Part 55
D. Historical Context. 1. After the Exile, and the return of exiles to Judah, the Judeans lived under Persians (until 331) then under Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic-Egyptian kingdom of the Ptolemies. In 199 Judah was captured by the Hellenistic-Syrian kingdom of the Seleucids. Daniel deals simultaneously with the beginning and end of that timespan. Daniel's lifetime lasts from the beginning of the exile of Judeans under Nebuchadrezzar (always called Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel) until the reign of Cyrus. Daniel's actual dates of birth and death are not given, but the fact that his life
2. The stories fall into two types: deliverance stories and interpretation stories. Deliverance stories (chs. i, 3, 6) relate some miraculous preservation or rescue of the hero or heroes. Interpretation stories (chs. 2,4,5) f°cus on the hero's remarkable ability to explain a puzzling sign, whether a dream or writing on a wall. The two genres combine in important ways to present a single theme: the God of Daniel is the omnipotent lord who controls history, setting up and removing earthly
D A N I E L 564
coincides with the exile of the Judeans is the significant point. The other period is that which the visions clearly point to: the time of the last kingdom, the final persecution and ultimate deliverance of the righteous: in other words, the end of history. Is the book, then, a prediction of events centuries ahead of its time, or a history veiled in the form of prediction? Those who dislike the idea of what one commentator called a 'fraud' argue for a sixth-century BCE date, and a real Daniel as the author. The majority of scholars, however, accept that the visions, at least, betray a knowledge of the time at which the 'end' is set, which can be deduced as the reign of the
chronological settings: the stories are assigned individually to the kings from Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus, and the visions recapitulate this sequence. An important structural role is also played by ch. 7, which is bound to the preceding stories through its language (Aramaic) and its similarities with ch. 2, while it shares the same form as chs. 8—12 and indeed sets the agenda for the visions that follow. Hence the HB book of Daniel seems to have an intentional unity—obscured by the Greek book with its closing 'detective stories'.
Seleucid (Syrian) king Antiochus IV, known as Epiphanes. Antiochus banned Jewish practices, desecrated the temple, and provoked a war of resistance under the leadership of the Maccabees which, after his death, succeeded in restoring the temple and traditional Jewish religious practices.
Setting the Scene (1:1-21)
(1:1^7) The 'third year of the reign of Jehoiakim' is hard to reconcile with 2 Kings 24:1-6, Jer 25:1, and the Babylonian Chronicle, and may be based on a misunderstanding of other biblical texts. But the point here is to note the vessels taken
2. The main reasons for assigning a Maccabean date to the book (at least in its final form) are (a) some inaccuracies that a sixth-century writer ought not to have made, (b) the presence of a genuine prediction at the end of the book which we now know to be incorrect, and (c) the popularity of a kind of pseudo-historical writing among Jews of the Maccabean period and later, in which figures of antiquity were made to foretell the future (e.g. Enoch, Noah, the twelve sons of Jacob).
(ch. 5), the Babylonian names of the four youths (ch. 3), and their introduction to the court, thus anticipating key elements of the stories, as well as Daniel's knowledge of Aramaic. Note also how the theme of'the Lord' (Heb. 'adonay: 'YHWH' is used in Daniel only in ch. 9) giving kings into the power of other kings is introduced immediately. (1:8-21) Many scholars think that the issue here is the observance of Jewish dietary laws, but no Jewish laws prescribe vegetarian diet. Either meat (and wine) are avoided for fear that it has been offered to Babylonian gods (thus implicating the youths in idolatry) or as a demonstration that the youths do not need the favours of the king, for they serve another heavenly king. Note how, although they have been educated in the Babylonian school (v. 5), they are said to have learned from God (v. 17), and in the case of Daniel, specifically the understanding of'visions and dreams'. Thus, the theme of conflict between earthly and divine kingship and wisdom is neatly brought out, and the chapter has served its purpose as an introduction either to the whole book of Daniel or at least to a cycle of Daniel stories that may have once existed independently.
3. However, it seems probable that while the visions come from the second century BCE, the stories (chs. 2—6) may be a good deal earlier. For they represent foreign kings as foolish but ultimately persuaded, while Jews are promoted to high office at court. The climax of the tale is usually the king learning his lesson. In the visions, however, we are presented with an ever-increasing hostility towards the Jewish God and his people, which only their total destruction will solve. The perspective of the stories seems to be that of Jews living under a relatively benign rule (the Persians ?) while that of the visions suggests Jews in Judah under a malign ruler. It is therefore likely that the book of Daniel has a long and complex history. This possibility is supported by the discovery of a story about an unknown Jewish exile and the Babylonian king Nabonidus, found among the Dead Sea scrolls and remarkably similar to the story of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel ch. 3
(4QPrNab). Yet, the story of Belshazzar's feast (ch. 5) marks a contrast to the theme of the other stories with its negative portrayal of the king who dies for his insolence, and may well have been inspired by the figure of Antiochus.
Daniel's First Success (2:1-49)
This story does not quite hang together. Is Daniel known to the king or not? And why does Daniel's interpretation of the dream introduce new details? Is it the original interpretation? The story shows signs of some editing (Davies 1976).
4. Finally, it is worth contrasting the relatively serene and optimistic mood of the stories, in which one High God is in supreme control and succession from one kingdom to another passes smoothly with the very different world-view of the visions, where the succession of power is violent—not just on earth but in the heavenly realm too, as the celestial patrons of each nation fight it out among themselves. The departure of the one supreme God from participation in this scenario
(2:1—12) In Daniel dreams typically leave the dreamer troubled (cf 4:5; 5:6; 5:9; 7:15, 28). The list of interpreting professions is also often repeated (cf. 1:20; 2:27; 4:7; 5:11), perhaps to contrast the single figure of Daniel. The requirement to tell the dream as well as the interpretation is a unique element, and the underlying message, that this cannot be done through human wisdom but only through 'the gods', is emphasized in w. 10—n; the Babylonian interpreters are made to confess that they are not truly inspired from heaven.
(marked by ch. 7 where he hands power to another figure) is both remarkable and disturbing, suggesting an underlying view of the world's subsequent history that is rather pessimistic.
(2:13—23) According to this section, Daniel is one of the royal wise men, and a companion of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. He is thus sought to be killed with the rest, presupposing the events of ch. i. But why was he not summoned at first or, if he was, could not give the interpretation? And why does v. 24
E. Structure. Despite the differences between the two halves of the book (language, form, setting, mood), there are features that bind the book together. The two most obvious are the
DANIEL 565
repeat v. 14? The reason is probably that the writer of ch. i has inserted w. 13—23. The original story presented Daniel as a hitherto unknown Jewish exile who had to be introduced to the king by one of his officers. It seems, then, that this story was once an independent tale, which has been integrated by means of this inserted passage. As the story now stands, Daniel and his friends act to preserve their lives and those of the wise men, and to pray for the 'mystery' from God. 'Mystery' here refers to the secret message (given by dream or any other means) which needs interpreting, and such a scheme reflects the mantic culture of Babylonia in which various guilds of diviners attempted to learn the will of the gods by means of the interpretation of natural phenomena taken as signs. Although the book of Daniel apparently opposes Babylonian mantic practices, it in fact adopts them. The prayer
originally meant the Babylonians of Nebuchadrezzar's time, but under the Persians came to mean a class of mantic interpreter. It is generally used in this later sense in Daniel (1:4; 2:2, 4, 5,10; 4:7; 5:7, n) but in 5:30 and 9:1 has its earlier meaning, w. 17-18 are important in raising the uncertainty of being rescued, perhaps hinting that the story arose or was applied to a time of persecution when not every loyal Jew could be sure of escaping suffering and death. (It is perhaps to meet this case that the hope of resurrection is finally raised in ch. 12.) (3:19-27) v. 22, punishment of persecutors also needs to be included! Cf. 6:24 and Esth 7:9—10. v. 25, the fourth person having the 'appearance of a god' suggests one of the heavenly emissaries such as found in the visions (the Greek text here has an angel quenching the flames). Note that it is this fourth person (whom Nebuchadnezzar identifies as an angel), as much as the preservation of the other three, that amazes the king and prompts him to summon the youths out. (3:28-30) The king's reaction is told in as exaggerated a manner as the rest of the account. He does not yet convert to the Jewish God (see the end of ch. 4), but makes another royal decree, involving equally violent sanctions—for he remains a typical foreign king!—prohibiting offences against the God of the youths. Their promotion to even higher office is part of the genre (see DAN 2:46—9).
