Daniel (Pt 15): Linguistic Nonsense

In the 19th and early 20th century, Daniel's critics
expanded their arguments by attempting to use linguistic evidence
to assign the book of Daniel a late date, for the purpose of
discrediting its prophecies.

As usual, the poisonous skepticism and unbelief came from Germany,
and was transmitted to France (the seat of apostacy),
and then translated and transferred to Britain:

The Greek Words in the Book of Daniel
Hartwig Derenbourg and Morris Jastrow, Jr.

Hebraica
Vol. 4, No. 1 (Oct., 1887), pp. 7-13

THE GREEK WORDS IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL.
BY PROF. HARTWIG DERENBOURG. [France]

[Translated from the French by Prof. Morris Jastrow, Jr., Ph. D.]

"The conquests of Alexander, in the year 332 B.C., gave the Greek language a preponderating influence in Palestine. Hebrew grammar, indeed, firmly resisted the Macedonian sway, as it formerly presented an inflexible front against Persian rule; but the vocabulary was enriched by the addition of a number of foreign words, imported with new conceptions for which there existed no equivalents in the national tongue. It is of the Greek elements in the Book of Daniel that I propose to treat.

The date and composition of the Book of Daniel have been fixed with an absolute certainty. It is a Palestinian work (1) of the year 169 or 168[B.C.] before the Christian era.

Hebrew and an Aramaic dialect, known as biblical Aramaic, are used alternately, as in the Book of Ezra. But our author goes even further, and does not hesitate to give his work a still stronger polyglottic character by the introduction of Persian and Greek words. M. Haug, in a learned monograph, has traced the etymologies of the former [the Persian words],(2) and I shall endeavor to do the same for the latter [the Greek words]."

_____________________

(1) Apart from the linguistic point of view, which in itself is decisive, the contents of ch. IX., referring to Jerusalem, removes all further doubts.

(2) M. Haug, in Ewald's (ed.) Jahrbuecher d. Bibl. Wissenschaft (1853), V., pp. 151-164.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/527148?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

Note that this 'brilliant scholarship' is based on secondary work
done in the 1850s in the case of the alleged 'Persian' loan words in Daniel,
and work prior to 1887 for the supposed 'Greek loan words'.

Most importantly, note that the 'certainty' is inversely proportional to
the ignorance of the critics.

These idiots actually claim to be able to date the composition of the
entire book of Daniel down to within ONE YEAR of accuracy,
with a handful (3) of apparent Greek loan words. - in 1887.

This imported fad from Germany and France is exactly what
S.R. Driver based his own supposed dating for the book of Daniel upon,
in his "The Book of Daniel" (Cambridge, 1922).

In fact, the linguistic knowledge at that time (1880-1940)
was near-worthless for narrowing down the composition
and cultural influences, and hence establishing the date.

Yet somehow, Driver's work has been quoted ever since,
as if it were a scientific fact based on actual scientific, historical,
and linguistic data.

Driver argued:

‘…the Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports, and the Aramaic permits, a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (332 B.C.).’

S.R. Driver, ‘An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament’, page 508, (1891, reprinted 1956)

Generalising statements such as Driver’s often lead people to believe that Daniel is littered with Greek words and phrases, betraying the Maccabbean culture in which it was written. This is not the case. There are only three Greek terms in Daniel, and they are found in only one chapter of the entire book, and all three of them are musical instruments (Daniel 3:5, 3:7, 3:10, 3:15).

https://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/the-book-of-daniel-420/
 

Recently, scholars (with less bias, and less urgent agendas)
have openly acknowledged the need to update the assessment
of the evidence pertinent to dating Daniel linguistically.
Regarding the Aramaic language itself, K.A. Kitchen summarises as follows: 

"There is today ample scope for reassessment. The inscriptional material for Old and Imperial Aramaic and later phases of the language is constantly growing. Oone need only mention the Brooklyn and Borchardt-Driver documents published in 1953 and 1954 or the Aramaic documents from Qumran and other cave-sites of Graeco-Roman palestine. Furthermore, some earlier views require revision in the light of facts hitherto unknown or neglected.

