Linguistic Issues in Daniel

In an oft quoted challenge based on the language in the book of Daniel, S. R. Driver alleged (emphasis in original):

The Persian words presuppose a period after the Persian Empire had been well established; the Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports, and the Aramaic permits, a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (332 B.C.)[1]

Contrary to Driver, conservative scholars have argued that Daniel was completed in the early Persian era. The events of the Babylonian era are spoken of in the past tense, and the last king referred to as contemporary with Daniel is ‘Cyrus king of Persia’, the last vision which Daniel receives being in the third year of his reign (Daniel 10:1).

If conservative views are correct, we would expect to find the following general features of language in Daniel:

  • Chaldean (Babylonian), used accurately but not predominantly
  • Persian words and phrases used frequently, even to describe events which took place in the Babylonian era
  • Aramaic which is in greater agreement with the exilic than the post-exilic era
  • An almost complete lack of Greek terms

Scholars have made a plausible case for exactly this situation, and we will rehearse their points for each of the languages represented in Daniel.

Persian

Driver argued that specific Persian words[2] used in Daniel were not used until a later date in the Persian era, beyond that in which Daniel is traditionally said to have lived. These words have been reviewed by W. D. Jeffercoat who comments, “According to Driver, the use of fifteen Persian words to describe government officials under the Babylonians before the conquest of Cyrus shows that Daniel was written in a period after the Persian Empire had been well established”.[3] Jeffercoat argues that Daniel could have both learned and used these Persian words at an early date.  Firstly, since Daniel was an official in the Persian Empire he would have learned the relevant political vocabulary (Persia was a foe of Babylon and court politics would have been concerned with Persia).  Secondly, many words which have previously been thought to be Persian words have since been found to be Babylonian words which passed into the Persian vocabulary.  Daniel could have learned some of these words whilst a member of the Babylonian administration.[4]

In addition, a number of the Persian words in Daniel were of sufficient antiquity to be unknown to the translators of the LXX, who mistranslated them completely.  E. Pusey noted that a number of these words were no longer used by the Maccabean era, and noted that “several of them were misunderstood or not understood by Aramaic translators”.[5] D. Conklin observes that of the Persian words used in Daniel, none are found in use by the Persians after 300 BC,[6] and two of these terms are found only in Aramaic of the 5th and 6th centuries BC.[7]

Aramaic

Even if it is agreed that the Aramaic ‘permits’ an early date, it is clear that Driver did not consider the Aramaic of Daniel to be, of itself, evidence for such a date.  In fact, the Aramaic in Daniel provides strong evidence for a late, rather than an early date. A. Ferch states that “In terms of the Aramaic of the text it has been concluded that the book could not have been written later than 300 B.C”.[8]
The two main arguments about the Aramaic in Daniel are:

  • That it displays characteristics of a Western origin (implying post-exilic Aramaic), rather than characteristic of an Eastern origin which is to be expected if it was written during the exile.
  • That it shares characteristics with the Aramaic of the post-exilic era, proving that it must have been written long after the time which the book itself claims.

Considerable evidence exists to contradict these claims. Just as earlier books of the Old Testament contain evidence of editorial updates (replacing or accompanying archaic terms or geographical references with the contemporary equivalent), so Daniel “may have been revised in spellings and endings, in order to conform to the current usage, as late as the second century B.C”.[9] Further, the Aramaic used in the book of Daniel is of an ‘Eastern’ type, suggesting an origin in Mesopotamia, rather than a ‘Western’ type which would be the case if the book was written in Israel during the Maccabean era.  Finally, it can be argued that the Aramaic in Daniel corresponds substantially to the Aramaic used in the 7th century B.C onwards, and to Aramaic of texts recognized as dating from within the 5th century B.C.[10]  This is not to be expected of a book written in the 2nd century B.C.  Conklin notes that this is well recognized and states, “A linguistic analysis indicates that in morphology, vocabulary, and syntax of the Aramaic of Daniel is considerably earlier (on the order of several centuries) than that of Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) and the Targum of Job (11QtgJob) which date from either the late 3rd or 2nd century B.C”.[11]

Greek

Had the book of Daniel been written in the Maccabean era, it is at least likely that it would have been written in Greek since the Jewish Scriptures had already been translated into Greek by this time.  Or again, it might be expected that would be Greek loan words transliterated into Aramaic. In fact there are only three Greek terms transliterated in Daniel; they are found in only one chapter of the entire book, and all three of them are musical instruments (Dan 3: 5, 7, 10, 15). The three Greek terms are kiqa,raj, yalth,rion, sumfwni,a. Driver’s argument (in 1891) was that these words did not appear in the Middle East until the 2nd century BC, or were not even coined in Greece until this time, leading him to conclude that ‘the Greek demands’ a late date for the composition of Daniel. This claim is contradicted by the wealth of evidence which has become available over the last 100 years.

