With Dan 4, we have reached the part of Daniel where OG greatly diverges from the other witnesses. To complicate matters even further, the story of Nebuchadnezzarâs dream, madness, and restoration appears to have been put together from various sources itself. A related tradition seems to be attested in the Qumran text 4QPrNab, the âPrayer of Nabonidusâ. Given this highly complex textual history, the conclusions on this chapter must remain tentative at best.
1 Comparative Reconstruction
As with the previous chapter, the Qumran manuscripts do not attest any readings that seem more original, which may largely be due to the poor preservation of this section of 4QDana. The comparative reconstruction must thus rely primarily on comparison of MT to OG.
OG lacks the motif of all the wise men of Babylon other than Belteshazzar failing to explain the kingâs dream. With Segal,1 we may identify this as a secondary harmonization in MT with the plotlines of Dan 2 and 5. Segal identifies all of vv. 3â7a and 15 as secondary. The textual and literary arguments receive linguistic confirmation from two features noted by Charles.2 The interpolation uses the kingâname order for
Besides eliminating the other sages, excluding vv. 3â7a and 15 changes the order of events. Now, the dream is narrated before the interpreter is present. This order is closer to the literary exemplar of this passage, Josephâs interpretation of Pharaohâs dream in Gen 41. The situation is complicated, however, by the similarities between MT v. 6 and OG v. 15. Both of these verses describe Daniel in similar terms:
MT v. 2âs
The rhythmic phrasing and parallelism of these lines closely matches the poetic style of much of the dream description, which immediately follows once vv. 3â6 are recognized as secondary. As we shall see below in both this section and the next, the elements that interrupt the dreamâs poetic style can all be identified as interpolations on other grounds. The poetic nature of the resulting text thus supports this reconstruction.
Segal convincingly argues that MT v. 13a is a harmonization with the description of the first animal of Dan 7 and that MT v. 14b of the dream narration is harmonized with the dream interpretation.7 Haag suggests that these sentences, neither of which is directly paralleled in OG, were written by the same scribe, who can be recognized by his spelling of âmankindâ as
The kingâs encouragement of Belteshazzar in MT v. 16 is missing from OG, but this may reflect homoiarcton, with
MTâs v. 18, recalling some of the treeâs characteristics, is syntactically awkward and not referred back to in the following interpretation. This verse contains a morphologically feminine form in the third person plural verb
MT and OG diverge significantly in the final verses of this chapter. One element that is rather obviously secondary in MT is Nebuchadnezzarâs hymn of praise stretching from
A difficult point is the third-person narration in MT v. 30 vs. the first-person narration in OG vv. 30aâb. Has MT assimilated this verse to the preceding third-person narration, or has OG assimilated it to the following first-person narration? Wills sees the remains of an independent source in the closing of the OG account, which in his view is supported in its originality by its closer correspondence with 4QPrNab compared to MT.12 I agree that the OGâs formal introduction of the speaker as âI, Nabouchodonosor, king of Babylonâ is hard to explain in this context as a secondary development from MTâs third person.
Another element in MT that is completely absent from OG is the mention of the kingâs âattendants and noblesâ in v. 33. These figures play no role in the rest of the story and may have been inserted to connect Dan 4 with the preceding and following stories, which do mention the kingâs
The OG text contains many secondary elements which we have not discussed, on which see the thorough discussion by Segal.13 This leaves us with the following reconstructed archetype.
Reconstructed Archetype of Dan 3:31â4:34
2 Internal Reconstruction
Our reconstructed archetype contains the following tensions and inconsistencies:
-
a) The dreamâs meaning is partially already revealed in the dream narration (vv. 12b,14b), making the dream less mysterious and more incoherent.
-
b) The dream interpreterâs double name Daniel/Belteshazzar serves no function.
-
c) The dream interpreter plays no role in the story from v. 24 onwards.
