possible, however, to posit an alternative explanation for this chrono-
logical framing that is directly related to the vision found in chapter 9. Daniel 9:1
offers an explanatory note that reveals the significance of the rise of the Median
monarch; according to this verse Darius “was made king¹⁷ over the kingdom
of the Chaldeans.” According to this introduction, the reign of Darius the Mede
brings to an end the period of Babylonian rule on the one hand, and as noted
explicitly in 6:29, ushers in the rule of King Cyrus of Persia on the other. The only
chronological note on this monarchy is the mention of a single year, “the first
year (‫ ”)בשנת אחת‬of Darius’s reign (9:1; 11:1). According to the method of count-
ing that will be described below in reference to 9:24–27, this date implies that
Darius ruled for one year (or less), and was merely a passing note in this histori-
cal sequence, without any particular significance in and of itself. Functionally,
the Median monarchy represents the midpoint in time between the Babylonian
and Persian empires, following the fall of the former and prior to the rise of the
latter.¹⁸ Comparison of the fictionalized historical context in Daniel 9:1, which
17 This is the only appearance in the entire Bible of the verbal stem ‫ך‬-‫ל‬-‫ מ‬in the hophal conjuga-
tion. Theodotion ἐβασίλευσεν and Peshitta ‫ ܐܡܠܟ‬both interpret the verb as an intransitive form,
which suggests that they read the plene form ‫ המלך‬as the hiphil conjugation, in contrast to the MT
vocalization. VanderKam (1981, 216–17) has noted the extensive use of the Greek verb βασιλεύω
in LXX in order to translate both qal and hiphil forms of ‫ך‬-‫ל‬-‫( מ‬note that LSJ, 309, s.v. βασιλεύω,
offers a causal meaning [II] for the verb, but only adduces prooftexts from LXX). An intransitive
meaning for the aphel of ‫ך‬-‫ל‬-‫ מ‬is standard in Syriac; see Sokoloff (2009, 771–72), s.v. ‫ܡܠܟ‬, Af. 1a.
The understanding and use of the hiphil as intransitive is part of a larger phenomenon in post-
biblical Hebrew; see Moreshet (1976); Qimron (1986, 49); and the discussion of the text of Jub. 1:27
by VanderKam (1981) and Kister (1994, n. 9). Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 240) adopt the hiphil
as the original reading, but the parallel to the use of the expression ‫“( ַק ֵבּל מלכותא‬received the
kingdom”) in 6:1 (as noted by BHS), supports the originality of MT. The Old Greek ἐβασίλευσαν
reflects a plural form of the verb, of which both Darius and Xerxes are the grammatical subjects
(see below n. 18).
18 In contrast to this one-year Median monarchy, the Old Greek version of Daniel 5:31–6:1 as-
sumes a somewhat different chronological picture, according to which there were two Median
Kings, first Xerxes (according to ms 967; Artaxerxes according to ms 88 and the Syrohexapla)
and then Darius. However, the reign of Xerxes prior to Darius in OG 5:31 is a secondary addition
to the text under the influence of 9:1, which mentions Xerxes as Darius’ father, but without any
explicit role. Since the reign of Xerxes in OG Dan 5:31 is intended to explain his presence in 9:1,
it was not part of the original chronology of the book of Daniel, and therefore does not alter the
assumes that the Babylonian king had just been deposed, with the prophecies
in Jeremiah quoted above, which describe the seventy-year period until the
end of Babylonian rule, leads to the conclusion that according to the Danielic
author the seventy years of Jeremiah 25 and 29 had indeed been chronologically
completed.¹⁹
6.2.2 Daniel’s Reading of Jeremiah
Many scholars interpret Dan 9:2 as if Daniel had opened a scriptural book of Jer-
emiah; discussion then revolves around the question of whether this wording
indicates that the book of Jeremiah already had canonical or authoritative status
in the second century bce when this chapter was composed.²⁰ One problem with
this interpretation is the use of the plural ‫ ספרים‬in reference to the biblical book.²¹
Even more significantly, this interpretation does not take into account the con-
structed reality of Daniel 9. While there is a general scholarly consensus that the
composition of this chapter should be dated to the second century bce, this does
not imply that all the terminology and expressions found therein should automat-
ically be interpreted according to their meanings at the time of authorship. While
later authors portraying an earlier period do sometimes betray their own setting
through anachronisms and inaccuracies, they primarily endeavor to invoke ter-
proposal here, that the Median kingdom was conceived of as but a fleeting moment between the
Babylonian and Persian kingdoms.
19 A similar argument was proposed by Bergsma (2007, 212–225; 2009).
20 Charles (1929, 225); Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 239) translate the word as “the Scriptures,”
“used here in the technical sense of the canonized Sacred Scriptures” (Hartman and Di Lella
(1978, 241). Similarly Lacocque (1979, 179) writes: “This is the first time in the Bible that ‘books’
are spoken of in the sense of ‘Scriptures’. So we have here an important testimony to the progres-
sive canonization of the books that were to form the Hebrew Bible two centuries later.” Collins
(1993, 348) notes that it is anachronistic to refer to “canonized Sacred Scriptures,” but still sug-
gests that ‫ ספרים‬here refers to the books of the Prophets, which were already considered a col-
lection of authoritative writings according to the prologue of Ben Sira, penned by his grandson.
21 Charles (1929, 225) interprets the plural as a reference to Leviticus 26, Jeremiah 25 and 29;
Wacholder (1975, 202) suggests that the plural form does not refer to Jeremiah alone, but may
include Zechariah (cf. above, n. 4) and “without question the Chronicler.” Wacholder himself,
however, posits that the author of Daniel 9 disagrees with the Chronicler, and it is therefore
unclear how this would be one of the books that Daniel read. I will suggest below that Daniel 9
actually agrees with the Chronicler, yet it is still unlikely that the “books” in plural includes that
work, since the Chronicler describes an event subsequent to the historically fictional setting of
Daniel 9.
minology and ideas appropriate to their fictionalized account. Therefore, when

analyzing such a story, the first stage of any hermeneutical process should be to
read the story on its own terms, in light of its fictionalized historical setting. The
term ‫ ספרים‬found in Daniel has been translated consistently as “books,”²² and
connected to notions of Scripture and canon. However, as is well-known, the bib-
lical term ‫ ֵס ֶפר‬can refer to almost any written document, including letters, scrolls,
legal documents, and of course, books, too.²³ In interpreting this word in Dan 9:2,
it makes sense to examine once again the passages to which it refers, Jeremiah 25
and 29. The word ‫ ספר‬appears in each of those contexts:²⁴
Jer 25:13²⁵ Jer 29:1²⁶
And I will bring upon that land all that I This is the text of the letter (‫)ואלה דברי הספר‬
have decreed against it, all that is recorded which the prophet Jeremiah sent from Jerusa-
in this document (‫ – )כל הכתוב בספר הזה‬that lem to the priests, the prophets, the rest of the
which Jeremiah prophesied against all the elders of the exile community, and to all the
nations. people whom Nebuchadnezzar had exiled from
Jerusalem to Babylon.
In light of these passages, when Daniel indicates that he looked in the ‫ספרים‬,
the simplest avenue of interpretation is that he looked at the missives that Jer-
emiah had sent to the exiled Judeans.²⁷ These letters refer to the seventy-year
22 Thus among the ancient versions – Old Greek: ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις (Theod: ἐν ταῖς βίβλοις); Vul-
gate: in libris; Peshitta: ‫ – ܒܣܦܪܐ‬and among the many modern translations and commentaries.
23 See BDB, 706–7, s.v. ‫ ; ֵס ֶפר‬HALOT, 766–67, s.v. ‫ ֵס ֶפר‬I, for various shades of meaning and ex-
amples of each.
24 The word ‫ ספר‬in reference to letters sent by Jeremiah occurs elsewhere throughout the book
(cf. 30:2; 36:2,4,8,10,11,13,18,32; 45:1), but this usage does not reflect the same context (the sev-
enty-year prophecy) as chapters 25 and 29.
25 The LXX moved all of the oracles against the nations following this verse; for the secondary
status of this placement, see Rofé (1989). This secondary arrangement assumes that 25:13 refers
to the subsequent collection of prophecies in chapters 46–51. However, in its original context,
this verse refers to the prophecy of doom for the nations found in 25:15 ff.
26 An essentially identical formulation is found at the beginning of Baruch, Καὶ οὗτοι ὁι λόγοι
τοῦ βιβλίου (1:1), also generally translated as “book,” but more likely reflecting a Hebrew Vorlage
‫ הספר‬with the meaning of “letter.”
27 A similar argument has already been put forth by Wilson (1990, 93–94), although he suggests
that the plural refers to two letters in Jeremiah 29 itself (vv. 1–23; 24–32). While a reference to the
first letter makes sense in this context, the second, which contains Jeremiah’s response to She-
maiah’s accusation of false prophecy, does not. According to the fictionalized historical context
of Daniel’s reading of Jeremiah’s letters, at the time of Daniel 9 there would no longer have been
any assumption of the authenticity of Shemaiah’s criticism of Jeremiah, since it was based upon
period mentioned in Dan 9:2, although in contrast to the passages in Jeremiah,

this period of time refers in Daniel 9 to the completion of the period of Jerusa-
lem’s desolation.²⁸ The multiple letters or scrolls that Jeremiah sent to the exiles
explain the plural form of the noun ‫ספרים‬.
The next verse (v. 3) describes Daniel’s actions upon reading these documents:
Dan 9:3
‫ואתנה את־פני אל־אדני האלהים לבקשׁ תפלה‬ Then I turned to the Lord God, to seek an
‫ותחנונים בצום ושׂק ואפר׃‬ answer by prayer and supplication with
fasting and sackcloth and ashes.
Why does Daniel pray at this stage? According to Jer 29:12–14, at the conclusion of
the seventy-year period, the exiles are to turn towards God in prayer; in response
to this initiative, He will rescue them and bring them back to the land:²⁹
(12) When you call Me and come and pray to Me, I will give heed to you. (13) You will
search for Me and find Me, if only you seek me wholeheartedly. (14) I will be at hand for
you – declares the Lord – and I will restore your fortunes. And I will gather you from all the
nations and from all the places to which I have banished you – declares the Lord – and I
will bring you back to the place from which I have exiled you.
According to the Jeremianic prophecy, the entreating of God by the exiles con-
stitutes a necessary precondition for the return to the land. This is part of the
broader biblical notion of the exile as a punishment for Israel’s sins, a situation
that can be rectified only through a return to righteous behavior, as emphasized
throughout the Deuteronomistic literature. When one reads Daniel 9 through the
literary lens of Jeremiah 29, it is very easy to understand why Daniel began to pray.
After he read the letters sent by Jeremiah to the Judean exiles, he followed the
instructions found therein, praying to God at the end of the seventy-year period.³⁰
the claim that the exile would be shorter than Jeremiah’s dire prediction. There would therefore
be no reason for Daniel to read it at the end of the seventy years of Babylonian domination.
28 As will be noted below, Jerusalem is the central focus of the apocalyptic revelation in
vv. 24–27, and perhaps that is the motivation for transforming the seventy years of Babylonian
domination to measuring the period of Jerusalem’s destruction at the beginning of the chapter.
29 The formulation of this passage shows clearly Deuteronomistic language. Jeremiah 29:13 is
nearly identical to Deut 4:29, and they both reflect a similar exilic setting (see Weinfeld [1972,
334]; in section 9a, Jer C, the second prooftext should probably be corrected to 29:13). Jeremiah
29:14 shares its language and setting with Deut 30:1–5 (see Weinfeld [1972, 348]).
30 See already Wilson (1990, 94–95). In light of this reading, where Daniel’s prayer may be seen
to echo the penitential nature of Jer 29:10–14, the prayer (and the accompanying fasting rituals)
described in v. 3 should be classified as penitential, especially when viewed in the context of the
Thus, the author of Daniel 9 carefully crafted his account, to paint Daniel as
fulfilling the details of Jeremiah 29, heralding the completion of the seventy years
of exile and arrival of the epoch of redemption. Each of the elements in vv. 1–3 so
far discussed serves that purpose.
6.2.3 Gabriel’s Response to Daniel’s Prayer
Following Daniel’s prayer, the angel Gabriel appears to him and offers a response
to his supplications:
(21) While I was uttering my prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had previously seen in the
vision, was sent forth in flight and reached me about the time of the evening offering. (22)
He made me understand by speaking to me and saying, “Daniel, I have just come forth
to give you understanding. (23) At the beginning of your supplications a word went forth
(‫)יצא דבר‬, and I have come to tell it, for you are precious; so mark the word and understand
the vision.
The content of the message, the ‫ דבר‬mentioned in v. 23, is contained in vv. 24–27.
This message was delivered as a result of Daniel’s supplication, and went forth at
the beginning of his prayer. The expression ‫ יצא דבר‬connotes a decision and its
declaration, or the issuing of an edict.³¹ Daniel 9:23 should therefore be under-
stood in a similar vein, namely that at the beginning of Daniel’s prayer, God made
larger Deuteronomisitic milieu from which it emerged (cf. Deuteronomy 4 and 30); for a discus-
sion of the pivotal role that Deuteronomy 4 and 30, along with Jer 29:10–14, play in the develop-
ment of penitential prayer in antiquity, see Werline (1998, 11–30). Werline (1998, 68) interprets
the rituals accompanying the prayer in v. 3 as reflecting penitential activities parallel to Ezra 9:3–
5; Neh 1:2; 9:2 (contra Lambert [2003, 506–507], who posits that these rituals are directly related
to supplication). The conclusion that v. 3 reflects penitential prayer has potential implications
for a larger question in the study of Daniel 9; namely, the relationship between the prayer in vv.
4–20 and the surrounding narrative. Many scholars assume that this long prayer is a secondary
addition to this chapter (see the list of scholars quoted in Collins [1993, 347 nn. 5–6]). However,
as demonstrated by Werline (1998, 68–82) and cf. the earlier studies of Lipiński (1969, 35–37) and
Gilbert (1972), this clearly penitential prayer is appropriate to the narrative context established
at the beginning of the chapter. This conclusion does not prove that the prayer in vv. 4–20 was
composed by the author of the narrative framework, since there are still significant differences
between them (Collins 1993, 359–60). However, it does obviate the tension between these two
sections, allowing for the alternative view that the author of Daniel 9 adopted an already extant
prayer, and incorporated it into his work as part of his own compositional process, as suggested
by Montgomery (1927, 362); Lacocque (1979, 180–81); Collins (1993, 348); Redditt (2000, 239–41).
31 This collocation seems to be limited only to LBH; it can be found, e.g., in Esth 1:19; 7:8 (cf. Ibn
Ezra ad loc); Gen 24:50–51; Isa 55:11.
a decision and issued a proclamation, expressed in the words which Gabriel sub-
sequently relayed to Daniel in vv. 24–27. If the word of God was sent only at this
point, then presumably it relates only to the point in time from Daniel’s prayer and
onward.³² Since the prayer and the answering vision are dated to the first year of
Darius the Mede, subsequent to the fall of the Babylonian empire, God’s message
pertains to the following eras, namely, the Persian and Hellenistic periods. The
content of Daniel’s vision relates to seventy weeks of years, which are divided into
three periods: seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week:³³
(24) Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city until the measure
of transgression is filled and that of sin complete, until iniquity is expiated, and eternal
righteousness ushered in; and prophetic vision ratified, and the Holy of Holies anointed.
(25) You must know and understand: From the issuance of the word to restore and rebuild
Jerusalem until the [time of the] anointed leader is seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks
it will be rebuilt, square and moat, but in a time of distress. (26) And after those sixty-two
weeks, the anointed will disappear and vanish. The army of a leader who is to come will
destroy the city and the sanctuary, but its end will come through a flood. Desolations are
decreed until the end of war. (27) During one week, he will make a firm covenant with many.
For half a week he will put a stop to the sacrifice and the meal offering. At the corner [of the
altar] will be an appalling abomination until the decreed destruction will be poured out
upon the appalling thing.³⁴
32 See below regarding the parallel expressions of v. 23, “At the beginning of your supplications
a word went forth (‫)יצא דבר‬,” and v. 25, “From the issuance of the word (‫ )מן מוצא דבר‬to restore
and rebuild Jerusalem.”
33 The text and chronological divisions here accord with the MT. The Old Greek offers a some-
what different chronological scheme, although it is based upon almost identical numbers to
those found in MT. That version seems to have been contaminated by a number of textual dou-
blets in these verses (see esp. OG v. 27, which preserves three alternate readings to clauses in
vv. 26–27). Both Theod and the Vulgate reflect a slightly different model, in which the first two
periods of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks are combined (as can be seen by the addition of a
connective καὶ or et at the beginning of the subsequent clause). While this leaves the general
structure of the seventy weeks intact, it essentially eliminates the “anointed prince” who is to
arrive at the end of the seven-week period, and merges him with the anointed figure who dis-
appears at the beginning of the final week. This elision is clearly secondary, since it leaves us
with no apparent reason why the text should distinguish between the seven- and sixty-two-week
periods (vv. 25–26), while at the same time joining them together (contra the doubts raised by
Bergsma [2007, 221 n. 50]; his argument is based upon the earliest date at which the MT reading
of the verse is attested). These verses have been the subject of intense exegetical activity almost
from the time of their composition. For a discussion of their interpretation amongst Jews in an-
tiquity, see Grabbe (1997).
34 Laato (1990) has proposed that an original pre-Maccabean core of these verses (vv. 24–26),
was then expanded with the addition of v. 27, following the murder of Onias III; see further
The measuring of time by weeks of years, and the sum total of 490 years (a
“jubilee” of years), are part of the broader literary milieu in the Second Temple
period. Examples of compositions that use such schemes include Jubilees, the
Apocalypse of Weeks in 1 Enoch, and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah from Qumran
Cave 4.³⁵ From the other compositions that use these systems, it appears that
they are intended to indicate complete periods of time or epochs of history; such
systems were never intended to reflect historical minutiae, but rather an ideal-
ized, schematic view of history and its periodization. These numbers should thus
be understood typologically and not as reflecting precise calculations.³⁶ The typo-
logical nature of such numbering systems is the primary reason why interpreters
have been unable to satisfactorily align them with the dates of actual historical
events, a problem that also applies to Daniel 9.³⁷
From the description of what takes place during or at the end each of these
periods in Daniel 9, it becomes apparent that the two significant lengths of time
are the first and third periods: at the end of the first seven weeks, the ‫משיח נגיד‬
will appear, and at the beginning of the final week, a different character called
‫משיח‬, generally identified as Onias III (cf. 2Macc 4:30–38; Dan 11:22), will be
killed, an event which will be followed by the desecration of the Temple with
the placement there of an appalling abomination. The interim period of sixty-two
weeks does not seem to have any special significance in terms of the events that
occur therein; and the function of this interim period seems to be to complete the
seventy weeks.
While there is a general scholarly consensus regarding the historical inter-
pretation of the events surrounding the final week of the seventy, including the
murder of Onias, Antiochus’ decrees and the desecration of the Temple, there is
Berner (2006, 35–37). Since the argument here primarily concerns the first of the three periods,
their proposals do not directly affect what is suggested here.
35 For the Apocryphon of Jeremiah, see DJD 30. For a discussion of Daniel 9 in the chronologi-
cal context of these compositions, see Lacocque (1979, 191); Dimant (1993); Berner (2006). For a
history of the meaning and development of the concept of the jubilee from the Bible to Qumran,
see Bergsma (2007). VanderKam (1998) summarizes the use of heptadic chronological systems in
numerous postbiblical compositions.
36 Jubilees presents an exception to this rule, since it attempts to date precisely the many events
of the patriarchal period. Nonetheless, the larger chronological framework of the book, which
culminates in the fiftieth jubilee, or the “jubilee of jubilees,” is intended to typologically express
broader historical notions related to the destiny of Israel on a national level; see VanderKam
([1995] 2000).
37 See for example the attempt of Athas (2009) to precisely align the description in Daniel 9 with
actual events. In order to do so, he suggests that the period of seven weeks is included within the
sixty-two weeks, an option which appears at odds with the text itself.
less agreement regarding the first phase of the seventy weeks. Verse 25 describes
the time span from the beginning of the prophecy until the appearance of the
“anointed leader,” the ‫משיח נגיד‬. Two details in the text need to be addressed in
order to properly understand this time period. First, what is the starting point for
this count? Second, who is the character identified as ‫ ?משיח נגיד‬Obviously these
two questions are interconnected, since the decision as to when this forty-nine
year period begins will directly affect the identity of the character reached at its
conclusion. It is therefore crucial to address the two questions in the order posed.
As already noted above, most scholars have suggested that the count of the
seventy weeks in vv. 24–27 begins from the time of Jeremiah’s prophecy – that is,
near the beginning of the sixth century. According to v. 25, the starting point for
the seventy weeks of years is a pronouncement or edict (‫ )מן מוצא דבר‬prescrib-
ing the return to and rebuilding of Jerusalem. In the two seventy-year prophecies
in chapters 25 and 29, Jeremiah does not specifically mention the rebuilding of
Jerusalem, although he does forecast the restoration of the people to Jerusalem
(29:10,14). Jeremiah speaks of the rebuilding of Jerusalem in other prophecies,
however, including 30:18; 31:37.³⁸ One finds a reference in Jer 29:10 to a ‫ דבר‬of
God, specifically with reference to the return of the Israel from the exile, after
seventy years:
Jer 29:10
‫כי־כה אמר יהוה כי לפי מלאת לבבל שׁבעים שׁנה‬ For thus said the Lord: When Babylon’s
‫אפקד אתכם והקמתי עליכם את־דברי הטוב‬ seventy years are over, I will take note of you,
‫להשׁיב אתכם אל־המקום הזה׃‬ and I will fulfill to you My promise of favor –
to bring you back to this place.
This start date therefore leads most scholars to date the conclusion of the shorter
period of seven weeks in Dan 9:25 to approximately the end of the exile, and to
suggest that ‫ משיח נגיד‬refers to a character from the beginning of the restora-
tion period. There are three primary suspects, and they have each been suggested
in the literature: King Cyrus of Persia, Joshua the High Priest, and Zerubabel.³⁹
Cyrus is referred to as the anointed one of God in Isa 45:1, and also qualifies as
38 HaCohen and Kil (1994, 238).

39 Most modern commentators note all three possibilities; the following list, which is not in-
tended to be exhaustive, notes the preference (sometimes more than one) of each interpreter:
(a) Cyrus: Rashi (ad loc.); Malbim (ad loc.); Delcor (1971, 197); Fishbane (1985, 483). (b) Joshua:
Montgomery (1927, 378–79, 392); Charles (1929, 244); Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 251); Lacocque
(1979, 194–95); Goldingay (1989, 261); Collins (1993, 355); Wills (2004, 1660); Berner (2006, 61). (c)
Zerubbabel: raised as an option by Goldingay (1989, 261); Wills (2004, 1660).
a ‫נגיד‬, since this term is used elsewhere in the Bible for kings.⁴⁰ From an his-
torical perspective, Cyrus did in fact appear 49 years following the destruction
of the Temple. Joshua the High priest also functioned towards the beginning of
the restoration period, and the title ‫ משיח‬for a high priest parallels the similar
usage in v. 26 for the figure who is widely accepted as designating the murdered
High Priest Onias III. A similar argument has been made regarding Zerubbabel,
who, although not a priest, was a scion of the Davidic line (cf. Hag 2:20–23),⁴¹ and
therefore could possibly be referred to as anointed in light of potential royal aspi-
rations (see Figure 1).
However, this line of interpretation runs into problems, based upon both lan-
guage in Daniel 9:23 and 25 that conveys the starting date of the seventy weeks,
and the historical correlations of the chronology. The first factor is the language
of vv. 23. and 25. Verse 23 informs Daniel that “At the beginning of your supplica-
tions a word went forth” (‫ ;)בתחלת תחנוניך יצא דבר‬verse 25 dates the beginning
of the seventy weeks of years to the moment “From the issuance of the word”
(‫)מן מוצא דבר‬. The parallel formulations strongly suggest that these two verses are
referring to the same event. Since the going forth of “the word” in v. 23 is defined
explicitly as the response to Daniel’s prayer, then the most natural reading of the
passage is that the counting of the weeks in v. 25 likewise begins from the moment
of Daniel’s prayer.⁴²
Second, although the traditional chronology may “work” in terms of finding
historical referents for the first seven weeks, it runs into trouble farther down
the line. If the 490 years is supposed to have begun at the time of Jeremiah’s sev-
enty-year prophecy (comparing ‫ מוצא דבר‬to ‫ דבר ה' אל ירמיה‬in v. 2), and if those
seventy years have passed, as suggested by the transition from the Babylonian to
Median kingdom, then the seven-week, forty-nine-year, period must have ended
at some point before the revelation to Daniel! If so, according to that reading, the
‫ משיח נגיד‬should be someone who had appeared during the exile, and there is no
natural historical candidate during that time. Furthermore, the event heralded by
the appearance of the anointed prince, the beginning of the rebuilding of Jerusa-
lem, certainly did not occur during the exile.
40 BDB, 617–18, s.v. ‫ ;נָ גִ יד‬HALOT, 667–68.

41 Cf. also 1Chr 3:17–19, although there he is described as the son of Pedaiah instead of Shealtiel
(contra Hag 1:1,2,12,14,23; 2:2; Ezra 3:2,8; 5:2; Neh 12:1); for a discussion of the possible causes of
this contradiction, see Japhet (1993, 100–101); Knoppers (2004, 328).
42 Collins (1993, 355) also notes the connection between the two expressions, and comments
that “the word” in v. 25 refers to “the revelation given to Daniel, rather than the original prophecy
to Jeremiah.” However, he does not further develop this line of thought.
170
“Darius the Mede”
7 weeks 62 weeks 1 week
Jeremiah’s Cyrus’ Edict/ Murder End of

Prophecy Joshua the High Priest/ of Onias Decrees
Zerubbabel
Figure 1: The Prevalent Interpretation

The Chronological Conception of the Persian Period in Daniel 9
Taken together, these observations suggest that the period of seventy weeks
commences immediately after, and in consequence of Daniel’s supplication to
God and the subsequent prophecy. Explicit evidence of a call to return to (or
restore) and rebuild Jerusalem at this point in time is found in Cyrus’s edict (Ezra
1:1–3 ≈ 2Chr 36:22–23).⁴³ While formally, Cyrus’s edict refers to the building of the
Temple in Jerusalem and not to the city of Jerusalem itself (see below regarding
this point), the chronological context immediately following the introduction of
the fictional Darius the Mede; the explicit reference to the fulfillment of the Jere-
mianic prophecy (both in Ezra and 2 Chronicles); and the larger literary context of
Ezra–Nehemiah with reference to the rebuilding of Jerusalem, all point to Cyrus’s
edict as the expression of the word of God alluded to in Dan 9:25. Both Dan 9:25
and the descriptions in Ezra/Chronicles similarly indicate that Cyrus’s proclama-
tion was the result of God’s manifest involvement in the fortunes of the exiled
Israelites.⁴⁴
6.2.4 A “Proto-Rabbinic” Chronological Conception in Daniel 9?

