Daniel in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
The character of Daniel is part of the long and complex histories of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Some Jewish traditions reflect on the location of Daniel’s tomb, and how it became a point of contention among Jews in Susa. Legendary Islamic material describes Daniel’s access to mysterious and even magical books that reveal mysteries and even provide healing. While each tradition treats the character of Daniel in its own unique way, Daniel is commonly associated with themes such as mysteryA mystery is something secret, hidden and not perceived by ordinary means. In the book of Daniel a significant mystery is revealed through divine revelation (Daniel 2); Paul speaks of a mystery of God in Romans 11 and again in Ephesians 3. In speaking of... and revelation. [For more on these traditions, see Carol Newsom and Brennan Breed, Daniel (Westminster John Knox, 2014), 28-31]
Were Daniel and his Friends Eunuchs?
Interpreters ancient and modern have wondered about the gender status of Daniel, and in particular whether or not he was a eunuchAn eunuch is a castrated male, often in the service of a person in power. While the Bible mentions eunuchs many times, the most memorable eunuch is the one who was baptized by Philip in Acts 8. (a castrated male forcibly placed into royal service). These questions have emerged primarily because Daniel and his friends were overseen by the head eunuch and they never appear to have children (see, e.g., Daniel 1:7, 9-10). Additionally, eunuchs had been utilized in Mesopotamian royal courts for a very long time, making their presence in these stories entirely unobtrusive.
If Daniel and his friends were in fact eunuchs then they were victims of horrific acts of sexual violence, the express purpose of which was to turn them into imperial subjects. The fact that they were youths—and maybe even children—only worsens the matter. This was a brutal, shocking, and vicious form of slavery.
As castrated males, eunuchs occupy a gray area when it comes to sexual identity. The fact that eunuchs are unable to have children removes them from the culturally normative role of father–a fact that caused consternation for some (Isaiah 56:1-8). Their unique status has led some modern interpreters to draw analogies between eunuchs and contemporary understandings of sexual orientation and gender identity.
It is a deeply biblical and Christian impulse to try and understand new and emerging questions in light of treasured ancient texts. In that regard, the conversation should continue. As we venture into these waters, however, it is also advisable to consider how eunuchs came to be. They occupy this identity as a result of sexual violence, imperial domination, and enslavement. Their new identity is the outcome of a deeply inhumane, harrowing, and unjust process. These atrocious circumstances should be considered when drawing contemporary analogies.
Resistance, Empire, and Colonization
Recent scholarship has emphasized the context of empire and colonialism as fruitful frameworks for interpreting the Book of Daniel. Human empires and colonization, of course, are found throughout world history, with particularly vicious examples in the modern era. What makes the Old Testament interesting—and the Book of Daniel in particular—is that it was written under colonial circumstances and in direct response to them. The Book of Daniel is the literature of the defeated. That is not to say that it is without hope, only that it emerges in the wake of military defeat.
The court tales reflect narratively on the challenges and tensions associated with faithfully serving both God and the king. In some cases, they feel compelled to resist the king, and in some cases they praise him and even help to bolster his rule. In every case, they do so from the perspective of hope that the greater, heavenly king will one day establish an eternal kingdom in which the monstrosities of empire no longer prevail over human lives. The apocalyptic materials in Chapters 7—12 depict both the brutality of empires and the hope that God’s everlasting kingdom will be established (see, e.g., Daniel 7:13-14, 27).
As more and more people become aware of the deeply destructive results of colonialism in the modern era, they would do well to wonder how the dynamics of colonialism—both for the colonizers and the colonized—might inform a reading of Daniel. For example, modern scholars like to think about how dominated populations deploy strategies of “assimilation” and “resistance” in their attempts to survive in the shadow of empires. How might those strategies be present in Daniel? Should we view Daniel as a figure who assimilates or resists? Or is he perhaps a “hybrid” character, embodying in complex ways a multitude of identities all at once, depending upon social context?
Daniel and the Monstrous
The Book of Daniel is full of monsters. Some of them appear in symbolic form and others demonstrate their monstrosity through actions that threaten human life, promote idolatry, and disregard God’s rightful place as sovereign over creationCreation, in biblical terms, is the universe as we know or perceive it. Genesis says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. In the book of Revelation (which speaks of end times) the author declares that God created all things and.... At first glance, the monsters in Daniel might seem like the last place to find relevant material for modern interpretation. But monsters exist in our own time as well. They are those forces at work in our world that fracture communities, destroy creation, and afflict the vulnerable. Given the savagery of these forces in our world, it may be that the Book of Daniel provides us with a way of resisting these forces with hope that they will one day come to an end.
Numbers in the Book of Daniel
The apocalyptic section of Daniel contains references to several numbers: “time, two times, and half a time” (7:25; 12;7), 2,300 evenings and mornings (8:14), 70 weeks (9:24), 1,290 days (12:11), and 1,335 days (12:12). How to interpret these numbers and what they might mean for human history have been topics of study for millennia, and they have been the core source of numerical “data” for many attempts to calculate the end of the world. The fact that Daniel himself is an interpreter of symbolic dreamsDreams often have potency and predictive power in the Bible, for they were seen as messages from God. In the Old Testament Joseph dreamed about the seven fat and lean years. In the New Testament Joseph dreamed about escaping to Egypt with Mary and Jesus. may encourage readers to assume that these numbers carry equally symbolic weight.
One remarkable historical development is the creation of prediction manuals whose content is grounded in Danielic traditions. One example is called the Malhamat Daniyal. In this tradition, Adam is taught by God the skills of prediction and then instructed to inscribe this information on clay tablets and hide them away in a cave that could only be accessed once a year. Daniel discovers the book, giving him access to Adam’s insights. (See Newsom and Breed, Daniel, 310-311.)
