The Book of Daniel - originally Hebrew or Aramaic?

Page 1 of 2 (24 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 23 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Posted: Mon, Mar 5 2012 8:01 PM

Simple question. For those who have the Portfolio or Platinum: 

Wasn’t the Book of Daniel originally written in Aramaic(Syriac) then transcribed to Hebrew?

Just need confirmation

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 767
Alan Charles Gielczyk | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 5 2012 8:12 PM

Parts of it are in Hebrew and other parts are in Aramaic.

Posts 8945
Forum MVP
Mark Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 5 2012 8:23 PM

Alan Charles Gielczyk:

Parts of it are in Hebrew and other parts are in Aramaic.

Exactly. 2:4b (O king) to 7:28 are Aramaic, the rest is Hebrew. Aramaic uses the same alphabet as Hebrew. It has not been translated into Hebrew in the original language version.

Pastor, North Park Baptist Church

Bridgeport, CT USA

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 5 2012 8:30 PM

Mark Smith:

Alan Charles Gielczyk:

Parts of it are in Hebrew and other parts are in Aramaic.

Exactly. 2:4b (O king) to 7:28 are Aramaic, the rest is Hebrew. Aramaic uses the same alphabet as Hebrew. It has not been translated into Hebrew in the original language version.

Right, I guess I should have been a little more clearer in my question.

So, the Aramaic section due to the Babylonian captivity? I could not find anything that was definite…Not really familiar w/the Aramaic alphbet, so when we see it[Aramaic section] in the Hebrew, the words still carry the same meaning?

[edit:

Attempts to date the Aramaic used in Daniel have failed, and we do not know whether it was written in Palestine or among the E dispersion. ‘Several scholars today would consider an Eastern (Mesopotamian) origin for the Aramaic part of Daniel … as probable, in agreement with the subject matter, though absolute proof cannot be given within the relative unity of Imperial Aramaic (K. A. Kitchen, in D. J. Wiseman, Some Problems, pp. 78, 79). It has proved equally impossible to argue conclusively from the Heb. of Daniel.(NBD 3rd Edition}

 

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 8945
Forum MVP
Mark Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 5 2012 8:48 PM

Room4more:
so when we see it[Aramaic section] in the Hebrew, the words still carry the same meaning?

You are seeing Aramaic not Hebrew.

EDIT: Many of the Aramaic words in Daniel have identically spelled words (same consonants) in Hebrew. Many (perhaps most?) have the same meaning as the corresponding Hebrew word. They are from the same family of languages so identically formed words usually have a similar background and therefore meaning.

Pastor, North Park Baptist Church

Bridgeport, CT USA

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 5 2012 8:58 PM

Mark Smith:

Room4more:
so when we see it[Aramaic section] in the Hebrew, the words still carry the same meaning?

You are seeing Aramaic not Hebrew.

EDIT: Many of the Aramaic words in Daniel have identically spelled words (same consonants) in Hebrew. Many (perhaps most?) have the same meaning as the corresponding Hebrew word. They are from the same family of languages so identically formed words usually have a similar background and therefore meaning.

Okay this is section of Dan 6.4 אֱדַ֙יִן֙ דָּנִיֵּ֣אל דְּנָ֔ה הֲוָ֣א מִתְנַצַּ֔ח [1]

Taken from BHS/WTS 4.0, is this Hebrew or Aramaic? It looks Hebrew to me. 

Same section from AFAT:

      אֱדַיִן דָּנִיֵּאל דְּנָה הֲוָא מִתְנַצַּח

I see some differences but not in the characters/?

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 5 2012 9:16 PM

Just looked in the library and noticed I have the Intro to Aramaic and a few others.....I can see what you are saying....

Okay I can see I have to do some reading...Thanks....

edit: these are my current font setting. do I need to change them to see a better display of the Aramaic/Hebrew:

Thanks....

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 8945
Forum MVP
Mark Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 5 2012 9:27 PM

Room4more:
It looks Hebrew to me. 

You're learning. It always will.

Pastor, North Park Baptist Church

Bridgeport, CT USA

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 5 2012 9:29 PM

oops I added an edit -did you catch it above..

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 8945
Forum MVP
Mark Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 6 2012 11:13 AM

Room4more:

edit: these are my current font setting. do I need to change them to see a better display of the Aramaic/Hebrew:

Thanks....

Those are the ones I am using.

Pastor, North Park Baptist Church

Bridgeport, CT USA

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 6 2012 11:19 AM

Ok, these were the recommended for their resources...Thanks.

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 1207
Ben | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 6 2012 12:38 PM

What people know today as the Hebrew square script was actually adapted from Aramaic. (Intro to Aramaic has a section on this.)

So when you say "it looks Hebrew" really we should look everywhere else and say "it looks Aramaic!"

And for those with solid Hebrew background, it doesn't look the same. There are different vowel and reduction patterns, among other things.

 

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 6 2012 12:45 PM

Ben:

What people know today as the Hebrew square script was actually adapted from Aramaic. (Intro to Aramaic has a section on this.)

So when you say "it looks Hebrew" really we should look everywhere else and say "it looks Aramaic!"

