The Language of Doxology in Aramaic Daniel

Trevor Peterson 2003

Doxological formulae exist as a stylized component of familiar JudeoChristian liturgical traditions. To take just two examples in current usage, there is the situational Jewish blessing of bread: , and the Byzantine three-fold blessing from the Great Doxology: , , . , , . , , . The ubiquity of such forms suggests historical and linguistic antecedents in the shared biblical material. There are six utterances in Biblical Aramaic (BA) that can be classified as doxological, all of which are found in Daniel: 2:2023; 3:28, 3233 (4:2 3); 4:3132 (3435), 34 (37); 6:2728 (2627).1 To date, the linguistic features of this particular corpus have not been studied systematically, nor indeed has much been written specifically on the use of language in biblical prayer.2 This study considers the utterances in their overlapping contexts as examples of both Jewish Aramaic and late biblical doxologies.
Biblical citations are, unless otherwise noted, from the MT. Where parenthetical citations follow, they generally indicate a discrepancy between the chapter and verse divisions of the MT and English Bibles. 2 This is not to say that nothing has been written about biblical prayeronly that the focus has not been on its language. For recent examples, consider Judith H. Newman, Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (SBLEJL 14; Atlanta: Scholars, 1999), and Mark J. Boda, Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9 (BZAW 277; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999).
1

1 Contextual Framework
There are at least two significant, overarching differences between the six utterances that must be taken into account at the outset. First, the speaker is not the same in every utterance. In 2:2023, Daniel is the speaker; in all others, the king speaks. This distinction may be immaterial, but it should at least be tentatively observed. Granted, all six utterances are in the mouths of characters in a narrative; but it may be significant that one character is a devout Jew, while the others are Gentiles portrayed in varying degrees of piety. Second, and of more obvious importance, the utterances are not all reported as direct speech. In 4:3132 Nebuchadnezzar recalls his doxology indirectly, and in 6:2728 Darius decrees an indirect doxology for his subjects. This difference of presentation results in corresponding linguistic differences. In this study, the primary interest is in directly reported doxological utterances, but at least some elements are no different between the two reporting styles, while some can be safely mapped to a corresponding direct-speech form.

2 Introductory Constructions
The relatively simple structure of doxologies lends itself to a three-part analysis, beginning with introductory constructions. Only two of the directlyreported doxologies begin with some use of the verbal root .Dan 2:20 uses a periphrastic construction with the Dp participle, while 3:28 uses a Gp predicative participle.3 The subjects are also different. In Nebuchadnezzars doxology, serves as the head of the subject noun phrase, with a compound genitive complement ( .) In Daniels, the head of the subject noun phrase is ,while is relegated to the role of complement. Both genitive constructions are formed by and a
I refer to verbs generically by their root and stem, since a root on its own is an etymological construct, not the verb itself. The stem labels follow the comparative Semitic system: G Peal Grundstamm Gp internal passive Gt Hitpeal D Pael doubled Dt Hitpael C (H)afel causative etc.
3

cataphoric pronominal suffix4 a construction that is generally avoided in the Targums of Onqelos and Jonathan when the complement is divine.5 Daniels introductory clause finishes with two temporal adjunctsa pair of coordinated prepositional phrases functioning adverbially ( and .) There are strong Biblical Hebrew (BH) parallels to this opening formula. The beginning of Daniels doxology is quite similar to that used by Job (Job 1:21): The only appreciable differences are the use of Yhwh in Job and the different genitive constructions, both of which are easily accounted for as integral distinctions between BH and BA. Even more striking is the parallel with Ps 113:2, which preserves the precise wording of Job and includes temporal adjuncts: The correspondence between and is not as close as that between and , but the temporal construction found in Daniel is used elsewhere in BH (Pss 90:2; 103:17; 106:48; Neh 9:5). The construction used in Nebuchadnezzars doxology is considerably more common in BH and needs no specific corroboration. What should be noted is that there is no mingling of verbal stems with different subjects. The subject is only in the two instances cited, and only there is the Dp participle used periphrastically.6 Elsewhere, the subject Yhwh appears with the Gp participle, usually predicative but periphrastic on at least one occasion (1 Kgs 10:9=2 Chr 9:8). This latter construction is exhibited as well in 1QapGen 22.167 and its
See Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramischen (Tbingen: Max Niemeyer, 1927; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962) 314. 5 Douglas M. Gropp, class notes for Introduction to Aramaic (The Catholic University of America, 2001) 104. 6 See also Neh 9:5, where D appears in the juss. 3mp form, showing unspecified subject. Here the head of the object phrase is ,as should be expected with the D-stem verb. 7 Unless otherwise noted, 1QapGen citations are from Nahman Avigad and Yigael Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1956). This first publication of the scroll lacks several columns that have been analyzed more recently, but no complete publication has followed.
4

