Introduction
With the archeological discoveries of the 19c., there was a great interest and much ink expended in correlating the Biblical accounts with archeological data. The book of Daniel was no exception and discoveries such as the name of Belshazzar on clay cylinders at Tell Muquyyar was used in defense of the Daniel’s historicity. However, 19c. German critical scholars persuaded the Anglo-Saxon scholarship of the time against the traditional date for the composition of Daniel. Today many scholars regard the question of dating as concluded, and believe that the book is a Maccabean pseudograph. Thus they have simply stopped looking for historical correlations. Nevertheless some conservative historians continue to link biblical events with archeological discoveries.
According to the book of Daniel, when Daniel and his three friends arrive in Babylon they are each given a Babylonian name. Daniel is named Belteshazzar, Hananiah is named Shadrach, Mishael is named Meshach, and Azariah is named Abed-Nego (Dan 1:7). These four serve Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 1:19) and are each promoted to high office. Daniel is made “ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon” (Dan 2:48), and the other three are also appointed as officials in province of Babylon (Dan 2:49, 3:30).
In 1982, W. H. Shea presented a paper[1] in which he proposed that the names of Daniel’s three friends could be identified on a cuneiform text known as the Istanbul Prism.[2] This thesis has been welcomed enthusiastically by evangelicals[3] (not to mention a host of internet apologists), though it is less frequently cited by conservative scholars. Critical scholars have almost entirely overlooked Shea’s proposition; the one exception is J. J. Collins, who briskly dismisses Shea’s identifications.[4] Despite this mixed (!) reception, Shea’s proposition remains an intriguing hypothesis and is worthy of some consideration.
The Istanbul Prism
The Istanbul Prism contains a list of officials from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. D. J. Wiseman states that the prism seems to have been “drawn up to record a procession to commemorate a special occasion”,[5] though we are currently unaware as to what that occasion might have been. Shea’s own thesis places the composition of the Istanbul Prism at the time of the events of Daniel 3.
Using the evidence of Nebuchadnezzar’s Chronicle, Shea establishes that there was a revolt in Nebuchadnezzar’s tenth year (circa. January 594 B.C.E.). He suggests that references to Zedekiah going to Babylon early in 593 B.C.E. (Jer 51:59-64) might imply a large gathering of vassal kings. That Nebuchadnezzar took his army westward in late 594 may have been for the very purpose of gathering these vassal kings. Shea connects all these events with Dan 3:1-3, where it is recorded that Nebuchadnezzar erected a large statue on the plain of Dura and sent for “all the officials of the provinces” to come attend the dedication. Shea reasons that the revolt against Nebuchadnezzar in 594 prompted him to review all his officials (and possibly replace them), and to reassert his authority over his vassal kings, and this reaffirmation of their loyalty was the purpose of the erection of the statue on the plain of Dura.[6] The Istanbul Prism would be the record of those officials and kings who affirmed their allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar.
The prism is not dated and neither are the events recorded in Daniel 3, so we lack positive confirmation of Shea’s thesis; but there are some details that make it probable that the Istanbul Prism was a loyalty oath following a revolt. First there is the comprehensive nature of list, which is incomparable with any other list of officials from Mesopotamia. Second, there is the opening statement of the list, which reads: “I ordered the (following) court officials in exercises of (their) duties to take up position in my (official) suite”. As Shea points out, this implies that all the officials listed were appointed, or at least reappointed, at the same time.[7] That the text gives “at least a representative sampling of officials from the major echelons of civil servants and from many of the areas under the control of the government of Babylon”[8] suggests that these appointments represented a major overhaul of the government of Babylon. Thirdly, the fact that the foreign kings are included in the list suggests that this overhaul was far wider that just administrative positions. That Zedekiah did indeed rebel against Nebuchadnezzar a few years later vindicates Nebuchadnezzar’s concern regarding the loyalty of his vassals.
Whether or not Shea is correct to link the prism with the events of Daniel 3, he does provide an interesting analysis of some of the names contained on the prism. This includes possibility that Shadrach, Meshech and Abed-Nego are named on the prism.
Hananiah / Shadrach
One of the court officials (mašennim) listed on the prism is “Hanunu, chief of the royal merchants”.