(20-3) nevertheless stresses that such interpretation is not an art but is possible only by direct intervention from the true God.
(2:24—45) Presented now as a hitherto unknown 'exile of Judah', Daniel surprises the king by telling him both dream and interpretation. The sequence of metals may reflect an ancient belief in which the ages of the world were symbolized by metal, the course of time showing a gradual deterioration in quality. Interpreting the successively baser metals as kingdoms contrasts with chs. 7-8 where each kingdom is more powerful than its predecessor. The interpretation flatters Nebuchadnezzar, and the statue may originally have referred to his own dynasty, which degenerated quickly under his successors until it fell to Cyrus. That makes better sense of the destruction of the statue in one moment. If so, the story is indeed an old one. As it stands, the interpretation offers the only hint in the story part of the book that human kingdoms will eventually be supplanted by a final eternal one. But it also shows some differences from the account of the dream, such as 'and the toes' (v. 41) and the stone being cut from a mountain instead of becoming one. (2:46-9) It is characteristic of wise-courtier stories that the hero's success leads to advancement at court. Such an ending in the Daniel stories serves to show (a) that Jews may legitimately seek high office in foreign courts, (b) Jews can contribute to the welfare of non-Jewish regimes, and (c) Jews will be rewarded by their God for loyalty to him (a theme taken up on a grander scale in ch. 12). The use of the Babylonian names (contrast v. 17) is an editorial device to prepare us for these names in the next chapter.
Nebuchadnezzar Learns a Lesson (4:1-37 J
Written in the form of a royal decree, this story may well have its origin in the activities of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, who withdrew to the desert oasis of Teima, provoking strange rumours about him in Babylon. A text from Qumran called the Prayer of Nabonidus, also written in the first person, tells how the king had a disturbing dream, and how he was 'afflicted... for seven years ... and an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew...' When the story was incorporated into the Daniel cycle, and expanded, the lesserknown king was replaced by a better-known one, and the anonymous Jew became Belteshazzar and then Daniel.
The story contains two episodes: the king's dream with its interpretation (w. 1-27), and the fulfilment of the interpretation (w. 28—37).
(4:1—27) The opening doxology starts where the stories usually end, with the king praising the power of the Jewish God (usually given the title Most High, 'dyori). v. 8, the story presumably originally featured another hero named Belteshazzar, whose name occurs in this chapter 6 times, 4 times on its own without 'Daniel'; elsewhere, the two names (always together) are to be found once in each of chs. i, 2, 5, and 10. Belteshazzar has the position of 'chief of the dream interpreters' (2:48 uses entirely different terms of Daniel). 'Spirit of the holy gods' (w. 8, 9, 18) is also confined to this story, except for 5:11 (which recapitulates this story), v. 10, the 'tree at the centre of the earth' is a well-known and worldwide mythic motif, here perhaps representing the power of the king who rules the world, providing for his subjects (animals, birds). Cf. Ezek 31:3-9, which likens Pharaoh to a cedar of Lebanon, or 17:10, similarly of the Davidic dynasty, v. n, 'reaching to heaven' invokes the tower of Babel and human ambition, the reason for Nebuchadnezzar's collapse, v. 13, 'a holy watcher': both 'holy' and 'watcher' are terms for heavenly beings in
The Golden Image and the Fiery Furnace (j.'i-joj
This is not a story about Daniel. His inexplicable exclusion is probably due to this being originally an independent story adapted for the Daniel cycle, v. 12 may indicate its having been edited for this purpose. (3:1-18) The golden image resumes the golden-headed statue of ch. 2. The lists of officials in w. 2—3 echo the lists of interpreters in other stories. The phrase 'all... peoples, nations, and languages' (w. 4 and 7) is picked up in subsequent stories (4:1; 5:19; 6:25; 7:14) and emphasizes the Babylonian kingdom as the first of several world empires. The king is depicted here as a foolish and arrogant self-idolater, but the enmity of rivals is also a factor, as in ch. 6. 'Chaldeans'
D A N I E L 566
ises political advancement; but they are unable to deliver. The queen (his mother and wife of Nebuchadnezzar, who, as said, was not the father of Belshazzar) is the vehicle for the reintroduction of Daniel, who is presumably no longer among the court favourites. The interpreters (v. 8) are unable even to read the writing, let alone interpret it. Here is an echo of ch. 2; both sign and meaning have to be constructed. (5:13-30) In w. 17-23 Daniel rejects the king's offer of reward (but see v. 29!), and before he interprets the writing proceeds to admonish the king by comparing him with Nebuchadnezzar, whose story (ch. 4) he relates. The writing is deciphered as MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN. The words are Aramaic but their meanings are ambiguous. All three terms might denote measures of weight. It is interesting to speculate about meanings other than those given; the authors may well be playing (as in w. 12 and 16) with multiple meanings. Daniel's interpretation is linguistically possible: the verb m-ncan mean 'number'; t-q-l (Heb. 'shekel') 'weigh'; and p-r-s can mean 'divide'. But other allusions may also be present: t-q-l, for instance, might suggest q-l, which means '(s)light' and hence 'wanting'; while parsin also means 'Persians'. The king's reaction seems untypical of a despot: he rewards the bearer of the bad news as promised! We are not told how Belshazzar was killed, whether by human or divine means. 'Darius the Mede', despite ingenious attempts by some scholars to identify him with some other historical character, is a mistake. Darius was the name borne by several kings of Persia. It is not a Median name. There was a Median empire, which Cyrus incorporated in his own Persian realm (we might accurately speak of a Medo-Persian empire). In the four-kingdom scheme of Daniel Media comes between Babylon and Persia, which is chronologically correct. But the Medes never ruled Babylon, and the city passed from Belshazzar directly to Cyrus. This notice is therefore not from the hand of a contemporary, or even a reliable historian. But that hardly matters; the point being made is that the one divine kingdom has been transferred by its owner from one king and nation to another, and all Darius has to do is 'receive' it.
Jewish writings of the Hellenistic period, especially the 'Book of the Watchers', i Enoch 1—36. 'Decree of the watchers' reinforces the deterministic outlook of the book of Daniel as a whole: all that happens in human history is the result of heavenly dictates. This is the basis of both mantic lore and apocalyptic writing, w. 19—27, the interpretation makes it clear that Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom is not to be destroyed (v. 19, and the meaning of the stump, w. 26-7), but the king needs to learn a lesson; the summons to atone for his pride (v. 27) recalls the Nabonidus text. As with the previous stories, the aim and outcome is the conversion of the king from arrogance to recognition of the complete power of the god 'elyon. During this interpretation, the image of the tree fades and the focus moves to the animal-like fate of the king.
(4:28—37) The decree comes about atthe moment when Nebuchadnezzar, apparently forgetful of the dream, is at his most arrogant. Appropriately he comes to resemble the very opposite of power and splendour, losing his human form and his human reason, his palace, his food. The lesson is learned when the king 'lifts his eyes' (v. 34) and his reason returns; also 'when the period was over' exactly! The coincidence of human free action and divine decree, the core difficulty of any theory of predestination, is glossed over. Does Nebuchadnezzar confess his arrogance because his reason is restored, or vice versa? The repetition in v. 36 'my reason returned' creates the ambiguity. In v. 37 the king appears at last to become a worshipper of the 'king of heaven' (a term found only here in the OT, but cf. the NT expression 'kingdom of heaven').
