How can anyone honestly think one person wrote Daniel. As mentioned by others theres a mixture of a few languages in various forms. Nobody serisously writes a few pages switching between 6 different languages. That makes no sense and dont get me started on the other problems inthe text.
Beside reading Thucydides the author of Daniel read Herodotus
by kepler 27 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Julia Orwell
I think the book being written in different styles in different languages should be a dead giveaway that it's a compilation and a poorly edited one at that! Seriously, if someone published something like that these days, who would take it seriously?
-
Phizzy
As Doug says, it is a book written in a particular genre, and with aparticular agenda, both being understood by its intended readership, and missed by any enemies of the "writer".
As the writer intended it to look as though it had been written several centuries before his time, it is no surprise that what were probably becoming somewhat archaic words, like satrap etc, were employed by him/them.
No doubt it brought much comfort, and perhaps a little amusement, to those Jews suffering under the rule of Antiochus 1V Epiphanes, and who knows ? perhaps gave impetus to the Maccabees.
-
kepler
Sounds like a lot of the contributors to this discussion have very similar ideas about the book of Daniel. At the very least, that it sounds credible that it was written as late as 160 BC. And one takes that as a starting hypothesis, there is not much that argues against it - unless you assume that it was really originally written in KJW or NWT (sic) English ( E.g., Daniel in a lion's pit going on about "the end of this system of things").
But I myself seem to learn from thesis and counter thesis in debate. And I see some possibilities with this statement here:
"Official Aramaic, an international language, was spoken in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Court. When the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile, few Jews could converse in Hebrew. It was necessary for Jewish leaders to translate their holy writings in Aramaic, from there the Aramaic Targums (cf. Neh. 8:8)."
This might all be largely true, but one might still have to wonder why it is the case. So let's consider.
What happened to all those Hebrew speakers of the ten other tribes who were annexed into the Assyrian empire a century or more before the small kingdom of Judea fell?
What is "official Aramaic?
Aramaic might have been a court language for the Assyrians since it originated among northern Mesopotamean peoples. But Akkadian was the official language associated with cuneiform. Chaldeans spoke Aramaic, but Chaldean records...?
In the case of the Behistun monument, carved sometime during the reign of Darius the Great who reigned between 525 and 486 BC, a guy whom Daniel claimed to have known, there are inscriptions that are inscripted in three texts:
The inscription includes three versions of the same text, written in three different cuneiform script languages: Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian (a later form of Akkadian).
If Daniel were such a high official in Neo-Babylonia and Persia, you would think he would have practiced his Akkadian from time to time.
-
kepler
Sorry. Resubmitted/edited for clarity.
Sounds like a lot of the contributors to this discussion have very similar ideas about the book of Daniel. At the very least, that it sounds credible that it was written as late as 160 BC. And one takes that as a starting hypothesis, there is not much that argues against it - unless you assume that it was really originally written in KJW or NWT (sic) English ( E.g., Daniel in a lion's pit going on about "the end of this system of things").
But I myself seem to learn from thesis and counter thesis in debate. And I see some possibilities with this statement here:
"Official Aramaic, an international language, was spoken in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Court. When the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile, few Jews could converse in Hebrew. It was necessary for Jewish leaders to translate their holy writings in Aramaic, from there the Aramaic Targums (cf. Neh. 8:8)."
This might all be largely true, but one might still have to wonder why it is the case. So let's consider.
What happened to all those Hebrew speakers of the ten other tribes who were annexed into the Assyrian empire a century or more before the small kingdom of Judea fell?
What is "official Aramaic"?
Aramaic might have been a court language for the Assyrians since it originated among northern Mesopotamean peoples. But Akkadian was the official language associated with cuneiform. Chaldeans spoke Aramaic, but Chaldean records...?
In the case of the Behistun monument, carved sometime during the reign of Darius the Great who reigned between 525 and 486 BC, a guy whom Daniel claimed to have known, there are inscriptions in three texts:
three different cuneiform script languages: Old Persian, Elamite , and Babylonian (a later form of Akkadian ).