In dealing with the book of Daniel, theological presuppositions are apt to colour even the treatment and dating of its Aramaic. The only fair way to proceed is to leave open the whole period c. 540-160 BC until the end of any inquest on the Aramaic, as far as its date is concerned.
...

"

- The Aramaic of Daniel, D.J. Wiseman, Ed.,
Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, K. A. Kitchen, p.31-32, (1965, Tyndale Press)

 Yet in the Critical Edition of the Hebrew O.T. of which Driver himself was involved (he wrote volume on Leviticus), the textual critical situation already
admitted the precariousness of relying on at least one of these supposed 'Greek loan words', which under the rules of textual criticism of the day would have ben flagged as 'Harmonizations' and expunged from the text as 'glosses' or insertions:

-The Sacred Books of the Old Testament; a critical edition of the Hebrew text Footnotes,  p.21 (vol. 18 - Daniel, 1896, Leipzig)


Just in passing, its worthwhile to examine another absurdity in
the footnote (1) offered by Derenbourg/Jastrow (1887):

In the text they claim the work was composed in Palestine (i.e., Israel),
NOT Babylon, as the text itself essentially claims.

"It is a Palestinian work (1) of the year 169 or 168 [B.C.]..."

The idea they want to sell is that this was not composed anywhere near
Babylon, but is really all about Judaea and Jerusalem being persecuted
under the Seleucid Greeks from Turkey and Syria.

For "proof" they offer this in the footnote:

"1. Apart from the linguistic point of view, which in itself is decisive,
the contents of chapter 9, referring to Jerusalem, removes all further doubts."

But these same authors argue that the book is tainted with "Persian loan words".
These Persian loan words, rather than being simply acknowledged
as evidence of composition in Babylon by Daniel in 538 B.C.,
are now ignored, or rather assumed to have been part of late Aramaic in
Palestine.
The Persian flavour of Daniel is now interpreted as the style of Aramaic
in Seleucid Palestine! Its a no-win situation for Daniel, Ezra, and Chronicles.
These books which naturally reflect a Persian flavour are now made into
the assumed new standard for Palestinian Aramaic of the 2nd century.

Thus, evidence that should naturally be seen as Persian influence,
has been turned into 'evidence' of a 'late Palestinian dialect',
for which the only examples are works previously classed as
"Middle Persian Aramaic" of the 6th century B.C.

The second "proof" in the footnote is also equally absurd:

The fact that Daniel mourns and prays over Jerusalem and his own people,
while captive in Babylon, is somehow construed as evidence of a
Palestinian Jew whining about the persecutions of General Antiochius IV
(Epiphanes) against Jews in Palestine in 167-164 B.C., when
in fact, the Maccabeans were violently fighting and eventually routed
the Greeks, securing their autonomy for the future Hasmonean Dynasty.

Nothing however, in the entire chapter 9, other than the mention of
Jerusalem, shows any connection whatever to events in Palestine
under the Greek persecutions of the Seleucids, in particular Antiochius IV.

Far from "removing all doubts", Daniel ch 9 cries out for an explanation:

Why the lack of any reference at all to any acts of Antiocius IV ?

Why no mention of such acts as putting to death of Jews who obeyed
the laws of Moses, or refusal to participate in Greek sports,
or resistance to Greek culture and influence, or the defiling of the Temple?

Why are there no connections at all to Greek cultural invasion?
Not even a single Greek loanword or phrase even unconsciously used
by the author, who according to the critics is now living in a Palestine
dominated by Greeks and Greek culture for over 160 years? (!?!?)

If the Greeks had no impact at all, even on the content of Daniel,
what was the war about?
How could a 2nd century Maccabean author keep utterly silent about
the main points of terrorizing contention between Greeks and Jews?

