The Book of Daniel: A Study in the Biblical Philosophy of History

By Martin Sicker

Although there are numerous diverse aspects to Daniel, eschatological, theological, historical, and philological that have long engaged scholars of the work, this study of the text reads it as having a single overarching theme, an exposition of the implicit biblical philosophy of history, which posits the divine role in history as understood from a prophetic perspective. The prophetic idea of history is very different from the secular idea of history as a study of the past that helps explain the present. Prophetic history begins by postulating the end point towards which mankind should strive and records mankinds successes and failures in that regard. It also takes note of the patterns of past and present behavior that will likely cause further successes or failures in the future. In this respect the prophetic approach to history is truly reflected in the motto engraved on a keystone at the entrance to the National Archives in Washington, Past is Prologue.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse
• Release date: Jul 24, 2012
• ISBN: 9781477248034

Martin Sicker

Dr. Martin Sicker is a writer and lecturer on the Middle East and Jewish history and religion. His is the author of 42 previous books including Reading Genesis Politically; The Trials of Abraham; The Ordeals of Isaac and Jacob; Aspects of Jewish Metarational Thought; The Exodus and the Reluctant Prophet; The Convocation at Sinai; The Theopolitical Discourses of Moses; and Pondering the Imponderable.

Book preview

© 2012 by Martin Sicker. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 07/18/2012

ISBN: 978-1-4772-4802-7 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4772-4803-4 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012913027

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Contents

Introduction

1  Captivity of Daniel and His Companions

2  Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream

3  The Affair of the Golden Image

4  Nebuchadnezzar’s Second Dream

5  Belshazzar’s Feast

6  Daniel in the Lion’s Den

7  Vision of the Four Beasts

8  Vision of the Ram and Goat

9  Daniel’s Prayer

10  The Final Vision: Part 1

11  The Final Vision: Part 2

12  The Final Vision: Part 3

References

Notes

About The Author

Introduction

The biblical Book of Daniel purports to record the experiences and oracular visions of the man named Daniel, a man of Judah brought from Jerusalem to involuntary exile in Babylon in the sixth century B.C.E. The episodes recounted in the book take place over the course of more than half of that century. The work itself is made up of two distinct sections, the first six of its twelve chapters dealing with the experiences of Daniel and three of his fellow exiles at the royal court, and the final six chapters concerned with Daniel’s apocalyptic visions of political events leading to the eventual redemption of Israel and the onset of an eternal divine kingdom on earth. Because the recorded experiences and visions of Daniel relate directly to known historical figures, a review of the historical circumstances that purportedly brought Daniel to the court of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon seems appropriate.

Historical Context¹

Typical of the convoluted politics of the Near East, around the year 616 B.C.E. Egypt, under the rule of Psammetichus I, began aligning itself with Assyria to forestall its replacement by a resurgent Babylonia, at a time when continued Assyrian weakness served Egyptian interests better. That same year, an Egyptian army marched north, passing through the nominally Assyrian province of Samaria unopposed, to assist their new Assyrian allies. To consolidate their control of the region, the new Egyptian-Assyrian entente sought to crush between them the variety of small kingdoms in that region that aspired to full independence, Judah being but one of them.

As Assyria became progressively weaker, the Chaldean rulers of Babylonia, with the help of the Medes, who controlled most of Iran, stood poised to strike at the Assyrian heartland. The ancient capital of the country fell to the Medes in 614. Two years later, in 612, the Medes and Babylonians placed the new capital Nineveh, considered to be virtually impregnable, under a siege that lasted only thirteen weeks, a relatively short period as sieges went in antiquity, before its walls were penetrated. The repercussions of the fall of Nineveh were felt throughout the entire Near East.

Asshur-uballit (612-605), who had just mounted the Assyrian throne, fled to Haran, the ancient biblical crossroads city in northeastern Syria, which served as the Assyrian administrative center for the western provinces of the empire, where he attempted to mobilize what was left of the once invincible Assyrian army. Having lost its home base in Assyria, the army continued to fight from its new base in Haran. Egypt had committed itself to assist Assyria in an attempt to prop up the regime, but to no avail. Haran fell to a Babylonian-Median alliance force in 610. At this point, when Assyria was in a life and death struggle for its survival, Egypt sensed an opportunity for it to regain its traditional role as a major power in Asia. The new pharaoh Necho II (609-594) entered into a military alliance with Asshur-uballit and took the field in 609 against the Babylonian-Median entente, hoping to retake Haran. With Assyria no longer a threat to its security, Egypt was determined to try to prevent Babylonia from taking Assyria’s place as the dominant regional power. Accordingly, it was prepared to join forces with its erstwhile enemy in an effort to tip the regional balance of power in its own favor.

