Читать книгу The End of the Scroll - Herold Weiss - Страница 9

Daniel

The prophet Ezekiel refers to Daniel as a most righteous and wise man. He was known as a paragon of righteousness who, if God were to punish Israel for her sins, though he was quite righteous would not be able to save any other member of his family. He would be able to save only himself. This illustration is used by Ezekiel to establish the significance of the change from a corporate, tribal to an individual, personal identity (Ez. 14:14). This legendary ancient worthy, listed by Ezekiel in the company of legendary Noah and Job, was not only remembered for his righteousness but also for his wisdom. Thus, in his taunt of the King of Tyre, Ezekiel sarcastically quotes the king claiming to be “wiser than Daniel” (Ez. 28:3). Other ancient texts from the neighboring nations also know a Dnil, or Danel, who is remembered for his extraordinary wisdom, particularly texts from the XIV century B.C.E. found at Ugarit. Whether the author of Daniel is telling stories that had come to him about a Daniel who went to Babylon as an exile from Judea, or is giving the legendary Daniel a more recent Babylonian setting, cannot be determined.

What is clear is that the court tales describe Daniel as a man with “learning and skill in all letters and wisdom … and understanding in all visions and dreams” (Dan. 1:17). King Nebuchadnezzar appointed him “chief of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you and that no mystery is difficult for you” (Dan. 4:9, 18). King Belshazzar’s wife tells him that Daniel is “a man in whom is the spirit of the holy gods” and “light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, are found in him,” and that “King Nebuchadnezzar, your father, made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and astrologers, because an excellent spirit, knowledge, and understanding to interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve problems were found in this Daniel” (Dan. 5:11-12). In line with these characterizations, the ultimate accolade is given by the angel sent to give Daniel an explanation for the delay of Jeremiah’s prophecy that after seventy years Israel’s fortunes would be restored (Dan. 9:2). He tells Daniel, “O Daniel, I have come out to give you wisdom and understanding … to tell it to you, for you are greatly beloved” (Dan. 9:23). That he is “greatly beloved” by God is repeated twice by the angel (Dan. 10:11, 19). Then. when presidents and satraps, out of envy, seek for a legitimate accusation against him “they could find no ground for complaint or any fault, because he was faithful, and no error or fault was found in him” (Dan. 6:4). They, therefore, set up a trap as a means to accuse him of disloyalty to the king and send him to the den of lions. When Darius, after having anxiously spent the night unable to sleep, in the early morning calls on Daniel in the lion’s den, he answers, “My God sent his angel to shut the lion’s mouths, and they have not hurt me, because I was found blameless before him, and also before you, O king” (Dan. 6:22). These descriptions and this claim would be considered gratuitously self-serving in the writings of any author. They can only be taken for what they are when one understands that they were made by another person who is trying to establish his own credentials through Daniel’s reputation. All indications point out that Daniel was written pseudonymously.

Like in other pseudonymous texts, e.g. First Enoch, Baruch and Ezra, in Daniel are found also the usual devices used by authors impersonating a famous ancestor. Prominent among them is the accounting of past history as prediction, that is vaticinia ex eventu. In every case the accuracy of their “predictions” comes to an end at the time when the author is writing. Whenever the author writes about events in his actual future the descriptions are nebulous, and in many cases prove not to be what actually happened. Another characteristic is the need for the visionary to seal the vision because it does not concern his own times. It has to do with what will happen much later, at the time of the end, that is, at the time when the actual author is writing. Thus, the interpreting angel tells Daniel, “Seal up the vision, for it pertains to many days hence” (Dan. 8:26), or that the vision tells “what will befall your people in the latter days” (Dan. 10:14). The author, of course, thinks that those days have arrived. “Predicting” ominous events of the recent past, the angel warns Daniel, “the end is not yet at the time appointed” (Dan. 11:27). This means that the author is writing about a present that is just short of the time of the end for the benefit of his contemporaries. Thus, the past history presented as what Daniel “predicted” would happen between his time in Babylon, around 580-537 B.C.E., and the author’s actual time in Jerusalem, around 167-164 B.C.E., serves to guarantee the authority of the information that the author presents as the solution to the crisis being experienced by his contemporaries.