Daniel and Revelation
The Book of Revelation is one of the primary reasons Daniel remains such an important part of the Christian imagination. References to the Book of Daniel—both explicit and subtle—are littered throughout. Revelation is especially influenced by the apocalyptic and visionary elements of Daniel. For example, the depiction of beastly figures in Revelation 11 and 13 clearly adapts texts such as Daniel 7. The larger apocalyptic themes of resurrection, conflict between good-evil, persecution, judgment, messianism, divine sovereignty, etc., are also common to both books.
One example of Daniel’s influence on Revelation is in the motif of God’s divine throne (cf. Daniel 7). This motif is found elsewhere in Jewish apocalyptic literature, and so it comes as no surprise that the theme shows up in Revelation 4 as well. As a divine king, God is also often accompanied by fellow members of the court (cf. Daniel 7:9-14; Revelation 4:3-11). The image of GodAccording to the book of Genesis, humans were created in the likeness, or the image, of God. The phrase is generally taken to refer to the uprightness and dignity of human nature. Because of disobedience the image of God has been corrupted or, some say,... on the throne has influenced innumerable visual depictions ancient, modern, and otherwise. For Daniel, God on the throne is an image of judgment (see Daniel 7:10). But God’s presence as a figure of judgment actually provokes hope, because God alone can bring about God’s everlasting dominion (Daniel 7:14). Revelation 4 shares similar theological convictions.
Daniel Additions
The book of Daniel exists in multiple versions. The version one encounters is largely dependent upon the kind of church tradition one is familiar with. For example, Protestants have the smallest collection of Daniel material, limited to Daniel 1—12 as seen in translations such as the New International Version or the English Standard Version. Catholic and Orthodox churches, however, contain Daniel material that is not found in Protestant Bibles. One example comes from Daniel 3—the famous account of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. The Protestant version of this account is the shortest. But the Septuagintal version of Daniel (a Greek translation) contains lengthy poetic additions to the story in the form of prayers. Additional stories about Daniel also exist under the names of BelBel is one of the names of Marduke, the leading god of Babylonia. In Isaiah and Jeremiah Bel is seen as a god in opposition to the God of Israel. One of the books of the Apocrypha is Bel and the Dragon. and the Dragon, and Susanna, and these are also preserved in Greek.
The bottom line is that the character of Daniel is at the center of several bodies of literature, all of which are used in present-day faith communities. These documents all preserve an image of a character who is faithful, wise, and influential.
Son of Man
Daniel 7 describes one who is like a “son of man” (v. 13). Another acceptable translation is, “one who is like a human being.” In the case of the latter, the phrase simply refers to the fact that he had human form. For Christian readers, however, it is hard—if not impossible—to avoid hearing echoes of Jesus’ own title from the Gospels (see, e.g., Matthew 8:20; Mark 2:28; Luke 9;22). And the fact that this “son of man” represents a personage separate from God complements Trinitarian conceptions of God. Some Jewish readers have also seen in this text a reference to a future messianic figure, albeit not Jesus. As with many other apocalyptic symbols, the power of this title lies partially in its interpretive pliability.
The Education of Kings
Kings in the Book of Daniel are frequently the objects of criticism, ridicule, and mockery. Given that this literature was produced by those dominated by foreign empires, this is no surprise. What may be surprising is the fact that the book depicts several kings—and especially Nebuchadnezzar—as teachable, responsive, and even penitent. Daniel 2, 3, and 4 are particularly illustrative. In these stories, Nebuchadnezzar begins by acting like a typical tyrant—unreasonable, volatile, and arrogant. In Daniel 2, he unreasonably requires his courtiers not only to interpret his dream but to tell him its contents (Daniel 2:1-16). He then flies into an uncontrollable rage and decides to kill all of the wise men in Babylon. In Daniel 3, he erects a giant statue and requires everyone to bow to it, lest they face the death penalty. Daniel 4 tells the story of a king who fails to recognize that his sovereignty is a gift of the Most High. Instead, he attributes all of his success to the work of his own hands (Daniel 4:30).
Ultimately, however, all of these stories end similarly: The king recognizes the error of his ways and declares the supremacy of the Hebrew God (Daniel 2:46-49; 3:28-30; 4:34-37).
In modern times, one of the most dramatic visual illustrations of “the education of kings” is provided by the 18th-19th century painter, William Blake, in his piece titled simply, “Nebuchadnezzar.” His striking depiction of the king’s transformation into a wild, claw-bearing beast (based on the story in Daniel 4) is among the most memorable interpretations of this story.
The Little Horn
Daniel 7 describes the actions of the ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes in terms of an arrogant “little horn” that made war against “the holyHoly is a term that originally meant set apart for the worship or service of God. While the term may refer to people, objects, time, or places, holiness in Judaism and Christianity primarily denotes the realm of the divine ones” (v. 21). Despite its small stature, the image of the horn has had a big impact on the history of interpretation—in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The symbol’s outsized influence is primarily due to its pliability as a symbol. History has provided no shortage of rulers whose reigns are marked by arrogance and violence.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all contain traditions that are connected to the little horn of Daniel 7. For western Christians, the little horn has come to be associated with the “anti-Christ” figures—associated with a variety of figures such as emperors, popes, and presidents. Antichrist speculation has been a prominent feature of the 20th– and 21st-century North American religious landscape, especially after the 1909 publication of C.I. Scofield’s famous reference Bible (Scofield Reference Bible), which popularized a particular type of eschatological theology called, “dispensational premillennialism.”
The notion of an anti-messianic figure as seen in Christianity was picked up by Judaism and Islam as well, sometimes in ways that are polemical toward their religious rivals or against historical oppressors. (See Newsom and Breed, Daniel, 280-283).