Towards a “New” Identification of the ‫משיח נגיד‬
If one accepts this interpretation of the starting point of the seven-week period,
then the next question that must be raised is the identification of the ‫משיח נגיד‬,
who can no longer be identified with Cyrus. While the apocalypses in the second
half of the book do indicate some direct familiarity with the Hellenistic period
(especially that of Daniel 11), I suggest that their knowledge of the Persian period
was based solely upon the earlier biblical data. The beginning of this seven-week
period is in the first (and only?) year of the fictional Darius the Mede, which imme-
diately precedes the rule of King Cyrus of Persia. If we were to count forty-nine
“historical” years from the fictional time of Darius the Mede (539 bce), then we
would arrive at approximately 490 bce; but this date provides no natural candi-
date for the identification of the ‫משיח נגיד‬. However, if the authors of the second
half of Daniel had no (or almost no) extrabiblical knowledge of the history of
the Persian period, then their historical perceptions of this era were formed and
molded based upon their reading of earlier biblical books. If so, the historical-
chronological conceptions of these authors must be analyzed within the frame-
43 As emphasized by Bergsma (2007, 223–24).

44 The line of interpretation proposed here fully accords with the idea expressed in 2 Chronicles
36, which portrays the Edict of Cyrus as the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy. This interpreta-
tion thus obviates the need to suggest that these two books reflect competing traditions.
work of their biblical sources. In order to ascertain the identity of the author of
Daniel 9’s ‫משיח נגיד‬, we need to decipher his method of interpreting the chrono-
logical data in his biblical sources.
Turning to the biblical accounts themselves, we see that the Bible mentions only
four kings from this period: Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes. I suggest that
the author of Daniel 9, one of the latest biblical authors, therefore knew of these
four kings alone, and was not aware either of the details of their reigns or of the
existence of other Persian monarchs.⁴⁵ I would like to suggest that the principle
used for conceptualizing the chronology of the Persian period in Daniel 9 is anal-
ogous to that found in the early rabbinic chronography Seder Olam, as well as
other rabbinic sources that relate to the chronology of the Persian period.⁴⁶ In
Seder Olam, only spans of time mentioned explicitly in the Bible are considered
actually to have occurred in history. Thus, for example, if a king historically ruled
for thirty years, but the Bible records events only up to his fifteenth year, Seder
Olam recognizes that king’s reign as only fifteen years long. Furthermore, this
schema assumes that there are no chronological gaps in the biblical chronology –
the entire history of the period is covered by the details supplied by the Bible. The
Persian period stands out in particular as spanning a much shorter interval when
measured by such calculations, than when determined according to extrabiblical
historical sources.⁴⁷ The following biblical verses are relevant to the calculation
of the Persian period using this system. In each instance, I have provided the
name of the king and the number of years that he reigned, based solely upon the
latest date attested in the biblical corpus.
45 One may similarly explain the four Persian kings mentioned in 11:2: “It is because Scripture
furnished its author with only four names of Persian kings. …” (Ginsberg 1948, 19); “… since
these are the only four names of Persian kings that occur in the O. T., and since the O. T. was at
all events the principal source of information available to the writer” (Charles 1929, 273); see
similarly Montgomery (1927, 423); Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 287–88); Lacocque (1979, 217);
Goldingay (1989, 295); Collins (1993, 377).
46 The rabbinic chronology is not identical with the scheme proposed here for the Persian pe-
riod, and in fact includes only three kings and more complex calculations, reflecting additional
considerations of biblical interpretation; see the extensive discussion of Milikowsky (2013,
2:462–86).
47 The first person to notice this discrepancy was the sixteenth century Italian Jewish scholar
R. Azariah dei Rossi, in Meʾor ʿEinayim, chapter 40. For a discussion of the rabbinic conception
of the chronology of the Persian period, see (Tabory 1985); Milikowsky (2013 [cf. n. 46]) presents
the most comprehensive discussion of this issue to date.
King Length of Biblical Source Comment

Reign
Darius the 1 year Dan 9:1 – In the first year of See discussion above.
Mede Darius son of Ahasuerus …
Cyrus of 3 years Daniel 10:1 – In the third year of

Persia King Cyrus of Persia, an oracle
was revealed to Daniel, who was
called Belteshazzar. …
Darius of 7 years Ezra 6:15 – The house was fin- Ezra 6:15 takes place in Adar of the
Persia ished on the third of the month of sixth year of Darius’ reign, while
Adar in the sixth year of the reign v. 19 continues with the first month,
of King Darius. presumably of the following year,
Ezra 6:19 – The returned exiles year seven.
celebrated the Passover on the
fourteenth day of the first month.
Ahasuerus 14 years Esther 3:7 – In the first month, The threat to the Jews and their
of Persia that is, the month of Nisan, in the salvation culminates in Adar, at the
twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, end of the twelfth year of Ahasuerus.
pur – which means “the lot” – Following their deliverance, both
was cast before Haman concern- Mordechai and Esther wrote letters
ing every day every month, [until to the Jews in all of the provinces to
it fell on] the twelfth month, that observe the holiday of Purim in the
is the month of Adar. future (9:20–28, 29–32). The book
concludes with praise of Mordechai,
who was promoted by the king to
be second only to the royal throne.
A straightforward reading of the
conclusion gives the impression
that Ahasuerus ruled for many more
years, with Mordechai at his side.
Seder Olam 29 counts the reign of
Ahasuerus as fourteen years, based
upon similar reasoning. I have
therefore adopted this minimalistic
estimate for the calculation here.
Artaxerxes 20–32 Nehemiah 5:14: Furthermore, This range of dates obviously does
of Persia years from the day I was commissioned not reflect the entirety of Artaxerxes’
to be governor in the land of reign, but rather the range of dates
Judah – from the twentieth year which I suggest are significant for
of King Artaxerxes until his thirty- the date in 9:25. Nehemiah reached
second year, twelve years in all – Jerusalem in the twentieth year of
neither I nor my brothers ever ate Artaxerxes, and remained there until
of the governor’s food allowance. the thirty-second year of his reign.
(cf. also 2:1; 13:6)
If one assumes a counting method analogous to that of Seder Olam, in which the
biblical data, and only the biblical data, is used as the source for the dates of the
Persian period, then an interesting possibility arises for the ‫משיח נגיד‬.
King Length of Reign
Darius the Mede 1 year
Cyrus 3 years
Darius the Persian 7 years
Ahasuerus 14 years
Artaxerxes 20–32 years
TOTAL 45–57 years
By this tabulation, Nehemiah, who traveled to Jerusalem during Artaxerxes’

reign, arrived on the scene some 49 years from the date of Daniel’s supplication
to God in Dan 9, and thus emerges in this framework as the logical candidate for
the ‫( משיח נגיד‬see Figure 2).⁴⁸
This identification of the ‫ משיח נגיד‬with Nehemiah is bolstered by the
description of the activity that will define the ensuing period: “and for sixty-two
weeks it will be rebuilt, square and moat.” According to Dan 9:25, therefore, the
primary function of this character is the rebuilding of Jerusalem. No character in
the Bible or in postbiblical literature is associated with the rebuilding and forti-
fication of Jerusalem in the Persian period more closely than Nehemiah, and this
role is one of the primary themes of the Nehemiah Memoir in Ezra–Nehemiah.⁴⁹
The emphasis on the rebuilding of Jerusalem as the work of the ‫ משיח נגיד‬may
thus explain the formulation of v. 2 above; namely, the connection of Jeremiah’s
original seventy-year prophecy with the ruin of Jerusalem, rather than the return
to Judah and the rebuilding of the Temple. Similarly, the divine word at the begin-
ning of v. 25, which as suggested above, is to be related to the Edict of Cyrus that
48 The difference between 45 and 49 years (7 weeks) can be attributed once again to the typo-
logical conception of periods of time. As many scholars have already noted, seven weeks is the
definition of a jubilee period, but as suggested, it carries additional significance here. A similar
identification was proposed by the medieval exegete Abraham Ibn Ezra, with some differences
from what is proposed here in his calculations, but his lone voice in the wilderness seems to
have been unnoticed by most scholars. This is due in part to his conception of the Endzeit of the
prophecy, following the classical Jewish approach that interprets the events of the last “week”
as a reference to Rome, and the villain of these verses as Titus, a position not accepted today by
critical scholars. However, this should not invalidate his understanding of the first period in the
prophecy.
49 For a discussion of the literary and ideological development of this theme within the Nehe-
miah Memoir, see Wright (2004).
“Darius the Mede”
70 years 7 weeks 62 weeks 1 week
Jeremiah’s Cyrus’ Nehemiah Murder End of

Prophecy Edict of Onias Decrees
Figure 2: A New Interpretation

A New Interpretation of Daniel 9
175
follows soon after Daniel’s prayer, refers to the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and not
solely to the Temple.
The identification of the ‫ משיח נגיד‬with Nehemiah needs to be justified on
philological grounds as well. The title contains two components, ‫ משיח‬and ‫נגיד‬.
The latter may refer either to a political leader or ruler (including kings, princes,
rulers, officers, and court officials), or to a “high official connected with the
Temple.”⁵⁰ Nehemiah’s roles as governor, designated by the title ‫ פחה‬in Neh 12:26
and the Persian title ‫ התרשתא‬in 8:9 and 10:2, certainly fits this term. Somewhat
more puzzling is the use of the term ‫ משיח‬to describe him. The term “anointed”
is found thirty-nine times in the Bible, and is almost exclusively used for either
high priests or kings. However, in later usage, it could also be applied to kings
who were certainly not anointed. One such occurrence is Second Isaiah’s refer-
ence to King Cyrus as ‫משיחו‬, God’s chosen intermediary for His intervention in
the unfolding of world history (Isa 45:1).⁵¹ Similarly, in Ps 105:15 (|| 1Chr 16:22), the
patriarchs are referred to using this term, presumably with the meaning “chosen
ones.” It is possible that the use of this term in relation to Nehemiah is meant to
convey this broader meaning of the term; that is, Nehemiah is the one chosen by
God to help rebuild Jerusalem. Alternatively, the term ‫ משיח‬could reflect Nehe-
miah’s political leadership role in Judah.
A passage from the book of Nehemiah itself suggests that there were those
who viewed Nehemiah’s role in Yehud as king-like. Nehemiah 6:5–7 records San-
ballat’s open letter of accusation against Nehemiah:⁵²
(5) Sanballat sent me the same message a fifth time by his servant, who had an open letter
with him. (6) Its text was, “Word has reached the nations, and Geshem, too, says, that you
and the Jews are planning to rebel – for which reason you are building the wall – and that
you are to be their king. Such is the word. (7) You have also set up prophets in Jerusalem to
proclaim about you, ‘There is a king in Judah!’ Word of these things will surely reach the
king; so come, let us confer together.”
Nehemiah denies the accusations in v. 8, but it remains a distinct possibility that

there were those in fifth-century Yehud who did indeed believe and assert that
Nehemiah was to serve as the king who would lead the people to independence
from Persia.⁵³ If we can argue that such accusations were not created by Sanballat
50 Cf. BDB, 617–18, s.v. ‫ ;נָ גִ יד‬HALOT, 667–68.

51 See the comments of Paul (2012, 251–52).
52 I would like to thank Jacob Wright for calling my attention to the significance of this passage
in this context.
53 Batten (1913, 253). Blenkinsopp (1988, 268–70) allows for the possibility that this opinion
regarding Nehemiah was perhaps promoted by “nationalistic prophets.”
merely for the purpose of portraying his opponent in a negative light,⁵⁴ we have
here biblical evidence of royal aspirations in connection with Nehemiah, allow-
ing for the possibility that he was seen as the “anointed leader.”
If this identification of the ‫ משיח נגיד‬in Daniel as Nehemiah is correct, then
the chapter may be added to the list of Hasmonean-era sources in which he is
venerated. As has been noted by many previous scholars, two passages from the
same time period portray Nehemiah is the most positive of lights:⁵⁵
(a) Ben Sira 49:13:⁵⁶
‫נחמיה יאדר זכרו המקים את חרבתינו וירפא את‬ Exalted be the memory of Nehemiah! He
.‫הריסתינו ויצב דלתים ובריח‬ rebuilt our ruined walls, restored our shat-
tered defenses, and set up gates and bars.
This verse presents Nehemiah as the last of the biblical characters in the “Praise
of the Fathers.” Nehemiah’s “claim to fame” is once again his work on rebuilding
Jerusalem and its fortifications.⁵⁷
54 Williamson (1985, 255–57).

55 See the extensive discussion of these sources in Kellerman (1967, 112–50), and his description
of a “makkäbaisch-hasmonäischen Nehemiarenaissance” (148); cf. also Böhler (1997), based
upon the same sources as Kellerman, who refers to a “Nehemiah-Renaissance zur Hasmonäer-
zeit” (392–93) (my thanks to Jacob Wright for calling my attention to this study). Both of these
scholars also adduce the reference to the three sheep in 1 En. 89:72–73 as a possible allusion to
Nehemiah (Kellerman 1967, 133–34), but this identification is far from certain; see the reserva-
tions expressed by Nickelsburg (2001, 394), who suggests that the third sheep probably refers
to Sheshbazzar (or Haggai or Zechariah), in connection with the biblical pair of Zerubbabel and
Joshua. Taking a different approach, Tiller (1993, 336, 338–39) posits that the original text read
only two sheep (cf. the textual note in Nickelsburg [2001, 389]), therefore obviating the need
to identify the third (although he suggests that the corrupted reading “three,” attested in the
vast majority of manuscripts, should refer to either Sheshbezzar or Nehemiah). Kellerman (1967,
135–45) and Böhler point to Josephus’s writings as another source that reflects heightened inter-
est in Nehemiah in the Hasmonean period; Feldman (1992, 187–89), however, demonstrates sta-
tistically that Josephus actually minimizes his role, as compared to the biblical text. Therefore,
neither of these sources is quoted above as evidence for interest in Nehemiah during this time.
56 The Hebrew text here follows ms B from the Cairo Geniza. The English translation is adopted
from Skehan and Di Lella (1987, 541).
57 Scholars have long noted that Nehemiah appears here while Ezra does not. Referring to 2
Maccabees, M. H. Segal (1958, 339) suggests that Nehemiah was the more popular figure of the
two during the Hasmonean period; this situation was reversed by the rabbis, who established
Ezra the Scribe as the quintessential model from the past.
(b) 2 Maccabees 1:18
… ὅτε Νεεμιας ὁ οἰκοδομήσας τό τε ἱερὸν καὶ … Neemias, who built both the temple and the
τὸ θυσιαστήριον ἀνήνεγκεν θυσίας altar and offered sacrifices.
In the second letter in 2Macc 1:18–36, Nehemiah is described as the person

responsible for the rebuilding of the Temple and the reestablishment of the
Temple service. This tradition has no direct basis in the Bible, where these accom-
plishments are attributed to Zerubbabel the Davidide and Joshua the High Priest.
Perhaps this instance is another example of the same chronological concep-
tion described above, which contracts the Persian period to a very short time.⁵⁸
Daniel 9:25 therefore provides another source that emphasizes Nehemiah’s
importance and stature for Jews in the second century bce.
6.3 Conclusions
This analysis has shown just how fundamental issues of chronology become for
the interpretation of the Book of Daniel.⁵⁹ As we have seen, Daniel 9 is a liter-
ary work that portrays Daniel as fulfilling and enacting Jeremiah’s prophecy
of seventy years. Following the fall of the Babylonian empire, Daniel reads the
letters sent by Jeremiah, and turns to God in prayer. Daniel is rewarded with a
new prophecy, sevenfold the original Jeremianic prophecy. The seventy years of
Jeremiah, however, do not overlap with Daniel’s 490 years, but rather begin a
new prophetic era looking towards a different stage of redemption; therefore this
longer period is not a reinterpretation of the shorter one, but rather a new, seven-
fold prophecy.
In literary corroboration of this understanding of the passage, Daniel 9 uses
no terminology for interpretation in relation to this new prophecy, and there is
no explicit mention of interpretation in this chapter. This reading of the evidence
58 See Schwartz (2008, 151). Note that b. Sanh 38a equates Zerubbabel with Nehemiah (although
it seems unlikely that this identification was merely to provide the Davidic scion with a Jewish
name, as suggested by Goldstein [1983, 174]). Ezra 2:2 || Neh 7:7 (also 1Esd 5:8) mention a Nehe-
miah who returned with Joshua and Zerubbabel, but this is hardly sufficient to explain the ori-
gins of the tradition that he was responsible for rebuilding the Temple (contra Zeitlin [1954, 105]).
59 Chronological factors are also crucial for the interpretation of the opening verse in the book,
as suggested above in the appendix to chap. 1.
Conclusions 179
also leads to the conclusion that there is no disagreement between Daniel 9 and
Chronicles/Ezra regarding the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy.
Furthermore, I have demonstrated that chronology combines in Daniel 9 two
systems of counting. The first uses weeks and multiples of weeks in order to typo-
logically depict longer periods of history, and finds parallel in other compositions
of the Second Temple period. The second system is similar to the methods found
in rabbinic chronography of the Persian period, attested here centuries before the
rabbinic texts. This insight led to the identification of one of the central charac-
ters of Daniel 9 as Nehemiah, adding another source from the Hasmonean period
that emphasizes his stature and accomplishments.
7 Rethinking Jewish Life in the Diaspora:
The Story of Susanna
The story of Susanna, which is placed at the beginning of the Theodotion version
of the book, and at the end of the Old Greek, tells of a beautiful Israelite woman,
a member of the community of Babylonian exiles. She is seen by two judges,
also members of the exilic community, while she is walking in her garden. These
elders, the villains of the story, each desire her and independently continue to
spy on her (vv. 7–12). When they chance upon one another as they watch her,
they confess their mutual distress, and agree to join forces to take advantage of
her (vv. 13–14,19). They proposition her, but she refuses to sin, knowing full well
that she will suffer the consequences at their hands (vv. 22–23). Frustrated by
her refusal, the judges later summon her to appear before the assembly, where
they falsely accuse her of intercourse with an unknown young man who fled
before he could be caught. According to their testimony, Susanna has refused to
divulge the identity of her young suitor (vv. 28–41a). Due to their status as elders
and judges, the entire assembly uncritically accepts their version of the events
(v. 41b).
As she is led out to her execution, a youth named Daniel, identified here for
the first time, is given the spirit of wisdom by an angel, and demonstrates
that the judges had trumped up these charges (vv. 44–45). Daniel success-
fully disproves their fabrication by separating the witnesses and asking them
details about the event; in particular, he asks each of them under which tree
in the garden this act of indecency was supposed to have taken place. When
each provides the name of a different tree, it becomes abundantly clear to the
entire assembly that Susanna is innocent of the charges leveled against her,
and that these judges are indeed corrupt (vv. 48,51–59). They are sentenced to
death on the basis of the Deuteronomic law (Deut 19:16–21) which prescribes
that false witnesses are to receive the punishment that the falsely accused
suspect would have received had he or she been convicted, and executed by the
whole assembly (vv. 60–62). The story ends with a homily about the unblem-
ished, righteous nature of young people, represented in this story by Daniel,
whose portrait stands in sharp contrast to the negative portrayal of the elders
(vv. 62a–b).
The OG text of Susanna, which I have summarized here, is notably shorter
than that of Theodotion; there are entire verses found in the latter that are absent
from the former, including the introduction to the story. In my opinion, and that of
many scholars, the OG version of Susanna reflects the earlier edition of the story,
which has been expanded in Theodotion by a number of additions of varying
Placement and Function of the Story of Susanna: Preliminary Considerations 181
purposes.¹ The analysis here therefore focuses on the OG version of the story (as
given above), with recourse to the edition attributed to Theodotion in order to
demonstrate how this tale continued to develop.
7.1 Placement and Function of the Story of Susanna:

Preliminary Considerations
Scholars generally agree that Susanna was not an original part of the book of
Daniel, and was added only after the initially independent stories in chapters
1–6 had been combined. Moreover, it is possible that Susanna itself existed as an
independent literary entity prior to being attached to the larger Daniel collection,
although this assertion is more difficult to demonstrate since there is no extant
textual evidence for such a composition. The main arguments for the claim of
Susanna’s secondary status in Daniel emphasize its distinctiveness in compari-
son to the other narratives: while all of the stories in Daniel 1–6 are also located
in Babylonia, they are court tales; they share an interest in the competition and
intrigue between the Jewish exile Daniel (and sometimes his three compatriots)
and the local Babylonian sorcerers, magicians, and advisors to the king. In some
of the tales, Daniel’s faith in God and his adherence to the law are combined with
his success in this foreign world. As we have noted, these stories were composed
as positive paradigms for Jews in the Diaspora, encouraging them to succeed in
the royal court while simultaneously preserving their religious and ethnic iden-
tity. In a similar fashion, the story of Susanna describes a contest between Daniel
and more established members of society. However, in sharp contrast, his adver-
saries are not the courtiers of the Babylonian king, but rather the members of the
Jewish religious establishment, judges or elders.
Another argument for the secondary status of Susanna within the context
of Daniel can be adduced from its different locations in the various manuscripts
that reflect the expanded Daniel of the Greek textual tradition. In manuscripts
that derive from OG, the story appears at the end of the book. In ms 88, the Syro-
Hexapla and the Vulgate, it is found following Daniel 12 (the end of the book in
MT), and prior to the story of Bel and the Dragon. In Papyrus 967 (the earliest
exemplar of OG), it follows Bel and the Dragon. It appears at the beginning of the
book in Theod, as attested in the overwhelming majority of Greek codices and
1 Cf. Moore (1977, 78–80); Engel (1985); Wills (1990, 77–79); van Henten (1990, 2–6); Collins (1993,
426–28); pace Rofé (2009, 112–13).
182 Rethinking Jewish Life in the Diaspora: The Story of Susanna
manuscripts.² The divergence in message and setting, coupled with the absence
of Susanna from the MT and its floating placement in the Greek textual tradi-
tion, confirm the claim that the story was added to translations of the completed
Hebrew/Aramaic book of Daniel.
The story, like chapter 1 MT, describes Daniel in his youth, but makes no
mention of his role as a royal courtier. It therefore only makes narrative sense
when set prior to the first chapter of MT Daniel. Reading Greek Daniel as a com-
plete composition leads the reader to conclude that the events recounted in the
Susanna chapter must have taken place at a time when Daniel already lived in
Babylonia, but had not yet been taken to the court of Nebuchadnezzar.³ The
placement of Susanna at the end of the book (whether before or after Bel and the
Dragon), following the apocalypses, creates an unnatural progression and dis-
rupts the very clear distinction between stories (chapters 1–6) and visions (7–12)
found in MT Daniel. This placement reflects a conscious attempt to distinguish
between MT Daniel and any subsequent additions, reflecting canonical consid-
erations rather than literary ones. Thus Theodotion, although it generally repre-
sents a later version of Susanna than the OG, preserves the original order of the
expanded Greek translation.
Since the placement of Susanna at the beginning of Daniel creates a new
opening for the book, the following analysis will address the issue of what lit-
erary and/or ideological role this story plays as an alternative introduction. On
a literary level, this story offers a number of new dimensions beyond the MT
version. First, it fills a lacuna regarding the early years of Daniel, the hero of the
book, and in doing so, lets the reader know that he was already recognized as a
bright, gifted youth before he was brought by Ashpenaz to the king. It may be, in
2 Within the Theodotion tradition, there is even more variation. Ms 88 features both Greek ver-
sions: OG Daniel (including the Additions) is followed by Theod Daniel (including the Addi-
tions). Within that version of Theod Daniel, the order of the texts is: (1) Daniel 1–12; (2) Bel and
the Dragon vv. 1–2; (3) Susanna; (4) Bel and the Dragon vv. 3 ff. Munnich (following Rahlfs) notes
that this order offers indirect evidence for the order found in Pap. 967, which is otherwise unat-
tested; cf. Munnich (1999, 20–22).
3 This synchronic reading may find expression later in the Theod version itself. According to
MT Dan 1:3, Nebuchadnezzar orders his chief officer Ashpenaz “to bring from the children of
Israel (‫)מבני ישראל‬, and from the royal offspring, and from the nobles.” For the first of these
categories, Theod reads ἀπὸ τῶν υἱῶν τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας Ισραηλ “from the sons of the captivity of
Israel.” However, as noted by Montgomery (1927, 125); and Goldingay (1989, 5), the text of Theod
1:3 may result from the secondary influence of the similarly formulated 2:25 (MT: ‫מן בני גלותא די‬
‫ ;יהוד‬Theod: ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας τῆς Ἰουδαίας); one may also adduce 5:13; 6:14 (13) as
potential sources of influence. In each of these instances, a member of the royal court refers to
Daniel as one of the exiles from Judah.
Placement and Function of the Story of Susanna: Preliminary Considerations 183
fact, that the addition of the story addresses a specific interpretive issue raised
by chapter 1. Nebuchadnezzar commanded Ashpenaz to bring youths who were
“proficient in all wisdom, knowledgeable and intelligent” (v. 4). In v. 6, the reader
is informed that Daniel (along with his three friends) was among those brought to
the royal court. However, the MT’s narrative does not explain how it was known
that Daniel possessed such wisdom. The story of Susanna supplies a reason for
Daniel’s renown.⁴
Second, the story makes clear that Daniel’s wisdom, which he had already
exhibited prior to arriving at the royal court, was solely the result of a divine gift.
According to chapter 1, Daniel and his friends were brought to the royal court to
undergo a process of training, including education in the “language and literature
of the Chaldeans” (v. 4). While the continuation of that chapter emphasizes that
the four Judean exiles were successful due to God’s assistance (v. 17), this success
was achieved only within the context of their schooling in the court of the foreign
king. In contrast, the turning point in Susanna occurs when Daniel, a previously
unknown youth, is suddenly endowed with wisdom; just as the heroine is led to
her death, the OG version reads, “Behold, an angel of the Lord [appeared] as she
was being led out to execution, and the angel, as he was bidden, gave a spirit
of understanding to a young man named Daniel” (vv. 44–45). Similarly, Theod
reads: “Then the Lord heard her voice. When she was being led away to execu-
tion, God roused the holy spirit of a young boy, named Daniel” (ibid.). Although
the two versions differ here as to whether Susanna’s last-minute rescue through
Daniel’s acumen was triggered by God himself (Theod), or by means of an angel
(OG),⁵ they both agree that the origins of his wisdom are divine.
4 Similarly, Ps 151 found in both the Qumran Ps scroll and the LXX, may be understood as the
effort of an early interpreter to explain how a young David reached King Saul’s court. Cf. Segal
(2002).
5 The two versions are internally consistent on this point, as can be demonstrated by a compari-
son of this scene with that of the punishment of the elders at the end of the story. Both Theod
and the OG describe how the people implemented the punishment for false witnesses prescribed
in Deuteronomy 19. According to Theodotion, “they did to them as they maliciously tried to do
to their neighbor, so as to act according to the law of Moses, and they executed them. Innocent
blood was saved that day” (vv. 61–62). The Old Greek version of this scene tells a more exciting
story: “They did to them as the law states, as they had acted maliciously against a sister. They
bound them, led them out, and threw them into a ravine. Then the angel of the Lord threw fire
through their midst. Innocent blood was spared on that day” (ibid.). In both scenes, OG includes
an angel, which is absent from Theod.
7.2 The Interpretive Background of Susanna:

