Daniel 1:1 — Semitic Language Study
This present study is meant to demonstrate a closeness among the Semitic languages in the scriptural tradition. The book of Daniel was specifically chosen because of the large portion of the book that was written in Aramaic. Thus, there is an opportunity to discuss the book according to three languages — Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic (for further study). For the interest of New Testament scholarship, I will also dedicate a section of this study to the Koine Greek of the Septuagint translation. The Greek version of Daniel differs in many important ways, so caveats will be made to accomidate those differences as well. This will act as a practical lexicon, and links will be provided for further study. The main inspiration for this study is the book Rereading Isaiah 40–55 as the Project Launcher for the Books of the Law and the Prophets by Iskandar Abou-Chaar. There, Abou-Chaar demonstrates definitively the import of a cross linguistic study of Semitic lexicology for the advancement of Biblical studies. In Arabic, the roots become a bit more complex. I learned from his book that many of those roots form closely related matrices, where the endings vary. I will use these when applicable.
The English translations are mine.
בִּשְׁנַ֣ת שָׁלֹ֔ושׁ לְמַלְכ֖וּת יְהֹויָקִ֣ים מֶֽלֶךְ־יְהוּדָ֑ה בָּ֣א נְבוּכַדְנֶאצַּ֧ר מֶֽלֶךְ־בָּבֶ֛ל יְרוּשָׁלִַ֖ם וַיָּ֥צַר עָלֶֽיהָ׃
In the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim King of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar King of Babel (Babylon) went into Jerusalem and besieged her.
בִּשְׁנַ֣ת שָׁלֹ֔ושׁ bishnat shalosh — in the third year
The word בִּשְׁנַ֣ת is constructed by adding the ב (beth) preposition before the word שנה. This preposition can be rendered into English as “in”, “on”, or “at”. This same preposition exists in Arabic as well. The ת (taw) at the end of the word signals to us that it is a feminine singular noun in the construct state (since it is tied to shalosh). The root سنه sana in Arabic, in addition to referring to a literal year, seems to also refer to the passage of time and its effects. For instance, in Quran 2:259 it has the meaning of food spoiling as it ages. According to Lane’s lexicon, it also has the implication of an interval when someone is hired for a particular task or job. The other two roots in this matrix, سنو and سنى sanu and sani, share this basic meaning. This matrix also shares the connotation of watering a land affected by draught and also the weathering of palm trees. These are perhaps connotations adapted from agricultural life.
The word שָׁלֹ֔ושׁ essentially refers to a triad and its counterpart in Arabic is the word ثلث. The word for “Trinity” in Arabic is ثالوث thaluth. In Arabic, the letter ث (tha) is often used to transliterate the Hebrew letter שׁ (shin) but not always.
לְמַלְכ֖וּת יְהֹויָקִ֣ים מֶֽלֶךְ־יְהוּדָ֑ה — of the kingship of Jehoiakim King of Judah
The lamed (ל) preposition before מלכות is typically analogous to the English word “to” or “for”. The word מלכות malkut is usually rendered to “reign”. I opted for the word “kingship” so that it would match the word מלך melek which is simply, “king”. The corresponding root in Arabic, ملك, has the meaning of ownership and propriety. The King is a “king” because he is, at a basic level, the “proprietor” of the land.
The name Jehoiakim is functional — that is, it has a particular meaning in the text. The first part יהו yeho is the shortened version of יהוה yahweh and יקים yaqim is the imperfect verbal form of קום qum meaning to stand upright or raise. Because yaqim is in the imperfect, it typically has the implication of having “future” tense, except in the case of the waw consecutive (which, in the context of storytelling, communicates past tense). Given this context, the rendering of Jehoiakim’s name would be Yahweh shall raise up.
