The Book of Daniel
99
1 f ' I> t é i '
(10) 77i Aramaic. One critic said Aramaic was not spoken in Babylon. Others, not so self-confident, said the Aramaic in Babylon was different from Daniel’s Aramaic. None of them knew what Aramaic was spoken in Babylon. There was Ezra’s Aramaic. I t was like Daniel’s and Ezra -was a native of Babylon. To save their argument they then post-dated Ezra too. In 1906 and 1908, there were unearthed papyrus rolls in Aramaic written in the fifth century, B. C. It is impossible to suggest redactors and other imaginary persons in this case, arid so the Aramaic argument goes the way of all the rest. Before these recent finds the Aramaic weapon had begun to lose its potency. The clay tablets, thousands of which have been found in Babylonia, are legal documents and are written in Babylonian. Upon the backs of some of them were Ara- maic filing marks stating in brief the contents. These filings were for ready reference and evidently in the common lan- guage of the people, the same language which the frightened Chaldeans used when the angry monarch threatened them (Dan. 2:4.) There are some other alleged inaccuracies more frivolous than the above. Lack of space forbids their consideration here. Two new objections to the genuineness of Daniel appear in a dictionary of the Bible, edited by three American clergy- men. The article on Daniel states that “the B a ba B a t h r a * ascribes the writing not to Daniel but along with that of some other books to the men of the. Great Synagogue". T h i s . STATEMENT IS CORRECT IN WORDS, BUT BY CONCEALMENT CON- VEYS a FALSE i m p r e s s i o n . The trick lies in the phrase, “some other books”. What are those other books ? They are Eze- kiel, Hosea, Amos—all the minor prophets—and Esther. The 0 *Thf passage is found in the Talmud Babylon, Tract Baba .Bathra, fol. 15a., and reads, "The men of the Great Synagogue have written Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel and Esther.”— Editor.
■» *
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker