*4.1. Daniel: Not by Human Hands*

In the following sections, we leave the Gandhian reading of the figure of Daniel and turn to the world of the book of Daniel in which this collection of court stories, dream interpretations, visions, and apocalypses emerged. In its historical context, the book of Daniel is one voice among competing and controversial other voices from roughly the same time. A time of dangers, persecutions, and wars not only on the narratological level but also in the real world and a time of the search for resistance to imperial power and propaganda. Bringing the Gandhian figure of Daniel together with the book of Daniel and the competing voices of the Maccabees is rewarding because the choices made by Gandhi and the authors of Daniel obtain context in the real world. Gandhi himself was not aware of this broader context. For him, Daniel—the courageous satyagrahi from the court narratives—was essential. The second part of the biblical book with the apocalyptic visions did not really interest him. Eschatology and apocalyptic thinking were not very important for him because on first view, they lack direct indications for concrete actions. When Gandhi referred to eschatology, he transferred it immediately to a concrete situation. The famous "swords into ploughshares" of Isa 2:4 resulted in a call on both Muslims and Hindus not to expect peace by the possession of rifles during the tensions shortly before independence in 1947 (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 87, p. 298; Emilsen 2001b, p. 21). The "Prince of Peace" (´sar šal¯ ôm) of Isa 9:6 (MT 9:5) led in 1935 to the conclusion that "it is a first-class

human tragedy that peoples of the earth who claim to believe the message of Jesus who they describe as the Prince of Peace show little of that belief in actual practice" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 62, pp. 175–76; Emilsen 2001b, p. 23).

Nevertheless, a look at the book of Daniel, from which Gandhi conceived of his protagonist, is needed.<sup>40</sup> It is the latest book of the Hebrew Bible and the only one that contains apocalyptic visions (Koch 1972, p. 23; Collins 2003, pp. 49–52).<sup>41</sup> It is part of a group of larger Danielic literature from Persian and Hellenistic times until deep in the common era.42 For the reception history, it is important that fragments of all twelve chapters of the Book of Daniel have been found in Qumran.<sup>43</sup> This means that within a relatively short time between an edition of the Book of Daniel that would become the Masoretic Text and Qumran, there was already a connection between the court stories and the apocalyptic parts. The Aramaic part of Daniel contains the court stories (Dan 3–6), which are surrounded by the dream vision of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2) and the apocalypse of the four beasts (Dan 7).

In the apocalyptic visions, Daniel himself is in need of an angelic interpreter. He is not the active agent but the receiver. The scope is enlarged; it is not any longer the situation at a foreign court that is at stake but the secret meaning of world history and the long-awaited end of foreign rule and occupation. The primary question of this crisis literature is not how to act truthfully in a conflict situation, not the question of *lam¯ â* "why (this suffering and suppression)", but " *ad matay ¯* "how long?". The answer is given in revelatory dreams and visions, revealing the secrets of the end of history by a heavenly figure. A four-kingdom scheme (Newsom 2014; Perrin and Stuckenbruck 2020) revealed the past and the future.44 In it, the historical empires of Babylonia, Media, and Persia are represented by the beasts of lion, bear, and leopard, respectively, while the fourth kingdom meant Greece and the Seleucids after the death of Alexander the Great (Dan 7:3–7). The addressees of the apocalyptic part of Daniel are the politically and religiously suppressed Judaeans during the Seleucid reign. The "Wise among the people" (*ma´skîlîm,* Dan 11:33–35; 12:3), probably the hands and heads behind the book of Daniel, chose another way than the armed resistance of the Maccabees. On one side, they opposed the extreme Hellenization ("those who violate the covenant" (Dan 11:32); on the other side, the Maccabees are only "a little help" (Dan 11:34). The *ma´skîlîm* did not join the armed battles (Helms 2013, p. 24). "Deliverance by divine intervention, not militant struggle is the bottom line of the book of Daniel" (Tonstad 2016, p. 143).

## *4.2. Maccabees: Armed Resistance*

The deep rift between Hellenized and traditional Judaism is the theme of the Books 1 and 2 Maccabees from roughly the same period as the youngest texts of the book of Daniel. 1 Maccabees describes the battles of the Maccabee family against inner and outer enemies, and homage is paid to their rise in power as the Hasmonean priest-kings. The main corpus of 2 Maccabees narrows the chronological frame from the rise of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175 BCE) until the defeat of his general Nicanor in 161 BCE and focusses on the battles of Judas Maccabeus.

Tonstad emphasized that the Maccabean uprising was not only a battle against the Hellenization from outside as a defense against Antiochus IV Epiphanes but also an internal conflict within the Jewish community.45 Although fluid boundaries between the two existed,46 religious purging became the ultimate goal, if necessary by the sword. Divine legitimation and inspiration could be found in the fall of Jericho under Joshua (2 Macc 12:15–16),47

the reform of Josiah (2 Kgs 23:4–20), and the deuteronomistic ideology of the ban (devotion to destruction):

"They (Mattathias and the *h. ăsîdîm, "*the (militant) pious") organised an army and struck down sinners in their anger and renegades in their wrath; the survivors fled to the Gentiles for safety they tore down the altars; they forcibly circumcised all the uncircumcised boys that they found within the borders of Israel". (1 Macc 2:45–46)

"They (Edomites, Ammonites) were shut up by him (Judas) in their towers, and he encamped against them, devoted them to destruction,<sup>48</sup> and burned with fire their towers and all who were in them". (1 Macc 5:5)

Further Deuteronomi(sti)c influences on 1 and 2 Maccabees are clearly visible (Berthelot 2007, pp. 46–53).49