Having already looked at melek, the word יהודה yehudah has some interesting connections across Hebrew and Arabic. The typical understanding among Biblical scholars is that this word is tied to the root ידה yadah meaning to “praise” in the sense of throwing out accolades and songs of thanksgiving. This is mostly based on the narrative around the birth of Judah in Genesis 29:35. The text describes Leah giving her final son the name “Judah” because of her act of “giving thanks” to Yahweh. The word in that case is אודה from the same root in the imperfect verbal form, meaning “I will give thanks”. The corresponding root to ידה in Arabic would seem to be ودى which can have many implications depending on context. It can refer to forcing someone or something out, refer to blood money, or refer to a valley (ie Wadi Musa in Jordan). Interestingly, the Quran ties the word yehudah to a completely different root. In the Quran, the Jews are referred to with the root هود hud. The name “Hud” is also applied to a Quranic prophet, unique to that text. This root seems to more accurately correspond to the Biblical narrative surrounding Judah. For instance, according to Lane’s lexicon, there is a connotation with this root of singing in a gentle voice. This is evocative of the same “verbal praising” of the ידה root. There is also an interesting connection with the idea of becoming intoxicated and drunk and subsequently falling asleep. While the text doesn’t say anything about Judah being intoxicated or falling asleep per se, the narrative of Genesis 38 describes a lack of clear awareness on Judah’s part and impulsive behavior while seeking out prostitution. The coitus between him and his daughter-in-law Tamar seems to bear some thematic similarity with the story of Noah’s drunkenness (Gen. 9:21) and Lot’s unconscious rape by his daughters (Gen. 19:30–38). In any case, even more forceful here is the fact that Tamar is described by the Hebrew text of Genesis 38:21 to be a קדשה qedeshah — taboo woman. What makes this forceful is that Lane’s lexicon also ties this root with the act of a sacred (and thereby taboo) bond. Note that in Semitic languages, to be “holy” or “sacred” is to be marked “taboo”. I will add a screenshot of Lane’s lexicon to further drive my point. This entry in the lexicon is nearly verbatim what occurs in Genesis 38!
בָּ֣א נְבוּכַדְנֶאצַּ֧ר מֶֽלֶךְ־בָּבֶ֛ל יְרוּשָׁלִַ֖ם וַיָּ֥צַר עָלֶֽיהָ — Nebuchadnezzar King of Babel went into Jerusalem and beseiged her
The word בא ba is from the root בוא bo and refers to entering into a space. It is also used to describe sexual intercourse in a more graphic and visceral way. This is in contrast to when the Bible euphemizes the sexual act with the word ידע yada — to know. In the context of conquest the word is evocative of rape. This type of “domination” and “taking over” is expressed in the corresponding Arabic root بوأ.
The name Nebuchadnezzar is not Hebrew, but Akkadian, and most scholars believe that it means “Nebo, watch over my heir”.
Babel/ Babylon is an interesting word because it is describing the exact same city whence was built the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. The text of Genesis links the word בבל with בלל balal — confuse/ moisten but taken at face value, and taking into consideration the historical reality of Babylon, the name literally means the Gate of the Gods babilim. This can also be inferred from the Arabic which has preserved the word باب bab — gate. The Hebrew play on the words בבל and בלל is interesting though, primarily in its connection with adding moisture to something. Fr. Paul Tarazi discusses this in more detail in an episode of his podcast Tarazi Tuesdays. It is as if God moistened the bricks used by the builders of the tower, thus making it impossible for the bricks to harden and rendering the project incomplete. It is the opposite of what the bricks need, since to harden, they must be burned.