However, for Judah under Josiah, as for the other small states of the region, relative territorial security and national independence were possible only when the regional balance of power was such that Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia were in contention with one another. Josiah thus interpreted the Egyptian-Assyrian alliance as a threat to Judah’s independence, and he attempted to prevent Necho from actually joining forces with Assyria against Babylonia. Judah, in effect, had made itself a de facto ally of Babylonia, and Josiah became determined not to allow the Egyptian army to follow the same route through Samaria as it did only a few years earlier, before Josiah effectively annexed the former Assyrian province to Judah.

The move was broadly popular in Judah, many seeing the Babylonians as a divine instrument for punishing the Assyrians for the hardships they had inflicted on the nation. However, there were also clearer heads that saw the Chaldean rulers of Babylonia as being no better than the Assyrians they were displacing. The prophet Habbakuk spoke of them as that bitter and impetuous nation, that march through the breadth of the earth, to possess dwelling-places that are not theirs. They are terrible and dreadful; their law and their majesty proceed from themselves . . . They come all of them for violence (Hab. 1:6-9).

Josiah rejected an Egyptian offer to recognize Judah’s neutrality as disingenuous and attempted to block the northward advance of Necho’s army along the Via Maris at the strategic crossroads of Megiddo, where his forces were overwhelmed and he was critically wounded in the ensuing battle. The death of Josiah spelled the end of Judah’s independence, for all practical purposes. Henceforth, and until the state was destroyed, it was continually subjected to one major power or another. In the immediate aftermath of Josiah’s defeat, Judah came within the Egyptian sphere of control. Nonetheless, the political leaders of Judah remained committed to Josiah’s pro-Babylonian policy and, in an evident gesture of defiance to Egypt, anointed Josiah’s second son Jehoahaz (609), who was similarly committed to his father’s policy, to be his successor.

Jehoahaz, however, was permitted to reign for only three months before he was deposed and exiled to Egypt for the rest of his life by Necho, who replaced him with his more accommodating older brother Jehoiakim (609-598). The latter was willing and able to meet the Egyptian demand for tribute by imposing heavy taxes on the population. Vain and self-serving, Jehoiakim exacerbated the economic crisis in the country by imposing additional taxes to finance a new palace at Beth-hakerem just outside Jerusalem, for which he was publicly reprimanded by the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 22:13-19). Moreover, Jehoiakim apparently rejected the reforms instituted by his father, and once again restored the religious syncretism that the latter had striven to eradicate, a move that triggered a negative internal reaction, led by the prophets, that bordered on open insurrection that was ultimately suppressed by force.

The regional situation changed significantly in 605, with the collapse of the Egyptian-Assyrian alliance. As a practical matter, Babylonia was not in a position to replace the Assyrian empire with its own. The rise of a powerful Median state on its eastern flank precluded this. As a result, control of the trade routes in the west became even more important to Babylonia than they had been to Assyria. Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562), who succeeded to the throne of Babylonia, was determined to establish his absolute mastery of Syria and the eastern Mediterranean coastal region. Thus, while still the crown prince, Nebuchadnezzar undertook the task of re-conquering Syria for Babylonia in 607. For two years, the Babylonian army struggled to establish bridgeheads at other Euphrates crossing points that would enable them to outflank the Egyptian-Assyrian forces ensconced in Carchemish, but to no avail. Finally, in 605, Nebuchadnezzar launched a successful frontal attack on Carchemish, on the upper Euphrates, inflicting a decisive defeat on the combined armies of the Assyrian-Egyptian alliance and taking the city.

