The Spiritual World of Daniel and Babylon
Biblical Background to the Novel Trilogy Daniel
By Brian Godawa
The Spiritual World of Daniel and Babylon: Biblical Background to the Novel Trilogy Daniel – Parts 1-3
1st Edition
Copyright © 2025 Brian Godawa
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without prior written permission except in the case of brief quotations in critical articles and reviews.
Warrior Poet Publishing
www.warriorpoetpublishing.com
ISBN: XXXXXXXX (paperback)
ISBN: XXXXXXXX (ebook)
ISBN: XXXXXXXX (Large Print)
Scripture quotations taken from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001, unless otherwise indicated in the verse citation.
Other Bible versions cited:
NRSV: The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989).
LES: Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Lexham Press, 2012).
NASB95: New American Standard Bible, 1995 Edition: Paragraph Version (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).
Table of Contents
Get the novel trilogy Daniel based on the biblical research of this book you are reading. iii
Chapter 1 The Book of Daniel 6
The Book that Critics Love to Hate 6
The Languages in Daniel 8
The Text of Daniel 9
The Darius Problem 10
The Antiochus Problem 11
Chapter 2 Characters 14
What’s in a Name 14
Darius the Mede is Cyrus the Persian 17
Daniel – Parts 1 & 2 24
Chief of Magicians? 28
Apocryphal Daniel 31
Nebuchadnezzar 32
Daniel – Part 3 33
Zarathustra/Zoroaster 33
Rabbi Akiva 33
Simon Bar Kokhba 33
Chapter 3 The Watchers and Princes of Nations 34
Watchers 34
The Princes of Persia, Greece and Israel 38
The Divine Council 44
Chapter 4 Gods and Monsters 49
Babylonian Gods 49
Marduk 50
Nabu 51
Ea 52
Ereshkigal and Nergal 52
Tammuz 54
Mushmahu 56
Mushushu 58
Lamassu 59
Anzu 60
Canaanite Gods and Jeremiah 61
Persian Gods 69
Ahura Mazda 69
Angra Mainyu 69
Mithra 69
Verethragna 69
Chapter 5 The Babylonian Occult 70
The Wise Men of Babylon 70
Baru 72
Ashipu 73
Shailu 76
Astronomy and Astrology 78
The Zodiac 82
Demonology 92
Satyrs in Biblical Prophecy 96
Ghosts and Goblins in the Prophecies 99
Biblical Demonology 101
Vampires 106
Necromancy and the Ritual Pit 109
The Rephaim 113
Chapter 6 The Council of Jamnia and the Septuagint Conspiracy 126
Chapter 7 Keys to Interpreting Daniel’s Prophecies 127
The View from 30,000 Feet 128
Time of the End and Latter Days 131
Times of the Gentiles 135
Chapter 8 Gap Theology 139
The Seventy Weeks and the Gap That Wasn’t There 145
Titus Vespasian 153
Chapter 9 The Iron Beast and the Son of Man 158
Chapter 9 The Abomination of Desolation: Past and Future 167
Chapter 10 The Past Abomination of Desolation 171
Antiochus IV Epiphanes 171
Antiochus and the Abomination of Desolation 175
Zeus and the Abomination of Desolation 183
Partial or Dual Fulfillment? 192
Chapter 11 The Future Abomination of Desolation 198
Spoken of by Daniel 198
The Seventy Weeks 199
Daniel 12 203
Jesus and the Abomination of Desolation 211
This Generation 212
Flee to the Mountains 214
Surrounded by Pagan Armies 216
What About the Image of the Beast? 219
Chart of the Syrian Wars in Daniel 11 221
Great Offers By Brian Godawa 225
About the Author 226
The links in this book are my Amazon affiliate links.
Chapter 1
The Book of Daniel
The Book that Critics Love to Hate
When I decided to write a novel trilogy about Daniel, I knew there would be some controversial things I would have to deal with. But considering the rest of my novel series, I figured that would be par for the course.