Hebrew Vorlage, Gen 14:1920, where Melchizedek blesses both Abram and El Elyon with similar language: According to Muraoka, the subject should be expected to precede the predicate in these Aramaic nominal clauses, but the order has been reversed under influence from the Hebrew text.8 This is an oversimplified explanation however, since the same word order is exhibited in Daniel, suggesting that whatever is going on with the Aramaic word order does not require a scenario of direct translation from Hebrew. Perhaps there is Hebrew influence to consider, but it would seem to be more broadly applicable to doxological conventions in Jewish Aramaic as a whole. Also relevant to this opening formulation is the variant exhibited in 1QapGen 20.12, as well as 1 Chr 29:10 (and Ps 119:12): The difference in both languages is that the subject of the nominal clause is the second person independent personal pronoun, with the divine referent in apposition. As Towner observes, the doxological formula without the pronoun functions as a kerygmatic utterance, whereas the formula with the independent personal pronoun approaches a true prayer form, and corresponds in mode of address to the normal expression of prayers.9 He explains, The insertion of the pronoun att into the ancient formula for blessing YHWH reorients the prayer into a direct address to him. The blessing has become a personal and direct address to God alone (392). While this later formulation does not appear in Daniel, there is no reason to think that it could not have done so. In any event, the structure of doxologies seems to be otherwise unaffected by the presence or absence of the independent pronoun in this opening formulation. At least one other doxology in Daniel may presuppose a similar formulation without explicitly reporting it. In Dan 4:31, Nebuchadnezzar uses the
Takamitsu Muraoka, Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon (1), RevQ 8 (1972) 751, here 35. 9 W. Sibley Towner, Blessed be YHWH and Blessed art Thou, YHWH: The Modulation of a Biblical Formula, CBQ 30 (1968) 38699, here 389 and 394. This transformation does not necessarily diminish the element of public proclamation; see Claus Westermann, Das Loben Gottes in den Psalmen (2nd ed.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961) 24. The proclamation remains, while the addition of the pronoun changes the form of presentation.
8

perfect form of D to indicate what he has done. The double blessing of 1QapGen 11.1214 uses the same form twice in a similar way.10 The action expressed by the verb does not seem to require any particular utterance, although it does appear in the same sort of context where the utterance formula might be reported (Judg 5:2, 9; Pss 16:7; 26:12; 1 Chr 29:20). In Neh 9:5, the doxological formula is unusual, but it does seem that the plural imperative addressed to the people anticipates the jussive that follows. It may be reasonable, then, to assume a similar introductory formula in the utterance that is reported indirectly, particularly if what follows has a form similar to the material following explicitly reported introductions. Other doxologies have altogether different means of introduction. Dan 3:33 opens with a focus on divine deeds, rather than the divine person. As such, the utterance moves directly into exclamatory praise of what God has done. The indirectly reported doxology of 6:27 charges the people with a periphrastic construction involving two G participles from and , which are perhaps better actions to be the object of a royal decree but in any case do not seem to suggest the same sort of introduction seen above. 2:23 starts a new doxological formula on the heels of that begun in v. 20. This new construction is the only doxology in BA addressed directly to God, although it uses a different formula from that discussed by Towner:11 This construction uses two coordinated predicative participles, with the subject explicitly expressed through the independent personal pronoun. The complement, a suffixed pronoun, is mediated by the preposition , to which a vocative noun phrase stands in apposition.12 The complement
10 All citations from col. 11 are based on Matthew Morgenstern, Elisha Qimron, and Daniel Sivan, The Hitherto Unpublished Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon, AbrN 33 (1995) 3054, here 46. 11 According to Joseph A. Fitzmyers reading (The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I: A Commentary [2nd ed.; BibOr 18A; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1971] 58), 1QapGen 19.78 contains some sort of brief prayer addressed directly to God. He reconstructs this portion by comparison with 21.12 and Gen 12:8, admitting that the restoration of the prayer itself is questionable. Klaus Beyer (Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer: samt den Inschriften aus Palstina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle, und den alten talmudischen Zitaten [Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht] 171) reads the broken passage differently. Even if Fitzmyer is correct, there is not enough here to determine whether this prayer is of a particularly doxological type or to say much about its structure. 12 According to Westermann (Loben Gottes, 23), God is always the subject in sentences of praise, but that does not seem to be a consistent rule in these examples. As seen here, God can be the complement or can drop out of the picture altogether, as his deeds take the position of subject.