-
d) The story starts and ends in the first person, but refers to the king in the third person in vv. 16â30. When the first person picks up again in our reconstructed archetype of MT v. 30, the introduction of the speaker as âI, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylonâ is overly explicit.
-
e) In v. 23, the plural âthey saidâ is used to refer what was said by a singular speaker in the dream.
-
f) The dream interpreterâs advice in v. 24 is left hanging in the air, neither explicitly followed or rejected in the rest of the story.
-
g) The story seems to contain multiple conclusions before its definitive ending (v. 25, opening of v. 30a).
Dan 4 is unique in consistently referring to the protagonist as Belteshazzar (b).14 When this name occurs elsewhere in the book of Daniel, it is always in conjunction with the name Daniel and the name Daniel occurs without Belteshazzar in those stories as well. Only in Dan 4 does Belteshazzar occur independently and consistently. This suggests that Belteshazzar was the original name of the dream interpreter of Dan 4, Daniel was the original name of the protagonist of other stories like those in Dan 2, 5, 6, and that these characters were conflated when some of these stories were combined into a single literary work.15 The name Daniel is thus secondary to Dan 4. The explanation given for the name Belteshazzar probably marks the first occurrence of the combination of the two names in an earlier version of the book of Daniel, before Dan 1 was added and before the reference to the name Belteshazzar was included in Dan 2. It is likely also secondary here.
The expression
The switch in person (d) is obviously problematic. Segal sees a literary progression from the first-person dream report to the second-person dream interpretation and third-person narration of its fulfilment, citing a number of authors who similarly identify the switch in person as a literary device.16 This does not explain, however, why the third-person narration already starts in v. 16, in between the dream report and the dream interpretation.17 Following authors like Haag and Wills,18 I prefer to see the switch in person as a trace of this chapterâs redaction history. Taking the two concluding sentences in vv. 25,30 (g) as the endings of what were originally separate stories , we are left with coherent narratives. The lack of an explicit narration of the fulfilment of a dream or prediction matches the pattern of Dan 2 and Dan 5 (as we shall see, the description of Belshazzarâs fate in Dan 5:30 is not only extremely brief, but also secondary). As other authors have noted, many elements from these hypothetical different sources have bled into one another. The element of Nebuchadnezzar living as a wild animal is markedly out of place in the dream narrative (a) and is formulaically distinct from the other elements of the dream interpretation:19 it is simply stated without explicit reference to anything that happened in the dream. It has probably been introduced from the final, first-person source, where it forms the core of the plot. This leaves the seven-year period as one of the few distinct elements of the punishment decreed by the heavenly voice heard on the top of the palace. The reference to this period in the dream is then also a harmonization.
In the dream narrative, the Watcherâs speech refers back to the parts of the tree that were introduced earlier, when it was first described. The command to leave the roots in the ground breaks this pattern, as the roots were not previously mentioned. As noted, the interpretation of this element is also phraseologically distinct from the preceding interpretations (e). It is therefore attractive to follow Wills in identifying the root motif and the anticipated restoration of Nebuchadnezzar as secondary.20
The dream interpreterâs advice to the king to atone for his sins in v. 24 (f) also seems out of place in our reconstructed archetype. Its poetic diction matches that of the rest of the preceding passage, so perhaps it formed an original part of the story that has turned into a dead end because a redactor eliminated the narration of Nebuchadnezzarâs good deeds (or lack thereof) that it anticipates. The originality of this element receives stylistic support from the inclusio formed by
A minor, textual emendation is suggested by Hartman and Di Lella in v. 7.21 They suggest that
Finally, the letter form of the whole story can easily be explained as a later development. The letterâs opening has obvious links to King Dariusâ letter in Dan 6:26â28. As suggested by Haag,22 if Dan 4â6 once circulated as a separate collection, turning Dan 4 into a letter provided the text with a ring composition, starting and ending with letters from world leaders acknowledging Godâs sovereignty. The framework of a letter, with first-person narration, accounts for the extension of the first person to the beginning of the dream account, which was not carried through into the dialogue between the king and Belteshazzar.23 The letterâs closing in Dan 4:34 mainly refers back to the scene on top of the royal palace, now the core of the combined story.
