(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.
Thanks for thoughtful comments! I'm gonna try to respond a bit to each point, but in case you want follow up, I'm gonna do so in seperate comments for each point.
1. Firstly, Daniel 2-7 are not related to the Persian kings, but rather the Babylonian kings. While it's possible that this would invite aramaic as well, we do not have strong support for the standardization of aramaic as an administrative language until the persian era. Secondly, while the stories are relevant to the babylonian figures, they are not administrative in any way. The administrative texts in ezra and nehemiah can easily be read a documentation of persian-sanctioned activities, such as letters, censuses, and the like. Thirdly, daniel was clearly written for an internal judean audience, as its interests are about the relationship between judean theology and interactions in a foreign court. All other such texts in the bible, and indeed, prior to qumran, are written in hebrew (including esther). Since we have zero support for the idea of judean scribal activity in aramaic aside from documents which likely part of persian records and used for their own purposes, daniel cannot use the same explanation as ezra and nehemia.
And thanks for the thoughtful and comprehensive response!
1) What language do you think Babylonian administrative documents were written in? I think there is administrative interest in Daniel, similar to Ezra, since Daniel was allegedly given administrative power as a result of his activities described in Aramaic, Daniel 2:48-49. It also discusses Nebbuchadnezzar’s decrees regarding the God of Chananya, Mishael, and Azarya in 3:28-33, including a letter sent to his kingdom. The entire Chapter 4 is basically another letter sent from Nebuchadnezzar to his kingdom regarding his dreams, Daniel’s interpretation, and the result. There is also a letter of Darius to his kingdom about Daniel’s God.
2) You don’t have to go with Rashi or his exact explanation. See Radak, for example. Jechoniah and whether or not the verse mentions him is a red herring. The verse is obviously an exhortation to the Jews in Babylon instructing them what to tell their captors, so it makes sense that it would be in Aramaic, and it would be a striking coincidence if it was a random error/interpolation.
3) Ok, I agree about חזה. I don’t agree that אתה is a Hebrew word just because it’s spelled that way, and it would be quite the coincidence if there existed a random Hebrew word we never heard of before that just happens to almost exactly match the Aramaic word and mean the same thing. In Yehoshua, I am referring to the word נכסים, I think that’s pretty clearly an Aramaic word which comes up quite alot in Koheles (which has several well-known Aramaisms) and only one more time in Divrei Hayamim, but nowhere else- except in all the Targumim and other Aramaic sources. In Shir Hashirim I am referring to the word שוק as in street/marketplace (3:2), which is the Targum translation for חוצות everywhere. Off the top of my head, Shir Hashirim also has the word כותל. Another one I just remembered is Nechemiah 3:15. I am pretty sure there are plenty more.
I think we see from II Kings 18:26 that the educated people knew Aramaic, I don’t see anything about diplomats but three people with different functions, one who is אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־הַבָּ֑יִת, one who is a סֹּפֵ֔ר, and one who is a מַּזְכִּֽיר, and they understand Aramaic. Presumably, other educated people, especially scribes would understand it as well, and it might find its way into their Hebrew writings, the same way some Arabic words did.
1) We know with absolute certainty that babylonian administrative texts were written in Akkadian. I have personally worked with texts from the court of Nebuchadnezzar himself and its written in beautiful akkadian. And we have thousands of such surviving tablets. And the fact that they are related to the king doesnt make them administrative. I hope the distinction is clear.
Re: Daniel 4 i do agree that a quotation from nebuchadnezzar would make sense to be in his native language, but that doesnt work for the other chapters, and whatever explanation we'll have for the others will work for this as well. (Besides, Nebuchadnezzar primarily spoke akkadian.)
2) The raddak's explanation doesn't address the two other points- the fact that its out of context, and that jeremiah sending a letter is not supported elsewhere in jeremiah. His explanation about aramaic is possible once its established that its a letter, but that needs to be established. Furthermore, it has two minor issue - 1. that the jews in babylon at the time spoke hebrew (this is first generation exiles), and all other times they are addressed it is done in hebrew. he addresses this by saying that it was to repeat to the babylonians, but it is unclear why that should be done. 2. The beginning of the verse should still be in hebrew. He addresses this by saying that it didn't want to split the verse in two languages, which sounds like a stretch if it could be read as a quote. I still think the most parsimonious explanation is a later interpolation. (And the traditional commentaries are not disagreeing with this, its just that they didn't see textual criticism as an option.)
3) The point about אתה is that it's not writing in aramaic, even if its an aramaic loanword. And its not random for them to share a word, they are literally related and share hundreds of common roots. There's actually strong research that shows that many of the archaic passages in the bible share more words with aramaic not because they were from aramaic (as at the time aram was a small and inconsquential polity if even that) but because they are older forms which share more of the common heritage together with aramaic. But all this is really irrelevant. The point was that they wrote in hebrew. Even aramaic loanwords is completely different than writing in aramaic. Think of a comparison to ashkenazi rishonic literature which may contain words from their local languages, but the exclusive halakhic literary language was rabbinic hebrew/aramaic.
נכס appears twice in Chronicles (II 1:11 and 1:12), twice in kohelet, and once on joshua, so it make sense that are LBH and CBH, and this usage in joshua can be seen as post-exilic or alternatively an isolated aramaism. BDB says it is probably a loanword from either aramaic or akkadian (nikâsu), which may place the influence even earlier. Halot attests to this term in mishaic hebrew, LBH, Egyptian aramaic, babylonian aramaic, syriac, jewish aramaic, christian palestinian aramaic, old south arabian, akkadian, and sumerian (which is not semitic). Whatever the case, loanwords are different that scribal activity. It actually doesn't even show that the author knew those languages (although he may very well have), but rather that it entered the hebrew lexicon at some point.
שוק appears in proverbs (7:8), song of songs (like you pointed out), ecclesiastes (12:4 and 12:5). BDB affirms that it is indeed an aramaic loanword, which would explain why it only appears in LBH. (I can't find the HALOT entry for this, not sure why.)
I didnt have the patience to check up כותל but i think the point is clear. Loanwords and scribal activity in a different language are two different creatures.
Your point about the scribes knowing aramaic is well taken, but only goes as far as loanwords, not writing in a different language. But even that most loanwords enter through the vernacular/spoken language, and happens when the people themselves are exposed, and not through the elite (besides for technical terms).
To illustrate the point: פרדס used in song of songs is a persian loanword. Would that make it reasonable for a biblical passage to then be written in old persian?
As you can see, the praise of god is not extends throughout, and this verse is off topic. Furthermore, "the maker of the land with his strength" in v. 12 directly follows verse 10, but loses the object of the sentence when interrupted by verse 11. This and the other considerations mentioned strongly support the interpolation hypothesis.
1) Ok, I agree with your point that these chapters of Daniel are probably not a direct copy of Babylonian administrative documents. However, since the Persians inherited the Babylonian empire, and Daniel’s story continues into the Persian period, I don’t think it’s a stretch that these passages would have been written in/translated into Aramaic. I certainly don't see the use of imperial Aramaic as evidence of it being composed in the *Hellenistic* period.
2) To the contrary, the beginning of the chapter כֹּ֣ה ׀ אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֗ה אֶל־דֶּ֤רֶךְ הַגּוֹיִם֙ אַל־תִּלְמָ֔דוּ וּמֵאֹת֥וֹת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם אַל־תֵּחָ֑תּוּ כִּי־יֵחַ֥תּוּ הַגּוֹיִ֖ם מֵהֵֽמָּה׃, כִּֽי־חֻקּ֥וֹת הָעַמִּ֖ים הֶ֣בֶל ה֑וּא כִּי־עֵץ֙ מִיַּ֣עַר כְּרָת֔וֹ מַעֲשֵׂ֥ה יְדֵי־חָרָ֖שׁ בַּֽמַּעֲצָֽד׃ sounds very much like this is about the gentiles, andכִּדְנָה֙ תֵּאמְר֣וּן לְה֔וֹם אֱלָ֣הַיָּ֔א דִּֽי־שְׁמַיָּ֥א וְאַרְקָ֖א לָ֣א עֲבַ֑דוּ יֵאבַ֧דוּ מֵאַרְעָ֛א וּמִן־תְּח֥וֹת שְׁמַיָּ֖א אֵֽלֶּה fits with the theme perfectly. On the other hand, the interpolation hypothesis is not an explanation at all. It’s basically handwaving that we have zero explanation for this verse, it’s just a random error that came out of nowhere, and it might as well say “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.” Or at least you didn’t offer any explanation.
3) Ok, not really disagreeing. I have no way of knowing how fluent in Aramaic the scribes were. I do know that there are pretty frequent loanwords that are either Aramaic or if you insist, Aramaic-adjacent, so it shouldn’t be that surprising if an early Biblical text was written in Aramaic. Especially if it’s just an isolated phrase or sentence. That’s all I’m saying.
1) I never said it was evidence that it was written in the Hellenistic period. The question raised was why certain passages were written in Aramaic, and the best explanation I have is based on the later dating. If it was written earlier (which I don't think it was for other reasons) we would be forced to say something like you are saying, but it's not the best explanation, and the later dating allows for a better explanation.
2. The theme definitely has something in common, but that is not all that goes into context. Directly addressing the exiles in the form of a letter or direct message doesn't take place here and isn't implied anywhere, and moreso, the verse you bring is in the beginning of the chapter but it doesn't fit at all with the flow of verses from 6-16. The interpolation hypothesis may incorporate these general thematic connections to explain why this error survived past the first copy, but a literary analysis supports that the original read straight from v. 10 to v. 12.
3. The question was never a question of impossibility. Of course they knew Aramaic from at least the Persian period onward. The question was why this would he written in Aramaic when we see from all the other biblical books that the Judean literary was exclusively Hebrew, aside from very specific contexts. The best explanation available is that they are reflective of Hellenistic era practices, not Persian era, and the best accommodates all the data mentioned in the article. Is it proven? No. But my goal wasn't to prove, but to understand. Why was it written in Aramaic? This is the best explanation given all the data, and I think it explains all the data very well.
We have no evidence of a Darius the Mede. Herodetus, and other Babylonian and Persian texts make it pretty clear that Cyrus conquered Babylon from Nabonidus. Also, Belshazzar was never King, as seen by the fact he didn't perform the Akitu festivals, and the business documents always has him as a crown prince, never King. Nor was he the son of Nebuchadnezzar. There are Greek loan words in Daniel, as well as the false claim that there will be only three more kings for Perisa (11:2). The striking historical accuracy of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic periods up until the Maccabean revolt is interesting, especially when the final prophecies of 11:40-12:3 fails! This can easily be explained by the fact that we are deal with a later author, who was unfamiliar with the distant past and the immediate future. That's why scholars date the composition of Daniel to the 2nd century BCE.
You think he was just made up for no reason? Why didn't the author just use Cyrus? It's not like the author accomplishes anything by inventing a ficticious king when he could have just used a real one. We don't have evidence for a lot of things. You might as well say we don't have evidence for Daniel himself. Doesn't mean he didn't exist. A bunch of attempts to identify him here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_the_Mede#Identity
The false claim that there will be only three more kings for Persia is a strike against the Hellenistic hypothesis. We are dealing with an author who either lived in the Persian era or was using Persian sources, so he wouldn't have thought there would be only four kings unless he predated the others.
"H. H. Rowley's 1935 study of the question (Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel, 1935) has shown that Darius the Mede cannot be identified with any king,[21] and he is generally seen today as a literary fiction combining the historical Persian king Darius I and the words of Jeremiah 51:11 that God "stirred up" the Medes against Babylon.[2] Nevertheless, numerous attempts have been made to identify him with historical figures, with the following being perhaps the best-known candidates:[21]"
You should read his work, because he goes through the hypothetical identifications listed below, and demonstrates why they fail based on the historical data. It is quite clear from the book of Daniel itself that Darius the Mede cannot be Cyrus the Persian. They are two different people.
No, it's not necessarily for no reason. There were prophecies of Jeremiah and Isaiah that the Medes would conquer Babylon, which is why they may have invented this guy. Also, Xenophone wrote a fictional account about Cyrus, where there was a Median king helping him win the war. It could be that similar literature had an effect on the composition.
Daniel isn't the emperor of the Middle East, so it could be people forgot who he was, but Darius the Mede was allegedly the ruler and conquer of an empire, so it's very implausible that we would not find him in the annals of history.
There is no evidence Daniel was using Persian sources, and the fact that he gets the information of the Babylonian kings mistaken suggests he isn't living close to that time period, nor is he using reliable sources. So a better candidate is the Hellenistic era, using folk memories and perhaps records about recent history, while having bad sources for the Persian and Babylonian times.
We do find him in the annals of history. According to Stephen Anderson, we find him in Xenophon, and he is actually a Mede. According to D.J. Wiseman, he is Cyrus. According to John Collins, he was Darius the Persian. If you want to go so far as to claim the author of Daniel was using the prophecies of Yirmiyah to invent a new Median king, you can just as easily say he was using the same prophecies to call Cyrus or Darius a Median.