And for those with solid Hebrew background, it doesn't look the same. There are different vowel and reduction patterns, among other things.

Thanks, Ben. When I stated “I see some differences but not in the characters/?” that’s what I was referring to with the comparison to AFAT and the BHS, I did not remember having the Intro to Aramaic in my resources, but I did start reading it today.

So far it has been interesting, I will have to go slow so that I get the full digestion of what I am reading.

Thanks again....[by the way your pic looks familiar, have we met?]

 

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 2793
Michael Childs | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 6 2012 12:53 PM

It all raises interesting questions.  Was Daniel originally writter in two languages, as we have it today?  If so, what is the significance of the Aramaic sections?

If not, which language was the original written in, and why was the whole not translated? 

Of course, the issue of when Dabiel was written is also interesting.

Worth a lot of study and thought.

"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 6 2012 1:06 PM

Thanks, Michael.

Now these are some of the same questions I have, in doing a quick study I came across interesting writ's along these same lines. This prompted my question of the actual Manuscript. Can we speak in terms of saying that we understand Why, or how come?

Is it plausible that this was a compellation of the time spent during the Babylonian Captivity, and if so then what is the purpose? What, if any, is the reasoning behind this section having to be in the Aramaic form?

Bringing us back to the similarity’s of the two Languages, If they really are that similar, can we speak that the translation if any is viably accurate?

I sure hope this writ is clear……

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 6 2012 1:27 PM

In 2:4 we read:

Contrary to common belief, the point here is not that the wise men (Chaldeans) replied to the king in the Aramaic language, or that this language was uniquely the language of the Chaldeans. It was this view that led in the past to Aramaic being referred to as “Chaldee.” Aramaic was used as a lingua franca during this period; its origins and usage were not restricted to the Babylonians. Rather, this phrase is better understood as an editorial note (cf. NAB) marking the fact that from 2:4b through 7:28 the language of the book shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic. In 8:1, and for the remainder of the book, the language returns to Hebrew. Various views have been advanced to account for this change of language, most of which are unconvincing. Most likely the change in language is a reflection of stages in the transmission history of the book of Daniel.[NET Bible Notes.]

I remember some years back asking about this, and was told that the book was in Hebrew, which to me did not make sense. I have always had this in the fileing on my brain….

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 767
Alan Charles Gielczyk | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 6 2012 3:12 PM

I admire your reading the intro to Aramaic but unless you have mastered Hebrew this probably will not help much. All biblical Aramaic grammars assume at least a year of biblical Hebrew. Much of the difference is grammatical, let me try and give an example. 

The Hebrew word for king is מֶֽלֶךְ. In Hebrew "the king" would be הַמֶּ֜לֶךְ where הַ at the beginning of the word is the definite article "the." In Aramaic "the king" is מַלְכָּא where א֙ at the end of the word is the definite article "the."

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 6 2012 3:44 PM

Alan Charles Gielczyk:

The Hebrew word for king is מֶֽלֶךְ. In Hebrew "the king" would be הַמֶּ֜לֶךְ where הַ at the beginning of the word is the definite article "the." In Aramaic "the king" is מַלְכָּא where א֙ at the end of the word is the definite article "the."

Thanks Alan,

Having already read some today, I understand completely what you are saying.

I have this[pic, I also have another by Tov], would you not consider this to be helpful in my reading…please feel free to point out any errors -Thanks..

ok, this is all I got at the moment. Look forward to any comments or suggestions that may be lingering out there.......

[[[edit:  Hey, just wanted you to know I will read the book, but won't spend too much time with it, just want to get a better grip on this. thought i better add this before it got too late and i forget..Thanks. ]]]

 

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 1
Gordon | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 12 2018 9:10 AM

Hello,

Gordon here.  Just happen onto your discussion of a few years ago, and it raised a question.

How do we know the original letter Daniel was written in Hebrew AND Aramaic?

I had never thought of it before.  Today we read copies of copies of copies (and have confidence in their reliability).  But, as some think, maybe Daniel was written all in Aramaic and then transposed.  For that matter, the N.T. book of Hebrews could have been written in Hebrew and transposed into Greek.  I wouldn't know; I just read the translation in the English. So, I'd appreciate comments or websites that would address this.   How do we know the original Daniel was written in Aramaic AND Greek? Thanks, Gordon
Posts 9379
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 12 2018 9:34 AM

Gordon:

 So, I'd appreciate comments or websites that would address this.   How do we know the original Daniel was written in Aramaic AND Greek? Thanks, Gordon

Room4More ... wow, time has passed. He used to drive Matthew up the wall.

Strictly Logos, the two best:

https://www.logos.com/product/9569/the-aramaic-of-daniel-in-the-light-of-old-aramaic 

This looks at the aramaic, as to how old. It does locate some likely old aramaic.

And:

https://www.logos.com/product/9568/aramaic-daniel-and-greek-daniel-a-literary-comparison 

This looks at the greek LXX vs MT hebrew in Daniel to establish a control.. Then looks at the greek vs aramaic sections vs the hebrew control.Particularly the extras that got smoothed out.

Extra:

The product descriptions on Logos.com appear to be badly switched, and also incorrect.


Page 1 of 2 (24 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS