Sunday, February 4, 2024

Thomas E. Gaston on Why Ugaritic "Dan'el" is not the Daniel mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel

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)