Abstract
Although a number of scholars in past centuries have viewed the Hebrew of Daniel
8-12 as translation from Aramaic, only F Zimmermann and H L Ginsberg have put
forward a large body of evidence to support this theory. It has not been accepted as
proof and the issue has been left open. This work appraises their evidence through:
study of the general character of the Masoretic Text and the difficulties of its
language; detailed description of their evidence with additional material adduced by
L F Hartman, and H H Rowley's and John J Collins' brief rebuttals. It proceeds to
critique both sides ofthe argument, rejecting any form of Aramaism including caique
and particularly semantic interference, as ultimate proof of translation from an
Aramaic Vorlage. These conclusions are reached through reflection on the
similarities between thought and written text. Since the proponents paid little
attention to textual evidence for comparison with their Aramaic solutions to
problems in the Hebrew, a vertical and horizontal study of primary textual witnesses
was carried out to compare with the small amount oftheir evidence which seemed to
indicate an Aramaic Vorlage. The textual study itself produced two examples where
variation between the Masoretic text and the Old Greek could be solved by recourse
to Aramaic. This set the eventual direction of the work towards analysis of textual
solutions by retroversion of the Masoretic Text to Aramaic and the Versions to
Hebrew and Aramaic, and by interaction with recent textual studies in Daniel. Two
types of evidence are collated; caique, which is ambiguous but supportive, and
evidence for an Aramaic manuscript behind the Hebrew. It concludes that absolute
proof is not possible, but the instincts, not the methods ofZimmermann and Ginsberg
were correct: the Hebrew probably was translated from Aramaic, and the Old Greek
is a translation of a translation.
