[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


The discussion of Daniel as a priest is of no small interest to me and so 
I will add my thoughts to the discussion. Although this is peripheral 
to the DSS, there are some connections as you will find if your read 
to the end.  If this discussion is considered to be too much off the 
topic, I would be more than interested in continuing it off the list with 

Judith and Niels have referred to the Aqhat-Ezekiel connection, 
which, I might add, can easilly be called the scholarly concensus. In 
the literature there have also been suggestions that the Danels of Jubilees 
4:20 (antediluvian father-in-law to Enoch) and 1 Enoch 6:7, 69:2
(angel) are related to this tradition.  A recent article even goes so 
far as to claim that a translator mentioned in the Letter of Aristeas 
49 is part of the Daniel tradition (Wahl 1992)!

My research has led me to conclude that the only relevant reference 
among such sources (there are others) is the one in Ezekiel. The Dnel 
of Aqhat cannot be shown to be connected in any way with Daniel (As 
Neils has indicated). They have only two common features: then have 
a name meaning "El has judged" and they are righteous. If one consults 
lists of names in the ANE, the name Daniel (in various forms) appears 
in various places at various times. Surely a common name means little 
without substantial support for a connection. Likewise, as Neils 
points out, for a ruler to be righteous/pious, was normal and 
therefore insignificant for establishing any connection.  In addition, 
there is a millenium between the time of the copying of the tablets containing 
Aqhat and the writing of the Biblical materials containing the name Daniel.  
To my knowledge, no one has shown that the tradition continued beyond 
the fall of Ugarit. Even if it did continue, the chances that the tale as we 
have it from the tablets was substantially the same as that known to the 
author of Ezekiel 14 or of Daniel would be slim.

If the Dnel of the Aqhat tradition continued in any form in Israel, 
it is more likely that it was in the angel in 1 Enoch. The Book of 
Giants (Milik, _Books of Enoch_ 1976, p.29) shows that some 
Mesopotamian characters (e.g., Gilgamesh and Humbaba) were 
transformed into Giants thus showing that Mesopotamian characters 
were known, but transformed. There is nothing beyond such a 
transformation that could link Dnel with the Jewish literature.

It seems better to look to the priest mentioned in Ezra 8:2 and 
Nehemiah 10:7.  Significantly, the four Jewish names used in Daniel 
are found within two chapters of each other (Nehemiah 8:4, 7; 10:7, 
24). These cannot be construed as the same people as in Daniel, 
rather, they seem to be the source for the names in Daniel, possibly 
for some symbolic reason, and, as Gammie, Haag, David Suter and 
others have argued, because Daniel was a priest.

The DSS are relevant at this point.  In both the proto-Esther 
material and in the Prayer of Nabonidus, we seem to have material in 
which either Mesopotamian names, or no names are used. In the 
biblical material, however, we have different names.  It seems clear 
from the way in which Daniel is written, with the two sets of names, 
that the original stories had Babylonian names or no names and that, 
when the were collected, the names were made consistent.  Nehemiah 
seems to have been the source of these names. Daniel's priestly 
profession in Ezra-Nehemiah, the wisdom attached to the name in 
Ezekiel and the lack of any genealogy for either allowed the redactor 
of Daniel to assign the main character this name, that happens to be 
symbolically relevant to both halves of the book: "El has judged".

As for other links between DanA and DanB, there are others, AND, ther 
is additional evidence for Daniel as a priest in the LXX, but I 
will await the opinions of others on whether it is appropriate to 
continue this discussion here or elsewhere.

Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.