is also fronted, probably to draw focus. Dan 4:31, 34 both use forms of D to express what Nebuchadnezzar does before God. C does not appear in any other BA doxology, but it is part of what gets Daniel into trouble in 6:11. The action of both verbs is consistent with that of D, as might be expected. A similar construction appears in 4:34, except that the doxology is not addressed directly to God. The subject is fronted instead of the complement and draws further focus from the appositional relationship between and .The collection of participles is also somewhat different, although the semantic effect is probably the same in both cases. The introductions to the doxologies in Daniel are thus by no means according to a fixed formula. While it seems that verb forms from are common, they are not obligatory, and there is controlled variation to their appearance. The subject can be or his name, where the former takes a Gp participle and the latter takes a Dp participle.13 Introductions without can use other words that seem to fall in the same semantic domain or that express a sense of fear or trembling, or they can move directly into exclamatory praise of divine actions or character, which is what ordinarily follows the introduction where it is present.

3 Transitional Features
Wherever it is possible to identify an introductory construction of some sort, whether it uses a verb from or not, what follows the introduction in Aramaic always begins with .This is true of both directly and indirectly reported utterances; the only exception is in Dan 3:33, where no introduction is given, so that the doxology begins with descriptive praise for Gods actions. The most likely categories of conjunction given by Bauer and Leander are called Explanative and Kausale.14 But the consistent sense in doxological formulations is that what follows expresses the reason for the praise. Indeed, it is difficult to know how to translate in this usage, since a causal or relative translation seems to fit equally well in every instance. Where the following clause is verbal, the subject is always implicit; where the clause is nominal, the subject is always explicit. But even in nominal
13 There is a fragmentary passage that uses ,but there is too little context to establish the grammar with any certainty. Florentino Garca Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition [Leiden: Brill, 1997] 30) read in 1QapGen 5.23. 14 Bauer and Leander, Grammatik, 26465.