The Maccabean period is way too late for Daniel. The imperial Aramaic used is not characteristic that period, and the Persian words also fell out of use by that time. The other books we have from that period were either in Hebrew or Greek, not imperial Aramaic. Furthermore, Josephus claims the book of Daniel pre-existed Alexander the Great. Also, an author in the Maccabean period who was relying on Yirmiyah would have known that the 70 years of Yirmiyah coincided with both the fall of Bavel and the first year of Cyrus.
I don't want to comment on the elements of the discussion I am not familiar with, but I do want to say that the Maccabean dating is for the concluding chapters and therefore the final work of daniel, but the first 6 chapters are considered to be earlier than that.
You cannot call Cyrus a Median, everyone knew that he was a Persian. Therefore, it's better to make up a Median king.
Yes, modern scholarship dates the Aramaic in Daniel earlier that older critics have. But still, there are Greek loan words in the Aramaic sections, and the historical inaccuracies of the Aramaic sections implies it's some too late. That's why they date it to the 3rd century BCE. But composition has to be 2nd century BCE, given the failed prophecy of 11:40 and the accuracy of Hellenistic period.
Josephus is of no consequence. His history of the Persian period has many historical and chronological errors. He was just repeating Jewish tradition over the books' origin.
John Collins says that Darius the Mede is a fictitious person, and that he is modeled off of a real Darius the Great, who came decades later! In fact Collins agrees with the late date of Daniel!
I looked into Stephen Anderson's hypothesis a while back, I wrote an email regarding this to someone a while back. This was mainly based off of the work of H. H Rowley, but with a few insights from David S Levene (professor of Classics at NYU) and my own thoughts.
"I did some more reading on this topic, and here are some serious problems with the hypothesis of Cyaxares II being Darius the Mede.
Classical sources that say Xenophon's Cyropaedia is fiction.
"Take the case of the famous Cyrus, portrayed by Xenophon, not as an historical character, but as a model of righteous government, the serious dignity of whose character is represented by that philosopher as combined with a peculiar courtesy."
Cicero, Letters to his brother Quintus 1.1.8
"Next, the one wrote a Republic, the other a Cyropaedia. And in the Laws (694c) Plato declares the story of the education of Cyrus to be a fiction, for that Cyrus did not answer to the description of him."
Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3:34
Given the fact there is no other contemporary sources attesting to the existence of Cyaxares II, added with a classical tradition of Xenophon writing a non-historical account, we should probably assume he is a fictional character.
But even if we consider Xenophon to be talking history, let's see what he actually says.
"As they continued their march and came near to Media, Cyrus turned aside to visit Cyaxares. And when they had exchanged greetings, the first thing Cyrus told Cyaxares was that a palace had been selected for him in Babylon, and official headquarters, so that he might occupy a residence of his own whenever he came there; and then he also gave him many splendid presents."
Xenophon, Cyropaedia 8.5.17
No mention is made of appointing Cyaxares as a king over anything, all it states is that the Median king was given a nice residence for his visits to Babylon.
"Cyaxares accepted them and then introduced to him his daughter, who brought him a golden crown and bracelets and a necklace and the most beautiful Median robe that could be found. As the princess placed the crown on Cyrus's head, Cyaxares said, 'And the maiden herself, my own daughter, I offer you as well, Cyrus, to be your wife. Your father married my father's daughter, whose son you are. This is she whom you used often to pet when you came to visit us when you were a boy. And whenever anybody asked her whom she was going to marry, she would say ‘Cyrus.’ And with her I offer you all Media as a dowry, for I have no legitimate male issue.'"
Ibid 18-19.
"'As long as I live, the Persian throne continues to be mine own. But when I am dead, it will, of course, pass to Cyrus if he survives me. And as often as he comes to Persia, it should be a sacred custom with you that he sacrifice on your behalf even as I do now. And when he is away, it might be well for you, I think, that that one of our family who seems to you the most worthy should perform that sacred office.' When Cambyses had finished speaking, Cyrus and the Persian magistrates accepted his proposal. And as they then covenanted, with the gods as their witnesses, so the Persians and their king still continue to this day to act toward one another. And when this had all been completed, Cyrus took his departure."
Ibid 26-27.
It seems like Media is playing second fiddle to the Persians, even in Xenophon's accounts.
Steven Anderson writes: "Within three days after the date given for the fall of Babylon in the Nabonidus Chronicle, and
five days after the fall of Sippar, an extant contract text from Sippar (BM 56154) is dated to the accession year of Cyrus. Another text from Sippar (BM 101100), produced one day later, is also dated to the accession year of Cyrus."
This indicates Cyrus became king right away, leaving no room for Cyaxares to rule independently. Even if one were to argue for a coregency, this too would be in direct conflict with Daniel 8:3, 20 which clearly depicts Persia as a second and higher horn coming in only afterwords. This is clearly depicting separate rulership, with the weaker Medians coming first, and later the powerful Persian coming after."
The author seems to be trying to explain himself when he says Darius is מִזֶּ֣רַע מָדָ֑י, that is he is descended from the Medians. Cyrus’s mother was Median, and Herodotus says she gave him a different name at birth. The age of 62 matches the age when Cyrus conquered Babylon. The fact that Daniel wonders about the 70 years of Jeremiah in the first year of this Darius, while it is clear from Ezra that the 70 years ended in the first year of Cyrus, and the fact that Daniel doesn’t describe any transition from Darius to Cyrus seems to support this view (unless they were coregents). The grammar argument is not that convincing, given that the Bible often does not conform to the rules of grammar, and Wiseman brings proof from a similar verse in I Chronicles 5:26. I am not sold on this proposition, but it seems pretty likely.
About Anderson’s hypothesis, I would say to the contrary, the existence of two horns together indicates some form of coregency.
All ancient histories of the Persians have many errors including Herodotus. Stephen Anderson points this out. Josephus is of far more consequence than modern scholars, who are much further from the events and lack access to many sources that Josephus had. The Wisdom of Sirach paraphrases Daniel. The existence of Belshazzar is not attested to in any Greek sources, making it unlikely that Daniel was authored in the Hellenistic period. And the language precludes a Maccabean dating, as I said before.