Desecration Brings Death fj.'i-Jij
This story's allusions to preceding chapters (borrowing the same phrases), in w. 10—12 and 17—21 may be editorial passages intended to integrate this story into the cycle. But they go well beyond what is required, and this factor, together with the killing, rather than persuading or converting, of the king and also the clear allusion to temple desecration suggest it may have been composed after the story cycle was in existence (with or without ch. 6), in the time of Antiochus IV who desecrated the temple and whose death is predicted in 11:45.
The Den of Lions (6:1-28)
(5:1—4) For a long time Belshazzar was regarded as one of the fictions of this book. But he is now known from Babylonian texts as the son of Nabonidus the last king of Babylon, who ruled in the city while his father was in Teima (see ch. 4), though he was apparently not ever the king as he is named here. The impious act of the king is cleverly and economically set out. The plunder of the vessels alludes to the opening of Daniel, and the gold and silver vessels are used in the worship of gods of gold and silver but also of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, consciously or not invoking the idolatrous statue of ch. 2. The mention of women touching these holy Jewish vessels only compounds the horror! (5:5-12) 'Next to the lampstand' suggests the illuminated spectre in a semi-darkened room but also perhaps hints at the temple lampstand, the menorah, symbol of the presence of God in the Holy of Holies. There is a wonderfully comic pun (in Aramaic) in the phrase 'his limbs loosened' (lit.), since the same phrase means 'solving riddles' and is so used in w. 12 and 16. Thereafter we are given the familiar ingredients: the king summons all the varieties of interpreter and prom-
The last of the stories about Daniel introduces a benign king deceived by jealous officials (as in Esther), who is delighted when Daniel is rescued. Hence the political setting of this story is of a benevolent regime, where the only danger to Jews comes from those resentful of their success. The Darius of this story looks more like a Persian monarch (see v. i—his description as 'the Mede' (5:31) is not mentioned in this chapter). If so, his portrait conforms to that of Persian kings throughout the OT (Isaiah, Nehemiah, Ezra, Esther): neither they nor their gods are attacked, and they are consistently welldisposed towards the Jews. (6:1-9) According to Herodotus, Darius organized the Persian empire into twenty satrapies (later enlarged by Xerxes; see Esth 1:1). A position such as Daniel's is implausible, since the empire was centrally governed by a small number of families. But Daniel's ever higher office is a uniting thread in the stories. The word for 'law' in v. 5 does not mean the Torah, the book of Moses, but is a general word for 'religion' or 'religious custom'. 'Prays for thirty days': 'pray' here is better
567 D A N I E L
translated as 'make a request', whether of gods or humans. Why not a permanent ban? Presumably because Jews were known to pray daily in any case, while a permanent ban on requests to gods or humans besides the king would be impractical. We know nothing about any practice of keeping lions in dens to kill people under any ancient Near-Eastern regime. (6:10-28) v. 10 describes Daniel as praying three times a day in an upper room, facing Jerusalem. We have little information about Jewish praying customs from the Persian period. The Mishnah prescribes three times a day, and synagogue architecture suggests an orientation of prayer and worship towards Jerusalem. But the point is that Daniel did not make his habit secret; the conspirators knew when and where to find him. w. 14—15, the portrait of a benign king duped into making an edict which, according to the law of the Medes and Persians' is irrevocable, recurs in Esther. The issue presented here, then, is a conflict between two sets of irrevocable laws, one Medo-Persian, the other the law of 'the God of Daniel'. Prominent in Esther, too, is the theme of the 'law of the Medes and Persians' by which the king is trapped into acting. In w. 16-20, the king's virtue is strongly emphasized: he prays for Daniel's deliverance by his God, spends the night fasting, and hurries back, calling out as if he expects Daniel to be delivered, w. 22-4 repeat the motifs of the rescuing angel and the punishment of the instigators (see 3:22, 28), with the added ingredient of the wives and children. The final decree (w. 25—7) is a feature of chs. 2—6; a comparison will show that they successively broaden their acclaim of the Jewish God. This doxology is a fitting climax to the sequence of stories, encapsulating its recurrent theme: eternal kingship, power to deliver, v. 28 extends Daniel's lifetime into the next kingdom (according to the book's historical scheme), that of the Persians. No story, but the final vision (chs. 10—12) is set under Cyrus.
(see Gen 1:2). We are perhaps meant to be witnessing the beginning of time and history (as well as, later, their end). The description of the four beasts (w. 3—8) no doubt also draws on mythological resources. The myth of dragon(s) in the sea is alluded to in Isa 27:1, 51:9-11, and is pre-Israelite in origin. Hos 13:7—8, mentioning a lion, a leopard, a bear, and a 'wild beast', has been noticed by Collins (1993: 295). Hellenistic astrology is another suggestion (Caquot 1955). (7:9-14) 'Ancient One' (lit. ancient of days) is a title used of the 'father of the gods' El in the Ugaritic texts. His description fits closely with that of the deity in Ezekiel's vision (Ezek i), and was possibly drawn from older mythology (see Emerton (1958), and for the mythological motifs in general, Day (1985: 151-78)). The heavenly king sits enthroned in the court surrounded by the other gods and by attendant heavenly servants. The 'books' are those in which sins (and good deeds) are recorded (see 12:1). The last and most vicious beast is condemned to immediate death, while the others have a stay of execution. The implication of this judgement is unclear. 'One like a human being' receives the kingdom from the 'Ancient One'. Is this second figure a symbol of the nation that will exercise the dominion (the Jewish people), depicted as a human rather than an animal? Or is he a divine figure (such figures represented as in human form, Dan 8:15; 10:5)? If so, is he Michael, who 'stands' for the Jews in 12:1? The title (lit. son of man) was adopted in the NT as a title for Jesus Christ, though how far it derives from Daniel alone is disputed. Since we are dealing with a book that has a long literary history, both interpretations may be valid; and in any event the ambiguities of this book are not always best served by insisting on one exclusive meaning. Surrealism is no respecter of logic.
(7:15—28) In the visions it is Daniel's turn to be perplexed and dismayed and to seek the interpretation. The beasts are said to be kings and not kingdoms—whereas the 'little horn' on the fourth beast is clearly one king and the beast a kingdom! Is this a sign of an earlier story about kings (as suggested for ch. 2) ? Another question is whether the 'holy ones of the Most High' who 'receive the kingdom' are human or heavenly. 'Holy one' is often applied in biblical and post-biblical writings to angelic beings. Is the envisaged final kingdom earthly or heavenly? Chs. 10—12 portray each nation as having its own angelic 'prince', suggesting that kingdoms have both heavenly and earthly aspects. What would a kingdom of all the angels mean in this context? But Daniel is not consistent throughout and plays with different conceptions of the government of the earth and also of the final state of affairs. The focus quickly moves to the fourth beast (v. 19). Several discrepancies with the vision report also appear. The beast has now acquired bronze claws, and the 'little horn' wages war with the 'holy ones' (v. 21). In v. 26 it is the little horn that is judged, not the fourth beast. We have details of this king's career intended, no doubt, to identify him as Antiochus IV. There are many candidates for the 'three kings' of v. 24 depending on whether succession or conquest is meant; the 'changing of sacred seasons and the law' presumably refers to Antiochus' imposed reforms of the Jerusalem cult, and the 'time, two times and half a time' (the first of a series of oblique reckonings in the book) predicates three and a half years for his domination of the 'holy ones'.
