Decoding Daniel: The Case of Dan 7,5 223 The fact that there were three ˆy[l[ has caused further puzzlement and a number of explanations have been put forward. Rabbinic tradition speaks of three cities absorbed into the Persian Empire (Qiddushin 72a); Patristic tradition thinks of three kingdoms conquered by the Persians (5); Ibn Ezra (6) thinks they should be identified with the three Persian kings mentioned by the Bible, and is followed in this by Torrey (7). Modern scholars have put forward some different theories. Ginsberg (8) transposes parts of verses 4 and 5 in his attempt to make sense of the numbers. He thinks that the three ˆy[l[ refer to the three Babylonian kings known to Jewish tradition. LaCoque (9) does not transpose the three ˆy[l[ to the lion, the first beast but does think that the three ˆy[l[ in the mouth of the bear may refer to the three Babylonian kings mentioned in the Bible. Plöger, followed by several other scholars (10) suggests that Amos 3,12, which mentions the shepherd taking out of the mouth of a lion, two legs or a piece of an ear, is behind the reference. These modern attempts at identifying the three ˆy[l[ provoke Caquot (11) to question whether it is necessary to go to extremes to try and decipher alleged numerical symbols! A debate exists as to the identity of the beast with the majority of critical scholars asserting that it represents Media while a minority, of a conservative bent, posit that it stands for both Media and Persia. Critical scholars say that Media is the only logical choice as they hold that internal evidence in the book of Daniel i.e. where events shift from historical reality to myth in Chapter 11, pinpoints the time of writing to 164B.C. Logically then, according to the historic succession of empires, the fourth has to be the Hellenistic one established by Alexander the Great. Conservative scholars believe that the Book of Daniel is prophecy from the time of the Babylonian Empire. Accordingly they do not accept that there is a shift from history to myth in chapter 11 and so reject that as a criterion for dating the work. Further they believe that Daniel predicts the coming of Jesus. As Jesus lived during the time of the Roman Empire, they assert that the fourth beast represents Rome. While rejecting the presumptions of such conservative scholars, there —————— people thought that it meant “fangs”. H.L. GINZBERG, Studies in Daniel (New York 1948) 13 adopted this meaning but emended the Aramaic text to justify it. Frank, however, says that ˆy[l[ derives from an Arabic root with that meaning and so emendation, for which there is no textual justification, is unnecessary. (5) A.A. BEVAN, A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Cambridge 1892) 121 points out that older commentators also saw the “ribs” as symbolic of countries or cities devoured by the beast. (6) Cf. A.-F. GALLÉ, Daniel avec commentaires de R. Saadia, Aben-Ezra, Raschi etc. et variantes des versions arabe et syriaque (Paris 1898) 72. (7) TORREY, “Medes and Persians”, 11-12. (8) GINZBERG, Studies in Daniel. HARTMANN – DI LELLA, Daniel, 202,208 also transpose the “three ‘tusks’ in its mouth [between its teeth]” to the first beast, the lion (Babylon), commenting that a lion was much more ferocious than the Syrian bear. This transposition has not received acceptance among scholars. (9) A. LACOQUE, Le Livre de Daniel (CAT 15b; Neuchâtel – Paris 1976) 106. (10) O. PLÖGER, Das Buch Daniel (KAT XVIII; Gütersloher 1965) 109. DELCOR, Le Livre de Daniel, 147 also sees an analogy with Amos 3,12. J.J. COLLINS, Daniel. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, (Hermeneia; Minneapolis1993) 298 says, “The passage should be taken as a vivid and realistic picture of the animal eating its prey – compare Amos 3:12”. (11) “Les Quatres bêtes et le «Fils D’homme» (Daniel 7)” Sem 17 (1967) 37-71 cf. p. 44