Abstract
This paper analyses the role and position of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah in the narratives of the first two chapters of Daniel from a childist perspective and with an intersectional lens, in order to explore how their identity as children instead of the âyoung menâ they have often been taken for, changes our interpretation of the narratives. A narrative analysis of the texts shows that the three characters, in a vulnerable and formative phase of their lives as growing boys in a foreign land, act extraordinarily bravely for their age by rejecting the kingâs diet and grow into mature men who are able to take on the responsibility of governing a province.
Introduction
In the beginning of the book of Daniel we meet Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who do not have a large role in the book, except in chapter three, where they are thrown into the fiery furnace. This happens after they have been appointed as rulers over the province of Babel in Dan. 2:48â49. Before this appointment at the end of chapter two, they are called ×Ö¶×Ö¶× âboyâ, whereas after the appointment as rulers in chapter three, they are called ×Ö°Ö¼×ַר âmanâ. We thus see a shift in the presentation of these three friends regarding age category.
Therefore, I want to propose viewing these three friends of Daniel from a childist perspective, focusing on their role and position as children in the first two chapters, instead of the âyoung menâ they have often been taken for. An analysis of their identity as boys or youths will resituate them as active agents in the narratives.1 Furthermore, it will challenge the traditional interpretation of them as âyoung menâ, and will show how paying attention to their identity as boys in these first chapters can change our own interpretation of the stories, by showing how the lads, both in a vulnerable and formative phase of their life as growing boys, act extraordinarily bravely and ultimately receive important positions as adults. It can also give us an incentive to highlight the lives of displaced and vulnerable children in our current world.
I will focus on the specific verses in which Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are present in the first two chapters of Daniel, which are 1:3â20; 2:13â18; and 2:48â49. The story of the fiery furnace in Daniel 3 will not be dealt with, since in this chapter the three characters are already considered grown-ups. The analysis also brings an intersectional awareness, which shows how identity aspects such as gender, social class, ethnicity, ablebodiedness, etc. coincide in constructing identity.2 Therefore, I will also take these identity elements into account and explore what consequences they would have for the role and position of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Ultimately, this paper provides a concise narrative analysis of the passages focusing on the three characters. Moreover, this paper challenges the adult-centrism that is present both in the biblical text, the Ancient Near Eastern context the narrative is set in, and in contemporary interpretations of the text. In such a society, adult experiences are the norm and the experiences of children are suppressed.3 This is shown for example in the fact that the child is commonly seen as (an) incomplete (adult).4 By recognising the three characters in Daniel as children, instead of young adults, we can re-centre our attention on the experiences of children in the Bible and current society.
Childist Perspective
The field of childist criticism was born in 2008 when The Child in the Bible (2008), edited by Marcia J. Bunge, was published and the Children in the Biblical World section of the Society of Biblical Literature (sbl) was launched. Julie Faith Parker introduced the term âchildistâ within biblical studies in 2013.5 Similar to feminist approaches in biblical criticism, childist hermeneutics focuses on overlooked people. Building on the groundwork laid by feminist scholars, childist criticism aims to look beyond the norms as they are present in society. While feminism critically engages with androcentric norms, highlighting the experiences of women, childist hermeneutics goes a step further by not only challenging these androcentric norms, but also adult-centric (âgerontocentricâ) norms.6 A re-centred focus on children and youth and their experiences brings to light their often-neglected status and changes our interpretations of their lives.
In its infancy, the childist approach focused on finding the overlooked children in the biblical world and text. In the second phase, the attention shifted to analysing children in their social settings and relationships. Currently, there is a focus on children as active subjects: researching their role and agency.7 This new focus has also brought with it a more expansive âchildistâ hermeneutic lens. Kristine Henriksen Garroway and John W. Martens offer four pillars of childist criticism, which this paper will also adopt: 1) recognising the adult-centric bias; 2) giving agency and a voice to the silent âotherâ, in this case the child; 3) filling gaps in the biblical narrative; and 4) recognising that value and vulnerability come together for children in the Bible and biblical world.8
When researching children in the context of the biblical world, one needs to consider the specific context that these children are a part of, since childhood is culturally constructed. In every society, there are different ideas of what children are and should be, and what their experiences look like. While the Hebrew Bible lacks any general conception of childhood that stays consistent throughout the biblical text and conveys a set of expectations for children, it does contain varying concepts of childhood as distinct from adulthood.9 This is, for example, clear in the way the biblical authors differentiate between successive stages of childrenâs development, which are categorised by the usage of specific vocabulary. Even though these phases of childhood and its boundaries are fluid, the vocabulary does reveal cultural distinctions.10 What makes it more difficult is that these stages within childhood are not determined by chronological age, as is often the case in modern Western society, but rather by a social age: an ability to fulfil certain activities or societyâs expectations.11 Therefore, as philosopher David Archard proposes, it can be useful to look at phases of childhood in the context. The end or beginning of a phase of childhood are marked by boundaries, often with so-called ârites de passageâ.12 These rites follow three steps: 1) the leaving behind of the old life-phase; 2) the transitional step to the new phase; and 3) the stepping into the new life-phase.13
Victor Turner recognised a characteristic of the second step, the transitional phase. Within this liminal stage societyâs typical norms are inverted â what is considered ânormalâ is now not ânormalâ anymore. Liminal characters are caught between the two life-phases and worlds. Their behaviour, role, and position often reflect this reversal of norms.14 The ârites de passageâ often manifest in rituals.15 Rituals to mark the transition from childhood to adulthood are for example marriage for girls, but for boys it can also manifest in the taking on of a new role or position in society.16 Paying attention to the ways these youths transition to adulthood could be helpful in the analysis of the identity of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.