The elephant in the room for the book of Daniel is the critical consensus that dominates biblical scholarship on the book because of its uncanny precision and accuracy in its predictions. Daniel apparently lives in the midst of the Babylonian exile and interprets dreams that predict the next three empires to rule their known world: The Medo-Persians, the Greeks, and then the Romans (Dan. 2, 7, 8). Then, in chapter 11, the book zeros in on the time period of the Greeks during the Maccabean crisis with scrupulous details that matches the Syrian Wars and culminates in describing the abominable acts of Antiochus IV Epiphanes against the temple and the people of God.
In a ruthless arc of circular reasoning, liberals conclude that Daniel’s prophecies cannot be real because we know that such prophecy is not possible. Therefore, they went in search of other hypotheses to explain the apparently supernatural phenomena in naturalistic terms.
Dale Ralph Davis, in his Bible commentary on the book of Daniel, summarizes the situation we find ourselves in over this Daniel dilemma.
If one simply reads the extant book of Daniel one may be tempted to think that the book arose in the Persian period near the end of said Daniel’s life (ca. 530 bc). One might guess that the stories about Daniel and friends (chs. 1/2–6) were edited together with the visions reported by Daniel (chs. 7–12) and that Daniel and/or a near collaborator were responsible for the editing. But a dominant stream of scholars would say that is all wrong.
These mainstream scholars, wielding their historical-critical swords, slice the integrity of the text to ribbons. They claim the court stories of Daniel were stitched together later, maybe around 250 BCE, and dismiss them as legendary yarns. The real kicker? They pin chapters 7–12 to 165 BCE, right in the thick of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ rampage against the Jews. Why? Because Daniel 11:29–39 reads like a play-by-play of Antiochus’ blasphemous tyranny, so precise it screams vaticinium ex eventu—prophecy written after the fact, cloaked as divine foresight.
These scholars smirk, pointing out that when the writer tries actual prediction in 11:40–45, he fumbles, botching Antiochus’ death (which happened in Persia, not Israel). They misinterpret the final chapter 12 to then be a true attempt by the authors or editors to actually predict what would happen after Antiochus and were therefore wrong.
So, they declare Daniel a pseudonymous work (falsely claimed author), slapped together around 165 BCE by some anonymous scribe (or a rebel collective) to steel Jewish hearts against Seleucid persecution. Pseudonymity, as a literary technique in that ancient world was often understood by the readers as a wink and a nod to give weight to the content. But let’s not kid ourselves—this view strips the book of its prophetic thunder, turning divine revelation into a clever Maccabean pep talk. The real question is: are these scholars unmasking a historical truth, or are they blind to the supernatural pulse of a text that dares to defy their naturalistic cage?
Davis then concludes that it is no shock when expert in Second Temple Judaism, John J. Collins claims in his esteemed Daniel commentary, “According to the consensus of modern critical scholarship, the stories about Daniel and his friends are legendary in character, and the hero himself most probably never existed.”
This is not the place to engage in a detailed examination of scholarly arguments, but for the reader’s interest, I’ll list a few of the skeptical issues related to Daniel, as pointed out by Davis, and how believing scholars have addressed them.
The Languages in Daniel
The book is unique in being one of three in the Bible whose source texts contain passages written in both Hebrew and Aramaic. The book of Ezra has several paragraphs in Aramaic as well, and Jeremiah has a single verse. In the Daniel manuscripts, chapter 1 is in Hebrew, then chapters 2-7 are in Aramaic, and then chapters 8-12 are again in Hebrew. Whatever the purpose of this linguistic intermingling, Ancient Near Eastern expert Kenneth Kitchen has concluded that most of the Aramaic vocabulary in Daniel is “simply a part of Imperial Aramaic that could fall anywhere from the 600–330 BC range.” That is long before the Maccabean period claimed by the critics. Even the Hebrew in Daniel does not match the syntax, morphology, vocabulary, or spelling of the Maccabean second century BC as exemplified in Dead Sea manuscripts from that period. It’s more consonant with the sixth century BC.
