Daniel 1 – Faithful in Babylon: living in a foreign world without losing one's identity

1. The death of Josiah: 609 BC

The historical context of Daniel 1 begins a few years before Daniel's deportation.

Josiah, king of Judah, dies at Megiddo after trying to stop Pharaoh Necho (2 Kings 23.29-30; 2 Chronicles 35.20-24).

His death, generally placed in 609 BC, opens a period of deep political instability for Judah.

His son Jehoahaz succeeds him, but his reign lasts only three months (2 Kings 23.31-33).

Necho removes him and installs Eliakim in his place, changing his name to Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23.34).

Judah is then under strong Egyptian influence.

2. Jehoiakim and Egyptian domination

Jehoiakim reigns eleven years in Jerusalem (2 Kings 23.36).

At the beginning of his reign, the main foreign power dominating Judah is Egypt.

This situation changes when Babylon confronts the Egyptian forces in the region of the Euphrates.

Jeremiah explicitly associates this confrontation with the fourth year of Jehoiakim:

“Concerning the army of Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates at Carchemish and which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah.” (Jeremiah 46.2)

The battle of Carchemish thus marks a major turning point in the political balance of the Near East.

3. The battle of Carchemish: 605 BC

The Babylonian victory at Carchemish is generally dated to 605 BC.

It marks the decisive decline of Egyptian power in Syria-Palestine and the emergence of Babylon as the dominant power in the region.

It is in this context that the opening of the scroll of Daniel must be understood:

“In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.” (Daniel 1.1)

The dating of Daniel 1 must therefore be related to the events of 605 BC.

4. Daniel's “third year” and Jeremiah's “fourth year”

A difficulty appears immediately.

Daniel 1.1 speaks of the third year of Jehoiakim.

Jeremiah 46.2 speaks of his fourth year.

Jeremiah 25.1 also establishes a correspondence between the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the first year of Nebuchadnezzar:

“The fourth year of Jehoiakim ... that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.” (Jeremiah 25.1)

This difference does not necessarily require us to suppose two different historical years.

It can be explained by distinct systems of reckoning regnal years.

5. The accession-year system

In the so-called “accession year” system, the period between a king's coming to power and the start of his first official year is not counted as his first year of reign.

It constitutes his accession year.

The first numbered year then begins with the new administrative year.

Depending on the system used, the same historical interval can therefore be called the “third year” in one reckoning and the “fourth year” in another.

This explanation is commonly proposed to bring Daniel 1.1 closer to Jeremiah 25.1 and Jeremiah 46.2.

The question, however, deserves specific analysis and will be taken up again in the appendix devoted to the third and fourth years of Jehoiakim.

6. Nebuchadnezzar becomes king in 605 BC

At the time of the Carchemish campaign, Nebuchadnezzar acts first as crown prince and commander of the Babylonian armies.

The death of his father Nabopolassar occurs the same year.

Nebuchadnezzar then returns to Babylon and ascends the throne.

This transition explains why the events of 605 lie precisely at the junction between his military campaigns as crown prince and the beginning of his reign.

The book of Daniel can naturally refer to Nebuchadnezzar by the title under which he will be known in the narrative, without this designation necessarily implying that he was already king at the start of each event mentioned.

7. The first deportation associated with Daniel

Daniel 1 presents the transfer of certain objects from the Temple and the presence in Babylon of young Judeans, notably from royal or noble backgrounds (Daniel 1.2-6).

This intervention must be distinguished from the later great deportations.

The capture of Jerusalem under Jehoiachin and the major deportation of 597 BC are reported in 2 Kings 24 (2 Kings 24.10-16).

The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple comes afterward, in 586 BC according to the generally accepted chronology (2 Kings 25.1-10).

Daniel 1 therefore comes before these two major catastrophes.

8. Does Daniel arrive in Babylon in 605 BC?

The chronology adopted in this study places Daniel's arrival in Babylon around 605 BC.

Nevertheless, the wording “around 605” should be kept whenever absolute precision is not needed.

The biblical text establishes the setting under Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar, but provides neither the day nor the month of Daniel’s arrival in Babylon.

The date of 605 is therefore the best general historical marker rather than a day-by-day date supplied by Daniel 1.

9. How old was Daniel?

The book never gives Daniel's age at the time of his deportation.

Daniel 1.4 describes the persons sought by the king as young men possessing the physical and intellectual qualities required for court training.

This description allows us to suppose that they were relatively young.

It does not, however, allow us to establish a precise age.

We must therefore clearly distinguish:

Biblical information: Daniel belongs to the group of young men who were selected.

Reconstruction: Daniel would have been about fourteen years old.

The age of fourteen is a plausible working hypothesis, not information explicitly given by the text.

10. A birth around 619 BC: a working hypothesis

If Daniel was about fourteen in 605 BC, his birth could be placed approximately around 619 BC.

The calculation is simple:

605 + 14 ≈ 619 BC.

But the whole chronology of his later ages depends on this first hypothesis.

We should therefore never write that Daniel “was born in 619 BC” as if it were an established historical fact.

The rigorous wording is:

if Daniel was about fourteen years old in 605 BC, he would have been born around 619 BC.

11. The three years of training

Nebuchadnezzar orders that the young men be trained for three years:

“He wanted them to be educated for three years, at the end of which they were to stand before the king.” (Daniel 1.5)

Starting from a beginning around 605 BC, the end of this training can be placed approximately around 603/602 BC, depending on how partial years and regnal years are counted.

If Daniel was about fourteen at the beginning, he would then be approximately sixteen or seventeen.

Here again, the age remains dependent on the initial hypothesis.

12. Daniel 2 and the second year of Nebuchadnezzar

Daniel 2.1 places the dream of the statue in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar:

“In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams.” (Daniel 2.1)

This indication may seem hard to reconcile with the three years of training in Daniel 1.5.

If Daniel completed three full years of training before being presented to the king, how can he intervene as early as the second year of Nebuchadnezzar?

The difficulty depends largely on the reckoning of accession years and on the way the “three years” of training are counted.

This question deserves independent analysis and will be examined in a specific appendix.

13. Daniel under Nebuchadnezzar

After his training, Daniel enters a long period of service under Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel 2 shows him interpreting the dream of the statue.

Daniel 4 presents him again beside the king in the account of the great tree.

The precise dates of some episodes are not given.

It would therefore be artificial to assign an exact year to each account when the text itself does not allow it.

The chronology of Daniel must retain zones of uncertainty.

14. Daniel 3 gives no date

The account of the golden statue and the furnace contains no explicit chronological indication.

Various datings have been proposed, notably around 594/593 BC, but they rest on historical reconstructions.

They must not be presented as dates given by Daniel 3.

If this hypothetical dating were adopted and if Daniel was born around 619 BC, he would be about twenty-five or twenty-six.

But both elements of the calculation are hypothetical: the date of the episode and Daniel's initial age.

15. Daniel 4 is also difficult to date precisely

Daniel 4 presents Nebuchadnezzar at the height of his power and describes a period of judgment followed by restoration.

The chapter, however, gives no regnal year that would allow precise dating.

The episode is generally placed in a relatively late period of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

A location in the years 570-560 BC can be envisaged in some reconstructions.

It must not be turned into a certain date.

On the hypothesis of a birth around 619 BC, Daniel would then be approximately between forty-five and fifty-five years old.

16. The first year of Belshazzar: Daniel 7

Daniel 7 provides a new marker:

“In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and visions.” (Daniel 7.1)

This first year is generally placed around 553/552 BC, depending on the reconstruction of Belshazzar's role during the reign of Nabonidus.

If Daniel was about fourteen in 605 BC, he would then be about sixty-six or sixty-seven.

This observation is important: the visions of Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 historically precede the fall of Babylon told in Daniel 5.

17. The third year of Belshazzar: Daniel 8

Daniel 8 begins this way:

“In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar, a vision appeared to me, Daniel.” (Daniel 8.1)

This indication is generally placed around 551/550 BC.

On the hypothesis of a birth around 619 BC, Daniel would then be about sixty-eight or sixty-nine.

Daniel is therefore no longer, and has not been for a long time, the young man of Daniel 1 when he receives the great visions of Daniel 7 and Daniel 8.

18. The fall of Babylon: 539 BC

Daniel 5 brings the narrative to Belshazzar's last night:

“That very night Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, was killed.” (Daniel 5.30)

The fall of Babylon to the forces of Cyrus is historically placed in 539 BC.

If Daniel was about fourteen in 605 BC, he would then be approximately eighty.

This estimate helps us better understand the contrast between the young captive of Daniel 1 and the experienced man summoned before Belshazzar in Daniel 5.

19. Daniel under Darius the Mede

Daniel 5.31 introduces Darius the Mede after the fall of Belshazzar:

“Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.” (Daniel 5.31)

Daniel 6 then presents Daniel holding a high position in the new administration (Daniel 5.31-6.3).

Daniel 9.1 also places a revelation in the first year of Darius (Daniel 9.1).

The precise historical identification of Darius the Mede remains one of the debated difficulties of the book.

It must not be resolved artificially in a chronology that claims to go beyond the available data.

20. The first year of Cyrus

Daniel 1.21 states that Daniel remains until the first year of Cyrus.

Within the framework of Persian rule over Babylon, this first year is generally placed around 538/537 BC.

This period also corresponds to the decree presented at the beginning of the book of Ezra:

“In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia ... the the Eternal stirred up the spirit of Cyrus.” (Ezra 1.1)

The decree authorizes the rebuilding of the Temple and the return to Jerusalem (Ezra 1.2-4).

Daniel 1.21 thus leads the reader symbolically from the beginning of the Babylonian exile to the opening of the period of return.

21. Daniel's approximate age under Cyrus

If Daniel was about fourteen in 605 BC, he would be approximately eighty-one or eighty-two around 538/537 BC.

This calculation helps us measure the length of his presence in the successive administrations.

It still does not allow us to turn the hypothetical age of fourteen into a certainty.

The distinction between historical chronology and reconstructed biographical chronology must be maintained.

22. The third year of Cyrus: Daniel 10

Daniel 10 provides the last explicit chronological marker concerning Daniel:

“In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar.” (Daniel 10.1)

This year can be placed approximately around 536/535 BC, depending on the system of reckoning adopted.

If Daniel was fourteen in 605 BC, he would then be about eighty-three or eighty-four.

This estimate is more coherent than the categorical claim of an age of eighty-five in 534 BC, which depends on a more particular chronological reconstruction.

23. Daniel 1.21 and Daniel 10.1 must be read together

The comparison of these two texts is essential.

Daniel 1.21 declares:

“So Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.”

Daniel 10.1 still places Daniel in the third year of Cyrus.

The first text therefore does not give the date of his death.

It indicates rather that Daniel lives through the whole Babylonian period and reaches the time of Cyrus.

Daniel 10.1 then extends his presence beyond that boundary.

24. The date of Daniel's death remains unknown

No date of death is given.

Daniel 12 ends with a word addressed to the prophet:

“But go your way till the end. You shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days.” (Daniel 12.13)

This word announces the end of his course without supplying a date.

It is therefore impossible to establish historically the year of Daniel’s death from the biblical book.

Any precise date would go beyond the available information.

25. Did Daniel return to Jerusalem?

Cyrus's decree opens the possibility of return (Ezra 1.1-4).

The book, however, reports no return of Daniel to Judah.

His advanced age might explain why he remained in the Persian Empire, but this explanation remains hypothetical.

We should therefore retain only the certain datum:

no return of Daniel to Jerusalem is recounted in the book of Daniel.

It would be excessive to conclude from this that we know with certainty where he spent the last years of his life.

26. Summary chronological table

27. What the chronology allows us to affirm

Several elements can be retained with a reasonable degree of confidence.

Daniel belongs to the generation taken to Babylon at the beginning of Babylonian domination over Judah.

His activity extends to the Persian period.

He is still alive in the third year of Cyrus (Daniel 10.1).

His career therefore spans several decades and several changes of regime.

This length of time is a fundamental datum for understanding the person.

28. What the chronology does not allow us to affirm

On the other hand, several elements must remain presented as hypotheses.

The text does not say that Daniel was exactly fourteen.

It does not give his year of birth.

It does not provide a precise date for Daniel 3 or Daniel 4.

It does not tell of his return to Jerusalem.

It does not give the date of his death.

An academic chronology must preserve these distinctions so as not to turn useful reconstructions into biblical data.

Conclusion of the appendix

The chronology of Daniel 1 allows us to measure one of the most important dimensions of the book: duration.

Daniel enters the narrative's history at the moment when Babylon is gradually imposing its domination on Judah, around 605 BC.

He remains present until the Persian period and still receives a revelation in the third year of Cyrus, around 536/535 BC.

If the hypothesis of an age of about fourteen on his arrival in Babylon is adopted, Daniel would be about eighty at the fall of Babylon and approximately eighty-three or eighty-four at the vision of Daniel 10.

These ages are not biblical data. They constitute a reconstruction intended to represent the timescale of the narrative.

The essential datum nevertheless remains solid: Daniel's ministry spans almost the whole period of Babylonian domination and continues under Persian rule.

This longevity gives full weight to the last sentence of Daniel 1.

The young Judean taken to Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar is still there when the empire that deported him has disappeared.

Biblical References Cited

2 Kings 23.29-30 ; 2 Kings 23.31-33 ; 2 Kings 23.34 ; 2 Kings 23.36 ; 2 Kings 24.10-16 ; 2 Kings 25.1-10 ; 2 Chronicles 35.20-24 ; Jeremiah 25.1 ; Jeremiah 46.2 ; Ezra 1.1 ; Ezra 1.1-4 ; Ezra 1.2-4 ; Daniel 1.1 ; Daniel 1.1-2 ; Daniel 1.2-6 ; Daniel 1.4 ; Daniel 1.5 ; Daniel 1.21 ; Daniel 2.1 ; Daniel 4.19-27 ; Daniel 5.30 ; Daniel 5.31 ; Daniel 5.31-6.3 ; Daniel 7.1 ; Daniel 8.1 ; Daniel 9.1 ; Daniel 10.1 ; Daniel 12.13.

1. The chronological problem

Daniel opens his account with a precise indication:

“In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.” (Daniel 1.1)

Jeremiah provides another reference point of his own:

“In the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.” (Jeremiah 25.1)

Jeremiah 46 also associates the battle of Carchemish with this fourth year:

“… Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon defeated the army of Pharaoh Necho in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah.” (Jeremiah 46.2)

Taken in isolation, the texts therefore seem to place the events in two different years of Jehoiakim's reign.

The difficulty must, however, be stated precisely: Jeremiah 46.2 explicitly dates the battle of Carchemish, whereas Daniel 1.1 speaks of an intervention against Jerusalem. The two texts therefore do not describe exactly the same event, even though they belong to the same historical context.

2. The three indications to be related

Three pieces of data must be considered together.

Daniel 1.1: third year of Jehoiakim and intervention of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem.

Jeremiah 25.1: fourth year of Jehoiakim, corresponding to the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.

Jeremiah 46.2: defeat of the Egyptian army at Carchemish during the fourth year of Jehoiakim.

The question therefore has two distinct aspects.

The first concerns the difference between the third and the fourth year of Jehoiakim.

The second concerns the historical connection between the victory at Carchemish and the Babylonian intervention against Judah.

These two problems must be distinguished before being brought together.

3. The year 605 BC: a succession of events

The year 605 BC is a major turning point in the history of the Near East.

It must not, however, be treated as if all the events associated with it took place simultaneously.

