صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني
[ocr errors]

7. In ix. 2 it is stated that Daniel ‘understood by the books (07903)' the number of years, during which, according to Jeremiah, Jerusalem should lie waste. The expression used implies that Jeremiah's prophecies formed part of a collection of sacred books, which, nevertheless, it may be safely affirmed, was not the case in 538 B.C. 1

8. The incorrect explanation of the name Belteshazzar in iv. 8 is often quoted as evidence that the writer, if not the speaker (Nebuchadnezzar), was ignorant of the Babylonian language; but possibly it is only an assonance, not an etymology (in our sense of the word), which is implied by the king's words: see the note ad loc. 9.

Other indications adduced to shew that the Book of Daniel is not the work of a contemporary, are such as the following:—The improbability that Daniel and his companions, all strict Jews, should have suffered themselves to be initiated into the superstitious arts of the 'wise men' (p. 14 ff.), or that he should have been accepted as their president by the ‘wise men' themselves (ch. i.; cf. ii. 13, 48)2; the improbability that Nebuchadnezzar should hold all the wise men of Babylon, including Daniel and his three companions, responsible for the failure of. some, and condemn them to death even before their skill had been tried (ii. 12, 13); Nebuchadnezzar's seven years' insanity ('lycanthropy'), with his public proclamation respecting it (iv. 1-3, 34-37); the absolute terms in which both he and Darius, while retaining, so far as appears, their idolatry, recognize the eternal and universal sovereignty of the God of Israel

[ocr errors]

Harpocration and Suidas (Prince, p. 49 n.) that the name of the coin
‘darik' (dapeckós) was derived from a king ‘Darius,' though not Darius
Hystaspis, but an earlier king of that name, has been supposed to be
indirect testimony to the historical character of Darius the Mede; but
its correctness is, upon philological grounds, extremely questionable
(see Prince, p. 265).
1 Cf. Ryle, Canon of the 0. T., p. 104 ff.

Lenormant felt the latter difficulty so strongly that he regarded the words, or clauses, in ii. 48, iv. 9, v. 11, 12, which attributed this position to Daniel, as interpolated (1a Divination chez les Chaldéens, 1875, p. 219 f.). This, however, is an expedient of very questionable legitimacy.


(iv. 1-3, 34–37 ; vi. 25—27: cf. ii. 47, iii. 29). On these and some other similar considerations our knowledge is hardly such as to give us an objective criterion for estimating their cogency. The circumstances alleged will appear improbable, or not improbable, according as the critic, upon independent grounds, has satisfied himself that the Book is the work of a later author, or written by Daniel himself. It might be hazardous to use the statements in question in proof of the late date of the Book ; though, if its late date were established on other grounds, it is certainly true that they would be more naturally explained as due to the manner in which the past was viewed by a writer living at some distance from it, than as statements of actual fact authenticated by a contemporary.

Of the arguments that have been here stated, while 8 is doubtful, and 9 should be used with reserve, the rest all possess weight,-particularly 4, 5, and 6. They do not, however, except 2 (which, standing alone, it would be hazardous to press), shew positively that the Book is a work of the second cent. B.C.; but they point with some cogency to the conclusion that it reflects the traditions, and historical impressions, of an age considerably later than that of Daniel himself.

ii. The evidence of the language of Daniel must next be considered.

(1) The number of Persian words in the Book, especially in the Aramaic part, is remarkable.

The number is at least 15, if not more: viz. Diona nobles (i. 3 ; also Est. i. 3, vi. 6), jana choice food, delicacy (i. 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, xi. 26), XT18 certain (ii. 5, 8), 077 limb (ii. 5, iii. 29), 07 law (ii. 9, 13, 15, vi. 5, 8, 12, 15, vii. 25; also Ezr. viii. 36, and often in Est.), 11 secret (ii. 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 47, iv. 9), 1977098 satrap (iii. 2, 3, 27, vi. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7; also Ezr. viii. 36, Est. iii. 12, viii. 9, ix. 3), 792778 counsel-giver (iii. 2, 3), 72n7 law-bearer, justice (iii. 2, 3), 17 kind (iii. 5, 7, 10, 15; also 2 Ch. xvi. 14, Ps. cxliv. 13, Ecclus. xxxvii. 28, xlix. 8 [Heb.]), bina message, order, decree (properly something going [i.e. sent] to), even in the weakened sense of word, or thing (iii. 16,

For further particulars on most of the following words, see the note on the first occurrence of each.


