The End of the Scroll. Herold Weiss

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