The general sequence can be reconstructed as follows:

1. Nebuchadnezzar commands the Babylonian army while his father Nabopolassar is still reigning in Babylon.

2. The Babylonian forces confront the Egyptian army at Carchemish, on the Euphrates.

3. The Egyptian army is defeated and the Babylonians continue their advance southward.

4. Syria-Palestine gradually comes under Babylonian domination.

5. Judah, until then subject to Egyptian influence, finds itself directly exposed to the new dominant power.

6. The death of Nabopolassar leads Nebuchadnezzar to return quickly to Babylon in order to take possession of the throne.

Daniel 1.1-2 must be placed within this general political transformation.

4. Carchemish is not the invasion of Jerusalem

The battle of Carchemish and the intervention against Jerusalem must therefore be clearly distinguished.

Carchemish lies on the Euphrates, far to the north of Judah.

The battle is fought mainly between Babylon and Egypt.

Jerusalem is not the theater of this confrontation.

Daniel 1.1 describes a different stage:

“Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.”

It would therefore be incorrect to write that Daniel 1.1 recounts the battle of Carchemish.

It is more accurate to say that the victory at Carchemish creates the geopolitical conditions that allow the Babylonian intervention against Judah.

5. From Carchemish to Judah

The victory won over Egypt immediately changes the balance of power throughout the region.

Judah had been placed under Egyptian domination after the death of Josiah.

Pharaoh Necho had deposed Jehoahaz and installed Jehoiakim on the throne (2 Kings 23.33-35).

For Jehoiakim, the Egyptian defeat at Carchemish therefore means the loss of the foreign power on which his kingdom depended.

The Babylonian expansion southward then places Judah within Nebuchadnezzar's sphere of domination.

It is in this transition that Daniel 1 should be placed.

6. What, then, does the “invasion” of 605 mean?

The term “invasion” must be used with precision.

One should not necessarily imagine, in 605 BC, the complete destruction of Jerusalem that would take place several years later.

Daniel 1.1-2 describes an intervention against Jerusalem in the course of which Jehoiakim comes under Babylonian domination and part of the Temple vessels is carried off.

Daniel 1.3-6 also places in Babylon young Judeans belonging notably to the royal family and the nobility.

This intervention is therefore a first stage of Babylonian domination over Judah.

It must be distinguished from the much larger deportation of 597 BC and from the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC.

7. Three main stages of Babylonian domination over Judah

To avoid any confusion, it is useful to distinguish three main stages.

Around 605 BC: after Carchemish, Babylon imposes its domination on the region; Daniel 1 places in this context the intervention against Jerusalem, the transfer of some of the Temple vessels, and the presence of Daniel and his companions in Babylon (Daniel 1.1-6).

597 BC: Jerusalem is taken under Jehoiachin; the king, his family, the officials, the craftsmen and a large part of the population are deported (2 Kings 24.10-16).

586 BC: after the revolt of Zedekiah, Jerusalem and the Temple are destroyed and a further deportation takes place (2 Kings 25.1-12).

The intervention reported in Daniel 1 therefore belongs to the beginning of the process, not to its conclusion.

8. Why 605 remains the main reference point

The date of 605 BC nevertheless remains essential.

It corresponds to the moment when the political balance of the region tips in favor of Babylon.

Carchemish is the great military event that makes this transformation possible.

Jeremiah confirms that this battle took place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 46.2).

Jeremiah 25.1 also associates this fourth year with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel 1 places the Babylonian intervention against Jerusalem precisely at the beginning of this new period.

The date 605 must therefore not be understood as the date of a single event, but as the chronological reference point of a sequence of military and political upheavals.

9. The death of Nabopolassar and the accession of Nebuchadnezzar

Another major event occurs during this same period: the death of Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar.

Nebuchadnezzar, who commands the Babylonian armies, has to return to Babylon to secure his succession.

He then officially becomes king.

This situation explains why 605 is a particularly complex year for chronology.

Nebuchadnezzar can appear successively in the events of this year as crown prince commanding the army and then as king of Babylon.

Daniel 1.1 designates him by the title under which he is known in the narrative: “king of Babylon.”

10. “Third year” and “fourth year”

Once this historical sequence has been clarified, the difference between Daniel and Jeremiah can be examined more precisely.

Daniel speaks of the third year of Jehoiakim.

Jeremiah speaks of his fourth year.

This difference can be explained by two methods of reckoning regnal years.

In a system with an accession year, the period between the king's coming to power and the beginning of the new official year constitutes an accession year that is not numbered as a first year.

In a system without an accession year, this same period can be counted immediately as the first year.

A difference of one unit then becomes possible.

11. The same interval can receive two numberings

The principle can be represented simply.

In a reckoning with an accession year:

accession year → first year → second year → third year.

In a reckoning that counts the accession year immediately:

first year → second year → third year → fourth year.

The same historical interval can therefore be called “third year” in one system and “fourth year” in the other.

This explanation makes it possible to bring Daniel 1.1 closer to Jeremiah 25.1 and Jeremiah 46.2 without removing the real difference in wording between the texts.

12. An indispensable distinction for the chronology of Daniel

The chronology must therefore avoid an overly simplified formulation such as:

“In 605, Nebuchadnezzar wins at Carchemish and invades Jerusalem.”

This sentence could give the impression that it was a single military event.

A more precise formulation would be:

“In 605 BC, the Babylonian victory at Carchemish brings about the collapse of Egyptian domination in Syria-Palestine. In the expansion that follows, Judah comes under Babylonian domination; Daniel 1 places in this context Nebuchadnezzar's intervention against Jerusalem and the transfer of Daniel and his companions to Babylon.”

This formulation better respects the historical succession of events.

13. What is certain and what remains reconstructed

The distinction between the data and their reconstruction remains indispensable.

Certain biblical data:

Daniel 1.1 places the intervention against Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim.

Jeremiah 46.2 places the victory at Carchemish in the fourth year of Jehoiakim.

Jeremiah 25.1 associates the fourth year of Jehoiakim with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel 1.2 mentions the transfer of part of the Temple vessels.

Daniel 1.3-6 presents Daniel and his companions within the setting of the Babylonian court.

Historical reconstruction:

bringing these data together leads to placing Daniel 1 within the political sequence opened by Carchemish in 605 BC.

This distinction makes it possible to maintain a scholarly argument without asking more of the sources than they say.

Conclusion of the appendix

The date of 605 BC must be understood as the framework of a historical sequence, and not as the date of a single event.

The battle of Carchemish is first of all the major military turning point. Nebuchadnezzar's victory causes Egypt to withdraw and allows Babylon to extend its domination toward Syria-Palestine.

Judah, until then under strong Egyptian influence, now finds itself confronted with Babylonian power. It is in this context that Daniel 1 places the intervention against Jerusalem, the transfer of some of the Temple vessels, and the arrival of Daniel and his companions in the Babylonian world.

This first intervention must not be confused with the great deportation of 597 BC, nor with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 586 BC.

The difference between the “third year” of Daniel and the “fourth year” of Jeremiah can then be understood in light of the different ancient methods of reckoning reigns.

The most coherent reconstruction can therefore be summarized as follows:

Carchemish in 605 BC → Egyptian withdrawal → Babylonian advance southward → Judah coming under Babylonian domination → intervention against Jerusalem reported in Daniel 1.

This connection makes it possible to situate Daniel 1 in its historical context without confusing the battle of Carchemish, the intervention of 605, the deportation of 597 and the final destruction of 586 BC.

Biblical References Cited

2 Kings 23.33-35 ; 2 Kings 24.10-16 ; 2 Kings 25.1-12 ; Jeremiah 25.1 ; Jeremiah 46.2 ; Daniel 1.1 ; Daniel 1.1-2 ; Daniel 1.1-6 ; Daniel 1.2 ; Daniel 1.3-6.

1. Judah between Egypt and Babylon

At the end of the 7th century BC, Judah is caught between two great powers.

Assyria, which had dominated the Near East for several centuries, gradually collapses.

Babylon, under Nabopolassar and then Nebuchadnezzar, takes its place as the dominant Mesopotamian power.

At the same time, Egypt tries to maintain its influence over Syria-Palestine.

Judah is directly exposed to this confrontation.

2. The death of Josiah changes Judah's situation

King Josiah dies at Megiddo during his encounter with Pharaoh Necho (2 Kings 23.29-30; 2 Chronicles 35.20-24).

This death, generally placed in 609 BC, marks a major political break.

Jehoahaz, son of Josiah, becomes king, but his reign lasts only three months (2 Kings 23.31).

Pharaoh Necho deposes him and imposes on Judah another son of Josiah, Eliakim, whose name he changes to Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23.33-34).

Jehoiakim therefore comes to the throne in a kingdom placed under Egyptian domination.

3. Jehoiakim is at first dependent on Egypt

Judah's dependence appears notably in the tribute demanded by Necho.

The account states:

“Jehoiakim gave the silver and the gold to Pharaoh, but he taxed the land to give the money according to the command of Pharaoh.” (2 Kings 23.35)

This situation is essential for understanding the events of 605 BC.

When Babylon defeats Egypt, it is not only the Egyptian army that retreats.

The whole political system to which Judah was attached is called into question.

4. Carchemish: the great clash of 605 BC

Jeremiah provides a particularly important chronological indication:

“Concerning the army of Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates at Carchemish and which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah.” (Jeremiah 46.2)

Carchemish is located on the Euphrates, far to the north of Judah.

The battle therefore does not take place near Jerusalem.

It pits mainly the Babylonian forces led by Nebuchadnezzar against the Egyptian forces.

Its importance lies in its regional consequences.

5. The victory at Carchemish changes the political balance

Egypt's defeat considerably reduces its capacity to maintain its domination over Syria-Palestine.

Babylon can now advance southward.

The small kingdoms of the region must adapt to the new dominant power.

Judah, until then dependent on Egypt, is therefore directly affected.

The transition from Egyptian domination to Babylonian domination provides the historical context in which Daniel 1 takes place.

6. Carchemish and Jerusalem are not the same event

This distinction must be maintained with precision.

Jeremiah 46.2 recounts the defeat of the Egyptian army at Carchemish.

Daniel 1.1 declares:

“Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.”

One must therefore not write that Daniel 1 recounts the battle of Carchemish.

Carchemish is the great military event that makes Babylonian expansion possible.

The intervention against Jerusalem belongs to the phase of extension of this domination toward the south.

7. A historical sequence rather than a single event

The year 605 BC must thus be understood as a succession of events.

The general sequence can be summarized as follows:

Babylonian victory at Carchemish → retreat of the Egyptian army → Babylonian advance toward Syria-Palestine → collapse of Egyptian domination over several territories → Judah passes into the Babylonian sphere of domination.

Daniel 1 places the intervention against Jerusalem in this general context.

This presentation avoids turning several successive operations into a single military event.

8. The intervention against Jerusalem in Daniel 1

Daniel 1.1-2 reports:

“Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God.” (Daniel 1.1-2)

The text thus associates three elements:

an intervention against Jerusalem;

the submission of Jehoiakim;

the transfer of part of the Temple vessels.

Daniel 1.3-6 then introduces the young men of Judah selected to be trained at the Babylonian court.

Daniel is part of this group.

9. How large was the siege of 605?

Daniel 1 does not describe the military operations in detail.

The verb used indicates that Nebuchadnezzar comes against Jerusalem and besieges it, but the chapter recounts neither a general destruction of the city nor the destruction of the Temple.

This observation is important.

The siege of Daniel 1 must not be pictured on the model of the one that will result in the destruction of Jerusalem several years later.

The account insists above all on the change of domination and its consequences: Jehoiakim is given into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, sacred vessels are transferred, and young men of Judah are taken into the Babylonian world.

10. Jerusalem is not destroyed in 605 BC

The Temple continues to exist after the events of Daniel 1.

The city of Jerusalem also remains inhabited and governed by the kings of Judah.

This continuity helps us understand why other Babylonian interventions will follow.

The year 605 therefore does not correspond to the final destruction of the kingdom of Judah.

It marks rather a decisive stage in its gradual loss of independence.

11. Jehoiakim becomes subject to Nebuchadnezzar

The second book of Kings summarizes this development:

“In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years. Then he turned and rebelled against him.” (2 Kings 24.1)

This indication confirms a period of Jehoiakim's submission to Babylon.

It agrees with the general framework presented in Daniel 1.

Judah passes from dependence on Egypt to dependence on Babylon.

12. Jehoiakim's revolt prepares a new crisis

Submission to Babylon does not remain permanent.

According to 2 Kings 24.1, Jehoiakim rebels after three years of dependence.

This decision helps to place Judah again in an extremely dangerous situation.

The kingdom now faces a Babylonian power far stronger than itself.

Events will finally lead to a new intervention against Jerusalem.

13. The deportation of 597 BC

The next crisis occurs under Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim.

Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem and the king surrenders (2 Kings 24.10-12).

This time, the deportation is described on a much larger scale.

The account mentions the king, his family, the officials, the warriors and the craftsmen (2 Kings 24.14-16).

Ezekiel belongs to the world of this deportation, as the chronological markers of his book indicate (Ezekiel 1.1-3).

The deportation of 597 must therefore not be confused with the one associated with Daniel at the beginning of the book.

14. The destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC

A third major stage occurs under Zedekiah.

After a new revolt, Jerusalem is besieged (2 Kings 25.1-2).

The city falls.

The Temple is burned.

The walls of Jerusalem are broken down (2 Kings 25.8-10).

Another part of the population is deported (2 Kings 25.11).

This catastrophe represents the culmination of a process begun several years earlier.

15. 605, 597 and 586: three stages not to be confused

The general chronology can therefore be presented as follows:

This distinction is indispensable for understanding Daniel 1.

The chapter belongs to the beginning of Babylonian domination, not to the final destruction of Jerusalem.

16. Daniel therefore belongs to an early phase of the exile

If Daniel 1 is placed around 605 BC, Daniel and his companions belong to a phase earlier than the great deportations of 597 and 586.

They are selected from among the young men coming notably from the royal family and the nobility (Daniel 1.3-6).

Their transfer thus has an obvious political dimension.

Training young members of the elites of subject peoples in Babylon made it possible to integrate them into the functioning of the empire.

The text insists, however, more on the religious and identity consequences of this situation than on the precise administrative mechanisms of this policy.

17. The transfer of the Temple vessels has a particular significance

Daniel 1 does not mention only captives.

Some of the Temple vessels are also carried away:

“And he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god.” (Daniel 1.2)

The removal of these vessels carries strong symbolic weight.

In the ancient world, a military victory could be interpreted as the victory of the conqueror's god over the god of the defeated people.

Daniel nevertheless rejects this interpretation from the very beginning.

It is not Nebuchadnezzar who ultimately controls the event:

“The Lord gave Jehoiakim into his hand.” (Daniel 1.2)

The historical account thus immediately becomes a theological affirmation.

18. The vessels of 605 reappear symbolically in Daniel 5

The transfer of the sacred vessels is not a detail without consequence.

Decades later, Belshazzar has the vessels from the Temple of Jerusalem brought in so as to use them during his feast (Daniel 5.2-4).

This profanation immediately precedes the announcement of the fall of Babylon.

There is therefore an important literary link between Daniel 1 and Daniel 5.

Daniel 1 shows Babylon carrying off the vessels of the Temple.

Daniel 5 shows the last Babylonian king profaning them at the moment his kingdom comes to its end.

The account thus frames the history of the Babylonian empire with the fate of these sacred vessels.

19. Egypt's role does not disappear immediately

The victory at Carchemish is a decisive turning point, but it does not mean that Egypt immediately ceases to exist as a political power.

Egypt remains an important regional actor.

The kings of Judah will continue to be tempted to seek its support against Babylon.