[ocr errors]

iv. 17; also Ezr. iv. 17, v. 7, II, vi. 11, Est. i. 20, Eccl. viii. 11), 797107 minister (iii. 24, 27, iv. 36, vi. 7), 770 president (vi. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7), 173 receptacle, sheath (vii. 15-if the reading be correct; also i Ch. xxi. 27); 978 palace, throne-room (xi. 45); probably also 7212) present (ii

. 6, v. 17), 527D mantle (iii. 21, 27), and 7'397 necklace (v. 7, 16, 29). 17373 (iii. 2, 3), and kinan (iii. 2, 3), are both uncertain.

These words are not Assyrian or Babylonian (as peþāh, ii. 8, and sāgān, iii. 2, for example, are): they are distinctively Persian?. Some of them describe offices or institutions, and are not found elsewhere in the 0. T., or occur only in Ezra, Esther, and other late parts of the 0. T., written after the establishment of the Persian rule: the mention of 'satraps' under Nebuchadnezzar (iii. 2, 3, 27) is alone a remarkable anachronism. Others (as those for law, limb, secret, kind, word) are used exactly as in the later Aramaic, and are of a kind that would not be borrowed by one people from another unless intercourse between them had subsisted for a considerable time. That words such as these should be found in books written after the Persian empire was organised, and when Persian influences prevailed, is not more than would be expected; Persian words (both some of those noted here, and also others) occur in Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and the Chronicles?, and many were permanently naturalised in Aramaic (both Syriac and the Aramaic of the Targums); but that they should be used as a matter of course by Daniel under the Babylonian supremacy, or in the description of Babylonian institutions before the conquest of Cyrus, is in the last degree improbable. The argument is confirmed by the testimony of the Inscriptions. The numerous contract-tablets which have come down to us from the age of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors, and which represent the every-day language of commercial life, shew no traces of Persian influence; and if the language of Babylonia

* The attempt made in the Speaker's Commentary to shew some of these words to be Semitic, is a resort of desperation.

oks, it will be recollected, contain nothing earlier than C. 450 B.C. (the reign of Artaxerxes); and they are mostly considerably later.

2 These

was uninfluenced by Persia, that of Israel would be far less likely to be so influenced 1.

(2) Not only, however, does Daniel contain Persian words, it contains at least three Greek words: Don'p kitharos, iii. 5, 7, 10, 15=kíðapıs; 1973Da psantērin, iii. 5, 7 (7'7D3D), 10, 15= Valtýpova; 1'910 sūmponyāh, iii. 5, 15 (A.V. dulcimer) = συμφωνία3. Whatever might conceivably be the case with κίθαρις, it is incredible that ψαλτήριον and συμφωνία can have reached Babylon c. 550 B.C. Anyone who has studied Greek history knows what the condition of the Greek world was in the sixth century B.C., and is aware that the arts and inventions of civilised life streamed then into Greece from the East, not from Greece eastwards4. Still, if the instruments named were of a primitive kind, such as the kíðapıs (in Homer), it is just possible--though, in view of the fact that the Semitic languages have their own name for the ‘lyre,' by no means probablethat it might be an exception to the rule, and that the Babylonians might have been indebted for their knowledge of it to the Greeks; so that, had don'p stood alone, it could not, perhaps, have been pressed. But no such exception can be made in the case of ψαλτήριον and συμφωνία, both derived forms, the former found first in Aristotle, the latter first in

1 Cf. Sayce, Monuments, p. 493 f.

2 With 1 for .cov, as in 17773D = ouvéoplov, 197'0D = uvotnplov, &c.; and with n and interchanging, as in pn's and po'! (TITTÁKLON), and other words.