If Daniel were such a high official in Neo-Babylonia and Persia, you would think he would have practiced his Akkadian from time to time.
-
Vidqun
View "Official Aramaic" as a diplomatic language, similar to English and French today. The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Empire incorporated different nations and a standard communication medium was needed. Because of the wide spread of the empires, different vassals would also have been appointed to rule the different city states, e.g., Darius the Mede. As was brought out by Bobcat, he could have been any of a number of historical personages, even Cyrus himself. If appointed by Cyrus, he would have ruled under him, and secondary rulers received secondary honors.
Bottom line is, you cannot use words or a language to date a document. Many scholars have tried (and failed). As seen, Official Aramaic existed from 700 - 200 BCE, so the Aramaic or loanwords of Daniel are not good indications of provenance or time of writing. I like Doug's suggestion of chiasms. That would explain a lot of conradictions in the Bible. Also, as was mentioned, many editors were involved in the construction of Daniel, the end product might have been compiled much later.
-
Phizzy
It seems that the writer/editor of Daniel did not know of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes,( although he does predict its coming), so presumably it was compiled no later than 164 B.C
It is an interesting example of the genre of Apocalyptic Jewish literature, and is perhaps more restrained than some of the flamboyant stuff that followed.
It is my opinion that it was written for the people of the time, a time of crisis for the Jews, though appearing to deal with some far off coming of the Kingdom of God.
The closer the "writer" gets to events in the time just precedingt A' the 1V Epiphanes death, the more accurate he is, to say the book as a whole had a much earlier date means we have to allow for it actually being prophecy in some measure, which I doubt.
-
kepler
Bobcat,
"I had posted a lengthy (by my typing standards) list of possible evidences that Darius the Mede was one and the same as Cyrus the Persian."
That would make sense in a way. If I were having a conversation over dinner with someone who called Cyrus, "Darius", I could say something like, "Do you mean Cyrus?" But we don't get that opportunity and the narrator continues to make strange claims. Others have suggested the advance man or general Gobyras. But Belshazzar was not necessarily at dinner in Babylon. He might have been killed or captured outside of the city earlier at Opis. Plus, he wasn't the son of Nebuchadnazzar or even Chaldean. His father was from an Assyrian town to the north.
Nice hearing from you as well. - Kepler.
Vidqun,
The bit about Nabonidus being an Assyrian would lend credence to dining room talk in his reign in Aramaic. Just like with the Assyrian court. But that does not necessarily make Aramaic "the official language" of Babylon. Akkadian was the official diplomatic language in the Mideast for centuries, maybe a millenium. And it originated in the Babylonian region. All indications - Nebuchadnazzar spoke Akkadian; not Aramaic. Since he and his father fought a war with the Assyrians, he probably despised it.
That language or writing cannot be dated by vocabulary... Really? We do it every day. I date myself by calling wheelcovers "hubcaps". If I place a zero before the first 9 dates of the month, I move my correspondence out of the 19th century. If I wrote an undated letter in English and speak of "sputnik? or the atomic bomb, I leave clues for historians. Should the author of Daniel speak satraps at the court of Nebuchadnazzar in Aramaic, or "Darius the Mede", he leaves in history's dust that even a tenderfoot can follow. "Darius" is a variation on the Greek Darieos, but the Persian is more like Daryvosh. Name another Mede named Darius. You may as well look for 19th century Brits named Washington or Jefferson. "Darius" was an enemy of the Mede state.
Phizzy, mP,...
Have enjoyed reading your comments on a number of topics. Sorry I haven't been around as much to exchange views. But so long as the target is still on the move, there are always more rich veins waiting to be mined.
Best regards,
Kepler
-
Vidqun
I should amend my statement to: “you cannot use words or a language to [accurately] date a document.” Here’s a few problems one needs to look out for in connection with language use in a MS. Few would argue against the fact that many editors were involved with the production of the finished product of the book of Daniel. The Jewish Talmud implies that "men of the Great Synagogue" edited parts of Daniel (also cf. MT with Greek versions). If you do not have an earlier MSS to compare it with, you’ve got a problem with those editorial changes and insertions.