Chapter 11 can only be used to date Daniel for those who don’t believe in prophecy in the first place. Also, the interpretation of modern scholars until verse 40 is very speculative and not so smooth in many places. However, I would admit it is a strange, overly specific-sounding prophecy that has no parallel in any of the other prophecies we have, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a later interpolation. On the other hand, the fourth beast in Chapter 7 and the legs in Chapter 2 cannot be other than the Roman empire, which would require dating Daniel to Roman times (if one doesn’t believe in prophecy).
3) First off, I don't agree with all your examples. The use of the root חזה in numbers 24 is not a borrowing from aramaic, as the form is hebrew and the root חזה appears many times in hebrew passages. A quick search in concordance just turned up 80 instances where the root is used in hebrew contexts. While it's true that this root exists in aramaic too, that is likely due to them both being semitic languages and not because its using an aramaic term. (Or even if it is borrowed, the root was naturalized into hebrew and is unlike the examples in the post of actual aramaic being used.)
The root אתה in deuteronomy 33 is also hebrew, as the aramaic would be אתא. While its a good question if this is an aramaic loanword or if its an arachaic hebrew root owing to its semitic heritage, it is clearly not aramaic itself.
I'm not sure what you are referring to in joshua 22:8. Maybe you mistakenly gave the wrong reference?
I also can't find a usage of שוק ( i assume you mean the verb to leave, not the noun meaning thigh which is hebrew) in Shir Hashirim, and I'm not sure what other words you are referring to.
The phrase קבל עם in II Kings 15:10 indeed seems to be Aramaic, and is probably a borrowing of an aramaic expression. I wonder if this is in any way connected to zachariah's father jeroboam's campaigns against aram (either way this is before the assyrian period, although we don't know if this a later account or a contemporary record). I would guess that the formulaic expression makes it easier to be borrowed, similiar to how in modern languages expressions are often borrowed directly. I don't think this suggests that actual literary activity would be conducted in aramaic at the time.
Your reference to II KIngs 18:26 is also unrelated. Ravshakeh was an assyrian official, and the lingua franca of the assyrian empire beginning somewhere around that time was aramaic. It's actually more surprising that an assyrian official spoke hebrew (or yehudit) than a judahite official speaking the international language. As we see from there the people did not understand aramaic, but the diplomats (slightly anachronistic term) would have been educated in the international language for purposes of foreign policy (also slight anachronistic). There's still no reason to assume they would use it for their own purposes. This is in contrast with late hellenistic period where aramaic became a standard language in writing (which was after it became the standard spoken language during the persian period).
Rashi for example explains this to be a letter to jeconiah exhorting him to remain loyal to YHWH. This is difficult to accept because 1. it doesn't explain the context (of the hymn surrounding this verse) and is out of place, 2. it doesn't account for why it changes language mid-passage, and 3. Jeconiah is not identified in the text and nothing in the surrounding chapters supports the idea the jeremiah ever had a specific interest in exhorting him.
The interpolation i suggested is not a purposeful addition, but a scribal error in incorporating a gloss of something else. I'm not sure how familiar you are with how texts and glosses were written during the second temple period (you can see the DSS online at deadseascrolls.org.il), but this seems to me to a plausible mechanism that better explains the placement of the verse.
(2) Yes, it's definitely a random interpolation, given the rules of Grammer.
Jeremiah 10:12 starts "he makes the earth with his power ..." without describing who we are talking about. Verse 11 talks about what should happen to false gods, but doesn't explain who is making the earth. Only v. 10, which starts by describing Yahweh as the true God defines the character who "makes the earth with his power." So yes, v. 11 is an interpolation. As to the coincidence that the Aramaic content is the same as the context of the rest of the chapter, that makes sense if it were a gloss or commentary on the chapter that got added in by a scribe and never corrected. So this hypothesis actually explains why it's random, and why it still has similar themes to the chapter.
No, that's not the way Bible works. There's no rule that every pronoun must be referring to the thing in the immediate preceding sentence. Usually, it's that way, but there are many exceptions.
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.
Wiseman's argument for making Cyrus also Darius does not work well with the plain reading of the text of Daniel, nor do we see any extra biblical data for it. Daniel 6:29 says וְדָנִיֵּ֣אל דְּנָ֔ה הַצְלַ֖ח בְּמַלְכ֣וּת דָּרְיָ֑וֶשׁ וּבְמַלְכ֖וּת כּ֥וֹרֶשׁ (פרסיא) [פָּרְסָאָֽה]׃ {פ}
That there were two kingdoms. Wiseman argues that the vav of UVMalchus Koresh doesn't mean "and" but "that is" the kingdom of Koresh. Sorry, but that's just grammerly incorrect. It's obviously a DIFFERENT Kingdom of a DIFFERENT King with a DIFFERENT Name from a DIFFERENT Ethnicity!
It is interesting to note, that despite the fact that the letter to and from Artaxerxes ends in chapter 4, the scribe seems like he had enough of switching back and forth, and just left chapters 5-6 in Aramaic, saying "I ain't buying that AI bilingual Bible composer!"
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.
Thanks for thoughtful comments! I'm gonna try to respond a bit to each point, but in case you want follow up, I'm gonna do so in seperate comments for each point.
1. Firstly, Daniel 2-7 are not related to the Persian kings, but rather the Babylonian kings. While it's possible that this would invite aramaic as well, we do not have strong support for the standardization of aramaic as an administrative language until the persian era. Secondly, while the stories are relevant to the babylonian figures, they are not administrative in any way. The administrative texts in ezra and nehemiah can easily be read a documentation of persian-sanctioned activities, such as letters, censuses, and the like. Thirdly, daniel was clearly written for an internal judean audience, as its interests are about the relationship between judean theology and interactions in a foreign court. All other such texts in the bible, and indeed, prior to qumran, are written in hebrew (including esther). Since we have zero support for the idea of judean scribal activity in aramaic aside from documents which likely part of persian records and used for their own purposes, daniel cannot use the same explanation as ezra and nehemia.
And thanks for the thoughtful and comprehensive response!
1) What language do you think Babylonian administrative documents were written in? I think there is administrative interest in Daniel, similar to Ezra, since Daniel was allegedly given administrative power as a result of his activities described in Aramaic, Daniel 2:48-49. It also discusses Nebbuchadnezzar’s decrees regarding the God of Chananya, Mishael, and Azarya in 3:28-33, including a letter sent to his kingdom. The entire Chapter 4 is basically another letter sent from Nebuchadnezzar to his kingdom regarding his dreams, Daniel’s interpretation, and the result. There is also a letter of Darius to his kingdom about Daniel’s God.