This policy contributes to the tensions that lead to Nebuchadnezzar's later interventions.

605 must therefore be understood as a shift in the balance of power, not as the instant disappearance of all Egyptian influence.

20. The year 605 explains the political setting of Daniel

Daniel does not arrive in Babylon as the result of an isolated event.

His displacement belongs to a much broader geopolitical transformation.

The fall of Assyrian power, the rivalry between Egypt and Babylon, the victory at Carchemish and Babylonian expansion determine the political framework in which his story unfolds.

The book of Daniel thus begins at the moment when the personal history of the young man of Judah meets that of the great empires.

21. A political history interpreted theologically

Daniel 1 in no way denies the political and military causes of the event.

Nebuchadnezzar has an army.

Egypt is defeated.

Judah gradually loses its autonomy.

But the narrator adds a dimension that political analysis alone cannot provide:

“The Lord gave Jehoiakim into his hand.” (Daniel 1.2)

The text therefore does not replace history with theology.

It offers a theological reading of history.

The empires act in reality, but for Daniel they are not the ultimate level of explanation.

22. The most precise historical formulation

To present the context of Daniel 1, the following formulation avoids the main confusions:

In 605 BC, Nebuchadnezzar, still crown prince during the Carchemish campaign, wins a decisive victory over the Egyptian army. This victory opens up to Babylon the domination of Syria-Palestine. In the movement of expansion that follows, Judah passes from Egyptian dependence to Babylonian domination. Daniel 1 places in this context an intervention against Jerusalem, the transfer of part of the Temple vessels, and the arrival of Daniel and several young men of Judah in Babylon. This intervention must be distinguished from the great deportation of 597 and the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC.

This formulation preserves the historical sequence without artificially identifying Carchemish with the siege of Jerusalem.

Biblical References Cited

2 Kings 23.29-30 ; 2 Kings 23.31 ; 2 Kings 23.33-34 ; 2 Kings 23.35 ; 2 Kings 24.1 ; 2 Kings 24.10-12 ; 2 Kings 24.14-16 ; 2 Kings 25.1-2 ; 2 Kings 25.8-10 ; 2 Kings 25.11 ; 2 Chronicles 35.20-24 ; Jeremiah 46.2 ; Ezekiel 1.1-3 ; Daniel 1.1 ; Daniel 1.1-2 ; Daniel 1.3-6 ; Daniel 1.2 ; Daniel 5.2-4.

Conclusion of the appendix

The year 605 BC is the true political background of Daniel 1.

The battle of Carchemish is its main military turning point. The Babylonian victory causes Egypt to retreat and opens to Nebuchadnezzar the possibility of extending his authority over Syria-Palestine.

Judah, until then under Egyptian domination, then gradually enters the Babylonian sphere.

Daniel 1 places in this new situation the intervention against Jerusalem, the transfer of certain Temple vessels, and the presence in Babylon of Daniel and his companions.

This first phase must nevertheless be distinguished from the later catastrophes.

605 BC marks the beginning of Babylonian domination; 597 BC corresponds to a much larger deportation; 586 BC marks the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

This distinction helps us understand the historical progression of the biblical narrative.

It also allows us to grasp the full significance of Daniel 1. The book does not begin after the complete disappearance of Judah, but at the moment when the political order of the Near East shifts and the young Daniel is swept up in the consequences of this transformation.

The story of Daniel thus begins with the rise of Babylon. It will continue long enough for the same Daniel to be still present when this empire in turn disappears.

1. Four young men of Judah identified by name

After describing the selection of young men coming notably from the royal family and the nobility, the account names four of them:

“Among these were of the sons of Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.” (Daniel 1.6)

These four names belong to their identity as men of Judah.

The next verse introduces their new designation:

“And the chief of the eunuchs gave them names: Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego.” (Daniel 1.7)

The change is thus explicitly attributed to the Babylonian administration.

2. The change of name belongs to a larger whole

The the change of names is not an isolated episode.

Daniel and his companions are displaced geographically.

They are brought into a new political environment.

They receive training in “the literature and language of the Chaldeans” (Daniel 1.4).

Food from the royal table is assigned to them (Daniel 1.5).

They are prepared for the king's service.

The change of name therefore belongs to a more general process of integration into the Babylonian court.

3. The Hebrew names have a theophoric dimension

The four Hebrew names are linked to the God of Israel.

Two use the element El, a Semitic designation of God.

Two contain an abbreviated form of the divine name YHWH.

Thus, even before the account reports their deeds, their names link them linguistically to the God of Israel.

This characteristic makes their replacement particularly significant in the Babylonian context.

4. Daniel: “God is my judge”

The name דָּנִיֵּאל, Dāniyyēʾl, Daniel, is generally understood as meaning:

“God is my judge” or “God judges for me.”

The name contains the element El, “God.”

This meaning corresponds remarkably well with several themes of the book.

Daniel will interpret the judgment passed on kingdoms and rulers.

Nebuchadnezzar will be judged in Daniel 4.

Belshazzar will be “weighed” and his kingdom judged in Daniel 5.

The great visions will likewise present the divine judgment on human powers (Daniel 7.9-14).

One must nevertheless distinguish the linguistic meaning of the name from its literary use: the text does not explicitly state that Daniel received this name in anticipation of these events.

5. Hananiah: “Yahweh has shown grace”

The name חֲנַנְיָה, Ḥănanyāh, Hananiah, can be understood as:

“YHWH has shown grace”, “YHWH is gracious” or “YHWH has shown his favor.”

The name combines a form of the verb expressing grace or favor with the divine element Yāh, an abbreviated form of the name YHWH.

This meaning recalls that the young man's identity is originally formulated in relation to the God of Israel.

6. Mishael: “Who is like God?”

The name מִישָׁאֵל, Mîšāʾēl, Mishael, is generally understood as a question:

“Who is like God?”

The final element El designates God.

The wording has a rhetorical dimension: it implies that no being can truly be compared to God.

This affirmation fits especially well with the general theology of the book of Daniel, which regularly contrasts divine sovereignty with the claims of earthly powers.

7. Azariah: “Yahweh has helped”

The name עֲזַרְיָה, ʿĂzaryāh, Azariah, generally means:

“YHWH has helped” or “YHWH is help.”

Like Hananiah, the name contains an abbreviated form of the divine name.

The name thus expresses an explicit relationship between its bearer and the God of Israel.

The four Hebrew names thus form a set strongly marked by the faith of Israel.

8. Table of the Hebrew names

These meanings can be accepted with fairly high confidence.

The situation becomes more complex when it comes to the Babylonian names.

9. Belteshazzar: Daniel's new name

The chief of the eunuchs gives Daniel the name Belteshazzar (Daniel 1.7).

This name must not be confused with that of Belshazzar, the king of Daniel 5.

The forms are close in English translations, but they designate two different persons.

Daniel is Belteshazzar.

The ruler of Daniel 5 is Belshazzar.

10. Daniel 4 provides an important indication about Belteshazzar

Nebuchadnezzar says of Daniel:

“Daniel, whose name is Belteshazzar after the name of my god.” (Daniel 4.8)

The same connection appears when the king addresses Daniel (Daniel 4.9).

This declaration is an important textual datum.

Daniel's Babylonian name has, in the understanding expressed by Nebuchadnezzar, a relationship with the king's deity.

The change of name thus takes on a more explicitly religious dimension here.

11. What is the exact etymology of Belteshazzar?

The precise etymology of the name has been the subject of various proposals.

It is frequently linked to the god Bel, a title associated notably with Marduk.

Another analysis relates the form to an Akkadian expression of the type Balāṭšu-uṣur, which can be understood in the sense of “protect his life”.

The form transmitted in Daniel and its precise relationship to the divine name remain disputed.

It is therefore preferable not to assign to Belteshazzar a single translation with the same degree of certainty as for Daniel or Azariah.

The surest datum remains the one provided by Daniel 4.8: Nebuchadnezzar himself associates the name Belteshazzar with his god.

12. Shadrach: an uncertain etymology

Hananiah receives the name Shadrach (Daniel 1.7).

Various explanations have been proposed for this name.

Some attempts link it to a name or expression containing a reference to Aku, a Mesopotamian moon deity.

These connections remain disputed, however.

The transmitted Hebrew form does not allow the original Babylonian name to be restored with certainty.

It is therefore preferable to write:

the etymology of Shadrach remains uncertain; an association with a Mesopotamian deity, notably Aku, has been proposed, without being considered certain.

13. Meshach: a comparable difficulty

Mishael receives the name Meshach (Daniel 1.7).

The etymology of this name is also uncertain.

Some proposals have tried to establish a parallel between the Hebrew name Mishael, “Who is like God?”, and a possible Babylonian formulation involving Aku.

This reconstruction is attractive on the literary level, but it is not certain enough to be presented as the established translation of the name.

Caution is therefore necessary.

Meshach is a Babylonian name whose exact explanation remains debated.

14. Abednego: probably “servant of Nabu”

Azariah receives the name Abednego (Daniel 1.7).

This name is generally linked to a form corresponding to “servant of Nabu.”

Nabu was an important deity of the Mesopotamian pantheon, particularly associated with writing and wisdom.

The form “Nego” may reflect a modification of the divine form Nabu in the transmission of the name.

The association with Nabu is generally considered likely, even if the exact form calls for more caution than a perfectly regular translation would suggest.

15. Table of the Babylonian names

This table avoids a frequent error: presenting the four Babylonian etymologies as equally certain.

They are not.

16. Why change the names?

The text gives no explicit explanation of the decision of the chief of the eunuchs.

It is nevertheless possible to understand its logic within the framework of the account.

Daniel and his companions are to be integrated into the royal administration.

They learn the language and literature of the Chaldeans.

They are destined to stand before the king (Daniel 1.4-5).

Receiving a name suited to the new environment naturally belongs to this transformation of status.

17. The change of name can also express the conqueror's authority

In the Old Testament, changing an individual's name can express a relationship of authority.

Pharaoh Necho changes the name of Eliakim to Jehoiakim when he makes him king (2 Kings 23.34).

Nebuchadnezzar later changes the name of Mattaniah to Zedekiah when he in turn establishes him on the throne of Judah (2 Kings 24.17).

In these cases, the change of name accompanies a new political situation imposed by a dominant power.

Daniel 1 can be read within a comparable framework.

The young men of Judah enter an institution that redefines their social and administrative status.

18. Should we speak of an erasure of identity?

The change of name can be understood as an attempt at deep cultural integration.

It would nevertheless be excessive to claim that Daniel 1 explicitly describes a systematic program aimed at erasing all memory of Judean identity.

The text does not state this intention.

It shows rather several converging transformations: displacement, training, food, change of name and royal service.

The whole undeniably exerts strong pressure toward integration.

But the exact intention of each measure must not be asserted beyond what the account allows us to establish.

19. The narrator continues to use the Hebrew names

One literary detail is particularly significant.

After announcing the new names in Daniel 1.7, the narrator continues to use the name of Daniel.

Daniel 1.8 begins immediately:

“Daniel resolved not to defile himself.”

At the end of the training, the text still declares:

“Among all of them none was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.” (Daniel 1.19)

The narrator therefore reintroduces the four Hebrew names at the moment when the young men are presented before Nebuchadnezzar.

20. The king may rename, but the account preserves identity

This literary choice creates a remarkable contrast.

The Babylonian administration gives new names.

The biblical narrator keeps the old ones.

The king can change the official designation of these young men.

He does not control the way the account defines their identity.

The administrative change is real, but it does not abolish their belonging.

21. The Babylonian names will nevertheless be used

The book does not systematically refuse the new names.

In Daniel 3, Daniel's three companions are mainly known by the names Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (Daniel 3.12).

Daniel himself can be called Belteshazzar, notably by Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4.8-9).

The account therefore does not present the use of a Babylonian name as in itself an apostasy.

This observation is important for understanding the nature of faithfulness in Daniel.

22. Daniel does not refuse his new name

Daniel 1 reports no protest by Daniel against the name Belteshazzar.

It likewise reports no refusal of the Babylonian training.

By contrast, Daniel explicitly takes a stand when he judges that the royal food risks defiling him (Daniel 1.8).

The contrast shows that not all forms of integration are placed on the same level.

Daniel accepts certain transformations imposed by his new situation.

He sets a limit when he considers that his faithfulness to God is directly at stake.

23. Daniel's identity therefore rests on something other than his name

This distinction is essential.

Daniel can be called Belteshazzar without ceasing to be Daniel.

He can learn the language of the Chaldeans without ceasing to belong to the God of Israel.

He can serve a pagan sovereign without recognizing him as having absolute authority.

The biblical character's identity therefore does not depend on the outward preservation of all the markers of his earlier existence.

It is manifested above all in his faithfulness.

24. The names become a summary of the chapter's conflict

The two series of names can finally be placed in parallel.

The Hebrew names recall the God of Israel.

The Babylonian names inscribe the young men in the religious and administrative world of Babylon.

The four characters now live between these two universes.

But the account shows that their insertion into the second does not erase their faithfulness to the first.

The change of name thus becomes one of the most visible symbols of the tension that runs through Daniel 1: to live truly in Babylon without letting Babylon entirely determine one's identity.

25. A necessary caution in interpreting etymologies

The theological interpretation of the names must remain grounded in sufficiently solid linguistic data.

The meanings of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah are relatively well established.

Those of Shadrach and Meshach are much less so.

Abednego can plausibly be linked to Nabu.

Belteshazzar clearly has, according to Daniel 4.8, an association with Nebuchadnezzar's deity, but its exact etymological reconstruction remains disputed.

An academic study must therefore avoid tables in which each Babylonian name receives a precise translation without any indication of the degree of uncertainty.

Biblical References Cited

2 Kings 23.34 ; 2 Kings 24.17 ; Daniel 1.3-6 ; Daniel 1.4 ; Daniel 1.4-5 ; Daniel 1.5 ; Daniel 1.6 ; Daniel 1.6-7 ; Daniel 1.7 ; Daniel 1.8 ; Daniel 1.19 ; Daniel 3.12 ; Daniel 4.8 ; Daniel 4.8-9 ; Daniel 4.9 ; Daniel 5.1-31 ; Daniel 7.9-14.

Conclusion of the appendix

The change of name of Daniel and his companions belongs to the process of their integration into the Babylonian world.

Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah initially bear names deeply tied to the God of Israel: “God is my judge,” “YHWH has shown grace,” “Who is like God?” and “YHWH has helped.”

In Babylon, these names are replaced by Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.

The exact meanings of these new designations cannot all be established with the same assurance. Daniel 4.8 nevertheless confirms that Belteshazzar was associated, in Nebuchadnezzar's thinking, with his god, while Abednego is probably linked to Nabu. The explanations of Shadrach and Meshach remain more uncertain.

The essential point of the account, however, is not the etymology of each of these names.

Babylon can change the administrative designation of the four young men, teach them its language and prepare them for the service of its king.

Yet it does not succeed in entirely determining their identity.

The narrator continues to call them Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah (Daniel 1.19).

Thus the the change of names already illustrates one of the fundamental themes of the book: an imperial power can impose a new outward environment without necessarily obtaining the inner allegiance of those it seeks to integrate.

1. The central verse: Daniel 1.8

The conflict appears when Daniel makes a personal decision:

“But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king's food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself.” (Daniel 1.8)

Up to this point, Daniel has not refused the training he received in Babylon.

He learns the literature and language of the Chaldeans (Daniel 1.4).

He receives a new name (Daniel 1.7).

He is destined for the king's service (Daniel 1.5).

Food is therefore the first area in which the account explicitly mentions a limit.

