Decoding Daniel: The Case of Dan 7,5 225 Emerton’s influential article on the Son of Man in 1958 (21) asserted that Daniel’s description of that figure was drawn from the picture of Baal in the Ugaritic texts. Emerton (22) thought that the first section of Daniel’s vision (the winds, sea and beasts) may also have been influenced by the Ugaritic myths - this time by the slaying of lotan. Canaanite influence on Daniel’s vision has continued to be a popular hypothesis. It is supported by J.J. Collins (23), although he admits that the Ugaritic myths do not contain all the details relayed in the vision. My own article in Biblica referred to a number of these discrepancies. Mythological imagery from Egypt, Greece and Iran have also been posited in the past as possible influences upon the beasts in Daniel (24), the first two particularly in the case of the fourth beast. None of these have gained a great deal of support. Astrology as an influence on the visions of Daniel was first suggested by Burkitt in 1909 (25). The most important work though on astrological symbolism in Daniel’s vision in Chapter 7 was by Caquot (26). He found an astral-geographic list of animals as recorded by Teucer. They are Egyptian in origin, but the list dates from the second century B.C.E. However, Caquot has been criticised because the animals are not an exact fit for Daniel’s vision: (1) Babylon was not represented by the lion but by the dog, although Caquot pointed out that Ptolemy associated Mesopotamia with Leo, symbolised by the lion; (2) Media did not appear in Teucer’s list. However, Caquot asserted that because it was in the north, close to Armenia, it was under the influence of the symbol for Armenia, the bear; (3) Persia was not symbolised by a leopard, rather by a cat. Caquot argued that a leopard was of the cat family. Initially accepted by a number of scholars, Caquot’s theory that astrological symbolism influenced the choice of beasts in Daniel’s vision has now been rejected by the majority. It will be seen later though that the author of Daniel may have been aware that the “bear” symbolised a northern country in an astrological sense. Wittstruck in 1978 (27) put forward the notion that the choice of beasts in Daniel came from Treaty Curses. Although Wittstruck claimed that the bear and leopard appear in the first cited curse (Sefire I A 30-31), the reading is dubious and Rimbach (28) proposed that particular species of insects should be read in their stead. If so, then “the bear” from the first curse cannot be used to fill in the lacuna in the second curse (Sefire II A 9) which reads, “lion, ... leopard. (21) J. EMERTON, “The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery”, JTS 9 (1958) 225-242. (22) “The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery”, 228. (23) The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (HSM 16; Missoula 1977) 98-99; ID., Daniel, 286-289. (24) The relevant scholarly literature is cited and discussed by J. EGGLER, Influences and Traditions Underlying the Vision of Daniel 7:2-14. The Research History from the End of the 19th Century to the Present (Fribourg – Göttingen 2000) 18-19, 79. (25) Cf., F. CUMONT, “La Plus Ancienne Geographie Astrologique”, Klio 9 (1909) 273. (26) A. CAQUOT, “Sur les quatre bêtes de Daniel VII, Sem 5 (1955) 9-12. (27) T. WITTSTRUCK, “The Influence of Treaty Curse Imagery on the Beast Imagery of Daniel 7”, JBL 97 (1978) 100-102. (28) J.A. RIMBACH, “Bears or Bees? Sefire 1 A 31 and Daniel 7”, JBL 97 (1978) 565- 66.