The theory of the critics was that Daniel was to inspire Jews to resist
Greek invasion, both physically and culturally.

Where is any sign that the author was even aware of 2nd Century Greek
culture, apart from the mention in chapter 3 of three apparently ancient
Greek or at least Mediterranean musical instruments?
Instruments that had been imported into Egypt and Babylon centuries before Daniel?

Daniel (Pt 14): Dead Sea Scroll Evidence for Masoretic Text of Daniel

A few have complained about the general nature of our charts.

But these are provided for educational and illustrative purposes only.

When we delve into the real detailed evidence,
we find an abundance of evidence for the authenticity of
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel.

Take for instance the impact of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
has had on the dating and timelines for the Hebrew Canon:

I will here quote Dr. James Price's excellent summary of the
detailed evidence and its meaning and impact on evaluating
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel.

Price is responding to an overly skeptical extremist rant by Till:

 The Skeptical Review Online (1998)


The Book of Isaiah

"...
A complete manuscript of the book of Isaiah (1QIsaA) exists from the second century B. C., and it has about 95% agreement with the Masoretic text. Another manuscript of Isaiah (1QIsaB) contains much of the text of 46 chapters of the book. This manuscript is almost identical with the current form of the Masoretic text. Tov (pp. 31-32) listed a catalogue of the types of differences between 1QIsaB and BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia), the accepted form of the Masoretic text today: (1) Orthography (spelling differences), 107; (2) Added waw conjunctive, 16; (3) Lack of waw conjunctive, 13; (4) Article (added/ omitted), 4; (5) Difference in consonants 10; (6) Missing letter, 5; (7) Different grammatical number, 14; (8) Differences in pronouns, 6; (9) Different grammatical form, 24; (10) Different proposition, 9; (11) Different words, 11; (12) Omission of words, 5; (13) Addition of words, 6; (14) Different sequence, 4.
That amounts to 234 differences of any kind "all of which concern minutiae" (Tov, p. 31). However, items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 14 have little or no effect on meaning, so they may be disregarded as insignificant. This leaves only 90 differences that may be regarded as of any possible significance.
There are 66 chapters in the book of Isaiah, 1291 verses, 16,930 words, and 66,884 letters in the current Masoretic text of Isaiah. If the number of words in 1QIsaB is estimated as 16,930 x 46/66 x .66 = 7,788 words, then 1QIsaB agrees with BHS (7,788 - 234) / 7,788 = 97.0%; or if the insignificant variations are excluded, the texts agree (7,788 - 90)/ 7,788 = 98.8%. That is about the kind of agreement that any manuscript of the Masoretic text has.


The Masoretic Text of the Hebrew O.T.

Regarding the Masoretic text in the era of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tov, who is liberal in his approach the Biblical text, wrote:

• "Similar analysis is suggested by Andersen-Freedman... in their analysis of 4QSamB, one of the earliest Qumran texts: `(I)nsofar as there is nothing un-Masoretic about the spelling in 4QSamB, we can infer that the Masoretic system and set of spelling rules were firmly in place in all principles and particulars by the third century BCE.'"Because of the meticulous care of those who were involved in the copying of [the Masoretic text], the range of differences between the members of the [Masoretic] group was from the outset very small. One should remember that the temple employed professional magihim, "correctors" or "revisers," whose task it was to safeguard precision in the writing and transmission of the text (Tov, p. 32).

Such correctors or revisers were not responsible for altering the text, but for correcting or revising manuscript copies that varied from the official exemplar in their care. It was this meticulous care of the text that led scholars like these in the next generation to confirm that the Masoretic text was the authentic tradition. This places the textual tradition behind the Masoretic text at least in the fourth and likely in the fifth century.


