The shift from Hebrew to Aramaic in Daniel 2.4

Daniel 2.4 is a pivotal verse:

“The Chaldeans answered the king in Aramaic: O king, live forever! Tell the dream to your servants and we will give the interpretation” (Daniel 2.4).

The first part of the verse still belongs to the Hebrew section.

The change of language occurs precisely with the Chaldeans’ reply.

From the words introducing their speech in Aramaic, the book continues in that language to the end of Daniel 7.

The general distribution is therefore:

Daniel 1.1-2.4a: Hebrew;

Daniel 2.4b-7.28: Aramaic;

Daniel 8.1-12.13: Hebrew.

This is therefore not a matter of a few foreign expressions inserted here and there in a Hebrew text, but of a continuous Aramaic section covering nearly six chapters.

Aramaic gradually came to occupy a considerable place in the ancient Near East.

From the first millennium BC, its use spread widely beyond the Aramean peoples themselves.

It became a language of communication used in administrative and international contexts over a vast geographical area.

The Bible itself bears witness to this function.

In 2 Kings 18.26, during the Assyrian crisis under Hezekiah, the Judean officials ask the Assyrian representative:

“Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it; do not speak to us in the language of Judah in the hearing of the people who are on the wall.”

The passage shows that Aramaic could serve as a language of diplomatic communication between officials of different peoples.

Ezra also contains several documents and accounts in Aramaic (Ezra 4.8.18; 7.12-26).

The presence of a long Aramaic section in Daniel therefore fits into a historically understandable linguistic environment.

The formula of Daniel 2.4 has a remarkable feature: the narrator specifies that the Chaldeans answer the king “in Aramaic.”

This indication functions simultaneously as narrative information and as the book’s point of linguistic transition.

Up to this expression, the reader was reading the account in Hebrew.

From the Chaldeans’ speech on, the text itself adopts Aramaic.

The device is particularly natural on the literary level: the language announced by the narrator actually becomes the language of the account.

But this explanation is not enough to account for the whole section, since the Aramaic does not stop when the dialogue between Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans comes to an end.

It continues to Daniel 7.28.

A first explanation might be to think that Daniel switches to Aramaic simply because that language was used at the Babylonian court.

This observation explains fairly naturally the precise point of the transition in Daniel 2.4.

It explains much less easily why Daniel 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 remain entirely in Aramaic, even in accounts or visions that do not simply consist in reproducing a court dialogue.

The immediate linguistic explanation must therefore be supplemented by a literary explanation.

The change of language manifestly delimits a section of the book.

The first objective observation is that Daniel 2.4b-7.28 forms a linguistic unit.

This section includes:

the dream of the statue and its interpretation in Daniel 2;

the golden statue and the furnace in Daniel 3;

the humbling of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4;

the fall of Belshazzar in Daniel 5;

Daniel in the lions’ den in Daniel 6;

the vision of the four beasts and of the eternal — show definition INF038 kingdom in Daniel 7.

The literary genres are not identical.

Daniel 2 to 6 is mainly narrative, whereas Daniel 7 reports a vision received by Daniel.

The unity of the section therefore does not rest simply on literary genre.

It rests notably on language and on several common themes.

Daniel 2 to 7 is deeply marked by the question of political sovereignty.

Daniel 2 presents the succession of kingdoms and the Kingdom that God will establish.

Daniel 3 shows a ruler demanding religious obedience to his image.

Daniel 4 tells of Nebuchadnezzar’s humbling so that he will acknowledge that “the Most High rules over the kingdom of men” (Daniel 4.17).

Daniel 5 announces and fulfills the end of Belshazzar’s reign.

Daniel 6 shows the limits of a royal decree in the face of Daniel’s faithfulness.

Daniel 7 takes up the question of kingdoms again in the form of four beasts and leads to the everlasting dominion given to the one who comes “with the clouds of heaven” (Daniel 7.13-14).

The whole of the Aramaic section thus develops, in several forms, a fundamental question:

qui possède réellement la souveraineté sur les royaumes humains ?

The connection between Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 is particularly important.

Daniel 2 presents several successive kingdoms in the form of a statue made of different materials.

Daniel 7 presents several successive kingdoms in the form of four beasts.

Daniel 2 culminates in:

“a kingdom that shall never be destroyed” (Daniel 2.44).

Daniel 7 culminates in a dominion of which it is said:

“His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall never be destroyed” (Daniel 7.14).

The two chapters thus frame the Aramaic section with two visions presenting a succession of earthly powers followed by a definitive reign coming from God.

This correspondence is too important to be neglected in the analysis of the book’s structure.

Many exegetes have observed that Daniel 2 to 7 can be organized according to a concentric structure.

It can be presented as follows:

A - Daniel 2: four kingdoms and God’s definitive Kingdom;

B - Daniel 3: God’s servants threatened with death for their faithfulness;

C - Daniel 4: judgment and humbling of Nebuchadnezzar;

C' - Daniel 5 : jugement et chute de Belshatsar ;

B' - Daniel 6: Daniel threatened with death for his faithfulness;

A' - Daniel 7: four kingdoms and the eternal — show definition INF038 reign.

This organization makes it possible to observe several strong thematic correspondences.

Daniel 2 answers to Daniel 7.

Daniel 3 answers to Daniel 6.

