**5. Gandhi and Daniel: Perspectives**

The result of this survey is a complex image of competing literatures from roughly the same period and the hands, heads, and beliefs behind them (Grabbe et al. 2016). The courtier Daniel and his nonviolent resistance is enhanced by the consciously active role ascribed to him by Gandhi. On the other hand, the Daniel apocalypses and dreams of hope and trust in the same biblical book emphasize "not by human hands" and offer a nonviolent counterweight to the ideology of the state propaganda of the Seleucids. They contradict the historiographic idealization of the Maccabean revolt and its armed resistance. With the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch, which positively includes the Maccabean revolt in the course of (biblical) history, apocalypse stands against apocalypse. These competing voices do not offer a simple solution; they ask for choices, referring to their own different worldview in complex political, cultural, and religious situations.

How can this be accomplished? One solution is by walking with Gandhi in reading Daniel as the active courtier *and* the receiving seer. This seems a contradiction because Daniel's ethic of quietism (Collins 1993) seems to collide with the active role of the *satyagrahi.* However, again and again Gandhi stated that the outcome of *satyagraha* lies in the hand of God (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 8, p. 61). His ultimate ideal was Ramarajya, Rama rule in this world. He made Tolstoy's *The Kingdom of God is Within You* more concrete with the extension The Kingdom of God *on Earth* (Gray and Hughes 2015; Noort 2022, p. 6). It is the same creed as the basic assumption of the Danielic apocalypses. Therefore, a reading of Daniel that combines court narratives and apocalypse supports its qualification

as resistance literature opposing imperial power. Most scholars assume that the court narratives literary-historically precede the apocalypse. However, a reversed, combined reading of the courtier narrative against the background of the apocalypses as the final text makes Daniel the active sage who obeyed his conscience against unjust laws, knowing that the outcome of his actions did not depend on him.

In Biblical Studies, the scholarly discussion on war, on peace, and (non)violence have mainly focused on the problem of the violent images of God in the Hebrew Bible, divinely legitimized human violence (Noort 1997; Noort 2018), war narratives on the one side (Schmitt 2011), and prophetic eschatological views of an eternal peace on the other. A courageous, but outdated attempt by Burress to connect Gandhi with the ethics of the prophets will require the newer results of inquiry into prophetic literature (Burress 1998). Till now, Daniel simply did not appear in this discourse because biblical scholars and faith communities focused on images of God and the belief systems in which violence, power, and divine action played the main roles. A recent, valuable overview studying the three canonical parts of the Hebrew Bible on violence does not provide any reference to Daniel or apocalyptic literature (van Ruiten and Bekkum 2020). The postcolonial discourse on apocalyptic literature as resistance literature, and the choices made there, are still at an early stage of systematic reflection. For Gandhi, problematic images of God were not that significant because, for him, the world of the divine had many colors. His examples from a religious context were always positive ones. If needed, as in the case of the violent character of the Gita, he proposed an allegorical reading but was flexible when he could not maintain such an interpretation (Gandhi 2010; Noort 2022, p. 12; Parekh 1999, p. 167–68).

To focus on the Gandhian Daniel and his "elderly brother", Socrates does not intend to reduce the power of other examples in their company, e.g., from the Indian context. Daniel and Socrates obtained their important place in the South African context, where both belonged to the cultural baggage of adversaries such as Botha and Smuts. Accompanied by others, they kept their place after the return to India.

The Gandhian Daniel is a model civil servant and citizen, opposing laws in conflict with his conscience, laws against reason, and holiness. His soul force as a weapon of the strong enables him to make deliberate choices without excitement. He leaves the outcome of his civil resistance to God and has love for his antagonist. He is prepared to suffer and has no fear of death. This also applies to the Gandhian Socrates. He follows virtue to the end, practicing his precepts, and adheres to the traditional religion but fights the corrupt elements of it. Above all, he does not desert his post. Daniel and Socrates were real satyagrahis.

The biblical Daniel offers the possibility to connect the courtier and the apocalyptic seer. As argued above, contextualizing the Danielic literature brings a real world to life, in which wars, persecutions, and occupation asked for answers of hope and resistance. They were given and practiced in different ways. The choice for Daniel in the context of apocalyptic resistance literature offers Biblical Studies the opportunity to explore new territory. Gandhi opened the door for it.

**Funding:** The research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** Many thanks to my colleagues and co-fellows Louise du Toit, Wolfgang Palaver and Ephraim Meir for the intensive discussions during our common stay at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study in 2021. Deep-felt thanks to the staff of STIAS for creating a vibrant academic climate during our stay in Stellenbosch.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.