The Vision of the Four Beasts and the Final Judgement (7:1-28)
In this chapter the narrative passes from third person to first, and instead of interpreting signs given to others, Daniel receives the signs and has them interpreted by a heavenly being, in the manner of the book of Zechariah. The first vision takes up the four-kingdoms sequence of Dan 2 and focuses on the final judgement and annihilation of these kings/kingdoms. Again, however, we find signs of an earlier account being revised, particularly with regard to the 'little horn' on the fourth beast, suggesting a more ancient story being updated to fit the time of Antiochus IV. The chapter utilizes many mythical themes, possibly of Judean rather than Babylonian origin. (7:1-8) v. i links the vision to the preceding stories with its smooth transition to first person, and its reuse of the phrases 'visions of your head as you lay in bed' (see 2:28; 4:5, 10, 13). Since the apocalyptic visions of chs. 7—12 are pseudonymous, due care must be taken to explain how Daniel's words were preserved, so 'he wrote down the dream'; see 12:4 also. The four winds... the great sea' (v. 2): the sea symbolizes chaos before creation (see Gen 1:2), and the winds may represent (a) the four corners of the earth, from which the kingdoms come,
(b) forces stirring up a storm, and/or (c) a divine creative force
DANIEL 568
The Vision of the Ram and Goat (8:1-27)
and deals with confession of sin rather than a request for illumination. Here distress appears to be due not to a preordained plan but to Israel's sin, and divine intervention will occur not when the timetable prescribes but once Israel has repented. The importance of the dating (v. i) is that Darius comes to the throne after seventy years have passed from Jerusalem's destruction. The prayer, in better biblical Hebrew than found in the rest of Daniel, is similar in content and structure to the prayer contained in i Kings 8:15-53, Ezra 9:615, Neh 9:6—37, and in other early non-biblical Jewish texts as well as in the present Jewish Day of Atonement liturgy. Apart from 1:3 'Israel' occurs in Daniel only in this prayer. However, w. 3, 21, and 23 make it clear that a prayer (whether or not actually recorded) belonged to the story. Whether originally incorporated or inserted later, it was probably composed independently. The prayer expresses a typical Deuteronomic theology: Israel has ignored the warnings of prophets, abandoned the covenant, and been exiled accordingly. The curses of Deut 27 are referred to in v. n. The reference to the Exodus (v. 15) is also a Deuteronomic theme, as is the notion of the divine 'name' being present (v. 18). (9:21-3) Again, 'the man' Gabriel is the messenger and as in ch. 8 comes at the time of the second twice-daily temple sacrifice. The explanation involves interpreting a week of seven days as a 'week' of seven years. The total period is thus 490 years. This formula is implicit in the notion (Deut 15, Lev 25) of a 'sabbath year' in every seven. Calculations of epochs in history according to sabbath-years are found in other contemporary Jewish literature such as Jubilees (a jubilee is seven such cycles, forty-nine or fifty years). (9:24-7) marks the seventy years with crucial events: a problem is that the calculation that follows begins only with the decree of Cyrus (by which time Jerusalem had been desolate for about fifty years. Even then the total number of weeks is seventy and a half (493^ years)! The end of seven weeks (forty-nine years) pass before a high priest ('anointed prince') is installed (since there were no kings, only high priests were anointed). After 434 more years a high priest is killed (this would seem to refer to the murder of Onias III, recorded in 2 Mace 4:23—8), and the sanctuary destroyed. For seven years the destroyer, who is to be identified with Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) makes a pact with 'many' and for three and a half years the temple is desolated. The 'abomination that desolates' is the altar to Zeus that Antiochus has erected in place of the altar. 9:27, the end itself is not described, but it represents the end of Jerusalem's desolation, and of the sin that brought it, the beginning of eternal goodness, the fulfilment of prophecy, and the reconsecration of the temple: this is equivalent to the end of the historical sequence foreseen in chs. 2 and 7, but focused on temple, holiness, and Jerusalem, not on world empires.
(8:1-14) Curiously, although dated to the reign of Belshazzar, ruler of Babylon, the vision is set in the capital of the subsequent Persian empire (see Esth 1:2, 5; 2:3, 5), and describes conflict between two beasts, one with two horns from the east (?) charging north, west, and south, the other from the west. The goat overcomes the ram (w. 5—7), and, following ch. 7, horns representing kings sprout from its head, with one little horn distinguished for its aggression, especially towards the 'beautiful land', i.e. Judah (w. 8-9). It defies the 'host'
(the heavenly beings). In particular this horn confronts the 'prince of the host', removes his daily sacrifice and overthrows his sanctuary: a clear reference to the Jerusalem cult, of which the twice-daily offering (the tamid) was the regular basis—and which figures prominently in the remainder of the book. Also prominent will be the question of the duration of the desecration, here defined in an angelic conversation (w. 13-14). The calculation is expressed in tamid sacrifices (which were offered morning and evening): 2,300 means 1,150 days, or three years and about three months (not quite the three and a half years of 7:25, and different from subsequent calculations inch. 12).
(8:15—27) The interpreting angel is now named as Gabriel, depicted in human form (g-b-r in Hebrew can mean 'man', though the whole name means 'God is my strength'). As in Zech 2:8 he is instructed to speak by a second voice. The two animals are interpreted as the kingdoms of (Media-)Persia and Greece, who warred from the sixth to the fourth centuries, until Alexander the Great (d. 323; the goat's one horn) conquered the whole Persian empire. He had four successors, reducing to three and finally two kingdoms, Egypt (Ptolemies) and Syria (Seleucids). The 'prince of the host' of v. n, interpreted as the 'prince of princes' is probably Michael, not the High God himself (see 10:21—11:1; 12:1); see also v. 25 'prince of princes'. Two meanings of'people of the holy ones' are possible: (a) the nation belonging to the angels (angels = 'holy ones') or, more probably, since all the nations have their angels, (b) nation of holy people. But in attacking the Jews he rises up against their patron Michael and will be destroyed by heavenly force (v. 25). The vision is referred to (v. 26) as 'the vision of the evenings and mornings', alluding to the twicedaily tamid sacrifice, and Daniel is told to 'seal up' the vision, i.e. to roll up the scroll on which it is written and fasten it, to be opened only at the time to which it refers (see 12:9).
The Mystery of Jeremiah's Prophecy (cj'.i-2'j)
(9:1—3) In 5:31 'Darius the Mede' takes the kingdom from Belshazzar; here he is said merely to be Median 'by descent' and succeeds Xerxes (Ahasuerus), the name borne by several Persian kings (as was Darius). Nevertheless, since ch. 10 dates from Cyrus, the first Persian king, the book is still dealing with a Median empire between the Babylonian and the Persian. The mystery to be solved here lies not in a vision but in a scroll of Jeremiah's prophecies which Daniel is studying and which contains a prediction that Jerusalem's devastation will last seven years (see Jer 25:11—12; 29:10). Daniel seeks an answer by praying, using symbols of penitence.
The History of the World as a Heavenly Conflict (10:1-12:13)
This final section is in poor Hebrew, and may represent a rather poor translation from an Aramaic original. Several difficulties in interpretation may be due to translational errors. The section, covering three chapters, barely sustains the vision-interpretation scheme, and runs more like a lightly
(9:4—20) The prayer is thought by many scholars to be a later insertion because its theological attitude is unique in Daniel,
569 D A N I E L
Seleucids (Syria) and Ptolemies (Egypt), whose kings Daniel refers to as respectively the 'king ofthe north' and 'king ofthe south'. Judah was first ruled by Ptolemies, though the Seleucid kingdom was larger (v. 5); in about 250 BCE an alliance by marriage of the two kingdoms was made (v. 6) but later Ptolemy III (called Euergetes) made huge inroads into the Seleucid territory (w. 7—8). Seleucus II recovered the territory (v. 9).
disguised narrative of historical events, which the modern historian (and ancient reader, no doubt) can identify. But it also offers an interpretation of history as a 'great conflict' (10:1) that combines the idea of a preordained sequence and a struggle between nations: heavenly beings representing each nation fight for the supremacy of their people. The idea of each nation having its own divine patron is found in Deut 32:8-9 (following, with most scholars, the reading ofthe LXX 'sons of God' rather than 'sons of Israel'), and the idea that heavenly politics determine events on earth is also found in several Jewish writings ofthe Graeco-Roman period. For example, according to i Enoch 1-6 and Jubilees 5:1-11, sin came into the world as a result of rebellion in heaven and the descent (voluntary or enforced) of some angels to the earth (see also Gen 6:1—4). That human fate is determined by heavenly events is in any case generally a common notion in the ancient world, though in monotheistic Judaism it acquired particular features, such as the emergence of an archrebel or opponent, variously called Satan, Mastema, and Belial. But in Daniel this figure makes no appearance; his role is taken by the rebellious human king. However, the effective agent on Israel's behalf is now no longer God but its own angel, Michael.
