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.

Ask the animals, and they will tell you. Birds, beasts, and creeping things swarm throughout the Bible’s pages. Despite their prevalence, most biblical scholars have viewed them merely as metaphors, passive objects, or background embellishment to the human experience. This collection seeks to move beyond this traditional view of biblical animals by engaging the growing interdisciplinary field of animal studies. Contributors Peter Joshua Atkins, Jared Beverly, William P. Brown, Margaret Cohen, Jacob R. Evers, Michael J. Gilmour, William “Chip” Gruen, Dong Hyeon Jeong, Brian Fiu Kolia, Anne Létourneau, Robert R. MacKay, Suzanna R. Millar, Timothy J. Sandoval, Robert Paul Seesengood, Ken Stone, Brian James Tipton, Arthur W. Walker-Jones, and Jaime L. Waters showcase the breadth and depth of inquiry that animal studies can foster in biblical studies as well as what animal studies can gain from a more rigorous engagement with biblical texts. Together the essays offer an animal hermeneutic that supports the flourishing of all creatures.

This volume explores concepts of fiction in late antique hagiographical narrative in different cultural and literary traditions. It includes Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, Persian and Arabic material. Whereas scholarship in these texts has traditionally focussed on historical questions, this book approaches imaginative narrative as an inherent element of the genre of hagiography that deserves to be studied in its own right. The chapters explore narrative complexities related to fiction, such as invention, authentication, intertextuality, imagination and fictionality. Together, they represent an innovative exploration of how these concepts relate to hagiographical discourses of truth and the religious notion of belief, while paying due attention to the various factors and contexts that impact readers’ responses.

"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"--