2. The term “defile”

The Hebrew text uses a form of the verb גָּאַל, gāʾal, used here in the sense of to defile, to make unclean or to make oneself unclean.

Daniel therefore does not present his decision simply as a dietary preference.

He does not declare that he dislikes Babylonian dishes.

He considers that eating them would compromise, in one way or another, his religious faithfulness.

The vocabulary chosen thus gives his decision a spiritual dimension and not merely a dietary one.

3. The text does not give the exact reason

This observation is the indispensable starting point.

Daniel 1.8 clearly affirms that Daniel regards the food and the wine as capable of defiling him.

By contrast, the verse does not specify:

“because the meats were unclean according to the Torah”;

“because they had been offered to the Babylonian gods”;

“because the animals had not been slaughtered according to the prescriptions”;

or:

“because eating at the king’s table meant recognizing his religious dominion.”

These explanations are possible reconstructions.

They must not be confused with the explicit statement of the text.

4. First hypothesis: the dietary regulations of the Torah

The most immediate explanation consists in linking Daniel 1 with the dietary regulations of the Torah.

Leviticus 11 distinguishes the animals that may be eaten from those considered unclean (Leviticus 11.1-47).

Deuteronomy 14 also takes up this distinction (Deuteronomy 14.3-21).

In a Babylonian environment, Daniel probably could not control the exact nature of all the meat served to him.

Some of it could therefore belong to the categories forbidden to Israel.

This hypothesis thus has a serious biblical basis.

5. The problem perhaps did not concern only the animal species

Even when an animal belonged to a permitted species, other regulations could come into consideration.

The Torah notably forbids the eating of blood:

“Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” (Genesis 9.4)

This prohibition is developed in the legislation of Israel (Leviticus 17.10-14).

Daniel could hardly know the conditions in which the meat of the court had been prepared.

The question could therefore concern not only the nature of the animal, but also its treatment.

6. The dietary regulations explain the meat well, but the wine less directly

A difficulty nevertheless appears.

Daniel refuses not only the king's food, but also his wine (Daniel 1.8).

Yet the drinking of wine is not generally forbidden by the Torah.

Wine appears, on the contrary, in various legitimate contexts of Israel's life (Deuteronomy 14.26).

An explanation based exclusively on the distinction between clean and unclean animals is therefore not enough to account for all the elements of the verse.

This difficulty leads us to consider other factors.

7. Second hypothesis: food associated with Babylonian cults

Another explanation supposes that the food and wine of the court may have been associated with Babylonian religious practices.

In ancient societies, food, the royal banquet and worship were not necessarily entirely separate domains.

Foods could be consecrated, presented or associated with the deities before being eaten.

In that case, taking part in the royal table could have carried a problematic religious dimension for a man of Judah faithful to the God of Israel.

8. A possible hypothesis, but not made explicit in Daniel 1

This explanation has a certain historical plausibility.

It helps in particular to understand why the wine would be included with the food.

But Daniel 1 never states that the food had been sacrificed to the Babylonian deities.

It mentions neither altar, nor sacrifice, nor cultic ceremony in this episode.

One must therefore avoid writing as an established fact that Daniel refuses the food because it had been offered to idols.

The text does not allow such certainty.

9. Third hypothesis: the royal table as a sign of dependence

The food comes directly from Nebuchadnezzar's table:

“The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank.” (Daniel 1.5)

This detail may be significant.

In the ancient world, eating at a sovereign's table could express a relationship of dependence, favor and belonging to his household.

Receiving the king's food daily could thus contribute to the integration of the young men of Judah into the imperial system.

10. Food as an instrument of integration

Daniel 1 presents several successive measures:

a selection of the young men;

linguistic and cultural training;

food supplied by the king;

a change of name;

then entry into the king's service.

Food therefore belongs to the whole program of integration.

It is possible that Daniel considered this daily dependence on the royal table as crossing a symbolic line.

However, the text does not explicitly state this interpretation.

It must therefore remain a possibility and not become the sole explanation.

11. Why, then, does Daniel agree to serve the king?

If the royal food simply represented political dependence on Nebuchadnezzar, a difficulty would arise.

Daniel eventually agrees to enter the sovereign's service (Daniel 1.19).

He then exercises responsibilities in the Babylonian administration (Daniel 2.48).

The mere fact of being politically dependent on the king therefore cannot, by itself, explain the defilement.

The difficulty must have involved a particular religious dimension.

12. A combination of several factors remains possible

The different hypotheses are not necessarily exclusive.

Daniel could have been confronted simultaneously with:

uncertainty about the animals served;

the conditions in which the meat was prepared;

the possible presence of blood;

a possible cultic association of the foods;

and the particular significance of the royal table.

The account does not require us to choose absolutely just one of these explanations.

It may reflect a situation in which several reasons made it impossible for Daniel to eat without reservation the food assigned to him.

13. Why do the three companions follow Daniel?

Daniel is the one whose decision is explicitly described:

“Daniel resolved in his heart not to defile himself.” (Daniel 1.8)

What follows shows, however, that the test concerns the four young men (Daniel 1.11-16).

Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah therefore take part in the same diet.

The account thus presents an initiative of Daniel that became a common practice of the four men of Judah.

14. Daniel does not provoke a confrontation

The way Daniel acts deserves particular attention.

He does not publicly reject the king's food.

He asks the chief of the eunuchs for permission not to defile himself (Daniel 1.8).

This approach indicates that faithfulness is not confused with provocation.

Daniel seeks a solution compatible with his conscience while respecting the position of the official placed over him.

15. God grants Daniel favor and compassion

The account immediately states:

“And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs.” (Daniel 1.9)

This sentence belongs to the motif of “giving” that structures Daniel 1.

God gives Jehoiakim into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 1.2).

God grants Daniel the official's favor (Daniel 1.9).

God then gives the four young men knowledge and understanding (Daniel 1.17).

Daniel's resolve is therefore set within an account in which human action and divine action remain closely associated.

16. The fear of the chief of the eunuchs is understandable

The official hesitates:

“I fear my lord the king, who assigned your food and your drink.” (Daniel 1.10)

His reaction shows that the food was not left to the personal choice of the young men.

It was part of the program established by the sovereign.

Changing this diet could therefore be interpreted as a breach of the royal orders.

Daniel must find a solution that does not needlessly expose the one he is speaking to.

17. The ten-day test

Daniel then proposes:

“Test your servants for ten days.” (Daniel 1.12)

He asks for a diet made up of plant products and water.

The test has a precise purpose: to allow the official to observe their physical condition before making a final decision (Daniel 1.13).

The account thus presents a pragmatic approach.

Daniel does not immediately ask for a permanent exemption without providing any means of evaluating its consequences.

18. What does the term translated “vegetables” mean?

Daniel asks that they be given זֵרְעֹנִים, zērōnîm.

The term is related to the idea of seed or of what is sown.

The traditional translation “vegetables” is possible in the context, but may be understood too narrowly in modern English.

The expression can refer more broadly to foods coming from what is sown: plant products, grains or food of plant origin.

It is therefore not necessary to imagine only a few green vegetables.

19. Daniel's diet is not presented as a universal rule

The account never commands all believers to adopt Daniel's diet.

Daniel acts in a particular situation.

His explicit aim is not to defile himself with the king's food and wine.

The passage is therefore not in itself a general prescription of vegetarianism.

Turning Daniel 1 into a universal treatise on nutrition would go far beyond the intention of the text.

20. Daniel 10 confirms that Daniel does not give up meat and wine permanently

A later passage is particularly important.

Daniel declares:

“I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth.” (Daniel 10.3)

This statement would hardly make sense if Daniel had permanently ceased to consume any meat or wine since Daniel 1.

Daniel 10 describes a particular period of abstinence.

The text therefore strongly suggests that the diet of Daniel 1 had not necessarily become a permanent dietary rule for his whole life.

21. The result after ten days

After the test period:

“At the end of ten days it was seen that they were better in appearance and fatter in flesh than all the young men who ate the king's food.” (Daniel 1.15)

The official then agrees to continue giving them the diet requested (Daniel 1.16).

The account presents this result as confirmation that their faithfulness did not bring about the disaster the official feared.

22. Should the ten days be interpreted symbolically?

Elsewhere in the Bible, the number ten may have various symbolic functions.

But Daniel 1 provides no clue requiring us to attribute a hidden meaning to the ten days here.

In the context, it is above all a test period short enough to be acceptable to the official and long enough to allow observation.

A complex symbolic interpretation is therefore not necessary.

23. The text does not describe a scientific experiment

The passage should not be read, either, as a nutritional experiment in the modern sense.

Four people for ten days obviously do not constitute a scientific protocol for comparing two diets.

The purpose of the account is theological.

It shows that Daniel can maintain the limit he considers necessary for his faithfulness without this decision preventing him from completing the imposed training.

24. The real question is that of faithfulness

The center of the passage is therefore neither meat, nor vegetables, nor the physiological superiority of a diet.

The fundamental question is formulated in Daniel 1.8:

Daniel refuses to defile himself.

The account shows a man placed in an environment where he controls almost nothing.

He did not choose Babylon.

He did not choose his training.

He did not choose his new name.

He did not choose the king he will have to serve.

But when he judges that a decision engages his faithfulness to God, he sets a limit.

25. A limit that prepares for Daniel 3 and Daniel 6

This structure will reappear in the following accounts.

Daniel's companions can serve Nebuchadnezzar, but they refuse to worship his statue (Daniel 3.16-18).

Daniel can serve in the Persian administration, but he refuses to stop praying to his God (Daniel 6.9-10).

Daniel 1 thus provides the first manifestation of the principle that will structure these accounts:

political authority can be recognized and served, but it never becomes absolute.

When faithfulness to God and human demand become incompatible, faithfulness to God keeps priority.

26. What can be affirmed with certainty

The analysis finally allows us to distinguish several levels.

Certain: Daniel regards the king's food and wine as capable of defiling him (Daniel 1.8).

Certain: he asks for a different diet made up of plant products and water (Daniel 1.12).

Certain: his three companions take part in the test (Daniel 1.11-16).

Certain: this abstinence does not necessarily imply a permanent rejection of all meat and wine, as Daniel 10.3 shows.

By contrast, the precise reason for the defilement is never explicitly stated.

27. What must remain hypothetical

Several explanations remain possible:

the prescriptions concerning clean and unclean animals;

the conditions of slaughter and the possible presence of blood;

an association of the foods with Babylonian cults;

the religious or political significance of the royal table;

a combination of several of these factors.

None of these explanations should be presented in isolation as if Daniel 1 stated it explicitly.

Biblical References Cited

Genesis 9.4 ; Leviticus 11.1-47 ; Leviticus 17.10-14 ; Deuteronomy 14.3-21 ; Deuteronomy 14.26 ; Daniel 1.2 ; Daniel 1.4 ; Daniel 1.5 ; Daniel 1.7 ; Daniel 1.8 ; Daniel 1.9 ; Daniel 1.10 ; Daniel 1.11-16 ; Daniel 1.12 ; Daniel 1.13 ; Daniel 1.15 ; Daniel 1.16 ; Daniel 1.17 ; Daniel 1.19 ; Daniel 2.48 ; Daniel 3.16-18 ; Daniel 6.9-10 ; Daniel 10.3.

Conclusion of the appendix

Daniel 1.8 provides a certain datum: Daniel considers that eating the king's food and wine would involve for him a form of defilement.

The text does not, however, give the exact reason for this conviction.

The dietary regulations of the Torah are a first serious explanation, notably as regards the meat. But they explain less directly the refusal of the wine.

The uncertainty about the conditions of preparation, the possible presence of blood, a possible association with Babylonian cults and the particular significance of the royal table may also have played a role.

The most prudent solution is therefore not to reduce Daniel 1.8 to a single cause that the text does not state.

The essence of the account lies elsewhere.

Daniel accepts a large part of the constraints of his new environment: Babylonian training, a new name and the sovereign's service. But he discerns a limit that he refuses to cross.

This limit is not imposed aggressively. Daniel asks for a solution, proposes a test and seeks not to endanger the official in charge of him.

Daniel 1 thus presents a faithfulness that is both firm and thoughtful.

The passage does not primarily seek to establish an ideal diet. It shows how Daniel learns, from the very beginning of his stay in Babylon, to distinguish what he can accept from what he cannot accept without compromising his faithfulness to God.

1. A selection intended for royal service

Nebuchadnezzar orders Ashpenaz, chief of his high officials, to select certain young men from among the Judean exiles (Daniel 1.3).

The text specifies the qualities sought:

“young men without physical defect, handsome in appearance, gifted with wisdom, understanding and learning, able to serve in the king's palace” (Daniel 1.4).

The selection therefore does not rest on a single criterion.

The candidates must possess physical, intellectual and social qualities compatible with service at court.

2. Young men from the elite of Judah

Daniel 1.3 mentions “the royal family” and “the nobility.”

The training therefore concerns, at least in part, young men belonging to the Judean elites.

This selection has an understandable political logic.

Young men from the ruling groups of a conquered territory could be particularly suitable candidates for integration into the imperial administration.

They knew their own culture while also being able to be trained for the demands of the new empire.

3. Isaiah 39 is a possible background

Long before the events of Daniel 1, Isaiah had announced to King Hezekiah:

“And some of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you will father, shall be taken to be made eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.” (Isaiah 39.7)

The connection with Daniel 1 is natural, since young men from the royal family are brought to the Babylonian palace.

We must nevertheless avoid drawing a conclusion that Daniel does not state.

Daniel 1 never explicitly declares that Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah had been physically castrated.

The title borne by the official to whom they are entrusted is not enough to establish their personal physical condition.

4. “The literature and language of the Chaldeans”

The heart of the program appears in Daniel 1.4:

“… and that they be taught the literature and language of the Chaldeans.”

The expression combines two dimensions.

The first concerns literature, that is, knowledge linked to writing and to scholarly culture.

The second concerns the language.

The young Judeans are therefore not merely displaced to Babylon: they must acquire the intellectual tools necessary to function in their new environment.

5. What does “Chaldeans” mean here?

The term “Chaldeans” can have several uses in the book of Daniel.

It can designate the Babylonians in a historical or ethnic sense.

In certain passages it also appears in the context of the groups of specialists attached to the royal court (Daniel 2.2; Daniel 2.10).

In Daniel 1.4, the expression “literature and language of the Chaldeans” designates above all the culture that the young men must learn in their new Babylonian environment.

It is not necessary to suppose that the word carries exactly the same nuance in all its occurrences.

6. What language was Daniel to learn?

The question is more complex than a simple identification with a single language.

Babylonia used several languages and writing systems depending on the context.

Akkadian, in its Babylonian form, held a major place in the Mesopotamian written tradition.

Aramaic was also widely used in communications across the Near East.

Daniel 2.4 precisely introduces an important Aramaic section of the book when the Chaldeans address the king “in Aramaic” (Daniel 2.4).

Daniel 1 does not, however, specify the details of the linguistic program.

It would therefore be excessive to identify the expression “language of the Chaldeans” with a linguistic curriculum whose components we could reconstruct exactly.

7. The “literature” implies more than everyday conversation

The text does not simply say that Daniel must learn to speak with the Babylonians.

It associates language with “literature.”

This detail suggests a broader intellectual training.

To serve in the court environment, the young men had to be able to understand and use the knowledge necessary for their duties.

Daniel 1 therefore presents a genuine course of training and not a mere elementary introduction to a language.

8. Mesopotamian culture had a long scholarly tradition

The Babylonian world had developed a substantial written culture over the centuries.

Scribes transmitted administrative, lexical, religious, literary, scientific and divinatory texts.