E.g., the complete Isaiah scroll (1QIsa a) from Qumran, is viewed by scholars as a vulgar modernization of the Proto-Masoretic Text. The scribe of 1QIsa a was not interested in a faithful reproduction of the Proto-Masoretic Text. He tried to adapt the material in such a way that the common person would understand. Unfortunately the average person could barely read the Proto-Masoretic Text, let alone interpret it.
In this regard Encyclopaedia Judaica says: “As has been noted above, the average reader was scarcely able to understand the MT properly, and often unable to read it correctly. Therefore, copyists often substituted contemporaneous forms for the original ones even in the case of proper nouns. For example, the form ys`yh, `thyh, representing the type that became common mainly after 586 B.C.E. (the destruction of the First Temple), is used instead of the original ys`yhw, `thyhw which represents the dominant type during the previous period. w'th khl 'lh ydhy `sthh wyhyw khl 'lh(“All these (things) my hand has made”) of Is. 66:2 became w'th khl 'lh ydhy `sthh whyw khl 'lh(“and so all these things came to be (mine)”), etc.
More examples can be found in the efforts of the LXX-translators to make the Old Testament intelligible to their compatriots. This led them to use terms native to their Egyptian and Alexandrian environment, words that had no equivalents in Hebrew. E.g.,, ngshym (“slave drivers”) of Ex. 5:6, 10, 13 became ergodiouktai (“overseers, foremen”), a term familiar to us from the papyri of Hellenistic Egypt.
For the particularly difficult list of fashion novelties in Is. 31:18 - 24, which were strange to the translator, he simply supplied a list of comparable items from his own age and environment. “We cannot call his work here ‘translation’; most of the expressions are substitutes rather than equivalents. Thus the Greek translation often refers to completely different objects, and is useless for determining the meaning of the Hebrew word.”
“Finally we should note the attempt to make ancient words relevant to contemporary circumstances in Egyptian life. In Deut. 23:18 we read: “There shall be no cult prostitute (qdhsh, Greek pornei) of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a cult prostitute (qdhs, Greek porneuoun) of the sons of Israel”. The choice of terms pornei and porneuoun for qdhs instead of hierodoulos already alters the meaning of the passage. Nevertheless, even more significant is the addition: ouk estai telesphoros apo thugateroun Israeil, kai ouk estai teliskomenos apo uioun Israel. The term’s telesphoros and teliskomenos refer to the participation in the Mysteries. As cultic prostitution was a temptation in Hellenistic Egypt. The Egyptian translators felt as justified as the Targumists in linking the text to their time.” [i]
[i] E. Würthwein, The Text Of The Old Testament An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica, pp. 67, 77.
-
Bobcat
Kepler:
I could say something like, "Do you mean Cyrus?" But we don't get that opportunity
Actually, Daniel 6:28 may, in fact, be the very statement of identification with Cyrus that your illustrative dinner partner (Daniel, I suppose), gives. Compare 1 Chronicles 5:26 - this verse and Daniel 6:28 share a similarity in construction, and possibly in purpose.
At the very least, it does make this Darius a contemporary of Cyrus. But if the waw is not epexegetical, it also represents a diplomatic faux pas for the court trained Daniel, to list an inferior before his superior, especially in the diplomatic language of the day (Aramaic), where Cyrus could possibly read this 'slight' to his person prestige by Daniel. Of course, if written by a later editor, the point would be lost.
Still, an interesting subject. Unfortunately it awaits more evidence to be dug up.
Incidentally, the Society needs Darius and Cyrus to be seperate because they take "the kings from the rising of the sun" (Rev 6:12) to be their antitypical counterparts, Jehovah and Jesus. (The verse is more likely an allusion to Jer 51:11.)
Take Care