There are three Greek loan words in the text of Daniel 3 that cause some critics to argue a Maccabean context dominated by the Hellenist culture and language of Alexander the Great. The three Greek words turn out to be Greek instruments, lyre, trigon, and harp (Dan. 3:5). But the usage of these terms does not speak to anything beyond the actual instruments which were well known and used throughout the Ancient Near East long before Alexander. A paltry three words does not speak to a Maccabean Greek context for Daniel. If anything, it proves that the text was not written during Hellenist time period, because if it was, it would surely have resulted in more influence than three measly words.
As an example, the books of the Maccabees in the Apocrypha were written during and shortly after the events of Antiochus Epiphanes under Hellenism. They were written in Greek and reflect the overwhelming influence of Hellenism with its literary elements of words, syntax, and vocabulary. But see, that’s the thing. If Daniel were mostly written or edited after the Maccabean events of Antiochus Epiphanes, between 168-164 BC (the so-called crux of Daniel’s prophecies), then they would have reflected that Hellenism in the literary elements of Daniel. But they do not. Daniel shows no actual signs of Hellenist context in its literary style or syntax.
The Text of Daniel
The oldest manuscript we have of Daniel is from Qumran and it dates from about 120-115 BC, the time period shortly after the Maccabees. On the surface, this seems to fit the Maccabean hypothesis. But a closer look says differently. Oldest extant fragments does not mean those are originals. In fact, it usually means those are copies from older manuscripts from years previous. And the Qumran community had long considered Daniel to be a prophet of God. So, R.K. Harrison points out that there is at least a fifty-year differential between oldest copies and possible autographs as well as another fifty years for a scroll to be circulated and considered canonical. That would place an original of Daniel no later than 220 BC, long before the Maccabean period. There just wasn’t enough time for Daniel to be written during that time and become canonized Scripture.
The books of the Maccabees show several indications of veiled references to Daniel as predictors of the events. One term, “abomination of desolation” could not be a more direct borrowing from Daniel. That would mean that by the time of their writing, they were already very aware of Daniel as prophecies from God.
Another problem with the text is the context. Reading the books of the Maccabees is a lesson in propaganda. The writers make clear their justification for armed rebellion against an evil wicked king. If the book of Daniel were written or edited in that same time period to make the Maccabean events fit prophecy, then he did a terrible job because the morality of Daniel’s civil disobedience to the king was a peaceful willingness to accept whatever punishment from the king for their loyalty to Yahweh. The books of the Maccabees use the deaths of martyrs as a means of showing the inability of peaceful resistance to achieve their goal, leading to violent revolution. Daniel’s theology of exile is the exact opposite. It purports that Israel deserves to be in subjection to the Gentile Babylonian powers as chastisement for her unfaithfulness to Yahweh. The prophet Jeremiah calls for peaceful submission to Babylon and Daniel lives that out as a captive. He only disobeys the king when commanded by the king to sin against Yahweh. But he never calls for armed resistance. My point here is not to argue for pacifism over armed rebellion. I believe both positions are warranted within their different contexts. But that would make Daniel entirely at odds with Maccabees, and thus entirely irrelevant to that time period.
The Darius Problem
Liberal scholars are always trying to find contradictions or historical fallacies in biblical stories and Daniel is no exception. Many of these alleged contradictions are usually minor or petty problems of textual criticism but sometimes they can affect the paradigm of interpretation. The issue of Darius is one of those problems because Darius the Mede is a significant king of Babylon that appears in Daniel’s story in chapters 6 and 9. But there is no historical room for a king named Darius the Mede over Babylon. What’s more, Darius is depicted as conquering Babylon and becoming its king in Daniel 5. Unfortunately, it is universally agreed that a Persian king named Cyrus the Great is the one who conquered Babylon, not a Mede named Darius.
Critical scholarship argues that this is more than an error, it is part of a fallacious paradigm on the part of the writers/editors of Daniel. The paradigm is the belief that the four Gentile kingdoms predicted to rule over Israel in Daniel 2 and 7, are 1) Babylon, 2) The Medes, 3) the Persians, then lastly, 4) the Greeks.
That last kingdom of the Greeks is the time period of the Maccabees, which liberals presume is the time period that Daniel is being edited together. So the author/editors know nothing of Rome. They are faking prophecy up until their time period of the Seleucid kingdom and they do not know anything beyond it.
