Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear Peter,

I'll retract my musing on the dating for the hypothesised translation of
Daniel (it is not necessary for Josephus's access to a Hebrew copy, but
then he may have been able to deal with Aramaic) and supply the last two
paragraphs of the Garbini article found at
www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/histreli.htm  

---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Biblical Aramaic
By Giovanni Garbini

It is not my intention here to tackle the old question of what the original
language of Daniel was, which I will deal with in the future. Let me just
say, given the aims of this investigation into the nature of Biblical
Aramaic, that it was the different textual renderings of <ar>azda</>:' that
put me onto the road to resolving the problem: the different readings of
Daniel 2:8, LXX <gr>apesth ap emou to pragma</> and Theodosion's <gr>apesth
ap emou to rhma</>, both presuppose an original Hebrew form <he>da:va:r</>.
On the basis of this presupposition I was able to discover the Hebrew
language play on words that then became in Aramaic the famous MANE TEQEL
FARES, and so I fully share the old hypothesis of Gustav Jahn, partially
taken up again for Daniel 4 by P. Grelot, according to which Daniel was
composed (in the second century BCE) completely in Hebrew (32). This
implies a precise chronological placement for the Aramaic parts of the
book, that are post middle of the second century BCE and have their origin
in a re-edition of the original Hebrew text (33), in which the Aramaic
version of the text was aimed at giving an atmosphere of antiquity, exactly
as the author of Ezra had done with his "documents" in Imperial Aramaic.

Personally, I have no doubts about the fact that Ezra was the model for the
bilingualism in Daniel: but  while the author of the first had access to
original documents that could be more or less awkwardly imitated, the
second seems to have been based principally on Ezra and on a few other
examples of borrowing (as in the case of azda:'): it is sufficient to
remember the impossible syntax and the laboured and repetitive style of the
dream of the statue (2:37ff) to affirm that the Aramaic translator of
Daniel, wanting to avoid writingin the language which he spoke, succeeded
in giving a painful impression of his knowledge of Imperial Aramaic. The
Aramaic of Ezra is a less than happy imitation of Achaemenid chancellery
Aramaic; that of Daniel is merely an aping of it. It will always be worth
the effort to study Biblical Aramaic, not for what it will indicate about
the language but only to have an idea of "Aramaic philology" as practised
in the Judaic context of the end of the second century BCE.

(Copyright G.Garbini)
---------------------------------------------------------------

>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? 

Naaa.

>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..." 

Josephus was writing to the Jews in those places.

(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.

Aramaic to Josephus was the Syrian language (AJ 10,1,2). He clearly makes
the distinction between the two languages, that of Syria and that of Judea.
He never once mentions that the Hebrews of his day spoke the Syrian language.

When he says (in AJ 3,7,5) "On these [buttons of the ephod] were engraven
the names of the sons of Jacob, in our own country letters, and in our own
tongue", was he referring to Aramaic or Hebrew?

Cheers,


Ian