The Aramaic Targum of Jeremiah

But the witness of the Aramaic translation known as the Targum gives good reason to place the Masoretic text of Jeremiah in at least the sixth century. Concerning the Aramaic Targum, Ernst Wurthwein, a recognized authority on Old Testament textual criticism, stated: "The Jewish tradition associating it (the Targum) with Ezra (cf. Neh. 8:8) may well be correct" (The Text of the Old Testament, Trans. by Erroll F. Rhodes Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979, p. 75). Now the importance of the Aramaic Targum of the book of Jeremiah is that it was translated from a Hebrew text of the Masoretic tradition (Tov, p. 149). If Wurthwein is correct, and there is no reason to doubt him, then the Masoretic tradition of Jeremiah was already well established as authoritative in the fifth century B. C. This gives reason to accept the sixth-century origin of the book with little reason to doubt it. Not a shred of textual evidence exists that suggests that the date of Jeremiah's prophecy was ever altered.

...

If such evidence exists I'm sure Mr. Till would have called it to our attention.


Multiple Corroboration of Historical Witnesses and Texts

This is supported by several fifth- or sixth-century witnesses to the existence of the book, and the prophecy under debate in particular:

(1) the author of the Chronicles (2 Chron. 36:22-23),
(2) the author of Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezra 1:1-5),
(3) the prophet Zechariah (Zech. 1:12; 7:5), and
(4) the sixth-century prophet Daniel (Dan. 9:2).

These very early witnesses knew Jeremiah's book, and the prophecy under debate in particular. All of these witnesses accepted Jeremiah as a historical person and the author of the prophecy. All regarded the prophecy as genuine, not fraudulent.


The Witness and Date for Daniel

In fact, Daniel read Jeremiah's prophecy before it was fulfilled (Dan. 9:1-2). This is evident from the fact that Daniel did not record the fulfillment of the prophecy--something that would have been significant to the content of his ninth chapter. I know Mr. Till rejects the date and authorship of Daniel, and I am not interested in debating that question. But there is no reason to late-date Daniel except Mr. Till's anti-supernatural presupposition. In my own opinion, Daniel is a valid witness because his contemporary, the prophet Ezekiel, validated his date and existence (Ezek. 14:14, 20; 28:3). This does not include the mention of the prophet Jeremiah by the historian Josephus, the authors of some of the Apocryphal books (Sirach 49:6; 2 Macc 2:1, 5, 7; 15:14, 15; 1 Esdras 1:28, 32, 47, 57; 2:1; 4 Esdras 2:18), the Mishnah and the Talmud. All these ancient sources regarded the prophet and his writings to be authentic.
...

2009 Hebrew Scroll Find:

Possibly dated within four years of Temple's destruction (c. 74 A.D.):

The IAA press release:

Fifteen lines of Hebrew text, written from right to left and one below the other, can be discerned in the document. In the upper line of the text one can clearly read the sentence “Year 4 to the destruction of Israel”. This is likely to be the year 74 CE – in the event the author of the document is referring to the year when the Second Temple was destroyed during the Great Revolt. Another possibility is the year 139 CE – in the event the author is referring to the time when the rural settlement in Judah was devastated at the end of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.

The name of a woman, “Miriam Barat Ya‘aqov”, is also legible in the document followed by a name that is likely to be that of the settlement where she resided: Misalev. This is probably the settlement Salabim. The name Miriam Bat Ya‘aqov is a common name in the Second Temple period. Also mentioned in the document are the names of other people and families, the names of a number of ancient settlements from the Second Temple period and legal wording which deals with the property of a widow and her relinquishment of it."

The Bibliahebraica.blogspot comments:

"Since the find is unprovenanced, the authenticity of the scroll is officially yet to be determined. After viewing the photo, I strongly suspect it will turn out to be genuine. Finds like this of legal or business documents in Hebrew provide important data for exploring the issues of literacy and the use of Hebrew in Palestine in the 1st-2nd centuries CE. Gone are the days of simplistic models of how Hebrew all but died out, supplanted by Aramaic and Greek. Why use a nearly dead classical language to record a legal transaction? It's intended to be read and the terms understood."

peace
Nazaroo