ISSN 0035-1 725

REYUE vc

TOME 20 FASCICULE 4

~ m i l e PUECH, L,< Testament de Lkvi eli <irtiim!en de 10 Geriiitr du Cuiro .................. Andrew STEINMANN, Tlxc Clzi(:kai arid the Egg. A N w : l~ roposu l~ f i „ ~ h e Ke/rtioii.vhip

hetwecw tlxe Prayer of Nübonidus rir~cl tlw Book of Daiiicl .......................... Uliich DAHMEX, N w i ~ l t w t i f i i i ~ , ~ . t ~ F r u p t i ~ l ~ / ~ ili (1m I)ci~t~~ono~~~iurn-H~r~t~I~s~~I~r~/ic~~~

vo111 IOten Meer ............................................................................................

NOTES

Johii C. POIKIEK. 44464: Not I<,v(~hatolo,yit~cil .......................................................... Albert L. LCIKASZEWSKI, "Tli is" or " I ' l iu t " : Tlrt 17rrr I)etwmrr.rrtii,r P r o l w ~ i ~ i Ir1

I QapCen 11. 6 ..............................................................................................

RECENSIONS

...................... ~rriile PUEC'H, J.H. CHAKL~SWOKTI~ (cd.), '& O C ~ Sr(, S(.rolls. Vol. 2 Emile Piii:~:~, 'A l km~c f i i Yoiiulz ............................................................................

David EMANIIEL, Orioil C'oiler Bil>lrogr~iphy of rht D ~ L K I Setr S<wll.c: Mti \ 2002 - NoiwriiBc~r 2002 .............................................................................................

TABLES DU TOME 20

G A B A L D A 18, riic Pierrc ct Marie-Curic, 75005 Paris

L k . l'lrich I>,iliiiieii. Kiidiiihoveiier Sii 140. D-53237 13orin. Alleiri;igne.

RIi Da\ id Emaniizl. Orioii Center for tlie \tuJy ot tlie De'itl Se21 Scrolls ;iiicl Associated Litera- tiire. Tlic Hebi-cw Uiiiver\ity. F;iculty of Hiiiiiaiiitie\. Mount Scopus. Jeiusaleiii 91905, Isiad.

Dr. Albert L. LuLszewski. St. Mary's College, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews Fife. KY 16 9JLJ. Angleterre.

Prof. Dr. Corrado Martone. Universith di Torino, Dipartirneiito di Orieiitalistica -Se~ione ebrais- tica. Via Giuliü di Barolo, 314 1- 10124 Torino. Itülie.

Dr. John C. Poirier. 1 100 N. Main St.. Franklin, OH 45005. U.S.A.

Prof. Dr. ~ri i i le Puecli. ERAF, P.O. Box 1905. J6riisaleiii. IsrüS1.

Dr. Andrew Steininanii. Concordia University, 7400 Augustn St., River Forest. lllinois 60305- 1499. U.S.A.

CONSEIL ACADEMIQUE Andre C ~ ~ i ! o i . Meinbre de I'lristitut Josep T. Mii IK, CNRS

Jeronie MURPHY-O'CONNOII, EBAF Marc PHII.ONI:NKO, Meinbre de I'lnstitiit

Hai-miit S ~ ' ~ X ~ ~ ~ M A N N . Universität Göttingen Julio T ~ i i m i . t ~ BARR~XA, Universidad Coinpliiteiise

CONSEIL DE REDACTION

George J . BROOKF., University of Manchester Annette S r i u i~ i . , Universitiit Göttingen

Dircvteur : Emde PuWii, CNRS Sec:rdtuire : Florentino GAKC~A M A I ~ ~ ~ N E L , Katholieke Uni- versiteit Leuven

Scc,rc;trtirc/-ulljoint : Corrüdo MAKTONH. Univeisith degli Studi di Torino

Les articles et les ouvrages pour recension doivent Stre adresses au Secretaire de la Revue,

Florentino GARC~A MART~NEZ, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Faculteit Godgeleerdheid, Sint Michielsstraat 6 B-3000 Leuven, Belgium

Mais les abonnements et toutes les affaires concernant padministration doivent etre adresses 2t 196diteur de la Revue :

Editions GABALDA, 18, rue Pierre et Marie Curie, 75005 Paris

THE CHICKEN AND THE EGG A NEW PROPOSAL

FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRAYER OF NABONIDUS

AND THE BOOK OF DANZEL

Summary

Scholars have generally viewed the Pruyer oj' Nuhonidus (4Q242, 4QPr- Nab ur) to be an earlier version of the tradition that lies behind Dan 4, the account of Nebuchadnezzar's rnadness. This paper proposes ihat scholars have ignored or overlooked strong internal evidence that the Pruyer of Naboizidus is probably a composition based upon Dun 4. This internal evidence includes appa- rent borrowing of language not only from Dun 4, bul also froni Dan 2, 3 and 5 as well as attempted theologicül corrections of Dutriel toward a strict mono- theism. It is likely, therefore, that the Prayer is actually the composition of a Palestinian Jew who was attempting to fit1 in the historical gap between the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (Dun 4) and the fall of Babylon to the Persians (Dan 5).

