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 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 between the king's dream vision in which he receives a divine warning and the divine punishment that occurs one year later (Daniel 4:29) addresses a potential contradiction in earlier biblical material. According to Jeremiah 32:1–2 and 52:29, the inhabitants of Jerusalem were expelled in Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth year of kingship. 2 Kings 25:8 as well as Jeremiah 52:12, however, note that the captain of the king's guard, Nebuzaradan, burned down the temple in Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year of kingship. The author of Daniel resolves this potential contradiction by attributing the earlier date to the king's dream vision and the later date to the actual destruction. In solving this exegetical difficulty, Segal demonstrates that the author of Daniel 4 was writing material with an eye towards earlier biblical prophetic literature.
Segal next studies Daniel 7 as a unified text that relies on earlier biblical passages, such as Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82, to argue that like these texts, Daniel 7 depicts God in a courtly setting acting as judge over other divine beings, whose powerlessness contrasts with YHWH's total sovereignty.
Moving on to Daniel 9, Segal demonstrates that the author of this chapter relies exclusively on biblical material to construct a timeline of Persian history, just as the rabbinic authors would do centuries later. The seventy weeks of years that Daniel envisions transpiring before God eradicates sin from the earth is not a reinterpretation of Jeremiah 25's prediction of seventy years of exile, as scholars have thought, but a time period that follows (and is a result of) Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9. The “anointed leader” who is said to come in Daniel 9:25 at the end of the first seven weeks has generally been thought to be Cyrus, Joshua the High Priest, or Zerubabel, based on the assumption that the seventy weeks of years (that is, 490 years) begins before the Babylonian exile. But according to Segal, Daniel's seventy weeks of years more likely follows the restoration, and Nehemiah is the “anointed leader,” who comes at the end of the first seven weeks, that is, forty-nine years following the reign of Darius the Mede.
The author of Daniel 9, Segal concludes, used biblical information to calculate that Nehemiah arrived in Judea around 490 BCE, forty-nine years after Daniel prayed to God in Daniel 9. (Daniel prays in Darius the Mede's first year, which is followed by Cyrus's three-year reign, Darius of Persia's seven-year reign, Ahaseurus's fourteen-year reign, and Artaxerxes's reign, whose twentieth year of reign marks Nehemiah's arrival.) The messianic figure alluded to in 9:25–27, therefore, is Nehemiah. Segal's work in this chapter is challenging and complex, but effectively demonstrates what he argues throughout the book: the authors of Daniel used biblical information to calculate and evaluate history.
Segal closes his study with a reading of the book of Susanna as a critique of Babylonian leadership. The portrayal of the Babylonian leaders as corrupt and immoral suggests that the author of this novella believed that the Jews of Judea were superior to those of Babylonia. Susanna's placement in the Septuagint before Daniel acts as an implicit critique of those who would have read the early chapters in Daniel as a positive affirmation of Jewish life in Babylonian exile. Segal's novel reading does not explain some idiosyncratic elements of this small book, such as the appearance of Habbakuk, who time travels to Babylonia to save the day. Moreover, one would think that Susanna would mention Daniel's devotion to Jerusalem (as one sees in Daniel 6:10), if this book was indeed primarily a critique of Babylonian leadership.
Segal rejects the traditional view that Daniel 2–7 consists of a concentric chiastic structure. Instead, he suggests that Daniel 2 and 5 mirror one another, as do Daniel 3 and 6. Daniel 7, like the introductory chapter of Daniel, represents material added by a later author.
Segal emphasizes the ways in which the Daniel stories interact with earlier biblical prophetic literature, especially Jeremiah and Isaiah. He compellingly argues for connections between the court narratives in Daniel 2–6 and the biblical court stories of Joseph and Esther. Segal also looks forward, and considers how the authors of Daniel read the Bible in ways similar to later rabbinic interpretations. He thus situates Daniel within a spectrum of continuous biblical interpretation that began in the early years of the Second Temple period and extended through the rabbinic period.
Despite its technical tone, Segal's book is easy to read, in part because he returns to his main arguments throughout the book. Segal's mastery of the versions of Daniel, and the biblical and Near Eastern material that influenced these versions, illuminate many aspects of this enigmatic biblical book. The biggest challenge for the reader is structural. Segal does not study chapters in order, and there is too little material on Daniel 3, 6, 8, and 10–12 to satisfy the curious reader. Segal's book will nevertheless be deeply appreciated by scholars looking for a fresh perspective on how the writers of Daniel may have interpreted scriptural stories and reworked prophetic traditions.
