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.
...

Daniel (pt 4)

The first serious Detailed prophecy of Daniel is Chapter 8:
The vision of the Ram with 2 horns and Goat with 1 and 4 horns.

These are explicitly identified as the Medio-Persian and Greek Empires respectively,
and it is remarkable that both the descriptions correspond closely to
the actual history of these two empires in regard to Palestine as we know them:

The correspondence is so good that skeptics have simply assumed that Daniel, or at least Daniel 8,
was actually written as late as 150 B.C.

However, the language and internal evidence is strongly against such a late date,
including various inexplicable features of Daniel, such as its division into Hebrew and Aramaic halves,
the early Persian language features, and most especially the prophecy itself:

(1) Had an 'interpolator' inserted this prophecy into the Daniel collection,
he would surely have made it correspond more closely to parts of the history
which are of deep interest to Jews in particular, and used features which
were easily confirmable as history (i.e., 'prophecy fulfilled').

(2) An 'interpolator' would not have included certain other features,
which, without convoluted explanations would seem to invalidate the prophecy:
For instance, the statement in verse 14 that the time between the ending of the
daily sacrifice and cleansing of the sanctuary would be "2,300 days (yom)",
a ridiculously long period if years were meant, and unfortunately working out to
6.3 years if taken as literal days, whereas the actual pollution of the temple
during the final days of the Greek empire seems to have been only 3-4 years,
i.e., from 167 to 164, when Judah Maccabee cleansed the temple and restored
the Mosaic Sacrfices as per normal temple practice.

These make the idea of a 'late insertion' almost untenable.

The prophecy ignores important and easily dated historical features,
such as the Rebuilding of the Temple, the Installation of Queen Esther,
the Rebuilding of the Jerusalem Wall, and the various edicts allowing
Jews to practice their religion and laws.

A prophetic forger would certainly have used at least some of these important events
as proofs of prophetic ability and for their import to Jewish interests and concerns.

The prophecy instead focuses upon Alexander, and the fact that
he dies early and his 'Empire' is divided in four among his generals.

This is an amazing prophecy, but of no concern to Jews, or even Middle Eastern affairs,
excepting insofar as one or two Ptolemic and Seleucid kings argued over
the jurisdiction of Palestine, which isn't even mentioned in the prophecy.

It strikes us that Daniel's perplexity and disturbed response to this vision
is authentic and perfectly understandable.
Daniel himself would have been concerned about Jewish issues,
as he shows in chapter 9:1-20.

The dream content and his reaction are precisely what we would expect
of a person struggling to interpret a real dream which was totally foreign to him.

There is little doubt that this prophecy in chapter 8 of Daniel
established the book as canonical prophetic work by 160 B.C.,
even if it was too late to include in 'The Prophets' section of
the Tanakh, which had already been fixed by the end of the Persian period.

As a result, Daniel, along with Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles
were relegated to 'The Writings' section fo the Tanakh,
which was still open to the inclusion of new works,
for historical purposes.

Daniel (pt 3)

Here is the next part of our handy timeline for Daniel and the intertestamental period:

The Period for when the Greek Empire ruled over Palestine
can be conveniently broken up into two sections,
the first in which the Ptolemies ruled it from Egypt,
and the second in which the Seleucids ruled it from Babylon and Syria.

When Antiochus III took over, he confirmed the Jewish right to self-rule
and the practice of their own religion and laws.

When Antiochus the IV pushed a program of Hellenization,
the Jewish people rebelled and under Judah Maccabee ("The Hammer"),
they won their right to practice their religion and Temple worship,
and effectively also won self-rule around 151 B.C.

The Judaean lands remained autonomous from about 150 B.C. to 64 B.C.
under the Hasmodaean Dynasty, until the invasion and occupation of the Romans.

Excursion into Daniel (2): Persian Period

After Daniel, Jerusalem and Judaea pass under the rule of Persia,
the Second Empire in Daniel's Vision (i.e., the Silver Torso).

Under this era, three decrees are given, to end the 70 Years of
Babylonian Captivity, and give permission to rebuild the Temple
and restore the walls of Jerusalem.

This era also sees the last of the prophets and Canonical books
accepted finally by Jews and Protestants.

Daniel leaves us with his vision of "Seventy Weeks",
i.e., 490 years, seven times as long a period as
the one prophesied by Jeremiah.

But with the ending of the Babylonian Captivity,
Jeremiah is established as a prophet,
and Daniel, who witnesses the entire Captivity,
becomes his successor.

Other minor prophets pop in for the Temple rebuild and Jerusalem,
but they do not offer the grand visions of future empires like Daniel.

Excursion into Daniel

Just a quick chart showing the timeline for Daniel and how it fits into his predecessor Jeremiah.