Les 6rudits ont gSn6ralement regard6 Ja t'riere d~ Nnbonide (4Q242, 4QPrNub ur) conime une version plus ancienne de la tradilion qui se trouvc der- riire Dan 4, la narration dc la folie dc Nabuchodonosor. Cet article propose que les drudits ont ignor6 ou nkglige unc Cvidence interne en laveur de la priorild dc Dan 4. Cette evidence interne inclut I'cmprunt apparent dc la langue non seule- ment de Dan 4, mais 6galement de Dun 2, 3 ct 5, aussi bien que des corrections thkologiques de Danid Vers u n monoth6isnie Wict. II est probable, donc, que la Priere soit riellement la composition d'un juif palestinien q u i essayait dc com- bler la lacune historique entre le regne de Nabuchodonosor (Dar? 4) ei la chute de Babylone devant Ics Perses (Dun 5).

558 ANDREW STEINMANN

W ITH the first published scholarly report of the contents of the manuscript fragments of 413242 (4QPrNab ur), the Prayer c$ Nabonidus, almost fifty years ago, it appeared as if a long-sus-

pected history of the tradition behind Dan 4 was confirmed. (I) Scholars had speculated that the historical incident that had inspired Daniel's tale of Nebuchadnezzar's madness was Nabonidus' ten-year sojourn in Teima where he suffered from an illness. (2) The text preserved in frag- ments of 4QPrNab ur exhibited a clear relationship with Dan 4. It has been labeled the "missing link" between Babylonian traditions and Dan 4. (3) Although no one would claim direct literary dependence of Dan 4 on the Prayer ofNabonidus, for the past fifty years almost all dis- cussions of their relationship in scholarly and popular publications are nearly unanimous in assuming that the Prayer of Nabonidus preserves an older tradition. (4)

THE PRAYEK OF NAHONII~US AND DAN 4 COMPARED

The text of 4QPrNab ar is: ( 5 )

Section 1 (Fragments 1,2a, 2b, 3)

( I ) J. T. Milik, "'Priere de Nabonide' et autres Lcrits d'un cycle de Daniel," RB 63 (1956). 407-15.

(2) Since the publishing of the Nabonidus Chronicle in 1882 Nabonidus, the last king of the Neobabylonian Empire (556-539 BCE). was known to have sojouriied in Teima during the last teil years of his rcign (T. G. Pinches, "On a Cuneiform Inscription Relating to the Capture of ßabylon by Cyrus and tlie Events which Preceded and Ixd Up to It," Trt~rzsuc.tionns ofrhe Society of ßiblicul Archrieolgy 7 11 8821, 139-76; ANET 305-307).

(3) John J. Collins, "4QPrayer of Nabonidus ar," in Qurnrun Cuve 4. XVII: Purahi- hlicul Texts, Pur1 3, ed. James C. Vandcrkam, DJD XXll (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 86.

(4) For cxamples see John J . Collins, "Nabonidus, Prayer of." in ABD 4 (1992), 976- 7; The Dctrd Sec1 Scrolls und rlze Text ofthe Old Testament, (Institute for ßiblical and Scien- tific Studies, cited July 2, 2002 2002); OnUne: h~tp://bibleandscience.com/dss.htm; Esther Eshel, "Possible Sources of the Book of Daniel," in Tlze Book o f Duniel: Conzposition und Reception, eds. John J . Collins and Peter W. Flint (VTSup 83.2; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001), 387-8; David Flusser, "Psalms. Hymns and Prayers," in Jewish Writings qj' tlre Secontl Ternple Period, ed. Michacl Edward Stonc (CRINT: Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 554; David Noel Frecdman, "The Prayei of Nabonidus," ßASOR 145 (1957), 31-2; Florentino Garcia Martincz, "The Prayer of Nabonidus: A Ncw Synthesis," in Qutnrun und Apoculyp- tic: Studics o n ~ k e Artrrnaic 7kxtxu from Qumrm, (STDJ 9; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992), 136.

(5) This reconstruction follows that of Collins, with thc exception of line 2 in sec- tion 2, where Collins reads [ j ~ >In' 'nl]5~ E ~ W T I ~ ] ~ K iilDl. (Collins, "4QPrayer of Nabonidus ar," 84, 88, 91). Collins' placement of thc fragments is largely dependent on the rcconstruction first proposed by Cross (Frank Moore Cross, "Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus," IEJ 34 I19841, 260-4), though hc admits that thc plücement proposed by Garcia Martincz may be preferriible at several points (Garcia Martinez, "The Prayer of

THE PICAYER 01;' NAHONIDUS AND THE HOOK OF DANIEL 559

Section 2 (Fragment 4) nnjnn 1m;r mLi[ 1 rmp in RDI - m ] k D% 7[5]n8 na[ 2

j n b ~5 nm X [ ] o [ 3 1 5 7n;n m ;rm[ 4

I 0 O O [ 5

This may be translated as:

Section 1 The words of the prayer that King Nabonidus of [Babyllon, [lhe great) king prayed [when he was srnittenl with a serious skin disease by a decree of Glold in Teman: L"I, Nabonidus by a serious disease] was smitten for seven years and wh[en] Glod turned his face to me, I was healedj and my sin was forgiven by him. A diviner, a Jew friom the exiles came to me and said,] 'Write a declaration to give honor and exalt[ation) to the name of G[od Most High.' So 1 wrote as follows:] '1 was smitten with a ser[ious] skin disease in Teman [by a decree of God Most High] I had bee[nJ praying [before] the gods of silver and gold, [bronze, iron] wood, stone and clay because [I had thoulght that [they werel gods ]their[

