Bible Studies - Русские страницы - Ветхий Завет

The tale of Dan 7,2-14 is a strange one: in a night vision Daniel sees four terrifying beasts arise from the sea. The beasts are then described. Thrones are set and an Ancient of Days takes his place, the books are opened and the judgement begins. The fourth beast is killed and his body burnt with fire, while the rest are allowed to live for a time although their dominion is taken away. Then 'One like a Son of Man' comes 'with the clouds of heaven' and is given everlasting dominion and all peoples are to serve him. This paper aims to explore the antecedents of the mythic pattern of the vision.

Scholars have long recognised that Dan 7,2-14 has a mythological background¹. Gunkel, in 1895, posited that this was the Babylonian Enuma Elish². More recent scholarship, following the lead of Bentzen³, prefers a Canaanite background⁴, although an Akkadian source has also been suggested⁵, amongst others⁶.

Canaanite mythological texts, hitherto discovered, while they do allude to Baal's overcoming of Yam (sea), Nahar (river) and Mot (death or sterility) do not parallel the outline of Dan 7,2-14. In the Ugaritic myth of Baal and Yam⁷ the sequence of events has a different order, as Ferch⁸ pointed out a number of years ago. J.J. Collins who continues to support the Baal and Yam myth as the background to Dan 7,2-14 warned against an argument advanced by Ferch that the overall theme of the myth must be similar for a dependence to be adduced⁹. Further, he pointed out that each culture adapted earlier myths to fit their own understanding of their situation, a point with which the present writer concurs. Nevertheless in the present case, not only is the main theme of the Baal myth one of rivalry, provoked by jealousy between two gods, there are few details in the myth which find a reflection in Dan 7,2-14: there is no mention of the winds of heaven bringing about the ensuing situation¹⁰ nor of beasts of any kind emerging from, or being part of, the sea. Neither is there mention of such beasts being allowed to survive although their dominion is taken away, nor is Yam, Baal's adversary killed by fire. The only points of similarity with Dan 7,2-14 are (1) the presence of a sea and (2) the similarity of the descriptions of Baal and 'One like a Son of Man': Baal is called, 'Rider on the Clouds'¹¹ whilst 'One like a Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven'; Baal is urged: Take your everlasting kingdom, your dominion for ever and ever'¹² and 'One like a Son of Man' 'was given ... an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away and his kingdom will not be destroyed'. These obvious similarities between Baal and 'One like a Son of Man' in Daniel were pointed out by Emerton in 1958¹³ as was (3) the third similarity between the Baal myth and Dan 7 with the former describing El as 'Father of Years' and the latter, God as 'Ancient of Days'. However, as these are the only real points of contact between the two texts, they are not sufficient in themselves to support the contention that Dan 7,2-14 derived its mythic pattern from Canaan. Further consideration will be given below to the figure of One like a Son of Man and an Ancient of Days in an attempt to account for the apparent similarity of their descriptions with Canaanite deities¹⁴.

Those scholars who assert that Canaanite mythology is the mythic background for Dan 7,2-14 have difficulty in explaining how such mythology was transmitted to our author. Bentzen¹⁵ posited that he accessed it through the royal cult. Such a position is dependent, in turn, upon the acceptance of Mowinckel's theory that there was an Israelite New Year Festival, which celebrated YHWH's victory over a chaos monster ¹⁶. This theory is grounded

upon various biblical passages which mention YHWH killing such a monster, including some psalms whose Sitz im Leben is likely to have been the Temple: Rahab in Ps 89,10 and Isa 51,9; Leviathan in Ps 74,14 and Isa 27,1; the sea monster(s) (tannоn) in Isa 51,9, Ps 74,13 and a probable allusion in Jer 51,34¹⁷. The hypothetical nature of the Enthronement Festival aside, how would the author of Dan 7,2-14, writing in the second century B.C., have had access to it? It was posited by Mowinckel that it was part of the royal cult but Kingship (to all intents and purposes), and thus the royal cult, ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 587-586 B.C. Possible remnants in the Psalms and Prophets of such a festival are too fragmentary to have furnished the mythic pattern of Daniel's vision¹⁸. Collins has suggested that Daniel may have had access to some second century B.C. version of the myth¹⁹ but the weakness of this position has been highlighted by Mosca, both from the point of view of the unlikelihood of direct borrowing from Canaan and from a lack of direct evidence as to the second century format of a Baal myth²⁰. Mosca has suggested that the Canaanite material was mediated to the author of Dan 7 via Ps 89²¹. That Ps 89 contains imagery which derives from Canaanite mythology is clear²², and although the present writer agrees with Mosca that Ps 89 has been undervalued as a source for Daniel's vision²³ nevertheless the similarities between the two texts are not sufficiently great for Ps 89 to have been the prototype for the mythic pattern of the entire Danielic vision: The four winds do not feature, only one beast appears and it is not killed by fire; there is no judgement scene (although 'throne' and 'judgement' are both mentioned). Mosca himself recognises aspects of dissimilarity between the two texts and attributes these to their varying purposes and timeframes ²⁴.