Isaiah 2:3 Recontextualized
In addition to these literary aspects, I would like to suggest that the addition of
Susanna to the beginning of Daniel has a fundamental impact in the ideological
realm as well, recasting the message of the book in a very different light from that
of its earlier form. In order to demonstrate this assertion, it is necessary to take
a detour through seemingly unrelated territory, in order to trace the interpretive
trajectory of the well-known prophecy in Isa 2:1–4. Many fundamental debates in
early Judaism were not discussed in a literary vacuum; rather, the interlocutors
formulated their arguments following the contours of passages from the Hebrew
Bible. They presented core beliefs, ideas, practices, and values using the lan-
guage and rhetoric of specific biblical verses. I will here examine Jewish sources
from antiquity that employed this prophecy, especially Isa 2:3, in order to address
questions of communal identity, and specifically the status of the Jewish commu-
nity or communities in the Diaspora. Scholars have already noted two instances
of such usage, and these cases will be adduced in order to better understand the
interpretive and social background of Susanna.
Before analyzing each of these passages, it is necessary to examine Isa 2:3
in its own biblical context, in order to appreciate its meaning and surrounding
themes.
The Interpretive Background of Susanna: Isaiah 2:3 Recontextualized 185
7.2.1 Isaiah 2:1–4⁶
Isa 2:1–4
‫( הדבר אשׁר חזה ישׁעיהו בן־אמוץ על־יהודה‬1) (1) The word that Isaiah son of Amoz prophe-
‫( והיה באחרית הימים נכון יהיה הר‬2) ‫וירושׁלם׃‬ sied concerning Judah and Jerusalem. (2) In the
‫בית־יהוה בראשׁ ההרים ונשׂא מגבעות ונהרו אליו‬ days to come, the mount of the Lord’s house
‫( והלכו עמים רבים ואמרו לכו ונעלה‬3) ‫כל־הגוים׃‬ shall stand firm above the mountains and
‫אל־הר־יהוה אל־בית אלהי יעקב וירנו מדרכיו‬ tower above the hills; and all the nations shall
‫ונלכה בארחתיו כי מציון תצא תורה ודבר־יהוה‬ gaze on it with joy. (3) And the many peoples
‫( ושׁפט בין הגוים והוכיח לעמים רבים‬4) ‫מירושׁלם׃‬ shall go and say: “Come, let us go up to the
‫וכתתו חרבותם לאתים וחניתותיהם למזמרות‬ mount of the Lord, to the house of the God of
‫לא־ישׂא גוי אל־גוי חרב ולא־ילמדו עוד מלחמה׃‬ Jacob; that he may instruct us in his ways, and
that we may walk in his paths.” For instruction
shall come forth from Zion, and the word of
the Lord from Jerusalem. (4) Thus he will judge
among the nations and arbitrate for the many
peoples, and they shall beat their swords
into plowshares and their spears into pruning
hooks: nation shall not take up sword against
nation; they shall never again know war.
In this prophecy, Isaiah describes a future time when the mountain of the House
of the Lord will rise above those around it, causing all of the nations to “gaze” at
it, or “stream” towards it.⁷ Many nations will ascend to the mountain to receive
instruction, and to hear the “word of the Lord” in Jerusalem. Verse 4 indicates
that the context of this visit to Jerusalem is divine justice – the nations of the
world will come to the mountain so that God may adjudicate their disputes. Once
their quarrels have been resolved, they will be able to lay down their weapons,
since there will be no more need for instruments of war (contrast Joel 4:9–10). In
the context of Isa 2:1–4, the word ‫( תורה‬v. 3) does not refer to specific statutes or
6 While I refer specifically to Isa 2:1–4 throughout this paper, an almost identical form of the
prophecy is found in Mic 4:1–3. The relationship between these two passages has been explored
extensively in biblical scholarship, and is beyond the scope of this discussion.
7 The word ‫ ונהרו‬is often translated as “they will stream,” reflecting its interpretation as a de-
nominative verb from the substantive ‫נהר‬, “river”. However, as noted by Schwartz (1998, 14–
15), Ibn Janah had already suggested (followed by R. Eliezer of Beaugency, H. L. Ginsburg and
NJPS), that it carries the meaning “see, gaze,” derived from the substantive ‫ נהר‬meaning “light”
(Job 3:4; the meaning is also attested elsewhere in Dan 2:22; 5:11,14). For a similar meaning of this
verb, see Isa 60:5; Jer 31:11; 51:44; Ps 34:6. As noted by Schwartz, the verse division in MT also
reflects this understanding of the verse, because otherwise, it would be more appropriate to join
this last clause to the opening sentence of v. 3.
regulations, but rather functions as a general term, with the meaning of either
“legal ruling” or “instruction,” provided by God;⁸ it is paralleled by “the word of
the Lord” in the following hemistich.
This judicial context explains the placement of this short prophecy immedi-
ately on the heels of Isaiah 1, which ends with a divine promise to restore Jerusa-
lem’s judiciary to its former glory; Jerusalem is to be known as the “city of right-
eousness, a faithful city” (v. 26). Following this promise of restoration, the more
radical vision of chapter 2 is the logical next step: the prophetic text moves from
the integrity and righteousness of individuals, to judgment upon the nations,
meted out by God himself.⁹
For the eighth-century bce prophet Isaiah son of Amoz,¹⁰ the description
of the Temple in Jerusalem as the central locus and seat of justice was both emi-
nently reasonable and appropriate in light of the juridical role of the levitical
priests and the judges in the Temple as expressed, for example, in Deut 17:8–11.¹¹
Scholars have demonstrated the literary connections between Isa 2:1–4 and Deu-
teronomy’s description of the judicial aspect of the Temple.¹²
In the context of Isaiah 2, the contrast between Jerusalem/Zion and the
“other” is configured as a contrast between Israel and the nations. Israel in Jeru-
salem is to serve as a moral and ethical light to the nations, and they in turn will
gaze at the Mountain of the Lord as a beacon of justice, raised above the rest of
the world. While the prophecy clearly locates the divine seat of justice in Jeru-
salem, it does not do so through negative comparisons with Israelite or Jewish
settlements outside the Land of Israel. Such issues are irrelevant to this preexilic
prophet, who is instead concerned with the central role of Zion and the Temple
as an “International Court of Justice,” where disputes between nations can be
resolved.
8 Note the arguments of Jensen (1973). For the former meaning, cf. Deut 17:8–11; Jer 18:18;
Hag 2:11–13; Mal 2:7. I would like to thank Benjamin Sommer for his help in clarifying this point.
9 See HaCohen (1987); Schwartz (1998, 24–25).
10 This passage has been dated by some scholars to the postexilic period, making the discussion
of its relationship to the Deutero-Isaiah passage more complex; cf. e.g., Clements (1980, 39–42
[especially 40]); Sweeney (1988, 165–74); Williamson (1994, 146–55). However see the convincing
response of Sommer (1998, 242–44 [n. 15]), who argues that there are no valid grounds for deny-
ing an eighth-century date for this passage.
11 The term “juridical” here is used in a broad sense, since Levinson (1997, 127–29) has demon-
strated the oracular role of the levitical priests in dispensing judicial rulings, according to Deut
17:9 (‫)ודרשת והגידו לך‬. I would like to thank Baruch Schwartz for this reference.
12 HaCohen (1987, 58–59); Schwartz (1998, 18–21 [and the opinions quoted there in n. 16]).
This contrast between Zion and “other,” which in its original context referred
to other nations, was transformed in later texts to refer to differences between
groups within Judaism, and specifically to configure the distinction between
those Jews living in the Land of Israel, and those found outside its borders. From
the period of the Babylonian Exile onwards, there was always a significant pro-
portion of the Jewish population residing outside of the Land, and this pres-
ence gave rise to a series of theological and religious questions. For example,
if one assumes that God is localized to the House of God in Jerusalem, what is
the relationship of the exiles to their deity? If the authoritative judiciary is found
in the Temple in Zion, what is the status of religious and judicial leadership in
the Diaspora relative to the religious center in Jerusalem? What is the status of
a prophet who speaks in the name of God, outside the Land? If the word of God
is found specifically and only in the Land of Israel, could a Jewish community
outside its borders function without recourse to that central community? In the
other direction, how should the community in Israel relate to those far away from
the Land? As I hope to demonstrate, Isa 2:3 was reworked and reformulated by
different groups, both in Israel and the Diaspora, in order either to support their
own claims of legitimacy or to de-legitimize their opposition, and thus served an
important function in the self-perception and identity formation of the respective
communities.
7.2.2 Isaiah 51:3–5¹³
The earliest reuse of this verse can be found within the Bible itself, and even
within the same book. Deutero-Isaiah, speaking to an exilic audience, reformu-
lates the earlier Isaianic verses:¹⁴
13 See the important discussion of Sommer (1998, 78–80), which forms the basis for this de-
scription.
14 The relationship of v. 3 to vv. 4–5 here is unclear, since the former is formulated in the third
person and the latter in first person. Furthermore, v. 4 opens with the formula ‫הקשיבו אלי עמי‬,
which seemingly marks a new section. The Masoretes interpreted vv. 4–6 as a new subunit, de-
limited by a “closed” paragraph between vv. 3 and 4.
Isa 51:3–5
‫( כי־נחם יהוה ציון נחם כל־חרבתיה וישׂם‬3) (3) Truly the Lord has comforted Zion (‫)ציון‬,
‫מדברה כעדן וערבתה כגן־יהוה שׂשׂון ושׂמחה‬ comforted all her ruins (‫ ;)חרבֹתיה‬He has made
‫( הקשׁיבו אלי עמי‬4) ‫ימצא בה תודה וקול זמרה׃‬ her wilderness like Eden, her desert like the
‫ולאומי אלי האזינו כי תורה מאתי תצא ומשׁפטי‬ Garden of the Lord, gladness and joy shall
‫( קרוב צדקי יצא ישׁעי וזרעי‬5) ‫לאור עמים ארגיע׃‬ abide there, thanksgiving and the sound of
‫עמים ישׁפטו אלי איים יקוו ואל־זרעי ייחלון׃‬ music. (4) Hearken to me, my people (‫)עמי‬,
and give ear to me, O my nation, for teach-
ing goes forth from me (‫)כי תורה מאתי תצא‬,
and my judgments (‫ )ומשפטי‬as a light for the
peoples (‫)לאור עמים‬, in a moment I will bring
it. (5) The triumph I grant is near, the success
I give has gone forth, my arms shall judge the
peoples (‫ ;)עמים ישפטו‬the coastlands shall
trust in me, they shall look to my arm.
The concentration of common terms and expressions, including ‫ציון‬, multiple

references to the nations (‫ )עמים‬and the usage of words from the root ‫שפט‬, only
serve to strengthen the obvious parallel between Isa 51:4 and Isa 2:3 – instead of
‫כי מציון תצא תורה‬, “For from Zion shall come forth instruction,” the later prophet
has reformulated this expression to reflect a new theological and geographical
reality, “For instruction shall go forth from Me (‫)כי תורה מאתי תצא‬.” The exiles
and this prophet found themselves far away from Zion, and therefore the message
of Isa 2:3, according to which teaching and the word of God emanate specifically
from Jerusalem, became problematic. If God’s message and judgment are con-
fined to the borders of the Land of Israel, or even more narrowly to the Temple
itself, how was the exiled Jewish community in Babylonia supposed to maintain
its relationship with God? Similarly, the entire notion of authentic prophecy in
the Diaspora was subject to question. If God’s message was delivered only in the
Land of Israel, from where did an exilic prophet derive his authority? While Jeru-
salem still remained the central locus according to Second Isaiah, his reformu-
lation of Isa 2:3 simultaneously addressed both issues. God’s instruction is not
limited to a specific location, but can be imparted wherever He so chooses. Simi-
larly, God’s communication to His nation, through His prophet, is also not limited
to a specific location. The formulation of vv. 4–5, ostensibly reflecting the words
of God, is itself ambiguous, and can also be understood as the prophet’s own
words. Similar language to describe the role and status of the prophet is found
elsewhere in Second Isaiah, e.g., 42:1–4; 49:1–6.¹⁵ Thus, while still confirming the
15 These verses were noted in the footnotes to the NJPS translation to Isa 51:4.
centrality of Jerusalem as the focal point of God’s presence, the reformulation of

Isa 2:3 informs the exiles that they need not be alarmed at their distance from this
central locus; the dispensing of justice and divine instruction is not a function
of the Temple’s location in itself, but rather of the presence of God in that loca-
tion, as represented by the prophet. If God, through his prophet, is present in the
Diaspora, then they will receive instruction there, because the teaching emanates
from him.¹⁶
This first example demonstrates the recasting of the verse in the hands of an
author outside the Land of Israel, who felt the need to establish a religious and
theological basis for his message and authority in the Diaspora.¹⁷ The interpret-
ing text has reformulated the interpreted source in order to express a new idea. At
the same time, despite the changes, it is still readily apparent that the base text
is Isa 2:3.
7.2.3 Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 1:2 (18d–19a)
In the next example, one can see how those inside the Land used the same verse
polemically against those who lived in the Diaspora. The Jerusalem Talmud
records a fascinating exchange in the period soon after the Bar Kokhba Revolt.
The historicity of the event is less of interest to this discussion than the underly-
ing tensions referred to in this story, reflected in the treatment of Isa 2:3. The story
appears in two passages in the Talmud Yerushalmi.¹⁸ The following translation
reflects the version in y. Sanhedrin, chapter 1:¹⁹
Mishnah: There is no intercalation of the year except in Judea, but if it was intercalated in
the Galilee, then it is a leap year. R. Ḥanina of Ono testified: if it could not be intercalated in
Judea, then they intercalated it in the Galilee.
There is no intercalation of the year outside the Land, and if they intercalated it, it is not
a leap year. You see that in the Galilee they do not intercalate it – yet outside the Land it
should be intercalated? In the Galilee they do not intercalate, but if they did intercalate – it
is intercalated. Outside the Land they do not intercalate, but if they did intercalate – it is
16 A similar notion is expressed in rabbinic passages that tackle the same theological issue fol-
lowing the destruction of the Second Temple, by positing that the shekhinah accompanied the
Israelites into Exile. See the discussions of Heschel (1962, 1:68–70); Urbach (1975, 1:54; 2:705–6
[n. 62]); Hacham (2011). I want to thank Benjamin Sommer for the first reference.
17 For another such attempt by an exilic prophet, compare the approach presented in Ezekiel 1;
9–11 (Sommer 1998, 244 [n. 17]).
18 A parallel version of the story is found in y. Ned. 6:9 (40a).
19 The translation is adapted from that provided by Gafni (1997, 106–8).
not intercalated. [This refers to] when they could intercalate in the Land of Israel, but when
they could not intercalate in the Land of Israel, then they intercalate it outside the Land.
Jeremiah intercalated outside the Land; Ezekiel intercalated outside the Land; Baruch son
of Neriah intercalated outside the Land.
Ḥananiah the nephew of R. Joshua intercalated outside the Land. Rabbi (= the Patriarch)
sent him three letters with R. Isaac and R. Nathan. In one he wrote, “Dedicated to Ḥananiah”;
in another he wrote, “the kids that you left have become goats”; and in the other he wrote,
“if you do not accept upon yourself (our authority), then depart to the desert of brambles
and be a slaughterer, and Neḥunion a sprinkler.” He read the first one and honored them;
the second one and he honored them; the third one, he wished to shame them. They said to
him, “You cannot, because you have already honored us.”
R. Isaac stood and read from the Torah, “These are the festivals of Ḥananiah the nephew of
R. Joshua.” They said: “These are the festivals of the Lord” (Lev 23:4). He replied: “By us!”
R. Nathan stood and supplemented (i.e., recited the hafṭarah), “For out of Babylonia shall
come Torah, and the word of the Lord from the Peqod River.” They said: “For out of Zion
shall come Torah and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isa 2:3). He said to them: “By
us!”
He (Ḥananiah) went and complained about them to R. Judah b. Bathyra at Nisbis. He
(Judah) said to him: “After them, after them.” He (Ḥananiah) said: “I do not know what is
there. And how am I to know that they are wise in thought like me?” [He (Judah) replied:]
Since you do not know their thoughts/knowledge, they must listen to you?! Since they are
wise in thought like him, he should listen to them!” He (Ḥananiah) rose and rode on his
horse. Where he reached – he reached, and where he did not reach–they observe in error.
It is written: “And to the rest (‫ )יתר‬of the elders of the Exile (‫( ”)גולה‬Jer 29:1) – The Holy One
Blessed be He said: The elders of the Diaspora are the most (‫ )ביותר‬to me, [but] a small band
in the Land of Israel is more beloved to me than the Great Sanhedrin outside the Land.
This extended passage relates to the statement by Ḥanina of Ono (third genera-
tion Tanna, 110–135 CE) in t. Sanh. 2:13, that he had witnessed the intercalation of
the calendar in the Galilee at a time when it was impossible to do this in Judea.²⁰
Moving one stage further away from Judea, the Palestinian Talmud extrapolates
that if one intercalates outside the Land of Israel, in contrast to the Galilee, the
year does not become a leap year. In response, the author of this sugya posits
that this negative outcome only occurs in those instances in which it is possible
to intercalate in the Land of Israel. At a time when intercalation was not possible
in the Land, such as in the days of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Baruch (i.e., during
the period of the Destruction and the Exile), then it indeed was permissible, and
presumably imperative, to do so outside the Land.
The narrative in this passage revolves around another such figure,
R. Ḥananiah, the nephew of R. Joshua, who also began to perform this juridical
20 A parallel to this passage is quoted in b. Sanh. 11b, but there Ḥaninah of Ono reports that
intercalation in the Galilee does not result in an intercalated year.
function outside of Israel, following the Bar Kokhba uprising. From the tale itself,
and from other sources, it emerges that Ḥananiah departed from the Land and
settled in Babylonia. Furthermore, as becomes clear from the story, he was one
of the leading teachers in Israel, who left behind young students in the Land.
The Patriarch in Israel sent emissaries to rebuke Ḥananiah for his behavior,
through a series of messages or letters that culminated in the demand that he
accept the authority of the Israeli sages. The first letter was a general compliment
to Ḥananiah. The second epistle informed him that the young students that he
left behind were now mature scholars, who could assume the responsibility of
maintaining the calendar, and presumably therefore the condition for perform-
ing this activity outside of the Land was no longer valid. The final letter presents
Ḥananiah with an ultimatum that he accept the authority of the Israeli courts, or
else perform his aberrant “cultic” practices in the desert.²¹
Following the delivery of these messages, which are themselves presented in a
sarcastic fashion, the two visiting emissaries from Israel proceed to further antag-
onize Hananiah and those around him by mocking him through their reading of
the Torah and hafṭarah. In each case, they purposefully misquote the verse in
question to refer to Ḥananiah’s actions, as if his behavior were tantamount to a
distortion of the words of the Bible itself. These (younger?) sages manage to elicit
an angry reaction from the crowd twice, each time adopting the crowd’s response
as a rhetorical argument against the establishment of the festivals outside the
Land of Israel.
The verse from the hafṭarah is the same citation from Isa 2:3 as that used
above by Second Isaiah. Here too, the verse is not quoted verbatim, but is
reworded to express a specific idea. As above, the rewording is done minimally,
so that the listener will recognize the source. The successful repetition of this
ploy within the narrative demonstrates that this purposeful misquotation was a
literary stratagem, with intentional authority-conferring implications associated
with each of the verses. Leviticus 23:4 refers specifically to the festival cycle, and
in fact, this verse, and others in its context, are cited elsewhere in rabbinic litera-
ture as a source for the court’s authority in the setting of the calendar.²² The use
21 For reference to the problematic cultic status of the temple of ‫ =( נחוניון‬Onias), see m. Men.
13:10; ms Kaufman has the same spelling.
22 According to the Sifra Emor 10 (quoted by Rashi ad Lev 23:4), the reference to intercalation of
the calendar is derived from v. 2, while v. 4 refers specifically to the declaration of the new month
by the court. Similarly, m. Roš. Haš. 2:9–10 interprets Lev 23:4 as referring to the new month. The
story here apparently understands v. 4 in a slightly broader context, as referring to general calen-
drical activity, although the literary nature of this passage prevents us from drawing specific
conclusions about its reading of the verse.
of Isa 2:3 here should be viewed in light of its original Isaianic background, which
relates to a judicial context. It is thus especially appropriate for this scenario,
which revolves around the issue of an authoritative judiciary. According to the
conclusion of this passage from the Jerusalem Talmud, as long as the authori-
ties in Israel were of sufficient stature to preside over the setting of the calendar,
then the geographical superiority of the Land of Israel trumps all other scholars
found outside the Land, even if they had greater wisdom than those in Israel.²³ A
similar notion is expressed in the final statement that even a small group in Israel
is more beloved than the Great Sanhedrin outside the Land.
In this source, Isa 2:3 was explicitly and sarcastically reworded to make a
point. The replacement of “Zion” by “Babylon” and “Jerusalem” by “the Peqod
River” was intended to demonstrate the folly of the actions of the Diaspora lead-
ership. I would label this as an example of “rhetorical misquotation,” as is the
case of the misquotation of Lev 23:4. In both cases, the reformulation of the verse,
the correction of the crowd, and the response of the emissary, during the weekly
reading of the Torah and hafṭarah, together emphasize the problematic behavior
of the Diaspora community. Their actions fly directly in the face of the authorita-
tive text, and thus cannot be sanctioned.
This example differs from Second Isaiah in two ways: first, while Isaiah 51
solved the theological problem of the status of prophecy and the prophet outside
the Land by positing that God’s instruction and teaching are not limited geo-
graphically, the rephrasing of the verse in this Talmudic passage ostensibly sug-
gests that God’s presence is still geographically localized, but that the location
has shifted: it is not Israel, but rather the Diaspora. Although the wording of
the paraphrase clearly expresses an idea that the author of the story rejects, it is
instructive to compare it with the famous words of the twelfth-century Tosafist,
Rabbeinu Tam. In his work Sefer HaYašar, he praises the Italian rabbinate in
these words: “For from Bari shall come forth Torah, and the word of the Lord from
Tàranto.”²⁴ This much later source also transfers the instruction to an alternate
location, but in this case, the intent of the rewriting is to extol the Diaspora lead-
23 As noted by Gafni (1997, 102–10), the Babylonian Talmud (b. Ber. 63a–b) presents the same
passage, but with some small, yet significant, differences. Most important for the current discus-
sion is the criterion for determining which rabbis controlled the process of intercalation. Ac-
cording to the version of the story in the Jerusalem Talmud, the primary factor for determining
who controlled the calendar is location. Once the Israeli sages had matured and were capable of
fulfilling this role, then they merited this responsibility based upon their geographical superior-
ity over the Diaspora leadership. In contrast, according to the Babylonian Talmud, the calendar
was to be established by the greater scholar, regardless of their location.
24 Sefer HaYašar (Responsa) § 46.
Susanna 193
ership. Second, the author of our target passage is a member of the community in
the Land of Israel, and therefore Isa 2:3 is employed in the opposite direction from
Second Isaiah, to undermine the authority of the religious leadership outside of
the Land.
7.3 Susanna
While tendentious paraphrase and rhetorical misquotation have already been

noted by scholars in connection with the sources just discussed, an additional
example of the reworking and rewording of Isa 2:3 in the story of Susanna has
largely gone unnoticed. In particular, I would like to focus now on an interpretive
crux at the opening of the story that has long perplexed exegetes.
In the Theodotion version, the story begins with an exposition, focusing on
the dramatis personae, including Susanna, her husband Jehoaikim, and the two
elders. The setting of the story is clearly indicated as Babylonia, and Jehoaikim
is described as a wealthy man, prominent in the Babylonian Jewish community
(vv. 1–5a). These four and a half verses are absent from the OG version (according
to Papyrus 967; the verses are marked by obeli in ms 88 and the SyroHexapla). In
contrast, the OG edition opens with a quote and its interpretation, v. 5b according
to the accepted numbering of the verses:²⁵ ²⁶
Sus 5b–6 (OG)
(5b) Περὶ ὧν ἐλάλησεν ὁ δεσπότης (5b) Concerning what²⁶ the Lord said: “For
ὅτι ἐξῆλθεν ἀνομία ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος ἐκ lawlessness came forth from Babylonia” –
πρεσβυτέρων κριτῶν, οἳ ἐδόκουν κυβερνᾶν From the elders, the judges, who seemed to
τὸν λαόν. (6) καὶ ἤρχοντο κρίσεις ἐξ ἄλλων guide the people. (6) And cases from other
πόλεων (967 πολλῶν) πρὸς αὐτούς. cities (or: many others 967) came to them.
25 The Greek text is presented here according to the edition of Munnich (1999, 216–18). The
translation is a slightly modified form of Collins (1993, 420).
26 As noted by Milik (1981, 345–46); Engel (1985, 15); Collins (1993, 430), a similar introductory
formula is used at the beginning of 1 Cor 7:1 as part of the heading of that section: Περὶ δὲ ὧν
ἐγράψατε “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote …” (NRSV). There is therefore no
need to assume that the opening of the OG version is actually a secondary, fragmented version
of the original, longer opening found in Theodotion, which refers specifically to the elders, and
which would be translated “concerning whom” (Moore 1977, 95, 99; McLay 2007, 987).
The opening of this sentence consists of a citation formula: “Concerning what

the Lord said.”²⁷ This is a slightly different citation formula from that found later
in Susanna, v. 53, τοῦ κυρίου λέγοντος, “the Lord said,” which is followed by
a clear quotation of Exod 23:7, “the innocent and righteous you shall not kill.”
However, unlike the quote from Exodus, scholars have had difficulty identifying
the verse referred to at the beginning of the story; it does not match any known
biblical passage in either MT or LXX. The identification of the verse is of special
importance for understanding the message of this tale, since the entire story is
presented as an expanded homily upon this sentence.
Two primary suggestions have been proffered as to the source of this allusion.
Some scholars view the quotation as a reference to Jer 29:20–23:²⁸
(20) But you, the whole exile community, which I banished from Jerusalem to Babylon, hear
the word of the Lord! (21) Thus said the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, concerning Ahab
son of Kolaiah and Zedekiah son of Maaseiah, who prophecy falsely to you in my name: I
am going to deliver them into the hands of King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, and he shall
put them to death before your eyes. (22) And the whole community of Judah in Babylonia
shall use a curse derived from their fate: “May God make you like Zedekiah and Ahab, whom
the king of Babylon consigned to the flames!” (23) Because they did vile things in Israel,
committing adultery with the wives of their fellows, and speaking in my name false words,
which I did not command them. I am He who knows and bears witness – declares the
Lord.
This passage shows some similarity to the story of Susanna: two Jewish leaders in
the Babylonian exile are accused of fornication with married women and speak-
ing falsely, and they are eventually to be put to death by fire. However, there are
also numerous differences between the stories. These two elders are named as
prophets, not judges.²⁹ In the context of Jeremiah 29, the accusation of speaking
falsely relates not to testimony in a court of law, but rather to so-called prophets
who offer false hope to the exiles in Babylonia. Finally, the judges in Susanna
were put to death, not by the Babylonian king, but rather by the people present at
the trial, with the assistance of an angel. Since the quotation in Susanna 5b does
not match any version of Jeremiah 29, Pfeiffer was forced to label it a “confused
27 The Greek δεσπότης refers here to God as it does throughout Daniel 9 (vv. 8,15,16,17,19).
28 Origen, Letter to Africanus § 7–8 (quoting “learned Hebrews”); Jerome, Commentary on Daniel
13 (=Susanna):5; idem, Commentary on Jeremiah 29:20–23 (also quoting Hebrew scholars) – for
an extended analysis of the possible early Jewish background of these sources, see Braverman
(1978, 126–31). Amongst modern scholars, see Pfeiffer (1949, 434–35, 452–54); Moore (1977, 96);
Wesselius (1990); et al.
29 This argument is found, e.g., in Moore (1977, 85).
Susanna 195
reminiscence of Jer. 29:23.”³⁰ While the story in Susanna shares some themes with
the passage in Jeremiah 29, and was perhaps influenced by this earlier prophecy,
there is almost no linguistic correspondence between this proposed source and
the quoted text, and thus “it is difficult to see how this verse could be even a ‘con-
fused reminiscence’ of Jer 29:20–23.”³¹
Due to these differences, John Collins proposed another possible biblical
source for this quotation – Zech 5:5–11.³² That vision refers to an ephah contain-
ing wickedness, symbolized by a woman, which is carried to Shinar (= Babylonia
in Gen 10:10; 11:2,9), where a house or shrine will be constructed for it. While
this possibility has the advantage of including elements found specifically in the
quotation in Susanna, namely wickedness traveling or emerging, and Babylonia,
it has the distinct disadvantage of describing the wrong direction of movement:
this vision specifically refers to the traveling of wickedness to rather than from
Babylon, as depicted by the passage in Susanna. Moreover, beyond these rather
weak formal correspondences between elements in Zechariah 5 and the verse in
Susanna, it is difficult to identify any connection between them on the level of
content or themes.
I would like to suggest a new identification for this verse, in light of the pre-
ceding analysis; namely, that the quotation in Susanna reflects a paraphrase of
Isa 2:3. Note the elements common to the two verses, as well as the differences
between them:³³
MT Isa 2:3//Mic 4:2: ‫כי מציון תצא תורה‬

LXX Isa 2:3: ἐκ γὰρ Σιων ἐξελεύσεται νόμος
LXX Mic 4:2: ὅτι ἐκ Σιων ἐξελεύσεται νόμος
OG Susanna 5b: ὅτι ἐξῆλθεν ἀνομία ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος
30 Pfeiffer (1949, 454).