Both sumfwni,a and kiqa,raj were used long before the 2nd century in literature contemporary with Daniel.  Conklin points out that the term sumfwni,a was used by Pythagoras at least as early as 530 BC.[12]  However, the meaning and use of this term is uncertain. It could have an adjectival use meaning ‘in unison’ (as is the meaning of the English word ‘symphony’, derived from the Greek sumfwni,a), or it could be “a dialectal form…which dates back to at least the sixth century BC”.[13] Similarly, the word kiqa,raj was in use at least as early as Homer (8th century BC), proving that it was certainly in use by the Greeks well before the book of Daniel was written.[14]

Considerable evidence exists that words borrowed from Greek were already entering Semitic culture well before the Babylonian captivity.[15]  In Ezra 2:69 and Neh 7:70, 72, an Aramaic loan word for the Greek drachma is mentioned, despite the fact that both of these books are dated indisputably to the 5th century BC.[16]  Further corroboration is found in Greek loan words in the Aramaic Elephantine documents, also of the 5th century BC.

Hebrew

There are two lines of evidence which contradict Driver’s claims[17] that the Hebrew in Daniel ‘supports’ a late date:

  • Extensive study has demonstrated that the Hebrew of Daniel shares features of early Hebrew books.
  • It has also been demonstrated that the Hebrew of Daniel is very different to later Hebrew texts.

This kind of evidence was presented by Pusey, even prior to Driver’s arguments. Indeed, Pusey also demonstrated that even in his own day the theory that Daniel’s Hebrew was post-exilic did not have considerable support among the Higher Critics, citing Gesenius, Bleek, De Wette, and Ewald.[18]  Other 19th century scholars agreed.  Conklin cites the opinions of Stuart and Delitzsche, both of whom were supporters of ‘Higher Criticism’, but who agreed with the conservative assessment of Daniel’s Hebrew.[19]

Conklin also cites the studies of Archer,[20] which demonstrate the complete difference between the Hebrew of Daniel and the later 2nd century BC Hebrew of the Qumran documents:

Archer concludes that “in the areas of syntax, word order, morphology, vocabulary, spelling, and word usage, there is absolutely no possibility of regarding Daniel as contemporary” [to other second century documents]. He submits that “centuries must have intervened between them”.[21]

These findings mean that the Aramaic documents from Qumran require that Daniel was written far earlier than the Maccabean thesis allows and that the book was not written in Palestine.

 Conclusion

Driver’s “Introduction” is a synthesis of critical results from the 19c. and it popularized German Higher Criticism amongst the clergy in the English speaking world of his day. His linguistic arguments for the dating of Daniel were opposed at the time and have since been combated by conservative critics. The linguistic arguments considered decisive by Driver are no longer considered the basis for dating Daniel to the Maccabean era.

[1] S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, (9th Ed., Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1929), 508.

[2] Driver, Introduction, 506-507

[3] W. D. Jeffcoat, “The Linguistic Argument for the Date of Daniel”, 3; available online in PDF format [cited March 10th, 2008], http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/linguistic-argument-for-the-Dat.pdf .

[4] Jeffcoat, “Linguistic Argument”, 3.

[5] E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet (8th edition; Oxford: J. Perker and Co, 1886), xlii, 38.

[6] Jeffcoat, “Linguistic Argument”, 4.

[7] D. Conklin, “Evidences Relating to the Date of the Book of Daniel”. Available online, www.tektonics.org/guest/danielblast.html [Cited March 10th 2008].

[8] A. Ferch, book review of Klaus Koch’s Das Buch Daniel JSOT 23 (July 1982): 119-123.

[9] Jeffcoat, “Linguistic Argument”, 7.

[10] Jeffcoat, “Linguistic Argument”, 7.

[11] Conklin, “Evidences”.

[12] Conklin, “Evidences”.

[13] Conklin, “Evidences”.

[14] Jeffcoat, “Linguistic Argument”, 5.

[15] Conklin, “Evidences”.

[16] Jeffcoat, “Linguistic Argument”, 5.

[17] Driver, Introduction, 504-505.

[18] Pusey, Daniel, 34-35.

[19] Conklin, “Evidences”.

[20] Gleason L. Archer, “The Hebrew of Daniel compared with the Qumran Sectarian Documents” in The Law and the Prophets (ed., J Skilton; Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co, 1974); “Modern Rationalism and the Book of Daniel” Bibliotheca Sacra 136 (April-June 1979): 129-147.

[21] Conklin, “Evidences”.