The name ‘Hanunu’ is not Babylonian in origin, but Western Semitic. A. L. Oppenheim called it “a typical Phoenician name”,[9] but Shea argues that the name could also be Jewish in origin. ‘Hanunu’ is philologically the same as the Jewish name ‘Hanani’ (lit. ‘gracious’), which is the same name as ‘Hananiah’ (lit. ‘Yah is gracious’), except for the Yahwistic element (i.e. the ‘iah’ ending).[10]
As well as sharing etymology, the names ‘Hanani’ and ‘Hananiah’ are used synonymously. This Shea demonstrates by reference to the Elephantine Papyi (nos. 21, 30, 31, 33 and 38) dating from the fifth century B. C. E., which refer to a significant individual in a Jewish community who is designated in the texts as both ‘Hanani’ and ‘Hananiah’. Another example of synonymous use is Neh 7:2, which describes a single individual (“a faithful man”) while seemingly using two names: ‘Hanani’ and ‘Hananiah’.[11] We may, therefore, account for the difference between the name recorded on the prism (‘Hanunu’) and the name recorded in Daniel (‘Hananiah’). It is realistic to suppose that the Babylonian scribes would have sought to suppress the Yahwistic element in Hananiah’s name, while the author of Daniel would have wished to include the element.
Collins objects to the identification of Hanunu with Hananiah, saying “it would be anomalous to have the Hebrew name listed, and Shea must further assume that it as modified by dropping the theophoric ending”.[12] However, neither of these objections is decisive. Firstly, it is a matter of fact that a Semitic name is listed on the Istanbul Prism. Secondly, since it is clear that Hanani and Hananiah were used synonymously, Shea’s claim about the omission of “the theophoric ending” (i.e. ‘-iah’) is a valid assumption.
Why it is that Hananiah should be listed on the Istanbul Prism by his Hebrew name, instead of his Babylonian (‘Shadrach’), is not clear, but the presence of a Semitic name on the prism is significant and provides evidence of foreigners holding high-rank in Babylonia.
Azariah / Abed-Nego
On the basis that a Jewish writer would wish to suppress reference to Babylonian gods in the names of Jewish heroes, it has long been hypothesized that the original form of the name ‘Abed-Nego’ was ‘Abed-Nebo’, after Nebo (or Nabu) the Babylonian god (patron of writing and vegetation). ‘Abed-Nego’, then, would literally mean ‘servant of Nebo’, from db[ (abd) meaning ‘servant’.[13]
On the prism we find the entry “Ardi-Nabu, secretary of the crown prince”, and ‘Ardi-Nabu’ means ‘servant of Nebo’. The Akkadian word for ‘servant’ at this time was ardu, which would be translated in Western Semitic languages by db[. ‘Abed-Nebo’ would then be a translation, rather than a transliteration, of the name ‘Ardi-Nabu’.[14] Collins assents to the correspondence between these two names, though only allows that this is witness to the name, not the individual.[15]
It is interesting to note that the crown prince at the time, to whom Ardi-Nabu was secretary, would have been Amêl-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) who is recorded as treating Jehoiachin favourably, the former king of Judah (2 Kgs 25:27-28). Could it have been the influence of a Jewish secretary that prompted this favourable treatment?
Mishael / Meshach
Shea admits that his identification for Mishael is more tentative. The identification he proposes is with Mušallim-Marduk, one of the overseers of the slave girls.
The name ‘Meshach’ (Mešak) is similar to ‘Mishael’ (Mišael) with the exception of the final element. The ‘-el’ stands for ‘God’ in Mishael’s name (lit. ‘who is like God’) and it is reasonable to suppose that when Mishael’s name was changed the intention was to suppress or replace this element. Shea proposes that this final element could have been replaced by a reference to the Babylonian god Marduk, as is implied by the final element of Meshach (‘k’). Mishael’s Babylonian name would thus be Miša-Marduk, perhaps shortened to Meshach (Miša[-Mardu]k) by the Jewish author to avoid reference to the Babylonian god. However, Shea writes “better sense can be made out of this name if the whole Hebrew name Mišael is adapted into the participial form of mušallim”.[16]
Collins’ accusation that this identification is “far-fetched”[17] is perhaps too harsh. The names are, at least, semantically related—‘Mishael’ meaning ‘who is like El’ and ‘Mušallim-Marduk’ meaning ‘who is like Marduk’. Shea relates these two names on the assumption that the Babylonian officials would have wished to transpose ‘Marduk’ for ‘El’, which, while not implausible, is without positive evidence. Even granting this assumption, we still require a leap of imagination to account for the fact that the Jewish writer transliterated ‘Mušallim-Marduk’ in the abbreviated form ‘Meshach’. In any case, the name ‘Mušallim-Marduk’ is too common for this individual to be definitively identified with the Mishael of Daniel.
