The Hebrew and Babylonian names of Daniel and his companions

After describing the selection of young men coming notably from the royal family and the nobility, the account names four of them:

“Among these were of the sons of Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.” (Daniel 1.6)

These four names belong to their identity as men of Judah.

The next verse introduces their new designation:

“And the chief of the eunuchs gave them names: Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego.” (Daniel 1.7)

The change is thus explicitly attributed to the Babylonian administration.

The the change of names — show definition INF220 is not an isolated episode.

Daniel and his companions are displaced geographically.

They are brought into a new political environment.

They receive training in “the literature and language of the Chaldeans” (Daniel 1.4).

Food from the royal table is assigned to them (Daniel 1.5).

They are prepared for the king's service.

The change of name — show definition INF121 therefore belongs to a more general process of integration into the Babylonian court.

The four Hebrew names are linked to the God of Israel.

Two use the element El, a Semitic designation of God.

Two contain an abbreviated form of the divine name YHWH — show definition INF010.

Thus, even before the account reports their deeds, their names link them linguistically to the God of Israel.

This characteristic makes their replacement particularly significant in the Babylonian context.

The name דָּנִיֵּאל, Dāniyyēʾl, Daniel, is generally understood as meaning:

“God is my judge” or “God judges for me.”

The name contains the element El, “God.”

This meaning corresponds remarkably well with several themes of the book.

Daniel will interpret the judgment passed on kingdoms and rulers.

Nebuchadnezzar will be judged in Daniel 4.

Belshazzar will be “weighed” and his kingdom judged in Daniel 5.

The great visions will likewise present the divine judgment on human powers (Daniel 7.9-14).

One must nevertheless distinguish the linguistic meaning of the name from its literary use: the text does not explicitly state that Daniel received this name in anticipation of these events.

The name חֲנַנְיָה, Ḥănanyāh, Hananiah, can be understood as:

“YHWH — show definition INF010 has shown grace”, “YHWH — show definition INF010 is gracious” or “YHWH — show definition INF010 has shown his favor.”

The name combines a form of the verb expressing grace or favor with the divine element Yāh, an abbreviated form of the name YHWH — show definition INF010.

This meaning recalls that the young man's identity is originally formulated in relation to the God of Israel.

The name מִישָׁאֵל, Mîšāʾēl, Mishael, is generally understood as a question:

“Who is like God?”

The final element El designates God.

The wording has a rhetorical dimension: it implies that no being can truly be compared to God.

This affirmation fits especially well with the general theology of the book of Daniel, which regularly contrasts divine sovereignty with the claims of earthly powers.

The name עֲזַרְיָה, ʿĂzaryāh, Azariah, generally means:

“YHWH — show definition INF010 has helped” or “YHWH — show definition INF010 is help.”

Like Hananiah, the name contains an abbreviated form of the divine name.

The name thus expresses an explicit relationship between its bearer and the God of Israel.

The four Hebrew names thus form a set strongly marked by the faith of Israel.

These meanings can be accepted with fairly high confidence.

The situation becomes more complex when it comes to the Babylonian names.

The chief of the eunuchs gives Daniel the name Belteshazzar (Daniel 1.7).

This name must not be confused with that of Belshazzar, the king of Daniel 5.

The forms are close in English translations, but they designate two different persons.

Daniel is Belteshazzar.

The ruler of Daniel 5 is Belshazzar.

Nebuchadnezzar says of Daniel:

“Daniel, whose name is Belteshazzar after the name of my god.” (Daniel 4.8)

The same connection appears when the king addresses Daniel (Daniel 4.9).

This declaration is an important textual datum.

Daniel's Babylonian name has, in the understanding expressed by Nebuchadnezzar, a relationship with the king's deity.

The change of name — show definition INF121 thus takes on a more explicitly religious dimension here.

The precise etymology of the name has been the subject of various proposals.

It is frequently linked to the god Bel, a title associated notably with Marduk.

Another analysis relates the form to an Akkadian expression of the type Balāṭšu-uṣur, which can be understood in the sense of “protect his life”.

The form transmitted in Daniel and its precise relationship to the divine name remain disputed.

It is therefore preferable not to assign to Belteshazzar a single translation with the same degree of certainty as for Daniel or Azariah.

The surest datum remains the one provided by Daniel 4.8: Nebuchadnezzar himself associates the name Belteshazzar with his god.

Hananiah receives the name Shadrach (Daniel 1.7).

Various explanations have been proposed for this name.

Some attempts link it to a name or expression containing a reference to Aku, a Mesopotamian moon deity.

These connections remain disputed, however.

The transmitted Hebrew form does not allow the original Babylonian name to be restored with certainty.

It is therefore preferable to write:

the etymology of Shadrach remains uncertain; an association with a Mesopotamian deity, notably Aku, has been proposed, without being considered certain.

Mishael receives the name Meshach (Daniel 1.7).

The etymology of this name is also uncertain.

Some proposals have tried to establish a parallel between the Hebrew name Mishael, “Who is like God?”, and a possible Babylonian formulation involving Aku.

This reconstruction is attractive on the literary level, but it is not certain enough to be presented as the established translation of the name.