In contrast, the dominant interpretation of the four kingdoms by conservative scholars is 1) Babylon, 2) Medo-Persians, 3) Greeks, and 4) Rome. This of course would make Daniel’s prophecies be legitimately beyond his historical knowledge and therefore make it bona fide prophecy—which critical scholars presume cannot be possible—oh, the godlike presumptions of skepticism. So the skeptic reframes the prophecies of four kingdoms to work with their presumed Greek time period of the Maccabees.
Later in this book, I will explain how Darius the Mede was not a misunderstanding of Darius I, indeed, could not have been, but that he was in fact an actual historical person fulfilling the prophecy. I will also explain how the four kingdoms follows the conservative interpretation of Babylon, Medo-Persians, Greece, and Rome, thus deconstructing the liberal theory of late authorship for Daniel. But the reader will have to wait for those details until later. For now, we’ll have to put this one aside and answer the last problem of the skeptical paradigm of Daniel.
The Antiochus Problem
The strongest argument that Daniel was written in the late third century BC during the Maccabean period is that Daniel 11 gives an unjustified focus of detail and precision of the Seleucid time period with its Syrian Wars. No other prophecy has this kind of detail. If the purpose of Daniel was to predict the four Gentile kingdoms that would rule over Israel until Messiah (and I intend to show that this is the case later), then the focus on the back and forth of the Syrian wars are out of place. They show an author or editor in the days of that Seleucid kingdom trying to persuade the Jews that God had predicted all this.
Unfortunately, this is not only a subjective projection of the presuppositions of the interpreter, but it completely neglects the actual focus point of the prophecies: Antiochus Epiphanes. The reason for his elevation as the climactic center of the prophecies (Daniel 11:21-39) is because his actions represented the ultimate attack on God’s covenant: His people, city, and temple. And this kind of attack was going to happen again later by a different abominable leader during the days of Messiah. Antiochus sought to destroy the very covenant of Yahweh by forbidding circumcision as well as the sacrifices and regulations required by Torah. Then the king tried to force Jews to worship an idol. The profanation of God’s house (temple) is an ultimate affront to God. That is why the Greek period of Antiochus receives such attention in Daniel’s kingdom prophecies, because it would be the worst attack on Yahweh and his people, far more heinous than the Babylonian exile.
The liberals then assume that the rest of the prophecy after Antiochus Epiphanes (Daniel 11:40-12:13), is an attempt at predicting what happens directly after the Maccabean revolt. Of course, the rest of the prophecy doesn’t match that history at all, and so the critics conclude in their perfect circle of ignorance that Daniel got it wrong.
It never crosses their mind that the rest of the prophecy deals with the fourth kingdom after Greece: Rome. They assume the abomination of desolation in Daniel 12 is the same as the one in Daniel 8 and 11. But it is not. Daniel’s purpose is to tell us that there will be another abomination of desolation in the future that will be similar to the one in the days of the Maccabees, but it will come during that fourth kingdom at “the time of the end” when the fifth and last kingdom, the Kingdom of God arrives.
Now I realize that all this reframing of the narrative is an assertion at this point, and I will attempt to exegete it later through this book. I will explain the four Gentile kingdoms as the hermeneutical paradigm for understanding Daniel and how even many Christians misunderstand some of Daniel’s prophecies as much as liberals because of their fatal assumptions about the text. So, buckle up and get ready for a wild ride through the life and visions of Daniel and the redemptive history of Israel.
Chapter 2
Characters
What’s in a Name
Names had more importance in the ancient world than they do in our modern Western world. In the Bible, we see names often express personal character or identity. The name Jacob in Hebrew has linguistic connections to both heel and cheater. Jacob was known to have grabbed the heel of his twin brother Esau at birth (Gen 25:26) and to have cheated Esau twice (Gen 27:36). Later, Jacob wrestles with the Angel of Yahweh that reflects his relationship to God. Yahweh then changes Jacob’s name to Israel which means “struggles with God” (Gen 32:29). King Jehoiakim of Daniel’s day was originally named Eliakim until he was crowned by Pharaoh Neco (2 Kgs. 23:34).