Section 2 1 ]apart from them. You gave me a dream 2 from it he made to pass. The peace oC Imy] restfulness [he look from me] 3 1 my friends. 1 was not able [ 4 lhow you have an appearance like.. ." [ 5 3 [

Nabonidus," 116-34.). Severil diffei:e~it reconstructioiis have beeil proposed. For a cove- nient discussion of the major differences see Petcr W. Flint, "The Daniel Tradition at Qurnran," i n The Hook (!J' Danic.1: Compo,si/ion and Receplion, eds. John J . Collins and Peler W. Flint (VTSup 83.2; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 20011, 335-8. Muny 01 the reconstuctions propose wordings based on relevant portioiis of Dun 4. Fur instance, Cross reconstructs line 3 in section 1 to read "... I was Iike [unlo a beast and I prayed to the Most High]," a reading clearly based on Dan 4:22, 29 (cf. 4:13, 13, 20; Cross, "Pragiiiciits," 263.) I will discuss only those differences in recontruction that are relevant to the discussion at hand.

The parallels between Dun 4 and the Prcryer of'Nuhonid~u are too striking to be coincidental. They seem to demünd sorne type of relation- ship between the two texts. The more obvious pitrallels üre:

Daniel4 The Prayer of Nabonidus

First Person Account by Ncbuchad- nezzar (except 4:26-33) Nebuchadnczzar strickcn by God (4:26-29) Nebuchadnezzar smitten for "severl times" (i';?Y 7i)Ti; 4:29)

Daniel ministers to Ncbuchadnezzar (45-24) Daniel advises Nebuchadnezzar to take actions toward God [hat will pre- vent his illness (4:24)

First Person Account by Nabonidus

Nabonidus stricken by God (scction 1, lines 3,6) Nabonidus smilten Sor "sc.veri ycars" ( 2 l i i ' j i section 1, lincs 3, 7) A Jewish diviner ministers to Naboni- dus (scction 1, line 4) A Jewish divincr advises Nabonidus to take actions toward God that [appa- rentlyl led to the cure OS his disease (scction I , line 5 )

However, in addition to the different kings named, the two texts also exhibit a number of significant differences.

Daniel4 The Prayer of Nabonidus

Takes plncc in Babylon Nebuchadnezzar strickcn with mad- ness (4:22,29-30) Ncbuchadnexzar smitlcn Sor "seven times" (i'17I3 7UTi; 4:29) Daniel mcntioned by name (4:9, 16)

Daniel adviscs Nebuchadnezznr lo repent of his sins and show mcrcy to the oppresscd (4:24)

Takes place in Tcman (Teima) Nabonidus strickcn with a skin discase (jT2 section 1, lincs 3, 6) Nabonidus smittcn for "scven year.jm (9Td i'XJ section 1, lines 3, 7) Jewish diviner is unnamed (section I , line 4) Thc Jewish diviner advises Nabonidus io glorify God (section 1, linc 5)

Although there has been widespread acceptance of the theory that the Prayer of Nubonidus represents an earlier and somewhat more accu- rate version of the events related in Dun 4, it has also been recognized that the Pruyer oJ'Nabonidus is hardly an accurate picture of the events of Nabonidus' reign from what we know of it. Nabonidus spent ten years in Teima, whereas the Prayer of Nabonidus mentions only seven years there. No mention of Nabonidus being afflicted with a chronic

skin disease in known from ancient sources. In 4QPrNah ar the place of Nabonidus' sojourn is Teman instead of Teima. (6) Even the name Nabonidus is spelled in a peculirir manner: '221 (Nabunay) instead of something more expected such as 7131 (Akkadian: Nabu-na'id). (7) Clearly, if the Pruyer of Nuhonidw does preserve an earlier, more accu- rate Babylonian tradition about Nabonidus, it nevertheless is a highly garbled and inaccurate preservation of that tradition. Flint summarizes both the difkrences between Dan 4 and the Pruyer and the transforma- tion of the accounts of Nabonidus' reign that gave rise to the Pra.yer: (8)

... in inany respecls the Qumran text dit'lers both from ihe Babylonian accounts and from Daniel 4. The Babylonian records do not say that thc king suffered from a disease, and makc no mention of a Jewish divinci. Moreover, the Verse Account accuses Nabonidus of impiety towards the Babylonian gods, whereas in the Prayer cfNuhonidus he is miguidely (sic) devoted idois. In the Hurran Inscril~tion Nabonidus attribuies his delive- rance to the moon-god Sin, while the Pmyer attributes this 10 the Most High God, or the God of the Jews. I t is clcar that Babylonian sourcc- material has undergone a Jewish transformation, with Nabonidus' absence from Babylon bcing associated with a kind of sickness, and this sickness becoming an occasion for manifcsting the power of thc God of Israel.

