Dreams, Riddles, and Visions: Textual, Contextual, and Intertextual Approaches to the Book of Daniel by Michael Segal

Abstract

Reviewed by: Dreams, Riddles, and Visions: Textual, Contextual, and Intertextual Approaches to the Book of Daniel by Michael Segal Malka Z. Simkovich Michael Segal. Dreams, Riddles, and Visions: Textual, Contextual, and Intertextual Approaches to the Book of Daniel. Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 455. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016. 248 pp. The book of Daniel is often studied as two independent halves that derive from distinct historical contexts. Daniel 1–6 is usually viewed as part of the “Jew in a Gentile’s Court” stories from the Persian period, while Daniel 7–12 is considered representative of the emerging apocalyptic material that was developed over the second half of the Second Temple period. Michael Segal’s recent contribution to the study of Daniel, however, shows that as a whole, the book interacts with biblical material by incorporating themes in prophetic passages into the [End Page 202] Danielic stories. Such incorporation implies that the authors of Daniel believed that the events recorded or alluded to in Daniel were the fulfillment of prophetic predictions. By exploring the ways the authors of Daniel drew on biblical material and used it to understand Jewish life under Persian rule, Segal offers a compelling new perspective on Daniel’s place in scriptural tradition. Segal uses the term “narrativization” to refer to narrative texts that draw on themes that appear in earlier nonnarrative biblical texts. He posits that the authors of Daniel used narrativization to advance polemical arguments, such as the idea that the restoration of the Judean community and its temple was a fulfillment of the earlier prophets’ predictions. The author of Daniel 5, for example, makes this point by narrativizing material from Isaiah 21 in a way that suggests that the speaker of this passage is not Isaiah, but the king of Babylonia. Segal’s opening study of Daniel 1 demonstrates how this chapter establishes the exilic setting and the major themes that will recur throughout the book. He argues that the first chapter comprises two originally independent units, a unit that now makes up the outer “frame” of the chapter concerning Daniel’s training in the royal court, and a narrative unit in the middle of the chapter regarding Daniel’s dietary restrictions. These narratives were later woven together, which accounts for certain exegetical difficulties in the chapter. Segal’s analysis of Daniel 2 establishes his focus on how early biblical stories influenced the writers of Daniel. According to Segal, the bulk of Daniel 2 was influenced by the Joseph stories in Genesis, but differences between the Joseph stories and Daniel 2:15–24a, as well as the fact that Daniel 2:14 and 2:24 have Daniel approaching Arioch twice, indicate that Daniel 2:15–24a was added by a later writer. Segal suggests that this section was written as a parallel to Daniel 7. The parallels between these chapters reflect a contrast between God and Antiochus that indicate that Antiochus’s rule will ultimately be nullified by God. Segal next examines Daniel 5, which he compares to Daniel 2, arguing that thematic and linguistic links between these two chapters reflect a common editorial hand. Segal offers a novel reading of Daniel 5:2–3, arguing that Belshazzar, and only Belshazzar, saw the writing on the wall in a revelation that was given to him. This reading strengthens the connection between Daniel 5 and Daniel 2, in which only Nebuchadnezzar receives a divinely sent dream. In both stories, the king’s courtiers do not share the king’s experience, and only Daniel can interpret the king’s vision. Both chapters, therefore, “demonstrate the superiority of divinely inspired knowledge to the extensive educational training of Mesopotamian scribes and scholars in antiquity” (67). Segal then turns to Daniel 4, arguing that the Old Greek and Masoretic versions of the chapter derive from an original version, which he seeks to reconstruct based on parallels between the two extant versions. Segal believes that the tree featured in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream symbolizes the king, who has become arrogant and does not recognize the Jewish God’s dominion over him. This imagery depends on similar tree imagery in Ezekiel 31. The twelve-month time span in Daniel 4...