First thoughts on Daniel

[Eoghan]

I was pleased to find a sermon by THE Jay Adams on Daniel. One of the points he raises is that it is written in both Hebrew and Aramaic. He regarded the Hebrew sections as primarily of interest to the Jews while the Aramaic had a wider audience in mind. I wonder what others think of that?

I also came across a sermon by our own Jonathan Hunt. What ocurred to me as a teacher is the extent to which education was used by the Babylonian Empire to "assimilate" and control the conquered nations. I am very aware of the extent to which state education is used as a means of social engineering - I just wish more Christians were!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I don't agree with the first point, at least as you've summarized it. I don't think the contents of the linguistic "divisions" really have anything to do with particular divisions of humanity, and which portions of Daniel they would be more interested in, or which concern them (Gentile/Jew).

If the two languages were used of God to teach one thing, it might be this: that God is not bound to use either Hebrew, and by extension the Israelite nation, or the Jews in particular. When later the NT came for preservation to God's people in Greek (instead of "sacred" Hebrew), there was already precedent in accepted Scripture.

 

[Eoghan]

I don't agree with the first point, at least as you've summarized it. I don't think the contents of the linguistic "divisions" really have anything to do with particular divisions of humanity, and which portions of Daniel they would be more interested in, or which concern them (Gentile/Jew).

If the two languages were used of God to teach one thing, it might be this: that God is not bound to use either Hebrew, and by extension the Israelite nation, or the Jews in particular. When later the NT came for preservation to God's people in Greek (instead of "sacred" Hebrew), there was already precedent in accepted Scripture.

I can't help feeling this is your gut feeling Bruce. I was rather hoping to open it up and discuss parallels with other passages of Scripture. As Harrison has noted Daniel appears to use a literary device indicative of an early date and following Mesopotamian conventions in literature. This raises the question of literary styles, now forgotten. This I would have thought would merit some discussion of it's own accord. If this was the Mesopotamian equivalent of a highlighter pen designed to draw attention to the central body of the work - what do we learn by taking a highlighter to the Aramaic passage? Indeed should we? If this was the intention of the "literary style" should that not be reflected somehow in our translations? S

Should we use bold type, italics or a different colour for the text? Has this been used elsewhere in translations? I am sure I have seen NT quotations putting the quotations in a differently paginated (?)paragraph!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I said in the other thread I thought Harrison's take had more merit than Adams'.

Your point about trying to represent the difference in the English translation is interesting, however, I don't know how we'd accomplish that in a way that wasn't odd and distracting. Is the "form" as inspired as the "content"? We've always affirmed the latter, but the requirement to translate into other tongues reduces our dependence on the original form in more ways than simply this one. Perhaps, using a slightly different font would achieve the "right" effect...

There are portions of Ezra that are in Aramaic as well. There is a verse in Jeremiah. There is a word here and there in other books. Should we try to be "consistent" in all such places? Do all these places compel us with a "highlight" to the same degree? I just don't think that the choice of language impacts our interpretation of the content. Nor have I been able to determine how the difference impacts a true understanding of the book as a whole.