However, there exists another possibility that most scholars have not seriously considered or dismissed as unlikely: that the Prayer of Nahonidus is based upon Dan 4. (9) After all, the lone manuscript of the

(6) Milik supgests this niay Iiave arobe frorri confus~ioii with l'criian in Edoin (Jer 49:20; Okrrtl 9) (Milik, "Pri6re de N:ibonidc7'). Tcnian as a pliicc in Edom is meiitio- iied in the Riblc ;ind iriay have becn more fitmiliar to a Pnlcstinian Jcw than Tciriia as a plricc in Aiabia ( . loh 6: 10; Isa 24: 14; Jor 25:23), niaking such confusion possiblc i f ihe author of the IJrrper o/'Nrrlioi~iclu.v was a Palestinian Jcw, as I pioposc below. Mcyer sug- gests tliat thc -(in suffix is :I local variant (Rudolph Meyci. Dtrs Cohci rlcs Nril?oi~iri. Eine in detl @uinr~rti-Hrn?rI.sr:Iz~'~~i~n i.c:ietlai~orztclrle<.k~e Wei,sl~cit.verziililurtg, Sitzurigsbcrichtc dcr Sächisclien Akadeniic der Wjsscnschaften zu Leipzig 107.3: Bcrliri: Akademie, 1062, 20- 1). This is a cieative solution, but unprovablc. Gaicia Martinez s~~ggcsts that i t is tlie older form of Teirnn, bec;iuse I,XX ;\lways translaies Sm as Baipuv iind bec~iusc tlic Araniaic geiitilic forni wlrn preserves a (prcsuiuably) oldcr Loi~ii that protccted the 3 frorn being clided (Garcili Martincz, "The Prayer of Nüboiiidus," 122). Giveli thc problcins with establishing the Vor[L,gc,n of thc [,XX texts and thc prohfcins of cstablishirig trriiisla- tianal nicthods of the 1,XX trailslators, relying 011 L X X to estahlisli tlic actual torni of an Aiümaic or Hebrcw proper nouii is not a reliable niethod.

(7) Gnrcia Marti1icz offcrs two cxplana~ions for tlic f~rr i i '23;: that i t shows nssillii- iatioii 10 thc final -rri typical ol' Araiiiaic nanics oi. [hat it rcpresents scribal conhsioli of ' Tor 7. Gürcia Martiiicz, "Tlic Piayci of Nabonidus," 121.

(8) Flirit, "Daniel Tradition," 344. (9) A few scholars havc argued thal the PI.LI!OI. o / ' N ~ ~ b o t ~ i ~ I u ~ dei-ivcs fi-0111 ~rrlzicll,

but thcy are a dis[inct injnoiiry. See Wcriiei Dorriiiieishri~iseii, Nrrhoiiicl ii17 Buche Dcltrid (Mainz: Griincwald, 1964), 85; Einst Haag, I-)i<) I<rrc~ttung Dtrniels trus ( k r Lijwc,tigru/?c: Uiirersur~li~in~er11~ -1xr1l ( j rspr~lng [[er hjhli,schcn Dci~~ielir(rrii~ioiz (SHS; Stuttgart: Katlio- lischcs Bibelwcrk. 1')83), 62-73. FJiiit appeors to t:ikc n o p«silioii on the i.eliitionship bct- wecn I ) c r i ~ i d and the P r ~ r y r (Flint, "Danicl Tradiiioii." 334-5).

562 ANDKEW STEINMANN

Prayer of Nabonidus (75-50 BCE) is younger than the earliest known manuscripts of Daniel. ( I 0) Could it be that since scholars had already proposed that a tradition about Nabonidus lay behind Dan 4, the discov- ery of 4QPrNab ar was seized upon as a vindication of that proposal without a critical look at evidence that points to the Prayer ofNabonidus as younger than and derivative of Dan 4? The often mentioned theory that Nabonidus' peculiar devotion to the moon god Sin gave rise to the legend of Nebuchadnezzar's madness in Dan 4 requires a radical trans- formation of the historical occurrences behind the narrative. ( I I) Given the garbled nature of the tradition about Nabonidus in the Prayer of Nabonidus, it wo~ild be prudent to examine this other possibility.

INDICATIONS THAT TIIE PRAYER OF NARONIDUS IS DEPENDENT UPON DANIEI.

The major stumbling block that prevents many scholars from view- ing the Prayer as a composition based on Duniel is the character of Nabonidus himself. It is assumed that no Palestinian author of the Mac- cabean era would have known about Nabonidus (which is why it is thought thüt the more well-known Nebuchadnezzar was substituted for Nabonidus sometime in the pre-history of Dan 4). However, Nabonidus was not completely forgotten in the centuries after his reign. It has long been known that Greek historians, including Herodotus, knew of some traditions about Nabonidus. (1 2) Josephus knew of Nabonidus through the writings of Berossus. (13) Certainly it is not beyond the range of possibilities that another, an earlier Palestinian Jew responsible for authoring the Prayer of Nabonidus knew of Nabonidus through a Greek author.

Perhaps such a Palestinian Jew, upon learning of some facts of the reign of Nabonidus, composed a narrütive roughly based on the plot of Dan 4 that would supplement and fill in a perceived embarrassingly wide historical gap in Daniel, that of the era between the reign of Nebu- chadnezzar and the fall of Babylon to the Persians (i.e., between Dan 4 and Dan 5). Such supplementation of Daniel is evident in Greek Daniel. Susanna tells us of Daniel's precocious childhood and justifies Nebu- chadnezzar's choice in selecting Daniel to be trained to serve in his court (Dan I). The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young

( 10) Cross, "Fragmciits," 760. ( I I ) For a tl-ioro~igh treatment of Nabonidus' devotioii to Sin sce Paul-Alain Bea-

l ie~i , 7'hu K c i ~ n of' N~lhoni i ius . King o/' H(iblyon (556-539 HC) (Yale Near Eastern Rcsearches 10: Ncw Hiiven: Yale, 1989).

