Wisdom Actors, part 2
Of political astrologers and political enemies
During one tense political period in the royal court, Daniel intervenes to save the political astrologers from a death sentence handed down by the king (2:1-47). This is not the attitude of someone who had been merely tolerating this colleagues. Granted, the narrative explains that Daniel’s life, too, was on the line (as a member of the wise, not as an astrologer). I could imagine, however, that if he were merely tolerating the astrologers, the king’s edict would have given Daniel a perfect opportunity to deconstruct their religious beliefs, and even offer personal testimony that he never relied on astrology for advice.
Such an approach would, I think, have afforded Daniel at least some criterion for trying to talk King Nebuchadnezzar out of the executing him with the astrologers. But Daniel doesn’t go there. Instead, he and his three Jewish friends pray for a way out, including for the astrologers (2:18, 24). That act of prayer took a strong faith, because, as everyone in the story has rightly remarked, the king is asking for the kind of insight that is literally impossible for any human being to ever have. God, however, gives Daniel insight, the king is astounded, and he makes Daniel ruler over the entire province of Babylon and over all the wise men (2:48).Somewhat like Jesus before Pilot before his death, Daniel remains silent.
Of that story, we might say Daniel only took that approach because the astrologer were not, in principle, his political enemies (nothing in the book indicates they were). The deceitful policy of the envious officials to trap Daniel into being executed (the story of the lion’s den), however, is clearly the work of his political enemies. It’s a curious narrative (6:1-23), not only because in the end the tables get turned and it is Daniel’s political enemies who can’t survive the hungry lions. We do not know if he asked the king to spare their lives. Perhaps he did.
At any rate, the text suggests that the decision about the his political enemies was taken completely out of Daniel’s hands by the king, who rather abruptly orders their execution. We might want to conclude that Daniel asked the king to put them to death. I don’t think so. There is nothing in the entire book even to suggest that Daniel may have copped that attitude, even in an exceptional moment, as this one certainly was. Further, the text does not even denote the most obvious defense. Daniel does not explain to the king – the one who will execute the judgment on him – why the law was deceitfully developed and aimed at him (Daniel) personally. Instead, when Daniel learns of the law, he prays (6:10). Somewhat like Jesus before Pilot before his death, Daniel remains silent.
Esprit de corps
Although it is true from the text, and more than implied, that Daniel was gifted by God, trusted in God to the nth degree, and was saved by God, that does not detract from the fact that those who were trained professionals in the wisdom tradition to serve the royal court had an esprit de corps amongst themselves, which Daniel, as a career insider, quite naturally participated in. It would be equivalent to the insider solidarity enjoyed by the equivalent of high-level officials and advisors today, such as those serving in the White House or those who are fellows of political think tanks and so on.
Whether that esprit de corps would have nourished a wisdom-based style of communication or whether the wisdom tradition nourished the esprit de corps is hard to say. One hand probably washed the other. It seems safe to conclude, however, that the esprit de corps that existed among these political officials accounts in some degree for Daniel’s style of communication with them.
Given that Daniel was being trained to enter government service alongside all sorts of non-Israelite political officials and ecclesiastical figures, it stands to reason that he would be entering into the established esprit de corps and having to find his own style of expression in it, at least if he were to hoping to enjoy any long-term success. Perhaps it would we similar to a freshman Senator today, or the new member of a Prime Minister’s cabinet, finding his or her sea legs.
I also believe that it played a significant role in affording the officials in this close network of pluralistic political relationships an ethos for working together toward common good at the highest levels of state, including international relations, despite their different religious identities. In this we see wisdom’s forbearance toward religion (see The Historic Wisdom Tradition and Its Literature).
Converting the pagans?
Daniel’s career, or at least the text itself, also shows the lack of an approach to other officials that religious people who work outside government might find puzzling. We have no indication from the text that Daniel ever tried to convert the “pagan” officials to his religion. I believe it would be contradictory to the purpose of the book itself if it it were otherwise. For it is a basic fact of life under God that government service is not about making religious converts but about governing society. This is an ancient principle and one that Daniel certainly knew.
The narratives themselves imply this, as we have already seen, when depicting Daniel’s approaches toward colleagues who were of faiths other that his. In other words, Daniel in his political career was serving and obeying God’s laws and norms for political life. That was his calling. And it did not include making religious conversions, for that is not a function of government service. Of course, Daniel may have hoped and prayed for conversions privately. He may have even talked to certain Babylonians about it, but that is a different matter and does not concern the Book of Daniel.
