General conclusion of the DAN002 appendices

The first point concerns the context of Daniel 1.

The Babylonian victory at Carchemish in 605 BC profoundly changes the political balance of the Near East.

After the defeat of the Egyptian army, Babylonia extends its control toward Syria-Palestine, and Judah passes gradually from Egyptian dependence to Babylonian domination.

Daniel 1 places in this context Nebuchadnezzar’s intervention against Jerusalem, the transfer of some of the Temple vessels and the arrival of young Judeans in Babylon (Daniel 1.1-6).

This first phase must be distinguished from the capture of Jerusalem and the great deportation of 597 BC, and then from the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple in 586 BC (2 Kings 24.10-16 ; 2 Kings 25.1-12).

The chronology also requires us to distinguish the battle of Carchemish from the intervention against Jerusalem.

Carchemish is situated on the Euphrates and is the site of the great confrontation between the Babylonian and Egyptian forces (Jeremiah 46.2).

Nebuchadnezzar’s victory then opens the way for Babylonian expansion toward the south.

The most precise formulation therefore consists in understanding the sequence as follows:

Carchemish in 605 BC → Egyptian withdrawal → Babylonian advance southward → Judah coming under Babylonian domination → intervention against Jerusalem reported in Daniel 1.

This distinction avoids turning several historical stages into a single military event.

Daniel places the event in the third year of Jehoiakim (Daniel 1.1), whereas Jeremiah associates Carchemish with his fourth year (Jeremiah 46.2).

This difference can be understood in light of the various ancient methods of reckoning regnal years, notably the distinction between systems with or without an accession year.

It is therefore not necessary to conclude immediately that there is a contradiction.

The exact correspondence of the reckoning systems nevertheless remains a chronological reconstruction and must be presented as such.

No biblical passage gives Daniel’s age on his arrival in Babylon.

The hypothesis of an age of about fourteen remains plausible for a young man selected to receive training at court, but it is not a datum of the text.

If this hypothesis is accepted, Daniel would have been born around 619 BC.

He would be about sixteen or seventeen at the end of his training, about eighty at the fall of Babylon in 539 BC, about 81 to 82 in the first year of Cyrus and about 83 to 84 in his third year.

These ages help us visualize the exceptional length of his career, but they must always be identified as estimates.

Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah receive new names in Babylon (Daniel 1.6-7).

Their Hebrew names have relatively well-established meanings and contain references to the God of Israel.

Daniel means approximately “God is my judge.”

Hananiah expresses the grace of YHWH — show definition INF010.

Mishael can be understood as “Who is like God?”

Azariah means “YHWH — show definition INF010 has helped.”

The Babylonian names must be treated with greater caution.

Belteshazzar is explicitly associated by Nebuchadnezzar with the name of his god (Daniel 4.8), but its precise etymological reconstruction remains debated.

Shadrach and Meshach have received various explanations, notably comparisons with the Mesopotamian deity Aku, without any solution being considered certain.

Abednego is probably linked to Nabu and can be understood as a form corresponding to “servant of Nabu.”

An academic study must therefore avoid presenting the four Babylonian names with equally certain translations.

The text reports no protest by Daniel against his new name.

Nor does he refuse to learn Babylonian culture.

But the narrator continues to call him Daniel and reintroduces the four Hebrew names at the moment of their presentation before the king (Daniel 1.19).

This distinction is important.

The imperial administration can assign a new administrative identity to the young Judeans.

It does not thereby determine their inner faithfulness.

Daniel accepts several elements of his new environment before the narrative reports a refusal.

The limit appears in Daniel 1.8:

“Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank.”

The exact reason for this defilement is, however, not explained.

This is one of the points on which exegesis must keep real caution.

The dietary prescriptions of the Torah — show definition INF032 are a natural explanation, notably for meats (Leviticus 11.1-47 ; Deuteronomy 14.3-21).

The conditions of preparation and the possible presence of blood may also be considered (Leviticus 17.10-14).

An association of the food with Babylonian cults has also been proposed.

Finally, the royal table could carry a dimension of integration and dependence on the sovereign.

None of these explanations is explicitly given by Daniel 1.

Several factors may have combined.

Daniel asks for vegetables and water during the ten-day trial (Daniel 1.12-16).

The passage does not, however, seek to establish the scientific superiority of a diet.

Nor does it command permanent vegetarianism.

Daniel 10.3, where Daniel states that he temporarily abstained from meat and wine, shows that Daniel 1 need not be understood as the definitive adoption of a diet excluding these foods.

The center of the narrative is faithfulness, not nutrition.

Daniel and his companions learn “the literature and language of the Chaldeans” (Daniel 1.4).

The text never presents this training as a fault.

Daniel can learn the culture of Babylon without adopting its gods.

This distinction helps us understand the position he will hold throughout his career.

He does not live outside the imperial system.