(12) Herodot~is, howcver, calls him L ~ l h y n i ~ r u s . See the discussion in Michüel J. Crucnthaner, "Thc Lost King of Babylon," CU@ I I (1949), 409.

( 13) C. Alx 1, 20.

Men supplements Dan 3 by explaining in more detail the mysterious survival of Azariah and his companions in the midst of the furnace, not only explaining how they survived but also demonstrating their piety.

In the same way, the Prayer of Nabonidus may have been intended by its author to offer a history of activity by a wise Jew in order to demonstrate a continuity of activity during the years about which the text of Daniel is sjlent but the author's historical sources were not. I pro- pose that he drew upon the Aramaic text of Daniel as we know it today in order to compose a narrative that would appear to fit into the percei- ved gap between Dan 4 and Dan 5. The resulting story, the Prayer of Nabonidus, fits this gap in both its historical setting as weil as its thema- tic and verbal similarity to Dan 4 and Dan 5.

A number of features of the Prayer of Nabonidus logically point to it being based upon Daniel rather than it being composed from traditions that predate Daniel. These include:

1. K[;I?]N OlnPS1, "by a decree of God" (section 1, line 2)

The superscription of the Prayer of Nabonidus credits the king's affliction to a decree of God. Compare the decree leading to Nebuchad- nezzar's affliction: MD3nE3 ]'T) mTl1, "the decree is a sentence of the Watchers." (Dan 4:14) While Daniel gives some credit to the Watchers for the judgment on Nebuchadnezzar that leads to his affliction (though God is ultimately given credit [4:21 J), the Prayer gives credit only to God. This appears to be a theological hypercorrection on the part of the author of the Prayer. While adopting the term 0lilE1 from Daniel, the author also removes any perceived hint of God's sharing of power (and, therefore, any perceived tendency toward polytheism).

On the other hand, if one follows Garcia Martinez' reconstruction, K [ ' ~ Y K;~?]K NXl92, "by a decree of the Most High God," another close parallel to Daniel is evident, since "Most High G o d occurs at Dan 3:26, 32; 5:18, 21. Since 5:18 and 5:21 refer to the events of Dan 4, this would indicate that the author of the Prayer is drawing on the material about Nebuchadnezzar's madness in both chapters 4 and 5, making i t more than likely that the Prayer was composed on the basis of Daniel rather than being an independent, earlier form of the tradition that pro- duced Dan 4.

2. Tl, "diviner" (section 1, line 4)

Daniel is frequently associated with the ]?Tl (2:27; 4:4; 5:7, 11). Not only does he follow them in Dan 4 (4:5), but he is said to have been their leader in Dan 5 (5:l I) . This is significant, because it introduces Daniel's appearance in Dan 5, preparing for his explanation of the hand- writing on the wall. Daniel's prologue to his explanation contains a recapitulation of the events of Dan 4 (5:18-21). Thus, it appears as if the

author of the Prayrr was not only familiar with L)un 4, but also Dan 5 and drew on the account of Nebuchadnezzar's madness in Dan 4 and its reflection in Dan 5.

Yet, even the presence of the word 1 7 3 presents a problem for the standard theory of the genesis of the Pruylv- of Ncu5onidu.s. It, like most of Dan 4, is a first person account with the king as narrator. Since both are first person accounts, the proponents current theory would have us believe that in the early history of this account someone, probably a Jew writing for a Jewish audience, composed an (apparently fictional) account based loosely on the sojourn of Nabonidus in Teima. This account eventually produced at least two offspring: The Prayer of Nabo- nidus (an older child) and Dan 4 (a younger child).

But let us ask whether the word T 3 is needed in the Pra-yer. Why not simply state, "A Jew from the exiles came to me and said, 'Write.. .'Y 1s the reference to a diviner needed for a Jewish audience? Would they place more credence in the character of the Jew who aids Nabonidus if he is characterized as a diviner? Given the strong condem- nation of divination in the Torah and elsewhere ( L e v 19:26; Deut 18:10,14; Josh 13:22; 2 Kgs 17:7; Jer 14:14; Ezek 12:24; 13:6,7,23) and the radical monotheism of the writer of the Prayer (see number I above and numbers 4 and 5 below), this seems unlikely.

However, the same cannot be said of Dan 4. If we were to assume that some editor compiled Daniel and placed Dan 4 into its current context, we can understand why that editor felt compelled to place Daniel among the j'lT3 and have the king state that "I know the spirit of holy gods is in you." (4:9). After all, Daniel is presented in this way in previous chapters, and this makes the narrative of Dan 4 fit into the rest of the book. Thus, it would appear that the author of the Prayer is dra- wing on Daniel.