Socio-Historical Context and Childhood within the Ancient Near East
This paper will treat the texts of Daniel 1â2 as a narrative presentation and will employ a narrative framework, thus it will not make claims about the historicity of the text, nor analyse its complex and contested composition process. For the purpose of this paper the narrative world is the most important, since this represents the socio-historical context that Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are presented as being a part of. We are told that the story takes place after the fall of Jerusalem in 597 bce due to king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. About ten thousand Israelites, mostly upper class youths and men, were deported to Babylon.17 This deportation might have had various goals: 1) to highlight the vassal states of Judah to Babylon; 2) to discourage the young people from rebelling by taking away the brightest of the population; 3) to indoctrinate the future leadership of Judah with Babylonian culture; and 4) simply to provide more (young) men to the working staff at the court.18
If we want to consider Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah in the context of childhood in the historical setting of the Babylonian exile, we thus need to consider their Jewish heritage and their new Babylonian home. As Christian Laes and Ville Vuolanto note, the actual lives of children, while culturally dependent, seem to have changed very slowly, since many of the fundamental structures on the family levels, especially in lower social classes, remained largely the same during Antiquity, Byzantine, and even Early Medieval times.19 These societal aspects would have greatly affected the lives of children and consequently the ideas on childhood that would have circulated.20 There is thus a sort of unanimity in ideas around what childrenâs lives should look like in the Ancient Near East. Of course there are slight variations from culture to culture; however, these were no more than minor differences on principles.21 Sources that encompass a larger time period across the Ancient Near East can thus give us insights about the context of childhood relevant for the three youths in question.
In the Ancient Near East, children were valued and vulnerable for various reasons. Children were seen as the future of the family. This meant that they not only had to carry on the family name, but they were also needed to sustain the family economically when they grew up. The father was the head of the household and his property and lineage would be inherited by his son.22 The value of children was not purely economical in ancient Israelite society; they were also understood as a gift from God.23 All children had to play big roles in carrying on the religious practices of the family and were thus educated in the religion early on. Children were also especially vulnerable to the dangers of sickness, violence, and death in the forms of slavery or sacrifice.24
Childhood, from the point that the child was weaned, was considered a transitional stage, in which a child was prepared for adulthood. The children would be enculturated into society and learn the norms to which they had to adhere in adulthood.25 Thus, the phase of childhood in which the children were growing up could be seen as a liminal stage. Liminality represents instability and uncertainty. In childhood, the societal norms for adults such as hierarchical structures, social ranks, power, and authority are still (mostly) absent.26 As children would observe the activities and actions of the adults and peers in their lives, they would learn to model their own behaviour after these.27 As children grew up, parents and caregivers encouraged children to act according to the societal gender norms that were applicable to them, by for example educating them in gender-specific trades and duties. Thus, gendering was a process that was partially imposed on a child and that was modelled for them.28
The Identities of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah
Youths (×Ö°×Ö¸×Ö´Ö£××)
To find children in biblical narratives we can pay attention to the vocabulary. For this study I will focus on the narrative as presented in the Majority Text. Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are introduced to us within the first few verses of Daniel 1. They are called ×Ö°×Ö¸×Ö´Ö£××(1:4, 13, 15, 17), from the noun ×Ö¶×Ö¶× which can be translated with âyoung boy or youthâ.29 ×Ö¶×Ö¶× occurs 89 times within the Hebrew Bible and includes a range of characters in varying age categories, such as an unborn child in Exod. 21:22; a newly weaned toddler in Gen. 21:8; a seventeen-year-old in Gen. 37:30; and even married men in Ruth 1:5 or the peers of the 41-year-old king Rehoboam in 2 Kgs. 12:8. As I will show, the term primarily indicates children and youths who are not considered adults yet.
Youth (×Ö¶×Ö¶×) Referring to Adult Characters
Abraham Malamat shows that the term ×Ö°×Ö¸×Ö´×× in 1 Kings 12 is used as a literary device and thus the text should not be included in a consideration of the age category the term indicates. The author here calls the advisors âchildrenâ because of the poor advice they give to their king.30 E.J. Revell sees the usage of the term as suggesting the intimacy of the advisors with the king â they should be seen as the kingâs childhood playmates. He takes the basic meaning of the term ×Ö¶×Ö¶× to be a child who is still dependent on their parents. These advisors of king Rehoboam are pictured as still living with their parents, and hence, they are âchildrenâ.31 Therefore, Naomi Steinberg argues that ×Ö¶×Ö¶× has no indication of age at all, and that the individual indicated by the term is a âchildâ of their parents, no matter their age. She applies this definition in Daniel as well, since Daniel and his friends, like Rehoboamâs advisors, serve in a kingâs court. Furthermore, Daniel and his friends seem to have the maturity to know the rules of Jewish life and observation.32 However, the situations of Rehoboamâs advisors and of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are not one-on-one comparable. It is clearly stated that Daniel and his friends still have to receive education before they receive appointments within the court, indicating some form of youthfulness, while Rehoboamâs advisors have already received all of their education. Moreover, the fact that the Judean youths already seemed to have an understanding of Jewish life would not have been abnormal since, as they were of royal descent, they would have received an education from a young age. Malamatâs explanation of the ironic usage of ×Ö¶×Ö¶× in 1 Kings 12 is more convincing. These advisors were probably not living with their parents anymore, as Revell suggests, since they had taken up their official positions in society already. There is no indication that Rehoboamâs advisors had been his so-called âplaymatesâ when they were children â we only know that they are considered his peers in the narrative.
The use of ×Ö°×Ö¸×Ö´Ö£×× to describe the husbands of Ruth and Orpa in Ruth 1:5 is generally explained as another literary device. It counters the mention of the same word at the conclusion of Ruth in 4:16 and highlights the restoration of Naomi from the tragedy that befell her at its beginning. Thus, the two times when the term is used to indicate adult men are not applicable to our current study.
