George Athas gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au
Mon Jun 21 18:57:34 EDT 1999

Fred P Miller wrote:

> [...] The presence of Aramaic in portions of Ezra and Daniel should confirm the use of
> Aramaic in Babylon before 400 BCE rather than being a proof for a late date for
> Daniel.

How so? Aramaic does continue for centuries after 400 BCE. Are there any particular apsects of the
language you have in mind?

While we're on the subject, wouldn't it seem logical that if the second half of Daniel is dated
c.164 BCE, that the first few chapters were known before then (not necessarily as a uniform work,
though)? There are numerous Daniel stories which are around by 164 BCE. In order to give the second
half of the book some typical pseudonymous weight, it seems reasonable to suggest that "Daniel" had
been known for quite some time as a familiar figure. Thus, the Daniel stories (even the
"apocryphal" ones) probably had some currency before 164 BCE. Essentially, I'm basing this on the
convention in pseudepigraphy to use a well known personality as the "author".

Best regards.
 Dept of Semitic Studies,
 University of Sydney
Tel Dan Inscription Website is at

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list