31 Collins (1993, 430 [n. 41]).
32 Collins (1993: 430); Rofé (2009, 115 [n. 114]).
33 Both Isa 2:3 and Mic 4:2 are presented here in Hebrew and in Greek, in order to demonstrate
the different possibilities for the translation of this clause. The closer affiliation between Su-
sanna and the Greek translation of Micah, specifically in the use of the word ὅτι to represent the
Hebrew ‫כי‬, does not indicate direct dependence upon that version. Rather, both texts probably
denote independent decisions to translate the common Hebrew word by the same frequent trans-
lational equivalent, ὅτι.
7.3.1 Shared Elements
(1) Both clauses open with a similar particle ‫כי‬/ὅτι/γὰρ. Most scholars have interpreted the
particle ὅτι in Susanna v. 5b as a case of ὅτι recitativum, which functions together with a verb
of speech as a marker of direct speech. It is therefore often omitted in modern translations,
represented by a colon or a quotation mark. That interpretation is certainly possible, but not
necessary, and I suggest that in this case ὅτι should be taken as part of the quotation itself.³⁴
(2) The same verb is used in both cases, as can be seen by comparing the two Greek texts,
which each employ a different form of the verb ἐξέρχομαι. The only difference between the
two usages relates to the tense, as Susanna reflects an aorist verb, while Isaiah and Micah
employ an imperfect form.
7.3.2 Contrasting Elements
Two differences between the verses reflect “reversals” of the earlier source in the
later text:
(3) Instead of “from Zion” as in the Isaiah text, the verse in Susanna reads “from Babylonia.”
These two toponyms stand in opposition to one another elsewhere in the Bible; for example,
Ps 137:1 reads: “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, and we wept, when we remem-
bered Zion.” The interchange of the two is the same as that found in the Jerusalem Talmud
in the anti-Diaspora “rhetorical misquotation.”
(4) In a further “reversal,” ‫ תורה‬in Isa 2:3, translated into Greek by the stereotypical equiva-
lent νόμος, has been replaced in Susanna by the contrasting term ἀνομία.³⁵ If instruction
and righteousness emerge from Zion, then the opposing characteristics, lawlessness and
wickedness, emerge from Babylon.
34 It is possible that the ὅτι recitativum construction was not used here for stylistic reasons,
since it would have resulted in consecutive instances of the Greek word, first as the direct dis-
course marker, and then as part of the quotation.
35 This contrast is better highlighted in the Greek versions, and is less pronounced if one at-
tempts to reconstruct a Semitic Vorlage underlying Greek Susanna; there is no Hebrew or Aramaic
word that functions as the negation of ‫ תורה‬in the same way as ἀνομία. The original language
of the OG story is difficult to determine with certainty. The language of Susanna was already
discussed in antiquity within the context of the authenticity of the story. Julius Africanus argued
against the idea that Susanna was original to the (Aramaic) Daniel and upheld its identification
as a forgery; he noted the paronomasia in the Greek text between the names of the trees under
which the elders claimed to have witnessed the crime and the verbs employed to describe their
punishments: σχῖνον … σχίσει (vv. 54–55) and πρῖνον … πρίσαι (vv. 58–59). This has remained the
strongest argument until today for a Greek original, while the prevalence of paratactic syntax
and the presence of Semitic expressions actually point in the opposite direction, towards a Se-
mitic Vorlage (probably Hebrew). See the discussion of the evidence in Daubney (1906, 130–39);
Moore (1977, 81–84); Collins (1993, 427–28).
Susanna 197
When taken together, the shared and contrasting elements cover all of the com-
ponents of Isa 2:3; this cluster of correspondences bolsters the notion of an inten-
tional paraphrase.
I would further suggest that the identification of Isa 2:3 as the verse para-
phrased in Susanna 5b also assists in understanding the origin of certain themes
throughout the story. In particular, the judicial context, a description of corrupt
judges, can be traced back to the original Isaianic passage; this addresses the
corruption of the judicial system in Jerusalem, which will eventually become
righteous once again. Similarly, other elements in Susanna relate to the rules
and proper behavior of the judiciary, as detailed in the collection of laws in Deut
16:18–19:21. The most obvious connection of Susanna to these regulations is the
law of false witnesses, found in Deut 19:16–21. The two villains in the story, the
unrighteous judges, testify falsely, with the result that Susanna is to be put to
death. According to the Deuteronomic law, a false witness is to be punished
“as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deut 19:19), and this law is explicitly ful-
filled at the end of Susanna (vv. 60–62).³⁶ The requirement of the law, that “the
judges shall make a thorough investigation (‫( ”)ודרשו השפטים היטב‬Deut 19:18),
appears to be the source for Daniel’s investigation of the two magistrates: “Are
you such fools, O sons of Israel? Without examining or learning the plain truth,
do you kill a daughter of Israel?” (v. 48).³⁷ The application of the Deuteronomic
law in Susanna thus reflects the same concern for a righteous judiciary as
36 The OG version contains an additional two verses (vv. 62a–b) that extol the virtues of youths,
including their piety and single-mindedness. While these verses are certainly appropriate to the
thrust of OG, they have no parallel in Theod, and may have been added to serve as a transition
to the story of the youths on Daniel 1. In the presumed original version (reflected in OG), which
opens in v. 5b with the paraphrase of Isa 2:3, the more appropriate ending is the punishment
meted out on the corrupt judges as described in vv. 60–62. These verses are the final passage
common to both versions, and probably reflect the original end of the story. Theod at this point
also appends two additional verses (not found in OG): the first describes the praise bestowed
upon Susanna by her family members (v. 63); the second comments on Daniel’s stature before
the people from that day on (v. 64). Verse 64 almost certainly is an editorial addition that func-
tions as a bridge between the story of Susanna, and the rest of the book of Daniel to which it
was attached. Verse 63 focuses the conclusion of the story on Susanna and her righteousness, as
extolled by her parents, husband, and family members. This conclusion is appropriate in Theod,
which also has additional material at the beginning of the chapter (vv. 1–5a), introducing Su-
sanna and her family, and describing her piety.
37 There is therefore no reason to relate Daniel’s words to the maxim of Simeon ben Šetaḥ in
m. Abot 1:9: “Examine the witnesses extensively”; this was suggested by Brüll (1877), who inter-
preted the story of Susanna as part of a Pharisaic anti-Sadduceean polemic from the first century
bce.
Isaiah 1–2.³⁸ Slightly further from Deuteronomy 16–19, but still related to the defi-
nition and description of proper behavior for judges is the only other quotation
in the story, found in v. 53 – “the innocent and righteous you shall not kill” (Exod
23:7). This verse in Exodus appears within a list of instructions for proper judicial
behavior (Exod 23:1–9).
Moreover, the Deuteronomic laws of the judiciary were connected to the same
passage in Isaiah (1:26–2:3) in the framework of the triennial cycle of readings
from the Torah and the Prophets in the land of Israel. According to the Genizah
evidence,³⁹ the additional passage from the Prophets that was read in tandem
with Deut 16:18–17:13 was the Isaianic prophecy (1:26–2:3) describing the future
righteousness of Jerusalem, and the central function of the Temple. The combi-
nation of these allusions in Susanna provides further, earlier evidence for the
exegetical combination of these passages.
The OG version of the story of Susanna first focuses on the unrighteous judi-
cial establishment among the Jewish leadership in Babylonia. It then presents
Daniel, characterized in all the versions as among the youths exiled from Judea
to Babylon (1:6; 2:25; 5:13), as the religious and political antithesis of their mode
of leadership.⁴⁰
7.4 Conclusions
What then is the message of this story? I suggest that the interpretation of Isa
2:3 is highly significant within the context of Susanna, standing as it does at the
beginning of the entire episode. In some ways, the passage as a whole is similar
to a rabbinic midrash or homily, which opens with the quotation of a verse, and
then proceeds to interpret the verse, often with the addition of references to other
38 I therefore suggest that the theme of false witnesses is not related to, or more precisely not a
“reversal” of, the successful false testimony found in the story of Jezebel and Naboth’s vineyard
(2 Kings 21), pace Rofé (2009, 109–16).
39 See the table provided by Ofer (1989, 184–85).
40 Daniel is first introduced in Susanna v. 45 as “a young man” with no further identifying char-
acteristics. If the story was composed as an introduction to the existing Greek book of Daniel, its
author may have assumed that the reader already knew the relevant information. The alternative
possibility is that the story was composed independently of the stories in MT Daniel, and was
subsequently added to the book. This possibility may be bolstered by the absence from OG of
Theodotion v. 64, which emphasizes Daniel’s rise to greatness in the eyes of the people from that
day forward, and which appears to be a secondary attempt to connect the story with the book as
a whole (cf. above n. 36).
Conclusions 199
biblical passages and even a story to exemplify the message.⁴¹ I have suggested
that the paraphrase of Isa 2:3 at the beginning of the story, “For from Babylon
shall come forth iniquity,” follows the pattern of other interpretations of this
verse and so comments upon the relationship of the Diaspora Jewish community
to the Land of Israel and its leaders. In this case, the story of Susanna should be
understood as a criticism of the leadership of the Jewish community in the Baby-
lonian Diaspora, along these same lines. The author of this passage portrays the
Jewish judges and leadership in Babylonia as sinners who cannot control their
basest urges, and who use their power and authority in order to pursue their das-
tardly deeds. The author of this story, was therefore probably located in Israel,
and was writing against the Babylonian Jewish leadership.⁴²
If this interpretation is correct then the presence of this episode in Greek
Daniel, and specifically at the opening of the book, recasts the court tales in a
new light. Jewish life in the Diaspora is portrayed in Susanna as less than idyllic,
and this story does not share the positive perspective on Jewish life in a foreign
land, offered in MT Daniel 1–6. The placement of an anti-Diaspora polemic at
the beginning of Greek Daniel offers an alternative, perhaps even contradictory,
ideological and religious message to that found in the subsequent stories, and
causes its readers to reassess the Diaspora orientation of these stories. Susanna
thus reframes the book of Daniel, transforming it from a work that serves as a
model for religious and political success in a foreign context into a composition
that calls into question the Jewish communal structures outside the Land that
make this very lifestyle viable.
41 Both van Henten (1990) and Wesselius (1990) view Susanna as the product of midrash-like
interpretation of Jer 29:20–23 (Wesselius) or Dan 1:1–2 (van Henten). However, many aspects of
their analysis appear unconvincing. Wills (1984, 293–94), classifies OG Susanna as a sermon, in
light of its homiletic conclusion extolling the virtues of youths over elders.
42 Cf. Gafni (1990, 61, 76).
8 Conclusion
8.1 New Interpretive Insights into the Book of Daniel
The studies presented here constitute first and foremost a contribution to the
interpretation of the Book of Daniel: its primary themes and motifs, literary com-
position, and subsequent development. Each chapter in this book is built upon
one or more new interpretations that emerge from the analysis of Daniel in its dif-
ferent textual versions. While each chapter may be read as a separate study, the
sum of these analyses is greater than its parts, and opens a broader perspective
on the interpretation of Daniel. The following concluding remarks weave together
the threads teased out in the foregoing chapters, highlighting the hermeneutical
trajectories identified here and their more far-reaching implications for the study
of Daniel as a whole.
Most of the interpretive insights in this monograph are based upon close read-
ings of the biblical text(s) of Daniel. Thus, for example, careful attention to the
formulation of the story in Daniel 5 and its connections with the literary model
of Daniel 2 led to a new understanding of the events related in the former.¹ In
a more complex example, a careful reading of Daniel 9, with reference to earlier
biblical passages (in particular Jeremiah 25 and 29), led to the conclusion that the
author of this chapter was of the opinion that the Jeremianic prophecy had been
fulfilled immediately before the transition to the Restoration Period. This obser-
vation allowed for the reinterpretation of key expressions in Daniel 9, as well as a
reevaluation of the chronological conception at the core of this chapter.²
Furthermore, the recognition of literary patterns and genres at play in the
book has helped to enrich the background and meaning of passages throughout
Daniel. Thus, chapters 2 and 5 are demonstrably dependent on the Joseph story,
in particular Genesis 41.³ More abstractly, the identification of a riddle as the
background for the writing on the wall adds an additional layer of meaning when
reading Daniel 5, by pointing to its broader historical context.⁴ The original
version of Susanna, preserved in the Old Greek version, is similar in form to a rab-
binic homily, opening with a “quotation” of a verse from Isaiah, and then offer-
ing a story that demonstrates the lesson which the homilist wishes to impart.⁵
1 See chap. 3.1, pp. 55–68.

2 See chap. 6, pp. 171–178.
3 See chap. 2, pp. 48–51, and chap. 3, pp. 65–68,93.
4 See chap. 3.2, pp. 68–79.
5 See chap. 7, pp. 184–199.
Daniel as Early Jewish Interpretation 201
Daniel 4 is formulated as an epistle from the Babylonian king; the reconstruc-

tion of the original form of the chapter based upon a comparison between MT
and OG reveals a balanced and coherent three-part structure.⁶ In each of these
instances, the recognition of the literary genre allows for a more nuanced inter-
pretation of the passage in question.
8.2 Daniel as Early Jewish Interpretation
Many of the new readings in this monograph are based upon the realization that
the authors of the various components of Daniel were in many ways represent-
ative of their intellectual and cultural milieux. This has been recognized more
broadly in Daniel scholarship with reference to specific genres and methodologi-
cal approaches. Perhaps most prominent has been the scholarship on the apoca-
lyptic passages in Daniel 7–12, in light of the extensive literary evidence of this
genre in the Pseudepigrapha, Qumran texts, and early Christian literature. High-
lighting the common elements found in Daniel and these other, similar works has
led to a greater appreciation of the similar worlds from which they emerged.⁷ As
the study of apocalyptic literature has developed in various directions (including
the redefinition of the genre itself, and which books are to be included), the study
of Daniel has followed suit.⁸
In recent decades, there has been a greater appreciation of the contribution
of Jewish compositions from the Second Temple period towards the history of bib-
lical exegesis, as they reveal to us how the Bible’s earliest readers interpreted the
scriptural texts that they studied. Unlike subsequent interpretive works, however,
the hermeneutical assumptions and strategies in these compositions are gener-
ally implicit; they need to be reconstructed through an analysis of the later work’s
relationship and to and treatment of its sources. As a product of the Hellenistic
(and potentially the late Persian) period, Daniel is part of this larger corpus of
such compositions, and thus similarly reflects implicit processes of interpreta-
6 See chap. 4.1, pp. 96–101.

7 At times this emphasis has also led to the clouding of the differences that can be identified
between the various authors and works. This, however, is the potential price of any comparative
endeavor, which must first uncover shared features before moving on to highlighting the differ-
ences between diverse texts.
8 The same can be said of the court-tale genre, where works such as Ahiqar may be adduced for
comparison, even though overall the potential contribution of directly comparable material is
somewhat limited (e.g., Esther, the story of the Three Youths in 1Esdras 3–4); cf. Wills (1990). For
a wider web of cultural and literary comparisons to the court tales in Daniel 1–6, cf. Holm (2013).
202 Conclusion
tion. While this has been recognized before in reference to a number of examples
in Daniel,⁹ the studies here suggest that it is a much more widely used, funda-
mental approach adopted by the authors of this book.
The presence of inner-biblical interpretation can be identified in almost every
chapter of Daniel, and the recognition of this phenomenon allows for a better
understanding of both individual verses and longer passages in the book. Thus,
for example, Daniel 4, describing the Babylonian monarch’s dream of a giant,
felled tree, is based upon earlier prophetic texts, such as Ezekiel 17 and 31, which
employ a similar tree metaphor to describe the rise and fall of monarchs. At the
same time, a single detail in Dan 4:12, which has presented difficulties to com-
mentators and students alike, is clarified when read in light of the similar reuse
of Isaiah 10–11, which describes both the cutting down of trees and their potential
for regrowth.¹⁰ In another example, Daniel 5 presents a “riddle” that challenges
both Daniel and the reading audience to interpret in keeping with the broader
canonical-historical context: that is, immediately prior to Cyrus’ Edict and the
return of the Temple vessels related in Ezra 1. Thus, the formulation of the episode
embeds an inner-biblical allusion that can only be identified by the recognition of
both the technique and the specific references.¹¹
The following section briefly reviews the instances of biblical interpretation
uncovered in the previous chapters. I have categorized them according to the
exegetical techniques employed, including the literary modelling of characters;
chronological, eschatological, and ideological inner-biblical exegesis; and narra-
tivization:
8.3 Interpretive Techniques in Daniel
8.3.1 Literary Modelling of Characters
Perhaps the clearest use of earlier biblical material can be found in the literary
modelling of the character of Daniel upon that of Joseph, the paradigmatic suc-
cessful Israelite in the court of a foreign king. This is especially prominent in
Daniel 2 and 5, which themselves reflect parallel narrative structures, and which
can both be traced back to the literary model of Genesis 41. This narrative analogy
to a paradigmatic biblical figure, which has been long recognized in the scholar-
9 See the survey provided by Henze (2012).

10 See chap. 4, pp. 111–114.
11 See chap. 3.2, pp. 68–79.
Interpretive Techniques in Daniel 203
ship on Daniel, is implicit in the text, but immediately apparent to readers of

Daniel who possess awareness of the Genesis narratives. The current study dem-
onstrates that the literary relationship between the Daniel and Joseph tales is even
closer than generally perceived. A secondary addition in Daniel 2, describing a
night vision received by Daniel after he prays to God for assistance, inserts an
element into that story that finds no parallel in Genesis 41. When the story is read
without this addition, the Daniel and Genesis stories are almost identical to one
another, apart from the transformation of Daniel into a superior interpreter who
is also able to reveal both the contents of the dream and its interpretation.¹² The
modelling continues in Daniel 5, where the dreams of the foreign kings found in
Genesis 41 and Daniel 2 have been replaced by Belshazzar’s vision of the writing
on the wall, which is phenomenologically similar.¹³ In all three stories, the rev-
elation comes first to the king alone (as proposed above in the interpretation of
Daniel 5, only the king was privy to the writing, and not those around him), and
subsequently to Daniel/Joseph, who is then able to help the king by offering its
interpretation. The appropriation and adaptation of an earlier character is not
“pure” interpretation; the purpose of this reuse is not to offer an interpretation of
the Joseph stories, but rather to take advantage of the earlier stories for the crea-
tion of something new. However, this process does constitute interpretation in the
sense that the Daniel and Joseph stories have been associated intertextually by
the former’s use of the latter. Therefore, subsequent readings of the Joseph mate-
rial by interpreters who are aware of the tales in Daniel are necessarily colored by
the connection between the two.¹⁴
8.3.2 Chronological Interpretation
Like many other works of the Second Temple period, the book of Daniel exhibits a
marked interest in issues of chronology and time. This interest is especially prom-
inent in the apocalyptic section, where a key issue is the time remaining until
the salvation of Israel from its oppressors. However, the chronological concern
12 See chap. 2, pp. 48–51.

13 See chap. 3, pp. 59–68.
14 To some degree, the Daniel of Daniel 9 is modelled on Jeremiah, and receives a new, seven-
fold revelation based upon Jeremiah’s seventy-year prediction (see above chap. 6, pp. 162–165).
In Daniel 10 (not discussed in this monograph), Daniel is modelled on the prophet Ezekiel; the
narrative frame of the final revelation in Daniel is described using terms that are clearly bor-
rowed from that prophet’s visions. As in other cases of literary modelling, the purpose of this
technique is to impart the authority of the earlier biblical figures.
204 Conclusion
extends beyond the identification of the eschaton; it is found as well in the book’s
concern with the delimitation of the upper and lower boundaries of the Exile,
and in its chronological conception of the Restoration period. Two examples
discussed earlier may serve to illustrate the connection between inner-biblical
exegesis and chronological frameworks:
(1) The date in Dan 1:1–2, the “third year of the reign of Jehoiakim,” which
demarcates the beginning of the Exile, has long troubled readers, since it does
not correspond to the known traditions and sources in reference to the siege of
Jerusalem and the plunder of the Temple vessels. This date cannot be understood
“historically” in light of the information at our disposal. However, analysis of the
potential biblical sources for this information led me to suggest that the author of
these two verses, which form the starting point for the chronological framework
of the book as a whole, in fact deduced this date on the basis of his own under-
standing of the chronological data in the oracles against the nations in Jeremiah.¹⁵
(2) A more complex chronological picture, also based upon the interpreta-
tion of specific data found in earlier biblical books, may be seen in the “seventy
weeks” scheme of Daniel 9:24–27. A close reading of the beginning of Daniel 9
demonstrated that the period of seventy weeks was to commence only after the
completion of Jeremiah’s seventy-year prophecy; that is, at the time of the apoca-
lyptic revelation to Daniel in 9:24–27. According to this revelation, this extended
period was to be subdivided into three shorter eras, of seven weeks, sixty-two
weeks, and one week respectively. These periods are marked by the mention
of two characters: at the end of the first seven weeks, ‫“ משיח נגיד‬the anointed
leader,” is to appear; and the murder of a character referred to simply as ‫משיח‬
“the anointed one” will occur immediately prior to the seventieth week. There is
general consensus among scholars that “the anointed one” who appears near the
end of the period is Onias III, murdered in 171 BCE. At the same time, there is dif-
ference of opinion amongst interpreters regarding the identification of ‫;משיח נגיד‬
scholars generally focus on one of three characters: Cyrus, Zerubbabel, or Joshua
the High Priest. My rereading of the relationship between the “seventy weeks” and
Jeremiah’s “seventy years,” however, renders these options irrelevant. Instead, I
proposed above that this epithet refers to Nehemiah, whose role as rebuilder of
Jerusalem is emphasized in the book that bears his name. This identification is
based upon a “proto-rabbinic” conception of chronology, by which only years
attested explicitly in biblical books are counted in a historical reconstruction. I
demonstrated that according to this method of reading and interpreting biblical
chronological data, Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem approximately seven “weeks”
15 See chap. 1, pp. 26–31 (Appendix).

after the (fictitious) reign of Darius the Mede. If this chronological conception lies
at the foundation of Daniel 9, then this is the earliest evidence of a “shortened”
Persian period, which is the standard conception of this era in rabbinic literature.¹⁶
8.3.3 Eschatological Interpretation
Due to the specific focus of the book of Daniel, the second half of which repeat-
edly returns to the prediction of the impending eschaton, it is unsurprising that
we find inner-biblical interpretation with an eschatological focus, in terms of
both the passages chosen for reinterpretation, and the particular coloring with
which those passages were read. This is most prominent in the case of the sym-
bolic vision in Daniel 7; in addition to multiple mythic elements, the account
reuses language and themes from earlier biblical passages, in particular Deut
32:8–9 and Psalm 82. All three passages share both prominent themes and a the-
ological-cosmological picture of a senior and junior deities. Deuteronomy 32:8–9
describes the division into nations and lands at the dawn of time, according to a
system in which each heavenly being (“son of God”) was assigned a nation and
land as their apportioned allotment or inheritance. Psalm 82 describes a heavenly
courtroom scene, in which the members of the divine retinue are chastised due to
their (mis)behavior, and condemned by the senior deity to die like mortals. The
psalm ends with the dramatic pronouncement that God (= YHWH) instead will
inherit and rule over all of the nations. Daniel 7 builds on these descriptions, and
in particular Psalm 82, by describing the conviction of the heavenly representa-
tives of the nations, and the transfer of the dominion over the entire earth to the
“one like a man (‫)כבר אנש‬,” parallel to ‫קדישי עליונין‬.
The identification of the underlying biblical passages alluded to in this chapter
is of fundamental significance for understanding its basic meaning. Perhaps the
single most debated question in the history of interpretation of this apocalypse is
the identification of “one like a man.” Most scholars and traditional interpreters
suggest that this expression is either a collective symbol for the people of Israel,
or a heavenly, perhaps messianic, representative of Israel (Michael is the most
convincing option). Nevertheless, the earlier biblical sources for this phrase point
in a different direction. The characteristics of the “one like a man” include arriv-
ing on a cloud (Ps 68:5; 104:3; Isa 19:1; cf. the descriptions of Baal in Ugaritic epic
16 See chap. 6, pp. 171–178. The rabbinic chronological conception of the Persian period is
expressed most explicitly in the early chronograph Seder Olam, which is well-known for its
abridged Persian period.
206 Conclusion
literature); this, and the language employed to describe the nations’ subservi-
ence to him (parallel to the doxologies found in Daniel 3–6), point to the radical
notion that this character is in fact a reflection of YHWH Himself, also known
as ‫“ קדישי עליונין‬the Most High Holy One.” He is the heavenly representative of
the earthly ‫“ = עם קדישי עליונין‬people of the Most High Holy One” = “people of
YHWH” = Israel. Here in Daniel 7, as in Psalm 82, following the conviction and
punishment/destruction of the other subordinate divine figures (in Daniel 7 the
four beasts, each representing a kingdom), the inheritance of and dominion over
all of the nations will be passed on to YHWH.
This is an extremely complex hermeneutical maneuver, in which intricate
allusions invoke a cluster of biblical passages. Only a close reading that pays
careful attention to these interpretive aspects allows us to untangle the web of
sources employed by the author of Daniel 7. Elsewhere, I have suggested that
the identification of this interpretive cluster is confirmed by a short, enigmatic
composition discovered in Cave 4 at Qumran, the Aramaic Apocalypse of Daniel
(4Q246).¹⁷ That work combines the language and themes of Daniel 7 and Psalm
82 (and perhaps Deuteronomy 32 as well), indicating that an ancient reader of
these texts also appreciated the relationship between them, and therefore further
developed this intertextual cluster in a new literary creation.
8.3.4 Ideological Interpretation
In the case of Susanna, the presence of inner-biblical interpretation was noted

long ago in reference to the citation formula followed by a quotation that appears
at the beginning of the story.¹⁸ However, scholars have differed as to the identifi-
cation of this quotation, which does not match any known source. I have posited
here that this is a rewritten quotation of Isa 2:3, in which Zion has been replaced
by Babylon, and ‫ תורה‬by the negative ἀνομία. This verse was used and adapted
frequently in Jewish sources, from the period of the Babylonian Exile and on, in
polemics regarding the authority of Diaspora communities; by opening the story
with an adaptation of this biblical verse, the author of Susanna recasts the entire
Diaspora experience related in Daniel in a negative light foreign to the original
collection of stories.
17 Cf. Segal (2014).