Some name changes in the Bible are the result of the writer altering the name of a person to make a literary pun or subversion of their real name in order to comment on their character. For example, Genesis 10:8-12 speaks of the mighty Nimrod, the first “warrior of name” after the Flood, who is credited with starting the kingdoms of Mesopotamia, including Babel, of the Tower of Babel infamy. The name of Nimrod is apparently a Hebrew play on words that demonized the leader, because Nimrod in Hebrew means “to revolt.” One hardly thinks a person would make his name with such negative connotations, since such kings often considered themselves to be like the gods. Some scholars have concluded that Nimrod was King Gilgamesh, or King Sargon of Akkad or some other historical figure.
The name Jezebel is also one such subversive renaming. In 2 Kings, we read the story of this most ruthless and wicked queen of Israel. She was a royal pagan from Tyre whom King Ahab of Israel married as a treaty of appeasement. It didn’t work out well for Israel, as her idolatry infected Israel and brought judgment, in both physical and verbal condemnation. Archaeological discoveries have revealed that her name in Tyre was actually Izebul, which meant, “Where is the Prince?” Prince meaning, Ba’al, the prince of gods in Canaan. In the Bible, Izebul is named Jezebel, which is a slurring wordplay on the Hebrew word for “dung” (zebel). 2 Kings 9:37 reduces that worldly powerful queen to pathos with a double entendre of caustic scorn: “And the corpse of Jezebel shall be as dung on the face of the field in the territory of Jezreel, so that no one can say, ‘This is Jezebel.’”
Still other name changes are made to express power or control of a ruler over a subject. Thus, when King Nebuchadnezzar subjected Jerusalem in 597 BC, he placed a man named Mattaniah on the throne and renamed him Zedekiah (2 Kgs. 24:17). We read in Daniel 1:6-7 that Daniel and his three companions, after being taken hostage by Babylon, were inducted into the school of the Chaldeans in order to learn their ways. Their servitude was embodied in the chief officer over them giving them new names that expressed their subjugation to Babylon and her gods. Here is a chart that shows the changes of meanings:
| Hebrew Name | Meaning | Babylonian Name | Meaning |
| Daniel | “God is my judge” | Belteshazzar | “Bel guard the king” (Bel is a name for Marduk) |
| Hananiah | “Yahweh has been gracious” | Shadrach | “Command of Aku” (the moon god) |
| Mishael | Who is what God is?” | Meshach | “Who is what Aku is?” (the moon god) |
| Azariah | “Yahweh has helped” | Abednego | “Servant of Nabu” (the son of Marduk) |
Some name changes evolve as a result of historical circumstances. By the eighth century BC, Babylonia had become destitute and weak under the Assyrian power. So the Chaldean people from southern Mesopotamia allied with Babylon and even ruled over it at times as a buffer state between them and Assyria. The Chaldean political and cultural influence became so deep that the name Chaldean became synonymous with Babylonian. This is evident in the writings of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah. I have used the name Babylonian in my Daniel novels for its familiarity to the modern reader.
Many people in the Bible are called by two completely different names. Sometimes, this is a matter of different languages, sometimes in the same language for unknown reasons. Hadassah was also known as Esther (Est 2:7). Esau was also called Edom (Gen 25:30). King Solomon was also named Jedidiah (2 Sam 12:25). King Ahasuerus who married Esther was known in Persian history as Xerxes I (Esther 1:1), which is a throne name. Kings all through history have taken throne names to express their new royalty. In Assyria, Pul took the throne name Tiglath-Pileser III (1 Chron. 5:26). During the time of Daniel’s story, Shallum took the throne name Jehoahaz (Jer. 22:11), Eliakim was given the throne name Jehoiakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), Mattaniah was given the throne name Zedekiah (2 Kgs. 24:17), and Jeconiah took the throne name Jehoiachin (2 Kgs. 24:8; Jer. 24:1), who was also called Coniah by the prophet Jeremiah (22:24). And Jeremiah also called Pharaoh Apries by the name Pharaoh Hophra (Jer. 44:30).