Knowledge related to calendars, celestial observations, omens and divination practices also held an important place in certain scholarly circles.

This context helps us understand what higher education in Babylon could represent.

But Daniel 1 does not provide the list of subjects actually studied by Daniel and his companions.

9. We must avoid reconstructing an overly precise school curriculum

It would therefore be unwise to claim that Daniel necessarily studied each of the disciplines known from the Mesopotamian archives.

The text gives neither a schedule, nor a list of tablets, nor a detailed program.

It states only that the four young men are instructed in the literature and language of the Chaldeans.

General knowledge about Mesopotamian education sheds light on the context.

It must not be turned into information explicitly given about Daniel's personal training.

10. Daniel accepts this training

One element of the account deserves emphasis.

Daniel does not refuse to learn the literature and language of Babylon.

The text reports no objection on his part against this training.

His first explicit refusal concerns the royal food (Daniel 1.8).

This distinction is fundamental.

For Daniel, learning the culture of a pagan empire is not necessarily the same as adopting its religion.

11. Knowing a culture does not mean belonging to it religiously

Daniel can learn the concepts, vocabulary and intellectual methods of his new environment without acknowledging the Babylonian deities as his gods.

This distinction will be visible in Daniel 2.

The king summons the magicians, astrologers, sorcerers and Chaldeans so that they may answer his request (Daniel 2.2).

Daniel finds himself in the same court environment.

Yet when he receives the revelation of the mystery, he does not attribute the knowledge of it to a Babylonian technique.

He ascribes it to the God of heaven (Daniel 2.19-23).

12. Daniel knows the system without adopting its religious source

This position is one of the important characteristics of the figure.

Daniel becomes competent enough to serve at the highest level of the administration.

He understands the world in which he lives.

He can converse with sovereigns.

He can exercise responsibilities.

But the account constantly distinguishes his acquired skills from the revelation he receives from God.

The Babylonian training explains part of his administrative and cultural abilities; it does not explain his prophetic revelations.

13. God also gives knowledge and understanding

Daniel 1.17 states:

“God gave these four young men knowledge and understanding in all literature, and wisdom; and Daniel interpreted all visions and dreams.”

This declaration comes after the period of training.

The account therefore does not present a simplistic opposition between human learning and divine gift.

The young men study.

At the same time, God gives them knowledge and understanding.

The text thus joins training and gift.

14. Wisdom is not presented as purely supernatural

Daniel and his companions do not receive their knowledge without learning.

Daniel 1.4-5 explicitly mentions their training.

Daniel 1.17 then affirms that God gives them knowledge and understanding.

These two data must be held together.

The book therefore values neither an absolute autonomy of human intelligence nor a contempt for learning.

The competence of the young men develops within a real training, while the narrator acknowledges God as the ultimate source of their abilities.

15. Daniel nevertheless has a particular gift

Daniel 1.17 distinguishes Daniel from his three companions:

“Daniel interpreted all visions and dreams.”

This ability directly prepares for the rest of the book.

In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar has a dream that the wise men of Babylon cannot reveal to him.

Daniel then receives the mystery in a night vision (Daniel 2.19).

The first chapter thus prepares the particular function that Daniel will exercise in the following chapters.

16. The contrast with the wise men of Babylon

Daniel 2 establishes an important contrast.

The court specialists acknowledge their inability in the face of the king's demand (Daniel 2.10-11).

Daniel does not claim to possess the answer naturally.

He declares:

“The secret that the king asks, the wise men, astrologers, magicians and diviners are not able to reveal to the king. But there is a God in heaven who reveals secrets.” (Daniel 2.27-28)

The contrast is therefore not simply one of intellectual level.

It concerns the source of the revelation.

17. Daniel does not disparage acquired knowledge

Yet this distinction never leads Daniel to reject all acquired knowledge.

He remains an educated man.

He exercises administrative functions.

He masters the codes necessary for addressing sovereigns.

He knows how to interpret political situations.

The book therefore does not present ignorance as a superior form of spirituality.

Rather, it distinguishes the knowledge that a human being can learn from the revelation that God alone can give.

18. The three years of training

Daniel 1.5 indicates that the young men are to be educated “for three years.”

At the end of this period, they are to stand before the king.

It is therefore a training oriented toward a specific function.

It is meant to transform young captives from the Judean elites into men able to be employed in the Babylonian royal environment.

The length underscores the structured character of this preparation.

19. The three years raise a chronological question

A difficulty appears when Daniel 1.5 is compared with Daniel 2.1.

The first passage mentions three years of training.

The second places Nebuchadnezzar's dream in the second year of his reign.

Yet Daniel already seems to hold a position that allows him to intervene in the crisis caused by the decree against the wise men.

This question must not be resolved by eliminating one of the data.

It depends in particular on the ancient way of counting years and on the possibility that the years of training correspond to portions of civil years.

It will be examined specifically in the appendix devoted to Daniel 1.5 and Daniel 2.1.

20. The final examination before Nebuchadnezzar

At the end of the appointed period, the young men are presented to the king (Daniel 1.18).

Nebuchadnezzar converses with them.

The text declares:

“Among all of them none was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.” (Daniel 1.19)

The royal examination therefore confirms their aptitude for service.

The training program achieves its administrative goal.

21. “Ten times better”: an expression of excellence

Daniel 1.20 adds:

“In every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king questioned them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers in all his kingdom.”

The expression “ten times” need not necessarily be understood as a mathematical measure.

It emphasizes their exceptional superiority in the king's assessment.

The number here expresses the extent of the contrast.

22. The court specialists are not all interchangeable

Modern English translations use different terms for the groups of scholars present at court: magicians, enchanters, astrologers, Chaldeans, wise men or diviners, depending on the passage and the translation choices.

These categories should not automatically be considered perfectly synonymous.

The world of the Babylonian court included different types of specialists.

Daniel belongs to this institutional environment without the text necessarily identifying him with all the religious or divinatory practices carried out by these groups.

23. An essential distinction between function and belief

Daniel can be integrated into an administration that includes specialists whose beliefs he does not share.

This situation is one of the major issues of the book.

The account does not require Daniel to live outside Babylonian society.

On the contrary, it shows him at the heart of its institutions.

Faithfulness then consists not in avoiding all participation, but in discerning the limits that this participation cannot cross.

24. Daniel will continue to read the writings of Israel

The Babylonian training does not replace the memory of the Scriptures of Israel.

Many years later, Daniel declares:

“I, Daniel, understood from the books that the ruins of Jerusalem were to last seventy years, according to the number of years of which the Eternal had spoken to Jeremiah the prophet.” (Daniel 9.2)

Daniel thus knows the literature of Babylon without abandoning the prophetic writings of his people.

This juxtaposition is particularly significant.

The new training is added to his intellectual world without removing his religious heritage.

25. Daniel thus possesses a dual cultural competence

The figure can be described as living at the intersection of two worlds.

He belongs to the people of Judah.

He knows its traditions and its prophets.

But he is also trained in the Babylonian world and serves its sovereigns.

This dual competence partly explains his ability to exercise responsibilities within foreign empires while retaining a distinct religious identity.

26. The training therefore succeeds only in part as a process of integration

From an administrative point of view, the training is a success.

Daniel and his companions become able to serve the king.

From the point of view of religious assimilation, the result is different.

They learn Babylonian culture without abandoning their God.

They bear Babylonian names without losing their identity.

They serve the empire without recognizing in it an absolute authority.

The imperial program thus obtains their competence, but not their total religious allegiance.

27. An indispensable preparation for the following chapters

The training of Daniel 1 explains why Daniel then finds himself in the environment of the wise men and officials of Babylon.

It prepares for Daniel 2, where his knowledge and his gift of interpretation become decisive.

It also prepares for his long administrative career.

Without Daniel 1, the later presence of the prophet at the heart of Babylonian power would appear much more abruptly.

The first chapter therefore fulfills an essential narrative function.

28. What Daniel 1 allows us to affirm

The text allows us to establish several elements with confidence.

Daniel and his companions are selected from among young Judeans possessing particular qualities.

They receive training in the literature and language of the Chaldeans.

This training lasts three years according to the royal program.

They are then personally examined by Nebuchadnezzar.

They are recognized as exceptionally competent.

Daniel also possesses a particular aptitude concerning visions and dreams.

These elements explicitly belong to the account.

29. What Daniel 1 does not allow us to affirm

The text does not allow us to reconstruct precisely:

Daniel's daily program;

the exact texts he studied;

all the languages he learned;

the level of his mastery of each writing system;

the precise scholarly disciplines that were taught to him;

nor his possible participation in each type of practice associated with the Babylonian specialists.

These elements can be studied on the basis of the Mesopotamian context, but they must not be attributed directly to Daniel without a textual indication.

Biblical References Cited

Isaiah 39.7 ; Daniel 1.3 ; Daniel 1.3-5 ; Daniel 1.4 ; Daniel 1.4-5 ; Daniel 1.5 ; Daniel 1.7 ; Daniel 1.8 ; Daniel 1.17 ; Daniel 1.18 ; Daniel 1.19 ; Daniel 1.20 ; Daniel 2.1 ; Daniel 2.2 ; Daniel 2.4 ; Daniel 2.10 ; Daniel 2.10-11 ; Daniel 2.19 ; Daniel 2.19-23 ; Daniel 2.27-28 ; Daniel 9.2.

Conclusion of the appendix

The training of Daniel and his companions is one of the essential dimensions of the program of integration described in Daniel 1.

The young Judeans are not merely transported to Babylon. They are prepared to serve in the intellectual and administrative world of the empire.

They learn “the literature and language of the Chaldeans” (Daniel 1.4), undergo three years of training, and are finally examined by Nebuchadnezzar.

The account does not condemn this learning.

Daniel agrees to know the culture of Babylon and acquires the skills necessary to exercise responsibilities there.

But the text immediately introduces a fundamental distinction: acquired knowledge and divine revelation are not identical.

Daniel can learn the literature of Babylon.

He cannot learn in a Babylonian school the mystery that God alone reveals in Daniel 2.

This distinction helps us understand the place of wisdom in the book as a whole.

Daniel does not set faith against intelligence, nor faithfulness against competence.

On the contrary, he shows that a man can know deeply the culture in which he lives without surrendering his religious identity to it.

The Babylonian training makes Daniel a man able to serve the empire; it does not make him a worshiper of the gods of the empire.

It is precisely this distinction between intellectual integration and religious assimilation that helps us understand Daniel's position at the court of Babylon.

1. The two indications to be compared

Daniel 1 fixes the length of the training:

“The king assigned them a daily portion of the food from his table and of the wine that he drank, intending to educate them for three years, at the end of which they were to enter the king's service.” (Daniel 1.5)

Daniel 2 then provides a chronological indication:

“In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams.” (Daniel 2.1)

At first reading, a difficulty appears.

How can Daniel have completed a three-year training and intervene in the events of Daniel 2 if these occur as early as Nebuchadnezzar's second year?

2. The difficulty is real

The problem must not be artificially removed.

Daniel 1 presents a clear sequence:

selection of the young Judeans;

training for three years;

presentation before Nebuchadnezzar;

recognition of their wisdom;

entry into the king’s service.

Daniel 2 then seems to recount an event that occurred during the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

A reading that uses exclusively our modern way of counting full years could therefore give the impression of an incompatibility.

3. An ancient “year” is not necessarily equal to twelve full months

The first precaution is not to understand the three years of Daniel 1.5 automatically as a period of thirty-six full months.

In ancient chronologies, a year designated in a narrative can correspond to a portion of a civil year.

A period that begins at the end of one year, continues through one full year and ends at the beginning of a third can thus touch three calendar years without lasting three full years.

This distinction is essential for understanding the chronology of the passage.

4. Nebuchadnezzar's accession year

Nebuchadnezzar accedes to the throne in 605 BC, after the death of his father Nabopolassar.

In the Babylonian system, the period between his accession to the throne and the beginning of his first official year constitutes his accession year.

This period is therefore not numbered as his first year of reign.

The first official year begins at the following Babylonian New Year.

This method of reckoning creates a gap between the actual time elapsed since the sovereign's accession and the official number of his regnal year.

5. Three civil years can thus overlap two official years of the reign

If Daniel arrives in Babylon during Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, his training may begin during this period.

It then continues during the king's first official year.

It may finally end during his second official year.

The sequence would then be approximately:

accession year of Nebuchadnezzar: beginning of the training;

first year of Nebuchadnezzar: continuation of the training;

second year of Nebuchadnezzar: completion of the training and events of Daniel 2.

The “three years” of Daniel 1 and the “second year” of Daniel 2 are therefore not necessarily incompatible.

6. A simplified representation

The mechanism can be presented as follows:

This table is deliberately simplified.

It illustrates the chronological mechanism without claiming to determine the exact month of Daniel's arrival, of his examination or of Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

7. The three years may be counted inclusively

Inclusive reckoning also helps us understand the expression “three years.”

The initial year is counted as the first period, even if it is not complete.

The following year is the second.

The portion of the year after that is the third.

A duration covering parts of three calendar years can thus be described as a three-year training without corresponding to thirty-six months.

8. Daniel 1 gives no precise starting date

The text does not specify the day or the month when Daniel begins his training.

Nor does it specify the exact moment when he arrives in Babylon.

Daniel 1.1 provides a regnal year.

Daniel 1.5 provides the planned length of the training.

But no datum allows us to calculate exactly the number of months separating these two events.

Any more precise reconstruction must therefore be presented as approximate.

9. Daniel 1 does not give the exact date of the final examination either

Daniel 1.18 declares:

“At the end of the time appointed by the king for them to be brought in, the chief of the eunuchs presented them to Nebuchadnezzar.”

The text thus confirms that the planned period comes to its end.

But it provides no absolute date for this audience.

We know only that it takes place after the prescribed training.

This absence of a precise date forbids constructing a chronology accurate to the month.

10. The examination normally precedes royal service

Daniel 1.19 reports:

“The king spoke with them, and among all these young men none was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. They were therefore admitted to the king's service.”

The narrative progression is clear.

The training is followed by an examination.

The examination leads to admission to royal service.

Daniel 2 can therefore be read as the first great crisis recounted after this integration.

11. Daniel 2 assumes that Daniel already belongs to the world of the wise men

Nebuchadnezzar orders the specialists of his court to be summoned in order to obtain the explanation of his dream (Daniel 2.2).

After their inability to meet his demands, the king orders the wise men of Babylon to be put to death (Daniel 2.12).

The account adds:

“The decree went out, the wise men were to be put to death, and they sought Daniel and his companions to put them to death.” (Daniel 2.13)

Daniel and his companions are therefore associated closely enough with this category to be affected by the decree.

12. This does not imply that Daniel practiced all the disciplines of the Babylonian wise men

Daniel's institutional membership in the world of the wise men does not mean that he shared all their religious or divinatory practices.

Daniel 2 precisely establishes a distinction between them and him.

The wise men declare their inability (Daniel 2.10-11).

Daniel, for his part, seeks the answer from the God of heaven (Daniel 2.17-19).

The account thus contrasts not so much two levels of intelligence as two sources of knowledge.

13. The chronological problem therefore depends on the system of reckoning

If Nebuchadnezzar's second year were understood as necessarily meaning “between twelve and twenty-four months after his accession,” a significant difficulty would remain.

But this is not how the Babylonian system with an accession year works.

The accession year is a distinct period.

The second official year can therefore begin appreciably more than two calendar years after the start of the year in which Nebuchadnezzar acceded to the throne.

This difference considerably reduces the difficulty.