18 In Papyrus 967 (reflecting the original OG), the entire story opens with this quotation. Be-
cause Theod has introductory verses added to the beginning of the story, the quotation appears
there in v. 5.
8.3.5 Narrativization
Daniel presents two interesting examples of narrativization, the transformation

of a text written in a non-narrative literary genre into a story. When used with pro-
phetic passages, this technique essentially confirms the authenticity and author-
ity of the prophecy, since the narrative, generated using the language and content
of the prophecy, also serves to confirm that the prophecy was actualized. Narra-
tivization can only be suggested in those cases where there is a demonstrable
literary relationship between two biblical passages. Thus, it represents a special
subcategory of interpretation and/or intertextuality, in which the later composi-
tion was composed in order to complete and complement its earlier source. In
each case, then, it is necessary to first identify the relationship between two texts,
including explicit and possibly implicit allusions to one in the other. The forego-
ing analysis highlighted two examples:
(1) Traditional Jewish and Christian interpreters had already noted the inter-
textual relationship between Daniel 5 and Isa 21:1–10, a prophecy of doom against
Babylonia. On the basis of this connection, and their own assumptions about
the binding nature and veracity of prophecy, they came to the conclusion that
Daniel 5 was in fact the fulfillment of Isaiah 21. In contrast, critical scholars have
noted the historical inaccuracies found in Daniel 5 (and 6), first and foremost that
Media did not conquer Babylonia; rather, this was accomplished by Persia. More-
over, the historical background of the prophecy is generally held to be either the
eighth or the mid-sixth century BCE (that is, the time of the fall of Media to Cyrus
in 550 BCE), while the story in Daniel 5 is supposed to reflect the fall of Babylon
in 539/8 BCE. Many critical scholars therefore deny any relationship between
the two passages. Beginning from the realization that the author(s) of Daniel
often functioned as biblical interpreter(s), however, allowed me to make use of
the insights of both traditional and critical scholarship. Traditional interpreters
are certainly correct about the relationship between Isaiah 21 and Daniel 5; the
textual and literary parallels between them are too numerous to ignore. At the
same time, critical scholars with access to historical sources are undoubtedly
correct about the historical inaccuracies of Daniel 5, as well as the historical dis-
tance between the original context of Isa 21:1–10 and that of Daniel 5. Attention to
the literary process of narrativization validates both sets of insights – while the
original context of Isaiah 21 was unrelated to the conquest of Babylonia by Persia,
the author of Daniel 5 co-opted this prophecy and used it as the blueprint for the
story of the writing on the wall.¹⁹
19 See chap. 3.3, pp. 79–92.

208 Conclusion
(2) I identified a second example of narrativization in Daniel 9, which more

explicitly connects to its intertext(s) in Jeremiah 25 and 29. Here the element of
narrativization can be appreciated by a close comparison of Dan 9:1–3 with Jer-
emiah’s 70-year prophecy regarding the downfall of Babylonia. In contrast to the
vast majority of scholars, who suggest that the author of Daniel 9 considered the
Jeremianic prophecy to be unfulfilled, and therefore extended its 70 years to 490
years, I suggested here that author purposefully crafted the opening narrative
frame of the chapter so as to emphasize that the prophecy had already come to
fruition. This understanding of the author’s intention is based upon a number of
literary elements. The first and foremost of these is the mention of the (fictitious)
Darius the Mede’s takeover of the Kingdom of Babylon; the downfall of Babylo-
nia is the primary prediction in Jeremiah 25 and 29. The description of Daniel’s
actions, including turning to God in prayer (Dan 9:3–20) echoes the description
in Jer 29:12–13. The author of Daniel 9 portrays Daniel as acting in accordance
with the prophecy in order to demonstrate its fulfillment and to set the stage for
a new sevenfold prophecy; this new prophecy outlines an era that commenced at
the time of Daniel’s prayer.²⁰ This narrative frame was generated with reference
to the earlier prophecy, and thus provides another example of narrativization.²¹
8.4 The Use of Textual Witnesses as Evidence for Literary

Growth
The studies here have emphasized the importance of the textual witnesses of
Daniel, and particularly the contribution of the Old Greek version, for under-
standing the literary development of the book. While the importance of the Sep-
tuagint for the text-critical study of individual details has long been noted, it has
only been recognized in recent decades that large-scale differences between the
textual witnesses may reflect alternate literary editions of the same biblical book.
Daniel presents one of the primary examples of this phenomenon, with signifi-
20 See chap. 6, pp. 157–171.

21 Another example of narrativization may perhaps be identified in the story of Susanna, al-
though in that instance it is not prophecy that is transformed, but rather the law of false wit-
nesses from Deut 19:16–21. As developed extensively by Bartor (2010), all casuistic laws are al-
ready a form of narrative, albeit very sparse in their descriptions. Therefore the transformation
from law to narrative is not as striking as that from prophetic texts to narrative. The story can
also be viewed as the narrativization of the tendentious quotation at its opening; see chap. 7,
pp. 193–199.
The Use of Textual Witnesses as Evidence for Literary Growth 209
cant differences between OG, MT and Theodotion in chapters 3–6, and between
OG and Theodotion in the Additions to Daniel.
Perhaps the most complex example of this phenomenon in the entire Bible
is Daniel 4 (beginning with 3:31). A careful examination of MT and OG of this
chapter led to the conclusion that neither in fact contains the original form of
the story, and both reflect secondary revisions.²² The secondary readings are
the result of different factors and motivations. Some are redactional, intended
to connect originally disparate passages; examples of such redactional passages
can found in MT of 4:3–6, and the reformulation of 4:15.²³ Most serve a more
direct exegetical function, in both OG and MT. For example, OG added a date to
the beginning of the entire chapter, along with motifs that equate Nebuchadnez-
zar with Antiochus, the evil king in the second part of the book. In MT, I identi-
fied an addition to the dream, v. 13a, which is intended to more fully harmonize
the dream report with its interpretation. When these secondary scribal revisions
are peeled away, we are left with a story that is coherent in both its structure and
content.²⁴
A similar analysis can be performed on the Additions to Daniel, although the
comparison here is between the Old Greek and Theodotion versions. As suggested
above in regard to Susanna, the more original OG version opens with the tenden-
tious reworking of a verse from Isaiah and then continues with a story that reflects
this ideological message. Thus, the introductory citation emphasizes the primary
idea behind the story as a whole; that is, the criticism of the established leader-
ship of the Jewish community in Babylonia. Similarly, the story ends by praising
Daniel and young people in general, in contrast to the elders, who are vilified.
In the version preserved in Theodotion, by contrast, this tendentious beginning
has been displaced by the addition of a narrative introduction (and conclusion)
which describes the main protagonists; this framing transforms the polemical
account into a paradigmatic story about a righteous and virtuous woman, falsely
accused of illicit behavior. Daniel succeeds in saving her, and this version explic-
itly notes how this incident served to facilitate his rise to greatness in the eyes of
the Jewish community. This revision of the story thus serves as a more explicit
22 See chap. 4, pp. 94–125. The edition in OG Daniel 4 reflects a different Aramaic Vorlage and
is not simply the work of the translator; my analysis of the reuse of this same version of Aramaic
Daniel in the Genesis Apocryphon (the author of which would not have known the OG itself),
demonstrated the independent existence of this version (see above, chap. 4, pp. 126–131).
23 As I hope to demonstrate in a future publication, OG Daniel 6 also contains redactional addi-
tions, which serve a similar function.
24 Similar revisional processes in both versions can be identified in Daniel 5; cf. above, chap. 3,
p. 58, n. 12, and more fully Ulrich (2012).
210 Conclusion
introduction to the book as a whole. However, the focus on Susanna’s behavior

and Daniel’s success somewhat clouds the motivation behind the original version
of the story as expressed in OG.
At the same time, it should be kept in mind that not all differences between
OG and other textual witnesses reflect alternate literary traditions; at times, OG
also functions as an interpretive translation. For example, in the analysis of
Daniel 1, I identified two instances in which OG’s treatment of the text of Daniel
were motivated by an attempt to resolve exegetical issues that emerge from a
straightforward reading of MT (or a text similar to MT): 1) syntactical difficulties
in 1:3–5; and 2) the issue of God’s benevolence to Daniel in the eyes of the ‫שר‬
‫ הסריסים‬in v. 9.²⁵ In each of these instances, OG “changed” the text in its transla-
tion in order to smooth over these issues. While OG is best known to critics for its
contribution towards understanding the multiple literary editions of Daniel, it
has its own internally coherent literary and interpretive agenda.
8.5 The Literary Development of Daniel
This monograph also addresses issues related to the literary development of

Daniel. I have noted that while some chapters appear to be cut from a single
authorial cloth, such as Daniel 7,²⁶ other chapters (Daniel 1 and 9),²⁷ incorporate
already extant sources within a second authorial framework. In some chapters,
editorial passages have been secondarily added to the core text; at times these
additions can be traced by comparing the extant textual witnesses (Daniel 4;
5; Susanna).²⁸ In other cases, the secondary passage can be identified on the
basis of internal considerations that emerge from an analysis of the passage in
its context (Daniel 2).²⁹ In each instance, the proposed model of literary devel-
25 See chap. 1, pp. 15–22. Although OG in Daniel 1 does not reflect an alternate edition, I sug-
gested above that the exegetical issues to which OG responds are themselves indicative of redac-
tional development within the chapter.
26 See chap. 5.1, pp. 132–133, nn. 3–5, for the various scholarly opinions surrounding the de-
velopment of Daniel 7. The different models of development that have been proposed for this
chapter are largely unconvincing to me.
27 The author of Daniel 1 has integrated an extant text about Daniel and his friends’ self-restric-
tion to pure food within the framework of his general introduction to the book (see above, chap.
1, pp. 19–26). In Daniel 9, the author has probably incorporated an existing psalm/prayer (vv.
4–20), to expand the description of Daniel’s prayer in v. 3 (see above chap. 6, pp. 164–165, n. 30).
28 See chaps. 3.1, pp. 58–59, 4.2 and 4.3, pp. 102–124, and 7.1, pp. 181–183.
29 See chap. 2.2 and 2.3, pp. 33–41. The arguments for the identification of the secondary pas-
sage were based primarily upon contradictions that are present in the story in its current form,
Implications for the Literary Structure of Daniel 211
opment is a function of the textual-philological analysis of the chapter, with

emphasis upon the exegetical issues that emerge in each specific section. The
identification of the primary and secondary elements in each chapter allows for
a more precise understanding of the meaning and message, first and foremost of
the original stratum, and then of the Tendenz of any subsequent scribal expan-
sions or alterations.
8.6 Implications for the Literary Structure of Daniel
In addition to the analysis of individual passages and their literary development,

the studies above lead to certain insights regarding the literary development of
the book as a whole. Previous literary studies, and in particular the analysis of
Lenglet,³⁰ have noted a concentric structure for the Aramaic chapters 2–7, with
parallels between Daniel 2 and 7; 3 and 6; 4 and 5. Daniel 2 and 7 both promi-
nently highlight the scheme of four kingdoms to be followed by an eternal domin-
ion. Daniel 3 and 6 each describes the casting of Jewish heroes to their deaths due
to their refusal to violate a religious principle; the two chapters are formulated
using similar language and motifs³¹ and may reflect the reworking of one story
by the other.³² Daniel 4 and 5 contain internal references to one another (5:18–22
while the precise borders of the beginning of the addition were determined according to the
philological analysis of the Aramaic phrase ‫( התיב עטא וטעם‬2:14).
30 Cf. Lenglet (1972).
31 For a description of the parallels between these two stories, see Lenglet (1972, 182–185); Hart-
man and Di Lella (1978, 159, 196–197); Collins (1993, 192, 272); HaCohen and Kil (1994, 155–157);
Grossman (2005). Some of these agreements are absent from OG Daniel 6 (note the formulation
of 6:14,23[24] and the absence of an angel in vv. 18,21–22), and their presence in MT Daniel 6 prob-
ably reflects further secondary harmonization of two already parallel stories.
32 In Segal (2009, 124 [n. 1]), I suggested that it is more likely that Daniel 3 is a reworking of
Daniel 6, based upon the use of the unique expression ‫ אכל קרצין‬in 3:8 and 6:25. This expres-
sion, already present in Akkadian sources (karṣi akālu), is bivalent, with the literal meaning
“eat the pieces,” understood metaphorically as “slander.” The key to identifying the direction
of development in this case is the recognition of these two simultaneous levels of meaning in
6:25: “Those men who had slandered (‫ )אכלו קרצוהי‬Daniel were brought and, together with their
children and wives, were thrown into the lions’ den. They had hardly reached the bottom of the
den when the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones.” Those who slandered Daniel
received a punishment “measure-for-measure” according to their actions. The author of Daniel 3,
in which this expression appears but without the literary conceit of chapter 6, thus appears to
have adopted this idiom from chapter 6, along with other elements found in both stories.
212 Conclusion
refers explicitly to the story in chapter 4; 4:3–6,15 recounts a competition motif

similar to both chapters 2 and 5).
While Lenglet is undoubtedly correct in this delineation of the structure of
Daniel 2–7 in its current form, the analyses conducted in this book suggest that
many of these parallels are in fact secondary developments in the literary history
of Daniel. Most clearly, the internal references between chapters 4 and 5 noted
above are absent from OG, and were added specifically to foster the connection
between the chapters.³³ Furthermore, while Daniel 2 and 7 share the four-king-
dom scheme, the latter was composed subsequent to the former. The appending
of the apocalypse in chapter 7 to the stories in chapters 2–6 was facilitated by the
interpolation of a secondary passage in Dan 2:15–24a, which anticipates many of
the themes found in the subsequent chapter.³⁴
Taking into account these compositional conclusions, we can identify an
earlier stage in the development of the collection of Aramaic narratives (chapters
2–6), which itself has an identifiable literary structure. In light of the many paral-
lels between Daniel 2 and 5 discussed above,³⁵ and between Daniel 3 and 6,³⁶ I
suggest that the original collection of the narratives was indeed artfully ordered,
but with the following sequence of “pairs” of stories: chapters 2 and 5; 3 and 6; 4
alone. Subsequently, the addition of chapter 7 to this collection, and the various
editorial additions to the narratives described above, realigned this structure,
leading to the pattern proposed by Lenglet.
This expanded Aramaic collection (Daniel 2–7) was itself expanded in two
additional ways. First, three additional Hebrew apocalypses were added in chap-
ters 8–12. While these apocalyptic visions focus on events similar to those nar-
rated in chapter 7, they do not necessarily present a theological and ideological
worldview identical to that of the author of Daniel 7, and as has been suggested
above, can even be deemed in certain respects to be inner-Danielic interpreta-
tion.³⁷ Therefore, one must be methodologically careful before interpreting an
earlier apocalypse through the lens of a subsequent author.³⁸
33 See above, chaps. 3, p. 58, n. 12 and 4, p. 103, n. 17.

34 See above, chap. 2.6, pp. 51–54.
35 See chaps. 2.5, pp. 48–51 and 3.1, pp. 61–68 .
36 See above, nn. 31–32.
37 See above, chap. 5.5, pp. 150–152 , for the proposed transformation of 7:25 by the author(s) of
chapter 8 and 11.
38 I suggest that the phenomenon of harmonization within textual witnesses can be identified
in the second half of Daniel (chapters 7–12), in a similar fashion to that outlined above for the
first half of the book. Thus, e.g., the adjective ‫“ ִמ ְצּ ִﬠ ָירה‬small” to describe the horn in MT 8:9 is
perhaps a harmonization to the adjective ‫“ זעירה‬small” used in 7:8 to describe the very same
Implications for the Literary Structure of Daniel 213
Second, chapter 1 was added as an introduction, emphasizing the impor-