Daniel / Belteshazzar (omitted)
In Daniel 4, Nebuchadnezzar explains that Daniel is named Belteshazzar “according to the name of my god” (Dan 4:8). It has previously been assumed that the intended god in this instance was Bel and since the name was understood as a transliteration of balatšu-usur (lit. ‘may he protect his life’), the explanation of Daniel 4 has been described as “false etymology”.[18] However Millard provides an alternative suggestion, proposing that Belteshazzar is a transliteration of bēlēt-šar-usur, literally ‘Lady, protect the king’. He explains that Bēlēt was “a title for the wife of Marduk or Bel, the patron of Babylon”.[19]
There is no reference to either Daniel or Belteshazzar on the Istanbul Prism and any attempt to link either name to any of the entries on the prism would be highly dubious.[20] It is possible that Daniel’s entry has been lost since the prism is damaged[21] and the office of ‘chief over the wise men’ is not included on the prism. Yet the omission of Daniel from the prism is consistent with Shea’s theory since Daniel is conspicuously absent from the events recorded in chapter 3, though there is no indication in the chapter as to why he should have been absent.
Conclusion
Seeking to identify Biblical characters in non-Semitic texts is a tentative exercise as it is not always clear how the foreign scribe would have rendered Semitic names. In this case the problem is compounded by the double names of the characters and the real possibility that the Jewish renderings of their Babylonian names are imperfect or intentionally corrupted (to disguise references to foreign gods). The Semitic names Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah are quite common and so we must approach any identification with caution.
The thesis Shea proposes is intriguing and plausible. Though the identification between Mušallim-Marduk and Mishael is problematic, the other two identifications are reasonable. However, as Collins notes, the identification cannot be conclusive beyond equating the names; the critical scholar can legitimately respond that this is just some other Hanunu and Ardi-Nabu. It is significant that these two names are found on the same tablet but further than this we cannot go.
Whether or not Shea is correct, the Istanbul Prism still provides some useful conclusions. Firstly, the presence of a Western Semitic name on the prism indicates that foreigners were engaged as high officials in the Babylonian administration and corroborates the idea of Daniel’s appointment at the court of Nebuchadnezzar. Secondly, the name ‘Ardi-Nabu’ validates the mention of Abednego in Daniel as historically credible.
[1] W. H. Shea, “Daniel 3: Extra-Biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of Dura”, AUSS 20 (1982).
[2] VAT 7834
[3] C. Missler, The Book of Daniel: Supplemental Notes (Koinonia House, 1994), 15; J. Argubright, Bible Believer’s Archaeology (2 vols; Longwood: Xulon Press, 2003).
[4] J. J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 141, 183.
[5] D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 75.
[6] “Daniel 3”, 29-37.
[7] “Daniel 3”, 40.
[8] “Daniel 3”, 41.
[9] A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), 94.
[10] “Daniel 3”, 46.
[11] “Daniel 3”, 47.
[12] Daniel, 183.
[13] A. R. Millard provides an alternative explanation based upon Babylonian onomastica stating that Abed-Nego is “an Aramaic form meaning ‘servant of the shining one’”. On this basis he provides meanings for the other Babylonian names: “Shadrach represents šādurāku, ‘I am very fearful (of God)’” and “Meshech mēšāku ‘I am of little account’”, “Daniel 1-6 and History”, Evangelical Quarterly 49 (1977), 72.
[14] Shea, “Daniel 3”, 49. The transition between the names ‘Abed-Nabu’ (Aramaic) and ‘Ardi-Nabu’ (Akkadian) is not only theoretically possible, but is known to have occurred in other occurrences of the name in contract tablets, see J. H. Stevenson, Assyrian and Babylonian Contracts with Aramaic Notes (New York: America Book Company, 1902), 51.
[15] Collins, Daniel, 141f, 183f.
[17] Daniel, 141f.
[18] N. Porteous, Daniel (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1979), 28.
[19] “Daniel 1-6”, 72.
[20] Elsewhere Shea has proposed that Daniel was originally given the name ‘Belshazzar’, which was adapted by the Jewish writer to Belteshazzar to distinguish him from the blasphemous king. On this basis, Shea identifies Daniel with a Belshazzar mentioned in two texts as “the chief officer” (šaqu šarri) of Neriglissar and Amel-Marduk respectively. These identifications remain hypothetical as we lack positive evidence for the shift from Belshazzar to Belteshazzar; see W. H. Shea, “Bel(te)shazzar meets Belshazzar”, AUSS 26 (1998): 67-81.
[21] There is a break at the top of column four and another at the bottom of column five, Shea, “Daniel 3”, 39.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One