Runboard.com
Слава Україні!
Community logo


runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

 
Tim Callahan Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 09-2008
Posts: 387
Karma: 15 (+16/-1)
Reply | Quote
Dating the Book of Daniel


In my debate with Hugh Ross, he asserted that the Aramaic of Daniel was of a form that indicated it was from the fifth century BCE, rather than the second century. As you may or may not know, the Book of Daniel has a language oddity. It begins in Hebrew, then in Dan. 2:4 it switches to Aramaic through the close of chapter 7 (Dan. 7:28. At that point it switches back to Hebrew for the remainder of the book.

The point at which the book switches from Hebrew to Aramaic is rather an odd one, since it's in the midst of an episode. Here's the last verse in Hebrew and the first in Aramaic, with the latter rendered in boldface (Dan. 2:3, 4, bracketed material added):

And the king said to them [his magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and Chaldeans, see vs. 2], "I had a dream and my spirit is troubled to know the dream." Then the Chaldeans said to the king, "O king live forever! Tell your servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation."

Two important prophecies are found in the Aramaic section of Daniel, that of the idol with a head of gold and feet of clay (Nebuchadnezzar's dream), and Daniel's vision o the four beasts from the sea. These are prophecies of a succession of empires variously interpreted as follows:

Chaldean--- Chaldean

Persian-----Medes

Greek------Persians

Roman--- --Alexander's empire

Modern day nations---Hellenistic empires (the statue's feet of clay)

The interpretation on left is the evangelical Christian interpretation. The one on the right is more often favored by secular interpreters. In either case, if the Aramaic used is from the fifth century, the dream and vision are clearly prophetic, hence divinely inspired. If the Aramaic is from the second century, the "prophecies" are history written after the fact.

I will go into the arguments for fifth vs. second century dating of the Aramaic of Daniel in my next post.

Last edited by Tim Callahan, 6/3/2010, 11:31 am
6/3/2010, 11:28 am Link to this post Send Email to Tim Callahan   Send PM to Tim Callahan
 
Tim Callahan Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 09-2008
Posts: 387
Karma: 15 (+16/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: Dating the Book of Daniel


According to John Collins in his 1993 commentary, Daniel, Hermeneia Commentary, the Aramaic in Daniel is of a later form than that used in the Samaria correspondence, but slightly earlier than the form used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, meaning that the Aramaic chapters 2-6 may have been written earlier in the Hellenistic period than the rest of the book, with the vision in chapter 7 (the beasts from the sea) being the only Aramaic portion dating to the time of Antiochus. The Hebrew portion is, for all intents and purposes, identical to that found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, meaning chapters 1 and 8-12 were in existence before the late 2nd century BCE.

At www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/daniel_kitchen.pdf, I found an article by K. A. Kitchen, titled "The Aramaic of Daniel" from a 1965 book edited by D.J. Wiseman titled Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel London: The Tyndale Press (pp.31 - 79).

Kitchen's conclusion, as you can see by his summary, which I copied below,is that the Aramaic of Daniel could be dated anywhere from the sixth to the second century BCE.

Summary:

What, then, shall we say of the Aramaic of Daniel? It is, in itself; as long and generally agreed, integrally a part of that Imperial Aramaic which gathered impetus from at least the seventh century BC and was in full use until c. 300 BC, thereafter falling away or fossilizing where it was not native and developing new forms and usages where it was the spoken tongue. If proper allowance be made for attested scribal usage in the Biblical Near East (including orthographical and morphological change, both official and unofficial), then there is nothing to decide the date of composition of the Aramnaic of Daniel on the grounds of Aramaic anywhere between the late sixth and the second century BC. Some points hint at an early (especially pre-300), not late, date—but in large part could be argued to be survivals till the second century BC, just as third—second century spellings or grammatical forms must be proved to be original to the composition of the work before a sixth—fifth century date could be excluded. The date of the book of Daniel, in short, cannot be decided upon linguistic grounds alone. It is equally obscurantist to exclude dogmatically a sixth-fifth (or fourth)century date on the one hand, or to hold such a date as mechanically proven on the other, as far as the Aramaic is concerned.


Last edited by Tim Callahan, 6/5/2010, 10:15 pm
6/5/2010, 10:11 pm Link to this post Send Email to Tim Callahan   Send PM to Tim Callahan
 
Tim Callahan Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 09-2008
Posts: 387
Karma: 15 (+16/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: Dating the Book of Daniel


That K. A. Kitchen said that it is impossible to date the Aramaic in Daniel is quite significant, in that he is a conservative scholar, one who rejects the Documentary Theory. However, I did not stop with his analysis. I e-mailed Dr. Randel Helms asking about the date of the Aramaic in Daniel. Here is his response:

Daniel 2:4-7:28 are in Aramaic. There are two clear indications that the Aramaic is late, at 4:13 ("a watcher, a holy one") and 4:26 ("sovereignty of Heaven"). Both phrases are found nowhere else in the OT outside Daniel but are common in the Book of Enoch ; the second, heaven as a euphemism for God is common in the apocrypha and NT but not at all in OT. The Aramaic of chapt. 4 is second or first century BCE. So the claim that the Aramaic is 5th century is a crock. I have good chapter on Daniel in my Bible Against Itself.
6/6/2010, 6:01 pm Link to this post Send Email to Tim Callahan   Send PM to Tim Callahan
 


Add a reply





You are not logged in (login)