(11:10-13) describes the efforts of Seleucus II and Antiochus II ('the Great') to conquer the Ptolemaic kingdom. In 200 BCE Antiochus defeated the Ptolemies and took Samaria and Judah.
(11:14—19) In the struggle over control of Judah, Judeans were divided in their allegiance. Who the 'violent' or 'lawless' ofv. 14 are is unclear, and what they tried to do ('fulfil the vision'); but the writers of Daniel (who may have been pro-Ptolemaic) presumably opposed them. w. 16—17 allude to Antiochus' arrival in Jerusalem as its ruler and another marriage alliance with Egypt. Antiochus' ambitions were frustrated by the Romans who forced him to leave Asia Minor (the 'coastlands', v. 19).
(11:21—9) Antiochus IV is the 'contemptible person' ofv. 21, who tries to restore the kingdom reduced by the Romans. The 'ruler/prince of the covenant' (v. 22) is probably the high priest Onias III, murdered by a pro-Seleucid rival (see 9:26). His campaign against Egypt is referred to in v. 25, and the abortive peace negotiations in w. 26-7. Peace will not come because the allotted time for the denouement of history has not come (v. 27). At the centre of this denouement is the 'holy covenant' (v. 28). But the final events are taking place as and when decreed: 'at the time appointed' (v. 29).
(10:1—9) wI—4 date me final vision from the first Persian king, Cyrus (see 1:21 and 6:28) after a three-week fast. The bank ofthe river as the site of revelation may depend on Ezek 1:1. The description ofthe heavenly messenger (w. 5—9) is influenced by various texts in Ezekiel (especially chs. i and 9); Acts 9:7 may in turn be influenced by the account of Daniel's reaction here. (10:10-11:1) w. 10-12 point out that understanding of mysteries is given only to those who desire it and prepare for it, whether by praying or fasting. It is not bestowed without merit. Even though wisdom according to Daniel does not mean acquisition of knowledge by study or instruction (as in Proverbs) but by revelation of heavenly secrets, it none the less demands a religious discipline (as already shown in ch. 9). The first hint of heavenly warfare comes in v. 13: the angel
(11:30—5) records Antiochus' measures against Judah. After being driven from Egypt by the Romans (Kittim, v. 30), he stopped the twice-daily burnt-offering sacrifice, dismantled the altar and replaced it with one to Zeus (the 'abominating desolation', as in 9:27), and forbade practice of traditional Jewish religion, making alliances with like-minded Jews (whom the writer calls 'violators ofthe covenant', v. 32). However, those who remained loyal, led by 'the wise' (who must include the writers of Daniel), would resist, suffering punishment and death (w. 32-4). The'little help'they received (v. 34) may have been the violent (and ultimately successful) resistance led by the Maccabees. But the writers are not interested in such military actions. The end would come about by divine intervention, and meanwhile the 'wise' suffered so as to be 'purified' (v. 35). The goal of history, earlier in the book identified with the supremacy ofthe nation (ch. 2) is now focused on the destiny of righteous individuals.
(Gabriel, according to 11:1) was prevented from coming (for the same time Daniel was fasting!) by the Persian 'prince'
(angel), now fighting against Israel's patron Michael (who appears only here in the OT). Thus, while in chs. 1-6 the one divine kingdom is that which passes from nation to nation, here sovereignty is continually contested, now between Jews and Persians and soon between Jews and Greeks (v. 20). w. 15-20 perhaps relate a commissioning of Daniel in a quasiprophetic role (cf Isa 6:7 for the touching of lips). Daniel is to assume a prophetic role as writer of a book of predictions (12:4). 'Do not fear' and 'be strong' are frequently reassurances in time of war (e.g. Deut 31:6, Josh 10:25); war,as Daniel learns, is now the perpetual state of things until the end. v. 21 introduces the 'book of truth' in which all preordained history is inscribed (see 12:1).
(11:36—45) merely summarizes the preceding account. The account ofthe end of Antiochus' career (w. 40-5) does not correspond to the actual course of events. 'At the time ofthe end' (v. 40) appears to denote what for the authors still lies immediately ahead. It envisages an attack from the 'king of the south' (Egypt), with huge retaliation. The 'king of the north' will enter the 'beautiful land' (Judah, v. 41), and though Judah's traditional enemies will be spared, he will extend his power into and beyond Egypt (w. 42—3), but reports of trouble from the north and east will force him angrily to retrace his
(11:2—4) mentions three more Persian kings after Cyrus: although historically there were many more, the OT mentions only four in all. The last, who campaigns against Greece, may be Xerxes.
(11:3—9) clearly refers to Alexander the Great, who died in 323 and from whose empire evolved (v. 4) the two kingdoms ofthe
D A N I E L 57° steps. Pitching his war-tent in Judah, between the Mediterranean and Jerusalem (v. 45) he will meet his end. In fact Antiochus died campaigning in Persia and did not conquer Egypt. On the basis of this passage scholars assign the composition of Daniel to between 167, when the 'desolating abomination' was set up, and 163, when Antiochus' death must have been known in Jerusalem. (But for evidence that the book was updated during this period, see DAN 12:5-13.)
the 'desolating abomination'. In w. 5—13 Daniel witnesses, then joins, a conversation about the calculation of the remaining time. At first he overhears it (as if it were a secret not to be directly told to humans, even to him). Although only one of the persons he sees is explicitly said to be 'clothed in linen'
(angelic dress, see 10:5) both are presumably heavenly beings. Forthe 'bank of the stream' see DAN 10:4. The formula 'a time, two times, and half a time', repeats 7:25 and corresponds to the last half-week (three and a half years) of ch. 9. True to the character of the book, Daniel does not understand this (fairly transparent!) calculation and so yet another interpretation is asked for. The rather puzzling question (we would expect him to ask for the 'explanation' rather than the 'outcome') is one possible instance of a defective translation from an original Aramaic text into Hebrew. In fact we get a repeat, though not just of the conversation in w. 6-7. First come the contents of v. 4, reiterating the sealing of the book (v. 9), then a repetition of the 'refining' of 11:35, then a resumption of 12:4 where the 'running back and forth' and increase of evil is changed so that now the wise do understand, but not the wicked, while the wicked continue to act wickedly. Finally comes a more detailed calculation of the time of the end, in terms of days, and dating from the day on which the tamid sacrifice was abolished and the 'abominating desolation' set up. But there are two different answers in w. n and 12, and both differ from the 1,150 days of 8:14 and at least one differs from the three and a half years of 9:27 (and 12:7). An obvious explanation is that someone, after 1,290 days had elapsed, recalculated, while still hoping (or insisting) that the time was near. The sense of a disappointment is perhaps conveyed by the phrasing of v. 12: 'Happy is the one who waits' (cf Ps 1:1).
