Note:
Daniel-E
= Daniel mentioned in Ezekiel
Daniel-D
= Daniel of the book of Daniel
Ugaritic Dan’el
Until a discovery of Ugaritic texts
made at Ras Shamra, those scholars who refused to identify Daniel-E with
Daniel-D had lacked plausible alternatives. An Ugaritic poem, called Aqhat,
was discovered there which told of a Dan’el. It is previously thought that Dan’el
is described as a king. Dressler has argued that the portrayal of Dan’el in the
poem is more reminiscent of a village elder than an urban king. He proposes
that the single reference to Dan’el as king (mlk) is actually a mistranslation.
One particular line, saying, ‘[he] judges the cause of the widow, tries the
case of the orphan’, (CTA 17.v.7-8) is cited as evidence that Dan’el was
wise and righteous. The consensus amongst modern scholarship is that Daniel-E =
Dan’el. Dressler, who edited one edition of the Ugaritic text, has dissented
from this consensus.
The character of Dan’el coheres poorly
with the key features of Daniel-E: wisdom and righteousness. Dressler asserts that
Dan’el is never called ‘wise’ (hkm) nor is he described as being so,
never ‘uttering proverbial sayings, riddles, or expressing cleverness’.
(Dressler, ‘Identification’, 153) Most scholars admit this. Day suggests that the
judgment of Dan’el might have been considered wisdom (cf. 1 Kings 3) or that
Dan’el’s ‘incantations which result in the killing and remaking of the eagles’
might have been considered ‘magical-mantic wisdom’ (CTA 19.iii.107ff).
(Day, ‘Daniel of Ugarit’, 180-81) However, neither case is an example of the
revealing of secrets that Ezekiel refers to (Ezek. 28:3) while Day admits that
this is a ‘prominent’ feature of Daniel-D.
Likewise Dan’el is never called ‘righteous’
(sdq). (Dressler, ‘Identification’, 154) Dressler argues that the description
of Dan’el judging the cases of widows and orphans may not refer to him singularly,
but to his position as one of the village elders. (Dressler, ‘Identification’,
154; ‘the text allows three possibilities: Dnil judges—Dnil only participates
in the judging—Dnil is only an observer and does not judge’ [Dressler, ‘Rejoinder’,
82]) In any case, the favourable judgment of widows and orphans hardly
qualifies as legendary righteousness, particularly when contrasted with
Dan’el’s other actions. For instance, after the murder of his son by the vulture,
Samal, Dan’el calls a curse from Baal (Day objects that Baal is not referred to
in the poem [Day, ‘Daniel of Ugarit’, 177], though here majority of scholarship
is against him [see Dresler, ‘Rejoinder’, 79-80) upon all vultures and proceeds
to slit open their stomachs till he finds his son’s remains. He then puts a
curse upon Abelim, the vulture-city, and, after seven years of weeping, prompts
his daughter, Paghat, to assassinate Yatpan, who conspired in his son’s death.
Archer concludes, ‘nothing could be more unlikely than that a strict and
zealous monotheist like Ezekiel would have regarded with appreciation a
Baal-worshipper, a polytheistic pagan given to violent rage and unremitting
vengefulness, a drunken carouser who need assistance to find his way home to
his own bed.’ (Archer, ‘Modern Rationalism’, 134) Margalit defends the
righteousness of Dan’el, arguing that he contrasts favourable with Krt,
another Ugaritic figure. (Margalit, ‘Interpreting’, 362) He also asserts that
Dan’el’s piety is demonstrated by his devotion to Baal and El, and that even
the drunken incident might have ‘a religious complexion’. (Margalit, ‘Interpreting’,
363) Yet whatever mitigation is proposed, the fact remains that Dan’el was not
worshiper of YHWH—this fact alone precludes any identification with Daniel-E.
In fairness to the critical position,
no scholar is proposing that Ezekiel was directly acquainted with the Aqhat
poem. For instance Day, acknowledging that Dan’el is not a paradigm of Jewish
righteousness, proposes that the Dan’el known in ‘the Israelite Yahwist
tradition’ may have developed considerably from his origins in Ugaritic legend,
given that eight hundred years separate Ezekiel and the Aqhat poem. (Day,
‘Daniel of Ugarit’, 178) Grabbe goes one step further, arguing, on the one
hand, that the distinction between the Canaanite and Israelite culture was
purely polemical, not historical, and on the other, that Ugaritic is not Canaanite.
Thus, he argues, it is conceivable that a Canaanite figure should differ
considerably from the Ugaritic figure on which it was based. (L. L. Grabbe, ‘”Canaanite”:
Some Methodological Observations in Relation to Biblical Study’ in Ugaritic
and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the
Bible—Manchester, September 1992 [ed. J.G. Brooke, A. H. W. Curtis & J.
F. Henley; Münster: Ugaritic-Verlag, 1994]) Grabbe proposes that the Dan’el of
Jubilees 4:20 might represent a transitional stage in the development of Ezekiel.
(Grabbe, ‘Canaanite’, 120) However, the adoption of Dan’el into Israelite discourse
remains purely hypothetical and the burden of proof remains on those who would
defend this hypothesis; the Dan’el of Jubilees is too late to be considered
evidence in the case. Needless to say the ‘sanitized’ version of Dan’el does
not appear in any extant Israelite literature or inscription.
Collins, conceding many of the difficulties,
still argues that Daniel-E = Dan’el, stating, ‘it seems gratuitous to suppose
that there were two unrelated legendary figures by the name of Daniel’. (Collins,
Daniel, 2) Yet such an argument demonstrates sloppy logic—on this basis
one would have to conclude that every character named ‘Arthur’ in every text up
to the present day should be identified with King Arthur, regardless of his
characteristics. The name ‘Daniel’ is far too common for Collins’ argument to
have any weight. (For examples see 1 Chr. 3:1; Ezra 8:2; Neh. 10:6; Jubilees
4:20; 1 Enoch 6:7) There is nothing unusual about the name ‘Daniel’ (‘El is my judge’)
and any story-teller might select it for a worshipper of El/God, just as any
Israelite mother might choose it for her child. (Thomas E. Gaston, Historical
Issues in the Book of Daniel [Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Milton
Keynes, U.K.: Paternoster, 2016], 9-11)