A search of Mesopotamia texts proved more fruitful in the search for a forerunner to the mythic pattern of Dan 7,2-14²⁵. It is my contention that Gunkel's thesis in 1895 of a correspondence between the Enuma Elish and Daniel has been undervalued. This is likely to have happened for two reasons: firstly Gunkel's treatment does not refer in a sufficiently precise way to all the similarities and secondly, the discoveries at Ugarit drew scholarly attention away from the Enuma Elish²⁶.

In the following table the correspondences between Dan 7,2-14 and the Enuma Elish are delineated.

Daniel 7	Enuma Elish
The four winds of heaven²⁷ caused²⁸ the great sea²⁹ to break forth (Dan 7,2).	...Anu formed and produced four winds... He caused a wave and it roiled Tiamat (Ee I 105,108 ³⁰).
Four great beasts arise from the sea which had been disturbed; the first three are characterised in terms of known creatures (Dan 7,3-6).	Eleven³¹ monsters, who are described in terms of known animals, real or mythological, result from Tiamat having been disturbed (Ee I 134-144; also II 20-30; III 24-34,82-92).

The fourth beast is terrible and powerful etc. It was different from all beasts that were before it (Dan 7,7). N.B. Unlike the previous creatures the fourth beast is not likened to any known animal.	Qingu³² was to lead the army of monsters; he was made greater than all the other gods of chaos (Ee I 148; also II 34; III 38,96). N.B Qingu is not described in physical terms.
A little horn comes up, before which three of the first horns are plucked up by the roots. In the horn were eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth speaking great things (Dan 7,8).
Thrones were placed. And one that was [Ancient of Days] sat. The Ancient of Days and his throne are described (Dan 7,9bc.10a). A stream of fire issued and came forth from before him, A thousand thousands served him And ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; The judgement was set and the books were opened. (Dan 7,9-10)	All the great gods, ordainers (of destinies) came before Anshar... (Ee III 130-131). To Marduk, their champion they ordained destiny. They set out for him a princely dais (Ee III 138–IV 1). Then follows a eulogy of Marduk and eternal kingship is conferred on him. With raging fire he covered his body (Ee III 130–IV 40).
...The beast was slain and his body destroyed and he was given to the burning of fire (Dan 7,11).	Qingu was killed. His blood was shed and mankind was made from it (Ee VI 13-32). However in texts recovered from the Babylonian New Year's Festival Marduk burnt Qingu³³.
And as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time (Dan 7,12).	The rest of the monsters were taken captive (Qingu was at first among them) (Ee IV 115-120,127).
...There came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man And he came even to the Ancient of Days and they caused him to approach before him (Dan 7,13).	Marduk is urged: Draw near, approach Anshar (Ee II 134). He drew near and waited upon Anshar (Ee II 137).

And to him was given dominion and glory and sovereignty That all peoples, nations and languages should serve him.	Marduk is given dominion over the gods and over mankind (Ee VI 93-107; cf. also IV 14). They established him forever for Lordship of heaven and earth (Ee VI 100).
His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away And his sovereignty will not be destroyed. (Dan 7,14)	Henceforth your command can not be changed (Ee IV 7).

Several aspects of the correspondence strongly suggest that the author of Daniel was aware of the Enuma Elish:
(1) in both there is a connection between the four winds of heaven and the stirring up of the sea or waves;
(2) a number of monstrous animals result from the sea or Tiamat having been disturbed;
(3) Qingu, like the fourth beast in Daniel, is not characterised by the name of a known creature, whereas the earlier ones are in both the Enuma Elish and Daniel;
(4) the survival of all the beasts, bar one, occurs in both Daniel and the Enuma Elish;
(5) in both texts the last beast of chaos is the most terrible;
(6) the last beast is killed by fire in Daniel and such a tradition was present in the Babylonian New Year Festival;
(7) everlasting dominion is given to One like a Son of Man in Daniel and to Marduk in the Enuma Elish.