3. '717, "Judean" (section 1, line 4)

As noted above, the diviner in the Pruyer remains unnamed in the text that is extant. Some scholars assume as a foregone conclusion that this diviner is to be identified as Daniel. (14) Others have argued that because the Judean diviner is unnamed in the Prayer, the Prayer reflects n stage of the Nabonidus tradition before Daniel was identified as the seer (making the Prayer older than Daniel). (15) Others are more cautious. It is noteworthy that the exact word '777' never occurs i n Danie2 as a reference to Daniel. Instead, Daniel is ca l l ed 717' '7 W 1 h '2SjD 133, "a man from the exiles of Judah" (2:25; 5: 13;

'I'HL; IJR,AYI:K 01. N A I I O N I O U S AND THE l>>OOK 01. IMNIEI, 565

6:14). However, his friends Azariah, Hananiah and Mishael are called R1?l;T', "Judeans" or i'R717' j'131, "Judean men." (323, 12) It should be borne in mind that the reconstruction of line 4 that characterizes Daniel as "a Jew fr[om the exilesj," while quite plausible, is based not only on a different placing of the surviving fragments of 4QPrNah ur, but also on Dan 5:13, prompting many scholars to follow Milik's original place- ment of the fragments ünd include the word 132 in their reconstruction (i.e., "a Jewish mun fr[om the exiles]"). (16)

Perhaps the scholarly assumptions and reconstructions are actually pointing us to what the author of the Prayer had in mind. If, as I pro- pose, he was basing his work on Dun 4, he may have sought to call to mind both Dun 4 and its reflection in Dan 5. However, if the Aramaic Duniel stories of Dun 2-6 were well known in his circles, he may have felt that he could not name the diviner in his story, since that would have immediately made it suspect as a forgery. Therefore, he made the divi- ner very much like Daniel (and his story very like Dan 4), but even more like one of Daniel friends, to lead readers to the conclusion that this was a valid account of God's power w e r pagan kingdoms, since it was very much like Dan 4 with a hint of Dan 3. ( 1 7 )

4. [13]11 lp', "honor and exaltation" (section 1, line 5) The only places in Daniel that these two words occur in close

proximity are Dan 4:33 and the reflection of Dan 4 at 5: 18. In both cases these are attributes of Nebuchadnezzar that were given to him by God. Once again, the Prayer cf Nubonidus reads like a theological hypercor- rection of Daniel on the pürt of the author of the Prayer (see number I above and number 5 below). Instead of God giving honor and exaltation to the king, in the Prayer the king is urged to recognize these as qualities of God. Thus, the author of the Prayer of Nahonidus may be attempting in his own way to suggest a reading of Daniel thüt coincides with his understanding of theological orthodoxy.

Once again, if the reconstruction of Garcia Martinez (13]11 7P' 7I171, "honor, exalt[ation and gloryj") is followed, the likelihood that the author of the Pruyer was drawing on Dan 5: 18 is even greater, since all three words occur there as a group (although in a different Order). ( I 8) If Dan 4 is a later and supposedly more modified version of

(16) Colliris, "4QPrnycr of Nahonitlus iir." 91; Jo\cph A. Fitmycr. A Marwrl o( f ' i l / e s f i / ~ i ~ ~ ~ r A r u ~ i l u i ( . i c " t / s (So( 01111 C P I I I I I I . ~ B.C. - SC( end C C I I I L I I \ Aß.) (Bi bOr 33, R011ic: Biblical Iii>iiiiite, 1978), 2: Giiiria Martinc7, .'The Psaycr of Nabonidus." 119; Picrrc Crclot, "L,\ Piki-c tlc Niiboiiidc (4 Q Or Nah)." R ~ I Q 9 (1978), 485: Milik, "Pribre tle N;iboiiirlc." 408.

(17) This mny bc an iiidrc~ition thot thc P m y r o/ Ntrho171dm docs iiot Point t o Danicl as Llie Jcwisli tlivincr. hut to A~iiriüh, Hanan~ah oi Mkhncl.

(18) Gaiciü Maitinez, "Thc Piciyer of Naboiiidus." 1 19.

566 ANDREW STEINMANN

the same tradition as represented by the Pruyer of Nabonidus, what confidence should be placed in such a reconstruction'? On the other hand, if the Prayer is based on Daniel, this reconstruction is much mure convincing.

5. NDOX NI34 N Y 8 [Nhlfi Rtün] N3771 RDO3 '7%, "gods of silver and gold, bronze, iron, wood, stone, clay" (section 1, lines 7 and 8) It is widely recognized that this phrase is similar to Dan 5:4 and

5:24. (19) However, the sequence N51771 NEID3 is found at Dan 5:24, whereas the reverse is found at 5:4. A striking feature of this formula is that in ancient Jewish writings in Aramaic or Hebrew up to the Herodian period this formula occurs in no other texts of which I am aware. This would seem to argue for some dependence of one text upon another. Surely, it defies the odds (and logic) that two garbled versions of a tradi- tion about Nabonidus' madness were handed down but managed to pro- duce nearly identical wording for a rare formula naming types of pagan gods in both Dan 5 and the Prayer of Nabonidus. Surely one text was copying and modifying the other.

Moreover, an important element of the list of gods in the Prayer is missing in Dan 5. Nowhere are gods of clay mentioned. However, clay is mentioned as a constituent element in the statue Seen by Nebuchad- nezzar in Dan 2 (Dan 2:33,34, 35,41 [twice], 42,43 [twice], 45). Since the elements that make up this statue are gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay, lines 7 and 8 of the Prayer appear to be a conflation of the ele- ments of images mentioned in Daniel: gold, silver, bronze, and iron are found in both the statue in Nebuchadnezzar's dream and in pagan idols. Clay is an element of the dream statue only, whereas wood and stone are only mentioned as elements from which pagan images are made. Once again, we appear to have a hypertheological correction of Daniel (see numbers 2 and 4 above). By conflating all the elements of images, the author of the Prayer affirms his radical monotheism and denies any power to pagan gods. This conflation argues that the direction of borrowing is from Daniel to the Prayer ofNabonidus.