The Parallel Uses of ×Ö¶×Ö¶× and × Ö·×¢Ö·×¨
When we look at the parallel uses of ×Ö¶×Ö¶× and × Ö·×¢Ö·×¨, it becomes clear that half of the boys that are indicated with these terms are very young: Moses in Exodus 2, Ishmael in Genesis 21, and David and Bathshebaâs baby Jedidiah in 2 Samuel 12.33 Of the other half of the boys the age is ambiguous, but they seem quite young. 2 Kgs. 2:23 refers to taunting boys, and they are specifically called קְ×Ö·× Ö¼Ö´×× × Ö°×¢Ö¸×¨Ö´×× or âyoung boysâ. The actions of Jeroboamâs son in 2 Kings 14 and Benjamin in Genesis 43â44 do not show the independence that comes with later adolescence, according to Wilson. The primary characteristic of a ×Ö¶×Ö¶× is their weakness and vulnerability, both socially and physically. Their actions are often depicted as unwise, which typically correlates with a young age. Wilson therefore takes the age range of ×Ö¶×Ö¶× to be from birth to twelve years old.34 This paper will take a bit of a broader age range for ×Ö¶×Ö¶×, since Jeroboamâs son and Benjamin might be teenagers or near-adolescents; the referral to Joseph as a 17-year-old with the term is also included; and the characterisation of the actions of ×Ö°×Ö¸×Ö´×× as unwise can also be applicable to teenagers.
Shawn W. Flynnâs comparative analysis of the word ×Ö¶×Ö¶× with the Akkadian á¹£eḫrum shows that both words apply broadly to the category of childhood and can indicate varying stages within childhood depending on the context that it is used in.35 The same goes for the root ×Ö¶×Ö¶× in cognate languages of Hebrew, such as the Akkadian root walÄdu and the Arabic and Ethiopic walada. In all three languages the basic meaning of the term is âchildâ when it is used as a noun.36 This broader age range is further supported by Milton Engâs analysis. The life cycle in Ancient Israel as presented by the biblical text, can be broken down into phases that are marked by physical maturity and the taking up of certain responsibilities in society.37 He notes that in Daniel 1, Gen. 37:30, and Ecclesiastes 4, the term ×Ö¶×Ö¶× appears to refer to âyouthsâ or âyoung menâ.38 Marek Parchem also notes that the term does not specify age, but that, according to biblical tradition, this term is used to describe male children that have not reached maturity. This could be boys anywhere from birth to the age that they were considered fully mature, which was generally around 20 years old.39
Thus, taking together the evidence from the lexical analysis which is informed by historical contextual information, and using a childist approach to reinterpret and foreground child-and youth-characters, this paper considers Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (and Daniel) teenagers.
Intra-Textual Evidence and Other Interpretations
Intra-textual evidence also points to ×Ö¶×Ö¶× indicating children or youths. Worth mentioning in particular here is the Apocryphal âadditionâ to the book of Daniel: The Song of the Three. The ancient Greek versions, including the Septuagint, of Daniel contain three large passages that are not present in the mt version of Daniel.40 In some traditions the song is called âthe Song of the Three Young Menâ, âThe Song of the Three Youthâ, or even âthe Song of the Three Childrenâ. This shows that at least in several traditions Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are seen as children or youths. Moreover, this song was part of the canonical book of Daniel in the Christian tradition for ages, which would suggest that many people were familiar with the characters as children or youths.
Most readers view the characters as âyoung menâ, since this is how they are often presented in English Bible translations, such as the niv, the nkjv, and the nrsv.41 Some commentators note the possibility of ×Ö¶×Ö¶× indicating children, but still choose to translate the term as âyoung menâ.42 Some interpreters have deviated from this by choosing to see these characters as youths or children.
John J. Collins and James Montgomery note that the persons selected for the court needed to be of teachable age, and thus had to be boys.43 Zukile Ngqeza, analysing 1 Samuel 17 with a childist approach mentions in his introduction Daniel as a child.44 The same goes for Kenneth O. Gangel, who notes that Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are young adults and that Daniel came to Babylon as a teenager.45 Yet, none of these scholars develop these aspects of the three in any meaningful way. The only scholar who goes beyond the surface is Donna Nolan Fewell, who in her chapter on Daniel 1 makes the child-ness of Daniel (and his friends) explicit and shows how his young age influences his behaviour and actions.46
The conclusion to consider the three youths as non-adult youths is enforced by the historical tradition of The Song of the Three Youths and the interpretations by a number of biblical scholars.
Other Identity Aspects
Dan. 1:3â4 tells us about different aspects of the identities of Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah, and Daniel. They were among the Judeans of higher social class who were deported to Babylon after the fall of Jerusalem.47 Being a colonised subject, especially as a child, the young males would have been in a difficult position. They would not have the chance to grow up in their country and culture and would be forced to adopt a new identity in exile.
They were also from the âroyal family and the nobilityâ48 (×Ö¼×Ö´×ֶּ֥רַע ×Ö·×Ö°Ö¼××Ö¼×Ö¸Ö×)(1:3). In Ancient Israel, before the Babylonian captivity and diaspora, education was mostly reserved for the higher social classes, thus the boys would have received education.49 It also probably meant they would have had more freedom of choice in their own country. These choices would be taken away from them in exile. However, the fact that they were aristocratic made sure that even as colonised children, they had more privilege than many of their countrymen and âwomen, since they received top-tier education and would get a position at the Babylonian court.