In addition there are some correspondences in vocabulary between Daniel and the Enuma Elish, although, with the exception of the word for 'four' (a common semitic word) these are not on an etymological level ³⁴. In key places where similar statements are made in the Enuma Elish and Dan 7 the Akkadian does not have an Aramaic correspondent deriving from the same root. Rather, the author of Daniel has had to use an Aramaic word with the same meaning but deriving from a different root. Correspondences that were discovered are as follows:
(1) 'the four winds' (Dan 7,2 cf. Ee I 105,108);
(2) the causative form of the respective verbs is used for the disturbance of the sea (Dan 7,2; cf. Ee I 105,108);
(3) 'fire' issues from both the Ancient of Days and Marduk (Dan 7,10 cf. Ee IV 40);
(4) 'He came to the Ancient of Days and they caused him to approach before him' (Dan 7,13); cf. 'Draw near, approach Anshar' (Ee II 134) and 'He drew near and waited upon Anshar' (Ee II 137).

The sparse nature of the linguistic correspondences, but the strong thematic similarities, suggest that the author of Daniel was aware of the Enuma Elish and was drawing upon his memory rather than upon a written text when he wrote his vision.

4. Transmuted elements and aspects of discontinuity between the Enuma Elish and Daniel

What becomes clear in this comparison between Dan 7,2-14 and the Enuma Elish is that the polytheistic aspects of the latter have been transmuted. Tiamat has become the great sea; the monsters of chaos are no longer gods but human powers; the gods who determine the destinies are, in Daniel, the thousand thousands who served him and the ten thousand times ten thousand who stood before him; the Ancient of Days embodies aspects of Anshar, Anu and Marduk in that Anshar and Anu, whose names are virtually interchangeable in the epic, represent the great high god whose position is then given to Marduk because of his ability to overcome the monsters of chaos. It is said of the Ancient of Days that he sat when thrones were placed; Marduk does likewise in Ee VI 93-94. Further as 'a stream of fire issued and came forth from before him [the Ancient of Days]'(Dan 7,9) so Marduk covered his body with fire (Ee IV 40). There is another reference in the Epic to Marduk's fiery aspect: 'When he moved his lips a fire broke out' (Ee I 96). Nevertheless some of Marduk's aspects are similar to those belonging to 'One like a Son of Man' in Daniel as a comparison of Dan 7,14 and Ee IV 7,14 shows. In Dan 7,10 we learn that 'the books were opened' whereas in Ee IV 33 the gods 'ordained the Lord's (i.e. Marduk's) destiny'.

The main lack of correspondence between the cited passages of the Enuma Elish and Daniel is that Marduk is summoned to the divine court and enthroned prior to judgement being passed upon Qingu and his fellow monsters whereas 'One like a Son of Man' enters the tale only after the punishment of the four beasts. It may be, though, that his prior appearence is implied in Dan 7,9 which says, 'thrones [in the plural] were placed'. Aware of the theological problems raised by such a translation, some scholars have posited that wymr be read as 'were cast down'³⁵. If such a translation is correct then it would indicate that the thrones of the beasts 'were cast down'. In terms of logic this does not accord with the chronological unfolding of the text of Dan 7 for 'the judgement was set and the books were opened' at the end of verse 10 after the Divine court had been convened, not before it. Further, after the killing and burning of the fourth beast in verse 11 it is stated in verse 12, concerning the rest of the beasts, that 'they had their dominion taken away'. This would have been an unnecessary statement to make if it had already been said in verse 9.

It was pointed out earlier that a close similarity has been claimed for the Danielic One like a Son of Man and Baal in the Ugaritic myth because both have been given dominion and they are each connected in some way to the clouds. However Marduk also was given dominion and it should be noted that in Ee II [118] Marduk is urged: 'Make straight, quickly, with the storm chariot'. The word 'chariot' is uncertain but 'storm' is not. Interestingly Anu is described elsewhere as 'Rider of great storms'³⁶. Riding on storms' implies 'storm clouds'. The 'cloud' imagery then appears in both Canaanite and Babylonian mythology.

