Comments
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
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
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