tance of maintaining Jewish identity and practice as the key to success in the
court of the foreign king. This theme is present in chapters 3 and 6 as well, but
opening the book with this notion, enveloped by the description of the divinely
endowed success of Daniel and his companions vis-à-vis his Babylonian com-
petitors, succeeds in framing the entire book as positive about the possibility of
success for Judeans/Jews outside the land of Israel. Daniel serves as the paradig-
matically successful courtier, without sacrificing any aspects of his religious or
ethnic identity.³⁹
In a final stage of development, attested in the Greek versions, the story of
Susanna was appended to the beginning of the book.⁴⁰ While Daniel 1 is primar-
ily positive about the chances for success in the Diaspora, Susanna, especially in
its more original, OG version, presents a very different picture, which portrays
the Jewish religious leadership in Babylonia (about which we know very little
in the final centuries BCE) as fundamentally corrupt. By placing the story at the
beginning of the book, prior to chapters 1–6 which describe how to lead a suc-
cessful Jewish life in the Babylonian Diaspora, Susanna portrays this community
negatively, and as a result undermines the very notion which these stories are
attempting to promote.⁴¹
character. The original reading in 8:9 is probably reflected by OG ἰσχυρὸν “strong,” although the
precise Vorlage is difficult to determine.
39 See above, chap. 1, pp. 13–15, 25–26.
40 The two other Additions in the Greek versions, Bel and the Prayer of Azariah, also belong to
this final redactional stage. However, since they do not reflect an alternative Tendenz to the other
Daniel stories, I have refrained from discussing them in the context of this literary reconstruc-
tion.
41 See above, chap. 7.4, pp. 198–199.
Bibliography
Academy of the Hebrew Language. 1973. The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance, and an
Analysis of the Vocabulary. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language and the Shrine of
the Book.
Ackroyd, Peter R. 1968. Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century
B. C. Philadelphia: Westminster.
–, 1972. “The Temple Vessels – A Continuity Theme.” In Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel,
166–181. VTSup 23. Leiden: Brill.
Aitken, James K. 2007. “The God of the pre-Maccabees: Designations of the Divine in the Early
Hellenistic Period.” In The God of Israel, edited by Robert P. Gordon, 246–266. University
of Cambridge Oriental Publications 64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Albertz, Rainer. 1988. Der Gott des Daniel: Untersuchungen zu Daniel 4–6 in der Septuaginta-
fassung sowie zu Komposition und Theologie des aramäischen Danielbuches. SBS 131.
Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.
–, 2001. “The Social Setting of the Aramaic and Hebrew Book of Daniel.” In The Book of Daniel:
Composition and Reception, edited by J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint, 171–204. VTSup 83/1.
Leiden: Brill.
Albright, William F. 1921. “The Date and Personality of the Chronicler.” JBL 40: 104–124.
Alt, Albrecht. 1954. “Zur Menetekel Inschrift.” VT 4:303–305.
Amara, Dalia. 1996. “The Story of Bel and the Serpent: The Source, the Translation, and
the Relationship between the Versions.” M. A. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
(Hebrew)
–, 2005. “Theological Corrections in the Various Versions of the Book of Daniel.” Beer-Sheva 18:
61–76. (Hebrew)
–, 2006. “The Old Greek Version of the Book of Daniel: The Translation, the Vorlage and the
Redaction.” Ph.D. diss., Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2006. (Hebrew)
–, 2007. “The Third Version of the Story of Belshazzar’s Banquet (Daniel 5).” Textus 23:11–41.
(Hebrew)
Aruch. 1892. Nathan b. Jechiel, Aruch Completum. 9 vols. Supplemented by A. Kohut. Vienna:
A. Fanto.
Asheri, David, Alan Lloyd, and Aldo Corcella. 2007. A Commentary on Herodotus: Books I–IV,
edited by O. Murray and A. Moreno, translated by B. Granziosi et al. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Athas, George. 2009. “In Search of the Seventy ‘Weeks’ of Daniel 9.” JHS 9:2–20.
Avishur, Yitzhak. 1984. Stylistic Studies of Word-Pairs in Biblical and Ancient Semitic
Literatures. AOAT 210. Kevelaer: Butzon and Butzon.
Bar-On, Shraga, and Yakir Paz. 2010–2011. “‘The Lord’s Allotment is His People’: The Myth
of the Election of Israel by Casting of Lots and the Gnostic–Christian–Pagan–Jewish
Polemic.” Tarbiz 79:23–61 (Hebrew).
Barr, James. 1968. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Barthélemy, D., D. Gooding, J. Lust, and E. Tov. 1986. The Story of David and Goliath: Textual
and Literary Criticism. OBO 73. Fribourg/Göttingen: Editions Universitaires.
Bartor, Assnat. 2010. Reading Law as Narrative: A Study in the Casuistic Laws of the Pentateuch.
SBL Ancient Israel and Its Literature 5. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Bibliography 215
Batten, Loring W. 1913. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and
Nehemiah. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Bauer, H., and P. Leander. 1927. Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen. Halle: Niemeyer.
Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. 1989. The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B. C. Yale Near
Eastern Researches 10. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Beentjes, Pancratius C. 1997. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew
Manuscripts and a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill.
Begg Christopher T. 1987. “The Fate of Judah’s Four Last Kings in the Book of Chronicles.” OLP
18:79–85.
Bergsma, John S. 2007. The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran: A History of Interpretation. VTSup
115. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
–, 2009. “The Persian Period as Penitential Era: The ‘Exegetical Logic’ of Daniel 9.1–27.” In
Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods in Memory
of Peter R. Ackroyd, edited by G. Knoppers and L. Grabbe with D. Fulton, 50–64. LSTS 73.
London: T&T Clark.
Berner, Christoph. 2006. Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen: Heptadische Geschichts-
konzeptionen im Antiken Judentum. BZAW 363. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Bernstein, Moshe J. 1994. “Introductory Formulas for Citation and Re-citation of Biblical Verses
in the Qumran Pesharim: Observations on a Pesher Technique.” DSD 1:30–70.
–, 2008. “What Has Happened to the Laws? The Treatment of Legal Material in 4QReworked
Pentateuch.” DSD 15:24–49.
–, 2009. “Divine Titles and Epithets and the Sources of the Genesis Apocryphon.” JBL
128/2:291–310.
Bevan, A. A. 1892. A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel for the Use of Students.
Cambridge: University Press.
Black, Matthew. 1985. The Book of Enoch or I Enoch: A New English Edition. SVTP 7. Leiden:
Brill.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 1988. Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Bludau, August. 1897. Die alexandrinische Übersetzung des Buches Daniel und ihr Verhältnis
zum massorethischen Text. Freiburg: Herder.
Bogaert, P.-M. 1984. “Relecture et refonte historicisante du livre de Daniel attestés par le
première version grecque (Papyrus 967).” In Études sur le judaïsme hellénistique: Congrès
de Strasbourg (1983), edited by R. Kuntzmann and J. Schlosser, 197–224. Paris: Cerf.
Böhler, Dieter. 1997. Die Heilige Stadt in Esdras A und Ezra-Nehemiah: Zwei Konzeptionen
der Wiederherstellung Israels. OBO 158. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Bonwetsch, Georg Nathanael, ed. 2000. Hippolyt. Kommentar zu Daniel. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag.
Braverman, Jay. 1978. Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish and
Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. CBQMS 7. Washington, D. C.: Catholic
Biblical Association of America.
Bright, John. 1965. Jeremiah: Introduction, Translation and Notes. AB 21. Garden City, N. Y.:
Doubleday.
Broida, Marian. 2012. “Textualizing Divination: The Writing on the Wall in Daniel 5:25.”
VT 62:1–13.
Brooke, George J. 2001. “4Q158: Reworked Pentateucha or Reworked Pentateuch A?”
DSD 8:219–41.
216 Bibliography
Bruce, F. F. 1977. “The Oldest Greek Version of Daniel.” In Instruction and Interpretation: Studies
in Hebrew Language, Palestinian Archaeology and Biblical Exegesis. Papers Read at the
Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference held at Louvain, 1976, edited by A. S. van der
Woude, 22–40. OtSt 20. Leiden: Brill.
Brüll, Nehemiah. 1877. “Das apokryphische Susanna-Buch.” Jahrbuch für jüdische Geschichte
und Literatur 3:1–69.
Cagni, Luigi. 1969. L’epopea di Erra. Studi Semitici 34. Rome.
Casanowicz, Immanuel M. 1894. Paronomasia in the Old Testament. Boston: J. S. Cushing.
Charles, R. H. 1912. The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon.
–, 1929. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Oxford: Clarendon.
Chavel, Simeon. 2011. “Biblical Law.” In The Literature of the Hebrew Bible: Introductions and
Studies. Vol. 1. Edited by Z. Talshir, 227–272. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi. (Hebrew)
Childs, Brevard S. 2001. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Clements, R. E. 1980. Isaiah 1–39. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Clermont-Ganneau, Charles Simon. 1887. “Mané, thécel, pharès et la festin de Balthasar.”
Journal Asiatique 8 (1886): 36–67. Translated by R. W. Rogers as M. (sic) Clermont-
Ganneau, “Mene, Tekel, Peres, and the Feast of Belshazzar.” Hebraica 3/2:87–102.
Clifford, Richard J. 1999. Proverbs: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox.
Collins, Adela Yarbro. 1993. “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament.” In Daniel, by John
J. Collins, 90–112. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Collins, John J. 1977. The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel. HSM 16. Missoula, Mont.:
Scholars.
–, 1984. Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. FOTL 20. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
–, 1993. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.
–, 1996. “242. 4QPrayer of Nabonidus ar.” In Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3,
edited by G. Brooke et al., 83–93. DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon.
–, 1998. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2nd ed.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Cook, Eleanor. 1996. Enigmas and Riddles in Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Coxon, Peter W. 1986. “The Great Tree of Daniel 4.” In A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of
William McKane, edited by J. D. Martin and P. R. Davies, 91–111. JSOTSup 42. Sheffield:
JSOT Press.
Crawford, Sidnie White. 1999. “The ‘Rewritten’ Bible at Qumran: A Look at Three Texts.” ErIsr
26:1–8.
Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. 1973. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the
Religion of Israel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Curtis, E. L. 1898. “Daniel, The Book of.” In A Dictionary of the Bible Dealing with its Language,
Literature and Contents, edited by J. Hastings, 1:552–557. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Daube, David. 1980. “Typology in Josephus.” JJS 31: 18–36.
Daubney, William Heaford. 1906. The Three Additions to Daniel: A Study. Cambridge: Deighton
Bell.
Day, John. 1985. God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the
Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Delcor, Mathias. 1971. Le Livre de Daniel. Paris: Gabalda.
Bibliography 217
Demsky, Aaron. 1977. “A Proto-Canaanite Abecedary Dating from the Period of the Judges and
its Implications for the History of the Alphabet.” Tel Aviv 4:14–27.
Di Lella, Alexander A. 1981. “Daniel 4:7–14: Poetic Analysis and Biblical Background.” In
Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, edited by A. Caquot
and M. Delcor, 247–258. AOAT 212. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/
Neukirchener.
Dillmann, August. 1853. Das Buch Henoch. Übersetzt und erklärt. Leipzig: Vogel.
Dimant, Devorah. 1993. “The Seventy Weeks Chronology (Dan 9,24–27) in the Light of New
Qumranic Texts.” In The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, edited by A. S. van der
Woude, 57–76. BETL 106. Leuven: Leuven University.
Drower, Ethel S., and Rudolf Macuch. 1963. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon.
Ehrlich, Arnold B. 1908–1914. Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel. 7 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.
Eissfeldt, Otto. 1951. “Die Menetekel-Inschrift und ihre Bedeutung.” ZAW 63:105–114.
Emerton, John A. 1958. “The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery.” JTS 9:225–242.
Engel, Helmut. 1985. Die Susanna-Erzählung: Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar zum
Septuaginta-Text und zur Theodotion-Bearbeitung. OBO 61. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht.
Ephàl, Israel. 2006–2007. “The Conceptual Timing of Salvation in the Restoration Period.”
Tarbiz 76:5–16. (Hebrew)
Eshel, Esther. 2009. “The Dream Visions in the Noah Story of the Genesis Apocryphon and
Related Texts.” In Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic
Qumran Network 2003–2006, edited by A. K. Petersen, 41–61. STDJ 80. Leiden: Brill.
Fassberg, Steven E. 1992. “Hebraisms in the Aramaic Documents from Qumran.” In Studies in
Qumran Aramaic, 48–69. AbrNSup 3. Louvain: Peeters.
Feldman, Louis H. 1992. “Josephus’ Portrait of Nehemiah.” JJS 43:187–202.
–, 1998. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fishbane, Michael. 1985. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1974. “Some Notes on Aramaic Epistolography.” JBL 93:201–225.
–, 2004. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary. 3rd ed. Rome: Editrice
Pontificio Instituto Biblico.
Flusser, David. 1972. “The Four Empires in the Fourth Sybil and in the Book of Daniel.” Israel
Oriental Studies 2:148–175.
Folmer, M. L. 1995. The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic
Variation. Leuven: Peeters.
Fox, Michael V. 2000. Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
AB 18A. New York: Doubleday.
–, 2009. Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 18B. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Fraenkel, Jonah. 1991. ‫דרכי האגדה והמדרש‬. 2 vols. Givatayim: Massada/Yad La-Talmud. (Hebrew)
Frankel, David. 2010. “El as the Speaking Voice in Psalm 82:6–8,” JHS 10:2–24.
Fuchs, A., and S. Parpola, eds. 2001. “186. The Son of Zerî Crossing the River at Bab-Bitqi.”
In The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part III: Letters from Babylonia and the Eastern
Provinces, 124–25. SAA 15. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Gafni, Isaiah M. 1990. The Jews of Babylonia in the Talmudic Era: A Social and Cultural History.
Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center. (Hebrew)
–, 1997. Land, Center and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity. JSPSup 21. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic.
218 Bibliography
García Martínez, F., E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, eds. 1998. Qumran Cave 11.II:
11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon.
Gilbert, Maurice. 1972. “La Prière de Daniel: Dn 9, 4–19.” RTL 3:284–310.
Ginsberg, H. Louis. 1948. Studies in Daniel. Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological
Seminary of America 14. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America Press.
Glassner, Jean-Jacques. 2004. Mesopotamian Chronicles. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1993.
Reprint, SBLWAW 19. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Godley, A. D. 1960. Herodotus with an English Translation. 4 vols. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Goetze, Albrecht. 1956. “Fifty Old-Babylonian Letters from Harmal.” Sumer: A Journal of
Archaeology and History in Iraq 14:45.
Goldingay, John E. 1989. Daniel. WBC 30. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Goldstein, Jonathan A. 1983. II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. AB 41A. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday.
Goldstein, Ronnie. 2010–2011. “A New Look at Deuteronomy 32:8–9 and 43 in the Light of
Akkadian Sources.” Tarbiz 79:5–21. (Hebrew)
Grabbe, Lester L. 1987. “‘The End of the Desolations of Jerusalem’: From Jeremiah’s 70 Years
to Daniel’s 70 Weeks of Years.” In Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory
of William Hugh Brownlee, edited by C. A. Evans and W. F. Stinespring, 67–72. Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
–, 1988. “Another Look at the ‘Gestalt’ of ‘Darius the Mede’.” CBQ 50/2:198–213.
–, 1997. “The Seventy Weeks Prophecy (Daniel 9:24–27) in Early Jewish Interpretation.”
In The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of
James A. Sanders, edited by Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon, 595–611. Biblical
Interpretation Series 28. Leiden: Brill.
Graf, David F. 1984. “Medism: The Origin and Significance of the Term.” JHS 104:15–30.
Gray, George B. 1912. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. ICC.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Grayson, A. K. 2000. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Locust Valley and Glückstadt:
J. J. Augustin, 1975. Reprint, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Green, Alberto R. 1982. “The Chronology of the Last Days of Judah: Two Apparent
Discrepancies.” JBL 101:57–73.
Grelot, Pierre. 1974. “Le Chapitre V de Daniel dans la Septante.” Semitica 24:45–66.
–, 1974a. “La Septante de Daniel IV et son substrat sémitique.” RB 81:5–23.
Grossman, Jonathan. 2005. “The Fiery Furnace and the Lions’ Den (Daniel 3–6).” Megadim
41:51–64. (Hebrew)
Haag, Ernst. 1983. Die Errettung Daniels aus der Löwengrube. Untersuchungen zum Ursprung
der biblischen Danieltradition. SBS 110. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.
Hacham, Amos. 1984. The Book of Isaiah. Daat Mikra. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook.
(Hebrew)
Hacham, Noah. 2011. “Where does the Shekhinah Dwell? Between the Dead Sea Sect, Diaspora
Judaism, Rabbinic Literature, and Christianity.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls In Context:
Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures.
Vol. 1. Edited by A. Lange, E. Tov, and M. Weigold, 399–412. VTSup 140. Leiden: Brill.
HaCohen, Aviah. 1987. “The Sequence of the Oracles in Isaiah 1–4.” Megadim 4:55–62. (Hebrew)
HaCohen, Shmuel, and Yehudah Kil. 1994. Sefer Daniel. Daat Mikra. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav
Kook. (Hebrew)
Bibliography 219
Hartman, Louis F., and Alexander A. Di Lella. 1978. The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary. AB 23. New York: Doubleday.
Heinemann, Isaac. 1970. ‫דרכי האגדה‬. 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Magnes. (Hebrew)
Henten, J. W. van, 1990. “The Story of Susanna as a Pre-Rabbinic Midrash to Dan. 1:1–2.”
In Variety of Forms: Dutch Studies in Midrash, edited by A. Kuyt, E. G. L. Schrijver, and
N. A. van Uchelen, 1–14. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
Henze, Matthias. 1999. The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern
Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4. JSJSup 61. Leiden: Brill.
–, 2001. “The Narrative Frame of Daniel: A Literary Assessment.” JSJ 32:5–24.
–, ed. 2011. Hazon Gabriel: New Readings of the Gabriel Revelation. SBLEJL 29. Atlanta: Society
of Biblical Literature.
–, 2012. “The Use of Scripture in the Book of Daniel.” In A Companion to Biblical Interpretation
in Early Judaism, edited by M. Henze, 279–307. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Heschel, Abraham Joshua. 1962. Theology of Ancient Judaism (‫תורה מן השמים באספקלריה של‬
‫)הדורות‬. 2 vols. Soncino: London and New York. (Hebrew)
Hillers, Delbert R. 1965. “A Convention in Hebrew Literature: The Reaction to Bad News.”
ZAW 77:86–89.
Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling. 1995. Dictionary of the Northwest Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols.
Leiden: Brill.
Holladay, William L. 1989. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah
Chapters 26–52. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Holm, Tawny L. 2013. Of Courtiers and Kings: The Biblical Daniel Narratives and Ancient Story-
Collections. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
Hölscher, Gustav. 1919. “Die Entstehung des Buches Daniel.” TSK 92:113–138.
Humphreys, W. Lee. 1973. “A Life-Style for the Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and
Daniel.” JBL 92:211–223.
Hurvitz, Avi. 1991. Wisdom Language in Biblical Psalmody. Jerusalem: Magnes. (Hebrew)
Jahn, Gustav. 1904. Das Buch Daniel nach der Septuaginta hergestellt. Leipzig: Eduard
Pfeiffer.
Japhet, Sara. 1993. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox.
–, 2009. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. Jerusalem:
Mossad Bialik, 1977. In Hebrew. Reprint, translated by A. Barber. BEATAJ 9. Berlin: Peter
Lang, 1989. 2nd reprint, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Jastrow, Marcus. 1903. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the
Midrashic Literature. 2 vols. London: Luzac and New York: G. P. Putnam.
Jeansonne, Sharon Pace. 1988. The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12. CBQMS 19.
Washington D. C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America.
Jeffery, Arthur. 1956. “The Book of Daniel.” In The Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 6. 339–549.
Nashville: Abingdon.
Jellicoe, Sidney. 1968. The Septuagint in Modern Study. Oxford: Clarendon.
Jensen, Joseph. 1973. The Use of tôrâ by Isaiah: His Debate with the Wisdom Tradition.
Washington D. C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America.
Joffe, Laura. 2001. “The Elohistic Psalter: What, How and Why?” SJOT 15/1:142–169.
Joüon, Paul. 2006. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka.
2nd edition. Subsidia biblica 27. Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico.
Kaddari, Menahem Zvi. 2006. A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University
Press.
220 Bibliography
Kalimi, Isaac. 2009. The Retelling of Chronicles in Jewish Tradition and Literature: A Historical
Journey. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Kellerman, Ulrich. 1967. Nehemia: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte. BZAW 102. Berlin:
Alfred Töpelmann.
Kister, Menahem. 1994. “Commentary to 4Q298.” JQR 85:237–249.
Knibb, Michael A. 1976. “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period.” HeyJ
17:253–272.
Knohl, Israel. 1994. “Biblical Attitudes to Gentile Idolatry.” Tarbiz 64:5–12. (Hebrew)
Knoppers, Gary N. 2004. I Chronicles 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. AB 12. New York: Doubleday.
Koch, Klaus. 1983. “Dareios, der Meder.” In The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in
Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Carol L.
Meyers and Michael P. O’Connor, 287–299. Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental
Research and Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
–, 1986. Daniel. BKAT 22,1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.
–, 1992. “Darius the Mede.” ABD 2:38–39.
–, 1993. “Gottes Herrschaft über das Reich des Menschen: Daniel 4 im Licht neuer Funde.” In
The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, edited by A. S. van der Woude, 77–119.
BETL 106. Leuven: Leuven University.
Kogut, Simcha. 2005. “Biblical Expressions for Ordering and Assigning Tasks: Studies in
Syntactical Structures and Masoretic Accentuation.” In Studies in Bible and Exegesis 7,
edited by S. Vargon et al., 211–230. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University. (Hebrew)
Kottsieper, Ingo. 2006. “11Q5 (11QPsa) – A Plea of Deliverance.” In From 4QMMT to Resurrection:
Mélanges qumraniens en homage à Émile Puech, edited by F. García Martínez, Annette
Steudel, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar., 125–150. STDJ 61. Leiden: Brill.
Kratz, Reinhard G. 1991. Translatio imperii. Untersuchungen zu den aramaischen Danieler-
zahlungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld. WMANT 63. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchiner.
–, 2011. “Nabonid in Qumran.” In Babylon: Wissenskultur in Orient und Okzident, edited by
E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, M. van Ess, and Joachim Marzahn, 253–270. Topoi: Berlin Studies
of the Ancient World 1. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kugel, James L. 1997. The Bible as It Was. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
–, 1998. Traditions of the Bible. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Kvanvig, Helge S. 1988. Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch
Figure and the Son of Man. WMANT 61. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.
Laato, Antti. 1990. “The Seventy Yearweeks in the Book of Daniel.” ZAW 102:212–225.
Lacocque, André. 1979. The Book of Daniel. Translated by D. Pellauer. Atlanta: John Knox.
–, 2001. “Allusions to Creation in Daniel 7.” In The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception.
Vol. 1. Edited by J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint, 114–131. VTSup 83/1–2. Leiden: Brill.
Lambert, Mayer. 1906. Sefer Dani’el. Biblia Hebraica cum Commentariis Criticis. Kiev:
A. Kahana. (Hebrew)
Lambert, David. 2003. “Fasting as a Penitential Rite: A Biblical Phenomenon?” HTR 96:
477–512.
Larsson, Gerhard. 1967. “When did the Babylonian Captivity Begin?” JTS 18:417–423.
Lebram, Jürgen C. H. 1984. Das Buch Daniel. ZBK.AT 23. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag.
Lengerke, Caesar von. 1835. Das Buch Daniel. Königsberg: Gebrüder Bornträger.
Lenglet, A. 1972. “La Structure littéraire de Daniel 2–7.” Biblica 53:169–190.
Bibliography 221
Leslau, Wolf. 1987. Comparative Dictionary of Geèz. Weisbaden: Harrasowitz.