It has been argued that in the Bible no figure other than YHWH rode on the clouds (Deut 33,26; 2 Sam 22,11; Isa 19,1; Ps 68,34) and thus the imagery for One like a Son of Man doing the same thing must be derived from a Canaanite source which accepts more than one divinity³⁷. It should be noted however that Daniel does not say that One like a Son of Man rode upon the clouds rather that he came with the clouds of heaven. In other words the clouds of heaven, like the winds of heaven at the beginning of the vision, are under the command of God. Just as he caused the beasts of chaos to appear, so he can bring near One like a Son of Man through the agency of his clouds. The apparent similarity of the descriptions of Baal and One like a Son of Man is not as close then as has been suggested. As far as the Ancient of Days is concerned, it has long been posited by scholars that descriptions of God as old in the Bible³⁸ are just as, if not more, likely to lie behind the title than a direct borrowing from El's epithet, 'Father of Years'. In this case, the author of Daniel has drawn on Biblical passages that may themselves have been influenced by Canaanite ideas.

At first it occurred to the present author to wonder whether a hitherto undiscovered Canaanite text existed that paralleled the Enuma Elish, and to which the author of Daniel had access. It is possible that such a text existed particularly in view of the Biblical references to mythological creatures with Canaanite names. There is no evidence to suggest though that Daniel would have had access to such a myth. Further, the phrase 'the four winds of heaven' only appears in post-biblical texts i.e. those that had the possibility of having been influenced by contact with Babylonian literature from the time of the Exile onwards.

Naturally the question of how the author would have had access to the Enuma Elish poses itself. In recent years the provenance of the court tales in Daniel has received much attention, with general agreement that they originated and circulated in the Diaspora, probably Babylonia³⁹. It is not unreasonable to suppose, therefore, that Dan 7 also originated in Babylonia or was written in Israel by a Babylonian Jew. Dan 1,4 posits that youths like Daniel were taught the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans, although admittedly it refers to a period earlier than the likely time of writing of the vision of Dan 7. Learning would have included acquiring knowledge of the great Babylonian traditions, of which the Enuma Elish was one. It is known that the New Year's Festival, where the Enuma Elish was recited, continued until the third century or later i.e. into the Hellenistic period⁴⁰. Many scholars have objected that Daniel was a pious Jew and it is therefore unthinkable that he would have drawn material from a foreign cult. I am in agreement with this insight which appears to contradict my claim that the mythic pattern of Daniel's vision is similar to that of the Enuma Elish. How can both be right? I would like to suggest the following hypothesis: an educated Jew who lived in Babylon for any length of time would undoubtedly have become familiar with the outline of the Enuma Elish. Aware of allusions in Biblical passages to YHWH killing chaos monsters (but passages which are too brief to have been the prototype for Daniel's vision), it might have been supposed that a full version of the Biblical chaos tradition would have been similar in outline to the Enuma Elish, albeit without its polytheistic elements. In this way the author of Daniel could have constructed his vision, utilising imagery from the Bible⁴¹, some of which ultimately derived from Canaan, within the framework of a mythic pattern from Babylon: a mythic pattern, describing the overcoming of the forces of chaos and the ensuing kingship of the champion of the gods, transformed to accord with the religious beliefs and political history of Israel from the time of the Exile onwards.

This paper focuses upon a re-examination of the mythological background to the apocalyptic vision of Daniel 7. The popularly accepted Canaanite source is rejected as the points of correspondence are shown to be even slighter than recognised hitherto. Gunkel's thesis of the Enuma Elish as similar to Dan 7 is revived and given further support. It is pointed out that whereas the question of access, for the author of Daniel, to the Baal mythology is problematic, the Enuma Elish was still being recited in the Hellenistic period.

¹ One dissenting voice is M. Casey who posits that mythological references were unintentional on Daniel's part, rather they were simply a feature of the Biblical passages upon which he drew; cf. M. CASEY, Son of Man. The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London 1979) 18.

² H. GUNKEL, Schцpfung and Chaos in Urzeit und Endseit. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung ьber Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12 (Gцttingen 1895) esp. 323-335.

⁴ J.J. Collins, amongst others, is an ardent supporter of a Canaanite mythological background for Dan 7,2-14; cf. J.J. COLLINS, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (HSM 16; Missoula 1977) 96-106, esp. 105-106; IDEM, Daniel. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis 1993) 286-294; IDEM, "Stirring up the Great Sea The Religio-Historical Background of Daniel 7", The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (ed. A.S. VAN DER WOUDE) (BETL 106; Leuven 1993) 121-136.

