Daniel - why the Aramaic and Hebrew?

[Eoghan]

I was interested to hear the contrasting views of Jay Adams and R.K. Harrison.

The former is of the opinion that the Hebrew sections are of primary import to the Jews while the central Aramaic section was deserving of wider circulation.

The latter takes the view that it is a literary device of Mesopotamia (?) to heighten the contrast for the central text. He also alludes to a similar literary device in Job.

Observations?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Did you read my earlier response? http://www.puritanboard.com/f43/first-thoughts-daniel-65396/
I think Harrison's view is closer to the truth.

 

[Eoghan]

I didn't realise that Daniel 2:4 actually draws attention to the transition into Aramaic. Having read a bit more I am aware that the Jews have an ambivalent attitude to Daniel. Not only because it tells them the Messiah has come but because it shows that Gentiles as much as Jews are subjects of Divine Providence. Yes the Aramaic is a "device" to highlight the middle section of Daniel BUT it is probably highlighted BECAUSE it concerns not just the Jews but the Gentiles. Pagan man will establish four kingdoms in an attempt to organise and bring stability yet each of these crumbles and it is the kingdom inaugurated by the Messiah that will endure! This is not easy reading for Jewish ears, that they will be a blessing to others yes, but this that all the earth will be swallowed up by one Messianic kingdom? Where is the Jewish nation in that plan? There is a plan to widen the scope of salvation and that is outlined here in Daniel. This interpretation was given FOR the king of Babylon (and the Jews).