8 Cf. 17'ya91d in the sense of double flute in the Mishna. The form 17'17'd in iii. 10 is remarkably illustrated by 11?D=qúupwvoi, in the sense agreed, in the great bilingual inscription from Palmyra of A.D. 137 (see Lidzbarski, Handbuch der Nord-Semitischen Epigraphik, pp. 330, 467 1. 46, 468 11. 14, +5). It is difficult to understand why Behrmann (pp. ix-x) should have recourse to a non-existent oupúria. + Cf. Sayce in the Contemporary Review, Dec. 1878, p. 60 ff

. Such facts as that a Mytilenaean, the brother of the poet Alcaeus, fought in the ranks of the Babylonians, c. 600 B.C. (Strabo, XIII. ii. 3), or that Psammitichus (B.C. 664-610) introduced Greek settlers and mercenaries into Egypt, are altogether insufficient to make it probable that Greek words could have found their way to Babylon in the sixth cent. B.C.: cf. Whitehouse in the Expos. Times, 1894, March, p. 284 ff., July, p. 474 f.

Plato, and in the sense of concerted music (or, perhaps, of a specific musical instrument) first in Polybius? These words, it may be confidently affirmed, could not have been used in the Book of Daniel unless it had been written after the dissemination of Greek influences in Asia through the conquests of Alexander the Great (cf. pp. xxxiii ff.) 4.

(3) The Aramaic of Daniel (which is all but identical with that of Ezra) is a Western Aramaic dialect, of the type spoken in and about Palestine3. It is nearly allied to the Aramaic of the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan; and still more so to the Aramaic dialects spoken E. and S.E. of Palestine, in Palmyra and Nabataea, and known from inscriptions dating from the 3rd cent. B.C. to the 2nd cent. A.D. In some respects it is of an earlier type than the Aramaic of Onkelos and Jonathan; and this fact was formerly supposed to be a ground for the antiquity of the Book. But the argument is not conclusive. For (1) the differences are not considerable", and

1 And, singularly enough, in his account of the festivities in which Antiochus Epiphanes indulged (xxvi. 10. 5; xxxi. 4.8); see p. 39 n. In Plato and Aristotle ovuowvia means only harmony.

? The Speaker's Commentary makes the vain endeavour to prove these three words to be Semitic !

3 Nöldeke in the Encyclopaedia Britannica”, xxi. 6476—648a (=Die Semitischen Sprachen, 1899, pp. 35, 37); Kautzsch, Gramm. des Bibl.- Aram. SS 1, 2,6. The idea that the Jews forgot their Hebrew in Babylonia, and spoke in 'Chaldee' when they returned to Palestine, is unfounded. Haggai and Zechariah and other post-exilic writers use Hebrew: Aramaic is exceptional. Hebrew was still normally spoken C. 430 B.C. in Jerusalem (Neh. xiii. 24). The Hebrews, after the Captivity, acquired gradually the use of Aramaic from their neighbours in and about Palestine. See, for example, Wright, Compar. Gramni. of the Semitic Languages (1890), p. 16: Now do not for a moment suppose that the Jews lost the use of Hebrew in the Babylonian Captivity, and brought back with them into Palestine this so-called Chaldee. The Aramean dialect, which gradually got the upper hand since 4-5 cent. B.C., did not come that long journey across the Syrian desert; it was there, on the spot; and it ended by taking possession of the field, side by side with the kindred dialect of the Samaritans. The term 'Chaldee' for the Aramaic of either the Bible or the Targums is a misnomer (due originally to a misunderstanding of Dan. ii. 4), the use of which is only a source of confusion. The proper term for the Aramaic of Ezra and Daniel is ‘Biblical Aramaic.'

They are carefully collected on the basis, largely, of M'Gill's



« السابقةمتابعة »