Daniel’s Vision of the Four Beasts: The Prehistory of Chanukah

These historical allusions are both most prominent and clearest in Daniel 11:1–39, and were already discussed in previous essays on TheTorah.com (see the detailed discussion by Lawrence M. Wills, “The Lead Up to Chanukah in the Book of Daniel,” TheTorah.com [2015 in addition to that of Evan Hoffman, “Chanukah, Daniel 11, and History,” TheTorah.com [2014]). The current essay focuses on another vision in Daniel that describes the actions of Antiochus IV, in chapter 7.

Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Dan 2 about a statue composed of different metals also relates to a progression of four kingdoms followed by heavenly dominion. There too, the fourth kingdom relates to the Hellenistic empire (2:33,40–43), and specifically to the division of the empire under the Diadochoi, the “successors” to Alexander the Great. However, in contrast to chapters 7–12, the early form of ch. 2 does not refer or allude to Antiochus IV, and therefore scholars generally conclude that it was composed during the Hellenistic period prior to the time of Antiochus IV. (2:42a and the word ואצבעתא “and the toes” in v. 41 are not represented in the Old Greek translation of Daniel, and were probably both added to “update” Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2, in order to match the ten horns on the fourth beast in chapter 7, which represent the Seleucid kings up to Antiochus IV).

It is double in the sense that in addition to the general dichotomy between the symmetric heavenly and earthly realms, the heavenly mythic realm itself (vv. 1–14) describes two planes of activity.

For this position, see e.g. Martin Noth, “Zur Komposition des Buches Daniel,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 98/99 (1926), 143–163; republished in idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, 2 vols., TBü 6 (1957) and 39 (1969), 2:11–28, at 14–19. See more recently Daniel Boyarin, “Daniel 7, Intertextuality, and the History of Israel’s Cult,” HTR 105.2 (2012): 139–162, at 141–148.

This is reminiscent of the “iron” in the statue in Daniel 2:33–35; 40–43, also regarding the fourth beast.

For a discussion of the Canaanite background to this concept, see John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 286-294 [p.290].

The interpretation of the enigmatic vision with the assistance of an angelic intermediary is a common characteristic of both early Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature.

Both rabbinic and early Christian interpreters instead took Rome as the ultimate (fourth) kingdom, in the four-kingdom scheme found in both Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2 and in Daniel’s vision in chapter 7. This transformation was due to the reality observed by these interpreters, who were witness to the Roman empire, which belied the original meaning of the four-kingdom scheme, since the Greek empire was not in fact succeeded by an eternal kingdom. This in turn led to a reevaluation of the identity of the four kingdoms in the list, with Greece shifted to the third and Rome as the fourth.

Daniel 2:34–35,44–45; 7:13–14,22,26–27.

^{דניאל ז:יט} אֱדַיִן צְבִית לְיַצָּבָא עַל חֵיוְתָא רְבִיעָיְתָא דִּי הֲוָת שָׁנְיָה מִן כלהון [כָּלְּהֵין] דְּחִילָה יַתִּירָה שניה [שִׁנַּהּ] דִּי פַרְזֶל וְטִפְרַיהּ דִּי נְחָשׁ אָכְלָה מַדֲּקָה וּשְׁאָרָא בְּרַגְלַיהּ רָפְסָה.

¹⁹ Then I wanted to ascertain the true meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from them all, very fearsome, with teeth of iron, claws of bronze, that devoured and crushed, and stamped the remains;

^ז:כ וְעַל קַרְנַיָּא עֲשַׂר דִּי בְרֵאשַׁהּ וְאָחֳרִי דִּי סִלְקַת ונפלו [וּנְפַלָה] מִן קדמיה [קֳדָמַהּ] תְּלָת וְקַרְנָא דִכֵּן וְעַיְנִין לַהּ וְפֻם מְמַלִּל רַבְרְבָן וְחֶזְוַהּ רַב מִן חַבְרָתַהּ.

²⁰ and of the ten horns on its head; and of the new one that sprouted, to make room for which three fell — the horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spoke arrogantly, and which was more conspicuous than its fellows.

The term קדיש in reference to heavenly and/or angelic beings is found in 4:10,14,20, and probably carries a similar meaning throughout this chapter; see also 8:13; Ps 89:6,8; and throughout Qumran literature. Verses 21–22 interrupt the progression of the interpretation of the fourth beast as described in the vision. Moreover, they describe new content of the vision, introduced by the formulaic expression חזה הוית, which is more appropriate for the first half of the chapter (vv. 1–14), which describes the vision itself. It is possible that these verses were added under the influence of 8:10–12 in an effort to harmonize the different apocalypses to one another.

