Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear Peter,

To respond to:

>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.

Obviously, Peter, if the Aramaic was anachronistic it came along later as
seems to be the case with Ezra, so the Aramaic section of Daniel was
translated from Hebrew -- at least according to Garbini, and serious
Aramaic grammars complain about Daniel's language. Under this logis,
Josephus had an all-Hebrew Daniel. Is there any evidence that Josephus used
Aramaic?

>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. 

What he omits is not from the "historical" portion of the book and he was
after all attempting to do history. He did however go into detail about one
of the visions and mentioned that there were others, but they weren't
really the stuff of history (though he was happy to show how the vision he
did mention terminated exactly as history went down to ANtiochus IV).

>But then all I know about this is that the textual history of Daniel 
>in Greek is very complicated.

Sure is.

>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. 

At least the version we have of it now.

>The "Son of Man" theme (Daniel 7:13) has been the 
>subject of many detailed and controversial studies by NT scholars. 

And a lot of it poorly done. (The situation with Dan7:13 is so transparent
for anyone not blinded by the GMark pesherized version which changed ther
original from "ONE LIKE a son of man" to "the son of man". There is nothing
new in the literal use of "son of man" in Dan7:13. In fact "son of man" is
used just as normally in 8:17. Midrashing on Dan7:13 as first seen in GMark
has given us all this problem. It has nothing to do with Daniel.)

>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 doubt it. NT scholarship is mainly self-supporting and not bound by
normal criteria of history and proof.

>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.

How long does it take for the form of Aramaic not to have been practised?
It would by necessity have been used down to the end of the Persian rule in
the area, ie about 330 BCE. So, how long after that do the conventions of
the language stop being used? Garbini, I think, argues convincingly that
Daniel has screwed up the Aramaic. 


Yours,


Ian