Caution is therefore necessary.

Meshach is a Babylonian name whose exact explanation remains debated.

Azariah receives the name Abednego (Daniel 1.7).

This name is generally linked to a form corresponding to “servant of Nabu.”

Nabu was an important deity of the Mesopotamian pantheon, particularly associated with writing and wisdom.

The form “Nego” may reflect a modification of the divine form Nabu in the transmission of the name.

The association with Nabu is generally considered likely, even if the exact form calls for more caution than a perfectly regular translation would suggest.

This table avoids a frequent error: presenting the four Babylonian etymologies as equally certain.

They are not.

The text gives no explicit explanation of the decision of the chief of the eunuchs.

It is nevertheless possible to understand its logic within the framework of the account.

Daniel and his companions are to be integrated into the royal administration.

They learn the language and literature of the Chaldeans.

They are destined to stand before the king (Daniel 1.4-5).

Receiving a name suited to the new environment naturally belongs to this transformation of status.

In the Old Testament, changing an individual's name can express a relationship of authority.

Pharaoh Necho changes the name of Eliakim to Jehoiakim when he makes him king (2 Kings 23.34).

Nebuchadnezzar later changes the name of Mattaniah to Zedekiah when he in turn establishes him on the throne of Judah (2 Kings 24.17).

In these cases, the change of name — show definition INF121 accompanies a new political situation imposed by a dominant power.

Daniel 1 can be read within a comparable framework.

The young men of Judah enter an institution that redefines their social and administrative status.

The change of name — show definition INF121 can be understood as an attempt at deep cultural integration.

It would nevertheless be excessive to claim that Daniel 1 explicitly describes a systematic program aimed at erasing all memory of Judean identity.

The text does not state this intention.

It shows rather several converging transformations: displacement, training, food, change of name — show definition INF121 and royal service.

The whole undeniably exerts strong pressure toward integration.

But the exact intention of each measure must not be asserted beyond what the account allows us to establish.

One literary detail is particularly significant.

After announcing the new names in Daniel 1.7, the narrator continues to use the name of Daniel.

Daniel 1.8 begins immediately:

“Daniel resolved not to defile himself.”

At the end of the training, the text still declares:

“Among all of them none was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.” (Daniel 1.19)

The narrator therefore reintroduces the four Hebrew names at the moment when the young men are presented before Nebuchadnezzar.

This literary choice creates a remarkable contrast.

The Babylonian administration gives new names.

The biblical narrator keeps the old ones.

The king can change the official designation of these young men.

He does not control the way the account defines their identity.

The administrative change is real, but it does not abolish their belonging.

The book does not systematically refuse the new names.

In Daniel 3, Daniel's three companions are mainly known by the names Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (Daniel 3.12).

Daniel himself can be called Belteshazzar, notably by Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4.8-9).

The account therefore does not present the use of a Babylonian name as in itself an apostasy.

This observation is important for understanding the nature of faithfulness in Daniel.

Daniel 1 reports no protest by Daniel against the name Belteshazzar.

It likewise reports no refusal of the Babylonian training.

By contrast, Daniel explicitly takes a stand when he judges that the royal food risks defiling him (Daniel 1.8).

The contrast shows that not all forms of integration are placed on the same level.

Daniel accepts certain transformations imposed by his new situation.

He sets a limit when he considers that his faithfulness to God is directly at stake.

This distinction is essential.

Daniel can be called Belteshazzar without ceasing to be Daniel.

He can learn the language of the Chaldeans without ceasing to belong to the God of Israel.

He can serve a pagan sovereign without recognizing him as having absolute authority.

The biblical character's identity therefore does not depend on the outward preservation of all the markers of his earlier existence.

It is manifested above all in his faithfulness.

The two series of names can finally be placed in parallel.

The Hebrew names recall the God of Israel.

The Babylonian names inscribe the young men in the religious and administrative world of Babylon.

The four characters now live between these two universes.

But the account shows that their insertion into the second does not erase their faithfulness to the first.

The change of name — show definition INF121 thus becomes one of the most visible symbols of the tension that runs through Daniel 1: to live truly in Babylon without letting Babylon entirely determine one's identity.

The theological interpretation of the names must remain grounded in sufficiently solid linguistic data.

The meanings of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah are relatively well established.

Those of Shadrach and Meshach are much less so.

Abednego can plausibly be linked to Nabu.

Belteshazzar clearly has, according to Daniel 4.8, an association with Nebuchadnezzar's deity, but its exact etymological reconstruction remains disputed.

An academic study must therefore avoid tables in which each Babylonian name receives a precise translation without any indication of the degree of uncertainty.

2 Kings 23.34 ; 2 Kings 24.17 ; Daniel 1.3-6 ; Daniel 1.4 ; Daniel 1.4-5 ; Daniel 1.5 ; Daniel 1.6 ; Daniel 1.6-7 ; Daniel 1.7 ; Daniel 1.8 ; Daniel 1.19 ; Daniel 3.12 ; Daniel 4.8 ; Daniel 4.8-9 ; Daniel 4.9 ; Daniel 5.1-31 ; Daniel 7.9-14.