(12:1) The death of the great and final oppressor and the end of the last kingdom is no longer of interest. Rather, the final resolution now concerns the respective fates of righteous and wicked and the calculation of the time when the end will come. On the death of Antiochus, the patron angel Michael will 'stand' or 'arise', which may mean not more than 'appear' or 'act'. Reference to a 'time of distress's/blowing this is curious, but may refer to prophecies of such a time in Isa 33:2; Jer 14:8; 15:11; 30:7, all of which associate the phrase with a decisive divine rescue, and intend to identify Michael's rise with that promised divine intervention rather than predict fresh misery. But the deliverance will only be for some, not all: 'everyone found written in the book', presumably in a heavenly record of the names of the righteous. The possibility that these names were written beforehand, the righteous being predestined, cannot be ruled out, given Daniel's strong attraction to predetermination. (12:2-4) Resurrection is explicitly affirmed only here in the OT, though belief subsequently spread, until it finally became orthodox Jewish doctrine. But who is to be revived? 'Many' appears to mean only 'some', but it includes righteous and wicked. The scenario makes best sense if we see the problem being addressed as one of justice. There are those who have suffered undeservedly and those who have sinned without punishment. Both groups must be revived so that justice can be administered. But those outside these two categories will remain dead. The 'land of dust' (as the Heb. has it) may be a poetic expression for the grave (Gen 3:19 has both words) or mean Sheol, the place where the dead exist as shadowy spirits (see Ps 16:10; 55:15; 86:13). Among those to live forever the 'wise' have a special place, for they are the religious leaders. The language of'wise' (Heb. maskil) and 'making many righteous' is derived from the description of the Servant in Isa 52-3. Wisdom and righteousness are virtually equated (Daniel being the paragon of each). 'Like the stars' is probably a metaphor rather than indicating an angelic status, since it is parallel to 'shine like the brightness of the sky'—though the idea of the righteous dead being like angels is found in 12:25 (Mt 22:30; Lk 20:35). Th£ notion of a hidden book, revealed just before the end time, is a common feature of apocalyptic and apocryphal literature in which books attributed to authors of antiquity appear only recently to have been publicized. Hence the author is commanded to hide the book until its contents need to be known, and thus is Daniel commanded in v. 4 (and v. 9). In the meantime, evil will increase, and few will understand what is happening; if 'run to and fro' is taken from Am 8:12, it probably refers to a lack of divine guidance.
(12:13) The exilic past with its author Daniel, and the future are finally sewn together in v. 13 as Daniel himself is told to go and die, awaiting his reward as he rises along with his successors, the 'wise' of the present (i.e. end) time. For Daniel, of course, serves throughout this book as the archetype of the authors, the maskilim, of the time of distress under Antiochus, who saw their duty, as had Daniel, in withstanding persecution and 'making many righteous'.
The book of Daniel is generally thought to have bequeathed to its obviously literate and knowledgeable second-century BCE readers, whether or not they were supposed to accept its ancient origin and recent 'discovery', an affirmation that an end had been set and that suffering was not in vain. Yet the lack of specific information about the manner and time of the end, the disappearance of the orderly regime of chs. 1-6, and with it the High God who made and sustained order, and the retreat from historical triumph into trans-historical vindication all seem to betray an anxiety that suggests hope, rather than conviction, in an imminent happy ending. Paradoxically, in a book compiled in the middle of a confrontation between Hellenistic and traditional models of Judaism, the notion of a personal ethical responsibility, an interest in the meaning (or lack of it) of history, and a hope for personal survival beyond death mark it as anything but a reactionary and conservative book; its authors were learned and innovative, and very much a product of the age of cultural change which Hellenism brought to Judah as well as to the rest of the ancient world.
(12:5—13) The other theme of ch. 12, 'how long?', occupies most of w. 5-13. Ch. 9 suggested three and a half years from
571 HOSEA
Day, J. (1985), God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press). Emerton, J. A. (1958), The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery', JTS NS
Caquot, A. (1955), 'Sur les quatre betes de Daniel VII', Semitica 5:
5-J3Collins, J. J. (1993), Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress). Davies, P. R. (1976), 'Daniel Chapter Two', JTS 27: 392-401.
9:225-42. Wills, L. M. (1990), The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King (Minnea-
polis: Fortress).
27. Hosea JOHN DAY
A. Historical Background. 1. Hosea prophesied in the second half of the eighth century BCE from the reign of Jeroboam II of Israel (£.787—747) to that of Hoshea (£.731—722), the last king of Israel. Although ch. i and perhaps ch. 4 reflect the long, peaceful reign of Jeroboam II, much of the book dates from the period of coups d'etat which afflicted the northern kingdom in its last decades following his death. Cf 7:7, 'All of them are hot as an oven, and they devour their rulers'.
injustice, corruption, and hypocritical religiosity, Hosea hoped for restoration after judgement and concentrated his anger on the religious syncretism of the Baalized YHWH cult and the political follies of coups d'etat and foreign alliances. Whilst the differing historical circumstances of the two prophets partly explain these differences, some of them are attributable to their differing temperaments.
2. Jeroboam II was succeeded by his son Zechariah, who was murdered after only six months' rule (£.747-746) and this ended the dynasty of Jehu, which had ruled for almost a century. His slayer Shallum was himself struck down after only one month (£.746) and was succeeded by Menahem (£.746-737), who paid tribute to the newly aggressive Assyrian ruler Tiglath-pileser III (745—727). His son Pekahiah ruled £.737—736, but was assassinated by his captain Pekah, who reigned £.736-731. This event is probably reflected in 6:7-9, with its reference to bloodshed in Gilead, since Gilead is where the rebellion started.
B. Hosea's Marriage and its Meaning. 1. One important question the book of Hosea raises is the problem of the prophet's marriage: how do chs. i and 3 relate to one another? Ch. i is a third-person narrative in which God commands Hosea to take a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom. He subsequently marries Corner, who bears three children, their sign-names symbolizing judgement for Israel. Ch. 3 is a firstperson narrative in which Hosea is told to 'love a woman who is beloved of a paramour and is an adulteress, just as the Lord loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love cakes of raisins' (RSV). The woman is unnamed. We then read that the prophet bought her and put her under discipline for a while (prior to the full restoration of the relationship).
3. Pekah made an alliance with Rezin, king of Syria (the Syro-Ephraimite alliance) in order to besiege Jerusalem under King Ahaz with the intention of putting on the throne one willing to join an anti-Assyrian alliance. Ahaz (rejecting Isaiah's advice, cf Isa 7) appealed to Tiglath-pileser III, who intervened, annexing Galilee, Gilead, and much of the coastal plain from Israel and exiling part of the population in £.733, as well as destroying Damascus in 732. The internecine strife between Judah and Israel then is reflected in 5:8—15.
2. An explanation common among the Church Fathers and medieval Jewish rabbis, but no longer followed, was that Hosea's marriage was not a literal event, but purely symbolic, either an allegory or a dream. However, it does not read like an allegory or a dream, and some details, such as the name Corner, have no obvious symbolic significance.
3. One minority view maintains that chs. i and 3 are parallel narratives, one concentrating on the children, the other on the wife. But against this (i) 3:1 seems to represent this chapter as the sequel to ch. i. Whether we read 'The LORD said to me again, "Go, love a woman..." ' (NRSV) or 'The LORD said to me, "Go again, love a woman..."' (RSV), we seem to have a reference back to ch. i, suggesting that ch. 3 follows on from it. (2) The analogy between YHWH's love for Israel, though the people have been faithless to him, and Hosea's love for the woman in 3:1, makes sense only if the woman had previously been his wife and subsequently been unfaithful to him. This implies that 3:1 is not describing the beginning of the marriage, which the view that it is parallel to ch. i requires. (3) In 3:3—4 the woman undergoes a period of discipline before the marriage is (re)consummated, which does not fitch, i (cf. 1:2— 3, which reads as if sexual relations were established immediately).