14. The date of the accession must also be taken into account

Nebuchadnezzar does not accede to the throne on the first day of a modern year beginning on January 1.

His accession occurs during the course of a year.

The initial period preceding his first official year can therefore serve as the first portion of the chronology of Daniel's training.

This is precisely what our modern numbering risks masking when we read “second year” as if it simply meant the second calendar year after 605.

15. Do Daniel 1 and Daniel 2 necessarily use exactly the same method of reckoning?

Caution remains necessary.

The book contains no note explicitly explaining the chronological system used in each verse.

The explanation by the accession year and inclusive counting is a coherent harmonization.

It must not, however, be turned into information explicitly given by Daniel.

The difference between what the text affirms and the chronological reconstruction that allows its indications to be articulated must remain visible.

16. Another possibility: the dream occurs before the training is fully completed

Another explanation has sometimes been considered.

Daniel and his companions might have been regarded as belonging to the general group of the wise men even before the formal completion of their training.

The decree of Daniel 2 could then have concerned them as members of this institution in training.

This hypothesis would also reduce the difficulty.

It is, however, less directly supported by the narrative progression of Daniel 1, which presents their examination before their admission to the king's service.

17. The structure of the account favors a sequential reading

In its present form, the book presents Daniel 1 as a complete introductory chapter.

The training comes to an end.

The young men are examined.

They enter royal service.

Daniel 2 then begins with Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

The most natural reading of the narrative is therefore to understand Daniel 2 as subsequent to the completion of the training.

It is preferable, when possible, to seek a chronological solution compatible with this progression rather than immediately supposing that Daniel 2 takes place in the middle of Daniel 1.

18. The solution through the accession year answers precisely this difficulty

The hypothesis of a training begun during the accession year makes it possible to keep this sequence.

Daniel begins his training in 605 BC.

He continues it during Nebuchadnezzar's first official year.

He completes it during the second official year.

The dream of Daniel 2 can then occur after his admission to royal service while still belonging to the king's second year.

19. A dating around 603/602 BC

On this basis, the events of Daniel 2 can be placed approximately around 603/602 BC, depending on the systems of conversion and the way the periods concerned are counted.

This date must remain approximate.

The biblical text provides a regnal year, not a complete modern date.

It is therefore preferable to use formulations such as “around 603/602 BC” rather than claiming to determine an exact date.

20. Consequence for Daniel's approximate age

If we accept, solely as a working hypothesis, an age of about fourteen at his arrival in Babylon around 605 BC, Daniel would be approximately sixteen or seventeen at the end of his training.

He could therefore still be very young during the events of Daniel 2.

But no verse gives his age.

This estimate depends entirely on the initial hypothesis about his age at the time of the deportation.

It must therefore never be presented as a certain biblical datum.

21. Daniel's possible youth heightens the narrative contrast

If Daniel is indeed still very young, the contrast with the established wise men of Babylon becomes particularly striking.

The experienced specialists of the court cannot answer the king.

Daniel, recently trained, nevertheless does not claim to be intellectually superior by nature.

He asks for time and calls on his companions to implore the mercy of the God of heaven (Daniel 2.16-18).

The mystery is then revealed to him (Daniel 2.19).

The account thus attributes the solution to God rather than to Daniel's age, experience or status.

22. Daniel refuses to take credit for the revelation

When he appears before Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel states:

“The mystery that the king asks, the wise men, enchanters, magicians and diviners cannot reveal to the king. But there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries.” (Daniel 2.27-28)

He adds further:

“As for me, this mystery has been revealed to me, not because there is in me any wisdom greater than that of all the living.” (Daniel 2.30)

Daniel 2 thus confirms what Daniel 1.17 had already prepared.

The training explains Daniel's presence at court.

The revelation explains his ability to unveil the mystery.

23. Daniel 1.17 is the literary link with Daniel 2

Daniel 1.17 states:

“Daniel interpreted all visions and dreams.”

This indication would be pointless if it did not prepare for what follows.

From Daniel 2 onward, Nebuchadnezzar has a dream.

The reader already knows that Daniel has a particular aptitude in this domain.

The transition between the two chapters is therefore carefully prepared.

24. The chronology thus serves the narrative progression

The chronological data are not foreign to the construction of the account.

Daniel arrives as a captive.

He is trained.

He is examined.

He enters the king's service.

Then comes a crisis that the institutional wisdom of Babylon cannot resolve.

Daniel, trained by Babylon but dependent on the God of Israel for revelation, then becomes the interpreter of the royal mystery.

Daniel 1 and Daniel 2 thus form a coherent progression.

25. What can be affirmed with confidence

Several data are explicit:

Daniel and his companions are to receive three years of training (Daniel 1.5).

They are presented to Nebuchadnezzar at the end of the appointed period (Daniel 1.18).

They are admitted to the king's service (Daniel 1.19).

Nebuchadnezzar's dream is set in his second regnal year (Daniel 2.1).

Daniel and his companions are affected by the decree directed against the wise men (Daniel 2.13).

These data must all be kept in the chronological reconstruction.

26. What remains a reconstruction

The text does not give:

the month of Daniel's arrival in Babylon;

the month when his training begins;

the exact number of months corresponding to the “three years”;

the precise date of his examination;

nor the month of Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

The reconstruction using the accession year and inclusive counting makes it possible to articulate the data.

It does not, however, turn the missing elements into certainties.

27. The most rigorous formulation

An academic formulation can therefore be adopted:

“The three years of training mentioned in Daniel 1.5 do not necessarily require thirty-six full months. If it begins during Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year in 605 BC, continues during his first official year and ends during his second year, Daniel may have completed his training before the events of Daniel 2 while still being in the king’s second official year. This reconstruction is a coherent chronological harmonization, although it cannot be established to the month.”

This formulation respects both the textual data and the limits of the reconstruction.

Biblical References Cited

Daniel 1.5 ; Daniel 1.17 ; Daniel 1.18 ; Daniel 1.19 ; Daniel 2.1 ; Daniel 2.2 ; Daniel 2.10-11 ; Daniel 2.12 ; Daniel 2.13 ; Daniel 2.16-18 ; Daniel 2.17-19 ; Daniel 2.19 ; Daniel 2.27-28 ; Daniel 2.30.

Conclusion of the appendix

The comparison between the three years of training in Daniel 1.5 and Nebuchadnezzar's second year in Daniel 2.1 creates a difficulty only if the indications are interpreted according to a modern reckoning made up of full years counted from the day of accession.

The Babylonian system, by contrast, distinguishes the accession year from the sovereign's first official year.

A training begun during Nebuchadnezzar's accession year in 605 BC can thus cross his first year and end during his second official year.

The three years of Daniel 1 can correspond to portions of three calendar years without necessarily representing thirty-six months.

This reconstruction makes it possible to preserve the natural progression of the account: Daniel is trained, examined, admitted to royal service, and then confronted with the crisis of Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

It also explains why Daniel can be affected by the decree against the wise men in Daniel 2.

The solution must nevertheless not be presented with a precision that the texts do not possess. The exact months of Daniel's arrival, of the beginning of his training, of his examination and of the dream are not given.

The most prudent conclusion is therefore that Daniel 1.5 and Daniel 2.1 can be chronologically compatible if one takes into account Nebuchadnezzar's accession year and the possibly inclusive nature of the counting of the three years.

1. The last verse of Daniel 1

The chapter ends with this declaration:

“So Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.” (Daniel 1.21)

This statement comes immediately after Nebuchadnezzar's examination of Daniel and his companions.

The reader has just learned that the four young men are recognized as particularly wise and intelligent (Daniel 1.19-20).

Daniel 1.21 suddenly widens the chronological horizon.

The account no longer looks only at Daniel's first years in Babylon: it projects his presence down to the time of Cyrus.

2. Nebuchadnezzar at the beginning, Cyrus at the end

Daniel 1 begins under Nebuchadnezzar:

“In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon marched against Jerusalem.” (Daniel 1.1)

It ends under Cyrus (Daniel 1.21).

These two sovereigns thus frame the chapter literarily.

Nebuchadnezzar represents the beginning of Daniel's exile.

Cyrus represents the time when Babylonian domination now belongs to the past and the possibility of returning to Jerusalem opens up.

3. A career spanning several decades

If Daniel is taken to Babylon around 605 BC and is still present in the first year of Cyrus, his career spans several decades.

He knows the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

He then lives through the period leading to the last Babylonian sovereigns.

He is still present at the time of the fall of Babylon in 539 BC.

He then appears in the context of Darius the Mede and of Cyrus.

Daniel 1.21 thus presents, from the first chapter, a figure whose faithfulness will be tested over the long term.

4. The fall of Babylon in 539 BC

Daniel 5 recounts the last night of Belshazzar's reign.

After the interpretation of the mysterious inscription, the chapter ends:

“That same night Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, was killed. And Darius the Mede seized the kingdom.” (Daniel 5.30-31)

Babylonian domination comes to an end in 539 BC.

Daniel, who had arrived in Babylon several decades earlier, thus witnesses, within the narrative framework of the book, the disappearance of the empire that had deported him.

5. Daniel outlives the empire that had taken him into captivity

This datum has strong literary significance.

At the beginning of the book, Babylon seems all-powerful.

Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem.

Vessels of the Temple are carried off.

Young Judeans are integrated into the imperial court.

Yet at the end of the Babylonian period, Daniel is still present while the empire of his conquerors disappears.

Daniel 1.21 already anticipates this reversal.

6. The first year of Cyrus

The “first year of Cyrus” has particular importance in biblical history.

The second book of Chronicles declares:

“In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Eternal spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Eternal stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia.” (2 Chronicles 36.22)

The book of Ezra takes up this same indication (Ezra 1.1).

Cyrus then authorizes the return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 1.2-4).

The first year of Cyrus therefore constitutes, in the biblical presentation, a major turning point in the history of the exile.

7. What date should be assigned to this first year?

Within the framework of Cyrus's rule over Babylon, his first year is generally placed around 538/537 BC.

This “first year” must be distinguished from the whole of Cyrus's reign, which had begun earlier over other territories.

The biblical landmark here concerns Cyrus in the context of his authority over Babylon and of the events linked to the return of the Judeans.

Daniel 1.21 must therefore not be understood as asserting that Cyrus begins his whole royal career on this date.

8. Does Daniel 1.21 announce the death of Daniel?

The wording “Daniel was there until the first year of King Cyrus” could, in isolation, be understood as marking the end of his life or of his activity.

But this interpretation is ruled out by a later datum of the book.

Daniel 10 begins thus:

“In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar.” (Daniel 10.1)

Daniel is therefore still alive and receives a revelation after the first year of Cyrus.

9. Daniel 1.21 must be read in the light of Daniel 10.1

The two passages must be held together.

Daniel 1.21: Daniel is present until the first year of Cyrus.

Daniel 10.1: Daniel still receives a revelation in the third year of Cyrus.

The first statement therefore cannot mean:

“Daniel died in the first year of Cyrus.”

Nor does it necessarily mean:

“Daniel ceased all activity at that date.”

The verse has another function.

10. “Until” does not necessarily imply immediate cessation

In a chronological indication, the preposition “until” can designate the point that the author wants to reach without asserting that the situation ends immediately after that point.

Daniel 1.21 emphasizes that Daniel reaches the time of Cyrus.

The point of the verse is to show the exceptional length of his presence.

Daniel 10.1 then specifies that this presence continues even beyond the landmark chosen at the end of the first chapter.

11. Why choose precisely the first year of Cyrus?

If Daniel is still alive during the third year of Cyrus, why does Daniel 1 stop at his first year?

The most natural answer is found in the historical importance of this date.

The first year of Cyrus corresponds, in the books of Chronicles and Ezra, to the decree permitting the Judeans to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple (2 Chronicles 36.22-23; Ezra 1.1-4).

Daniel 1.21 therefore does not necessarily aim to give the last date in Daniel's life.

It reaches a significant landmark in the history of the exile.

12. The chapter begins with the loss of Jerusalem

Daniel 1.1-2 recounts the Babylonian intervention against Jerusalem.

Vessels from the house of God are carried to Babylonia.

Daniel and other young Judeans then find themselves at the king's court.

The movement of the chapter thus begins with an uprooting.

Jerusalem loses part of its inhabitants and of its sacred possessions to the benefit of Babylon.

13. The chapter ends at the time when the return becomes possible

The first year of Cyrus symbolically reverses this direction.

Ezra 1 now recounts a movement from Babylon toward Jerusalem.

Cyrus authorizes the exiles to go up to Judah (Ezra 1.3).

The Temple vessels carried off by Nebuchadnezzar are also handed over to those in charge of the return (Ezra 1.7-11).

This correspondence with Daniel 1 is particularly remarkable.

14. The vessels of the Temple link Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus

Daniel 1.2 recounts that Nebuchadnezzar carries off part of the vessels of the house of God.

Ezra 1.7 declares:

“King Cyrus brought out the vessels of the house of the Eternal that Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem and placed in the house of his god.” (Ezra 1.7)

The two texts thus describe the two ends of a single historical movement.

Under Nebuchadnezzar:

Jerusalem → Babylon.

Under Cyrus:

Babylon → Jerusalem.

Daniel 1.21 leads the reader precisely to this second moment.

15. Daniel himself is not explicitly presented as returning to Jerusalem

A distinction is nevertheless indispensable.

The fact that Daniel reaches the time of the return does not mean that the book asserts that he himself returns to Jerusalem.

No passage in Daniel recounts his return to Judah.

Daniel 10 still situates him in the eastern context during the third year of Cyrus (Daniel 10.1-4).

It is therefore preferable not to write categorically that Daniel took part in the return of the exiles.

16. Can we claim that Daniel never returned to Jerusalem?

Caution must work in both directions.

The book recounts no return of Daniel to Jerusalem.

But it does not contain, either, a statement explicitly affirming:

“Daniel never returned to Jerusalem.”

The most rigorous formulation is therefore:

no return of Daniel to Jerusalem is reported in the book.

This distinction avoids turning the silence of the text into an absolute historical assertion.

17. Daniel remains deeply attached to Jerusalem

The absence of an account of a return in no way means that Jerusalem would have lost its importance for Daniel.

In Daniel 6, he prays with his windows open toward Jerusalem (Daniel 6.9).

In Daniel 9, his prayer is centered on Jerusalem, the sanctuary and the people (Daniel 9.2; Daniel 9.16-19).

Geographical exile therefore did not remove his spiritual orientation toward the city and the sanctuary.

18. Daniel 9 also links the exile to Jeremiah

Daniel declares that he understood “from the books” the number of years announced by Jeremiah concerning the ruins of Jerusalem (Daniel 9.2).

The book thus presents Daniel as aware of the prophetic length of the exile.

This datum reinforces the importance of the time of Cyrus.

The first year of this sovereign represents the moment when restoration begins concretely to become possible.

19. How old would Daniel be under Cyrus?

The book never gives Daniel's age.

If we accept only as a working hypothesis that he was about fourteen when he arrived in Babylon around 605 BC, he would be about 81 to 82 years old around 538/537 BC.

In the third year of Cyrus, around 536/535 BC, he would then be approximately 83 to 84 years old.

These figures are estimates that depend entirely on the initial hypothesis about his age.

They must not be presented as biblical data.

20. A faithfulness not limited to youth

This long chronology changes our perception of the figure.

Daniel 1 first presents a young man confronted with the pressure of Babylonian integration.

Daniel 6 presents a much older man confronted with a new religious prohibition.

The continuity is remarkable.

The Daniel who refuses to defile himself in his youth is the same figure who continues to pray despite the royal prohibition several decades later (Daniel 1.8; Daniel 6.9).