6. YW ]'In, "seven years" (section 1, lines 3 and 5) One of the striking parallels between Dan 4 and the Prayer is the

period of the illness of both kings. However, this is not as striking as it appears at first. In Daniel Nebuchadnezzar's madness is said to last 1'315) C1i?2tü, seven times (4: 13,20, 22,29). While many (beginning with the Old Greek version) have understood this to mean seven years, it is not necessarily intended to be understood in this way. (20) It should be

(19) Collins, "Naboiiidus, Prayer of," 977; Collins, "4QPrayer of Nabonidus ar," 91. (20) Besides the Old Gicek, Collins understands D m 4 this wüy ünd lists Joscphus,

Jeioine and rnedicval Jewish comnientntors as also holding to this interpretation. Howcver,

'THE f'lM YY'K Ol. NAUONIDUS AND THE UOOK 01: 1)ANII:'l. 567

noted that throughout Daniel, with the exception of Dan 12: 1 1,12 ( 1 290 days and 1335 days) and the report of Jeremiah's seventy years (9:2; certainly not Danielic in origin), predictive time periods are given in general terms, which may indicate that a facile equation of times and years was not intended. We find general predictive periods such as iXN ~ 3 % 7 jl;l'D1121, "in the days of those kings" (2:44); jTY1 jnl, "a season and a time" (7: 12); ]W f791 j9;7Y7 ]W, "a times, two times and half a time" (7:25); D'Y31ü D'YXI, "seventy heptads" (9:24; note the phrase C'D' O'Y30, "heptads, days" = "week" to distinguish actual time from predictive time [10:2,31); 0'101 C'UU D'?I>U1 7Yatü C15)3U, "seven heptads and sixty-two heptads" (9:25; cf. 9:26); ü13U;I 'Xnl 7nK YU0, "one heptad and half of a heptad (9:27); I?'?tiW O'ii'ai, "a few days" (1 1:20); D'D', "some days/awhileV ( I 1:30). Thus, Nebuchadnezzar's pre- dicted (and later fulfilled) period of madness of "seven times" (4: 13, 20, 22,29) may be intended as not as a specific seven years, but as a general characterization of a divinely deterrnined time of punishment. (21) The- refore, the "seven years" in the Prayer of Nubonidus bears the telltale sign of an interpretation and reapplication of Dan 4 by the author of the Prayer.

4QPrNah a r contains only about seventy words, some of them only partially preserved. If one excludes fragment 4, in which all preserved lines are too short to enable one to draw sound conclusions from, only fifty-six words remain. Of those, twenty words discussed above (36%) have striking parallels with similar usage and thematic employment in Dan 2-5. I find it almost impossible to deny that one text must depend on another. While the narrative of the Prayer of Nahonidus and the account of Dan 4 offer the closest parallel, the fact that the Prayer appears to draw on language from four chapters in Daniel would seem to argue that the Prayer is based on Daniel; indeed, that its author acti- vely borrowed from Daniel.

Thus, there are a number of indications that the Prayer of Nahoni- dus was composed in imitation of Daniel, re-employing Danielic voca- bulary, correcting its theology and interpreting its ~rophecies. The author employed vocabulary and motifs from Dan 2, 3, 4 and 5: all of the Aramaic Babylonian narrative chapters. He refrained from using

he notcs that son~c patristic writcrs understood the phrase as "scven seasons" John J. '201- lins, ßaniel: A Contmcwtar\: (MI //W ß ~ o k o/. f h i i e l (Herineneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 228).

(21 Note the use of .seium to signify an ultimate ainount at D a n 3: 19, "He ordered the furnace to be heated times more that it had been heated." Suiely we are not to

understand (nor did thc ancients understand) [hat somc type of thcrrnodynamic rncasurc- rnent of the hcat of the furnace was being takcn so [hat the resultins hcat in the furnacc was actually scvcn timcs that of its normal Operating energy. lnstead, .seven titncJ.s rnust signify something like "üs hot as possible."

motifs from Dun 6, perhaps because this is a narrative concerning a Per- sian king. Had no one posited the theory that Dan 4 originated in trüdi- tions about Nabonidus, when 4QPrNah ar was discovered, it likely would have been seen for what I am proposing it is: a composition, like several others (e.g., the additional material in Greek Duniel) that exten- ded and expanded the Aramaic Daniel narrative. (22) However, with the desire to vindicate a theory that had little hard evidence to support it, 4QPrNah ur was caught up in a rush to judgment that has blinded scho- lars to the distinct possibility that the Prayer c$ Nuhonidus had its gene- sis from Daniel rather than was produced by an earlier tradition that underlies Daniel4.

ADDITIONAL IMPLICATIONS FOK UNDERSTANDING THE PRAYER OF NABONIDUS

The second section of 4QPrNab ar is much more difficult to read and interpret because of its more fragmented state. One of the most controverted words is ~ Q ~ I R in line I. This is obviously an 'Aphel per- fect form. The Hebrew root 05tI occurs at Jer 29:8, and means "you caused to dream." Milik translated n n k ~ as "I had a dream." (23) Meyer zealously defended this reading. (24) However, Collins, noting that the 'Aphel form is used in the sense of "to heal" in Syriac, translates "I was müde strong." (25) Collins seems to be assuming that section 2 of 4QPrNab ur narrates the end of Nabonidus' story of his affliction when he has already been healed.

