Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Interesting. Can anyone else comment on the hypothesis that Daniel was 
originally all written in Hebrew and then partly translated into 
Aramaic? Is there any evidence to support this? And what could the 
purpose have been for making such a partial translation, or for that 
matter for writing the book in this mixed language?

How does Garbini's theory tie up with the discoveries in Qumran caves 
1 and 4 of fragments of Daniel showing the Hebrew-Aramaic and 
Aramaic-Hebrew transition points? (Data from "New Bible Dictionary" 
article "Daniel, Book of"). These data, if reliable, surely prove that 
the Aramaic in Daniel is not later than the (supposed or actual) time 
of writing of Josephus. The NT scholars can also carry on in their 
strange ways in peace.

Ian, please remind me of the web address for Garbini's essay so that I 
can reread it.

I have just found another interesting point on Josephus and Aramaic. 
My Penguin Classics edition of BJ footnotes "my native language" (in 
my on-line translation "the language of our country") in the opening 
paragraph as a reference to Aramaic, as the language in which Josephus 
originally wrote BJ. Is this justified? I think so, because if you 
read on a little you will come to this passage: "Parthians, 
Babylonians, Southern Arabians, Mesopotamian Jews, and Adiabenians, 
thanks to my labours, were accurately informed..." (whereas, as we 
read later, Greeks and Romans were not) because they had access to the 
original version. Now could these people read a Hebrew original? Not 
likely! But this looks to me like a good summary list of 
Aramaic-speaking peoples who could read Josephus' original if it was 
in Aramaic. A good argument, I think, that for Josephus "my native 
language", or "the language of our country", was Aramaic rather than 
Hebrew.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Reliability of Josephus, compared with NT and MT
Author:  mc2499 AT mclink.it at internet
Date:    18/07/1999 11:56


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


---
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.