Daniel 4 answers to Daniel 5.

The two central chapters thus concern in particular the judgment of Babylonian rulers, while the extremities deal with the succession of kingdoms.

This organization is particularly illuminating, but it must not be turned into a mechanical scheme imposing a perfect correspondence between all the details.

Daniel 3 and Daniel 6 do indeed present servants of God condemned because of their faithfulness, and then miraculously delivered.

Daniel 4 and Daniel 5 do indeed concern the judgment of two Babylonian rulers.

Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 do indeed present a succession of kingdoms leading to a definitive reign.

These correspondences are strong enough to justify recognizing a literary organization.

However, each chapter keeps its own function and its own particular features.

The structure helps in reading the text; it must not replace its analysis.

One frequently proposed explanation is to associate Aramaic with the international scope of chapters 2 to 7.

Since Aramaic was widely used as a language of communication in the ancient Near East, this section would have been particularly suited to accounts and visions concerning the nations and their rulers.

The hypothesis is attractive.

The Aramaic chapters do indeed give an important place to Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, the empires and God’s sovereignty over the nations.

Daniel 4 even contains a proclamation addressed by Nebuchadnezzar:

“to all peoples, nations and men of every language, who dwell in all the earth” (Daniel 4.4).

Daniel 7 also has a perspective reaching far beyond Israel.

It nevertheless remains difficult to demonstrate that the sole reason for the choice of Aramaic would be the existence of an international audience.

This explanation must therefore be presented as a plausible hypothesis rather than as a certainty explicitly given by the book.

The return to Hebrew in Daniel 8.1 is just as important as the shift to Aramaic in Daniel 2.4.

From Daniel 8 on, the visions pay increasing attention to events directly affecting Daniel’s people, Jerusalem, the sanctuary and the history of Israel.

Daniel 8 deals in particular with the sanctuary (Daniel 8.11-14).

Daniel 9 opens with the reading of Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the ruins of Jerusalem (Daniel 9.2) and contains Daniel’s prayer for his people and his city (Daniel 9.3-19).

The revelation of the seventy weeks concerns:

“your people and your holy city” (Daniel 9.24).

Daniel 10 to 12 further develops events connected with Daniel’s people and their future.

The return to Hebrew therefore corresponds to a change of perspective perceptible in the content.

It would nevertheless be excessive to claim that Hebrew concerns Israel exclusively while Aramaic concerns the nations exclusively. The two sets have perspectives that overlap.

It is rather a difference of dominant orientation.

The book can thus be considered according to three major linguistic units:

Daniel 1.1-2.4a: Hebrew - introduction to the course of Daniel and his companions;

Daniel 2.4b-7.28: Aramaic - God’s sovereignty in the midst of the kingdoms and great visions concerning their succession;

Daniel 8.1-12.13: Hebrew - visions granted to Daniel with a particularly important focus on his people, the sanctuary and the culmination of history.

This organization shows that the change of language has a real literary function.

Daniel 2 is located precisely at the point of transition.

The presence of two languages has sometimes been used to support the hypothesis of different sources or authors.

This conclusion is not, however, imposed by the phenomenon itself.

A bilingual author or editor can naturally use two languages.

Above all, the linguistic transition corresponds to a coherent literary organization: Aramaic begins in Daniel 2.4 and continues to the end of Daniel 7, precisely in a section presenting strong thematic correspondences.

Bilingualism is therefore a datum to be explained, but it is not in itself a demonstration of plural authorship.

Any hypothesis about the composition of the book must take into account the whole of the linguistic, literary and historical data rather than the mere fact that two languages are used in it.

The Aramaic of Daniel has been the subject of many discussions in the debate over the date of the book’s composition.

Language can provide historical clues, but it must be handled with caution.

An international language used over several centuries can preserve certain forms while developing others.

Manuscripts can also transmit older texts in later orthographic traditions.

It would therefore be methodologically fragile to make the whole dating of the book depend on a few isolated linguistic features.

The study of the date of Daniel requires confronting the linguistic data with history, literary forms, manuscripts and the whole content of the book.

Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is important not only for its prophetic content.

It is also the gateway to the great Aramaic section.

The chapter begins in Hebrew with the account of the royal crisis.

When the Chaldeans take the floor, the text shifts to Aramaic.

This language will then accompany the reader through the accounts concerning the Babylonian rulers, the deliverances of faithful servants and the vision of the four beasts, to the conclusion of Daniel 7.

Daniel 2 therefore plays a double role.

It opens the series of great revelations concerning the kingdoms.

It also opens the Aramaic section of the book.

This structure has an important consequence for the interpretation of the statue.

Daniel 2 must not be studied in isolation from Daniel 7.

The two chapters occupy the extremities of the Aramaic section and present a comparable prophetic structure.

Daniel 2 shows the kingdoms from the standpoint of an impressive statue.

Daniel 7 represents them in the form of beasts.

Daniel 2 announces the kingdom established by the God of heaven.

Daniel 7 announces the dominion given to the one who comes with the clouds and to the people of the saints of the Most High (Daniel 7.13-14, 27).

This correspondence will be a major element when it comes to identifying more precisely the kingdoms represented by the statue.

It therefore deserves to be integrated into the specific study of Daniel 2 that will follow the present chapter.