The wisdom style
When I read Daniel, then, I see a style of communication much more consistent with the wisdom tradition than the prophetic tradition. I assuming this is so because each tradition serves a different purpose. And let me be clear. I mean a different purpose under God. The purpose of the wisdom tradition in government and international relations, as I understand it from its literature, and to very brief and general, is to assist people, and peoples, who are different to work together toward common good, and perhaps even toward human flourishing at times. There must then be a style of communication, whether oral or write, to suit such a teleology. And we in America, I just add but way of editorializing, are not seeing nearly enough of it today!
The normative style of wisdom, then, in government and international relations, does not seek to fuel contentious disputes or even to cross swords over differences in ultimate allegiances (though the wise certainly are aware of them). To think again of contrasts, and perhaps be a bit to general, whereas he job of the Old Testament prophet is to make as wide as possible the gulf of dissimilarities, the job of a statesman like Daniel is to bring diverse parties together on common ground for common good. And I would briefly add that this is equally true for wisdom-based ways of engaging most pluralist situations, including interfaith and multifaith initiatives.Daniel is being a faithful presence in his political career to a future he anticipates seeing of human flourishing among people who are different.
An aesthetics of communication is essential to the style of any tradition. If we think again of ambassadors, diplomats, international negotiators, or mediators, we can get a feel for what is behind their professional styles. For instance, they must exercise boundless sensitivity to the parties’ problems and employ great tact and pacing when working toward an agreement of mutual benefit. To get the parties to Yes, they must demonstrate an objectivity that submerges their own interests to the good of the negotiating parties. They must show themselves evenhanded, gaining the confidence of all sides, while helping the parties see reality as it really is and adjust to it. They must help negotiations to reach midpoints that both sides can accept, often by challenging what Ross calls their comfortable myths. And they must be able to show empathy for the suffering and needs of the parties, helping each side “get” the other’s grievances. In short, they must be diplomatic.
Style matters. In this, today’s “hakamim,” and “soperim” may be likened more to dialecticians than to apologists or polemicists. Imagine the disastrous outcome if foreign minsters met in crises only to vent polemics or engage in apologetics. Imagine the negative downhill spiral into which the world would quickly tumble if today’s international negotiators persisted at thundering (or even whispering) polemics against each other across the table. Where would such “diplomatic” initiatives lead? How would officials of diverse governments ever agree on cooperative multilateral policies, treaties, and suchlike? Whereas rulers may want to take their nations to war against each other, their wise advisors will be seeking to find ways to ease tensions and maintain the peace ( Prov. 3:17; 16:32; Eccles. 9:13-18). Judicious speech therefore is a style of communication that behooves the wise (h?k?m; Prov. 16:23).
Conclusion
Concentrated in the Book of Daniel, more than in another other book of the Old Testament, or of the wisdom literature (that I am aware of), Daniel, at the very least, offers insight on the general style, behavior, and attitude that seems to have been normative for old-world political and religious actors trained in the wisdom tradition. But there is much more than that occurring.
It is not just that Daniel is an exceptional statesman of his time serving through several administrations. It is not just that Daniel eschews tolerance for respect of the other. It is not just his consistently reconciliatory tone of communication and approach to situations, even to those who were prone to move in quite a different spirit. It is not just that he seeks common good among people who are different. There are any number of officials and advisors who project this kind of image.
Rather, it is that Daniel stands out within the wisdom tradition as a government official and advisor who is known among his peers and the kings to trust God and to rely on God for wisdom. It is on that ground that Daniel lives and moves and speaks and participates within pluralist situations to work toward common good. Daniel has a different starting point than his Chaldean colleagues.
Daniel, then, is a witness in crises of and to the wisdom of God that not only makes the wisdom of the world seem foolish by comparison but creates new worlds with and for the other, worlds of peaceably cooperative relations out of crises for whosoever will have them. That is the hidden, untapped, lost potential of the wisdom tradition, and we see it in the narratives.
To put it theologically, Daniel is being what I think James Hunter would call a “faithful presence” in his political career to a future of human flourishing that he anticipates among people who are different. That anticipatory witness identifies God in the crisis, sees the One who created and sustains the world by wisdom somehow offering not just the hope of a certain future (in which human beings of all sorts will live peaceably, cooperatively, and collectively), but offering possibilities of some experience of that future created, in miniature, in the here and now, albeit imperfectly, even in Babylon.
I believe this kind of anticipatory witness is central to the purpose and function of the wisdom way under God, today. Where are the research projects to develop this and get it on offer in our international relations and foreign policy?
Copyright. Permission to reprint required.
Discuss the topic here
