Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear Rolf,

>The Aramaic part of [Daniel] is a part of the curriculum of
>intermediate Hebrew in Oslo, so I will give a few comments on the basis of
>my knowledge of it...

This does put your comments into a different, clearer light!

>>Dear Rolf,
>>
>>Garbini is not arguing that the Aramaic language of Daniel is young: he is
>>arguing that it is not coherent, though it is attempting to simulate
>>Persian Chancelry Aramaic. One would therefore expect to find old forms in
>>the text. However, his argument is an attempt to show that the writer or,
>>more likely, translator did not in fact understand the language he was
>>simulating because there are some rather blatant errors that could only
>>have come from a lack of familiarity with the language.
>
>RF
>You are of course right regarding Garbini, but what I tried to convey, was
>that when he claims that the book of Daniel could not have existed in
>Persian times, he is arguing from silence. If we do not a priori reject the
>claims of an author, we should not compare the Aramaic of Daniel with
>Persian Chancelry Aramaic but rather with Babylonian Chancelry Aramaic. 

That's a bit of a problem, Rolf. Chapter 6 already has this infamous Darius
the Mede. Now you and I know that the Medes didn't take Babylon. There were
peaceful relations between the two through marriage. Cyrus after defeating
the Medes took control of Babylon without a fight! When are we supposed to
imagine that "Aramaic" Daniel was written?

>How
>in the world does Garbini know that what he, with his knowledge, views as
>blatant errors, were not correct in the 6th century Babylon. 

However he knows, he's not alone. He cites others of the same opinion!

>How can we
>know that it is not Garbini's knowledge of Aramaic that it the problem?

I didn't see anything that wasn't relatively transparent in Garbini's
presentation of information, but then I'm in no position to comment.

>>... There was no "Darius king of the Medes", Belshazzar was never
>>a king...
>
>RF
>I would not call this errors as long as they can be explained in a
>plausible way. Remember that before 1924 (and the publication of "The verse
>account of Nabonidus") the argument regarding Belshazzar was that he had
>never existed (argument from silence). The inscriptions give Belshazzar the
>title "Crown Prince", but factually he exercised royal prerogatives, issued
>orders and made dcisions that normally would be handled by the supreme
>ruler. An archaeological find that can justify the title "king" was made in
>1979, when a statue of the governor of Gonzan was unearthed. On its skirts
>we find the same inscription both in Assyrian (Accadian) and Aramaic. The
>text in Assyrian can be translated "The governor of Gozan". In the Aramaic
>text we find "king" as a translation of "governor". This shows that the
>Aramaic MLK can be used for persons who are not supreme rulers. That
>Belshazzar promised Daniel a position as the *third* in the kingdom (5:16),
>could imply that Belshazzar only was the second.

Do you think that something will come along that will make Belshazzar the
son of Nebuchadnezzar instead of the unmentioned Nabonidus? While there is
some room to change the significance of the text regarding the "kingship"
of Belshazzar, the period is relatively well-known now as compared to 75
years ago and we know that Nabonidus came to power through a coup.
Belshazzar is his son, not the son of Nebuchadnezzar (5:2,11).

>You are right that no indication of "Darius the Mede" has been found. Only
>the year when Darius became king is mentioned in Daniel. If we do not
>reject the account before we have seen what it says, the text would suggest
>that the rulership of Darius was not long-lasting. Some has connected
>Darius with Gurbaru, the governor of Cyrus, but the most promising
>suggestion I have seen, for the existence of another king beside or
>subordinate to Cyrus for a short time, is an article I believe was written
>by W. Shea. I do not have it at hand, and it is 10 years since I read it,
>but I recall that Shea studied the titles of Cyrus found on tablets. On the
>basis of a particular difference in the titles used, Shea concluded that
>there must have been another "king" ruling for some months after the fall
>of Babylon. As in the case of Belshazzar in the time before 1924, arguments
>from silence are not conslusive.

I would be highly suspicious of another renamed character, wouldn't you?
This Darius the Mede is portrayed as a king of kings in 6:1ff, not some
mere satrap.

[..]

>RF
>I agree that all kinds of information must be taken into account when we
>try to date a book, but I have not argued for a particular date of Daniel;
>my subject was the problems connected with the dating of Hebrew on
>linguistic grounds.

[..]

>RF
>I will not comment on the case of Antiochus, I will only say that other
>interpretations are equally possible or even better. 

I would be curious to know what could be a better interpretation of the
struggles between the king(s) or the north and the king(s) of the south
than for it to refer to the conflicts between the Seleucids and the
Ptolemies including such things as the marriage between Antiochus II and
Berenice (11:6), the battle of Raphia (11:11-12), the battle of Magnesia
(11:18), the brief reign of Seleucus III who sent Heliodorus (11:20).

>My experience so far
>is that only in a few verses in chapter 11 can a good case be made for a
>connection with Antiochus. 

He does only come to the throne in v21, but then he's the central figure
from then till the end of the chapter.

>Can you refer to any sources that discuss most,
>or all of the connections that are made with Antiochus in Daniel?

I've put a few pages on Daniel, one specifically on chapter 11, on my
website if that would help, otherwise I think any more scholarly commentary
on Daniel will deal with Antiochus in some detail -- for there is a lot of
detail in the book.


Cheers,


Ian

mc2499 AT mclink.it
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/histreli.htm