Daniel 1-6 in Classical Islamic Culture and the Gospel According to Ibn Hisham.

• Author: Sllverstein, A.J.

This article assesses the importance of the biblical book of Daniel in the first four Islamic centuries, focusing in particular on the legendary materials contained in Daniel 1-6. The article is divided into three sections. In the first section the treatments of Daniel 1-6 in Isra'Tliyyat works are examined, and it is shown that summaries of Daniel 1-6 in these works display evidence of oral transmission. Additionally, it is shown that some authors' familiarity with Daniel legends led them to insert this character into "biblical" narratives that do not otherwise relate to him. In the second section it is argued that Daniel's exploits were so widely known that they served as a sort of yardstick forjudging the relative importance of some other "heroic" figures who are described in classical Islamic sources. In the third section it is postulated that the introductory sections of Ibn Hisham's STra consciously relate stories with Daniel-ic associations in order to bring the Sim into line with the Christian Gospels.

INTRODUCTION

This article examines the extent to which the Daniel legends included in Daniel 1-6 were known to Muslim authors of the first four Islamic centuries.' It will be shown that despite the initial impression that these stories were limited to a small handful of sources, they were, in fact, widely known and influential on a diverse range of Muslim writings. (2) Moreover, it will be argued specifically that Daniel legends were occasionally adopted as a standard for descriptions of other protagonists, and may have been employed by Ibn Ishaq, and later Ibn Hisham, to recast the life of the Prophet (sira) as a sort of Islamic Gospel account.

Already during the reign of the Rashidun, (3) Muslims came to be acquainted with the biblical Daniel and some of the lore associated with him. In some anecdotes we find casual reference to the fact that Muslims actually read the book of Daniel--for instance, once we are told that (c) Umar ibn al-Khattab caught a man copying the book of Daniel, to which (c) Umar responded angrily, repeatedly thrashing the man while reciting the quranic verse "We have revealed to you an Arabic Quran!" The man eventually repented. (4) In another instance, free from any negative judgment, we are told that in the year 61h, "[ (c) Amr ibn Sa (c) Td] sent for (c) Abdallah ibn (() Amr ibn al- (f) As, who was a companion of his; he had been with his father in Egypt. There he had read the Books of Daniel. At that time Quraysh regarded him as a scholar." (5)

In other, somewhat better-known accounts, Muslim acquaintance with Daniel lore is said to have begun when the conquering armies of (c) Umar I discovered what was believed to be Daniel's tomb in Susa in the year 17h. According to one version of these events,

When the Muslims conquered the city [of Susa], Daniel's remains were brought to them, but they left them in the permanent care of the local people. Later, when Abu Sabra had departed from them and gone to Jundaysabur. Abu Musa came and stayed in al-Sus. He wrote to (c) Umar about Daniel's grave. (c) Umar wrote back and ordered him to hide it. So Abu Musa had the body wrapped in shrouds and the Muslims buried it. Meanwhile, Abu Musa wrote to (c) Umar saying that on the body they had found a signet ring that they had taken from it. "Return the signet ring to the body," (c) Umar wrote back. (6) In the stone of that ring there was the picture of a man between two lions. (7)

Here (c) Umar is not described as being angered by the preoccupation with Daniel; he does not actually demonstrate any familiarity with Daniel or his significance. In fact, in another version of this episode, we hear that (c) Umar was completely unaware of Daniel's identity, and it is (c) AlT who identified him and informed the Muslim leadership about Daniel's status and biography:

Abu Musa al-Ash (c) ari remained in al-Stis and wrote to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab informing him of how God had given them victory over the city of al-Sus and what followed it, and he wrote in that letter about the matter of that dead man [Daniel]. When the letter arrived and (c) Umar ibn al-Khattab read it, he called the oldest of the Companions of the Messenger of God and asked them about this, but not one of them had any knowledge about him. But (C) A1T ibn AbT Talib said that this man was Daniel the Sage, and that he had been a prophet, not a messenger, who had lived in ancient times with Nebuchadnezzar and the rulers after him. And (C) Ali ibn AbT Talib began to recount to (c) Umar ibn al-Khattab the story of Daniel from its beginning to the end, till the time of his [Daniel's] death. (8)

We shall see below that this association between (C) A1T and Daniel influenced Shi (c) i descriptions of their Imams.