Reconstructed Texts of Dan 3:31â4:34
3 Conclusion
Like some other authors, most notably Haag and Wills, I have reconstructed three different source texts which have been combined to form the bulk of Dan 4. These originally consisted of Belteshazzarâs interpretation of Nebuchadnezzarâs dream predicting his demise; a heavenly voice announcing Nebuchadnezzarâs loss of the kingship for seven years; and a first-person account of Nebuchadnezzarâs madness followed by his restoration. Like other stories about the demise of Nebuchadnezzar and the madness or at least absence of Nabonidus,24 these may well have circulated independently. In their reconstructed form, especially the latter two sources are quite terse. It is likely, however, that they originally contained more material which has not reached us. In the case of the first story, we have reconstructed a continuous stretch of poetry at the outset, with poetic diction predominating throughout.
By combining these three sources into one narrative, a redactor shaped them into a story of the kingâs presaged downfall, repentance, and restoration. The use of the first person in the last of these sources may have suggested the recasting of the combined narrative as a letter, which shares features with the letter in Dan 6. The combination of these three different sources and a fourth textual layer at the beginning and the end gave rise to many thematic inconsistencies, leading to the great number of harmonizing additions visible in MT, OG, and their reconstructed archetype.
Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 102â4.
Charles, Daniel, viiiâix.
Cf. Chapter 3, Note 10.
OG also contains another title,
McLay, âOld Greek Translation,â 313.
The phrase in v. 7 is instead identified as a resumptive repetition by Olivier Munnich, âTexte Massorétique et Septante dans le Livre de Daniel,â in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, ed. Adrian Schenker, SCSt 52 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 104; McLay, âOld Greek Translation,â 312. It is then connected to the secondary insertion of MT Dan 3:3â6. But it is unclear to me how this resumptive repetition would have arisen. OG attests a parallel to the phrase in v. 7,
Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 104â8.
Haag, Errettung Daniels, 18.
Jean Cantineau, Le Nabatéen, vol. 1: Notions générales, écriture, grammaire (Paris: Leroux, 1930), 47.
The secondary nature of this hymn is considered but rejected by Albertz, Der Gott des Daniel, 44â45. Albertz notes the resumptive repetition, but considers the hymn too integral to the plotline to be secondary. This mainly depends on the repeated anticipation of Nebuchadnezzarâs acknowledgment of Godâs authority. As we have seen, however, most of these anticipatory statements are secondary themselves.
Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 170; Newsom, Daniel, 127.
Wills, Jew in the Court, 90â98.
Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 109â24.
Cf. Kratz, Translatio imperii, 86. OG does not use
Cf. the similar case of Gideon/Jerubbaal discussed by Sara J. Milstein, Tracking the Master Scribe: Revision through Introduction in Biblical and Mesopotamian Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 160â66. Similarly, Wills, Jew in the Court, 76 suggests that the character of Daniel is secondary to the story of Susanna, which originally featured an anonymous protagonist.
Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 101.
Cf. Newsom, Daniel, 133.
Haag, Errettung Daniels; Wills, Jew in the Court; see also Kratz, Translatio imperii, 93.
Cf. Collins, Daniel, 219.
Wills, Jew in the Court, 108.
Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 168.
Haag, Errettung Daniels, 14.
Cf. J. Lust, âThe Septuagint Version of Daniel 4â5,â in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude, BETL 106 (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1993), 42.
See, for instance, Klaus Koch, âGottes Herrschaft über das Reich des Menschen. Daniel 4 im Licht neuer Funde,â in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude, BETL 106 (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1993), 77â119; Collins, Daniel, 217â19; Holm, Courtiers and Kings, 448â60.