Carol Newsom's Remarks Concerning Daniel 7 and Ugaritic Myths

See Newsom, Carol A., and Brennan W. Breed. 2014. Daniel: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. http://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=3416822. Pages 217-219.

The source and nature of the symbolism used in the chapter has evoked considerable discussion. With the recovery of ancient Near Eastern texts from Mesopotamia and Ugarit during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, scholars noticed mythic overtones in the symbolism in Dan 7, first comparing aspects of it to the Babylonian creation epic, the Enuma Elish, which records the battle of the god Marduk with the chaotic sea, Tiamat, and the monstrous beings that come from her (see Gunkel 205–13; Lambert 50–133). With the discovery of the cycle of Baal myths from Ugarit, however, scholars claimed to see a more striking similarity between that mythic pattern and the figures and events in Dan 7 (Emerton 1958; Day 280–94). In the Baal myth, the Sea (Yam) is the first of two enemies who threaten Baal, and with him, the security of the world. When Baal, often described as the Rider of the Clouds, offers to defeat Sea, he is acclaimed by the craftsman god Kothar-wa-asis: “Now, your enemy, Baal, now you will kill your enemy, now you will annihilate your foe. You will take your eternal kingship, your dominion forever and ever” (CTU 1.2 IV 9–10; trans. follows Coogan and Smith). The aged god El, who is called ab šnm (abu šanima), commonly understood as Father of Years, is the deity who grants kingship, though no scene involving Baal’s appointment is preserved, and El actually appears resistant to Baal’s appointment. Nevertheless, the similarities with Dan 7 are suggestive, including the figures of the older and younger divine figures, their epithets, and the theme of kingship. 

One of the problems faced by scholars who champion the influence of the mythic pattern on the composition of Dan 7, however, is to account for how the author of this text from the Hellenistic period could have known the outlines of a myth attested only in second-millennium-B.C.E. sources. Attempts have been made to demonstrate the vitality of the (weather god) Baal-Hadad cult even into the Hellenistic period (Kearns 3:46–57), though no accounts of this myth are known from that period. Others have suggested that the mythic pattern was preserved in Israelite religious thought in the royal psalms, which make use of some of these motifs while presenting the Davidic line as the representative of YHWH’s sovereignty on earth (see Ps 89:9–10 [10–11]). In this view, Dan 7 would be a remythologization of this tradition in an apocalyptic context (so Mosca). One can also argue that, even though the mechanism for the transmission of the myth can no longer be identified, the similarities are themselves evidence that the mythic pattern influenced the author of Dan 7, whether consciously or unconsciously (J. Collins 294).

Skeptics of this interpretation have pointed out that there are significant elements in Dan 7 that have no parallel in the Ugaritic myths: the sequence of four kingdoms represented as monstrous animals, the defeat of the hostile forces through a court judgment rather than through battle, and the nonparticipatory role of the humanlike figure coming with the clouds until he is granted sovereignty. No one suggests that the mythic pattern was taken over as a whole, but rather that it was creatively adapted to the needs of the author of Dan 7. Nevertheless, the discrepancies are sufficient to raise doubts as to whether or not a mythic pattern, as opposed to common mythic elements, has in fact played a role in structuring the vision (Newsom 2014a).

Methodologically, one needs to distinguish between what one might call  a compositional or authorial intertextuality on the one hand and intertextual connections made by a reader on the other hand. In the case of Dan 7, a modern scholar, steeped in comparative ancient Near Eastern mythology, may be primed to recognize similarities with the Baal myth, and more  distantly with Enuma Elish, because these texts loom large in modern scholars’ sets of mental reference texts. But that is not evidence that these  were actually constitutive elements in the composition of Dan 7.

While it is difficult to demonstrate conclusively how an author goes  about creating a text from existing cultural materials, it is important to  begin by cataloging the most clearly attested connections, those for which intentional use is most likely. When those have been identified, then one can better judge whether influence of the Baal myth is needed to account  for the narrative pattern and thematic elements of Dan 7. Obviously, the  author of Dan 7 draws explicitly on the schema from ch. 2 of four Gentile  kingdoms succeeded by a fifth kingdom that manifests divine sovereignty.  Equally evident is the use of a court judgment scene, variously attested via the Enoch tradition in the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 14:18–23), the Book  of the Giants (4Q530), and the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 90:20; see below for an analysis of the relationships of these texts and traditions).

After accounting for the contribution of these stock elements, what remains? First, the image of the sea stirred up by winds. The sea as a figure of chaos belongs to the common ancient Near Eastern mythic repertoire. Its presence does not evoke the Baal myth per se. Moreover, in Dan 7 the mythic pattern of a battle with the sea is not represented. The sea is presented as acted upon by the winds rather than being a personified, autonomous agent. The final element to be accounted for is the description of  the humanlike one as “coming with the clouds” and receiving sovereignty  from the Ancient of Days. Though movement with the clouds is a characteristic of divine beings and is associated with both YHWH (Isa 19:1;  cf. Deut 33:26; Pss 68:33 [34]; 104:3) and Baal (CTU 1.2 IV 8, 29; etc.), angels within the book of Daniel are elsewhere described in terms drawn from the descriptions of God (cf. 10:5–6). Such elohization of angels is also strongly present in certain Qumran literature as well, including Melchizedek (11Q13) and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400–407; 11Q17; Mas1k). The phrase in Daniel does not necessarily point back to a distinctively “Baal-shaped” role for the humanlike one. As for receiving sovereignty,  there is similarly no need to invoke Baal mythology.