Matthias Henze
solve the "cognitive dissonance."^21 But what is obscure, dissonant, and in ur
gent need of interpretation are not the words of the prophets but the content
of Daniel's visions.
It is my contention, then, that what prompted the author of Daniel to
make such extensive use of the prophetic texts was not their dissonance but
— quite to the contrary! — their consonance with the situation at hand.
Daniel is firmly rooted in the prophetic tradition.^22 The wise, for example,
did not use the language of Isa 53 and apply it to themselves to fill an esoteric
epithet once again with meaning. The enormous reception history of the
Servant Song strongly suggests that ancient interpreters found nothing ob
scure about it. Rather, by adopting the identity of the suffering servant, the
wise make the powerful statement that their suffering has a vicarious quality
and eventually will be rewarded (Isa 53:12). Even though they have to suffer
under Antiochus and some of them are certain to die, in the end they will be
vindicated and glorified.
The hope for resurrection as expressed in Dan 12:1-3 is another case in
point. In a recent study on the history of this Jewish doctrine, Jon Levenson
argues forcefully that, even though the literal expectation of the resurrection
of the dead may have been a new concept first introduced in Dan 12, the lan
guage and symbolism by which it is expressed had long been present and
available in ancient Israel. His comments are worth quoting in full.
Modern historians, researching the origin of the Jewish idea of resurrec
tion, understandably think of it as an innovation and seek a situation of
keen discontinuity in which it arose. This is not necessarily wrong, but it
does underestimate the verbal particularity and the textual character of
its appearance — points of greater significance to the ancient Jewish
culture itself. Given the rich intertextual connections and dependence in
which it is enveloped, the resurrection of the dead in Dan 12:1-3 may
have seemed (at least to some sectors) much less innovative than it does
to those who, ignoring its linguistic embedding, think of it as an idea.
Much is lost when the resurrection of the dead is treated as a free-
floating concept whose essence remains constant no matter what the
culture in which it appears or to which it migrates.^23- Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 509 and 510.
- Our earliest sources clearly thought of Daniel as a prophet (4QFlor ii 3; Matt 24:15;
Josephus, Antw.2.4,7); see K. Koch, "Is Daniel Also among the Prophets?" Int 39 (1985): 117-31. - J. D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of
the God of Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 185.