On the contrary, he exercises responsibilities within it while maintaining a distinct religious faithfulness.

Mesopotamian culture included important scribal, administrative, literary, scientific, religious and divinatory traditions.

This context sheds light on the expression “literature and language of the Chaldeans.”

Daniel 1 gives, however, no list of the disciplines Daniel actually studied.

It would therefore be excessive to claim that he personally followed each of the teachings known in the Mesopotamian scholarly schools.

The historical context illuminates the text; it must not replace the information that the text does not supply.

Daniel 1.17 declares:

“God gave these four youths learning and skill in all literature and wisdom.”

The narrative thus associates two realities.

The young men receive real training.

God grants them knowledge and understanding.

Daniel also possesses a particular aptitude concerning visions and dreams.

This distinction prepares Daniel 2, where the training explains Daniel’s presence among the wise men while the revelation of the mystery comes from God (Daniel 2.19-23 ; Daniel 2.27-30).

Daniel 1.5 provides for three years of training.

Daniel 2.1 then places Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in the second year of his reign.

The difficulty can be clarified by the Babylonian accession-year system.

A training begun during Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year can continue through his first official year and end during his second.

The three years therefore do not necessarily represent thirty-six full months.

This reconstruction respects the natural progression of the narrative without claiming to determine events to the month.

The statement:

“So Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus” (Daniel 1.21)

does not mean that Daniel dies on that date.

Daniel 10.1 presents him as still alive in the third year of Cyrus.

The first year of Cyrus is therefore a literary and historical boundary.

It leads the reader to the time when Babylonian domination has disappeared and the return of the exiles becomes possible.

The first year of Cyrus is associated with the decree permitting the return of the Judeans and the rebuilding of the Temple (2 Chronicles 36.22-23 ; Ezra 1.1-4).

Daniel reaches this time.

But no passage recounts that he himself takes part in the return.

It would therefore be excessive to claim that he returned to Jerusalem.

It would likewise be excessive to claim categorically that he never returned.

The certain datum is more limited: no return of Daniel to Jerusalem is reported in the book.

The Temple vessels appear as early as Daniel 1.2.

Nebuchadnezzar carries them to Babylon and places them in the treasury of his god.

They reappear in Daniel 5 when Belshazzar has them brought in during his banquet (Daniel 5.2-4).

Daniel then interprets their use as a manifestation of the king’s pride against the Lord of heaven (Daniel 5.22-23).

The vessels thus link the beginning of Babylonian domination to the night of its fall.

Ezra reports that Cyrus returns the vessels of the house of the the Eternal — show definition INF038 that Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem (Ezra 1.7-11).

The general movement can therefore be summarized:

Jerusalem → Babylon → judgment of Babylon → return to Jerusalem.

This course gives a particular significance to Daniel 1.2 and to Daniel 1.21.

The chapter begins with sacred possessions leaving Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar.

It leads the reader to Cyrus, under whom their return becomes possible.

The appendices thus confirm the programmatic function of Daniel 1.

God’s sovereignty appears from Daniel 1.2.

The question of integration into a foreign culture appears in the training and in the change of name — show definition INF121.

Faithfulness is manifested in the decision concerning food.

Wisdom and revelation are introduced in Daniel 1.17.

The succession of empires is anticipated by the transition from Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus.

The Temple vessels finally link Babylonian domination to its judgment.

The later developments of the book are therefore already present in embryonic form in its first chapter.

Several elements of Daniel 1 can be established directly.

Daniel and his companions are taken to Babylon.

They receive training.

Their names are changed.

Daniel refuses the royal food because he regards it as a source of defilement.

The four young men are recognized as particularly competent.

Daniel remains present until the time of Cyrus.

Other elements remain reconstructions:

his exact age;

the precise date of his arrival;

the detailed content of his training;

the etymology of certain Babylonian names;

the precise reason for the dietary defilement;

the exact length of his training in months;

and his possible return to Jerusalem.

Maintaining this distinction is essential to a historically rigorous reading.

Leviticus 11.1-47 ; Leviticus 17.10-14 ; Deuteronomy 14.3-21 ; 2 Kings 24.10-16 ; 2 Kings 25.1-12 ; 2 Chronicles 36.22-23 ; Ezra 1.1-4 ; Ezra 1.7-11 ; Jeremiah 46.2 ; Daniel 1.1 ; Daniel 1.1-6 ; Daniel 1.2 ; Daniel 1.4 ; Daniel 1.5 ; Daniel 1.6-7 ; Daniel 1.8 ; Daniel 1.12-16 ; Daniel 1.17 ; Daniel 1.19 ; Daniel 1.21 ; Daniel 2.1 ; Daniel 2.19-23 ; Daniel 2.27-30 ; Daniel 4.8 ; Daniel 5.2-4 ; Daniel 5.22-23 ; Daniel 10.1 ; Daniel 10.3.