clauses, there is always a (suffixed or independent) pronoun in the clause that can resume the relativizer. This construction seems to have more than one Hebrew equivalent. is used most commonly, especially in narrative, but occasionally in psalms one finds )6:421( or 51.)22:13 ;6:82( As should be expected, there are also places in poetry where no conjunction appears (Ps 68:20). The conjunction is normally followed by a perfect verb form, while there are other constructions that use an attributive participle and require no conjunction (Pss 72:18; 144:1). In the Aramaic doxologies of both Daniel and 1QapGen, there seems to be a rather even split between reference to general conditions (Dan 2:20; 3:33; 4:31, 34; 6:27; 1QapGen 20.13) and specific past events (Dan 2:23; 3:28; 1QapGen 11.13; 22.17), which are consistently represented by nominal or participial clauses and perfect verb forms, respectively. According to Westermann, die einfachste und ursprnglichste Weise des Lobens Gottes is to respond to divine deliverance with einem einfachen Aussagesatz, zu dem noch der Lobruf brk jahwe! kommen kann.16 There are thus three essential elements in declarative praise: 1. Das Loben Jahwes ber einer Tat, die er getan hat. 2. Diese Stze sind unmittelbar Antwort auf Gottes Eingreifen. 3. Es gehrt zum Wesen dieses Lobes, da es in Freude geschieht. These elements apply equally to psalms and to praise utterances embedded in narrative. Westermann continues: Diese Verbindung zwischen den Psalmen und dem Geschichtsbericht wird noch dadurch verstrkt, da von allen Vokabeln des Lobens allein diese Form des Verbs brak (mit dem Objekt Gott) hier und dort begegnet. Keine andere Form einer Vokabel des Lobens begegnet sonst in Geschichtsbchern und in den Psalmen.17 Westermann outlines a progression from this simplest form to the more developed liturgical use in Psalms. In Pss 124:6; 68:19; 28:6; 66:20; 18:46; and 144:1, statements are made in direct response to specific acts of deliverance. Then they are reserved for major feast days (1 Kgs 8:1416, 5556) and apply to more long-term acts. Finally, in Pss 41:13; 72:18 19; 89:52; and 106:48 (=41:14), fehlt jeder konkrete Anla. Der Lobruf
The doxologies in the NT Apocalypse consistently use (4:11; 5:9; 11:17; 15:4; 16:5 6; 19:2, 67). 16 Westermann, Loben Gottes, 64. 17 Ibid., 65.
15

brk ist dem geschichtlichen Geschehen ganz entnommen, es ist zeitlose Liturgie.18 Towner describes the doxologies in Daniel as resembling individual psalms of thanksgiving. The situation is generally appropriate, C is sometimes used, there is a call to praise and extol, sometimes an account of the distress from which relief has been obtained, a description of the deliverance obtained, and formulae of praise.19 He goes on to emphasize that they are only imitations, however, since their setting is non-liturgical.20 This situation may help to explain the mixture of predication styles, since the non-liturgical setting of Daniel shifts what has by this point probably become quite standardized back in the direction of its more occasional, spontaneous roots.

4 Explanatory Praise
Although the material following is generally less formulaic, there are still significant observations to be made about the use of language to explain the reason for giving praisethe types of predication, the word order, the vocabulary employed, poetic features, and odd grammatical features.

4.1 Predication Types

Towner identifies as a hymnic feature the device of predication by means of a series of participial clauses, favored in such hymns as Pss 103, 1-5; 104, 1-4.21 The structure is somewhat different here, but there does seem to be a preference for compound participial clauses. In Dan 2:21, serves as the subject for four participles ( C, C, C, G). Only the middle two are joined with a simple conjunction, perhaps because of their close relationship as opposite statements. V. 22 also begins with a pronominal subject and continues into two predicative participles ( G, G). The subject shifts with the third participle, as probably indicated by the reversal of word order. In 4:32, there are two adjacent participial clauses with different subjects. Even though the subject is not explicit in the second clause, the shift from Gpan expression of thought in a passive stem to Gan expression of action in an active stemmakes clear the change
Ibid., 66. W. Sibley Towner, The Poetic Passages of Daniel 16, CBQ 31 (1969) 31726, here 319. 20 Ibid., 323. 21 Ibid., 320.
19 18

in subject. In v. 34, the introductory formula uses as the subject of three participles ( D, D, D), while the last clause of the explanation is also participial ( G). Finally, 6:28 contains a string of three participles ( D, C, and G) forming separate clauses. On the other hand, not all such doxologies use participial clauses, even if they express general conditions rather than past deeds. Indeed, Dan 2:20 22 exhibits the only consistent pattern of compound participles, which appear sporadically elsewhere. Participial clauses are altogether absent from the extant doxologies in 1QapGen, and simple nominal clauses carry their share of general present predications even in Daniel. The doxology in Dan 3:33 consists entirely of nominal clauses, while 4:32 combines participial clauses with the predicator ( ) and 4:34 with nominal clauses (see also 1QapGen 20.13). Notably absent are volitive forms and imperfects, aside from embedded relative clauses (Dan 3:28; 4:32). It seems, then, that the use of participial clauses in these doxologies is simply one of two ways to express a general present. Imperfect verb forms are reserved for subordinated expressions of modality, and perfect forms are used regularly to describe explicitly past deeds. When general characteristics or states are being described, nominal clauses are available for simple predication and participial clauses for more explicitly verbal ideas. Towners characterization may apply to a more formal, liturgical setting; but this hymnic quality does not seem to be particularly consistent in attested Aramaic doxologies.