Levinson, Bernard M. 1997. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Levy, Jacob. 1963. Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim. 4 vols. 2nd ed. Berlin and
Vienna, 1924. Reprint, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Lipiński, E. 1969. La Liturgie pénitentielle dans la Bible. Lectio Divina 52. Paris: Cerf.
Lipschits, Oded. 2002. “‘Jehoiakim Slept with his Fathers …’ (II Kings 24:6) – Did He?” JHS
4:1–33.
Livingstone, Alasdair, ed. 1989. “8. Hymn to the City of Arbela.” In State Archives of Assyria III:
Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, 20–22. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project
and the Helsinki University Press.
Longman III, Tremper. 2006. Proverbs. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Loud, Gordon. 1936. Khorsabad I: Excavations in the Palace and at a City Gate. OIP 38. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Machiela, Daniel A. 2009. The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with
Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13–17. STDJ 79. Leiden: Brill.
Macintosh, Andrew A. 1980. Isaiah XXI: A Palimpsest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marcus, Ralph. 1937. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Books IX–XI. 10 vols. LCL. London and
Cambridge: W. Heinemann and Harvard University Press.
Marti, D. Karl. 1901. Das Buch Daniel. KHC 18. Tübingen and Leipzig: J. C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
McKane, William. 1970. Proverbs: A New Approach. OTL. London: SCM Press.
McLay, Timothy R. 1996. The OG and Th Versions of Daniel. SBLSCS 43. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
–, “Sousanna.” 2007. In A New English Translation of the Septuagint, edited by A. Pietersma
and B. G. Wright, 986–990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meadowcroft, T. J. 1995. Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison. JSOTSup 198.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Medan, Yaaqov. 2006. Daniel: Exile and Revelation. Alon Shvut, Israel: Tevunot. (Hebrew)
Melamed, Ezra Zion. 1945. “Word Pairs (ἕν διὰ δυοῖν) in the Bible.” Tarbiz 16:173–189. (Hebrew)
Mendels, Doron. 1981. “The Five Empires: A Note on a Propagandistic ‘Topos’.” American
Journal of Philology 102/3:330–337.
Milik, Józef T. 1981. “Daniel et Susanne à Qumran.” In De la Tôrah au Messie: Études d’exégèse
et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Henri Cazelles, edited by M. Carrez, J. Doré, and
P. Grelot, 337–359. Paris: Desclée.
Milikowsky, Chaim. 2013. Seder Olam: Critical Edition, Commentary and Introduction. 2 vols.
Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi. (Hebrew)
Millard, A. R. 1987. “The Etymology of neḇraštā, Daniel 5:5.” Maarav 4: 87–92.
Miller, Walter. 1914. Xenophon, Cyropaedia with an English Translation. 2 vols. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Montgomery, James A. 1927. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. ICC.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Moore, Carey A. 1977. Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions. A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary. AB 44. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Moortgat, Anton. 1969. The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia: The Classical Art of the Near East.
London: Phaidon.
Moreshet, Menahem. 1976. “The Hifìl in Mishnaic Hebrew as Equivalent to the Qal.” Bar-Ilan:
Annual of Bar-Ilan University. Studies in Judaica and the Humanities 13:249–281.
(Hebrew)
222 Bibliography
–, 1980. A Lexicon of the New Verbs in Tannaitic Hebrew. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.
(Hebrew)
Morgenstern, Matthew, and Michael Segal. 2013. “The Genesis Apocryphon.” In Outside the
Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, 3 vols., edited by L. H. Feldman, J. L.
Kugel, and L. H. Schiffman, 237–262. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
Mosca, Paul G. 1986. “Ugarit and Daniel 7: A Missing Link.” Biblica 67/4:496–517.
Müller, Ulrich. 1972. Messias und Menschensohn in jüdischen Apokalypsen und in der
Offenbarung des Johannes. SNT 6. Gütersloh: Mohn.
Munnich, Olivier, ed. 1999. Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco. SVTG 16/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
and Ruprecht.
–, 2003. “Texte massorétique et Septante dans le livre de Daniel.” In The Earliest Text of the
Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the
Septuagint Reconsidered, edited by A. Schenker, 93–120. SBLSCS 52. Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature.
Muraoka, Takamitsu. 1998. Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint Keyed to the Hatch-
Redpath Concordance. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Muraoka, Takamitsu and Bezalel Porten. 1998. A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. Leiden:
Brill.
Murphy, Roland E. 1963. “A Consideration of the Classification ‘Wisdom Psalm’.” In IOSOT
Congress Volume. Bonn 1962, 156–167. VTSup 9. Leiden: Brill.
–, 1998. Proverbs. WBC 22. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Newsom, Carol A. 2010. “Why Nabonidus? Excavating Traditions from Qumran, the Hebrew
Bible, and Neo-Babylonian Sources.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions
and Production of Texts, edited by S. Metso, H. Najman, and E. Schuller, 57–79. STDJ 92.
Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Nickelsburg, George W. E. 2001. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1–36;
81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Nitzan, Bilhah. 1986. Pesher Habakkuk: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judea (1QpHab).
Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. (Hebrew)
Noegel, Scott B., ed. 2000. Puns and Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near
Eastern Literature. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press.
Noth, Martin. 1966. “The Holy Ones of the Most High.” NTT 56 (1955): 146–161. Reprint,
Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Vol. 1. 217–220. TB 6. München: Kaiser,
1957. 2nd reprint, The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, 215–228. Philadelphia:
Fortress.
–, 1969. “Zur Komposition des Buches Daniel.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 98/99
(1926): 143–163. Reprint, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Vol. 2. 11–28. TB 39.
München: Kaiser.
Oettli, Samuel, and J. Meinhold, 1889. Die geschichtlichen Hagiographen (Chronika, Esra,
Nehemia, Ruth, Esther) und das Buch Daniel. Kurzgefasster Kommentar 8. Nördlingen:
C. H. Beck.
Ofer, Yosef. 1989. “The Masoretic Divisions (Sedarim) in the Books of the Prophets and
Hagiographa.” Tarbiz 58:155–189. (Hebrew)
Olariu, Daniel. 2015. “The Quest for the Common Basis in the Greek Versions of Daniel.”
M. A. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Orthmann, Winfried. 1975. Der Alte Orient. Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 14. Berlin: Propyläen
Verlag.
Bibliography 223
Oswalt, John N. 1986. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Parker, Simon B. 1995. “The Beginning of the Reign of God: Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy.” RB
102:532–559.
Parpola, S., ed. 1993. “175. Deciding about an Extispicy Report.” In Letters from Assyrian and
Babylonian Scholars, 138. SAA 10. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Paul, Shalom M. 2005. “Decoding a ‘Joint’ Expression in Daniel 5:6, 16.” JANES 22 (1993):
121–127. Reprint, Divrei Shalom: Collected Studies of Shalom M. Paul on the Bible and the
Ancient Near East, 1967–2005, 195–203. CHAN 23. Leiden: Brill.
–, 2005a. “From Mari to Daniel: Instructions for the Acceptance of Servants into the Royal
Court.” ErIsr 24 (1993): 161–163 (Hebrew). Reprint, Divrei Shalom: Collected Studies of
Shalom M. Paul on the Bible and the Ancient Near East, 1967–2005, 205–211. CHAN 23.
Leiden: Brill.
–, 2012. Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand
Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans.
Payne-Smith, J., ed. 1903. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary Founded upon the Thesaurus
Syriacus of R. Payne-Smith. Oxford: Clarendon.
Perdue, Leo G. 1977. A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literatures of Israel
and the Ancient Near East. SBLDS 30. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars.
Pfeiffer, Robert H. 1949. History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha.
New York: Harper.
Plöger, Otto. 1965. Das Buch Daniel. KAT 18. Gütersloh: Gütersloh.
Polaski, Donald C. 2004. “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin: Writing and Resistance in Daniel 5 and 6.”
JBL 123:649–669.
Porten, Bezalel, and Ada Yardeni. 1989. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt
Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English. Volume 2: Contracts.
Jerusalem: Hebrew University.
Porteous, Norman W. 1976. Daniel: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Procksch, Otto. 1920. “Die Berufingsvision Hesekiels.” In Festschrift Karl Budde zum
Siebzigsten Geburstag, edited by K. Marti, 141–149. BZAW 34. Giessen: Töpelmann.
Puech, Émile, ed. 1998. “525. 4QBéatitudes.” In Qumrân Grotte 4.XVIII: Textes hébreux (4Q512–
4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579), 115–178. DJD 25. Oxford: Clarendon.
Qimron, Elisha. 1986. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. HSS 29. Atlanta: Scholars.
–, 2002. Biblical Aramaic. 2nd rev. ed. Biblical Encyclopaedia Library. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.
(Hebrew)
Redditt, Paul L. 2000. “Daniel 9: Its Structure and Meaning.” CBQ 62:236–249.
Riessler, Paul. 1899. Das Buch Daniel. Stuttgart and Wien: Roth.
Rofé, Alexander. 2012. “Angels in the Bible: Israelite Belief in Angels as Evidenced by Biblical
Traditions.” Ph.D. diss, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1979. Reprint, Jerusalem: Carmel.
(Hebrew)
–, 1988. “Qumranic Paraphrases, the Greek Deuteronomy, and the Late History of the Biblical
‫נשיא‬.” Textus 14:163–174.
–, 1989. “The Arrangement of the Book of Jeremiah.” ZAW 101/3:390–398.
–, 1990. “An Enquiry into the Betrothal of Rebekah.” In Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache
Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rentdorff, edited by E. Blum et al., 27–39. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener.
–, 2009. Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible. Translated by H. N. Bock and
J. H. Seeligmann. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 9. Jerusalem: Simor.
224 Bibliography
Rosenthal, L. 1895. “Die Josephgeschichte mit den Büchern Ester und Daniel verglichen.” ZAW
15:278–284.
Rowley, H. H. 1935. Darius the Mede and the Four Empires in the Book of Daniel: A Historical
Study of Contemporary Theories. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
–, 1950–1951. “The Unity of the Book of Daniel.” HUCA 23:233–273.
Safrai, Shmuel, and Ze’ev Safrai. 2009. Haggadah of the Sages. Translated by Miriam Schlüs-
selberg. Jerusalem: Carta.
Sanders, James A., ed. 1965. The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa). DJD 4. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Sanders, James A., J. H. Charlesworth, and H. W. L. Rietz. 1997. “Plea for Deliverance (11Q5
19.1–18).” In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English
Translations. Volume 4A: Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers,
194–195. Tübingen/Louisville: Mohr Siebeck/Westminster John Knox.
Satran, David. 1985. “Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation of the Fourth Chapter of the
Book of Daniel.” Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Schmidt, Nathaniel. 1900. “The “Son of Man” in the Book of Daniel.” JBL 19:22–28.
Schwartz, Baruch J. 1998. “Torah from Zion: Isaiah’s Temple Vision (Isaiah 2:1–4).” In Sanctity
of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity, edited by A. Houtman, M. J. H. M. Poorthuis,
and J. Schwartz, 11–26. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 1. Leiden: Brill.
–, 2011a. “Does Recent Scholarship’s Critique of the Documentary Hypothesis Constitute
Grounds for its Rejection?” In The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current
Research, edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz, 3–16. FAT 78. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck.
–, 2011b. “The Torah: Its Five Books and Four Documents.” In The Literature of the Hebrew Bible:
Introductions and Studies. Vol. 1. Edited by Z. Talshir, 161–226. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi.
(Hebrew)
Schwartz, Daniel R. 2008. 2 Maccabees. CEJL. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Seeligmann, Isac L. 2004. “The Beginnings of Midrash in the Books of Chronicles.” Tarbiz 49
(1980): 14–32 (Hebrew). Translated into German, Gesammelte Studien zur Hebräischen
Bibel, 31–54. FAT 41. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Segal, Alan F. 1977. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and
Gnosticism. SJLA. Leiden: Brill.
Segal, Moses H. 1958. Sefer Ben Sira haŠalem. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. (Hebrew)
–, 1967. Mevo Ha-Mikra. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher. (Hebrew)
Segal, Michael. 1998. “Biblical Exegesis in 4Q158: Techniques and Genre.” Textus 19:45–62.
–, 2000. “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years
after Their Discovery, edited by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam, 391–399.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
–, 2002. “The Literary Development of Psalm 151: A New Look at the Septuagint Version.” Textus
21:139–158.
–, 2007. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. JSJSup 117.
Leiden: Brill.
–, 2007a. “The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Materia Giudaica
12/1–2:5–20.
–, 2009. “From Joseph to Daniel: The Literary Development of Daniel 2.” VT 59:123–49.
–, 2010. “The Literary Relationship between the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees: The
Chronology of Abram and Sarai’s Descent to Egypt.” Aramaic Studies 8:71–88.
Bibliography 225
–, 2010a. “Monotheism and Angelology in the Book of Daniel.” In One God – One Cult – One
Nation. Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives, edited by R. Kratz and H. Spieckermann,
405–420. BZAW 405. Berlin: de Gruyter.
–, 2011. “The Chronological Conception of the Persian Period in Daniel 9.” JAJ 2:283–303.
–, 2013. “‘For From Zion Shall Come Forth Torah …’ (Isaiah 2:3): Biblical Paraphrase and
the Exegetical Background of Susanna.” In New Approaches to the Study of Biblical
Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity:
Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of the Orion Center, edited by
G. A. Anderson, R. A. Clements, and D. Satran, 21–39. STDJ 106. Leiden: Brill.
–, 2013a. “Rereading the Writing on the Wall (Daniel 5).” ZAW 125:161–76.
–, 2014. “Who is the ‘Son of God’ in 4Q246? An Overlooked Case of Early Biblical
Interpretation.” DSD 21:289–312.
–, 2015. “The Text of Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Meghillot 11–12:171–198 (Hebrew).
Sellin, Ernst. 1910. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Leipzig: Quelle and Meyer.
Shaver, Judson R. 1989. Torah and the Chronicler’s History Work: An Inquiry into the
Chronicler’s References to Laws, Festivals, and Cultic Institutions in Relationship to
Pentateuchal Legislation. BJS 196. Atlanta: Scholars.
Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. 1987. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation
with Notes. AB 39; New York: Doubleday.
Smith, Mark S. 1986. “Interpreting the Baal Cycle.” UF 18:313–339.
–, 1997. “The Baal Cycle.” In Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, edited by Simon B. Parker, 81–180.
SBLWAW 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
–, 2001. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic
Texts. Oxford: Oxford University.
–, 2008. God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World. FAT 57.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Smith, Sidney. 1926. “Notes on ‘The Assyrian Tree’.” BSOAS 4:69–76.
–, 1975. Babylonian Historical Texts relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon. London:
Methuen & Co., 1924. Reprint, Hildesheim/New York: George Olms.
Sokoloff, Michael. 1974. The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan
University Press.
–, 1990. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan
University Press.
–, 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods.
Ramat-Gan/Baltimore: Bar Ilan University Press/ Johns Hopkins University.
–, 2003. A Dictionary of Judean Aramaic. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press.
–, 2009. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and
Update of C. Brockelman’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake/Piscataway: Eisenbrauns/
Gorgias.
Sommer, Benjamin D. 1998. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
–, 2004. “Inner-biblical Interpretation.” In The Jewish Study Bible: Jewish Publication Society
Tanakh Translation, edited by A. Berlin and M. Brettler, 1829–1835. Oxford/New York:
Oxford University Press.
Stearns, John B. 1961. Reliefs from the Palace of Ashurnaṣirpal II. AfOB 15. Graz: Weidner.
Stec, David M. 1994. The Text of the Targum of Job: An Introduction and Critical Edition. AGJU 20.
Leiden: Brill.
226 Bibliography
Steiner, Richard C. 1996. “The Two Sons of Neriah and the Two Editions of Jeremiah in the Light
of Two Atbash Code-Words for Babylon.” VT 46:74–84.
Stokes, Ryan E. 2008. “The Throne Visions of Daniel 7, 1 Enoch 14, and the Qumran Book of
Giants (4Q530): An Analysis of their Literary Relationship.” DSD 15/3:340–358.
Stone, Michael E. 1985. “Three Transformations in Judaism: Scripture, History, and
Redemption.” Numen 32:218–235.
–, 1987. “The Parabolic Use of Natural Order in Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” In
Gilgul: Essays on Transformation, Revolution and Permanence in the History of Religions
Dedicated to R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, edited by S. Shaked, D. Shulman, and G. G. Stroumsa,
298–308. SHR 50. Leiden: Brill.
–, 1990. Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia. Minneapolis:
Fortress.
Strommenger, Eva. 1964. 5000 Years of the Art of Mesopotamia. Photog. M. Hirmer. London:
Thames and Hudson.
Swain, Joseph W. 1940. “The Theory of the Four Monarchies: Opposition History under the
Roman Empire.” Classical Philology 35:1–21.
Sweeney, Marvin A. 1988. Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic
Tradition. BZAW 171. Berlin: de Gruyter.
–, 1996. Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. FOTL 16. Grand Rapids/
Cambridge: Eerdmans.
Tabory, Joseph. 1985. “The Persian Period According to Hazal.” Milet: Everyman’s University
Studies in Jewish History and Culture 2:65–77. (Hebrew)
Tal, Abraham. 2000. A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill.
Talshir, David. 2003. “‫ מתקל‬versus ‫תקל‬.” Meghillot 1:203–212. (Hebrew)
Talshir, Zipora. 2001. I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary. SBLSCS 50. Atlanta: Scholars
Press.
Talshir, Zipora, and David Talshir, 2000. Review of Qumrân Grotte 4.XVIII: Textes hébreux
(4Q512–4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579). JAOS 120/4:650–654.
Tiller, Patrick. 1993. A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of I Enoch. SBLEJL 4. Atlanta:
Scholars.
Torrey, Charles C. 1909. “Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel.” Transactions of the Connecticut
Academy of Arts and Sciences 5:239–282.
Tov, Emanuel. 1999. “Exegetical Notes on the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX of Jeremiah 27 (34).”
ZAW 91 (1979): 73–93. Reprint, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the
Septuagint, 315–331. VTSup 72. Leiden: Brill.
–, 1985. “The Composition of the 1 Samuel 16–18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version.”
In Empirical Models of Biblical Criticism, edited by J. H. Tigay, 97–130. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
–, 1997. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 2nd rev. and enl. ed.
Jerusalem: Simor.
–, 1998. “Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention to the
Samaritan Pentateuch.” DSD 5:334–354.
–, 2008. “Three Strange Books of the LXX: 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel Compared with Similar
Rewritten Compositions from Qumran and Elsewhere.” In Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte,
Lebenswelten, edited by M. Karrer and W. Kraus, 369–93. WUNT 219. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2008. Reprint, Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays,
283–305. TSAJ 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Bibliography 227
–, 2009. “The Many Forms of Hebrew Scripture: Reflections in Light of the LXX and 4QReworked
Pentateuch.” In From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual
History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of his 65th Birthday, edited by A. Lange et al., 11–28.
FRLANT 230. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
–, 2010. “From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch(?).” In Authoritative Scriptures in
Ancient Judaism, edited by M. Popović, 73–91. JSJSup 141. Leiden: Brill.
–, 2012. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd rev. and exp. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Towner, W. S. 1969. “The Poetic Passages in Daniel 1–6.” CBQ 31:317–26.
Toy, Crawford H. 1899. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs. ICC.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Trotter, Jonathan R. 2012. “The Tradition of the Throne Vision in the Second Temple Period:
Daniel 7:9–10, 1 Enoch 14:18–23, and the Book of Giants (4Q530).” RevQ 25/3:451–466.
–, 2013. “Another Stage in the Redactional History of the Bel Story (Dan 14:1–22): The
Evidence of Polemic against Foreign Priests and the Focus on Daniel in the Old Greek.”
JSJ 44:481–496.
Ulrich, Eugene C. 1987. “Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran.” BASOR 268:17–37.
–, 1988. “Double Literary Editions of Biblical Narratives and Reflections on Determining
the Form to be Translated.” In Perspectives on the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of
Walter J. Harrelson, edited by J. L. Crenshaw, 101–116. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University
Press.
–, 1989. “Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran.” BASOR 274:3–26.
–, 1992. “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Later Stages in the Composition of
the Bible.” In Shaàrei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East
Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, edited by M. Fishbane and E. Tov, 267–291. Wininona
Lake: Eisenbrauns.
–, 1999. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Related Literature. Grand Rapids/Leiden: Eerdmans/Brill.
–, 2000a. “The Qumran Scrolls and the Biblical Text.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After
Their Discovery, edited by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam, 51–59. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society.
–, 2001. “The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls.” In The Book of Daniel: Composition and
Reception. Vol. 2. Edited by J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint, 573–585. VTSup 83. Leiden: Brill.
–, 2012. “The Parallel Editions of the Old Greek and Masoretic Text of Daniel 5.” In A Teacher
for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam, Volume One, edited by
E. F. Mason et al., 201–217. JSJSup 153/I. Leiden: Brill.
Ulrich, Eugene C., and Peter W. Flint. 2010. Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls. Part 1: Plates
and Transcriptions. DJD 32. Oxford: Clarendon.
Ulrich, Eugene C., et al., eds. 2000. Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles. DJD 16. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Urbach, Epraim E. 1975. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Translated by I. Abrahams.
2 vols. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press.
VanderKam, James C. 2000. “Das chronologische Konzept des Jubiläenbuches.” ZAW 107
(1995): 80–110. Reprint, “Studies in the Chronology of the Book of Jubilees.” From
Revelation to Canon: Studies in Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature, 522–544.
JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill.
–, 1977. “BHL in Ps 2:5 and its Etymology.” CBQ 39:245–250.
–, 1981. “The Putative Author of the Book of Jubilees.” JSS 26:209–217.
228 Bibliography
–, 1998. Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time. Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
London: Routledge.
Wacholder, Ben Zion. 1975. “Chronomessianism: The Timing of Messianic Movements and the
Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles.” HUCA 46:201–218.
Watts, John D. W. 1985. Isaiah 1–33. WBC 24. Waco: Tex. Word.
Weinfeld, Moshe. 1972. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Werline, Rodney Alan. 1998. Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: The Development of
a Religious Institution. SBLEJL 13. Atlanta: Scholars.
Wesselius, J. W. 1990. “The Literary Genre of the Story of Susanna and its Original Language.”
In Variety of Forms: Dutch Studies in Midrash, edited by A. Kuyt, E. G. L. Schrijver, and
N. A. van Uchelen, 15–25. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
Whybray, Roger N. 1994. Proverbs. NCB Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
–, 1995. “The Wisdom Psalms.” In Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton,
edited by J. Day et al., 152–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wildberger, Hans. 1997. Isaiah 13–27: A Continental Commentary. Translated by T. H. Trapp.
Minneapolis: Fortress.
Williamson, H. G. M. 1985. Ezra, Nehemiah. WBC 16. Waco, Tex.: Word.
–, 1994. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Wills, Lawrence M. 1984. “The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early
Christianity.” HTR 77/3–4:277–299.
–, 1990. The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends. HDR 26.
Minneapolis: Fortress.
–, 2004. “Daniel.” In The Jewish Study Bible: Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation,
edited by A. Berlin and M. Brettler, 1640–1665. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, Gerald H. 1990. “The Prayer of Daniel 9: Reflection on Jeremiah 29.” JSOT 48:91–99.
Wolters, Al. 1991. “The Riddle of the Scales in Daniel 5.” HUCA 62:155–177.
–, 1991a. “Untying the King’s Knots: Physiology and Wordplay in Daniel 5.” JBL 110:91–97.
Wright, Ernest G. 1950. The Old Testament against its Environment. SBT 2. London: SCM Press.
Wright, Jacob L. 2004. Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and Its Earliest Readers.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Zahn, Molly M. 2008. “The Problem of Characterizing the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts:
Bible, Rewritten Bible, or None of the Above?” DSD 15:315–339.
–, 2011. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked
Pentateuch Manuscripts. STDJ 95. Leiden: Brill.
Zakovitch, Yair. 1992. An Introduction to Inner-Biblical Exegesis. Even-Yehuda: Reches. (Hebrew)
–, 2005. ‘I Will Utter Riddles from Ancient Times’: Riddles and Dream-riddles in Biblical
Narrative. Tel Aviv: Am Oved. (Hebrew).
–, 2010. “Is the Tree of Knowledge the Tree of Life?” In A Garden Eastward in Eden: Traditions of
Paradise: Changing Jewish Perspectives and Comparative Dimensions of Culture, edited by
Rachel Elior, 63–70. Jerusalem: Scholion and Hebrew University Magnes Press. (Hebrew)
Zeitlin, Solomon. 1954. The Second Book of Maccabees. Dropsie College Edition of Jewish
Apocryphal Literature. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Zell, Michael. 2002. Reframing Rembrandt: Jews and the Christian Image in Seventeenth-
Century Amsterdam. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Zevit, Ziony. 1968. “The Structure and Individual Elements of Daniel 7.” ZAW 8:385–396.
Index of Modern Authors
Ackroyd, P. R. 13, 155 Collins, A. Y. 8

Aitken, J. K. 39 Collins, J. J. 3, 8, 10, 13–15, 19–20, 23,
Albertz, R. 69–70, 72, 95, 112 28–29, 32, 34, 36, 42, 46–48, 51–52,
Albright, W. F. 159 57–60, 62, 65, 68–69, 71–72, 80–81,
Alt, A. 57 84, 92, 95–96, 100, 103–105, 107–108,
Amara, D. 5–6, 16, 19–21, 59, 68–70 111–113, 116, 120, 124, 126, 130,
Asheri, D. 80 132–135, 138, 140–141, 144, 146, 150,
Athas, G. 167 152, 155–157, 160, 162, 165, 168, 169,
Avishur, Y. 142, 172, 181, 193, 195–196, 211
Bar-On, S. 145 Cook, E. 72
Barr, J. 114 Coxon, P. W. 109, 111–112
Barthélemy, D. 34 Crawford, S. W. 125
Bartor, A. 208 Cross, F. M. 135–136, 148
Batten, L. W. 176 Curtis, E. L. 28
Bauer, H. 141 Daube, D. 34
Beaulieu, P.-A. 81, 159 Daubney, W. H. 196
Beentjes, P. C. 76 Day, J. 136, 152
Begg C. T. 27 Delcor, M. 168
Bergsma, J. S. 162, 166–167, 171 Demsky, A. 56
Berner, C. 167–168 Di Lella, A. A. 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 23,
Bernstein, M. J. 37, 39, 101, 125 27–29, 32, 35–37, 40–42, 46, 48, 51–52,
Bevan, A. A. 83, 160 54, 56, 60, 70, 72, 76, 101, 107, 109,
Black, M. 134 111–112, 133, 146, 155–157, 161–162,
Blenkinsopp, J. 176 168, 172, 177, 211
Bludau, A. 95 Dillmann. A. 134
Bogaert, P.-M. 121 Dimant, D. 167
Böhler, D. 177 Drower, E. S. 62, 78
Bonwetsch, G. N. 107 Ehrlich, A. B. 18
Braverman, J. 4, 36, 194 Eissfeldt, O. 61, 73
Bright, J. 30 Emerton, J. A. 135, 138, 152
Broida, M. 67 Engel, H. 181, 193
Brooke, G. J. 125 Eph‛al, I. 158
Bruce, F. F. 112, 115 Eshel, E. 129
Brüll, N. 197 Fassberg, S. E. 141
Cagni, L. 45 Feldman, L. H. 34, 177
Casanowicz, I. M. 70 Fishbane, M. 9, 56, 155–156, 168
Charles, R. H. 10, 17, 28, 69, 83, 95, 101–102, Fitzmyer, J. A. 94, 128–129
115, 117–119, 134, 144, 160, 162, 168, Flint, P. W. 92
172 Flusser, D. 146
Chavel, S. 9 Folmer, M. L. 78
Childs, B. S. 83 Fox, M. V. 141
Clements, R. E. 11, 123, 186 Fraenkel, J. 114
Clermont-Ganneau, C. S. 71 Frankel, D. 148–149
Clifford, R. J. 43 Fuchs, A. 44
230 Index of Modern Authors
Gafni, I. M. 189, 192, 199 Jensen, J. 186

García, M. 75–77 Joffe, L. 148
Gilbert, M. 165 Jongeling, K. 144
Ginsberg, H. L. 70, 72, 107, 133, 146, 172 Joüon, P. 18
Glassner, J.-J. 27 Kaddari, M. Z. 113
Godley, A. D. 80 Kalimi, I. 27
Goetze, A. 44 Kellerman, U. 177
Goldingay, J. E. 10, 13, 28, 57, 60, 62, 71, 79, Kil, Y. 19–20, 105, 144, 168, 211
109, 133, 138, 152, 168, 172, 182 Kister, M. 43, 53, 161
Goldstein, J. A. 53, 178 Knibb, M. A. 155
Goldstein, R. 145 Knohl, I. 147
Grabbe, L. L. 155, 159, 166 Knoppers, G. N. 169
Graf, D. F. 82 Koch, K. 28–29, 83, 111–112, 159
Gray, G. B. 83 Kogut, S. 18
Grayson, A. K. 27 Kottsieper, I. 76
Green, A. R. 116 Kratz, R. G. 11, 72, 95, 130, 138
Grelot, P. 69, 119, 121, 126 Kugel, J. L. 9
Grossman, J. 211 Kvanvig, H. S. 109, 111
Haag, E. 70, 96, 105, 108 Laato, A. 166
Hacham, A. 89 Lacocque, A. 17, 28, 58, 70, 79, 144, 152, 156,
Hacham, N. 189 162, 165, 167–168, 172
HaCohen, A. 186 Lambert, D. 165
HaCohen, S. 19–20, 105, 144, 168, 211 Lambert, M. 21
Hartman, L. F. 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 23, Larsson, G. 28
27–29, 32, 35–37, 40–42, 46, 48, 51–52, Leander, P. 141
54, 56, 60, 70, 72, 101, 107, 109, 111–112, Lebram, J. C. H. 35
133, 146, 155–157, 161–162, 168, 172, Lengerke, C. von 111
211 Lenglet, A. 54, 211–212
Heinemann, I. 114 Leslau, W. 151
Henten, J. W. van 181, 199 Levinson, B. M. 9, 186
Henze, M. 8, 39, 48, 68, 94–96, 101–102, Levy, J. 74
107, 109, 111–112, 116, 119, 124–125, 128, Lipiński, E. 165
130, 202 Lipschits, O. 26–27
Heschel, A. J. 189 Livingstone, A. 45
Hillers, D. R. 86 Longman III, T. 43
Hoftijzer, J. 144 Loud, G. 111
Holladay, W. L. 30 Machiela, D. A. 128
Holm, T. L. 201 Macintosh, A. A. 83, 90–92
Holscher, G. 133 Macuch, R. 62, 78
Humphreys, W. L. 14, 26, 49 Marcus, R. 34
Hurvitz, A. 75 Marti, D. K. 17
Jahn, G. 95 McKane, W. 43
Japhet, S. 27–28, 169 McLay, T. R. 39, 193
Jastrow, M. 45, 62, 74, 144 Meadowcroft, T. J. 59–60, 68, 101, 103, 105,
Jeansonne, S. P. 13 119, 121, 130
Jeffery, A. 28 Medan, Y. 74
Jellicoe, S. 4 Meinhold, J. 28
Index of Modern Authors 231
Melamed, E. Z. 142 Rowley, H. H. 82, 133, 159

Mendels, D. 146 Safrai, S. 84
Milik, J. T. 193 Safrai, Z. 84
Milikowsky, C. 172 Sanders, J. A. 75
Millard, A. R. 60 Satran, D. 39, 95, 102, 107, 109, 112, 118–119,
Miller, W. 80 121–124, 130
Montgomery, J. A. 10, 15, 17, 20, 26–29, 32, Schmidt, N. 152
56, 69, 72, 95, 101–103, 116, 119, 122, Schwartz, B. J. 37, 185, 186
133, 141, 165, 168, 172, 182 Schwartz, D. R. 178
Moore, C. A. 181, 193–194, 196 Seeligmann, I. L. 9
Moortgat, A. 111 Segal, A. F. 147, 153
Moreshet, M. 62, 161 Segal, M. H. 160, 177
Morgenstern, M. 128 Segal, M. 6–7, 10, 84, 106, 125–126, 128,
Mosca, P. G. 135 130–131, 154, 183, 206, 211
Müller, U. 133 Sellin, E. 133
Munnich, O. 4–5, 38, 95, 182, 193 Shaver, J. R. 9
Muraoka, T. 40, 78 Skehan, P. W. 76, 177
Murphy, R. E. 43, 75 Smith, M. S. 136, 148
Newsom, C. A. 95 Smith, S. 81, 111
Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 134, 177 Sokoloff, M. 42, 45, 62, 77–78, 144, 161
Nitzan, B. 101 Sommer, B. D. 155, 186–187, 189
Noegel, S. B. 70 Stearns, J. B. 111
Noth, M. 133, 140–141, 151 Stec, D. M. 77
Oettli, S. 28 Steiner, R. C. 56
Ofer, Y. 198 Stokes, R. E. 138
Olariu, D. 11, 39 Stone, M. E. 8, 149
Orthmann, W. 111 Strommenger, E. 111
Oswalt, J. N. 84 Swain, J. W. 146
Parker, S. B. 148 Sweeney, M. A. 82, 186
Parpola, S. 44 Tabory, J. 172
Paul, S. M. 13, 19–20, 86, 176 Tal, A. 144
Payne-Smith, J. 45, 78 Talshir, D. 74–75, 77–78
Paz, Y. 145 Talshir, Z. 40, 75
Perdue, L. G. 75 Tiller, P. 134, 177
Pfeiffer, R. H. 194–195 Torrey, C. C. 69, 72
Plöger, O.17, 58 Tov, E. 4, 34, 70, 96, 106, 114, 118, 125
Polaski, D. C. 58 Towner, W. S. 138
Porten, B. 78 Toy, C. H. 43
Porteous, N. W. 60, 144 Trotter, J. R. 6, 138
Procksch, O. 138 Ulrich, E. C. 6, 38, 41, 64–65, 92, 96, 119,
Puech, E. 75 125–126, 160, 209
Qimron, E. 62, 144, 161 Urbach, E. E. 189
Redditt, P. L. 14, 165 VanderKam, J. C. 151, 161, 167
Riessler, P. 95 Wacholder, B. Z. 155, 162
Rofé, A. 23, 30, 38, 83, 127, 138, 148, 160, Watts, J. D. W. 82
163, 181, 195, 198 Weinfeld, M. 164
Rosenthal, L. 19, 48 Werline, R. A. 165
232 Index of Modern Authors
Wesselius, J. W. 194, 199 Wright, E. G. 148

Whybray, R. N. 43, 75 Wright, J. L. 174, 176, 177
Wildberger, H. 83–84 Yardeni, A. 78
Williamson, H. G. M. 177, 186 Zahn, M. M. 125
Wills, L. M. 25, 32, 68, 81, 95–96, 105–106, Zakovitch, Y. 9, 73, 79, 112, 155, 156
112, 122, 130, 168, 181, 199, 201 Zeitlin, S. 178
Wilson, G. H. 163–164 Zell, M. 56
Wolters, A. 70, 86 Zevit, Z. 133–134, 152
Index of Ancient Texts
Hebrew Bible: Masoretic Text
Genesis 32:8 143

1:26–27 140 34:12 77
9:6 140
10:10 195 Leviticus
11:2 195 19:14 77
11:9 195 23:4 191–192
14:18–20 40 25–26 157
14:22 40 25 156
14:23 58 26 156, 162
20:13 143 26:18 157
24 38 26:28 157
24:3 38 26:34–35 156
24:7 38 26:37 77
24:50–51 165 26:43 156
31:53 143
39:6 48 Deuteronomy
39:21 19 4 165
39:22–23 19 4:29 164
40–41 49, 101 7:6 143
40:8 49 7:25 77
41 48, 50, 93, 104, 200, 12:30 77
202–203 14:2 143
41:7–8 48 16–19 198
41:8 49 16:18–19:21 197
41:14 49 16:18–17:13 198
41:16 49 17:8–11 186
41:17–24 50 17:9 186
41:25 50 19 183
41:39 48 19:16–21 180, 197, 208
41:40 48–49 19:18 197
41:42 48 19:19 197
41:45 23, 48 26:18–19 143
42:25 16–18 26:19 142
30 165
Exodus 30:1–5 164
10:7 77 32 145–149, 152–153, 206
19:5–6 143 32:8–9 144–145, 149, 205
23:1–9 198 32:9 143
23:7 194, 198 32:36 135
23:33 77 32:39 147
32:4 143
234 Index of Ancient Texts
Joshua 1:26 186

6:3 114 2 186
2:1–4 184–186
1 Samuel 2:3 184–185, 187–189,
9:9 92 191–193,195–199, 206
16–18 34 2:4 185
16:17–25 34 2:23 196
16:21 34 5:11–12 89
17:55–58 34 6 132, 138
24:11 16 6:17 92
10–11 114, 202
2 Samuel 10 112
7:23 143 10:32–34 112
10:32–11:1 112
1 Kings 29 10:33 109
8:50 19 10:34 109, 113
22:19 132, 138 11:1 109, 113
13–23 87
2 Kings 27, 29 13–14 87–88
11:8 114 13 82, 87–88
18:17 143 13:7–8 87–88
21 198 13:17 83, 87, 160
23 27 17:6 113
23:36–24:7 26 19:1 135, 205
23:36 29 21 79–93 passim, 207
23:37 27 21:1–10 84, 207
24–25 116 21:1–2 84
24 27 21:1 87
24:1 28 21:2 82, 85–86, 91, 160
24:2–4 27 21:3–4 86, 88
24:6 26–27 21:4 89
24:8–17 27 21:5 84, 90
24:8 29 21:6 91
24:9 27 21:7 92
24:13 118 21:9 82, 85, 87, 92
24:18 29 23:15–17 158
24:19 27 24:13 113
25 116–117 33:1 85
25:6–7 27 36:2 143
25:8 116–117 42:1–4 188
25:11 116 45:1 29, 74, 168, 176
25:13–17 27 49:1–6 188
51 192
Isaiah 51:3–5 187–188
1 186 51:3 187
1–2 198 51:4–6 187
1:26–2:3 198 51:4–5 187
Hebrew Bible: Masoretic Text 235
51:4 187–188 30:18 168