Another device in common use is to have the ancient worthy confess that when he received the vision, or the angel’s interpretation of it, he was troubled and confused. In the case of Daniel, after the angel had interpreted the vision for him, he confessed, “I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days, then I rose and went about the king’s business; but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it” (Dan. 8:27). After the angel “swore by him who lives for ever” that the holy people would be persecuted only “for a time, two times and half a time” and then Michael would arise to put an end to their suffering and reward them with resurrection, Daniel says, “I heard, but I did not understand” (Dan. 12:8). In another occasion, he says, “As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly alarmed me, and my color changed; but I kept the matter in my mind” (Dan. 7:28). In other words, full understanding of the vision will be possible at the time of the end, that is to say the author’s time. Both the sealing of the vision, and the lack of its understanding when received “by Daniel in Babylon,” only serves to explain why the “prediction” was not known until now, the author’s time.

Further evidence that the book offers vaticinia ex eventu is the designation of the dreams or visions as mysteries (Dan. 2:19, 22, 27, 29, 47). As pointed out earlier, the way this word was meant in antiquity is not the way in which it is used in modern times. In antiquity a mystery was discrete information not available to the public at large. It was, in fact, not available on the basis of human abilities to discover things or solve problems. It was, however, within reach of human comprehension. It was information that was privately revealed to the elect few who had been judged worthy by God. Access to a mystery was gained by contact with those who already possessed it. In other words, a mystery was esoteric knowledge. It is because knowledge of a mystery depends on its having been revealed by a divine agent, that we now describe a text that makes use of this device as an apocalypse, and this literary genre as apocalypticism. This is a Greek word composed of apo, out of, and kalupto, to cover, to hide. What has been revealed has been taken out of hiding, what covered it has been removed. The author of an apocalypse has a revelation of divine origin for his contemporaries. To give his revelation ultimate validity, he introduces it with confirming authority by “predicting” events that have already taken place.

Also to be considered in terms of the formal characteristics of the book, is the language and identity of the pseudonymous author. Daniel contains two kinds of materials. One section consists of stories about Daniel and his companions in the courts of pagan kings, told by an anonymous narrator in the third person (chapters 1 – 6). Another contains visions which Daniel relates in the first person (chapters 7 – 12). Besides, the book was written in two languages:1:1 – 2:4a, and 8 – 12 in Hebrew, and 2:4b – 7:28 in Aramaic; but the languages do not match the division of the material according to their contents. Besides, the Greek translation of Daniel in the Septuagint has a prayer of Azariah (Abednego) and the Song of the Three Young Men added to chapter 3. The stories of Susana and of Bel and the Dragon, not found in the Hebrew canon of Scripture, also appear as separate units in the Septuagint. These additions to the Hebrew-Aramaic contents suggest that the text was edited putting together separate pieces, a process that continued for some time and gave rise to different recencsions of the text. That the compilation of existing materials in different languages was done by editors is also suggested by the presence of different visions with idiosyncratic details dealing with the same historical period. Most likely, by this means the editors indicated that by itself one telling of a vision does not exhaust the message being conveyed. Even multiple allegorical versions of an event may not quite capture its significance. Thus, the publication of different versions of apocalyptic visions was not intended to give information. The visions were meant to spark the imagination, and to awake desires that would bring about specific behaviors. The different descriptions of the same event open up horizons for understanding. This characteristic of the text has allowed readers of Daniel in later times to favor a particular version of the story in order to concoct scenarios that fit their own historical circumstances and thus identify their own time as the time of the end.

It is generally agreed that the “author” of Daniel were scribes in Jerusalem who edited preexisting materials. Their handling of the text also gave the text thematic unity. Their work, however, also makes it difficult to take at face value the details of the court tales. Besides the length of time involved, covering the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede and Cyrus, there are no historical records of a Darius the Mede. The Persian Darius who succeeded Cyrus was not from Media. Fundamentalists who have attempted to find Darius the Mede in the historical record have relied on anachronistic arguments from silence that prove nothing. Accounts of past events in antiquity were not primarily concerned to establish what had actually taken place. They tell the past with a specific agenda in mind, with either moral or political implications. Daniel is no exception. This text is not a historical but a theological work.