The text tells us that their physical appearance should be âwithout any physical defect, handsomeâ (×ÖµÖ½××Ö¾×Ö¸Ö¼×Ö¶Ö£× ×Ö¸Ö¼×Ö¾×Ö»×××Ö© ×Ö°××Ö¹×ÖµÖ¨× ×ַרְ×Ö¶Ö×)(1:4). The teenagers are chosen by Ashpenaz, who oversees the âcourt officialsâ, who were possibly, but not necessarily, castrated. Since, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are part of this group; one may think that they could be castrated. Josephus describes them as such.50 However, the lads should be âwithout any physical defectâ. This cancels out the possibility that they were castrated, since this would be considered a deformity. It is further stated that they should be âhandsomeâ or âbeautifulâ.51
Furthermore, the youths should be âshowing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the kingâs palaceâ (Ö¼×ַשְ××Ö´Ö¼××Ö´Ö£×× ×Ö°Ö¼×Ö¸×Ö¾×Ö¸×Ö°×Ö¸Ö× ×Ö°×Ö¹Ö¤×Ö°×¢Öµ× ×Ö·Ö¨×¢Ö·×ªÖ ×Ö¼×Ö°×Ö´×× ÖµÖ£× ×Ö·×Ö¸Ö¼Ö×¢ ×Ö·×ֲשֶ××¨Ö ×Ö¹Ö¼Ö£×Ö· ×Ö¸Ö¼×Ö¶Ö× ×Ö·×¢Ö²×Ö¹Ö× ×Ö°Ö¼×Öµ××Ö·Ö£× ×Ö·×Ö¶Ö¼Ö×Ö¶×Ö° ×Ö¼Ö½×Ö²×Ö·×Ö°Ö¼×Ö¸Ö¥×)(1:4). Jonathan Redding notes that, since the intelligence of the teenagers is described after the requirements of physical appearance, the latter is more important.52 The author uses multiple Hebrew words in this verse to describe their skills and knowledge that convey that these four youths were well-educated.53 These terms later become varying technical attributes in the wisdom tradition. Firstly, ×Ö¸×Ö°×Ö¸× which is âwisdom, prudence, skillâ;54 secondly, ×Ö·ÖעַתÖ, meaning âknowledgeâ;55 and ×Ö´Ö¼××, which means âto understand, discern, recognise, acknowledge, show understanding, apply understanding, be intelligentâ.56 Later in Dan. 1:17 the terms are connected with knowledge of the supernatural and the ability to interpret revelations.57
Thus, the three friends of Daniel would have been in a precarious position as colonised subjects. However, their noble descent meant that they had the privilege of receiving education in Israel and in Babylonia. They were handpicked to serve in the court of the king because of their good physical appearance and intellectual skillset. Consequently, they had a strong position as children at the start of the narrative.
Narrative Framework
To form a picture of the role and position of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah in the narrative, a narrative framework will be employed, with a focus on the elements of characterisation, plot, space, and focalisation.
Characters are characterised in three different ways, which I will pay attention to: the actions of a character, evaluations of a character by the narrator or other characters in a story, and character-change.58
Plot designates the ways in which the charactersâ actions and events in a narrative are arranged and how this order of events aids in the identification of the characterâs motivations and the consequences of their actions.59
Space can encompass the spatial frames, which are the immediate surroundings of narrative events; setting, which is the socio-historical and geographical environment in which actions take place; story space is the space that is relevant for the plot; the story world which is the story space plus the knowledge of the reader; and the narrative universe, which is the world that is presented as existing by the text.60
Focalisation is the instrument through which the perspective can be placed in or with a specific agent.61 Through focalisation the narrator determines what and how much information readers acquire through the character that is focalising at a specific moment in the narrative.62
Analysis
Dan. 1:3â7: Education and Renaming
Dan. 1:3â7 introduces us to Daniel and his three friends and the space the narrative takes place in. The youths are placed in the Babylonian palace under supervision of the palace master Ashpenaz to eventually take their place at the kingâs court.
In the fourth verse we are told that the youths are to be educated in âthe language and literature of the Babyloniansâ, also translated as âthe literature and language of the Chaldeansâ. Chia asserts, from a post-colonial perspective, that the choice for the term âChaldeanâ rather than âsageâ or âmagicianâ suggests that the education and instruction in the language and culture involves national indoctrination. The colonial process begins in language and thus Nebuchadnezzarâs choice to re-educate these boys is a part of his larger colonising strategy to indoctrinate the minds of the colonised.63 Piotr Michalowski also notes that Mesopotamian education in general had the purpose to mould the thoughts and minds of the children. The children were taught a common package of ideas that would set them apart from their origins and the rest of society as a group of higher social class. This would support the idea that the youths were given a Chaldean education to detach them from their Jewish origins and become part of this elite Babylonian social class.64 The four Judeans were trained to become sages at the Babylonian court.65 As children, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah would have been more susceptible than adults to the ideas that were presented to them, since they were in their formative years. Consequently, a Babylonian education would have had a great effect on them and would form them into adults that would serve the Babylonian society well.
In verse 7 the young adults are given new names. Their Judean names refer to God: Daniel means âGod is my judgeâ;66 Hananiah âthe Lord is graciousâ;67 Mishael means âwho is what God is?â;68 and Azariah means âthe Lord has helpedâ.69 They receive new Babylonian names that refer to the Babylonian gods: Daniel is called Belteshazzar, which probably means something like âBel, protect his lifeâ, where Bel is an alternative name for Marduk. Hananiah is named Shadrach, which is possibly a perversion of Marduk. Azariah receives the name Abednego, meaning âservant of Negoâ. Nego is an alternative spelling of Nebo, who was another Babylonian god.70 Mishael is changed to Meshach. This name also has the signs of a corruption of a Babylonian original referring to another god, but the original is not easily recognisable.71 Jacobus de Bruyn, following Steinmann, attaches the meaning âWho is what Aku isâ, to the name.72 The names thus carry a part of the new Babylonian identity the king and Ashpenaz want the young adults to adopt â their Judean heritage, which is explicit in their Judean names, is replaced by their new names.73 The (re)naming of people is a sign of a subordinate status (see also: 2 Kgs. 23:34 and 2 Kgs. 24:17). The youths still have their Jewish blood, but they are given a new identity that is supposed to replace the old one, which is an act of violence. The identities of these young people are now hybrid, and thus unstable.74 This renaming is also a first step in the liminal period of transformation of these Judean youths into members of the Babylonian higher class.75
Goldingay nuances the consequences of these new names slightly, since they are perversions of the names of the gods they refer to, therefore making the names sound silly.76 In the world of the narrative they are renamed by Ashpenaz. He is the focaliser chosen by the narrator to present this knowledge to us as readers. This makes it seem like the coloniser makes fun of his own culture through these names, while it is actually the narrator who chose the names, making fun of the colonisers. The narrator uses the children as a tool in this process. Children were already seen as irrational beings, which is reflected in the use of the word âchildishâ to describe silly behaviour both then and now.77 This choice by the narrator only enforces this foolish image of children, taking power away from the boys, just like the Babylonians do, by making them the object of the narratorâs mockery of the Babylonians.