4. Next Hoshea (£.731-722) assassinated Pekah, and pursued a pro-Assyrian policy for a few years, paying tribute to the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser V (727—722), but later paid tribute to 'So king of Egypt' instead (2 Kings 17:4). Consequently, the Assyrians invaded Israel, imprisoned Hoshea (possibly alluded to in 13:10), and besieged Samaria for three years, capturing it in 722. Thus ended the northern kingdom of Israel; 27,290 prisoners were exiled by Shalmaneser V's successor, Sargon II, in 720. These last years of the northern kingdom are echoed in Hosea's references to the changing shift of alliances between pro-Assyrian and pro-Egyptian policies, e.g. 7:11, 'Ephraim has become like a dove, silly and without sense, they call upon Egypt, they go to Assyria'.
5. The northern kingdom's end was predicted by Hosea, who saw this as YHWH's judgement on Israel's sin. Hosea has often been compared with Amos, who a little earlier
(£.760-750) likewise prophesied judgement on Israel. Whereas Amos had little hope for the future (Amos 9:11-15 is a later addition) and concentrated his invective on social
4. Another minority view holds that Hos 3 describes Hosea's relations with a woman other than Comer (Rudolph 1966; Davies 1992). This seems unlikely, again in view of
HOSEA 572
3. The Hebrew text of Hosea has often been thought one of the most corrupt in the OT Nowadays, the amount of emendation thought necessary is less than was often believed in the past. However, we should not go to the other extreme, like Macintosh (1997), who avoids emendation at all costs.
3:1. Hosea's loving the woman is parallel to YHWH's loving Israel, though they turn to other gods. Therefore, for the symbolism to work, the woman must have been Hosea's wife and previously unfaithful to him.
5. The most commonly accepted and natural view is that ch. 3 is the sequel to ch. i (Rowley 1963; Mays 1969; Wolff 1974; Macintosh 1997). Hosea, we are to understand, married Corner and had one or more children by her. At some stage she committed adultery, but eventually Hosea succeeded in wooing her back, though the marriage was not reconsummated until after a period of discipline. The theological significance of these events for Israel is spelled out in ch. 2, which depicts Israel as YHWH's wife, who goes whoring after her lovers (the Baals), bearing children of whoredom, but eventually YHWH succeeds in wooing her back, whilst imposing a disciplinary period before the relationship is fully restored.
(1:1) Superscription This is a typical editorial addition to the beginning of a prophetic book. The divine origin of Hosea's message is affirmed, and Hosea's ministry is dated to the reigns of Judean and Israelite kings. The Judean kings are listed first, even though Hosea was a northerner, suggesting Judean redaction. Strangely, Jeroboam (II) is the only northern king listed; Hosea prophesied many years after his death down to the 7203. But Jeroboam's successors had short reigns and to have listed them all would have required adding another six names.
6. Hosea has been much studied recently by feminist scholars (see Brenner 1995). The prophet's references to 'whoring' have been much criticized, but his use of this image is not anti-women, since it is applied to the nation as a whole (e.g. Hos 5:3, 6:10), and presumably had particular reference to the male political and religious leaders.
(1:2—9) The Children of Hosea's Marriage with Corner Here Hosea marries Comer and three children are born bearing sign-names of judgement for Israel. Comer is described (v. 2) as a wife of whoredom bearing children of whoredom, v. 2, probably the description of Comer as 'a wife of whoredom' is proleptic and describes her future behaviour. Cf. 2:4, where the term is applied to Israel following her abandonment of YHWH. Another view is that Hosea married a common or cult prostitute. In 1:3 Hosea's wife is called Comer, the daughter of Diblaim. Neither name has any apparent symbolic significance, which supports their historicity and argues against a merely allegorical or visionary understanding of the events. The first child, Jezreel, is the only one explicitly stated to be Hosea's (cf. w. 6, 8), which may or may not be significant. Jezreel, the first son (v. 4), is named after the city of Jezreel, the scene of Jehu's bloody massacres, £.842, that ended Omri's dynasty (2 Kings 9:1—37; 10:1—n). Jehu's actions were supported by the prophet Elisha and his followers, but
C. The Book and its Redaction. 1. Probably most of the book of Hosea goes back to the prophet himself, his words having been first gathered together either by himself or his disciples. The book is in the form of poetic oracles apart from the two narratives about Hosea's marriage in 1:2—9 an(^ 3:I~5> an(^ me
introductory and concluding verses 1:1 and 14:9. The thirdperson narrative in ch. i clearly betrays the hand of an editor. The book falls into two broad sections, chs. 1-3 relating to the prophet's marriage and what it symbolized for Israel, and chs. 4—14, which contain oracles of judgement (and later salvation) for Israel. Chs. 4-14 may have some broad chronological basis for their ordering.
2. After the fall of Samaria Hosea's words were preserved and edited in Judah. A first stage of redaction was added, probably sometime after 700 BCE, indicating that unlike Israel, Judah was still faithful and would be preserved (1:7; n:i2fc). Then, either after or just before the fall of Judah in 586, a few glosses were added proclaiming that Judah too would fall because of its sins. Hosea's original words of judgement were thus given a new lease of life by being applied specifically to the southern kingdom (4:150; 5:5/7; 6:na; io:nfc; I2:2»). Other glosses envisage a future united kingdom of Judah and Israel under a Davidic monarchy, clearly betraying a Judean outlook (Hos 3:5; cf 1:10-2:1, esp. 1:11), and were presumably added in the sixth century or later. Other additions are the superscription (1:1), believed to derive from Deuteronomistic circles; n:ioc, predicting the return of the western exiles, an idea surprising in the eighth century; and the Wisdom-type saying concluding the book in 14:9. It has occasionally been supposed that passages expressing future hope for northern Israel after judgement in Hosea are also later editorial additions, and not authentic to the prophet himself. However, the passages do not stand out awkwardly like the happy ending in Amos or the proand anti-Judean glosses in Hosea itself. (For some different ideas on the redaction of Hosea see Emmerson 1984.)
Hosea condemns this sanctified murder. Jezreel (modern Zer'in) has been excavated.
Lo-ruhamah, the name of the daughter, means 'not pitied' (v. 6). v. 7 is a pro-Judean gloss. Its reference to God's saving Judah without military force may well reflect Jerusalem's deliverance from the Assyrians in 701 (cf. 2 Kings 19:35—7). Lo-ammi, the name of the second son, means 'not my people' (v. 9).
(1:10-2:1 (MT 2:1-3)) Oracle of Salvation: The Reversal of Judgement These verses primarily reverse the negative meanings of the names of Hosea's children and apply them to the nation. They resemble the hopeful message of 2:21—3, though, unlike the latter, are generally considered redactional. The promise in 1:10 of numerous progeny echoes the promises to the patriarchs (Gen 22:17; 32:12). The name of Hosea's son, Lo-ammi, 'not my people', is now reversed and the people are to be 'children of the living God'; cf. 2:23. v. n predicts 'one head' for Judah and Israel. Cf. 3:5, where another Judean redactional addition anticipates a future united Davidic monarchy, which could be in mind here. Although it is sometimes supposed that v. n reflects Hosea's own ideas, it is more probably redactional, since Judah is mentioned first and the
573 HOSEA
will no longer call YHWH 'my Baal', but 'my husband', and the names of the Baals will be mentioned no more (w. 16—17) • The second speaks of YHWH as the mediator of a covenant with the animals and the abolition of war from the land, when YHWH will take Israel as his wife forever (w. 18—20). Finally, the implications of the names of Comer's three children are reversed, thus signifying the restoration of fertility to the land, YHWH's pity, and Israel as YHWH's people (w. 21-3).