Nebuchadnezzar completed his conquest of Assyria in 604-603 and, with nothing to stop him, marched south to Philistia, which was an Egyptian vassal. Ashkelon resisted and was destroyed. In Jerusalem, Jehoiakim panicked, caught in the same dilemma that had plagued his royal forebears who almost consistently chose sides poorly. Once again a great foreign policy debate ensued. The king’s top advisers, for reasons that were not at all obvious, insisted that Egypt would ultimately prevail against Babylonia and that Judah must therefore remain in its orbit. The opposing view, articulated most forcefully by the prophet Jeremiah, predicted a Babylonian victory in the conflict. The Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, saith: Behold, I will punish Amon of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, with her gods, and her kings; even Pharaoh, and them that trust in him; and I will deliver them into the hand of those that seek their lives, and into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and into the hand of his servants (Jer. 46:25-26). It was argued therefore that Judah needed to break with Egypt and align itself with what would be the winning side. Although the latter view was surely the more prescient, particularly in view of the major defeat Egypt had already suffered at Carchemish, the people of Judah were more familiar with the Egyptians than with the Babylonians, who tended to be viewed comparatively as barbarians, and the pro-Egypt policy prevailed. For his opposition to this decision and his implicit calls for Jehoiakim’s overthrow, Jeremiah was persecuted by the regime and was forced to flee to exile in Egypt, as was another prophet, Uriah ben Shemaiah, who must have been an even greater thorn in Jehoiakim’s side than Jeremiah himself. Uriah was subsequently extradited from Egypt and put to death by the king (Jer. 26:20-23). Powerful friends in Jerusalem saved Jeremiah from a similar fate.

In the meantime, with a Babylonian army positioned along the Mediterranean coast, Jehoiakim dutifully paid tribute to Nebuchadnezzar for three years at the same time that he discreetly maintained his connections with the Egyptian government. Then, in 601 the Babylonians advanced on Egypt and were blocked as the result of an indecisive battle fought in Philistia near the Egyptian frontier. When the Babylonians withdrew, Jehoiakim became convinced that Nebuchadnezzar was finished and that the time had come to activate his pro-Egyptian policy. As an act signaling his rejection of Babylonian suzerainty, he withheld payment of the annual tribute, the equivalent of a declaration of war. What he failed to understand was that the Babylonian withdrawal was not an acknowledgment of a decisive defeat but only an indication that Nebuchadnezzar needed to rebuild and reequip his armies after the years of continual warfare. It took Nebuchadnezzar about a year to replenish his armies and return to the region. In 599, he launched a campaign to pacify the Arab tribes of the semi-desert areas in the landbridge region and, at the end of 598 a Babylonian punitive expedition marched into Judah. Jehoiakim evidently died as the Babylonian force approached Jerusalem, the circumstances of his death uncertain and his burial place unknown. Some have speculated that opponents of his pro-Egypt policy may have assassinated him in a last moment effort to appease Nebuchadnezzar.

With the expected assistance from Egypt nowhere in sight, Jehoiakim’s eighteen-year old son and successor Jehoiachin held out in Jerusalem for about three months before he felt it necessary to surrender. Opening Jerusalem to the Babylonians evidently saved it from destruction and helped preserve Judah as a kingdom, albeit a puppet-state. However, as punishment for its government’s disloyalty to Babylon, Jehoiachin and some 10,000 of Judah’s political, intellectual, and technical elite, presumably those identified as supporters of the pro-Egyptian party, were exiled to Babylonia. Nebuchadnezzar then designated Jehoiachin’s twenty-one year old uncle Mattaniah, who was probably a known member of the pro-Babylonian party, as ruler of the kingdom, under the regal name of Zedekiah (597-587).

Zedekiah’s status was essentially that of a regent because Jehoiachin was still regarded as the legitimate king of Judah by the Babylonians. The reason for this, presumably, was that Jehoiachin might still be allowed to return to Jerusalem if the population sufficiently demonstrated a pro-Babylonian sentiment and acceptance of Nebuchadnezzar’s suzerainty. And, indeed, Zedekiah did demonstrate fealty to Nebuchadnezzar for four years before the temptation to deviate from that path ensnared him into a course that would prove disastrous.

Babylonia became involved in some major wars in Mesopotamia and was forced to withdraw its armies that were stationed in the west. This was interpreted as the beginning of the decline in Nebuchadnezzar’s power and an opportunity for the subject nations to free themselves from the Babylonian yoke. Once again, the major agitator was Egypt. It was proposed that Judah and Ammon, Edom, Moab, Sidon, and Tyre form an anti-Babylonian alliance and together repudiate Nebuchadnezzar’s suzerainty. Jeremiah vehemently opposed this strategy. The prophet had a perceptive understanding of the significance of the events unfolding so rapidly in the region. He anticipated that Babylonia’s rise to regional dominance would be short-lived, perhaps seventy years, before it would come to an end. He therefore argued that it was in Judah’s national interest to remain subject to the Mesopotamian power without challenging it during this relatively brief period. He dreaded the thought of unnecessarily bringing upon Judah the same fate that had struck Israel, destruction and exile. He therefore pleaded with Zedekiah not to get involved in any rebellion against Babylonian hegemony (Jer. 27:12-15).

