Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Bailey [SMTP:jonathan.bailey AT gmx.de]
> Sent: Sunday, 19 December, 1999 21:21
> To:   Biblical Hebrew
> Subject:      Daniel's Aramaic
> 
> 
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> 
> >Daniel has chronology all wrong: if it were written when you would like
> it
> >the chronology wouldn't be in such a mess. Daniel's Aramaic is a farce,
> not
> >representing the Aramaic that it was trying to fake. Daniel has good
> 
> Against what are you comparing the Aramaic of Daniel? What sort of studies
> have 
> you read about Daniel's Aramaic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan Bailey
> Hochschule für Jüdische Studien
> Heidelberg
> 
        [Niels Peter Lemche]  Don't know who sent the first mail. Daniel's
Aramaic to a casual reader seems somewhere between inscriptional Aramaic
from the Iron Age and Palestinian Aramaic, and later Syriac. Why should it
be a fake language? It has to be compared to Archaemenid and
post-Archaemenid Aramaic, but is somewhat removed from say the Aramaic of
the Sfire inscriptions. 

        NPL