Given the strong dependence of the Prayer on Daniel, especially Dan 4 where a dream is at the center of the narrative, the meaning "cau- sed to dream" fits more closely. However, nnblt4 is not necessarily a first person form, as previous attempts to read it have assumed. Although the Prayer is primarily in the first person, not all of the verbs are first person verbs. (26) could be a second person masculine singular form or even a third person feminine singular form. I propose (as refiected in my translation above) that it may be a second person

(22) Notc that all ofthc rnalor Gicck expnnsions to I)cr~ircl (Piayer of Azaiiah, Song of' the Thrcc Youiig Mcii. and Susanna [whicli takes place when Danicl is a young inan]) LWC c11w sct in thc Neo-ßobylonian kingdoin or aie coiiccrncd wilh discrccliting Babylonian gods, though set in the Peiiian pcriod (Bel and thc Dragon). The I'rtrvc~r 01 Nubon~cl~i\ conforni\ to 11114 tracht~on »f expandiiig thc condcrnnation of Babylonian, but not Per\ian, rcligion cvcii thoiigh I)tr~i 6 ds wcll as the visioiis of Dan C ) and 10-12 arc set in the Per\ian eiripii c.

(23) Milik. "PI ibic de Nabonidc." (24) Mcyci, Da\ Gt4x.t doc Nchorucl, 28. (25) Colliii\, "4QPrayei of Nabon~dw ar," 92 (26) Notc that l)mzrd 4, while prirnarily narratcd in ihc first pcrsoii has a shoit sec-

tion nairatcd in ihc tliiid person (4:26-29) aiid contains soine vcrbs i n thc sccond pcrwi.

'IHf. IJl(/\YI.K 01' NAUONIDLIS A N D THE BOOK Ot DANIEL 569

form, and at this point Nabonidus is addressing God (perhaps as part of his prayer), saying, "You gave me a dream ..." This would mean that this section of the dream is not the end of Nabonidus' story of his afflic- tion (as Collins would have it), but his relating of the effects of his affliction. Such a reading fits better with n b ' R?, "1 was not able" in line 3, where Nabonidus may have been speaking of some disability caused by his illness. This would also mean that Collins' reconstruction of the end of line 2 as "The peace of [my] repo[se returned to me]" is mistaken, because he is assuming the wrong context for his line. I would propose reconstructing the line as something like ii3 MD3 'n i l?~ &U, ['D77 "the peace of [my] restfulness [he took from meJ."

An old conundrum asks, "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?' In many ways the relationship between Dun 4 and the Prayer of Nahonidus is exactly this conundrum. However, the examination of this particular manifestation of the riddle has been complicated by a prior theory about the origin of Dan 4. This theory and the desire to vindicate it have prejudiced the discussion of the relationship between Dan 4 and the Pruyer ever since the discovery of 4QPriVuh nr. However, a close look at the Prayer of Nabonidus reveals ü number of features that can fairly be argued derive from Daniel. I would argiie that the weight of the evidence favors the theory that the Prayer was written by an author who leaned on Daiziel as his primary source. Whether this author intended to write an independent story similar to those in Daiziel or whether he sought to supplement Daniel and supply a story to fill in the gap bet- ween the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and the Persian conquest of Babylon cannot be determined.

That Daniel is not mentioned in the surviving fragments of 4QPrNub ur is not remarkable. Perhaps he was mentioned in parts of the document that did not survive. Once again the author may have drawn his inspiration from Dan 5 where Danie! is first described ünonymously ( 5 : l l ) before being named (5:12). Or perhaps this is not a story about Daniel at all. It may well be a story about one of Daniel's friends (see discussion of '717' above, including note 18). This, also, would be in line with the book of Daniel, where an entire chapter contains a narra- tive that does not mention Daniel once (Dan 3).

Gar& Martinez notes about Dan 4 and the Prayer of Nuhonidus that "apart from the common story the aim of the two narratives is iden- tical, to show the recognition of the uselessness of the false gods and the power of the true God." (27) However, could this not also be said to be

(27) Garcia Mrtrtinez, "Thc Prayer of Naboiiidus," 129.

570 ANDKEW STEINMANN

the theme of other narratives in Daniel, especially chapters 3, 5 and even 6 (cf. 6:25-27)? To a lesser extent it could well be said to be a theme in Daniel 1 and 2 (cf. Dan 1 :2, 9, 17, 20 as a group and 2: 1 1, 18-23, 28, 44-45, 47 as a group). Therefore, this theme runs throughout the narrative portions of Daniel (Dan 1-6). The author of the Prayer likely recognized this, and (if I am correct) used these narratives, with special focus on Dan 4, as the primäry guide for shaping his story about Nabonidus, even though the initial inspiration of his story may have been a tradition about Nabonidus gleaned from other sources.

Does this conclusion invalidate the theory that an incident in the life of Nabonidus was the original inspiration for the account of Nebu- chadnezzar's madness in Dan 4? Not necessarily. However, it does call into question whether one can use the Prayer of Nabonidus to corrobo- rate that theory.

Does the argument presented above absolutely prove that the Prayer is based on Dan 4 and other texts from Daniel? Of Course not. I would simply argue that the evidence suggests that this is a more likely scenario than the one currently accepted by most scholars and better explains why a small, fragmented, incomplete text of only seventy words (many of them only partially preserved) has many verbal parallels to Dan 2-5.

Andrew STEINMANN.