⁵ The Vision of the Netherworld, an Akkadian dream vision, dated about the seventh century B.C., has been suggested as the prototype for Dan 7,2-14 by H.S. KVANVIG, "An Akkadian Vision as Background for Daniel 7", StTh 35 [1981] 85-89; IDEM, Roots of Apocalyptic. The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and the Son of Man (WMANT 61; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988) 345-555.

⁶ Other suggestions relate to the origin of the Son of Man imagery. For a summary and critique thereof cf. J.J. COLLINS, Daniel, 282-283.

⁷ The translation used in this essay follows J.C.L. GIBSON, Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh 1977) 37-45; for the sake of convenience references to KTU have been added.

⁸ A.J. FERCH, "Daniel 7 and Ugarit: A Reconsideration", JBL 99 (1980) 75-86.

⁹ J.J. COLLINS, "Apocalyptic Genre and Mythic Allusions in Daniel", JSOT 21 (1981) 83-100, esp. 91-93.

¹⁰ In the Canaanite myth the sea (Yam) is in rebellion against El whereas in Daniel the four winds of heaven (God) cause the sea to bring forth the beasts. The sea then is an instrument of God not an opposing force.

¹³ J.A. EMERTON, "The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery", JTS 9 (1958) 225-242.

¹⁴ The other text from Ugarit which concerns Baal in conflict with an adversary is that of Baal and Mot. However Mot overcomes Baal and it was the goddess Anat who killed Mot in order to free Baal. This text has no points of contact with Dan 7,2-14; see GIBSON, Canaanite Myths, 68-81 [= KTU 1.6]. P.G. MOSCA, "Ugarit and Daniel 7: A Missing Link", Bib 67 (1986) 496-512, draws attention to a scholarly dispute as to whether the two Baal texts form a unity or are separate; cf. esp. 502-508. For the present paper there is no need to enter the debate.

¹⁶ S. MOWINCKEL, Psalmenstudien. II. Das Thronbesteigungsfest Jahwдs und der Ursprung der Eshatologie (Kristiania 1922).

¹⁷ Other passages which mention these creatures although YHWH is not represented as killing them, are (a) Rahab: Job 9,13; 26,12; Isa 30,7; Ps 87,4; (b) Leviathan: Job 41,1; Ps 106,6; (c) the tannоn (as sea monsters): Gen 1,21; Deut 32,33; Job 7,12; Pss 91,13, 148,7; Lam 4,3.

¹⁹ COLLINS, Apocalyptic Vision, 102-104. Collins plays down this suggestion in later works (IDEM, "Stirring up the Great Sea", 132; IDEM, Daniel, 292).

²³ Prior to Mosca, only vv. 10-11 [9-10] which relate to YHWH's triumph over the sea and the defeat of Rahab were adduced as being similar to aspects of Daniel's vision. The present writer is preparing a book which considers the Bible as a key to Daniel and in it Ps 89 will feature as the backgound to some, but not all, of the imagery of the vision in Dan 7.

²⁵ H.S. Kvanvig posited that an Akkadian vision of the Netherworld was the prototype for Daniel (cf. n. 5). COLLINS, Daniel, 284-286, gives a critique, with which the present writer agrees, of Kvanvig's position, suggesting that although there are superficial similarities, the pattern of relationships is different in the two visions.

²⁶ In a recent article A.P. HAYMAN, "The Man from the Sea in 4 Ezra 13", JJS 49 (1998) 1-16, asserts his belief, in passing, that Daniel 7 derives from the Babylonian account of creation as does E. LUCAS, "Resolving the Enigma", VT 50 (2000) 66-80; see esp. 69-70.

²⁷ It is noteworthy that the four winds are from heaven i.e. under the control of God. It is He who causes the great sea to break forth. MOSCA, "Ugarit and Daniel 7", 500, n. 19, makes this point also. YHWH is not in conflict with the sea as Collins asserts (COLLINS, Apocalyptic Vision, 105; IDEM, Daniel, 288).