In the New Testament, the apostles called Joseph by the name Barnabas (Act 4:36), the apostle Thomas was also known as Didymus (John 11:16), the apostle Matthew was also known as Levi (Matt 9:9; Mark 2:14), and on and on. It’s one of the confusing things about reading ancient literature like the Bible. We can see two different names and not realize they are one person. Unfortunately, we will see that this is the case with reading the book of Daniel.
Sometimes, an ancient person’s name is spelled differently. Nebuchadnezzar is one such character in the Bible. His name means, “O, Nabu, protect my offspring.” In most places of the Old Testament, such as 2 Kings, 1 and 3 Chronicles, Jeremiah, and Daniel, the Babylonian king’s name is spelled “Nebuchadnezzar.” But distinguished archaeologist and Assyriologist D.J. Wiseman points out that there are many variants of its spelling within those scrolls. Minor and insignificant, but variants nonetheless. Here’s the weird thing, a less common spelling of his name as “Nebuchadrezzar” with an “r” instead of the “n” occurs in Jeremiah and Ezekiel—with 31 variations of its spelling as well. Babylonian texts mostly use Nebuchadrezzar, but there is manuscript evidence in Nebuchadrezzar’s 34th year that spells his name with the “n.” Scholars have not come up with a plausible reason for these variations, but it brings home the point that names are very fluid in the ancient realm of the Bible. I chose to use the most common version to us moderns, Nebuchadnezzar, in my Daniel novels.
Chief of Magicians?
When Daniel and his fellow royal and noble youths were brought captive to Babylon and began an education in “the literature and language of the Chaldeans” (Dan. 1:4), one might consider this a tolerable exercise in understanding the enemy. But the real consequence of that duty involved interaction with dark arts considered evil by the Law of God. This becomes clearer when considering the titles that Daniel was raised up to be called in that pagan world.
After Daniel and his three comrades completed their three-year training in that Chaldean literature and language, Nebuchadnezzar “found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in all his kingdom” (Dan. 1:20). One might conclude that Daniel was being juxtaposed against the magicians and enchanters, but his other titles would belie that conclusion.
The term “Wise Men” was used as a catch-all phrase for these palace intelligentsia (Dan. 2:14, 18, 24), or “the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, the astrologers, and the Chaldeans” (2:2, 27). After Daniel’s accurate interpretation of the king’s statue dream, he was appointed “chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon” (2:28). Later, Daniel was called, “chief of the magicians” (4:9) by Nebuchadnezzar himself, as well as, “chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and astrologers” (5:11), which presumably included sorcery and dream interpretation (2:2).
This nomenclature can appear troubling to the reader who considers the book of Daniel’s main theme to be one of obedient holiness to Yahweh. After all, Daniel refuses to eat the king’s food in his loyalty to God (chapter 1), his comrades refuse to bow to the idol statue of the king that leads to the fiery furnace (chapter 3), and Daniel refuses to stop his daily prayers to Yahweh that leads to the lion’s den (chapter 6). Daniel’s entire life was marked by a refusal to compromise with the pagan world’s spiritual demands upon him. So, how in the world could be the chief of magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and astrologers, all of which are condemned as sin in the Law and Prophets (Deut. 18:9-13; Isa. 8:19; Lev. 20:1-7)?
It is too simplistic to dismiss this title by claiming that being chief does not mean he is participating in those activities. He’s just the boss. The boss of an abortion clinic may not engage in any abortions, but he runs that clinic and is just as much a participant in baby-killing.
Another complication is Daniel’s education. It is surely possible to learn the language and literature of the Chaldeans without engaging in the sinful activities. But how far does this go? If the literature of the Chaldeans involves not merely history and mythology, but magic, enchantment, divination, dream interpretation, sorcery, and astrology, then how many classes would Daniel be allowed to opt-out of? All that dark stuff was surely as much as eighty percent of the curriculum compared to mere history and mythology. With how easily the king sought to execute Daniel for simply disobedience, it strains credulity to think that Daniel just didn’t participate in most of the occult learning of Babylon. When Nebuchadnezzar tested the Jews and claimed they were “ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in all his kingdom,” What the heck were they better at? Just history and mythology? That’s not ten times, that’s one tenth.
