The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 11

kingdom of God; and that the second, the Hebrew portion, represents the develop- ment of the kingdom of God in relation to the world-power. Against this view it may be effectively urged that the eighth chapter gives the development of the world- power of Macedonio. over against the kingdom of God, as much as do the second and seventh, and as little gives the development of the kingdom of God. Indeed, the Messianic kingdom is more prominent in the two earlier visions. (2) Another oxplanatiou is difference of audience conteUJplated. This is the theory of Merx. Where the contents were relatively simple and suited for ordinary Jewish society, the language used was Aramaic, the common lo.nguage of business and social intercourse. Where the contents of the prophecy were more recondite, the sacred language, Hebrew, was used, which was known to few beyond the learned Jews. To this the answer of Lenorma.nt is sufficient. The first chapter is simple narrative, yet it is in Hebrew. On the other hand, the seventh chapter, with its account of the four beasts, is as recondite as the account of the combat of the ram and the be-goat in tho following chapter, yet the former is in Aramaic, and the latter in Hebrew. (3) Another theory, that of Eichhorn, explains the two languages by difference of authorship. Meinhold has a view somewhat akin to this, only he makes the division between the authors at the end of the sixth chapter, becauM he thinks the seventh chapter indicates Aramaic of a different age. The connective on which be lays stress may be explained in a different way. Neither hypothesis explains why the writer of the first chapter, having written that whole chapter in Hebrew, and a few verses in the second, should suddenly break off into Aramaic. Meinhold's theory adds the difficulty-why the writer of the latter portion, having begun in Aramaic, should suddenly turn off into Hebrew, 'l'he problem is still there, only it now applies to two authors instead of one.1 (4) Lenormant's theory is that the Aramaic portion is really a Targum or inter- pretation, and that during the Antiochean persecution the Hebrew of this portion was lost. This theory is, to some extent, adopted by Mr. Bevan. Certainly it is in favour of this view, that the Hebrew ceases in the middle of the fourth verse of the second chapter, in quite an accidental way, at a point that marks no change in the subject of the narra- tive. Against it is the fact that the Aramaic section concludes with the end of a chapter. Had any such disaster befallen any of the sacred books, some trace of the event would certainly have been found in the Talmud, terribly distorted, no doubt, but none the less recogaizable. The Talmudists do not discuss the question at all ; they cer- tainly call the Aramaic portion of Daniel "Targum" in reference to the language, but assert it" to defile the hands." The task of the defenders of Daniel would, in some respects, be made easier if this theory could be maintained. (5) Another theory is that the difference of language represents a difference in date in the delivery of the prophecies or narrative, those written under the Babylonian supremacy being in Aramaic, but those under the Persian rule in Hebrew. This, were it accurate, would be merely a statement of fact, not an assignment of a reason for that fact. The original framers of this view have failed to note that the eighth chapter is dated under Belsbazzar, while the sixth is under Darius. (6) Dr. Wright, the author of the Donnellan Lectures on Ecclesiastes, and of the Bampton Lecture on Zecbariah, has a theory which he indicates in his 'Introduction to the Old Testament' (p. 193). His theory is that the Book of Daniel is compiled of 1 This theory, held mainly by opponents of the authenticity of Daniel, is used by Dean Farmr to introduce a quotation from Professor Bevan, that " the defenders of Daniel" were employed in hacking D11niel to pieoes. The confusion of thought is oharacteriiltia and obvious.  INTRODUCTION TO