Diachronic study (was Purpose for discussion)
mc2499 at mclink.it
Sat Feb 19 10:39:00 EST 2000
At 16.29 19/02/00 +0100, Rolf Furuli wrote:
> Let me illustrate this further with the Aramaic of Daniel. Zdravko
>Stefanovic,1992, "The Aramaic of Daniel in the Light of Old
>Aramaic",Sheffield:JSOT Press, draws the conclusion that the Aramaic of
>Daniel "contains a significant amount of material from OA /Old Aramaic/
>texts." (p 108). This accords with my own study of this text, and I would
>go so far as to say no word or structure in the Aramaic of Daniel (not even
>the musical instruments with names of possibly Grteek origin) demand a
>dating contrary to what the book itself claims.
What do you think of Garbini's comments on the Aramaic then of both Daniel
and Ezra (as I have translated his article on my website)?
>However, most researchers would ascribe a date for the book to about 165
>BCE. To solve the discrepancy with the seemingly old age of the Aramaic
>text, two suggestions are given, (1) The author mimicked Old/Imperial
>Aramaic to lend credence to his prophecies which actually are history in
This is Garbini's conclusion.
>and (2) A part of the book is quite old, but the final
>redaction took place in the middle of the second century BCE.
Which part of the book is quite old, if the last six chapters are all
related to Antiochus IV, the prophesy in Ch2 is Seleucid/Ptolemaic in
reference, and there are historical inaccuracies regarding the various
>that what is believed to be history often clash with linguistic evidence,
>as also Greg showed.
More information about the b-hebrew