2) You don’t have to go with Rashi or his exact explanation. See Radak, for example. Jechoniah and whether or not the verse mentions him is a red herring. The verse is obviously an exhortation to the Jews in Babylon instructing them what to tell their captors, so it makes sense that it would be in Aramaic, and it would be a striking coincidence if it was a random error/interpolation.
3) Ok, I agree about חזה. I don’t agree that אתה is a Hebrew word just because it’s spelled that way, and it would be quite the coincidence if there existed a random Hebrew word we never heard of before that just happens to almost exactly match the Aramaic word and mean the same thing. In Yehoshua, I am referring to the word נכסים, I think that’s pretty clearly an Aramaic word which comes up quite alot in Koheles (which has several well-known Aramaisms) and only one more time in Divrei Hayamim, but nowhere else- except in all the Targumim and other Aramaic sources. In Shir Hashirim I am referring to the word שוק as in street/marketplace (3:2), which is the Targum translation for חוצות everywhere. Off the top of my head, Shir Hashirim also has the word כותל. Another one I just remembered is Nechemiah 3:15. I am pretty sure there are plenty more.
I think we see from II Kings 18:26 that the educated people knew Aramaic, I don’t see anything about diplomats but three people with different functions, one who is אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־הַבָּ֑יִת, one who is a סֹּפֵ֔ר, and one who is a מַּזְכִּֽיר, and they understand Aramaic. Presumably, other educated people, especially scribes would understand it as well, and it might find its way into their Hebrew writings, the same way some Arabic words did.
1) We know with absolute certainty that babylonian administrative texts were written in Akkadian. I have personally worked with texts from the court of Nebuchadnezzar himself and its written in beautiful akkadian. And we have thousands of such surviving tablets. And the fact that they are related to the king doesnt make them administrative. I hope the distinction is clear.
Re: Daniel 4 i do agree that a quotation from nebuchadnezzar would make sense to be in his native language, but that doesnt work for the other chapters, and whatever explanation we'll have for the others will work for this as well. (Besides, Nebuchadnezzar primarily spoke akkadian.)
2) The raddak's explanation doesn't address the two other points- the fact that its out of context, and that jeremiah sending a letter is not supported elsewhere in jeremiah. His explanation about aramaic is possible once its established that its a letter, but that needs to be established. Furthermore, it has two minor issue - 1. that the jews in babylon at the time spoke hebrew (this is first generation exiles), and all other times they are addressed it is done in hebrew. he addresses this by saying that it was to repeat to the babylonians, but it is unclear why that should be done. 2. The beginning of the verse should still be in hebrew. He addresses this by saying that it didn't want to split the verse in two languages, which sounds like a stretch if it could be read as a quote. I still think the most parsimonious explanation is a later interpolation. (And the traditional commentaries are not disagreeing with this, its just that they didn't see textual criticism as an option.)
3) The point about אתה is that it's not writing in aramaic, even if its an aramaic loanword. And its not random for them to share a word, they are literally related and share hundreds of common roots. There's actually strong research that shows that many of the archaic passages in the bible share more words with aramaic not because they were from aramaic (as at the time aram was a small and inconsquential polity if even that) but because they are older forms which share more of the common heritage together with aramaic. But all this is really irrelevant. The point was that they wrote in hebrew. Even aramaic loanwords is completely different than writing in aramaic. Think of a comparison to ashkenazi rishonic literature which may contain words from their local languages, but the exclusive halakhic literary language was rabbinic hebrew/aramaic.
נכס appears twice in Chronicles (II 1:11 and 1:12), twice in kohelet, and once on joshua, so it make sense that are LBH and CBH, and this usage in joshua can be seen as post-exilic or alternatively an isolated aramaism. BDB says it is probably a loanword from either aramaic or akkadian (nikâsu), which may place the influence even earlier. Halot attests to this term in mishaic hebrew, LBH, Egyptian aramaic, babylonian aramaic, syriac, jewish aramaic, christian palestinian aramaic, old south arabian, akkadian, and sumerian (which is not semitic). Whatever the case, loanwords are different that scribal activity. It actually doesn't even show that the author knew those languages (although he may very well have), but rather that it entered the hebrew lexicon at some point.
שוק appears in proverbs (7:8), song of songs (like you pointed out), ecclesiastes (12:4 and 12:5). BDB affirms that it is indeed an aramaic loanword, which would explain why it only appears in LBH. (I can't find the HALOT entry for this, not sure why.)
I didnt have the patience to check up כותל but i think the point is clear. Loanwords and scribal activity in a different language are two different creatures.
Your point about the scribes knowing aramaic is well taken, but only goes as far as loanwords, not writing in a different language. But even that most loanwords enter through the vernacular/spoken language, and happens when the people themselves are exposed, and not through the elite (besides for technical terms).
To illustrate the point: פרדס used in song of songs is a persian loanword. Would that make it reasonable for a biblical passage to then be written in old persian?
I want to emphasize the point about context. Here's Jer. 10 6-16 in the original:
ו מֵאֵין כָּמוֹךָ, יְהוָה: גָּדוֹל אַתָּה וְגָדוֹל שִׁמְךָ, בִּגְבוּרָה. ז מִי לֹא יִרָאֲךָ מֶלֶךְ הַגּוֹיִם, כִּי לְךָ יָאָתָה: כִּי בְכָל־חַכְמֵי הַגּוֹיִם וּבְכָל־מַלְכוּתָם, מֵאֵין כָּמוֹךָ. ח וּבְאַחַת, יִבְעֲרוּ וְיִכְסָלוּ; מוּסַר הֲבָלִים, עֵץ הוּא. ט כֶּסֶף מְרֻקָּע מִתַּרְשִׁישׁ יוּבָא, וְזָהָב מֵאוּפָז--מַעֲשֵׂה חָרָשׁ, וִידֵי צוֹרֵף; תְּכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן לְבוּשָׁם, מַעֲשֵׂה חֲכָמִים כֻּלָּם. י וַיהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֱמֶת, הוּא־אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים וּמֶלֶךְ עוֹלָם; מִקִּצְפּוֹ תִּרְעַשׁ הָאָרֶץ, וְלֹא־יָכִלוּ גוֹיִם זַעְמוֹ. {פ}
יא כִּדְנָה, תֵּאמְרוּן לְהוֹם, אֱלָהַיָּא, דִּי־שְׁמַיָּא וְאַרְקָא לָא עֲבַדוּ; יֵאבַדוּ מֵאַרְעָא וּמִן־תְּחוֹת שְׁמַיָּא, אֵלֶּה. {ס} יב עֹשֵׂה אֶרֶץ בְּכֹחוֹ, מֵכִין תֵּבֵל בְּחָכְמָתוֹ; וּבִתְבוּנָתוֹ, נָטָה שָׁמָיִם. יג לְקוֹל תִּתּוֹ הֲמוֹן מַיִם, בַּשָּׁמַיִם, וַיַּעֲלֶה נְשִׂאִים, מִקְצֵה ארץ הָאָרֶץ; בְּרָקִים לַמָּטָר עָשָׂה, וַיּוֹצֵא רוּחַ מֵאֹצְרֹתָיו. יד נִבְעַר כָּל־אָדָם מִדַּעַת, הֹבִישׁ כָּל־צוֹרֵף מִפָּסֶל: כִּי שֶׁקֶר נִסְכּוֹ, וְלֹא־רוּחַ בָּם. טו הֶבֶל הֵמָּה, מַעֲשֵׂה תַּעְתֻּעִים; בְּעֵת פְּקֻדָּתָם, יֹאבֵדוּ. טז לֹא־כְאֵלֶּה חֵלֶק יַעֲקֹב, כִּי־יוֹצֵר הַכֹּל הוּא, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֵׁבֶט נַחֲלָתוֹ: יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, שְׁמוֹ.