Reading Daniel Theologically

The court tales

While Jerusalem scribes, obviously, had significant historical records covering events from the Exile to the Maccabean War, the book’s agenda is what determines the twists in the story. Already in the third century C.E., Porphyry noticed that while the author “predicted” the course of events from the time of the Exile to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, with recognizable historical correspondences, he could not do so beyond that time. Modern scholarship has found Porphyry’s observation valid and has determined, on the basis of it and other factors, that the book was written at the time of the Maccabean War, 167-64 B.C.E. Recognizing this fact helps to understand why the book was published in two languages. Facing the trials brought about by Antiochus’ suppression of Jewish customs and religion, and his imposition of Greek culture and religion, the author thought appropriate to adapt the court tales from the Babylonian exile, available in Aramaic oral traditions, as models of what faithful Jews were expected to do under the present circumstances.

By means of editorial devices the author/editors adapted the traditional tales and used them to offer advice to the readers of their apocalyptic visions. The vaticinia ex eventu were written using information found in their chronicles. Chapters 4 and 5 present parallel stories of pagan kings who exalted themselves. Nebuchadnezzar is depicted in a dream as a tree “whose top reached to heaven, and was visible to the ends of the whole earth … the beasts of the field found shade under it, and the birds of the air dwelt in its branches, and all flesh was fed from it” (Dan. 4:11-12). That all humanity could be fed from one tree is, to say the least, an exaggeration serving a purpose. Sometime later Nebuchadnezzar bragged, “Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?” (Dan. 4:30). Apparently, he had not taken seriously what Daniel had told him as the meaning of his dream of the giant tree, “the Most High rules the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will” (Dan. 4:25).

Belshazzar, for his part, took the vessels of silver and gold which had been carried to Babylon as booty after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple and used them so that “the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines might drink from them … They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood and stone” (Dan. 5:2, 4). They used sacred objects for profane drunkenness and idolatry. In these stories, a dream or a mysterious writing on the wall needs to be interpreted, and only Daniel, with the help of his God, is able to reveal the meaning of the dream or what was written on a wall by a non-human hand. The judgment of God on the hubris of these two kings took place swiftly. Nebuchadnezzar was reduced to live like a beasts of the field, while the words of his boast “were still in the king’s mouth” (Dan. 4:31). The other story tells that “that very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain” (Dan. 5:30). Both stories have something important to say to the readers of Daniel about the author’s contemporary king, who is profaning “the temple and fortress, and [is taking] away the continual burnt offering. And [is setting] up the abomination that makes desolate” (Dan. 11:31): The hubris of Antiochus will bring upon him also a swift divine judgment. In fact Daniel predicts that Antiochus “shall come to his end, with none to help him” (Dan. 11:45). This actual prediction did not take place swiftly, however.

The stories in chapters 3 and 6 constitute another couplet. Both tell about Jews who disobeyed a royal decree, were punished by being placed where it is impossible to survive, but came out of those places having suffered no harm. On account of this marvelous demonstration of God’s power to rescue from places where no other god could possibly rescue anyone, those who had accused the Jews before the king are placed into those places, and the efficacy of their power to end human life is amply demonstrated. In chapter 3, envious of the fact that Nebuchadnezzar had appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego over the affairs of the province of Babylon, “certain Chaldeans came forward and maliciously accused the Jews” of not paying heed to the king. They said, “they do not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up” (Dan. 3:8, 12). Confronted by the king and asked whether the accusation was true, the three declared their confidence that their God would deliver them. They actually go further and affirm that if their God should decide not to deliver them, they would rather be martyrs than serve the gods of the king, or worship the image he has set up (Dan. 3:13-16). This, obviously, provides direct instructions to those facing martyrdom at the hands of Antiochus. Nebuchadnezzar’s challenge, “who is the god that will deliver you out of my hands?” (Dan. 3:15), is answered by no other than himself confessing, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abedenego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set at naught the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God” (Dan. 3:28). It is difficult to imagine that King Nebuchadnezzar blessed the God of the Jews because three of them had set at naught his decree. Every word in this confession is addressed to those facing a serious threat to their allegiance to the God of Israel in Maccabean times. The story demonstrates that God keeps his promise to deliver those willing to face martyrdom.