Nonetheless, the idea of independence caught the popular imagination, and a strong pro-rebellion party arose. In the event, Zedekiah did not have the courage to rebel against his Babylonian overlord, but the agitation for such a course of action grew and came to the attention of the Babylonians. Egypt promised to help and ultimately the pro-rebellion party won out. Two significant events helped set the course that Zedekiah would follow. At the end of 595, rumors circulated regarding a major insurrection involving elements of the army in Babylonia itself, which suggested that Nebuchadnezzar was in serious trouble at home. Then, in 594, the pharaoh Necho of Egypt died and was replaced by Psammetichus II (594-589), a renowned general, suggesting that Egypt was preparing for a forthcoming major war with Babylonia. However, the new pharaoh’s attention was diverted to Ethiopia for the next several years, and it was not until the final year of his reign that he redirected his attention to the landbridge.

Accordingly, it was not until 589, when Egypt began stirring anti-Assyrian sentiment in the landbridge region that the war party in Zedekiah’s court succeeded in convincing the regent to commit Judah to a rebellion against Babylonia. The betrayal of Zedekiah’s commitment to the Babylonian king was roundly condemned by the prophet Ezekiel, who considered it as an affront to God and contrary to the interests of Israel (Ezek. 17: 11-21). From Zedekiah’s perspective, however, the oath of fealty that he swore was a result of force majeur, and its violation was fully justified both from a religious as well as a nationalist standpoint.

Judah’s revolt in 589 was predicated primarily on the basis of Egyptian assurances of support. But, as it turned out, Psammetichus II died that same year and was replaced by Hophra as king of Egypt. Although he made similar promises of aid to Zedekiah, a period of transition from one regime to another was not a propitious time for carrying out foreign commitments and it remained to be seen if Egypt would in fact do so. Perhaps for the same reason, it was also at that time that Nebuchadnezzar decided the moment was ripe for an invasion of Judah.

Nebuchadnezzar’s strategy for the campaign was to first eliminate the principal fortified sites located at strategic points around the country, the last to fall being Azekah and Lachish. The attack on Jerusalem was delayed until it was effectively isolated and cut off from Egyptian help, in the event that such might be forthcoming. Accordingly, it was not until sometime in the latter part of 588 that Jerusalem came under a siege that lasted for more than a year. Then, at a time when the situation was becoming desperate, it appeared that Egypt was actually going to help Judah, a relief column actually approaching Jerusalem to engage the Babylonians. This caused the latter to break off the siege of the capital to meet the Egyptian challenge. Jeremiah warned them not to rejoice, arguing that Egypt could not be depended on. He advised Zedekiah that capitulation to the Babylonian army commanders was the only way to save the state, but the regent was afraid to heed his advice (Jer. 38:17-28) and allowed the opportunity to pass. As Jeremiah anticipated, the Egyptians soon gave up the campaign and withdrew, leaving Judah to its fate. The end came soon thereafter.

The siege of Jerusalem lasted for two years, until 586, before the city ran out of food. Then, as recorded by Jeremiah,

A breach was made in the city, and all the men of war fled, and went forth out of the city by night . . . and they went by the way of the Arabah . . . But the army of the Chaldeans pursued after the king, and overtook Zedekiah in the plains of Jericho; and all his army was scattered from him. Then they took the king and carried him up unto the king of Babylon to Riblah in the land of Hamath; and he gave judgment upon him. And the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes; he slew also all the princes of Judah in Riblah. And he put out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death (Jer. 52:7-11).

A month later, Nebuchadnezzar gave orders that all official structures in Jerusalem be systematically destroyed, including Solomon’s Temple, the central sanctuary of Judaism, which went up in flames. The kingdom of Judah was wiped off the stage of history. The Book of Daniel contains numerous direct and obscure allusions to various developments in the subsequent history of the region over the following four hundred years, which will be discussed at appropriate points in this review of the text, most especially in Chapter 11.

The Central Theme of Daniel

Although there are numerous diverse aspects to Daniel, eschatological, theological, historical, and philological that have long engaged scholars of the work, this study of the text reads it as having a single overarching theme, an exposition of the implicit biblical philosophy of history, which posits the divine role in history as understood from a prophetic perspective. The prophetic idea of history is very different from the secular idea of history as a study of the past that helps explain the present. Prophetic history begins by postulating the end point towards which mankind should strive and records mankind’s successes and failures in that regard. It also takes note of the patterns of past and present behavior that will likely cause further successes or failures in the future. In this respect the prophetic approach to history is truly reflected in the motto engraved on a keystone at the entrance to the National Archives in Washington, Past is Prologue.