Dan. 1:8â20: Rejection of the Kingâs Food
Dan. 1:8â20 goes on to tell us about Daniel and his friends rejecting the food of the king, following an alternative diet instead. In verse 8 Daniel refuses the food provided by the king to ânot defile himselfâ (×Ö¹Ö½×Ö¾×ִתְ×Ö¸Ö¼×Ö·Ö×). The precise reason why Daniel considers the food something that would defile him is not stated.78 Some scholars explain Danielâs actions in the light of the dietary laws of the Pentateuch. These laws were a way of setting the Israelite people apart symbolically, which was especially important during the exile in Babylonia. Therefore, the rejection of the kingâs provision was a declaration of their own identity as Judeans.79 The actions of the youths cannot be entirely explained by them adhering to purity laws, since there are no specific laws that could explain the position the four take here against the kingâs food.80 Thus, according to John J. Collins, the choice for a vegetarian diet is an attempt to adhere to the spirit of the biblical laws, insofar as it is concerned with purity and defilement.81 It is a case of âbetter safe than sorryâ. All animal products carried the risk of being impure, which made a vegetarian diet a safer choice.
Another position is that the partaking in the royal diet would have been seen as being loyal to Nebuchadnezzar, in a political and in a religious sense. What we eat and drink are embodied expressions of our identity. Thus, by choosing their own diet, the four youths express their loyalty to their Jewish heritage and refusal of full assimilation to Babylonian culture.82 Parchem notes that the boys draw a line here: they accept what comes from God, but they reject what the pagan master offers them.83 Fewell rightly notes that the same verb is used here with the taking of the food as with the receiving of the new names: ×Ö·×ָּשֶׂ×. This indicates that the intention of the youths was to limit the far-reaching effects of the indoctrination that the Babylonians had planned for them.84 Quick and Lyell, and Chia, put this more clearly in a post-colonial context: the colonisers attempt to control the bodies of the youths through their diet. By rejecting the kingâs diet, the friends reject the kingâs claim over them.85
With this act the four lads claim a lot of agency. Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah do not get a voice in this section; they follow the actions of Daniel silently. However, this does not mean that they do not show the same agency as Daniel does. Dong Sung Kim proposes to pay attention towards emotions, sensations, and embodied experiences as a site where people can show their agency.86 A similar approach is taken by Janine E. Luttick, who shows that attention to the body and embodiment can change our perceptions of characters, their agency, and by consequence, the narrative as a whole.87 By not following the diet rules of the king, the boys show the same risky defiance to the kingâs orders as Daniel does: they do not allow the kingâs food to enter their bodies. As colonised subjects in exile, whose identities and agency were supposed to be claimed by the Babylonian ruler, the four lads dare to defy their new king, by being loyal to their own people and God. This shows a lot of courage, which is highlighted even more when considering they are still children. Children need proper sustenance to feed their growing bodies and by deviating from the set diet, which was specifically designed for the growing boys being educated at the palace, as is emphasised three times in the biblical text, the youths face the prospect that their health would not develop well. This is a huge risk for the boys, but they still show the courage to go another way. Courage was a characteristic that came with adulthood, so it certainly was not expected for children to be brave.88
The success of the experiment is determined by the looks of the lads; thus, it is defined according to the standards of the coloniser.89 In v.15 we learn that our protagonists have indeed reached and even surpassed their goal: âThey looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal foodâ (Dan. 1:15). Due to their vegetarian diet, they appear more âvirileâ than the other youths. The success of their diet shows that Godâs food was perfect for developing boys, instead of the prescribed diet. Their bodies have become the proof of their continued health and thus of Godâs favour of them.90 Daniel and his friends are successful in being accepted to the kingâs court, precisely because they stay Judean on the inside.91 They meet the cultural norms of masculinity to fit in at the court, by being educated, handsome, skilful, courageous, healthy, and virile, which is a consequence of them staying faithful to their God.92 God blesses the lads with knowledge, skills, and wisdom. The superiority of the God of the youths is also indirectly acknowledged by the Babylonian king in v.18â20, when he judges them as incomparable to not only their peers, but also to all the magicians at court.93
The fact that the youths accepted the Babylonian education is not a marker of their disloyalty to their own heritage. Goldingay rightfully notes in this respect that a wise person was expected to consider and learn from other wisdom traditions from various cultures, without abandoning their own tradition in the process. The fact that these four boys received the same education as others and still excelled shows the superiority of the Israelite wisdom tradition, as given by God, over the human wisdom of Babylon.94 The remarkability of the actions of the friends is highlighted when we consider the identities of these youths. They are young teenagers, who did not have the power, authority, or agency to reject a superiorâs orders. They showed un-childlike behaviour by resisting orders and having the courage to take risks for their own lives.95 As young individuals whose identity is already fluid, they have even more unstable positions because of their hybrid identities as Judeans with Babylonian names and education. Their position is extremely uncertain, but they still claim the agency to make their own choices.
Dan. 2:48â49: Promotion
In chapter 2 we read about the dream Nebuchadnezzar has in the second year of his reign. Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah only appear in the background of this chapter. They are referred to in v. 13, 17, 18 as ×Ö°×Ö·×ְרÖ×Ö¹×Ö´× as âfriends of Danielâ, which does not tell us much more about their own roles in the kingâs court at this point in time. Daniel is the only one that is able to interpret and explain this dream to him; therefore, at the end of chapter 2 he is promoted by the king. Since we are told this dream occurs in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, and the youths were brought to Babylon under his reign, we can assume that at the time of this dream, the boys are still in the middle of their education. Daniel requests of the king that he promotes his friends as chiefs over the province of Babylon.
Thus, the position of the three youths change: from younglings being educated for court in the first chapter, youths serving in the kingâs court in chapter two, to being heads over the affairs of the province of Babylon. Daniel becomes governor of the province and the head of the wise men of Babylon: ×ְרַ×־סִ×Ö°× Ö´Ö××, he becomes chief administrator. His position thus still ranks above the positions of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.96 All of them achieve great positions in adulthood in the Babylonian court because of their courageous behaviour during childhood.
