K.A. Kitchen, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” D. J. Wiseman, ed., Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel.
London: The Tyndale Press, 1965. pp. 31-79.
from certain roots are written on occasion with either sibilant.
152
A priori, therefore, the same
phenomenon might be expected in Aramaic. In fact, it is hardly attested at all either in
Biblical Aramaic or outside it in Imperial Aramaic. In Daniel, there is only one ‘native
Semitic’ example: sbr (for śbr), ‘to think’. The same is true in Ezra (str). In the Aramaic
papyri, Rowley reviewed four possible roots showing s for ś; of these, sbrt (‘I thought’, AP,
no. 37:7)
153
and tstkl from śkl, ‘consider’, or the like (AP, in Ahiqar, 147),
154
seem beyond
reasonable doubt, despite Rowley’s reserves.
155
Now, one isolated example in each major
piece of Biblical Aramaic proves nothing at all—they are far too slender a basis by which to
identify the ‘first beginnings’ (AOT, p. 38) of a general change in orthography from ś to s. We
know for a fact that, in the pre-Christian centuries (and even down to the Massoretic epoch,
on to the eighth century AD), there was some MS-variation between ś and s in the spelling of
a few words:
[p.58]
e.g. śbk’, śgy’n, śt£r.
156
Therefore, we have no guarantee that śbr and śtr had not once upon a
time fluctuated and eventually become settled with s-orthography perhaps long before the
Massoretes,
157
whereas śbk’, śgy’n, and śt£r continued to fluctuate in MS-tradition till much
later. Loan-words and foreign proper names, of course, are not so directly applicable to
Semitic phonetic developments. In the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript-fragment from Qumran
Cave I, fluctuation here is attested for the loan-word srbl in Daniel, which in the scroll
appears as śrbl.
158
(Note for Ezra 7:26, that the loan-word šršw, better śršw, appears as
srwšyt—with initial samekh—in the Arsames documents of the fifth century BC.
159
) As Ksdy’,
‘Chaldaeans’, in Ezra is a foreign name, it too is worthless as evidence on this point—
especially if taken from (or contaminated by) Akkadian, where the Assyrian and Babylonian
dialectal position on ś/s and š is very intricate.
160
In brief, we have no guarantee that s is
original (cf. Quniran and later MSS-variations)—and one Semitic common noun in each of
Daniel and Ezra is much too little evidence on which to base anything.
(vi) Finally, the variation between h and ’ at the end of words. Enough has been said already
by Rowley,
161
Baumgartner,
162
and Schaeder,
163
to obviate need of long discussion here. The
net result is that such variations are chronologically worthless. Of Rowley’s conveniently
tabulated 15 points,
164
nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, show such affinity in usage between the Aramaic
of Daniel and Old and Imperial Aramaic, that they prove nothing. Likewise, points 9 and 11,
where in each case an isolated writing with h is neither ‘early’ nor ‘late’, but merely
152
E.g. BDB, pp. 690-69, (swg), p. 962 (śt; śwk), etc.
153
Cowley, AP, p. 134, shows little real doubt about reading sbr.
154
See C. F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des Inscriptions Sémitiques de l’Quest, III (1962), p. 192 end,
and references.
155
Schaeder, Iranische Beiträge, I, p. 247 [49] and n.5, would add skyn, ‘knife’.
156
Quoted by Rowley, AOT, p. 34 and n.1.
157
It is, therefore, nonsense to allege that this has any bearing upon ‘phonetic revision’, e.g. as ‘particularly
damaging’ or otherwise, pace Rowley, AOT, p. 38, n.1.
158
Noted by Rowley in HSD, p. 118 and n.3.
159
Cf. p. 39 above; G. R. Driver, Aramaic Documents (1957), Letter 3:6, 7.
160
Cf. briefly W. Von Soden, Grundriss tier Akkadischen Grammatik (1952), §30, especially 6g, p. 31.
161
AOT, pp. 39-50; HSD, pp. 118-120.
162
ZAW, XLV (1927), pp. 90-94, 112-115.
163
Iranische Beiträge, I, pp. 233-235 [35-37], 239-242 [41-44].
164
AOT, pp. 39-50. In HSD, pp. 118-120 (Sect. II), points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 = AOT, points 6, 5, 4, 1, 2; HSD, point 6
covers AOT, nos. 12-25, and 7, the latter, p. 67:4. Cf. also Baumgartner, loc. cit. (n. 162, above).