"The Vision of Daniel" from the St. Petersburg Genizah

This article includes translation of a "new" Vision of Daniel as it survived, albeit incomplete. It reflects a "meeting point" between three monotheistic religions in the ninth and tenth centuries CE. A comparative study of the work enables the reconstruction of its missing parts...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Ben-Śaśon, Menaḥem 1951- (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Cambridge Univ. Press 2022
In: Harvard theological review
Year: 2022, Volume: 115, Issue: 3, Pages: 331-362
Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains:B Apocalypse of Daniel / Caliphate / History 700-1000 / Redemption
IxTheo Classification:HB Old Testament
KBL Near East and North Africa
NBQ Eschatology
TE Middle Ages
Further subjects:B Abbasid Caliphs
B Fatimid Caliphs
B Theophilos
B Vision of Daniel
B the Son of the Daughter of Levi
B Jewish Apocrypha
B al-Muʿtaṣim
B al-Sufyānī
Online Access: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Volltext (kostenfrei)
Description
Summary:This article includes translation of a "new" Vision of Daniel as it survived, albeit incomplete. It reflects a "meeting point" between three monotheistic religions in the ninth and tenth centuries CE. A comparative study of the work enables the reconstruction of its missing parts. The Vision may have been composed in the area where al-Muʿtaṣim battled Theophilos in the 830s CE, namely, northern Syria and southeastern Anatolia. An "updated" appendix was added around 1000 CE. Towards the end of the Vision, exact times are replaced with "flexible times," a moderate expression of the cosmic changes found in similar eschatological works. The two anti-messiahs described, constructed as integrations of Jewish-Christian-Muslim traditions of the apocalyptical devils, reflect the shifting identities of messianic figures, who will reveal themselves once again (Parousia), albeit as demonic antichrists. One of the two is an inversion of the Christian image of Moses/Jesus, whereas the second is Armilus.
ISSN:1475-4517
Contains:Enthalten in: Harvard theological review
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1017/S0017816022000220