A possible solution to this dilemma lies in recognizing that one can learn dark arts without having to participate in them. Babylonians had to memorize magical formulas for their sorcery. They had to study the astronomical movements for astrology and the various states of an animal’s liver for extispacy divination, but they didn’t have to actually believe it or perform it in school. Reciting memorized or learned concepts from myths to magic does not require actual involvement in them. If a modern student had a radical teacher who gave him a test on the glories of communism, the student could regurgitate what the teacher had vomited to him on the test, not because he believes it, but because he knows that those are the answers the one in power expects–his answers, his beliefs. The student could then get an A in the class—even be “ten times better” than the rest of the students—without actually believing the information. In order to survive and get the degree, he learns what is a false or evil knowledge system of information, with a goal of becoming a subversive agent within the system.
There would be a few exceptions, such as performing an actual necromancy or worship of a deity, but the education could be maintained as mere learning of information without actual engagement. I tried to wrestle with that reality in my Daniel novels to tell a real world narrative of the struggle with holiness rather than a false hagiography that believers might tempted to engage in by likening Daniel to Jesus in moral perfection. Daniel wasn’t Jesus, he wasn’t sinless. So portraying his weaknesses or sins does not defame him, it confirms his humanity. Just because Daniel was obedient in holiness at crucial times in the biblical narrative, does not mean he was perfect or never sinned.
Apocryphal Daniel
There are several additions to the book of Daniel in the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha are books that are not accepted as canonical or authoritative in Protestant Bibles but are accepted as canonical in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles. They are considered part of both Jewish and Christian tradition, so I try to use some of them as resources for the fictional part of my novels, as long as they are consistent with the Scriptures. Daniel has three additions in the Apocrypha. They are Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men.
Susanna is a story about Daniel’s youth. A beautiful young married Jewess named Susanna is the victim of the sexual harassment of several Jewish men who try to corner her in her husband’s garden to blackmail her for sex. She will have none of it and stands for her purity, so the men file a legal claim that they saw her committing adultery in that same garden. At trial, she has no witnesses to support her testimony, until Daniel is brought in because of his wisdom. He then asks each man separately, what tree they saw her under while allegedly committing said act of infidelity. Each of them describe a different tree, and so Susanna is let go for their false witness, and they are executed with the penalty she would have experienced had she been found guilty. Justice is pure and retributive.
Bel and the Dragon was incorporated into the Daniel trilogy. It tells two short stories of Daniel. The first has Daniel refusing to worship the statue of Bel (Marduk) in the temple because it is mere stone and not a god. The king then challenges Daniel that the statue consumes food everyday that is offered to it. Daniel denies this and gives a challenge. Place food before the statue one night and lock the doors and openings so that no one can enter to steal the food. The king agrees, but Daniel asks that he be the last to check the sanctuary before locking it up. Daniel then lays out a layer of dust all over the floor of the sanctuary. When the doors are opened the next morning, the food is gone, but Daniel shows footsteps leading from a secret hidden doorway to prove that priests snuck in and took the food. The king praises Daniel for his wisdom.
In an alternate version of the text, the king is called Cyrus, the Persian. But this is not likely because Cyrus, worshipped of Ahura Mazda as the sole god, so he would not have worshipped Bel. Thus, I placed this story into the time of Nebuchadnezzar, who did worship Bel.
The strange story of the dragon shows Daniel killing a dragon that was also worshipped by the Babylonians, by feeding it a ball of hair, fat, and pitch. The concoction bursts the monster’s belly, killing it and proving the monster unworthy of their worship. I found a creative way to integrate this into Daniel’s dream life in the trilogy.
Lastly, The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Men is an addition of a few paragraphs into Chapter 3 of Daniel. They are simply extended prayers of the three men in the fiery furnace who give praise and glory to the God who rescues them.