idea is absent in Hosea's salvation oracles in chs. n and 14. 'For great shall be the day of Jezreel' reflects Hosea's reversal of the negative implications of the name for the nation—cf 2:22-3. m 2:I me names Lo-ammi, 'not my people', and Loruhamah, 'not pitied', are reversed to Ammi, 'my people', and Ruhamah, 'pitied', and applied to the people as a whole; cf. 2:23. The people addressed, following LXX, are 'your brothers' and 'your sisters', i.e. the nation, not 'your brother' and 'your sister' (NRSV, etc.), which might suggest simply Hosea's children. (2:2-15 (MT 4-1?)) Indictment of Israel, the Unfaithful Wife YHWH's relationship to Israel is here depicted as one of husband and wife. Israel has been unfaithful to YHWH and gone whoring after her lovers, the Baals, from whom she expects to receive grain, wine, oil, and other products, not realizing these come from YHWH (w. 5, 8). Consequently, YHWH will strip her naked (w. 3, 9-10), block the way to her lovers so she cannot find them (w. 6—7), withdraw the grain, wine, etc. (v. 9), and put an end to her religious festivities
Inv. 16 the future Israel will call YHWH 'my husband' ('isi), not 'my Baal' (befall). This indicates that in Hosea's time YHWH could be called 'Baal' and was in danger of being confused with him. Cf. the personal name Bealiah, 'Baal is YHWH' (i Chr 12:5). In v. 18 YHWH is the mediator of a new covenant with the animal world. This could imply either the banishment of wild animals from the land (Ezek 34:25-8; Lev 26:6), or the paradisal transformation of wild animals (Isa 11:6-9). 'Take as wife for ever...', v. 19: the verb refers to the legally binding agreement that preceded the wedding. In w. 22-3 the significance ofthe names of Hosea's three children is reversed, so as to symbolize hope for Israel (cf 1:10-2:1). Jezreel ('God sows') will betoken fertility for the land. YHWH will have pity on Lo-ruhamah ('not pitied'), and will say to Lo-ammi ('not my people'), 'You are my people'.
(w. n, 13). She will then seek to return to him and YHWH will allure her in the wilderness, cause her to respond to him there, as at the Exodus, and bring her into Canaan anew
(w. 14—15). Some think the more hopeful note in w. 14—15 implies that it belongs rather with w. 16—23, but against this stand the third-person form of address found also in w. 2-13 and the 'Therefore' in v. 14 (cf. w. 6, 9). Furthermore, hope is already anticipated in v. 7. The words of v. 2, 'for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband', are not a divorce formula, contrary to the view of some. There would be no point in divorce, since the point of the proceedings was to regain the wife (v. 2b, 'that she put away her whoring from her face').
(3:1—5) Hosea and his Wife This chapter is a first-person narrative (unlike the third-person ch. i) in which Hosea is told to love an adulterous woman, just as the Lord loves Israel, though they turn to other gods. As noted (HOS 8.3, 4), the parallelism here only makes sense if the woman had previously been married to Hosea and gone astray from him, i.e. she was Corner. That she is unnamed, unlike in ch. i, is not significant, since the first-person ch. 3 comes from a different hand from the third-person ch. i. Hosea bought the woman and put her under discipline for a while, symbolizing Israel's lack of cultic paraphernalia (cf. God's luring Israel, bringing her into the wilderness in 2:14).
Stripping a wife naked (v. 3) was a punishment the wronged husband could inflict, mentioned also in w. 9-10. The phrase 'children of whoredom' (v. 4) occurs at 1:2, of Comer's children, but now it refers to the Israelites. Some scholars place w. 6—7 between w. 13 and 14, but though this position might seem more logical, it is unjustified; Hosea's thought sometimes flits around.
v. i can be translated either 'The Lord said to me again, "Go love a woman..."' (NRSV) or 'The Lord said to me, "Go again, love a woman..." ' (RSV). Either way there is a clear reference back to ch. i. 'Other gods' corresponds to 'Baals' in 2:13, 17; 11:2, whilst the raisin cakes that Hosea condemns must have been associated with Baal worship. In 2 Sam 6:19 they are eaten in a Yahwistic cultic context. The reference in v. 2 to Hosea buying the woman probably alludes to the brideprice. A homer equalled 10 ephahs (between 15 and 40 litres). NRSV, REB, NEB 'a measure ofwine' is based on LXX; MThas 'a lethech of barley' (RSV etc.). A lethech was half a homer, v. 4 describes Israel's temporary deprivation of king, prince, sacrifice, pillar, ephod, and teraphim. Scholars debate whether Hosea considered them legitimate or not, but the parallel deprivation of God's good gifts (2:9, n) suggests that at least some, and maybe all, were held legitimate. The ephod is here probably an object used in divination (cf. i Sam 23:6; 30:7). Elsewhere it can be the name of a priestly garment (i Sam 2:18; 22:18), and eventually it became part ofthe high priest's dress (Ex 25:7). Teraphim were figurines of gods in human form used in divination, at first regarded as legitimate (i Sam 19:13, 16), but later disapproved (2 Kings 23:24). v. 5 finally describes Israel's return to YHWH, and corresponds to the hopeful conclusion of ch. 2. Israel's return to 'David their
Grain, wine, and oil (v. 8) were the chief agricultural products of Israel but the people did not realize they came from YHWH, attributing them rather to Baal who was the great Canaanite storm and fertility god, believed to be dead during the hot, dry summer season and risen from the dead in the wet, winter season. The words 'that they used for Baal' are probably a gloss, because we have 'Baal', not 'Baals' here, and the third-person plural verb is foreign to the context. The Baals (v. 13) were local manifestations of the god Baal, also mentioned in 2:17,11:2. This is the first time Hosea alludes to Israel's 'lovers' as the Baals, v. 15, the Valley of Achor (lit. trouble) was associated with the stoning of Achan (Josh 7:24—6). Its precise location is uncertain, but it was near Jericho, at the entrance into Canaan, and is perhaps at Wadi Qilt. (2:16-23 (MT l8~25)) YHWH's Remarriage with Israel and the Restoration of Well-being Here, the imagery of YHWH and Israel as husband and wife continues, but the dominant note is hope. YHWH will renew his marriage bond with Israel and everything will be well. There are three units here, each containing the words 'on that day'. The first predicts that Israel
HOSEA 574 king' is probably a Judean redactional addition, since the northerner Hosea is unlikely to have supported the Davidic monarchy. Also, 'in the latter days' probably reflects later Judean eschatology.
associated with the calf-cult (10:5). The words 'Do not let Judah become guilty' are probably a gloss. In v. 16 Israel is like a stubborn heifer: this is one of a number of Hosea's sayings employing nature imagery. The text of w. 17-19 is uncertain in parts.
(4:1-19) YHWH's Indictment of Priest and People This chapter begins (w. 1—3) with a general divine indictment against Israel for its lack of knowledge of God. The indictment is continued in w. 4-6 specifically against the priests, who are blamed for the people's lack of knowledge of God, and a further oracle against the priests continues in w. 7—10. w. 11-14 f°cus on the cult, which is condemned for being pervaded by a spirit of whoredom as well as literal cult prostitution, w. 15—19 also condemn Israel's whoredom, manifested in the cult and idolatry.
(5:1—7) Judgement on a Faithless Nation and its Leaders w. 1—7 continue ch. 4's description of the apostasy of the leaders and nation, w. 1-2 condemn not only the priests (mentioned in ch. 4), but also the 'house of the king', w. 3-7 then describe the apostasy of the whole nation.
v. i oddly includes the 'house of Israel' between the specific groups of the 'priests' and the 'house of the king', w. 1-2 employ hunting images to describe the leaders' entrapping the people at Mizpah, Tabor, and Shittim. Probably there were sanctuaries at these sites and cultic sin is alluded to, though precise information is lacking. Mizpah is probably Tell enNasbeh in Benjamin. Tabor is a striking dome-shaped mountain in Galilee. Shittim in Transjordan was associated with apostasy to Baal of Peor (Num 25:1—5), with which Hosea was familiar (9:10). w. 3-7, the leaders having set a bad example (w. 1-2), Hosea now describes apostasy amongst the whole people, v. 5/7 extends the judgement to Judah, and is doubtless a gloss.