4.2 Word Order

Significant work remains to be done on BA syntax, including word order. Without a systematic study, it is difficult to place observed data in proper context. Still, something may be gained by considering the word order exhibited in doxologies. Perhaps the simplest place to begin is with the use of the clause predicator ,since it appears only once in the corpus and in a rather straightforward manner. In 4:32, the predicator is negated, so that the negative comes immediately after the conjunction and immediately before the predicator. The relative clause that forms the complement comes in the only place left for itafter the predicator. All nominal clauses in BA doxological expositions begin with the subject and end with the predicate. With the exception of the highly marked construction in Dan 3:33, they all follow either directly or through coordination (2:20; 4:31, 34; 6:27). Dan 6:27 contains one clause in which the subject is an independent pronoun, as does 1QapGen 20.13. In the former case, the predicate is determined; in the latter case, it is adjec9

tival. In Dan 2:20 a determined subject precedes a possessive pronoun, which in turn is followed by an independent personal pronoun functioning as a copula. The remaining examples of nominal clauses exhibit an initial subject with a possessive suffix, followed by an adjectival predicate (Dan 3:33; 4:31, 34; 6:27). Further examples from doxologies in 1QapGen show less regularity. In 11.13, adjectival and possessive predicates precede their subjects, which are determined or take a pronominal suffix. In 20.13, the final nominal clause opens with a preposed topic, the prepositional phrase . Muraoka construes this phrase with ,citing 22.24 as a parallel example, where the following infinitive phrase is epexegetical.22 It seems, though, that in this case could simply resume the topic, so that no epexegesis is necessary. In any event, the pronominal subject is clear ( ,)as is the adjectival core predicate ( .)The remaining infinitival phrase functions as a complement to this adjective. The behavior of participial clauses is not altogether straightforward but lends itself to some reasonable explanations. Among clauses following , the norm seems to be that the subject begins the clause, followed by the participle, followed by complements and adjuncts (Dan 2:21, 22). In Dan 2:22, the final participial phrase changes its word order by moving a pronominalized constituent ahead of the participle at the same time that a shift occurs in the subject. It does not seem like the fact of pronominalization alone can explain the shift, since a similar correspondence with the shift in subject can be observed twice in 4:32, neither of which involves pronominalization. The shift from human to divine subject is basically the same as that in 2:22, but in the following clause there is no explicit subject. Similarly with the constructions that appear in 6:28, where otherwise the word order seems normal, and 4:34, where the object of the participle is fronted, pronominalization cannot be the reason. The structure of verbal clauses is considerably more difficult to analyze than any other clause type. Dan 2:23 and 3:28 provide useful examples, in that each exhibits a sequence of verbal clauses with different constructions. First, Dan 2:23: This series of clauses constitutes an entire exposition. All verb forms are perfect. In the first clause, the object precedes the verb, which is followed
22

Muraoka, Genesis Apocryphon, 35; Fitzmyer, Genesis Apocryphon, 129.

10

by a prepositional complement. In the second clause, a temporal adverb precedes the verb, which takes one complement as a suffix and another as a relative clause. Within the relative clause, the initial relativizer functions as one complement and the final prepositional phrase as the other, with the verb in between. In the final clause, the object complement precedes the verb, which takes a second complement as a suffix. There seems to be one available slot before the verb in all four clauses, which is consistently filled, regardless of the constituent that is used. Somewhat less straightforward is 3:28: The first clause opens with ,which may or may not stand as a constituent in the clause. If it does not, or if it is distributed across the first two clauses, they are of a parallel structure, with the verb first and complement second. The next use of introduces three clauses describing the same subject. In the middle clause, the complement precedes the verb, while in the other two it follows. In the final clause, the compound verb precedes the complement. The one clause in which the complement precedes the verb seems inexplicable over against the others, but even if it were written off as an aberration, the structure in this verse would oppose that in 2:23. The picture becomes even less clear, when the remaining evidence is considered. The double blessing of 1QapGen 11.13 seems to support both of the previous examples (if the editors reading of as a noun is correct). In 1QapGen 22.17, the verb comes first after .The verb also comes first in Dan 4:32 and 6:28. This would seem to be the usual position, if it were not for Dan 2:23.