²⁸ The root xyg or xwg appears elsewhere in the Bible only six times. It is used of 'bringing forth' in birth (Mic 4,10; Ps 22,10[9]) and Job 38,8 links the notion to the sea breaking forth. Two passages posit that adult humans 'break forth' and the implication is that this is in a violent manner. These are Ezek 32,2 and Judg 20,33. The former describes Pharaoh in terms of a chaos monster whereas the latter concerns a battle in which '...the liers in wait of Israel broke forth out of their place...' There are contextual links then between the chaos tradition and the use of xyg in the Bible. Theodotion, the Vulgate and Rashi have 'fought with' or 'attacked' but this is probably too strong a translation. 'Stirred up' is the commonest modern translation but as xyg in the aphel has a causative sense the present writer wanted to make this clear, hence the translation above. Such a translation underlines the function of (the four winds of) heaven in what is to follow. It indicates God's reversal of his shutting up the sea, when it was about to break forth in Job 38,8. There may also be an allusion to Judg 20,33 ('the liers in wait of Israel break forth...') for it is the only Biblical passage which uses the hiphil participle (i.e. the hebrew equivalent of the aramaic aphel participle) and, of course, the beasts which arise from the sea are nations which dominate Israel.

²⁹ The majority of scholars see here a reference to the sea of chaos rather than the Mediterranean which the expression 'the great sea' indicates elsewhere in the Bible. J. GOLDINGAY, Daniel (WBC 30; Dallas 1988) 160, and CASEY, Son of Man, 18, are the only recent scholars to argue for the Mediterranean. A.E. GARDNER, "The Great Sea of Dan. vii 2", VT 49 (1999) 402-405, points out that in Pss 74,13-14; 104,25-26; Isa 51,9-10 there is a blurring of the distinction between an actual and a mythological sea. Further Ps 104,25-26 is likely to have been used by the author of Daniel in the construction of his narrative as four words from Dan 7,2-3 appear there, including lwdg My.

³⁰ All quotations from the Enuma Elish are takes from B. FOSTER, "Epic of Creation (1.111)", The Context of Scripture (ed. W.W. HALLO) (Leiden 1997) 390-402.

³¹ Each time, two lines after the list of monsters is given, the number is specified as eleven.

³² Some translators render the name as Kingu, e.g., A. HEIDEL, The Babylonian Genesis. The Story of the Creation (Chicago ²1951); S. LANGDON, The Babylonian Epic of Creation (Oxford 1923), but B. FOSTER, "Epic of Creation", and S. DALLEY, Myths from Mesopotamia (Oxford 1989) prefer Qingu. FOSTER, Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Bethesda 1993) I, 359, n. 3, refers to Th. JACOBSEN, The Harab Myth (SANE II.3; Malibu 1984) 16, who suggests that the name comes from the Sumerian word for 'work' hence the creation of mankind from Qingu's blood. (Mankind was created, according to Ee VI 8 to spare the gods from work.)

³³ Cf. LANGDON, The Babylonian Epic of Creation, 21, n. 1, also 23. In his note Langdon refers to H. ZIMMERN, Zum Babilonischen Neujahrfest (BSGW 58; Berlin 1906) 131, and n. 2, who, he says, compares the burning of Kingu with the fourth beast in Daniel.

³⁴ I would like to thank Dr. Noel Weeks of Sydney University for his transcription of key cuneiform words and his advice concerning a lack of a common etymology between the Akkkadian and the corresponding Aramaic. This enabled me to render a judgement concerning the nature of Daniel's relationship to the Enuma Elish.

³⁵ The AV provides this translation which also appears in many traditional Jewish commentaries. For details cf. MONTGOMERY, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh 1927) 299-300.

³⁹ Cf. MONTGOMERY, Daniel, 90; W.L. HUMPHREYS, "Life Style for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel", JBL 92 (1973) 211-223; P.R. DAVIES, Daniel (OTGu; Sheffield 1985) 54-55; COLLINS, Apocalyptic Vision, 55; IDEM, Daniel, 48. By contrast, J.G. GAMMIE, "The Classification, Stages of Growth and Changing Intentions of the Book of Daniel", JBL 95 (1976) 191-204, argues for the provenance of the court tales being Ptolemaic Egypt as do J.C.H. LEBRAM, Das Buch Daniel (ZBK.AT 23; Zьrich 1984) 20; O.H. STECK, "Weltgeschehen und Gottesvolk im Buche Daniel", Kirche (FS. G. Bornkamm; [eds. D. LЬHRMAN – G. STRECKER] Tьbingen 1980) 53-78; E. HAAG, Die Errettung Daniels aus der Lцwengrube. Untersuchungen zum Ursprung der biblischen Danieltradition (SBS 110; Stuttgart 1983) 94.

⁴¹ Cf. n. 23, 28. In my book in preparation I show that many details of Daniel's vision can be accounted for through Biblical allusion.

Daniel 7,2-14: Another Look at its Mythic Pattern