As you can see, the praise of god is not extends throughout, and this verse is off topic. Furthermore, "the maker of the land with his strength" in v. 12 directly follows verse 10, but loses the object of the sentence when interrupted by verse 11. This and the other considerations mentioned strongly support the interpolation hypothesis.
1) Ok, I agree with your point that these chapters of Daniel are probably not a direct copy of Babylonian administrative documents. However, since the Persians inherited the Babylonian empire, and Daniel’s story continues into the Persian period, I don’t think it’s a stretch that these passages would have been written in/translated into Aramaic. I certainly don't see the use of imperial Aramaic as evidence of it being composed in the *Hellenistic* period.
2) To the contrary, the beginning of the chapter כֹּ֣ה ׀ אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֗ה אֶל־דֶּ֤רֶךְ הַגּוֹיִם֙ אַל־תִּלְמָ֔דוּ וּמֵאֹת֥וֹת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם אַל־תֵּחָ֑תּוּ כִּי־יֵחַ֥תּוּ הַגּוֹיִ֖ם מֵהֵֽמָּה׃, כִּֽי־חֻקּ֥וֹת הָעַמִּ֖ים הֶ֣בֶל ה֑וּא כִּי־עֵץ֙ מִיַּ֣עַר כְּרָת֔וֹ מַעֲשֵׂ֥ה יְדֵי־חָרָ֖שׁ בַּֽמַּעֲצָֽד׃ sounds very much like this is about the gentiles, andכִּדְנָה֙ תֵּאמְר֣וּן לְה֔וֹם אֱלָ֣הַיָּ֔א דִּֽי־שְׁמַיָּ֥א וְאַרְקָ֖א לָ֣א עֲבַ֑דוּ יֵאבַ֧דוּ מֵאַרְעָ֛א וּמִן־תְּח֥וֹת שְׁמַיָּ֖א אֵֽלֶּה fits with the theme perfectly. On the other hand, the interpolation hypothesis is not an explanation at all. It’s basically handwaving that we have zero explanation for this verse, it’s just a random error that came out of nowhere, and it might as well say “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.” Or at least you didn’t offer any explanation.
3) Ok, not really disagreeing. I have no way of knowing how fluent in Aramaic the scribes were. I do know that there are pretty frequent loanwords that are either Aramaic or if you insist, Aramaic-adjacent, so it shouldn’t be that surprising if an early Biblical text was written in Aramaic. Especially if it’s just an isolated phrase or sentence. That’s all I’m saying.
1) I never said it was evidence that it was written in the Hellenistic period. The question raised was why certain passages were written in Aramaic, and the best explanation I have is based on the later dating. If it was written earlier (which I don't think it was for other reasons) we would be forced to say something like you are saying, but it's not the best explanation, and the later dating allows for a better explanation.
2. The theme definitely has something in common, but that is not all that goes into context. Directly addressing the exiles in the form of a letter or direct message doesn't take place here and isn't implied anywhere, and moreso, the verse you bring is in the beginning of the chapter but it doesn't fit at all with the flow of verses from 6-16. The interpolation hypothesis may incorporate these general thematic connections to explain why this error survived past the first copy, but a literary analysis supports that the original read straight from v. 10 to v. 12.
3. The question was never a question of impossibility. Of course they knew Aramaic from at least the Persian period onward. The question was why this would he written in Aramaic when we see from all the other biblical books that the Judean literary was exclusively Hebrew, aside from very specific contexts. The best explanation available is that they are reflective of Hellenistic era practices, not Persian era, and the best accommodates all the data mentioned in the article. Is it proven? No. But my goal wasn't to prove, but to understand. Why was it written in Aramaic? This is the best explanation given all the data, and I think it explains all the data very well.
We have no evidence of a Darius the Mede. Herodetus, and other Babylonian and Persian texts make it pretty clear that Cyrus conquered Babylon from Nabonidus. Also, Belshazzar was never King, as seen by the fact he didn't perform the Akitu festivals, and the business documents always has him as a crown prince, never King. Nor was he the son of Nebuchadnezzar. There are Greek loan words in Daniel, as well as the false claim that there will be only three more kings for Perisa (11:2). The striking historical accuracy of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic periods up until the Maccabean revolt is interesting, especially when the final prophecies of 11:40-12:3 fails! This can easily be explained by the fact that we are deal with a later author, who was unfamiliar with the distant past and the immediate future. That's why scholars date the composition of Daniel to the 2nd century BCE.
You think he was just made up for no reason? Why didn't the author just use Cyrus? It's not like the author accomplishes anything by inventing a ficticious king when he could have just used a real one. We don't have evidence for a lot of things. You might as well say we don't have evidence for Daniel himself. Doesn't mean he didn't exist. A bunch of attempts to identify him here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_the_Mede#Identity
The false claim that there will be only three more kings for Persia is a strike against the Hellenistic hypothesis. We are dealing with an author who either lived in the Persian era or was using Persian sources, so he wouldn't have thought there would be only four kings unless he predated the others.
Wikipedia says
"H. H. Rowley's 1935 study of the question (Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel, 1935) has shown that Darius the Mede cannot be identified with any king,[21] and he is generally seen today as a literary fiction combining the historical Persian king Darius I and the words of Jeremiah 51:11 that God "stirred up" the Medes against Babylon.[2] Nevertheless, numerous attempts have been made to identify him with historical figures, with the following being perhaps the best-known candidates:[21]"
You should read his work, because he goes through the hypothetical identifications listed below, and demonstrates why they fail based on the historical data. It is quite clear from the book of Daniel itself that Darius the Mede cannot be Cyrus the Persian. They are two different people.
