Page 19 - Daniel

Wilson, making use of earlier materials that had come to light, was able
to show that the distinction between Eastern and Western Aramaic did
not exist in pre-Christian times.” 11

Archer says concerning the Aramaic problem, “The Jews apparently
took no exception to the Aramaic sections in the book of Ezra, most of
which consists in copies of correspondence carried on in Aramaic
between the local governments of Palestine and the Persian imperial

court from approximately 520 to 460 B.C. If Ezra can be accepted as an
authentic document from the middle of the fifth century, when so many
of its chapters were largely composed in Aramaic, it is hard to see why
the six Aramaic chapters of Daniel must be dated two centuries later
than that. It should be carefully observed that in the Babylon of the late

sixth century, in which Daniel purportedly lived, the predominant
language spoken by the heterogeneous population of this metropolis was
Aramaic. It is therefore not surprising that an inhabitant of that city
should have resorted to Aramaic in composing a portion of his
memoirs.” 12

MAJOR DIVISIONS AND UNITY

The traditional division of the book of Daniel into two halves (1–6; 7–
12) has usually been justified on the basis that the first six chapters are
historical and the last six chapters are apocalyptic or predictive. There is
much to commend this division, which of ten also regards chapter 1 as

introductory.
As indicated in the exposition of chapter 7, an alternative approach,
recognizing the Aramaic section as being significant, divides the book

into three major divisions: (1) Introduction, Daniel 1; (2) The times of
the Gentiles, presented in Aramaic, Daniel 2–7; (3) Israel in relation to
the Gentiles, in Hebrew, Daniel 8–12. This view is advanced by Culver
13
following Auberlen. Although this has not attracted the majority of
conservative scholars, it has the advantage of distinguishing God’s
programs for the Gentiles and for Israel, with the break coming at the

end of chapter 7.
This division also allows the chiastic structure within chapters 2–7 to