Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel. 271 



4 : 13 KtrllX^ so also vs. 14. There is no sufficient ground for calling 

 this a Hebraism ; since the form is known to be good Aramaic, in use 

 among Gentiles as well as Jews, and there is no reason why both forms, 

 j<^?2Ji{ and XU^13K> should not have been used side by side. 



4 : 18. It may be doubted whether this verse stood in the original 

 text. See the note on vs. 20. 



o 



4:19 ri^51- Kautzsch, Gramm., p. 79, writes : " Ganz unbegreiflich 

 ist Dan. 4 : 19 die Verwandlun^- des K^fhibh n^Hl ^ri^^l) in n51. 

 welche Form nur als 3. Sing. fern, betrachtet werden konnte." So also 

 Brovvn-Driver-Briggs, Gesenius-Buhl, Marti, Strack ; " fini nihil est "), 

 Bevan, and the rest of the commentators. But the form thus added, 

 as a variant reading, by the massoretes is not difficult to explain, and 

 it is a legitimate one. The idea that the tradition could have adopted 

 here the feminine third person (!) is simply ridiculous ; the history oi 

 the OT. text, with all its whimsical curiosa, contains no parallel to 

 such folly. In the high-sounding sentences of such impressive scenes 

 as this one, it frequently happens, of course, that single words are given 

 an unusual pronunciation i^whether by the original author or by a later 

 editor) merely for the sake of the rhetorical effect. This very verse 

 contains certainly one other case of the kind (see below), and probably 

 two. Knowing this fact, and being extremely ignorant of the old 

 Palestinian ideas of rhetoric, desirable phonetic effects, rhythm, poetic 

 license, contrast between popular and lotty style, and so on, it behooves 

 us to be cautious in condemning well attested tradition. The massoretic 

 nS'n is simply a second pers. sing. masc. of j^^l formed after the 

 analogy of the strong verb ilSflSj etc. With fi^'-] instead of ^^'~\ 

 compare the Hebrew 2 pers. fem. forms n^^Jl, fli^Sia, etc., as well as 

 n3< nr, nS? and the phonetic tendency in all such cases. I have no 

 doubt whatever that this is the remnant of a pronunciation which was 

 used to a considerable extent— we have no means of knowing how 

 extensively. The choice of this form here hangs together with that of 

 nSi5n- To whom we owe the more usual reading, fiBJ^ni D^^'H' which 

 was intended by our consonant text, whether to the author of the Daniel 

 stories or to some later editor, we shall never know certainly ; in view 

 of the general excellence of the consonant text the presumption must 

 be given to it, as the original. But even in that case, the massoretic 

 vocalization is of great value. 



4 : 19 n^Sil r!5*l- The reason for the divergent vocalization, which 

 has perplexed all interpreters, lies in the fact that the verb ri2^ belongs 

 B.C., by some one who was writing out the recently published, and greatly 

 enlarged, second edition of the book of Daniel. 