No, it's not necessarily for no reason. There were prophecies of Jeremiah and Isaiah that the Medes would conquer Babylon, which is why they may have invented this guy. Also, Xenophone wrote a fictional account about Cyrus, where there was a Median king helping him win the war. It could be that similar literature had an effect on the composition.
Daniel isn't the emperor of the Middle East, so it could be people forgot who he was, but Darius the Mede was allegedly the ruler and conquer of an empire, so it's very implausible that we would not find him in the annals of history.
There is no evidence Daniel was using Persian sources, and the fact that he gets the information of the Babylonian kings mistaken suggests he isn't living close to that time period, nor is he using reliable sources. So a better candidate is the Hellenistic era, using folk memories and perhaps records about recent history, while having bad sources for the Persian and Babylonian times.
We do find him in the annals of history. According to Stephen Anderson, we find him in Xenophon, and he is actually a Mede. According to D.J. Wiseman, he is Cyrus. According to John Collins, he was Darius the Persian. If you want to go so far as to claim the author of Daniel was using the prophecies of Yirmiyah to invent a new Median king, you can just as easily say he was using the same prophecies to call Cyrus or Darius a Median.
The Maccabean period is way too late for Daniel. The imperial Aramaic used is not characteristic that period, and the Persian words also fell out of use by that time. The other books we have from that period were either in Hebrew or Greek, not imperial Aramaic. Furthermore, Josephus claims the book of Daniel pre-existed Alexander the Great. Also, an author in the Maccabean period who was relying on Yirmiyah would have known that the 70 years of Yirmiyah coincided with both the fall of Bavel and the first year of Cyrus.
I don't want to comment on the elements of the discussion I am not familiar with, but I do want to say that the Maccabean dating is for the concluding chapters and therefore the final work of daniel, but the first 6 chapters are considered to be earlier than that.
You cannot call Cyrus a Median, everyone knew that he was a Persian. Therefore, it's better to make up a Median king.
Yes, modern scholarship dates the Aramaic in Daniel earlier that older critics have. But still, there are Greek loan words in the Aramaic sections, and the historical inaccuracies of the Aramaic sections implies it's some too late. That's why they date it to the 3rd century BCE. But composition has to be 2nd century BCE, given the failed prophecy of 11:40 and the accuracy of Hellenistic period.
Josephus is of no consequence. His history of the Persian period has many historical and chronological errors. He was just repeating Jewish tradition over the books' origin.
John Collins says that Darius the Mede is a fictitious person, and that he is modeled off of a real Darius the Great, who came decades later! In fact Collins agrees with the late date of Daniel!
I looked into Stephen Anderson's hypothesis a while back, I wrote an email regarding this to someone a while back. This was mainly based off of the work of H. H Rowley, but with a few insights from David S Levene (professor of Classics at NYU) and my own thoughts.
"I did some more reading on this topic, and here are some serious problems with the hypothesis of Cyaxares II being Darius the Mede.
Classical sources that say Xenophon's Cyropaedia is fiction.
"Take the case of the famous Cyrus, portrayed by Xenophon, not as an historical character, but as a model of righteous government, the serious dignity of whose character is represented by that philosopher as combined with a peculiar courtesy."
Cicero, Letters to his brother Quintus 1.1.8
"Next, the one wrote a Republic, the other a Cyropaedia. And in the Laws (694c) Plato declares the story of the education of Cyrus to be a fiction, for that Cyrus did not answer to the description of him."
Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3:34
Given the fact there is no other contemporary sources attesting to the existence of Cyaxares II, added with a classical tradition of Xenophon writing a non-historical account, we should probably assume he is a fictional character.
But even if we consider Xenophon to be talking history, let's see what he actually says.
"As they continued their march and came near to Media, Cyrus turned aside to visit Cyaxares. And when they had exchanged greetings, the first thing Cyrus told Cyaxares was that a palace had been selected for him in Babylon, and official headquarters, so that he might occupy a residence of his own whenever he came there; and then he also gave him many splendid presents."
Xenophon, Cyropaedia 8.5.17
No mention is made of appointing Cyaxares as a king over anything, all it states is that the Median king was given a nice residence for his visits to Babylon.
"Cyaxares accepted them and then introduced to him his daughter, who brought him a golden crown and bracelets and a necklace and the most beautiful Median robe that could be found. As the princess placed the crown on Cyrus's head, Cyaxares said, 'And the maiden herself, my own daughter, I offer you as well, Cyrus, to be your wife. Your father married my father's daughter, whose son you are. This is she whom you used often to pet when you came to visit us when you were a boy. And whenever anybody asked her whom she was going to marry, she would say ‘Cyrus.’ And with her I offer you all Media as a dowry, for I have no legitimate male issue.'"
Ibid 18-19.
"'As long as I live, the Persian throne continues to be mine own. But when I am dead, it will, of course, pass to Cyrus if he survives me. And as often as he comes to Persia, it should be a sacred custom with you that he sacrifice on your behalf even as I do now. And when he is away, it might be well for you, I think, that that one of our family who seems to you the most worthy should perform that sacred office.' When Cambyses had finished speaking, Cyrus and the Persian magistrates accepted his proposal. And as they then covenanted, with the gods as their witnesses, so the Persians and their king still continue to this day to act toward one another. And when this had all been completed, Cyrus took his departure."
Ibid 26-27.
It seems like Media is playing second fiddle to the Persians, even in Xenophon's accounts.
Steven Anderson writes: "Within three days after the date given for the fall of Babylon in the Nabonidus Chronicle, and
five days after the fall of Sippar, an extant contract text from Sippar (BM 56154) is dated to the accession year of Cyrus. Another text from Sippar (BM 101100), produced one day later, is also dated to the accession year of Cyrus."
This indicates Cyrus became king right away, leaving no room for Cyaxares to rule independently. Even if one were to argue for a coregency, this too would be in direct conflict with Daniel 8:3, 20 which clearly depicts Persia as a second and higher horn coming in only afterwords. This is clearly depicting separate rulership, with the weaker Medians coming first, and later the powerful Persian coming after."