After the promotion of the lads at the end of chapter 2, there is a change in vocabulary regarding the boys. In the first chapter they are referred to as ×Ö°×Ö¸×Ö´Ö£××, non-adult youths. After their promotion, they are referred to as Judeans ×Ö°××Ö¼×Ö¸××Ö´Ö× or ×Ö»Ö¼×ְרַ×Ö¸Ö¼Ö£×, which comes from the root ×Ö°Ö¼×ַר, which translates to âman, personâ, and it refers to an adult male person in various roles.97 They have become full-grown men with their own positions.98 This shift in vocabulary constitutes a change in the age of the friends: they have matured. Could this mean that the promotion of the young adults is seen as a ârite de passageâ, signalling the boysâ maturation?
A characteristic of becoming an adult man in ancient Israelite society is independence.99 The Judean lads seem to go from youths who are still dependent on the care and education of the eunuchs in the kingâs court, to independent adult men, capable of running a province. Eng notes that this transition could include: a manifestation of physical prowess, an intellectual achievement, taking up social roles such as military service, childbearing, or office-holding.100 The three friendsâ taking up of the office of governors over the province Babylon could be seen as a transition from youths to men. Moreover, the age of responsibility and thus maturity seems to be have around age 20 for men, when they are eligible for military duty (Num. 1:3, 18; 26:2; 2 Chron. 25:5), taxation (Exod. 30:14), and accountability for their moral actions (Num. 14:29; 32:11).101 Therefore, the gaining of independence and the taking of a position within society seems applicable to what happens in our text: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah assume their position in society as governors of Babylon after their education in the kingâs court, thereby signalling the end of their childhood.
Conclusions
Studying the role and position of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah in the narratives of the first two chapters of Daniel from a childist approach gives us a new insight into these characters. These three youths have often been interpreted as young men but seeing them as teenagers changes our perception of their roles and agency in the narratives. A lexical analysis of the Hebrew ×Ö¶×Ö¶× shows that these three characters should be considered teenagers or youths.
We are first told that the youths had noble blood, which was the reason they were among the first deportees from Jerusalem. It indicates that as youths they would have received good education in Israel. Furthermore, these young men were considered âhandsomeâ, and âintelligentâ, and therefore they were chosen for the court. As exiles from a different land, these three friends would have been in a precarious position as colonised subjects in Babylonia. However, their skillset and physical appearance were considered âidealâ for men in ancient Israelite society, which would have improved their position. Still, a childist perspective highlights that, as teenagers, they were still forming their identities in a liminal stage of life. This uncertain position was enforced by them being removed from their homeland.
In the first chapter we are told that the youths are to be educated in the skillset of the Babylonian sages. From a post-colonial perspective, this education would have had the aim to separate these youths from their heritage and mould their thoughts to fit the Babylonian standards. This process was easier, since as developing youths, these lads were more susceptible to the education they received. This process of making them more Babylonian is strengthened by the new names they are given. Names are a way to carry a part of your identity. By taking away their Israelite names and giving them Babylonian names, the Babylonians attempt to separate these boys further from their cultural and religious background. However, these new names would have made a mockery of the Babylonian religion. The narrator uses the boys as the means to the end of ridiculing the colonisers. As children, the youths would already have been seen as immature, which is enforced by this choice of the narrator.
The narrative goes on to tell us that Daniel and his friends reject the kingâs diet. The youths stay loyal to their God, religion, and heritage by choosing their own diet. Especially children can show agency through their embodied actions. The friends do not allow the kingâs food to enter their bodies and with this they claim agency. They take a risk for their own health with this test, as the royal diet was seen as fitting for developing boys. At the end of the test of not eating the kingâs food, the Judeans are more handsome, healthier, and more masculine than their Babylonian peers. Therefore, Daniel and his friends have proven that life is not dependent on royal food, or the Babylonian gods, but only on God. The remarkability of the agency these characters show is highlighted when we consider their position from a childist approach. Not only are they foreigners, but they are young teenagers, who did not have the power to ignore a superiorâs orders. Moreover, as teenagers their body and identity were still in development. The vegetarian diet they choose was thought to be detrimental for their health, instead it improves it. The formation of their identity would have been even more difficult for them, since they are separated from their heritage, but they still choose to show agency and their choices are rewarded by God.
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are appointed as chiefs over the province of Babylon. Before this promotion, they were called boys or youths, while from here on out, they are called men. Taking into account socio-historical evidence from the Ancient Near East, the growing up of boys into men was often signalled socially by the taking on of new responsibilities and positions in society. The fact that Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were appointed in new positions, having finished their education, might very well be such a ârite de passageâ that signals the end of their maturation process.
Thus, when studying this narrative from a childist perspective, we see Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, go from vulnerable teenagers who need to find their footing in exile, while the Babylonians attempt to give them a new identity and separate them from their people and God, showing remarkable courage and agency for foreigners of their age, to mature men who are able to take on the responsibility of governing a province and are loyal to their God. Their story can help us pay more attention to similar stories of displaced children and youths all over our own world, who have to grow up in foreign lands and do so successfully.
Kathleen Gallagher Elkins and Julie Faith Parker, âChildren in Biblical Narrative and Childist Interpretationâ, in Danna Nolan Fewell (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), p. 425.
Kimberlé Crenshaw, âDemarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Anti-discrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politicsâ, University of Chicago Legal Forum (1989), pp. 139â167.
John Wall, âFrom Childhood Studies to Childism: Reconstructing the Scholarly and Social Imaginationsâ, Childrenâs Geographies 20.3 (2022), pp. 257â270 (263).
Tanu Biswas, et al., âThe Adultcentrism Scale: A Potential Contributor to Advancing Childrenâs Participation Rights in Nordic Contextsâ, Social Sciences 13.238 (2024), pp. 1â11 (6).
Sharon Betsworth and Julie Faith Parker, ââWhere Have All the Young Girls Gone?â Discovering the Girls of the Bible through Childist Analysis of Exodus 2 and Mark 5â7â, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 38.2 (2022), pp.125â141 (126).
Elkins and Parker, âChildrenâ, p. 425.