Daniel's faithfulness is therefore not a one-time act.

It characterizes an entire life.

21. Regimes change, Daniel remains

Daniel serves under several authorities.

Nebuchadnezzar dominates the beginning of the book.

Belshazzar appears in the last days of Babylon.

Darius the Mede comes after the fall of the city.

Cyrus then represents the new Persian horizon.

This succession highlights the fragility of political powers.

Sovereigns change.

The empires disappear.

Daniel, for his part, continues to serve while remaining faithful to his God.

22. Daniel 1.21 thus prepares the theology of the kingdoms

This simple chronological indication announces one of the great prophetic themes of the book.

Daniel 2 will show a succession of kingdoms represented by the different parts of the statue (Daniel 2.31-45).

Daniel 7 will again develop the theme of successive powers that appear and then disappear (Daniel 7.1-14).

Daniel 1.21 already expresses this reality in narrative form.

The reign of Nebuchadnezzar is not eternal.

Babylon itself is not eternal.

Cyrus ends up replacing the political order that seemed invincible at the beginning of the book.

23. Divine sovereignty links the beginning and the end

Daniel 1.2 had affirmed:

“The Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand.”

The first chapter therefore refuses to regard Nebuchadnezzar's victory as proof that the God of Israel had lost control of history.

Daniel 1.21 then leads on to Cyrus.

Between these two verses, an entire empire rises, dominates and finally disappears.

The chronological conclusion of the chapter thus confirms its initial theological assertion: human kingdoms exercise real power, but a temporary one.

24. Cyrus is not himself the ultimate end of history

The replacement of Babylon by Persian power does not mean that the book presents Cyrus or Persia as the definitive kingdom.

The visions of Daniel widen the horizon still further.

Other powers will appear.

They will disappear in their turn.

The movement finally leads toward the sovereignty of God and toward the kingdom that will not be destroyed (Daniel 2.44; Daniel 7.13-14).

Cyrus therefore constitutes a decisive stage in the history of the exile, but not the culmination of the whole theology of Daniel.

25. Daniel 1.21 serves as an anticipatory summary

The final verse chronologically goes beyond a large part of the accounts that will be recounted afterward.

It announces from the very beginning that Daniel will outlive the first decades of the exile.

The reader thus knows, even before entering Daniel 2, that the young captive of the first chapter will live through the Babylonian period.

Daniel 1.21 therefore functions as a narrative anticipation.

It reveals the temporal breadth of Daniel's career before the book recounts its main episodes.

26. What Daniel 1.21 allows us to affirm

The verse allows us to establish several elements.

Daniel remains present until the time of Cyrus.

His career therefore spans the period of Babylonian domination.

The first year of Cyrus constitutes a significant historical landmark linked to the end of Babylonian domination and the beginning of the return of the exiles.

Daniel 10.1 shows that Daniel is still alive in the third year of Cyrus.

These elements are directly based on the text.

27. What Daniel 1.21 does not allow us to affirm

The verse does not allow us to conclude:

that Daniel dies in the first year of Cyrus;

that he necessarily ceases all function at that date;

that he returns to Jerusalem with the first exiles;

or that this year is the last year of his life.

None of these assertions is given by the text.

Daniel 10.1 even explicitly rules out the first.

28. The date of Daniel's death remains unknown

The book does not recount the death of Daniel.

The last major section ends with a word addressed to him:

“But go your way till the end. You shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days.” (Daniel 12.13)

This declaration announces Daniel's personal end without providing its date.

Any chronology that assigned a precise year to his death would therefore go beyond the data of the book.

29. From young captive to witness of the fall of Babylon

Daniel 1.21 finally allows us to contemplate the whole trajectory of the figure.

In the beginning, Daniel is a young Judean subject to the decisions of Nebuchadnezzar.

By the time of Cyrus, he has become the witness of a succession of reigns and of the disappearance of the empire that had taken him into captivity.

The contrast is particularly strong.

Babylon had changed his place of residence, his cultural environment and his official name.

It had not succeeded in suppressing his faithfulness.

And Daniel outlives Babylon itself.

Biblical References Cited

2 Chronicles 36.22 ; 2 Chronicles 36.22-23 ; Ezra 1.1 ; Ezra 1.1-4 ; Ezra 1.2-4 ; Ezra 1.3 ; Ezra 1.7 ; Ezra 1.7-11 ; Daniel 1.1 ; Daniel 1.1-2 ; Daniel 1.2 ; Daniel 1.8 ; Daniel 1.19-20 ; Daniel 1.21 ; Daniel 2.31-45 ; Daniel 2.44 ; Daniel 5.30-31 ; Daniel 6.9 ; Daniel 7.1-14 ; Daniel 7.13-14 ; Daniel 9.2 ; Daniel 9.16-19 ; Daniel 10.1 ; Daniel 10.1-4 ; Daniel 12.13.

Conclusion of the appendix

The declaration of Daniel 1.21 - “Daniel was there until the first year of King Cyrus” - is not an indication of Daniel's death.

Daniel 10.1 explicitly affirms that he still receives a revelation during the third year of Cyrus.

The first year of Cyrus must therefore be understood as a historical and literary landmark, not as the last year of the prophet's life.

This landmark has a particular significance.

Daniel 1 begins with Nebuchadnezzar, the intervention against Jerusalem and the transfer of part of the Temple vessels to Babylon.

It ends at the time of Cyrus, when the reverse movement becomes possible: the exiles can return to Jerusalem and the Temple vessels are handed over to be brought back to the city.

The chapter is thus framed by two great stages:

Nebuchadnezzar: Jerusalem → Babylon.

Cyrus: Babylon → Jerusalem.

Daniel lives through this whole period.

If the hypothesis of an age of about fourteen in 605 BC is accepted, he would be approximately 81 to 82 years old in the first year of Cyrus and about 83 to 84 in his third year. These figures nevertheless remain estimates and not explicit data of the book.

Daniel 1.21 finally has a major theological import. The first chapter begins with an empire that seems to triumph over Jerusalem and ends with Daniel still present when that empire has disappeared.

Kingdoms pass away; Daniel's faithfulness remains; and God's sovereignty runs through the whole of history.

1. The Temple vessels appear from the very opening of the book

Daniel 1 begins with Nebuchadnezzar’s intervention against Jerusalem.

The account states:

“The Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God.” (Daniel 1.2)

This mention might seem secondary.

It is not.

From the very first verses, the sacred vessels introduce a question that will reappear several chapters later: what does the presence in Babylon of possessions belonging to the sanctuary of the God of Israel mean?

2. Daniel 1.2 first attributes the event to God

The verse does not simply say that Nebuchadnezzar seized the vessels.

It begins by declaring:

“The Lord gave ... into his hand”

The Babylonian victory is therefore immediately placed under a theological interpretation.

Nebuchadnezzar really does act.

His armies dominate Judah.

But the narrator does not credit him with ultimate control over the event.

This declaration prevents us from reading the transfer of the vessels as proof that the God of Israel had been defeated by the gods of Babylon.

3. Only “a part” of the vessels

Daniel 1.2 specifies that it concerns a part of the vessels of the house of God.

The text therefore does not describe here the complete plundering of the Temple.

This precision fits the setting of the beginning of Babylonian domination, distinct from the final destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple in 586 BC.

Daniel 1 must therefore not be confused with the account of the complete destruction reported at the end of the kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 25.8-17).

4. Several stages in the transfer of Jerusalem’s treasures

The historical books show that Jerusalem’s possessions were not all carried off at one time.

Daniel 1 mentions a first transfer of part of the sacred vessels.

When Jerusalem was taken under Jehoiachin in 597 BC, the treasures of the house of the the Eternal and of the royal house were carried off again (2 Kings 24.10-13).

In 586 BC, at the destruction of the Temple, other objects and cultic items were carried to Babylon (2 Kings 25.13-17).

We must therefore distinguish the different stages in the despoiling of the sanctuary.

5. The transfer to “the land of Shinar”

Daniel 1.2 specifies that Nebuchadnezzar carried the vessels:

“to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god.”

The term “Shinar” carries a particular biblical depth.

It appears notably in the account of Babel:

“As people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.” (Genesis 11.2)

Without mechanically identifying the two accounts, the use of the term places Babylon against an ancient biblical background associated with the concentration of human power.

6. The vessels are placed in the house of Nebuchadnezzar’s god

Daniel 1.2 adds:

“And he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.”

In the ancient world, placing the sacred objects of a defeated people in the sanctuary of the victor could display the latter’s political and religious triumph.

To an outside observer, the scene could therefore suggest that the god of Babylon had triumphed over the God of Judah.

Daniel, however, rejects this interpretation from the very beginning by declaring that the Lord himself had given these vessels into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.

7. The political defeat is not a defeat of God

This distinction is fundamental for the whole book.

Jerusalem can be defeated.

The Temple can be stripped.

The sacred vessels can be carried off to Babylon.

Daniel and his companions can be deported.

None of these events means, in the theology of the narrative, that the God of Israel has ceased to be sovereign.

Daniel 1.2 thus transforms what might appear to be a divine defeat into a manifestation of judgment permitted by God.

8. The vessels then temporarily disappear from the narrative

After Daniel 1.2, the Temple vessels no longer play a direct role for several chapters.

The narrative concentrates on Daniel, his companions and the Babylonian rulers.

The reader could almost forget these vessels deposited in the treasures of Babylon.

Yet they reappear at a decisive moment: Belshazzar’s last night.

9. Daniel 5 explicitly takes up the motif of Daniel 1

Daniel 5 recounts an immense banquet organized by Belshazzar for his nobles (Daniel 5.1).

Under the influence of wine, the king orders:

“that they bring the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem” (Daniel 5.2).

The link with Daniel 1 is explicit.

The vessels carried off at the beginning of Babylonian domination are now brought into the scene that immediately precedes its fall.

10. From preservation to profanation

Daniel 1 indicates that Nebuchadnezzar placed the vessels in the treasure house of his god (Daniel 1.2).

Daniel 5 describes a different stage.

Belshazzar has the sacred vessels used for drinking during his banquet (Daniel 5.2-3).

The difference is important.

The narrative no longer presents merely objects kept as spoils of war.

They are now used in the context of a royal banquet.

11. The act is aggravated by the praise offered to idols

Daniel 5 adds:

“They drank wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.” (Daniel 5.4)

The use of the Temple vessels is thus directly associated with the celebration of the Babylonian deities.

The contrast is particularly strong.

Vessels from the sanctuary of the God of Israel are used while the guests glorify gods fashioned from materials.

12. The writing appears immediately afterward

The narrative continues:

“Immediately the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote ... on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace.” (Daniel 5.5)

The narrative proximity is significant.

Profanation of the vessels.

Praise of the idols.

Appearance of the writing.

Judgment of the king.

The text thus builds a close relationship between Belshazzar’s act and the announcement of his condemnation.

13. Daniel himself interprets the king’s fault

When Daniel is summoned, he does not content himself with explaining the words written on the wall.

He lays out Belshazzar’s fault.

After recalling Nebuchadnezzar’s experience, he declares:

“And you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, though you knew all this. You have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven. And the vessels of his house have been brought in before you.” (Daniel 5.22-23)

The use of the vessels therefore explicitly belongs to the charge brought against the king.

14. The problem is not only the material use of the vessels

Daniel continues:

“... and you and your lords, your wives, and your concubines have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know, but the God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways, you have not honored.” (Daniel 5.23)

The fault therefore has several dimensions.

Belshazzar uses the sacred vessels.

He glorifies the idols.

He lifts himself up against the “Lord of heaven.”

He refuses to acknowledge the God on whom his own life depends.

15. Daniel 1 and Daniel 5 thus form a Babylonian frame

The comparison can be summarized:

Daniel 1: the Temple vessels enter Babylon.

Daniel 5: the Temple vessels appear on the last night of the Babylonian kingdom.

This parallel has a strong literary function.

The vessels symbolically accompany the history of Babylonian domination from its beginning in the book to its collapse.

16. Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar are not presented in the same way

We must nevertheless avoid confusing the two kings’ conduct.

Daniel 1 attributes the transfer of the vessels to Nebuchadnezzar.

But Daniel 5 insists specifically on the use that Belshazzar makes of them.

The charge against Belshazzar therefore does not consist simply in possessing objects conquered by a predecessor.

It concerns their deliberate use in a banquet accompanied by the praise of idols.

17. Belshazzar acts in spite of Nebuchadnezzar’s lesson

Daniel stresses that Belshazzar knew what had happened to Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 5.22).

Nebuchadnezzar had learned that the Most High rules over the kingdom of men (Daniel 4.17 ; Daniel 4.25 ; Daniel 4.32).

Belshazzar should therefore have understood the limits of royal power.

His behavior with the Temple vessels instead shows his refusal to humble himself.

18. The vessels become witnesses to divine sovereignty

In Daniel 1, their presence in Babylon could be interpreted as the symbol of the empire’s victory.

In Daniel 5, the same vessels become indirectly associated with the judgment of that empire.

The apparent meaning of their presence is thus reversed.

They do not attest that Babylon has overcome the God of Israel.

They accompany, on the contrary, a narrative in which the God of Israel finally judges the king of Babylon.

19. “Numbered, weighed, divided”

Daniel interprets the inscription:

“Mene: God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end.” (Daniel 5.26)

Then:

“Tekel: you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.” (Daniel 5.27)

Finally:

“Parsin: your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” (Daniel 5.28)

The power that had carried off the vessels of Jerusalem now finds itself subject to judgment.

20. The fall comes that same night

The narrative ends abruptly:

“That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed.” (Daniel 5.30)

The swiftness of the fulfillment reinforces the narrative construction.

The banquet that was meant to display the power and security of the Babylonian court becomes the scene of the announcement of its disappearance.

21. The parallel between Daniel 1 and Daniel 5

The construction can be presented as follows:

This parallel does not require us to suppose an artificially complex literary structure.

The correspondences are given directly by the narratives themselves.

22. The vessels also reappear in the context of Cyrus

The biblical history of the Temple vessels does not end with the fall of Babylon.

Ezra reports:

“King Cyrus brought out the vessels of the house of the Eternal that Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem and placed in the house of his god.” (Ezra 1.7)

Cyrus entrusts them to Sheshbazzar so that they may be brought back as part of the return of the exiles (Ezra 1.8-11).

This datum completes the movement begun in Daniel 1.

23. A movement in three stages

The whole can be summarized in three great stages:

Daniel 1: Jerusalem → Babylon.

The vessels are carried off in the context of Babylonian domination.

Daniel 5: Babylon under judgment.

The vessels are profaned at Belshazzar’s banquet.

Ezra 1: Babylon → Jerusalem.

Cyrus returns the vessels so that they may accompany the restoration of worship.

This movement provides a remarkable guiding thread between exile, the judgment of Babylon and restoration.

24. Are all the objects mentioned necessarily the same?

Some caution remains necessary.

Daniel 1 speaks of “a part” of the vessels.

Other objects were carried off during later campaigns (2 Kings 24.13 ; 2 Kings 25.13-17).

Daniel 5 and Ezra 1 speak more broadly of the vessels coming from the Temple.

It is therefore not possible to establish the individual history of each vessel.

The link concerns the whole body of sacred objects transferred from Jerusalem to Babylon, not the material identification of each piece.

25. The book attributes no magical power to them

The objects are sacred because of their belonging to the Temple and their cultic function.

But Daniel never presents them as possessing autonomous power.

They do not protect Jerusalem against invasion.

They do not themselves destroy Belshazzar.

The judgment comes from God.

This distinction prevents the sacred objects from being turned into talismans.

