Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel. 



According to the generally accepted view, the book of Daniel is the 

 work of a single hand. Bevan, Commentary on Daniel, 1892, p. 6, 

 writes : " During the last sixty or seventy years almost all writers unbiassed 

 by dogmatic prejudices have maintained both the literary unity of Daniel 

 and the theory of its Maccabean origin." And Cornill, Einleitung in 

 das Alte Testament,^ 1905, pp. 242 f. : " Trotz mancher und zum Teil 

 schwerer Widersprliche in Einzelheiten ist kaum ein anderes ATliches 

 Buch so einheitlich und so in Einem Zuge geschrieben, als gerade Daniel." 

 To me, this view is impossible. I do not, indeed, sympathize with any 

 attempt to analyze the book on the sole basis of the change of language, 

 from Hebrew to Aramaic and back again ; nor with those who, like 

 Meinhold, believe chaps. 2—6 to have been the original book, composed 

 in Aramaic in the fourth centur}' B.C. ; nor, finally, with those who in 

 recent times have divided up the book among nearly as many authors 

 as there are chapters. But to me it is quite plain that ivith chapter 7 

 a neio ivriter takes up the work and carries it on. Both in his mental 

 habit and in his manner of expressing himself he is altogether different 

 from the writer of chaps. 1—6. 



The first half of the book, as far as the end of chapter 6, consists 

 of a succession of edifying popular tales, very simply conceived, and 

 told in a fairly straightforward manner. They deal with miracles, it 

 is true, but after the naive manner of folklore, like the stories in Judges 

 or Exodus, or the narrative of Joseph in Gen. 40fif. There is nothing 

 dark or mysterious in the manner of presentation. The writer of chaps. 

 7—12, on the contrar}-, is a true apocalyptist. Chap. 7 is written in 

 imitation of chap. 2, and therefore shows, necessarily, a good deal of 

 resemblance to the first part of the book ; but even here the change 

 is perfectly apparent, and with the subsequent chapters, to the end, 

 we are in an atmosphere which differs from that of chaps. 1—6 as black 

 differs from white. It is customary to speak of the book of Daniel as 

 " an apocalyptic writing," but the fact ought to be recognized, and 

 strongly emphasized, that chaps. 1—6 are not at all apocalyptic. Not 

 even in chaps. 2 and 4 is there anything which could properly be classed 

 under this head. The dreams of Nebuchadnezzar are no more " apo- 

 calyptic " than are those of Pharaoh and his officers (Gen. 40 f.), or the 

 vision of Balaam in Num. 24 : 15 ff., or that of the Jewish sibyl in the 



TRAP'S. Conn. Acad., Vol. XV. 16 July, 1909. 



