Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Happy's avatar
3dEdited

Hi again! A few comments.

(1) I don't understand why you are so sure there's a distinction between Daniel and Ezra. Ezra has plenty of Aramaic passages that are attached to the "administrative" sections but are not the themselves administrative. Six of the 12 chapters in Daniel are Hebrew, which is not consistent with the theory you advance here. Daniel's Aramaic can be understood, like Ezra's, to be administrative in nature, since all the Aramaic sections are dealing with Daniel's and his compatriot's dealings with Babylonian and Persian kings, except for Chapter 7. It's entirely possible that whoever composed Daniel (probably the אנשי כנסת הגדולה) copied administrative documents from the Babylonian/Persian archives basically verbatim, which would explain the use of Aramaic. The last five chapters in Daniel are not dealing with Daniel's involvement with the kings, but his own prophecy, and are therefore in Hebrew.

(2) You say that the explanation of the classic meforshim on כדנן תימר להון in Yirmiyah is not sufficiently satisfying, but you don’t explain why. Your own explanation doesn’t seem satisfying at all. A random interpolation just in this one spot? This satisfies you? And what of the fact that this random interpolation just so happens to be where Yirmiyah is instructing the Jews what to tell the Aramaic-speaking Babylonians? Just a coincidence?

(3) I think there are many more places where Aramaic words appear in the Hebrew Bible, just not as blatantly. For example II Kings 15:10, Joshua 22:8, Numbers 24:4, Deuteronomy 33:2, a bunch of words in Shir Hashirim like שוק. It appears that Jewish scribes knew Aramaic and had no problem using it if they wanted to (see II Kings 18:26), but preferred Hebrew.

Expand full comment
Yossi Kenner's avatar

There is a matter of debate when the 70 years starts and when they end. It is also difficult to know what chronology was being used by the author of Daniel. Famously, Seder Olam's short chronology went wrong mainly due to its reliance of Daniel 11:2-3 and the interpretation that the forth kingdom was Rome. Josephus, and a 3rd Century BCE Jewish historian Demetrius had a longer chronology for this period. Daniel 9:24-29 most likely also uses a longer chronology. So, it isn't exactly a slam dunk that the by the Maccabean period, all chronological issues with the 70 years were understood the same way as Rabbinic Judaism developed.

Expand full comment
45 more comments...

No posts