Jerusalem is a combination between the words ירה yarah — to throw, cast, or put and שלם shalem — peace. This combination is also functional. Jerusalem is a city, that depending on what is happening in the narrative, either establishes peace (in the sense of God’s eschatological city) or throws away/ casts out the peace. The root ירה is also the same one that is the basis of the word תורה torah — instruction. This root in Arabic is ورى wara — to hide, conceal. This word can also mean “to entomb” which is interesting when applied to the Torah in the narrative. In the historical narrative of the Old Testament, the original tablets God inscribed to Moses and Aaron’s staff were among the contents concealed in the ark of the covenant. What is even more striking is that the original word translated to “ark” is ארון aron — chest, coffin. That it contains the function of working as a coffin is demonstrated at the end of the book of Genesis when Joseph is himself placed into an ארון. The contents of the ארון are hidden and can only be accessed when the priest (Aaron) channels the words of the law and makes atonement for himself and the people. While the name Aaron has an uncertain derivation, it could very well be a play on ארון or derive from it. In Hebrew, Aaron’s name is אהרון — aharon. The world שלם in Semitic languages is interesting because the notion of “peace” is a bit different in that framework. It is not merely the cessation of violence, but the rendering of a situation to its normal condition. It can mean “safe” as well as an indication that a problem has been solved. In Arabic, the word أسلم aslama — surrender, lay down arms is from this root and is the basis of the word إسلام — islam. To be in a state of “peace” is to submit to God’s natural order. Peace is synonymous with submission in Semitic languages.
The word ויצר wayatsar — and he bound/ beseiged is an example of the waw consecutive, which is a mode of the imperfect (typically non-past) verb form which acts as a past tense. It is a striking verbal form that has confounded Biblical scholars for centuries, but it seems to be employed specifically for the mode of storytelling. The root of this word is צור ṣur — to fashion, bind, siege. There is also a possible connection with the word יצר yaṣar — to form/fashion. Included in the Arabic matrix of this root are صور ṣur — to form/ fashion and صار ṣar — to defraud. In either case, the idea is that whatever has the mechanism to create also has the same power to destroy. This word is neutral in that sense. It can mean either thing, depending on the contextual function. Here, it is functioning as a means to communicate Nebuchadnezzar subjugating Jerusalem and putting it in bonds, as in slavery. As such, the word מצרים miṣrayim — place of the double bondage/jeopardy/danger is used to denote the land of Egypt. The word is nominalized by the use of the מ (mem) preposition and is in the dual form grammatically. The dual form emphasizes the intensity of the bondage at hand. The exile of the Jews to Babylon is evocative of the Israelites’ slavery in Egypt, and their deliverance from Babylon is described in terms of a second exodus in the Prophets.
The word עליה aleha — upon her emphasizes the subjection onto Jerusalem. Cities are often referred to in the grammatical feminine, thus playing into Nebuchadnezzar’s domination over Jerusalem as being synonymous with “raping” the city. The exact same word in Arabic, على ala — upon, works exactly the same way and has the same basic meaning and function.
The Septuagint (LXX)
This next section will briefly look at how the Greek of the LXX translates the original.
Επί βασιλέως Ἰωακεὶμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἔτους τρίτου παραγενόμενος Ναβουχοδονοσὸρ βασιλεὺς Βαβυλῶνος εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐπολιόρκει αὐτήν.
Upon the third year of King Jehoiakim of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon, having inserted himself into Jerusalem, was binding her.
My translation of the LXX is a little different than that of the Hebrew, as here, I tried to incorporate the extremely flexible syntax of Koine Greek. That being said, I attempted, as I did with the Hebrew, to keep it relatively literal.
The use of the word παραγενόμενος paragenomenos — having inserted himself is an incredibly interesting and clever translation of בוא. Breaking the word down, it is from παρά which in this sense refers to being in the presence of something and γίνομαι which means to become something. In otherwords, παραγίνομαι means to make oneself known, or to make oneself present. The use of the word εἰς tells us that Nebuchadnezzar made himself present into Jerusalem, and thus inserted himself. Again, with the imagery being evocative of Nebuchadnezzar “raping” the city, the result is quite visceral. Grammatically, the word is an aorist participle and thus refers to a completed action. It is also in the “middle voice” and is thus reflexive, hence my choice to include “himself” in my translation.
The word ἐπολιόρκει epoliorkei — he was binding is in the imperfect tense, which refers to an ongoing past action. The lexical form, πολιορκέω, essentially carries the same meaning as צור, but specifically refers to putting up a blockade. The word is made up of πόλῐς polis — city and ἕρκος erkos — fence . That being said, the idea of being bound is still suggested by the text more than the literal sense of blockade.