In the biblical view, man is given free will and the faculty of reason and is deemed capable of creating an ideal society characterized by justice and righteousness, freedom from oppression and concern for the general well-being. At the same time, God, who is master of the universe and oversees man’s progress, may choose to intervene in the course of history when societies become morally dysfunctional, sometimes destroying them completely as in the case of the Deluge in the time of Noah or Sodom and Gomorrah in the time of Abraham, or through societal disintegration as in the case of the Tower of Babel saga. Alternatively, societies are sometimes allowed to proceed down the slope of moral decay until they become too weak to sustain themselves against assault by a more vigorous antagonist, a theme that is emphasized repeatedly throughout much of the Book of Daniel, which repeatedly emphasizes the idea that God Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and that He setteth up over it whomsoever He will (5:21). Put another way, the biblical prophetic concept considers human history to operate on two levels, a divine macro-level and a human micro-level.

The classical example of this divine-human historical interaction may be seen in the divine promise to Abram: Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge . . . And in the fourth generation they shall come back hither; for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full (Gen. 15:13-16). While there is much to say about this passage, let us consider just one aspect of it, namely the idea that Abram’s descendants, to whom the land of Canaan is to be given as their inheritance, must wait four hundred years before taking possession of it because the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full. That is, at the time of the promise the Amorites had already indicated by the patterns of their current behavior that they were entering on a downward slope to societal moral decline that, divinely estimated, would take another four centuries before reaching the point of moral dysfunction that would justify their displacement from the land God placed in their trust when they in their turn displaced the previous indigenous society. The Amorite decline was not divinely mandated. They had free will and the capacity to reason and could have corrected their moral failings, if they chose to do so. For the Amorites, past behavior was prologue to an eventually dismal future.

The biblical writings make it crystal clear that, notwithstanding the covenantal promises made to the patriarchs of Israel, which placed the land of Canaan in their eternal trust, the nation itself was subject to the same historical process as all other nations and peoples. This meant that having the deed to the land did not in itself guarantee the right of occupancy, which had to be earned through general compliance with the terms of the covenant. The narrative of Daniel thus begins at the point when the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were dispossessed temporarily of the land placed in their eternal trust and is driven by the concern over when the redemption of their homeland would take place.

Aside from making explicit that which was otherwise implicit regarding divine macro-management of history, Daniel also pursues the notion that divine decisions regarding the fate of nations and their rulers are by no means arbitrary, but are based on a consensus reached by a heavenly tribunal convened for the purpose. In the heavenly scheme, guardian angels are appointed to serve as advocates for each nation, a notion first clearly articulated in Daniel, and it is they that argue the case for their nations and rulers before the heavenly tribunal. Finally, Daniel foretells the end of history as we know it with the eventual emergence of an eternal kingdom of God on earth, widely understood as the onset of the messianic era, a notion that has taken on a variety of interpretations that will not be explored in this study. Suffice it to note that the belief in the eventual emergence of an eternal kingdom of God on earth has succored pious men and women through the vicissitudes of Jewish history through the millennia, notwithstanding that the mysterious predictions of Daniel as to when that would take place continue to remain undecipherable, more than likely by deliberate design.

Authorship and Date of Composition

The Talmud, in a very brief notice, asserts that Daniel was ‘written’ by the Men of the Great Assembly, a synod of sages that purportedly thrived from the sixth to the end of the fourth century B.C.E., along with several other biblical works.² It is presumed that what this claim means is that the actual author was Daniel but that what he composed had been transmitted as oral tradition until put in writing by the ancient sages. According to this tradition, Daniel truly had visionary insights that allowed him to allude to a series of actual events that took place at the end of the third and early part of the second century, a notion that much modern scholarship strongly contests. Given that some of the oracular visions reported by Daniel provide details not found in other biblical writings, it is difficult for many to accept an early date of composition. Thus a modern historian wrote with regard to the period of persecutions under Antiochus Epiphanes: In the midst of these afflictions a seer perceived the significance of the ancient prophecies concerning the world empires, their wars, and the tribulations of the holy people. To him, these prophecies seemed to speak of his own time, and thus he interpreted them for his contemporaries, suiting them to the events during the persecutions of Epiphanes. He felt that the end of time was approaching, and he could see no salvation for the people other than through the direct intervention of God.³ This consideration has led to the proposition that the book, if originally authored