55:11 165 31:11 185
60:5 185 31:37 168
65:11–12 73 32 30
32:1 115
Jeremiah 29, 203 34 30
1:2–4 29 35 30–31
1:3 29 35:1 29–30
18:18 186 35:11 30
22:18 29 36 30–31
22:24 29 36:1 29–30
24:1 29 36:2 163
25 30, 155–158, 162–163, 36:8 163
168, 200, 208 36:9 29–30
25–36 30 36:10 163
25:1 28–29 36:11 163
25:1–4 157 36:13 163
25:13 163 36:18 163
25:15 163 36:28–30 29
25:29 79 36:32 29, 163
26 30, 118 37–45 30
26:1 29 37:1 29
26:21–23 29 45 30
27 30, 118 45:1 29, 163
27:1 29 46–51 163
27:3 118 46:1 26
27:12 118 46:2 29
27:20 29 51 82
28 30 51:1–27 116
28:1 158 51:11 83, 160
28:4 29 51:28 83, 160
29 30, 155–158, 162–163, 165, 51:33 85
168, 194, 195, 200, 208 51:48 86
29:1–23 163 51:44 185
29:1–14 158 51:53 86
29:1–2 28 51:55–56 85–86
29:1 158, 163–165 52 116–117
29:10–14 158, 164, 165 52:2 27, 29
29:10 84, 168 52:12 116–117
29:12–14 164 52:15 116
29:12–13 208 52:28–30 115
29:13 164 52:29 115–116
29:14 164, 168
29:20–23 194–195 Ezekiel 203
29:23 195 1 132, 138–139
29:24–32 163 1:26 138
30:2 163 1:28 138
3:17 92 14:4 143

17 109–110, 129, 202
17:10 129 Malachi
17:22–24 110 2:7 186
31 109–110, 129, 202
31:3 120 Psalms
31:5–6 110 7:18 40
33:7 92 8 135
34:6 185
Hosea 34:9 75
9:8 92 34:14 75
12:1 141 34:12–22 75
42–83 148
Joel 47:3 40
4:9–10 185 57:3 40
68:5 135, 205
Jonah 68:33–34 135
1:9 38 78:35 40
78:56 40
Micah 82 144, 147–149, 152–153,
4:1–3 185 205–206
4:2 195 82:1 148
82:2–4 149
Habakkuk 82:5 149
1:14–16 101 82:6–8 148–149, 149
1:16 101 82:6 148
2:1 91 82:7 149
2:7–8 101 82:8 148
2:8 101 89 135
2:9–11 101 104:3 135, 205
2:10 101 105:15 176
106:46 19
Haggai 137:1 196
1:1 169 137:8–9 85
1:2 169
1:12 169 Job
1:14 169 3:4 185
1:23 169 19:26 113
2:2 169 34:30 77
2:11–13 186
2:20–23 169 Proverbs
2:5 141
Zechariah 195 9:10 141–142
1:12 156 21:23 75
2:10 129 26:12 43
5:5–11 195 26:16 43
6:5 129 30:3 141–142
Song of Songs 1:13 20–21

3:4 84 1:14 20
1:17–20 2, 14, 23–24, 48
Ecclesiastes 1:17 2, 14, 24–25, 67, 183
8:10 143 1:19–21 34
1:19 15, 34
Esther 9, 201 1:20 2, 24, 28
1:10–11 63 1:21 13
1:14 43 2–7 49, 54, 132, 150, 212
1:17 16 2–6 14, 23, 25, 32, 54, 212
1:19 165 2–5 95
3:7 173 2 2, 10, 14, 23, 25, 32–54
4:11 34, 63 passim, 55, 57–58, 61, 67,
4:13 16 72, 93, 103–104, 138, 200,
4:15 16 202–203, 212
5:1–2 63 2:1–13 47
6:1 16 2:1–12 36
7:8 165 2:1–11 61
9:14 16 2:1–2 32
9:20–28 173 2:1 48, 132
9:29–32 173 2:2–13 49
2:3 132
Daniel 2:4b–7:28 1
1–6 1, 6, 7, 14, 21, 48, 64, 68, 2:4 32
103, 150, 160, 181–182, 2:5–6 33
199, 201, 213 2:5 65
1 2, 7, 10, 13–31 passim, 2:6 65
34–35, 47, 54, 67, 150, 2:7–9 33
182–183, 197, 210–211, 2:7 35, 65
213 2:8 35, 54
1:1–2:4a 1 2:9 54, 65
1:1–2 13, 204 2:10–12 33, 47
1:1 27–29, 31 2:10 61
1:3–7 14 2:11 50, 65
1:3–5 15–18 passim, 21–24, 2:12 36, 46
210 2:13–23 35–36
1:3 182 2:13 35–37, 41–42, 46–47
1:4 48, 183 2:14 35–36, 41–47, 49, 51
1:5 22 2:15–24 47, 50
1:6 23, 183, 198 2:15–23 36, 41, 46–47, 51–54
1:7 23, 48 2:15 42, 45–46
1:8–16 14 2:16 33, 35, 65
1:8 19, 21–22 2:17–18 35–37, 47
1:9 19–22, 24, 210 2:17 36, 46
1:10–16 21–22 2:18 38, 40
1:10 18–19, 22 2:19 38, 40, 51, 53
1:11–13 20 2:20–23 52, 124
2:20 38 4:3–7 102, 125

2:21 51–54, 124 4:3–6 64, 102–104, 209, 212
2:22 185 4:3 43
2:23 38 4:4 103
2:24–48 47 4:6 4, 14, 103
2:24 33, 35–37, 41, 46, 51, 65 4:7–14 96
2:25 33, 37, 49, 65, 198 4:7–12 104
2:26 65 4:7–9 101
2:27 37, 49 4:8–9 119
2:28 14, 37–38, 47, 49, 4:10–13 101, 105
65–66 4:10 109, 123
2:28–45 65 4:11 127, 129
2:28–35 66 4:12 101, 104, 111
2:31–45 32 4:13 104–108, 209
2:33 52 4:14 39–40, 108, 122–123
2:36–45 66 4:15–24 96, 98
2:36 65–66 4:15 14, 102–103, 209, 212
2:37 38, 144 4:16 120
2:41 52 4:19 118, 121
2:42 52, 138 4:20 105, 111, 123
2:44 38, 138 4:21–23 127
2:45 38, 65 4:21–22 101
2:46–48 119 4:21 39–40
2:47 38 4:22 39–40, 106, 108, 123
2:48 36, 48–49, 64 4:23 111
2:49 36, 47 4:24 44, 76
3–6 206, 209 4:25–33 99
3 2, 7, 14, 25, 32, 36, 47, 115, 4:25–30 96, 127
211–213 4:26 117
3:8 211 4:27 144
3:10 43 4:28–29 101, 127
3:12 43 4:28 122–123
3:26 40 4:29 39–40, 106, 108, 122
3:29 43 4:30 106–107, 123, 127
3:31 138, 209 4:31–32 138
3:31–4:34 39 4:31 39–40, 94, 106, 123, 137
3:31–33 94, 97, 119, 137–138 4:33 106
3:32 39–40 4:34 94, 100, 124
3:33 138 5 5, 6, 10, 14, 25, 32, 37,
4–6 5, 39 48–50, 55–93 passim,
4 2, 5, 6, 10, 14, 25, 32, 103–104, 200, 202–203,
39–40, 55, 58, 94–131 207, 209–212
passim, 201–202, 5:1–4 59, 81
209–212 5:1 68
4:1–14 97 5:2–3 60, 73–74
4:1–2 96 5:2 42
4:2 14, 97, 132 5:4 93
5:5–6 59, 61 155–156, 205, 206,

5:5 59, 90 210–212
5:6 48–49, 86, 120, 132 7:1–14 132
5:7–8 49, 61 7:1–2a 14
5:8 57, 61, 65 7:1 14, 80
5:9–10 64 7:2 129
5:9 61–63 7:4 107, 123–124, 146
5:10–12 49, 55, 59 7:7 52, 121, 133–134
5:10 62, 64 7:8 121, 133, 212
5:11 64, 92, 185 7:9–10 133, 153
5:12 61, 63–64 7:9 147
5:13 182, 198 7:10 132
5:14 55, 59, 185 7:11 133, 146
5:15–16 65 7:12 146, 201
5:15 61 7:13–14 133
5:16 49, 58, 61, 86 7:13 135
5:17–22 58 7:14 136–139
5:17 58, 61 7:15–27 132–133
5:18–22 40, 58, 64, 103, 211 7:15 132
5:18 40 7:16 132
5:19 49 7:18 140–141, 143–144
5:21 40, 105 7:19–24 133
5:23 74, 93 7:20–22 133
5:24–28 59 7:20 121, 133
5:25–28 70 7:21 121
5:25 61, 66, 68–69, 72–73, 7:22 140–141, 143–144
78–79 7:24–26 52
5:26–28 61, 66–68, 70, 72, 79 7:24–25 52–54, 133
5:26 26, 69, 72 7:24 52–53, 133
5:29 48–49, 58 7:25 40, 54, 121, 140–141, 150,
5:30 160 152, 212
6 2, 5, 14, 25, 32, 160, 207, 7:26 53
211–213 7:27 137–139
6:1 82–83, 160–161 7:28 132
6:3 43, 45, 48, 160 8–12 1, 7, 150–151, 212
6:8 42 8 5, 80, 152, 155–156, 212
6:14 43, 182 8:1 80
6:25 211 8:5–7 147
6:26–28 119, 138 8:8 129
6:26 138 8:9 212–213
6:27 138 8:10 121, 151
6:29 161 8:11 151–152
7–12 1, 6, 14, 25, 54, 118, 132, 8:14 53
150, 155, 160, 182, 201 8:15 134
7–8 2, 51 9 2, 3, 9, 10, 80, 155–179
7 2, 5, 7, 10, 51, 54, 80, 107, passim, 200, 203, 205,
121, 132–154 passim, 208, 210
9:1–3 164, 208 4:8 42

9:1–2 159 4:9 42
9:1 82–83, 161, 173 4:17 42
9:2 162, 164, 169, 174 4:19 43
9:3–20 208 4:21 43
9:3 164–165 5:2 169
9:4–20 160, 165 5:3 43
9:21–23 165 5:5 43
9:21 134, 152 5:9 43
9:23 165–166, 169 5:11–12 38
9:24–27 155, 161, 164–166, 168, 5:13 43
204 5:14–15 13
9:24–26 166 5:14 73
9:25 29, 166, 168–169, 171, 5:17 43
173–174, 178 6:1 43
9:26 169 6:3–5 13
9:27 53, 166 6:3 43
10–12 2 6:5 73
10 160, 203 6:8 43
10:1 13, 173 6:9–10 38
10:5 134 6:10 40
10:13 152 6:11 43
10:16 134 6:12 43
10:18 134 6:14 43
10:21 152, 160 6:15 173
11 152, 160, 171, 212 6:19 173
11:1 83, 160–161 7:12 38
11:2 172 7:13 43
11:4 129 7:14–15 42, 44
11:22 167 7:21 38, 40, 43
11:36 122, 152 7:23 38, 40, 43
12 181 9:3–5 165
12:1 152
12:6–7 Nehemiah 171, 174
12:11 53 1:2 165
12:12 53 1:4–5 38
1:11 19
Ezra 171, 174, 177 2:1 173
1 74, 202 2:4 38
1:1–3 171 2:20 38
1:2 38, 40 5:7 45
1:7–11 13 5:14 173
1:8 73 6:5–7 176
1:9–11 73 6:8 176
2:2 178 7:7 178
3:2 169 8:9 176
3:8 169 9:2 165
Hebrew Bible: Other Versions and Translations 241
9:18 143 29:27 16

10:2 176 29:30 16
12:11 169 31:11 16
12:26 176 33:11 27–28
13:6 173 35:21 16
36 156–157, 171
1 Chronicles 9, 29 36:5–7 27, 31
9:29 21 36:5 29
16:22 176 36:9 27, 29
17:9 151 36:11 29
17:21 143 36:12 27
21:17 16 36:20–23 156
36:20–21 28
2 Chronicles 9, 29, 171 36:22–23 171
1:18 16 36:23 38, 40
3:17–19 169
Hebrew Bible: Other Versions and Translations

Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls Samaritan Pentateuch
Genesis
1QIsaa 20:13 143
16:22 92 31:53 143
21:8 92 35:7 143
4QDana 38, 41, 126 Deuteronomy

2:19 38–39 32:9 145
2:20 38
2:23 38 Septuagint (Old Greek/Theodotion)
2:44 38–39 Genesis
2:45 38 20:13 143
5:12 64 31:53 143
41:8 59
4QDanb 95
Deuteronomy
4QDanc 8:4 151
ii 12–14 38 29:4(5) 151
32:8 145
4QDand 126 32:9 145
4QDeutj 145 Joshua

9:5 151
4QRP (Reworked Pentateuch) 125 9:13 151
Judges 54–55 196

14:12 59 58–59 196
60–62 180, 197
Nehemiah 61–62 183
9:21 151 62a–b 180, 197
2 Chronicles Susanna (Th) 6, 180–182, 209

36:6 27 1–5a 193, 197
5 206
Job 44–45 183
13:28 151 61–62 183
63 197
Psalms 64 197–198
32(31):3 151
49(48):15(14) 151 Daniel (OG)
102(101):27(26) 151 1:1–2:4a 5
1:2 39
Isaiah 1:3–5 210
2:3 195 1:3 20
50:9 151 1:9 21, 39, 210
51:6 151 1:10 15, 39
65:22 151 1:11 20
1:16 20, 39
Jeremiah 1:17 39
52:12 116 1:19 39
52:29 116 2:4b–4 5
2:15 46
Lamentations 2:18–19 4, 40
3:4 151 2:18 38–39
2:19 38–39
Micah 2:20 38–39
4:2 195 2:21 124
2:23 38–39
Susanna (OG) 6, 10, 180–181, 200, 2:28 38–39
209–210 2:35 130
5b–6 193 2:37 38–39
5b 194–197 2:44 38–39
7–12 180 2:45 38
13–14 180 2:47 38–39
19 180 2:48 102
20–23 180 3–6 209
28–41 180 3–4 115–116
44–45 2, 180, 183 3 6, 118
45 198 3:1 5, 115–117
48 180, 197 3:93[26] 40
51–59 180 3:95[28] 39
53 194, 198 4–6 5, 6, 58
4–5 103 6:18 211

4 25, 118, 120, 212 6:21–22 211
4:1 5, 94, 115–117, 119, 209 6:23[24] 211
4:2 106 7 5
4:3–6 25 7:1 5
4:8 129 7:2 130
4:9 129 7:18 40
4:11 39, 129 7:22 40
4:12 95 7:25 40
4:14 122 7:27 40, 140
4:14a 39, 112, 120, 127, 129–130 8 5
4:15 25, 102–103 8:1 5
4:16 120 8:8 130
4:18 129 9–12 5
4:19 117, 123 9:1 161
4:20 20 9:2 163
4:21–22 123 9:3 39
4:21 39 9:4 39
4:22 118, 123 9:7 39
4:23 39 9:8 194
4:28 39, 122 9:9 39
4:29 123 9:10 39
4:30a–c 106 9:13 39
4:30a 39, 106, 112, 123 9:14 39
4:30b 105–106, 123–124 9:15 39, 194
4:30c 39, 106, 123 9:16 194
4:34 39, 124 9:17 194
4:34a 39 9:18 39
4:34b 39 9:19 39, 194
4:34c 119 9:20 39
5–6 5 9:25–26 166
5 5, 58, 103, 212 9:26–27 166
5:0 [Preface] 66, 68–69, 79 9:27 166
5:6 120 10:1 5, 13
5:7–8 63 11:4 130
5:7 59 11:24 122
5:8 59 11:31 122
5:9 59, 63–64 12:8 39
5:11–12 63 12:11 122
5:12 59
5:15 46, 59 Daniel (Th)
5:16 59, 120 1–12 182
5:17 59, 66, 68 1–6 6
5:31 161 1:3 20, 182
5:31–6:1 161 2:15 46
6 209, 211 2:16 34
6:14 211 2:18 38
2:19 38 9:1 161

2:20 38 9:2 163
2:23 38
2:25 182 Targumim
2:28 38 Targum Onqelos
2:37 38 Exodus
2:44 38 18:19 45
2:45 38
2:47 38 Leviticus
3–6 209 19:14 77
3 6 26:37 77
4–6 5
4:2 62 Numbers
4:16 62 24:14 45
4:30 124
5:6 62 Targum Neofiti
5:9 62 Leviticus
5:12 64 19:14 77
5:25 66, 68 26:37 77
5:26–28 68
7:27 140 Fragment Targum
7:28 62 Genesis
9:1 161 15:11 42
9:2 163
Numbers
Bel and the Dragon (OG) 24:14 42
181–182, 213
1:33–36 14 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Exodus
Bel and the Dragon (Th) 18:19 45
181–182, 213
1–2 182 Leviticus
3 182 19:14 77
26:37 77
Prayer of Azariah (OG/Th)
6, 213 Numbers
24:14 45
Peshitta
Leviticus Targum Jonathan
19:14 77 1 Samuel
26:37 77 25:31 77
Daniel 2 Samuel
2:16 34 16:23 45
5:12 64 17:7 45
5:25 17:15 45
7:25 151
1 Kings Hosea
1:12 45 4:5 77
12:6 45 5:5 77
12:8 45 14:2 77
12:9 45 14:10 77
12:13 45
Nahum
Isaiah 2:6 77
3:8 77 3:3 77
5:27 77
8:14 77 Malachi
8:15 77 2:8 77
21:2 85
28:13 77 Targumim to the Hagiographa
31:3 77 Psalms
40:30 77 9:4 77
57:14 77 16:7 45
59:10 77 27:2 77
59:14 77 31:11 77
63:13 77 32:8 45
62:5 45
Jeremiah 64:9 77
6:15 77 71:10 45
6:21 77 83:4 45
8:12 77 83:6 45
18:23 77 105:37 77
20:11 77 107:12 77
31:9 77 109:24 77
38:15 45 119:165 77
46:6 77
46:12 77 Proverbs
46:16 77 4:12 77
50:32 77 4:16 77
4:19 77
Ezekiel 13:10 45
3:20 77 16:18 77
7:19 77 24:16 77
14:3 77 24:17 77
14:4 77
14:7 77 2 Chronicles
18:30 77 10:6 45
21:20 77 10:8 45
33:12 77 10:9 45
44:12 77 25:8 77
28:15 77
28:23 77
Job Vulgate 151, 181

4:4 77 Susanna 181
26:3 45
Daniel
Esther 2:14 42
1:7 63 5:9 62
5:12 64
Lamentations 5:25 68
1:4 77 5:26–28 68
5:13 77
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Baruch 90:17 134
1:1 163 90:21–22 134
2 Baruch 8 Additions to Esther

C 28 22
Ben Sira 8, 78
4:22 76 1 Esdras 40
13:23 76 1:2–3 40
14:9 76 1:37–39 27
15:11–12 76 1:38 27
15:12 76 3–4 201
25:23 76 5:8 178
30:21 76 6:30 40
31:7 76 8:19 40
32:20 76 8:21 40
34:25 76
37:12 76 4 Ezra 8
37:14 43
41:2 76 Jubilees 8, 9, 130–131, 167
41:9 76 1:27 161
42:8 76
49:13 177 Judith
5:8 38
1 Enoch 7, 8, 167 6:19 38
14 138 11:17 38
87:2 134 12:2 22
89:1 134
89:9 134 1 Maccabees
89:36 134 1:41–61 53
89:72–73 134, 177 1:62–63 22
90:14 134
Judean Desert Documents 247
2 Maccabees 177 Tobit

1:18–36 178 1:10–11 22
1:18 178 5:17 38
4:30–38 167 6:18 38
6:1–11 53 7:11–12 38
7 22 7:17 38
8:15 38
Psalm 151 183 10:11–13 38
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

9
Judean Desert Documents

1QapGen (Genesis Apocryphon) 4QapJer (Jeremiah Apocryphon)
37, 128–131, 141, 209 167
13–15 128–130
4Q525 (Beatitudes)
1QpHab (Pesher Habakkuk) 14 ii 26 75
5:12–16 101
6:2–3 101 11Q5 (11QPsa; Psalms Scroll)
6:5 101 183
8:13 101 19:14–15 75–76
9:3–4 101
9:12–15 101 11Q6 (11QPsb)
10:2 101 4–5, 15 76
4Q242 (Prayer of Nabonidus) 11QTargJob

14 ii 26 75 15:6 77
4Q246 (Aramaic Apocalypse of Daniel) CD (Damascus Document)

206 20:8 141
Hellenistic Jewish Writers

Josephus Jewish War
Jewish Antiquities 34 3.8.9.399 34
10.198–199 34
10.202–203 34
Other Jewish Literature

Mishnah Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai
m. Abot Bešallaḥ
1:9 197 15 147
m. Men.
2:3 191 Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer
m. Roš. Haš. 48 63
2:9–10 191
Seder Olam 172, 174, 205
Tosefta 28 84
t. Sanh. 29 173
2:13 190
Sifra
Palestinian Talmud Emor
y. Nazir 10 191
6:9 (40a) 189
y. Sanh. Sifre Deuteronomy
1:2 (18d–19a) 189–190 329 147
Babylonian Talmud Other Texts

b. Ber.
63a–b 192 R. Eleazar ben Kalir 84, 90
b. Meg.
11b 63, 79 Rashi 151
b. Sanh. Leviticus
11b 190 23:4 191
22a 55
38a 178 Isaiah
21:1–10 84
Midrash Rabbah 21:2 85
Genesis Rabbah 21:2–4 87
63 90
Leviticus Rabbah Rabbeinu Tam
18:2 122 Sefer HaYašar 192
Esther Rabbah
2:11 63 Joseph Qara
Song of Songs Rabbah Isa 21:4 90
3 55, 84, 90
Eliezer of Beaugency
Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael Isa 21:4 90
Baḥodesh
5 147 Abraham Ibn Ezra
Šîrā Isaiah
5 147 21:1–10 84
21:2–4 87
New Testament and Christian Literature 249
Proverbs 21:2–4 87
16:16 43 21:2 85
Daniel Isaiah of Trani

2:14 44 Isaiah
21:4 90
Esther
7:8 165 Joseph Kaspi
Isaiah
Radak (R. David Kimchi) 21:4 90
Isaiah
21:1–10 84 R. Azariah dei Rossi
Me’or ‛Einayim 40 172
New Testament and Christian Literature

1 Corinthians Jerome
7:1 193 Commentary on Daniel
Preface (PL 28:1291) 4
Hippolytus 2:12–13 36
Commentary on Daniel 4:6 (PL 25:514) 4
4.2. 9–10 107 7:4 107
13 194
Origen 4
Epistle to Africanus 7–8 194 Commentary on Jeremiah
Stromata 4 29:20–23 194
Classical Literature
Herodotus Xenophon
Histories Cyropaedia
1.191 80 7.5 80
Ancient Near Eastern and Other Sources

Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Babylonian Chronicles 27, 116
44
Cyrus Cylinder 81
Baal Cycle 135–136
Elephantine Papyri (CAP) 38, 78 Nabonidus Chronicle 81

30:2 38 3.7–10 81
30:27–28 38 3.12–16 81
32:3–4 38
38:5 38

(Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 455) Michael Segal - Dreams, Riddles, And Visions_ Textual, Contextual, And Intertextual Approaches to the Book of Daniel-Walter de Gru

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 455) Michael Segal - Dreams, Riddles, And Visions_ Textual, Contextual, And Intertextual Approaches to the Book of Daniel-Walter de Gru

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michael Segal

Dreams, Riddles, and Visions

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

© 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

1 Introducing the Book of Daniel (Daniel 1) | 13

2 Daniel as Interpreter of Dreams: The Literary Development of the Narra-

3 Rereading the Writing on the Wall (Daniel 5) | 55

4 The Textual and Literary Development of Daniel 4 | 94

4.3.3. Additional Secondary Elements in OG | 119

5 Reconsidering the Theological Background of Daniel 7 | 132

6 The Chronological Conception of the Persian Period in

7 Rethinking Jewish Life in the Diaspora: The Story of Susanna | 180

Index of Modern Authors | 229

Index of Ancient Texts | 233

Aramiyim, munaḥim benleˀumiyim. A. Even-Shoshan. 3 vols. Jerusalem:

LCL Loeb Classical Library

TB Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhun-

0.1 Divinely Inspired Wisdom in Daniel

0.2 Textual Questions: Alternate Editions of Daniel

0.3 Intertextual Contexts: Daniel as Second Temple Literature

0.4 Exegetical Insights: Rereading the Book of Daniel

1.1 The List of Instructions to Ashpenaz

1.2 How did God help Daniel vis-à-vis the ‫?שר הסריסים‬¹⁷

1.3 A Story within a Story

I suggest that by combining the results of these two interpretive discussions, we

Appendix: The Third Year of Jehoiakim’s Reign

Interpreters have often noted the presence of an interpretive difficulty in the

Jehoiakim: 9 years (3d–11th) (2Kgs 23:36; 2Chr 36:5)

50 Koch (1986, 30).

Stage 1: Reward for success or Punishment for failure

2.2 Contradictions within Daniel 2

2.3 Divine Names as Supporting Evidence

Daniel 2 MT 4QDana Theodotion LXX (OG)

(v. 20) ‫אלהא‬ ‫ אלהא רבא‬τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ κυρίου τοῦ

v. 28 ‫אלה בשמיא‬ [] θεὸς ἐν οὐρανοῷ κύριος¹⁶ ἐν οὐρανοῷ

v. 37 ‫אלה שמיא‬ [] ὁ θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ κύριος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

(v. 47) ‫אלה אלהין‬ [] θεὸς θεῶν θεὸς τῶν θεῶν

2.4 A More Precise Source Division

This verse, which describes Daniel’s approach to Arioch, follows Nebuchadnez-

(a) ul kaspam tublam ul ṭēmka tuterram

(b) ša … ṭēmu ina pan šarri bēli[ja] uterrū[ni]

(c) ṭēmu ina ekalli tēri, b[at]iqtu šî asaparakka

Furthermore, the word pair ‫ עטא וטעם‬in Daniel can be understood as a

(a) ša dIgigi ṭēnšúnu tīdēma ša dAnunnakī milikšun

(b) Arbela bīt ṭēme u milki

2.5 Daniel as an “Improved” Joseph

Gen 41:7–8 Dan 2:1

2.6 Possible Origin of the Addition

61 Hartman and Di Lella (1978, 139, 144–45).

64 Numerous scholars have identified a process of textual development throughout Daniel 7,

God (Dan 2:21) Antiochus (Dan 7:24…26)

… ‫מהעדה מלכין ומהקים מלכין‬ ‫( ושלטנה יהעדון‬26) … ‫( ותלתא מלכין יהשפל‬24)

God (Dan 2:21) Antiochus (Dan 7:25)

‫והוא מהשנא עדניא וזמניא‬ ‫ויסבר להשניה זמנין ודת‬

3.1 They Could Not Read the Writing

Interpreters have offered various suggestions as to why the diviners were

The first options pertain to techniques used in writing (abbreviations or ideo-

19 As already noted by Eissfeldt (1951, 108).

Dan 5:9 (OG)

As we have seen throughout this analysis, this understanding of Daniel 5 has

simultaneously undermining the validity and stature of Mesopotamian mantic

3.2 The Riddle of the Writing

ַ ‫ = ְמנֵ א ְמנֵ א ְתּ ֵקל‬Peshitta ‫ܡܢܐ ܡܢܐ ܬܩܠ ܘܦܪܣܝܢ‬