Kristine Henriksen Garroway and John W. Martens, âIntroduction: The Study of Children in the Bible: New Question or a New Method?â, in Kristine Henriksen Garroway and John W. Martens (eds.), Children and Methods: Listening To and Learning From Children in the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2020), p. 11. See also, Reidar Aasgaard, âHistory of Research on Children in the Bible and the Biblical World: Past Developments, Present State â and Future Potentialâ, in Sharon Betsworth and Julie Faith Parker (eds.), T&T Clark Handbook of Children in the Bible and the Biblical World (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019), pp. 13â14; Kristine Henriksen Garroway, âChildren in the biblical world: The next generation of childhood and biblical studiesâ, Religion Compass 14 (2020), pp. 1â11 (7).
Amy Lindeman Allen, âReview Essay. Children and Childhood(s) in the Bible and Biblical Worldâ, Religious Studies Review 46.1 (2020), pp. 37â45 (39).
Julie Faith Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable: Children in the Hebrew Bible, Especially the Elisha Cycle (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2013), pp. 41â44.
Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable, pp. 74â75.
Naomi Steinberg, The World of the Child in the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013), p. 26.
Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable, pp. 22â24.
H. van Lierop-Debrauwer en N. Bastiaansen-Harks, Over Grenzen: De adolescentenroman in het literatuuronderwijs. (Amsterdam: Stichting Lezen, 2005), p. 27.
Victor Turner, Forest of Symbols: Aspects of the Ndembu Ritual (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967), pp. 23â59. See also, Kristine Henriksen Garroway, Children in the Ancient Near Eastern Household (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014), pp. 30â31.
Wilson, Making Men, p. 1.
Van Lierop-Debrauwer en Bastiaansen-Harks, Over Grenzen, p. 27.
Robert D. Miller, âDaniel and Friends at the Carlilsle Indian Schoolâ, Stellenbosch Theological Journal 7.1 (2021), pp. 1â17 (2).
John Goldingay, Daniel (World Biblical Commentary 30; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), pp. 12â13.
Christian Laes and Ville Vuolanto, âA new paradigm for the social history of childhood and children in Antiquityâ, in idem (eds.), Children and Everyday Life in the Roman and Late Antique World (London: Routledge, 2017), p. 5.
Reidar Aasgaard, âHow close can we get to ancient childhood? Methodological achievements and new advancesâ, in Christian Laes and Ville Vuolanto (eds.), Children and Everyday Life in the Roman and Late Antique World (Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2017), p. 322.
Bradley, âImages of Childhood in Classical Antiquityâ, pp. 23â33.
Steinberg, The World of the Child, pp. 51â52.
Kristine Henriksen Garroway, âChildren in Ancient Israelâ, in Kyle H. Keimer and George A. Pierce (eds.), The Ancient Israelite World (London: Routledge, 2022), pp. 292â293.
Shawn W. Flynn, Children in Ancient Israel: The Hebrew Bible and Mesopotamia in Comparative Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 4â8, 40â4, 110.
Steinberg, The World of the Child, pp. 70â76.
Garroway, Children in the Ancient Near Eastern Household, p. 31.
Garroway, âChildren in Ancient Israelâ, p. 298.
Garroway, Children in the Ancient Near Eastern Household, pp. 45â46.
David J.A. Clines (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew Volume iv: ×-× (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), p. 220.
Wilson, Making Men, pp. 56â58. See also, Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable, pp. 64â65.
E.J. Revell, The Designation of the Individual Usage in Biblical Narrative (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology) (Kampen: Kok, 1996), p. 30.
Steinberg, The World of the Child, p. 34.
See also, Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable, p. 64.
Wilson, Making Men, pp. 56â58.
Flynn, Children in Ancient Israel, pp. 27â29. See also, Kristine Henriksen Garroway, Growing up in Ancient Israel: Children in Material Culture and Biblical Texts (Atlanta: sbl Press, 2016), p. 7.
Steinberg, The World of the Child, p. 32.
Steinberg, The World of the Child, p. 80â81.
Milton Eng, The Days of Our Years: A Lexical Semantic Study of the Life Cycle in Biblical Israel (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2011), pp. 85â86.
Ks. Marek Parchem, âUpbringing in the Book of Daniel â the Ideal of a Young Jewish Man According to Daniel 1:3â7â, Verbum Vitae 21 (2012), pp. 65â82 (69â70).
See: Lorenzo DiTommaso, âThe Additions to Danielâ, in Gerbern S. Oegema (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Apocrypha (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), p. 363. The tale of Susanna, the prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three (Young Men), and the tales of Bel and the Dragon were for the biggest part of their history accepted parts of the book of Daniel. These additions disappeared from the Jewish tradition after the first or second century ce. The most important reason for this is that the Septuagint fell out of favour with the Jewish public in the second and third centuries. However, they remained an important part of the Christian tradition for a long time because of their inclusion in the Septuagint and its translations. Further, the additions, especially the Song of the Three, are well-represented in liturgy in the religious traditions of these communities. They were also translated into Latin and remained part of the canonical book throughout the Middle Ages, and were consequently included in the translations into the vernacular languages of the Western world.
The same goes for Dutch translations, such as the Herziene Statenvertaling (hsv) and the Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling (nbv21), where the term is often translated as âjongemannenâ.
Goldingay, Daniel, pp. 136â138, 154; Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978), p. 78; Caroll Ann Newsom and Brennan W. Breed, Daniel: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2014), pp. 42â43.
John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), p. 145. See also, James A. Montgomery, A Commentary on Daniel, pp. 120â121.
Zukile Ngqeza, âIâm not your little boy but a kingâs servant: re-reading 1 Samuel 17 through representationâ, Verbum et Ecclesia 45.1 (2024), pp. 1â8 (2).
Kenneth O. Gangel, âLessons from the Kidnappedâ, Religious Education 83.4 (1988), pp. 518â525 (519â521).
Danna Nolan Fewell, The Children of Israel. Reading the Bible for the Sake of Our Children (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003), pp. 117â130.