4.3 Vocabulary
Several words are repeated in various Aramaic doxologies. While such repetition in itself does not necessarily indicate that a word is unique to or required in doxological contexts, it can suggest common themes in attested doxologies and the language used to express them. C takes a direct object as its complement ( .) ,The subject is divine (Dan 2:21; 1QapGen 11.13). On at least one occasion, the action is set in opposition to C. is used to express divine sovereignty over human government (Dan 2:21; 1QapGen 20.13). It also refers situationally to the idolatrous order of the king in Dan 3:28. 11

 G takes a direct object as its complement (, , , , .) , ,As an infinitive, it can be the complement of ;as a substantive participle, it can be the object of C or D. The subject can be divine (Dan 4:32; 6:28; 1QapGen 11.13; 20.13) or human (1QapGen 11.14). There is often a locative modifier mediated by the preposition (Dan 4:32; 6:28; 1QapGen 20.13). and are always paired as divine acts (Dan 3:33) and can function as the objects of G (Dan 6:28). describes the of God (Dan 4:34) and his action among earthly kings (1QapGen 20.13). G can take two complements as direct object, including , , ,and ,and as prepositional phrase ( ,)including , ,and a 1cs suffix. The subject can be divine (Dan 2:21, 23) or human (3:28). is usually paired with and is Gods possession (Dan 2:20), which he distributes to humans (Dan 2:21, 23). appears only in conjunction with ( Dan 2:20, 23). G takes a direct object as its complement ( .)As a substantive participle, it is paired with and functions as a complement of G (Dan 2:21). As a predicative participle, God can be its subject (Dan 2:22). The C-stem verb can take two complements as direct object and pronominal suffix (1cs/p). The subject in both attested instances is God (Dan 2:23). This root appears in only one doxology, in response to divine revelation, so that it is difficult to say whether it would have been part of common doxological language. always belongs to a king (Dan 2:23; 3:28) and can be violated ( D) or made known ( C). D takes a prepositional phrase ( )as its complement (Dan 3:28; 6:28). The subject is always divine, and the object is always human (, .) and always appear together, referring to divine rule (Dan 3:33; 4:31; 6:27). as a genitive describes Gods ( Dan 3:33) and ( Dan 4:31). As governed by the preposition ,it refers to Gods own existence (Dan 6:27; 1QapGen 11.13). is only paired with ( Dan 3:33; 4:31). can refer to one sphere of divine activity as paired with and mediated through the preposition ( Dan 6:28). It can also be an object of divine favor, as mediated through the preposition 1( QapGen 11.13). It can also qualify other nouns, such as ( Dan 4:32) or 1( QapGen 20.13). is always paired with to describe one sphere of divine activity (Dan 6:28) or qualify some other noun, as with ( Dan 4:32).

12

4.4 Poetic Features

While a doxology is not required to be poetic, their prevalence in the Psalms provides a reasonable expectation that at least some doxologies will show poetic features. The most likely poetic doxology in BA is also the one doxology that has no introductory formula. In Dan 3:33, there are two easily distinguishable pairs of lines: The first pair of lines shows clear syntactic matching and postpositive placement of the interrogative pronouns. In the second pair, the forms of the predicates are different, but they are semantically equivalent. The use of to indicate direction is normal for Ugaritic but probably a restricted poetic function in Aramaic. The second pair of clauses also has a close Hebrew parallel in Ps 145:13: The pronouns are second person, rather than third, and a quantifier is present in each predicate, where there is none in Daniel. Otherwise, the two passages are virtually identical. Dan 4:31 also parallels these lines, with a reversal of the nouns. Another possible candidate for poetic structure is Dan 2:2122. There is clear syntactic matching between and , and is gapped in the following clause. The last two clauses in v. 22 have similar syllable counts and may be connected by the pairing of and . The first clause in each verse is somewhat more difficult, since the length is too great to be a single line, but there is no convenient way to divide either clause.23