The same is true of the story of “all the presidents of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the counselors and the governors” who were envious of the king’s desire to set Daniel over the whole kingdom, and asked Darius the Mede to decree that “whoever makes petition to any god or man for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions” (Dan. 6:7). Unlike Nebuchadnezzar, who takes seriously the charge of those anonymous Chaldeans, Darius realizes that he has fallen into a trap set up by envious courtiers. He knows that once he has issued a decree “according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked” (Dan. 6:8), he should let events run their course. Still, he seeks for a way to avoid the application of the law, but fails. Once Daniel is in the lions’ den, the king spends a restless night and in the morning is anxious to find out what happened to Daniel. When he comes to the den, Daniel tells him that the lions had not hurt him, and when he was out of the den it was determined that “no kind of hurt was found in him, because he had trusted in his God” (Dan. 6:22-23). Again, this was a direct message to the author’s contemporaries who faced martyrdom. Unlike Nebuchadnezzar who pronounced a blessing, Darius the Mede “wrote to all the peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth: ‘Peace be multiplied to you. I made a decree, that in all my royal dominion men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel, for he is the living God, enduring for ever; his kingdom shall never be destroyed, and his dominion shall be to the end” (Dan. 6:25-26). Obviously, apocalyptic writers never pass by an opportunity to stress that foreign kings recognize the absolute power of their God. After all, for them the issue is whether God is all-powerful and just. To have foreign kings recognize the power of the God of the Israelites was one of the two items in the agenda of Ezekiel.

While the first pair of stories in chapters 3 and 6 inculcate the power of God to protect his chosen ones from death, the second pair in chapters 4 and 5 demonstrate that proud kings who pretend to have more power than any god are brought down by the Almighty God of the Jews. The third pair of stories are found chiastically in chapters 2 and 7, which adopt the very well known ancient pattern of the four kingdoms. In its traditional form the four are: Assyria, Media, Persia and Macedonia. They are found in Hesiod’s Works and Days, 106-201. The Greek poet argued that mankind, which had a glorious past, now finds itself in a descending slope, and represents it with metals of declining value: gold, silver, bronze and iron. While the presentation by the same metals in chapter 2 comes from the West, the schema of four kingdoms, or four historical stages, including Assyrians and Medes, appears to have originated in the East because the Assyrians and the Medes never had a foothold in the West. Most likely, Herodotus, who also uses the schema, learned it during his travels in the East. The author of Daniel introduced Babylon as a replacement for Assyria, and invented Darius the Mede to flesh out the rule of Media. Thus the series of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede and Cyrus, though not historically correct, restates the schema of the four kingdoms found in chapter 2. To be noticed, also is that chapter 7 reverts back to the reign of Belshazzar, thus two kings represent Babylon. The four kingdoms sequence is then retaken with Darius the Mede in chapter 8 and Cyrus the Persian in chapter 10, where reference is made to the divinely appointed rise of Greece after Persia (Dan. 10:20).

In both chapter 2 and chapter 7 the four kingdoms appear and disappear together. This is the clue to their function in the book. Since the audience surely had some notions of the past history of the Jews under Babylonian, Median, Persian and Hellenistic rule, the listing of the four kingdoms is not intended to tell them what they do not know, but to let them know that God is in charge of the affairs of nations. The court tales emphasize that not only pagan kings but all “the living” must learn that the God of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah (named as Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshack and Abednego by the Babylonians) “rules the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will, and sets over it the lowliest of men” (Dan. 4:17). This most certainly means that those suffering persecution and death at the hands of Antiochus must understand that their historical circumstances are also controlled by the Most High, and their deliverance is certain to come just as swiftly as the punishment of proud kings had come in the past. Of the future of Antiochus IV, Epiphanes, Daniel predicts, “the king shall do according to his will; he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper until the indignation is accomplished; for what is determined shall be done” (Dan. 11:36). Thus, Daniel follows the tradition established already by Ezekiel and Zechariah. The course of history has already been determined, the only wise course of action in this world is to persevere with patient endurance until the (also predetermined) time of the end arrives. Then those who have remained faithful to God’s purpose will be delivered from their sufferings.

The apocalyptic visions

Chapter 7 serves as a link between the court tales and the visions by its use of the schema of the four kingdoms, but its agenda is to set up the stage for the fourth beast. In the vision, Daniel says, “I desired to know the truth concerning the fourth beast, which was different from all the rest, exceedingly terrible, with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze; and which devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet; and concerning the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up and before which three of them fell, the horn which had eyes and a mouth that spoke great things, and which seemed greater than its fellows” (Dan. 7:19-20). At the telling of the vision, the speech of the rising greater horn, Daniel says, “I looked then because of the sound of the great words which the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time” (Dan. 7:11-12). When the interpreting angel answers Daniel’s desire to know about the fourth beast, he interprets the speech of the greater horn, saying, “He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, two times, and a half time. But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end” (Dan. 7:25-26).