^{דניאל ז:כו} וְדִינָא יִתִּב וְשָׁלְטָנֵהּ יְהַעְדּוֹן לְהַשְׁמָדָה וּלְהוֹבָדָה עַד סוֹפָא. ^ז:כזוּמַלְכוּתָה וְשָׁלְטָנָא וּרְבוּתָא דִּי מַלְכְוָת תְּחוֹת כָּל שְׁמַיָּא יְהִיבַת לְעַם קַדִּישֵׁי עֶלְיוֹנִין מַלְכוּתֵהּ מַלְכוּת עָלַם וְכֹל שָׁלְטָנַיָּא לֵהּ יִפְלְחוּן וְיִשְׁתַּמְּעוּן.

^{Dan 7:26} Then the court will sit and his dominion will be taken away, to be destroyed and abolished for all time.^7:27 The kingship and dominion and grandeur belonging to all the kingdoms under Heaven will be given to the people of the Most High Holy One(s). Their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.

See the appendix in Wills, “The Lead Up to Chanukah in the Book of Daniel,” for a verse by verse parsing of this chapter, explaining the various historical allusions.

See the possibilities for various historical identifications of all ten kings in Collins, Daniel, 320–321.

The meaning of this verb is not sufficiently clear, although its generally negative tone is apparent from the context. The general meaning of the Hebrew root בל”י is “wear out, wear down” (BDB, 115, s.v. בָּלַה; HALOT, 132, s.v. בלה), and usually refers to a physical object that is worn out, although in 1Chr 17:19 it concerns the nation of Israel. It could perhaps therefore be used metaphorically here to refer to some sort of blow against God. Variations of this meaning are found in the ancient translations and subsequent interpreters (Old Greek; Theodotion; Vulgate; Rashi; BDB; HALOT). Further consideration should be given to a suggestion first put forth by Noth, “Holy Ones,” 224–225, according to which the verb is based upon a Semitic root related to the Arabic balā with the meaning “to offend, test, handle roughly, torment”. In fact, that Semitic root is actually broader semantically, and refers to speech in general, as in the Ethiopic behla which is the standard verb of speech. Akkadian baʿālu, bâlu carries the meaning “to beseech”, usually in the context of human requests to deities (CAD, vol. B, 2, s.v. baʿālu B). Wolf Leslau,Comparative Dictionary of Ge`ez [Weisbaden: Harrasowitz, 1987], 89, s.v. behla, also compares the Ge`ez verb to the Akkadian verb and to the Arabic (bhl) ibtahala “implore, beseech”. Based upon the parallel to וּמִלִּין לְצַד… יְמַלִּל “speak words against” in this verse, it should perhaps be translated here as “speak (against).” Cf. James C. VanderKam, “BHL in Ps 2:5 and its Etymology,” CBQ 39 (1977): 245–250, who identifies a similar meaning for the Biblical Hebrew verb בהל in Ps 2:5, offering “speak passionately”).

This is in my opinion a reference to YHWH (see also Boyarin, “Daniel 7”). Most translations read “Holy Ones of the Most High,” and assume it refers to angels, but this is not how I understand it. For a discussion of this expression, see Segal,Dreams, 139–143.

Collins, Daniel, 321–322.

Carol Newson, Daniel: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 240.

The final phrase of the verse, עַד עִדָּן וְעִדָּנִין וּפְלַג עִדָּן, is enigmatic. The standard translation is “for a time, times, and half a time” and is generally interpreted as meaning 3.5 years. I have recently suggested a new interpretation for this clause, but it is beyond the scope of the discussion here; see Michael Segal, “Calculating the End: Inner-Danielic Chronological Developments,” Vetus Testamentum (forthcoming).

Collins, Daniel, 322. James C. VanderKam, “2 Maccabees 6, 7a and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem,” JSJ 12 (1981): 52–74 at 55–60 suggested that this is a reference to an attempt at calendrical reform by Antiochus IV. However, this is not attested as a concern anywhere else in Daniel.

This argument is even stronger in reference to Daniel 11, which describes an extremely high number of historical events in detail, and therefore its date of composition can be ascertained even more precisely.