Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

So what are the options?

1) Josephus (AJ 10.10) is relying on the Aramaic of Daniel which is 
(allegedly) later than the accepted date of Josephus. So perhaps 
Josephus is actually later than you seem to assume? You don't seem to 
have answered me on that issue.

2) The Aramaic of Daniel is relying on Josephus - is that possible?

3) Both Josephus and the Aramaic of Daniel rely on some lost original, 
perhaps a Hebrew or Greek version of Daniel. Possible, I suppose, but 
do you have any evidence for this? Josephus does not seem to be 
relying on the LXX Greek Daniel, as he omits the additional passages. 
But then all I know about this is that the textual history of Daniel 
in Greek is very complicated.

Parts of the New Testament (Revelation, and also the "Son of Man" 
motif in the gospels) also seem to be clearly dependent on Daniel 7, 
which is in Aramaic. The "Son of Man" theme (Daniel 7:13) has been the 
subject of many detailed and controversial studies by NT scholars. If 
Garbini dates the Aramaic portions of Daniel after the time of Jesus 
and of the writing of the gospels, that would have some very profound 
effects on NT scholarship.

I did read Garbini's article, if you mean the one which was on your 
web site some time ago. I am no expert on Aramaic, but it seemed to me 
that Garbini, while giving good reasons to doubt a 6th-5th century BC 
date, had made no clear case for any specific alternative dating for 
the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra. So I guess the NT scholars can 
breather freely for a bit longer.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Reliability of Josephus, compared with NT and MT
Author:  mc2499 AT mclink.it at internet
Date:    17/07/1999 14:27


At 14.09 17/07/99 -0400, peter_kirk AT sil.org wrote:
>Well, Josephus may have claimed to be translating Hebrew originals. 
>His claim looks a little thin when he is at that point (AJ 10,10,6) 
>making a very abbreviated precis of an Aramaic original (Daniel 4) - 
>or perhaps he didn't know the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic?

You still should read Garbini's article on Biblical Aramaic. He carves 
Daniel's so-called Persian chancelry Aramaic as being a poor effort in 
simulation. If it were reworked at the same time as Ezra, then we have a 
basic date for Daniel's Aramaic, ie post-Josephus.


Ian

>;-) Josephus would not be the last person who claimed to be 
>translating the Bible from the original but was actually rephrasing an 
>existing translation, and he was clearly a man capable of such 
>"economy with the truth".
>
>So to continue the important digression (not a "red herring") we have 
>got into, and to extend the comparison to the Hebrew Scriptures (as 
>appropriate to this list) as well as to the New Testament, see my 
>comments interspersed below.


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.