While the foregoing materials suggest that early generations of Muslims had heard of Daniel, they do not tell us what precisely they had heard about him, except for the general impression that he was a character who belonged to "Israelite" historiography. It is not surprising, therefore, that the small handful of sources from this period that recount the stories found in Daniel 1-6 do so in the context of Isra'iliyyat--either within the qisas al-anbiya' (stories of the prophets) genre, (9) or as part of historical writing about the ancient Israelites. (10)

(1.) DANIEL IN THE ISRA'lLIYYAT

There are two types of reference to Daniel stories in treatments of ancient Israelite historiography. In the first, authors such as al-TabarT (d. 923), aI-Tha (c) labT (d. 1035), and TJmara ibn WathTma (d. 902)" directly relate stories about Daniel that bear close resemblance to the contents of Daniel 1-6. (12) With a few minor exceptions, these three authors relate very similar accounts, (l3) suggesting that they drew on common sources, perhaps specifically Kitab al-Mubtada' of Ibn Ishaq. (14) In the second type of reference, al-Kisa'i (fl. ca. 1100, perhaps later) makes direct reference to Daniel's life, albeit in contexts that bear no resemblance to biblical and extra-biblical accounts of it. We shall consider these in turn.

In two separate contexts, al-Tabari provides us with versions of the stories found in Daniel 1-6. In the first passage, which occurs in a strange conflation of Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of the Temple with John the Baptist's death, al-Tabari relates the following:

When Nebuchadnezzar destroyed [the Temple], he led into captivity the notables and chieftains of the Israelites, among them Daniel, Eli [sic], Azariah, and Mishael. all of them children of the prophets; he also took the Exilarch with him. When he arrived in Babylonia, Nebuchadnezzar ... held Daniel and his friends in the highest regard. But the Magians were envious of them and denounced them to Nebuchadnezzar, "Daniel and his friends do not worship your God, and they do not partake of your slaughtered animals." Nebuchadnezzar now summoned the exiles and questioned them. They said, "Yes, we have a Lord whom we worship, and we do not eat of your slaughtered animals." Upon his order a trench was dug, and they were thrown into it, six of them; and a ferocious lion was thrown in with them to devour them. The captors said, "Let us go eat and drink." They did so, and then returned and found the captives sitting and the lion lying with his paws stretched out. The lion did not so much as scratch or wound any of them. But they discovered still another man with them. They were counted and found to be seven. The king exclaimed, "Who is this seventh man? There were only six." Then the seventh man came forth. It was an angel, and he slapped Nebuchadnezzar, who turned into a wild beast for seven years. (I5)

Al-Tabari immediately appends to this account a disclaimer about the (in)accuracy of the events as they are related here, as he is well aware of the anachronisms that permeate it. Intriguing though the anachronisms may be, they are presumably little more than the result of a confusion between the reign of the Romans--who destroyed the second Temple--and that of Nebuchadnezzar--who destroyed the first one. (,6)

For our purposes, what is interesting are the divergences in this account of Daniel and his companions from the biblical version of events. Aside from the relatively minor substitution of Eli in lieu of the expected Hananiah (as one of Daniel's three companions), there are three major differences between al-Tabari's version of Daniel 1-6 and the biblical one.

First, the order of the stories is different. Here we have "the Magians" denouncing the Jews for not worshipping Nebuchadnezzar's god (Dan. 3) and not eating his food (Dan. 1). As a consequence, they are cast into a trench with lions, only to emerge from it unscathed (Dan. 6). Finally, Nebuchadnezzar is punished by being turned into an animal for seven years (Dan. 4).

Second, the stories are incomplete: There is no reference to the three companions being cast into the fiery furnace (Dan. 3), (17) or to Daniel's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dreams (Dan. 2 and 4), or to the episode of the writing on the wall (Dan. 5). Similarly, it is only under Nebuchadnezzar that the events occur, whereas in Daniel 1-6 we also hear of Darius the Mede and Belshazzar.

Third, it is clear that al-Tabari's account draws on Jewish and Christian expansions on Daniel 1-6 rather than relying solely on the biblical text. Two examples may suffice to illustrate the point. First, whereas in Daniel 6 it is Daniel alone who is cast into the lions' den, here we are told that "six of them" were exposed to this danger, and that a seventh, angelic figure was seen with them, who effected the tyrant's animalization (Dan. 4:29-30). The shift from one victim to six or seven is almost certainly influenced by the similar episode in the apocryphal expansions on Daniel. In the story of Bel and the Dragon (Dan. 14:31-32), Daniel is joined for six days by seven lions (whereas in Daniel 6 the number of lions is not specified, and Daniel spends a...