Philip P. Chia, âOn Naming the Subject. Postcolonial Reading of Daniel 1â, Jian Dao 7 (1997), pp. 17â36 (20â21).
The quotations from the biblical text are presented in the niv.
Parchem, âUpbringing in the Book of Danielâ, p. 71. See also, Goldingay, Daniel, p. 15.
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Volume 1, 10.186 (Trans. H.St.J. Thackeray, lcl).
Quick and Lyell, âDressing Danielâ, pp. 7â9.
Jonathan Redding, âResistance or Compliance: Reading Daniel 1 as a Faux-Hidden Transcriptâ, Scriptura 118.1 (2019), pp. 1â16 (9). See also, Quick and Lyell, âDressing Danielâ, p. 9.
Goldingay, Daniel, p. 16. See also, Parchem, âUpbringing in the Book of Danielâ, p. 73.
David J.A. Clines (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew Volume iii: ×-× (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), p. 222.
Clines (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew Volume ii, pp. 457â458.
Clines (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew Volume ii, pp. 142â143.
Goldingay, Daniel, p. 16.
Mieke Bal, Narratology: An Introduction to the Theory of Narrative (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017), pp. 104â108.
Karin Kukkonen, âPlotâ, in Peter Hühn et al. (eds.), Handbook of Narratology (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), p. 706. See also, Arie W. Zwiep, Jairusâs Daughter and the Haemorrhaging Woman: Tradition and Interpretation of an Early Christian Miracle Story, (wunt 421; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), p. 227.
Ryan, âSpaceâ, pp. 798â803.
Mieke Bal, Narratology, p. 66.
Maria Nikolajeva, Aesthetic Approaches to Childrenâs Literature: An Introduction (Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2005), p. 188.
Chia, âOn Naming the Subjectâ, pp. 25â26.
Piotr Michalowski, âCharisma and Control: On Continuity and Change in Early Mesopotamian Bureaucratic Systemsâ, in R.D. Biggs and M. Gibson (eds.), The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East (saoc 46; Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1987), p. 54.
See also, Goldingay, Daniel, 15, pp. 23â24.
David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary Volume 2: D-G (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 30.
David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary Volume 3: H-J (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 46.
David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary Volume 4: K-N (New York: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 870â871.
David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary Volume 1: A-C (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 533.
Quick and Lyell, âDressing Danielâ, pp. 9â10.
David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary Volume 5: O-Sh (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 1150.
J. Jacobus de Bruyn, âA Clash of Gods â Conceptualising Space in Daniel 1â, hts Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 70.3 (2014), pp. 1â6 (5).
Quick and Lyell, âDressing Danielâ, p. 10. See also, De Bruyn, âA Clash of Godsâ, p. 5.
Chia, âOn Naming the Subjectâ, pp. 26â28. See also, Goldingay, Daniel, pp. 18â23; and Fewell, The Children of Israel, 118â120.
Newsom and Breed, Daniel, p. 46.
Goldingay, Daniel, p. 24.
Eunyung Lim, Entering Godâs Kingdom (Not) Like a Little Child: Images of the Child in Matthew, 1 Corinthians, and Thomas (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2021), pp. 76â80.
For a more extensive explanation of the different positions and explanations of Danielâs rejection, see: Michael Seufert, âRejecting the kingâs portion: A reexamination of Danielâs dietary reaction in Daniel 1â, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43.4 (2019), pp. 644â660.
John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1194), p. 146. See also, Nel, âThe Concept of Space in Daniel 1â, p. 4; and Goldingay, Daniel, p. 18.
Goldingay, Daniel, pp. 18â19.
Collins, Daniel, p. 142.
Goldingay, Daniel, 19â25; See also, Fewell, The Children of Israel, 121.
Parchem, âUpbringing in the Book of Danielâ, p. 77.
Danna Nolan Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: Plotting Politics in the Book of Daniel (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991), p. 18.
Quick and Lyell, âDressing Danielâ, p. 11. See also, Chia, âOn Naming the Subjectâ, p. 31.
Dong Sung Kim, âReading with Minor Feelings: Racialized Emotions and Childrenâs (Non)agency in Judges 10â12â, Biblical Interpretation 28 (2020), pp. 557â583 (572).
Janine E. Luttick, Jairusâs Daughter and the Female Body in Mark (Early Christianity and its Literature; Atlanta: sbl Press, 2023).
Wilson, Making Men, p. 72.
Miller, âDaniel and Friendsâ, p. 11.
Quick and Lyell, âDressing Danielâ, pp. 11â12. See also, Parchem, âUpbringing in the Book of Danielâ, p. 77.
Quick and Lyell, âDressing Danielâ, pp. 12â13.
Wilson, Making Men, pp. 31â40.
De Bruyn, âA Clash of Godsâ, p. 5. See also, Nel, âThe Function of Space in Daniel 1â, p. 2.
Goldingay, Daniel, pp. 18, 24.
See also, Fewell, The Children of Israel, 121â123. Fewell further argues that Daniel (and his friends) also shows typical childlike behaviour in his naiveté. According to her, Daniel does not seem to realise the risks of his resistance to the king, also because he expects people to do his will as someone of noble descendance. However, the Judean were chosen to be educated at the Babylonian court because of their noble blood and their intelligence. Furthermore, their previous high position in the Judean community would have already made Daniel aware of the hierarchies within court and the rules of obedience that went along with these structures. Therefore, I find it unlikely that Daniel would not have realised the very real risks he took when disobeying Nebuchadnezzar.
Collins, Daniel, p. 172.
Eng, The Days of Our Years, pp. 112â113.
Goldingay, Daniel, p. 70.
Garroway, Growing up in Ancient Israel, p. 154.
Eng, The Days of Our Years, p. 52. See also, Lesley A. Beaumont, Matthew Dillon, and Nicola Harrington, âIntroduction: Investigating the Ancient Mediterranean âChildscapeââ, in idem (eds.), Children in Antiquity: Perspectives and Experiences of Childhood in the Ancient Mediterranean (London: Routledge, 2024), p. 4.
Eng, The Days of Our Years, p. 53.