The author seems to be trying to explain himself when he says Darius is מִזֶּ֣רַע מָדָ֑י, that is he is descended from the Medians. Cyrus’s mother was Median, and Herodotus says she gave him a different name at birth. The age of 62 matches the age when Cyrus conquered Babylon. The fact that Daniel wonders about the 70 years of Jeremiah in the first year of this Darius, while it is clear from Ezra that the 70 years ended in the first year of Cyrus, and the fact that Daniel doesn’t describe any transition from Darius to Cyrus seems to support this view (unless they were coregents). The grammar argument is not that convincing, given that the Bible often does not conform to the rules of grammar, and Wiseman brings proof from a similar verse in I Chronicles 5:26. I am not sold on this proposition, but it seems pretty likely.
About Anderson’s hypothesis, I would say to the contrary, the existence of two horns together indicates some form of coregency.
All ancient histories of the Persians have many errors including Herodotus. Stephen Anderson points this out. Josephus is of far more consequence than modern scholars, who are much further from the events and lack access to many sources that Josephus had. The Wisdom of Sirach paraphrases Daniel. The existence of Belshazzar is not attested to in any Greek sources, making it unlikely that Daniel was authored in the Hellenistic period. And the language precludes a Maccabean dating, as I said before.
Chapter 11 can only be used to date Daniel for those who don’t believe in prophecy in the first place. Also, the interpretation of modern scholars until verse 40 is very speculative and not so smooth in many places. However, I would admit it is a strange, overly specific-sounding prophecy that has no parallel in any of the other prophecies we have, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a later interpolation. On the other hand, the fourth beast in Chapter 7 and the legs in Chapter 2 cannot be other than the Roman empire, which would require dating Daniel to Roman times (if one doesn’t believe in prophecy).
3) First off, I don't agree with all your examples. The use of the root חזה in numbers 24 is not a borrowing from aramaic, as the form is hebrew and the root חזה appears many times in hebrew passages. A quick search in concordance just turned up 80 instances where the root is used in hebrew contexts. While it's true that this root exists in aramaic too, that is likely due to them both being semitic languages and not because its using an aramaic term. (Or even if it is borrowed, the root was naturalized into hebrew and is unlike the examples in the post of actual aramaic being used.)
The root אתה in deuteronomy 33 is also hebrew, as the aramaic would be אתא. While its a good question if this is an aramaic loanword or if its an arachaic hebrew root owing to its semitic heritage, it is clearly not aramaic itself.
I'm not sure what you are referring to in joshua 22:8. Maybe you mistakenly gave the wrong reference?
I also can't find a usage of שוק ( i assume you mean the verb to leave, not the noun meaning thigh which is hebrew) in Shir Hashirim, and I'm not sure what other words you are referring to.
The phrase קבל עם in II Kings 15:10 indeed seems to be Aramaic, and is probably a borrowing of an aramaic expression. I wonder if this is in any way connected to zachariah's father jeroboam's campaigns against aram (either way this is before the assyrian period, although we don't know if this a later account or a contemporary record). I would guess that the formulaic expression makes it easier to be borrowed, similiar to how in modern languages expressions are often borrowed directly. I don't think this suggests that actual literary activity would be conducted in aramaic at the time.
Your reference to II KIngs 18:26 is also unrelated. Ravshakeh was an assyrian official, and the lingua franca of the assyrian empire beginning somewhere around that time was aramaic. It's actually more surprising that an assyrian official spoke hebrew (or yehudit) than a judahite official speaking the international language. As we see from there the people did not understand aramaic, but the diplomats (slightly anachronistic term) would have been educated in the international language for purposes of foreign policy (also slight anachronistic). There's still no reason to assume they would use it for their own purposes. This is in contrast with late hellenistic period where aramaic became a standard language in writing (which was after it became the standard spoken language during the persian period).
Rashi for example explains this to be a letter to jeconiah exhorting him to remain loyal to YHWH. This is difficult to accept because 1. it doesn't explain the context (of the hymn surrounding this verse) and is out of place, 2. it doesn't account for why it changes language mid-passage, and 3. Jeconiah is not identified in the text and nothing in the surrounding chapters supports the idea the jeremiah ever had a specific interest in exhorting him.
The interpolation i suggested is not a purposeful addition, but a scribal error in incorporating a gloss of something else. I'm not sure how familiar you are with how texts and glosses were written during the second temple period (you can see the DSS online at deadseascrolls.org.il), but this seems to me to a plausible mechanism that better explains the placement of the verse.
(2) Yes, it's definitely a random interpolation, given the rules of Grammer.
Jeremiah 10:12 starts "he makes the earth with his power ..." without describing who we are talking about. Verse 11 talks about what should happen to false gods, but doesn't explain who is making the earth. Only v. 10, which starts by describing Yahweh as the true God defines the character who "makes the earth with his power." So yes, v. 11 is an interpolation. As to the coincidence that the Aramaic content is the same as the context of the rest of the chapter, that makes sense if it were a gloss or commentary on the chapter that got added in by a scribe and never corrected. So this hypothesis actually explains why it's random, and why it still has similar themes to the chapter.
No, that's not the way Bible works. There's no rule that every pronoun must be referring to the thing in the immediate preceding sentence. Usually, it's that way, but there are many exceptions.
Usually is key! And Simon's hypothesis explains how and why this unusual grammar came to be. None of your objections aren't covered by his hypothesis.
Yeah, I don't assume an interpolation any time there's unusual grammar, since unusual grammar is so common.
If it is common, it is not unusual.
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.
Wiseman's argument for making Cyrus also Darius does not work well with the plain reading of the text of Daniel, nor do we see any extra biblical data for it. Daniel 6:29 says וְדָנִיֵּ֣אל דְּנָ֔ה הַצְלַ֖ח בְּמַלְכ֣וּת דָּרְיָ֑וֶשׁ וּבְמַלְכ֖וּת כּ֥וֹרֶשׁ (פרסיא) [פָּרְסָאָֽה]׃ {פ}
That there were two kingdoms. Wiseman argues that the vav of UVMalchus Koresh doesn't mean "and" but "that is" the kingdom of Koresh. Sorry, but that's just grammerly incorrect. It's obviously a DIFFERENT Kingdom of a DIFFERENT King with a DIFFERENT Name from a DIFFERENT Ethnicity!
It is interesting to note, that despite the fact that the letter to and from Artaxerxes ends in chapter 4, the scribe seems like he had enough of switching back and forth, and just left chapters 5-6 in Aramaic, saying "I ain't buying that AI bilingual Bible composer!"
"Indeed, the first use of Aramaic in Ezra (2:8) is when it quotes a letter sent to Artaxerxes king of Persia."
You mean 4:8!