Daniel 4 - internal helps to understanding the passage from the Aramaic - HELP

[Eoghan]

Maybe it is my fault that I have posted in the wrong forum, (visit OT prophets).

Can you shed any light on the following questions from a more detailed understanding of the Aramaic?

Q1. Who wrote chapter 4, either in it's entirety or in sections? (I suspect the use of first person and third person may help here)

Q2. In verse eight Daniel is described as he who was named after Bel, Nebs. god. Is this past tense indicative of Nebs. conversion? (I am unclear just how strong this evidence is)

Q3. I am interested in when Daniel is called Daniel and when Belteshazzar. Is there a past tense implied when Neb explains that Daniel was also known as Belteshazzar?

Q4. When using the third person for a section are tenses altered? (In english, when I say directly to my wife that I did put the dog out it is clearly past tense. On the other hand using the third person in a lab report, to say that a test tube was placed in a rack is past tense but weaker, more observation?)

I might be whistling in the dark here but there must be some internal helps in the aramaic - no?

 

[bpkantor]

First, when it switches to Aramaic is Chapter 2 verse 4 which says: Then the Chaldeans spoke Aramaic to the king...

Then the last verse is 7:28 which reads, until here is the end of the matter, my thought much troubled me and my countenance changed but I kept the matter in my heart. I think this shows that the Aramaic is definitely designed and intended (for literary reasons and because the readers would primarily speak Aramaic)

Some say, and I think it makes a lot of sense, that the reason for the first person is because this is the decree that Nebuchadnezzar writes to his kingdom.



In verse 8 there is no past tense with regards to Daniel, it simply says in the Aramaic: "Daniel whose name Belteshazzar"

In Aramaic the tenses do not alter depending on the person. The same past tense would be for 1st person as well as 3rd person. Although it should be noted that sometimes we will have things translated as verbs in the English that aren't present in the Aramaic. For example, like I mentioned, "Daniel whose name Belteshazzar OR Daniel which his name Belteshazzar" ends up being translated with the word "was" to express equality in time to match the primary verb.

Anyways, I hope this helps.

God bless,
--Ben

 

[Eoghan]

For example, like I mentioned, "Daniel whose name Belteshazzar OR Daniel which his name Belteshazzar" ends up being translated with the word "was" to express equality in time to match the primary verb.

Could you clarify this for me Ben? From the context is Nebuchadnezzar saying Daniel was named after Bel or that he is called Belteshazzar after Bel.

Or cant we tell? It would annoy me if a preacher expounded the English text to mean that Nebuchadnezzar was apologising for past imposition of a name after an idol when the text can equally well be read the other way!

Most translations put a past tense in - why? Is this to be consistent
with the primary verb? What is the primary verb.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Why can't it simply be a reference to the fact that this person (whose name is acknowledged first by his Hebrew name) goes by two names in the courts of Babylon?

Who is this person? It's "Daniel" (a fine name, maybe even the name I prefer to call him now), specifically the Jew, taken captive ages ago, who received a court-name from his captor (me) "Belteshazzar."

I don't sense any overt or implicit apology there, just a statement of fact. That's who he is, that's what happened, how he came to be identified.

 

[bpkantor]

I would agree with Rev. Buchanan that it is simply the fact that Daniel had two names (his Hebrew name, and the name he got when he was taken into Babylon). Perhaps the way it is written shows that the king referred to Daniel by his Hebrew name but knew that those reading the decree would know a Babylonian name better.

In regards to the past tense, it is simply the idea of putting in the verb "is" where we need it in English but not needed in Hebrew/Aramaic

For example..

"The man who is near the river." (English grammar)
"The man who near the river." (Aramaic grammar)

If you add a primary sentence to these noun phrases above, the time has to match, so we say...

"I see the man who is near the river."
"I saw the man who was near the river."

Notice the change in the tense of the verb "to be." So then, in Aramaic...

"I see the man who near the river."
"I saw the man who near the river."

When we translate it into English we have to add the verb "to be" and therefore the tense will match the primary verb ("see" or "saw"). I hope that makes sense.

All in all, in response to your main question, I think Neb. is just referencing the fact that Daniel had a Hebrew as well as Babylonian name.

God bless,
--Ben

 

[Eoghan]

Why can't it simply be a reference to the fact that this person (whose name is acknowledged first by his Hebrew name) goes by two names in the courts of Babylon?

Who is this person? It's "Daniel" (a fine name, maybe even the name I prefer to call him now), specifically the Jew, taken captive ages ago, who received a court-name from his captor (me) "Belteshazzar."

I don't sense any overt or implicit apology there, just a statement of fact. That's who he is, that's what happened, how he came to be identified.

The reason I ask is that I listened to a sermon from sermonaudio where the past tense was given as evidence of Nebuchadnezzars conversion and his new found Faith in the God of Abraham and a distancing himself from the god Bel and all those Babylonian gods.

I am just questioning whether the preacher knew something more about Aramaic than I. It would appear that he didn't and was exaggerating (falsifying?) the textual evidence.