Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel. 269 



the rhetorical effectiveness of the passage ? To my own way of thinking, 

 therefore, the twofold pointing, so far from being an evidence of the 

 irresponsible proceeding of the massoretes, is another proof of their 

 tmstworthiness. And even if the evidence were less satisfactory than it 

 is (we are limited, unfortunately, to the testimony of this very small 

 amount of vocalized Aramaic), is it not fair to insist, in all such cases, 

 that the massoretes should be given the benefit of the doubt ? We 

 know, in fact, very little about the Aramaic of that time, whether Jewish 

 or Gentile. 



4 : 12. It may be that the notorious difficulties of this verse are due 

 simplv to the accidental omission of a word or two from the original 

 text. When vss. 22, 29, and 5:21 are compared, it seems probable 

 that the word T\171V\S^ originally stood just before XKITID- The trans- 

 formed king is to be fed " with the grass of the field, and wet with 

 the dew of heaven." It is true that herbage is also mentioned, as his 

 destined food, at the end of this same verse ; but it should be noticed 

 that the clause in which the words appear corresponds to the clause 

 ITIO X'H^ niTl DVI ""1 the other passages. What is more, the words 

 XriK ISt^rS (^o not occur in vs. 20, vvhich is a mere repetition of 

 V. 12 ; for which reason, as well as because they disturb the otherwise 

 regular rhvthm, thev have already been expunged in Marti's Conini. 

 and Kittel's Biblia Hebraica. It seems to me also that they are a 

 late addition, caused by the fact that after the word niXirtO^ had fallen 

 out the prediction that the king should eat grass seemed to be missing. 

 The old Greek version is unfortunately of little use as a witness here ; 

 for although it seems to support the conjecture of the verb '' feed " 

 before SXm— > its Aramaic original differed considerably from ours 

 (as so often happens) ; and, moreover, in the text which we now have, 

 a long passage has been omitted by some accident of transcription, 

 namely, the translation of the last six words of vs. 12 and the first 

 three words of vs. 13. It might seem, at the first glance, that the 

 evidence of vs. 20 could be cited against the conjecture that the verb 

 has fallen out before KSni2- But on the contrary, the greater part 

 of vs. 20 (namely, all that follows the word ^HlbsilV '^ secondary, 

 and was added after the time when the loss of the word had occurred 

 in vs. 12. The proof of the fact that this passage in vs. 20 is merely 

 a scribe's repetition from vs. 12 is found not only in the remainder of 

 verses 20—23 (where it is evident that the plan of the original writer 

 was to refer in a few words to each of the main features of the dream — 

 divine command ; destruction of the tree ; the stump left in the ground — 

 and not to repeat the original wording), but also, and especially, in the 

 old Greek translation, in which this part of vs. 20 is lacking. The 



