Saturday, February 3, 2024

Thomas E. Gaston on "Chaldeans" in the Book of Daniel

  

The Chaldeans

 

It was previously thought that the use of the term ‘Chaldean’ (kasdiy כשדימה) to refer to a class of wise men (Dan. 2:2, 4, 5, 10; 4:7; 5:7, 11) was an anachronism. The term ‘Chaldean’ comes from the Akkadian term Kasdu. In late Akkadian there was a phonetic shift such that in certain words the sibilant s became l before t and d, so Kasdu became Kaldu. The term, Kaldu, appears in Greek writers as Χαλδαιος, hence ‘Chaldean’. The Kasdu were a people from the region around Ur; Nebuchadnezzar and his father, Nabopolassar, were Kasdu. Since the ruling dynasty during the Neo-Babylonian period was Kasdu, it is objected that the author is in error to use Kasdiy as a class of wise man, rather than as an ethnic term. In the fifth century Herodotus refers to the Χαλδαιος as priests of Bel (Marduk). It is conjectured that the term would not have become a technical term for these priests until the end of Chaldean dynasty.

 

 

In fact, the author does use kasdiy in the ethnic sense (Dan. 5:30; 9:1; pos. 3:8) so his other use of the term cannot be due to ignorance of its ethnic origins. The designation of certain wise men as ‘Chaldeans’ cannot be explained by dependence on late sources, such as Herodotus, since the term kasdiy almost certainly derives from the earlier Akkadian form of the term. Therefore, we must look for an alternative explanation for the dual-use of kasdiy in the book of Daniel.

 

One suggestion proposed by R. D. Wilson, and defended by Archer, is that two meanings of Kaldu have separate etymologies. Wilson hypothesized that while Kaldu (ethnic) was derived from Kasdu, Kaldu (priestly) was derived from the Sumerian gal-du meaning ‘master builder’. While Kaldu (ethnic) referred to the race, Kaldu (priestly) referred to a group of high-ranking officials. However, even if the link between gal-du and Kaldu could be substantiated, there would be no link with the Hebrew kasdiy.

 

An alternative suggestion is that both meanings could have been used concurrently. Despite the early application of ‘Chaldean’ to the priests of Bel, the term continue to be used in an ethnic sense at least till the first century BC when it is used by the historian Strabo. Baldwin reasons:

 

There is nothing about the use of the term in both meanings, nor need it cause confusion, any more than our use in English of the word “Morocco” to designate both the country and the leather for which it is famous. (Baldwin, Daniel, 28)

 

Millard finds a possible analogy with the Magi, who performed a religious function in the Persian Empire and were probably a tribe of the Medes. (Millard, ‘Daniel 16’, 70) Given that the Chaldean dynasty was instrumental in the elevation of Marduk to supreme god, it is possible that the priests of Marduk were ethnically Chaldean. It is certainly conceivable that the theological shift towards Marduk would have been characterized as a Chaldean innovation, even if all the priests were not ethnically Chaldean.

 

It is interesting to note that there is no extant use of the term Kaldu in cuneiform texts from the Neo-Babylonian period. This may be due to our lack of information but it is likely that the term was not used by Chaldeans of themselves during this period. (Thomas E. Gaston, Historical Issues in the Book of Daniel [Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Milton Keynes, U.K.: Paternoster, 2016], 35-36)