A.E. Gardner, «Decoding Daniel: The Case of Dan 7,5», Vol. 88 (2007) 222-233
The interpretation of almost every detail of the description on the bear in Daniel 7 is disputed by scholars, mainly because of the uncertainty about the background of the imagery of the beasts. The present paper reviews suggested backgrounds and shows that while many have some appropriate elements, they are unable to explain all the details of the beasts or their actions. The Bible is shown to be the source of all aspects of Dan 7,5. Proceeding from Hos 13,5, the author utilized prophecies of the downfall of Babylon, supplemented from elsewhere in the Bible, to paint his picture of the second beast who is to be identified as Media and Persia.
224 A.E. Gardner
are, nevertheless, some logical points that have been made by some of their
protagonists concerning the identity of the second beast as both Media and
Persia.
Media never ruled Israel.
Media and Persia are identified as one composite beast in Dan 8,20 (12).
2. Why is the second beast likened to a bear?
Scholars have questioned why the bear was chosen to represent the
second beast. This brings in to focus the problem of which traditions lie
behind the vision of Daniel 7. A wide range have been suggested, their
prolific nature reflecting the difficulties scholars have had in explaining the
source of both the outline and the details of the vision.
In 1895 Gunkel (13) posited that the author of Daniel 7 was using an
adapted version of the Enuma Elish as were certain other passages in the
Hebrew Bible (Isa 27,1; 30,7; Ezek 29,32; Pss 68,31; 74,14; 87,4). He was
followed by many scholars, although some put forward variations. Meyer (14),
for instance, thought that perhaps Daniel was using a putative Babylonian
myth which featured four beasts rather than the one (Tiamat) of the Enuma
Elish while Kraeling (15) suggested that the Enuma Elish had been
supplemented by the Iranian notion of four ages of history. The majority of
recent Danielic scholars no longer see the Enuma Elish as the primary
influence on Daniel, nevertheless some still point to elements of that myth
which are similar to portions of the vision of Daniel 7, particularly the “four
winds†of Dan 7,2 (16) and sometimes the sea and/or the beasts rising out of
it (17). I, myself, showed in an article in Biblica in 2001 (18) that elements in
Daniel’s vision which approximate to the Enuma Elish have no linguistic
connection with the Epic. As such they are much more likely to have been
derived from Biblical passages which themselves may have been alluding to
the Babylonian Epic.
Canaanite influence on Daniel’s vision was first seen in connection with
the fourth beast (19), later with “Prince Sea†from the Ugaritic texts (20).
(12) J.G. BALDWIN, Daniel. An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester 1978)
155.
(13) H. GUNKEL, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. Eine religions-
geschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12 (Gottingen 1895).
(14) E. MEYER, Ursprung und Anfange des Christentums (Stuttgart – Berlin 1921) II,
197.
(15) E.G.H.KRAELING, “Some Babylonian and Iranian Mythology in the Seventh
chapter of Danielâ€, Oriental Studies. In Honour of Cursetji Erachji Pavry (ed. J.D.C.
PAVRY) (London 1933) 228-232.
(16) PLÖGER, Das Buch Daniel, 108; R. HAMMER, The Book of Daniel (CBC;
Cambridge 1976) 75; LACOQUE, Le Livre de Daniel, 105; E.C. LUCAS, “The Source of
Daniel’s Animal Imageryâ€, TynBul 41 (1990) 161-185 cf. p.185; E.C. LUCAS,
“Daniel:Resolving the Enigmaâ€, VT 50 (2000) 66-80 cf. p. 69.
(17) LUCAS, “The Sourceâ€, 185; ID., “Daniel: Resolvingâ€, 69; C.L. SEOW, Daniel
(WBC; Louisville – London 2003)102.
(18) A.E. GARDNER, “Dan 7,2-14: Another Look at its Mythic Pattern†Bib 82 (2001)
244-252.
(19) O. EISSFELDT, Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug der Israeliten durchs
Meer (Halle 1932) 23-27.
(20) A. BENTZEN, Daniel (HAT 19; Tubingen 21952) 59.
FOLLOW US