The animalising affliction of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 : reading across the human-animal boundary

This is a detailed investigation into the nature of Nebuchadnezzar’s animalising affliction in Daniel 4 and the degree to which he is depicted as actually becoming an animal. Peter Atkins examines two predominant lines of interpretation: either Nebuchadnezzar undergoes a physical metamorphosis of some kind into an animal form; or diverse other readings that specifically preclude or deny an animal transformation of the king. By providing an extensive study of these interpretative opinions, alongside innovative assessments of ancient Mesopotamian divine-human-animal boundaries, Atkins ultimately demonstrates how neither of these traditional interpretations best reflect the narrative events. While there have been numerous metamorphic interpretations of Daniel 4, these are largely reliant upon later developments within the textual tradition and are not present in the earliest edition of Nebuchadnezzar’s animalising affliction. Atkins’ study displays that when Daniel 4 is read in the context of Mesopotamian texts, which appear to conceive of the human-animal boundary as being indicated primarily in relation to possession or lack of the divine characteristic of wisdom, the affliction represents a far more significant categorical change from human to animal than has hitherto been identified. Cover Halftitle page Title page Copyright page CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABBREVIATIONS Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Animalising Affliction in Daniel 4 1.2 Note on Terminology 1.3 Trajectory of this Study Chapter 2 THE ISSUE OF AN ANIMAL METAMORPHOSIS: INTERPRETATIONS OF DANIEL 4 2.1 Penitential Metamorphosis (Second–Fourth Century CE) 2.2 Hybrid Metamorphosis (ca. Fourth Century CE) 2.3 Antiochene Denial of Metamorphosis (Fourth–Fifth Century CE) 2.4 Multiple Metamorphoses (Fourth–Ninth Century CE) 2.5 Conscious/Unconscious Metamorphosis (ca. Fifth–Thirteenth Century CE) 2.6 Early Medieval Denial of Metamorphosis (Tenth–Thirteenth Century) 2.7 Substantial Lycanthropic Metamorphosis (Twelfth–Seventeenth Century) 2.8 Denial of Lycanthropic Metamorphosis as Illusory (Fifteenth–Seventeenth Century) 2.9 Rationalistic Denials of Metamorphosis (Sixteenth–Nineteenth Century) 2.10 Summary Chapter 3 THE QUESTION OF METAMORPHOSIS IN THE TEXTS OF DANIEL 4 3.1 Searching for a Metamorphosis in the Potential Sources of Daniel 4 3.2 Describing the Textual Traditions of the Book of Daniel 3.3 Searching for a Metamorphosis in the Textual Traditions of Daniel 4 3.4 Conclusion Chapter 4 THE HUMAN  ANIMAL BOUNDARY IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST 4.1 Previous Scholarly Readings of Daniel 4 in its Ancient Near Eastern Context 4.2 The Boundary between Gods and Humans in the Ancient Near East: Immortality 4.3 The Boundary between Humans and Animals in the Ancient Near East: Wisdom 4.4 Conclusion Chapter 5 REASSESSING THE HUMAN  ANIMAL BOUNDARY IN DANIEL 4 5.1 Boundaries between Gods, Humans and Animals in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Texts 5.2 Boundaries in Daniel 4 5.3 Conclusion Chapter 6 CONCLUSION 6.1 Summary of Findings 6.2 Further Implications Appendix A TABLE OF PRIMARY DANIEL MANUSCRIPTS Appendix B SYNOPSIS OF EDITIONS OF DANIEL 4 BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX OF REFERENCES INDEX OF AUTHORS "Peter Atkins presents a detailed investigation into the nature of Nebuchadnezzar's animalising affliction in Daniel 4 and the degree to which he is depicted as actually becoming an animal. Atkins examines typical explanations of this which seem to have followed two predominant lines of interpretation: either Nebuchadnezzar undergoes a physical metamorphosis of some kind into an animal form; or diverse other readings that specifically preclude or deny an animal transformation of the king. By providing an extensive examination of this division of interpretative opinion, alongside innovative assessments of the narrative's textual history and ancient Mesopotamian divine-human-animal boundaries, Atkins ultimately demonstrates how neither of these traditional interpretations best reflect the narrative events. While there have been numerous metamorphic interpretations of Daniel 4, such readings are largely reliant upon later developments within the textual tradition and are not present in the earliest edition of Nebuchadnezzar's animalising affliction. However it is equally inadequate to state that the king does not undergo an animal transformation at all as, through Nebuchadnezzar's loss of reason, Daniel 4 describes a more subtle yet much more profound crossing of the human-animal boundary. When Daniel 4 is read in the context of Mesopotamian texts, which appear to conceive of the human-animal boundary as being indicated primarily in relation to possession or lack of the divine characteristic of wisdom, the affliction represents a far more significant categorical change from human to animal than has hitherto been identified"-- Provided by publisher "This is a detailed investigation into the nature of Nebuchadnezzar's animalising affliction in Daniel 4 and the degree to which he is depicted as actually becoming an animal. PeterAtkins examines two predominant lines of interpretation: either Nebuchadnezzar undergoes a physical metamorphosis of some kind into an animal form; or diverse other readings that specifically preclude or deny an animal transformation of the king. By providing an extensive study of these interpretative opinions, alongside innovative assessments of ancient Mesopotamian divine-human-animal boundaries, Atkins ultimately demonstrates how neither of these traditional interpretations best reflect the narrative events. While there have been numerous metamorphic interpretations of Daniel 4, these are largely reliant upon later developments within the textual tradition and are not present in the earliest edition of Nebuchadnezzar's animalising affliction. Atkins' study displays that when Daniel 4 is read in the context of Mesopotamian texts, which appear to conceive of the human-animal boundary as being indicated primarily in relation to possession or lack of the divine characteristic of wisdom, the affliction represents a far more significant categorical change from human to animal than has hitherto been identified." --Provided by publisher