4.5 Grammatical Oddities

There are a few remaining problems in the grammar of these doxologies. In Dan 2:20, the first clause in the explanation reads:
James A. Montgomery (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927] 157) analyzes this entire doxology (vv. 2023) as poetic, consisting of tristich, tetrastich, tristich, tetrastich. This analysis seems overly optimistic.
23

13

 A new clause clearly begins with in the next verse, so that there is little question as to the boundaries of this unit. Without the further appearance of ,this group of words would form a suitable clause, with a compound subject and a copula with prepositional phrase as complement. ,however, appears to offset as a distinct subordinate clause, serving as adjunct to the remaining noun phrase. Bauer and Leander analyze this construction as an early instance of ,which functions as a possessive pronoun in the Targums.24 There is also some difficulty analyzing the adjectives that follow in Dan 6:27, since one is in the determined state ( ,)while the other is in the absolute ( .)Collins notes that in 4QDana both adjectives are in the absolute state, which he prefers as lectio difficilior.25 It seems like a rather subjective assessment, in light of the difficulty presented by the MT reading. The conjunction might lead one to expect that the adjectives would be neatly coordinated, but as it is, perhaps the best way to read this clause is with one subject and a compound predicate ( and .) The following use of is also problematic, since it would seem to prevent a real clause from forming. Perhaps the best way to understand it is with a deleted head noun, so that its clause forms the predicate of a nominal clause. The following clause would have a similar structure.

5 Conclusions
While everyone assumes that language is used to do things, we do not always stop to consider how the process works. The utterance of a doxology is an act in itselfa profound act that invokes the divine. Its language is its worth, regardless of how formulaic or spontaneous the utterance is. It has not been my objective here to determine what language is most acceptable before God, but something a good deal more modestto consider the language used in the construction of actual BA doxologies. Whether these doxologies were successful or not, their language remains.
Bauer and Leander, Grammatik, 359. The construction may also appear in the Persian period Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh (Douglas M. Gropp, Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh, in Wadi Daliyeh II and Qumran Cave 4 XXVIII [DJD 28; Clarendon: Oxford, 2001] 1123) 3.1; 4.[2], 6; 5.[7]; 7.2; 9.3, 8; 10.[2]; 15.[10]. 25 John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ed. Frank Moore Cross; HermeneiaA Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 258.
24

14

There seem to be some standard introductions available for BA doxologies. They are not rigidly formulaic, nor are they even required at all, but somehow they were part of the linguistic inventory of BA speakers. The most formulaic segment is one of the most subtlethe transition from introduction to exposition. Scholars today may puzzle over exactly how to label the use, but there does not seem to have been any question about what word would do the job. The main body of the doxologythe exposition of reasons for praise shows the most variety. It could be adapted to particular circumstances or abstracted to deal in universals. Appropriate forms of predication were available for any purpose. The language could be poetry or prose, but generally it was elevated to some degree in keeping with the purpose. Common themes can also be observed in often-used semantic domains. We end where we beganwith the observation that different speakers utter doxologies in Daniel. Interestingly, most of the doxologies come from pagan kings; but their form is not appreciably different from those spoken by servants of God. In this regard, the absence of a direct address to God could be significant, but it could also be incidental. Exactly what this tells us about the characters Nebuchadnezzar and Darius is not easy to say from the linguistic evidence alone. It may suggest that their praise is as genuine as that of any Jewish believer. On the other hand, it may reveal only that the writer of Daniel constructed the wording of these doxologies out of various cultural norms. Either way, the consistency and variation exhibited in the examples considered here provides evidence of a living tradition that shaped the language of these doxologies and probably that of countless others that modern scholars will never see.

15