26. Their importance comes from the one to whom they belong

The gravity of Belshazzar’s act therefore does not come from a magical property of the metal.

Daniel 5.23 explains it clearly: the king lifted himself up “against the Lord of heaven”.

The profanation of the vessels is grave because it expresses contempt toward the God to whom they had been consecrated.

The theological center remains God himself.

27. The motif of the vessels answers the question left open in Daniel 1

Daniel 1 might raise a question:

if the vessels of the house of God are in the temple of a Babylonian god, which of the two gods really rules history?

The book answers progressively.

Nebuchadnezzar must acknowledge the sovereignty of the Most High.

Belshazzar is judged.

Babylon falls.

Cyrus allows the exiles and the Temple vessels to return.

The narrative thus reverses the interpretation that the initial victory might have seemed to impose.

28. A theology of exile that does not deny judgment

This reading does not mean that the catastrophe of Judah would be without importance.

Daniel 1.2 does present the submission of Jehoiakim and the transfer of the vessels as a reality.

Daniel 9 will explicitly acknowledge the people’s faults and the justice of the judgment they suffered (Daniel 9.5-14).

God’s sovereignty therefore does not remove the reality of judgment.

It means that even this judgment does not place history outside his authority.

29. A theology of restoration without human triumphalism

The return of the vessels under Cyrus likewise does not mean that Israel reconquered Babylon by its own power.

It is a Persian king who authorizes their restitution (Ezra 1.7-11).

As in Daniel 1, history advances through foreign rulers.

Biblical theology can thus acknowledge their decisions while attributing to God the ultimate direction of events (Ezra 1.1).

30. The complete guiding thread

The Temple vessels finally allow us to follow one of the simplest and most powerful movements in the history of the exile:

the sanctuary is stripped;

the vessels are carried off to Babylon;

Babylon keeps them;

Belshazzar profanes them;

Babylon is judged;

Cyrus returns them;

the return to Jerusalem becomes possible.

This movement gives a particular depth to the apparently brief mention in Daniel 1.2.

Biblical References Cited

Genesis 11.2 ; 2 Kings 24.10-13 ; 2 Kings 24.13 ; 2 Kings 25.8-17 ; 2 Kings 25.13-17 ; Ezra 1.1 ; Ezra 1.7 ; Ezra 1.7-11 ; Ezra 1.8-11 ; Daniel 1.2 ; Daniel 4.17 ; Daniel 4.25 ; Daniel 4.32 ; Daniel 5.1 ; Daniel 5.2 ; Daniel 5.2-3 ; Daniel 5.4 ; Daniel 5.5 ; Daniel 5.22 ; Daniel 5.22-23 ; Daniel 5.23 ; Daniel 5.26 ; Daniel 5.27 ; Daniel 5.28 ; Daniel 5.30 ; Daniel 9.5-14.

Conclusion of the appendix

The Temple vessels are not a secondary detail of Daniel 1.

Their transfer to Babylon opens a motif that finds its decisive development in Daniel 5 and its historical extension in Ezra 1.

At the beginning, their presence in the treasury of Nebuchadnezzar’s god might seem to attest Babylon’s religious victory.

But Daniel 1.2 immediately forbids this interpretation: it is the Lord who gives Jehoiakim and some of the vessels into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.

Several decades later, Belshazzar has these vessels brought in during his banquet. He drinks from them with his dignitaries while praising the gods of gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood and stone.

Daniel explicitly interprets this act as a lifting up of oneself against the “Lord of heaven” (Daniel 5.23).

The kingdom is then numbered, weighed and handed over to other powers.

The path of the vessels thus accompanies that of Babylon:

they enter Babylon when the empire dominates Judah; they reappear when that empire is about to disappear.

Ezra 1 finally completes the movement when Cyrus returns the vessels so that they may go back to Jerusalem.

The course is therefore particularly significant:

Jerusalem → Babylon → judgment of Babylon → return to Jerusalem.

Through this material motif, the narrative expresses one of the fundamental themes of the book of Daniel: the visible defeat of the people of God is not the defeat of God himself. Empires may seize the vessels of his sanctuary; they never seize his sovereignty.

1. A historical framework that must be distinguished from the events of 597 and 586 BC

The first point concerns the context of Daniel 1.

The Babylonian victory at Carchemish in 605 BC profoundly changes the political balance of the Near East.

After the defeat of the Egyptian army, Babylonia extends its control toward Syria-Palestine, and Judah passes gradually from Egyptian dependence to Babylonian domination.

Daniel 1 places in this context Nebuchadnezzar’s intervention against Jerusalem, the transfer of some of the Temple vessels and the arrival of young Judeans in Babylon (Daniel 1.1-6).

This first phase must be distinguished from the capture of Jerusalem and the great deportation of 597 BC, and then from the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple in 586 BC (2 Kings 24.10-16 ; 2 Kings 25.1-12).

2. Carchemish and Jerusalem are not a single event

The chronology also requires us to distinguish the battle of Carchemish from the intervention against Jerusalem.

Carchemish is situated on the Euphrates and is the site of the great confrontation between the Babylonian and Egyptian forces (Jeremiah 46.2).

Nebuchadnezzar’s victory then opens the way for Babylonian expansion toward the south.

The most precise formulation therefore consists in understanding the sequence as follows:

Carchemish in 605 BC → Egyptian withdrawal → Babylonian advance southward → Judah coming under Babylonian domination → intervention against Jerusalem reported in Daniel 1.

This distinction avoids turning several historical stages into a single military event.

3. The third year of Jehoiakim is not necessarily incompatible with Jeremiah

Daniel places the event in the third year of Jehoiakim (Daniel 1.1), whereas Jeremiah associates Carchemish with his fourth year (Jeremiah 46.2).

This difference can be understood in light of the various ancient methods of reckoning regnal years, notably the distinction between systems with or without an accession year.

It is therefore not necessary to conclude immediately that there is a contradiction.

The exact correspondence of the reckoning systems nevertheless remains a chronological reconstruction and must be presented as such.

4. Daniel’s age remains unknown

No biblical passage gives Daniel’s age on his arrival in Babylon.

The hypothesis of an age of about fourteen remains plausible for a young man selected to receive training at court, but it is not a datum of the text.

If this hypothesis is accepted, Daniel would have been born around 619 BC.

He would be about sixteen or seventeen at the end of his training, about eighty at the fall of Babylon in 539 BC, about 81 to 82 in the first year of Cyrus and about 83 to 84 in his third year.

These ages help us visualize the exceptional length of his career, but they must always be identified as estimates.

5. The change of name belongs to the process of integration

Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah receive new names in Babylon (Daniel 1.6-7).

Their Hebrew names have relatively well-established meanings and contain references to the God of Israel.

Daniel means approximately “God is my judge.”

Hananiah expresses the grace of YHWH.

Mishael can be understood as “Who is like God?”

Azariah means “YHWH has helped.”

The Babylonian names must be treated with greater caution.

6. The Babylonian etymologies do not all have the same degree of certainty

Belteshazzar is explicitly associated by Nebuchadnezzar with the name of his god (Daniel 4.8), but its precise etymological reconstruction remains debated.

Shadrach and Meshach have received various explanations, notably comparisons with the Mesopotamian deity Aku, without any solution being considered certain.

Abednego is probably linked to Nabu and can be understood as a form corresponding to “servant of Nabu.”

An academic study must therefore avoid presenting the four Babylonian names with equally certain translations.

7. The change of name does not necessarily mean the erasure of identity

The text reports no protest by Daniel against his new name.

Nor does he refuse to learn Babylonian culture.

But the narrator continues to call him Daniel and reintroduces the four Hebrew names at the moment of their presentation before the king (Daniel 1.19).

This distinction is important.

The imperial administration can assign a new administrative identity to the young Judeans.

It does not thereby determine their inner faithfulness.

8. Food is the first limit explicitly set

Daniel accepts several elements of his new environment before the narrative reports a refusal.

The limit appears in Daniel 1.8:

“Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank.”

The exact reason for this defilement is, however, not explained.

This is one of the points on which exegesis must keep real caution.

9. Several explanations of the defilement remain possible

The dietary prescriptions of the Torah are a natural explanation, notably for meats (Leviticus 11.1-47 ; Deuteronomy 14.3-21).

The conditions of preparation and the possible presence of blood may also be considered (Leviticus 17.10-14).

An association of the food with Babylonian cults has also been proposed.

Finally, the royal table could carry a dimension of integration and dependence on the sovereign.

None of these explanations is explicitly given by Daniel 1.

Several factors may have combined.

10. Daniel’s diet is not a universal prescription

Daniel asks for vegetables and water during the ten-day trial (Daniel 1.12-16).

The passage does not, however, seek to establish the scientific superiority of a diet.

Nor does it command permanent vegetarianism.

Daniel 10.3, where Daniel states that he temporarily abstained from meat and wine, shows that Daniel 1 need not be understood as the definitive adoption of a diet excluding these foods.

The center of the narrative is faithfulness, not nutrition.

11. Babylonian training is not rejected

Daniel and his companions learn “the literature and language of the Chaldeans” (Daniel 1.4).

The text never presents this training as a fault.

Daniel can learn the culture of Babylon without adopting its gods.

This distinction helps us understand the position he will hold throughout his career.

He does not live outside the imperial system.

On the contrary, he exercises responsibilities within it while maintaining a distinct religious faithfulness.

12. We must avoid reconstructing a curriculum that the text does not describe

Mesopotamian culture included important scribal, administrative, literary, scientific, religious and divinatory traditions.

This context sheds light on the expression “literature and language of the Chaldeans.”

Daniel 1 gives, however, no list of the disciplines Daniel actually studied.

It would therefore be excessive to claim that he personally followed each of the teachings known in the Mesopotamian scholarly schools.

The historical context illuminates the text; it must not replace the information that the text does not supply.

13. Human training and divine gift are not opposed

Daniel 1.17 declares:

“God gave these four youths learning and skill in all literature and wisdom.”

The narrative thus associates two realities.

The young men receive real training.

God grants them knowledge and understanding.

Daniel also possesses a particular aptitude concerning visions and dreams.

This distinction prepares Daniel 2, where the training explains Daniel’s presence among the wise men while the revelation of the mystery comes from God (Daniel 2.19-23 ; Daniel 2.27-30).

14. The three years of training are compatible with the second year of Nebuchadnezzar

Daniel 1.5 provides for three years of training.

Daniel 2.1 then places Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in the second year of his reign.

The difficulty can be clarified by the Babylonian accession-year system.

A training begun during Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year can continue through his first official year and end during his second.

The three years therefore do not necessarily represent thirty-six full months.

This reconstruction respects the natural progression of the narrative without claiming to determine events to the month.

15. Daniel 1.21 does not give the date of Daniel’s death

The statement:

“So Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus” (Daniel 1.21)

does not mean that Daniel dies on that date.

Daniel 10.1 presents him as still alive in the third year of Cyrus.

The first year of Cyrus is therefore a literary and historical boundary.

It leads the reader to the time when Babylonian domination has disappeared and the return of the exiles becomes possible.

16. The book does not report Daniel’s return to Jerusalem

The first year of Cyrus is associated with the decree permitting the return of the Judeans and the rebuilding of the Temple (2 Chronicles 36.22-23 ; Ezra 1.1-4).

Daniel reaches this time.

But no passage recounts that he himself takes part in the return.

It would therefore be excessive to claim that he returned to Jerusalem.

It would likewise be excessive to claim categorically that he never returned.

The certain datum is more limited: no return of Daniel to Jerusalem is reported in the book.

17. The Temple vessels form a remarkable guiding thread

The Temple vessels appear as early as Daniel 1.2.

Nebuchadnezzar carries them to Babylon and places them in the treasury of his god.

They reappear in Daniel 5 when Belshazzar has them brought in during his banquet (Daniel 5.2-4).

Daniel then interprets their use as a manifestation of the king’s pride against the Lord of heaven (Daniel 5.22-23).

The vessels thus link the beginning of Babylonian domination to the night of its fall.

18. Their history continues under Cyrus

Ezra reports that Cyrus returns the vessels of the house of the the Eternal that Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem (Ezra 1.7-11).

The general movement can therefore be summarized:

Jerusalem → Babylon → judgment of Babylon → return to Jerusalem.

This course gives a particular significance to Daniel 1.2 and to Daniel 1.21.

The chapter begins with sacred possessions leaving Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar.

It leads the reader to Cyrus, under whom their return becomes possible.

19. The first chapter already contains the main themes of the book

The appendices thus confirm the programmatic function of Daniel 1.

God’s sovereignty appears from Daniel 1.2.

The question of integration into a foreign culture appears in the training and in the change of name.

Faithfulness is manifested in the decision concerning food.

Wisdom and revelation are introduced in Daniel 1.17.

The succession of empires is anticipated by the transition from Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus.

The Temple vessels finally link Babylonian domination to its judgment.

The later developments of the book are therefore already present in embryonic form in its first chapter.

20. The distinction between certainty and hypothesis remains indispensable

Several elements of Daniel 1 can be established directly.

Daniel and his companions are taken to Babylon.

They receive training.

Their names are changed.

Daniel refuses the royal food because he regards it as a source of defilement.

The four young men are recognized as particularly competent.

Daniel remains present until the time of Cyrus.

Other elements remain reconstructions:

his exact age;

the precise date of his arrival;

the detailed content of his training;

the etymology of certain Babylonian names;

the precise reason for the dietary defilement;

the exact length of his training in months;

and his possible return to Jerusalem.

Maintaining this distinction is essential to a historically rigorous reading.

Biblical References Cited

Leviticus 11.1-47 ; Leviticus 17.10-14 ; Deuteronomy 14.3-21 ; 2 Kings 24.10-16 ; 2 Kings 25.1-12 ; 2 Chronicles 36.22-23 ; Ezra 1.1-4 ; Ezra 1.7-11 ; Jeremiah 46.2 ; Daniel 1.1 ; Daniel 1.1-6 ; Daniel 1.2 ; Daniel 1.4 ; Daniel 1.5 ; Daniel 1.6-7 ; Daniel 1.8 ; Daniel 1.12-16 ; Daniel 1.17 ; Daniel 1.19 ; Daniel 1.21 ; Daniel 2.1 ; Daniel 2.19-23 ; Daniel 2.27-30 ; Daniel 4.8 ; Daniel 5.2-4 ; Daniel 5.22-23 ; Daniel 10.1 ; Daniel 10.3.

Conclusion

The appendices as a whole confirm that Daniel 1 must be read simultaneously as an exile narrative, an integration narrative and a faithfulness narrative.

The historical context explains how young Judeans find themselves at the heart of the Babylonian court.

The chronology shows that Daniel belongs to the first phase of Babylonian domination and that he then lives through several decades until the Persian period.

The study of the names reveals the pressure toward cultural integration without allowing us to conclude that Judean identity disappeared.

The analysis of the food shows that Daniel sets a religious limit, even if the precise reason for that limit is not made explicit.

The training in the literature and language of the Chaldeans finally shows that faithfulness to God and the acquisition of a foreign culture are not presented as incompatible.

Daniel can learn in Babylon.

He can serve Babylon.

He can bear a Babylonian name.

But he does not let Babylon become the ultimate authority of his existence.

The course of the Temple vessels and the final mention of Cyrus widen this perspective still further. The empire that seemed victorious at the beginning ends by disappearing. The sacred vessels can return to Jerusalem. Daniel himself remains when Babylon is no more.

Thus the historical and philological questions studied in the appendices converge on the same conclusion as the main commentary: Daniel 1 does not tell how a young Judean escapes Babylon, but how he learns to live there without letting the empire entirely define who he is.