Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

        ... 

> Going from language to history, I would say that I find the
> interpretations
> of those defending the historicity of Daniel more convincing than those
> who
> find inaccuracies, and the relationship with Antiochus IV is greatly
> exaggerated (I can imagine that you, on the basis of your vast historical
> knowledge, jump in your chair when you read these words, but this is my
> opinion).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Rolf
> 
> 
> 
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo
> 
> 
        This is what may happen when philologists enter a discussion about
language datings segments of language on the basis of language alone. I see
hardly a single, say first-level historical-critical  scholar of the last
century dating Daniel to earlier than the 2nd century BCE, notwithstanding
some linguistic peculiarities and mythological ideas that go much further
back. I must also say that in spite of some 'early' elements, the language
of Daniel is vastly different from, say the one of the Sfire-inscriptions
(8th century Aramaic inscriptions) not to say even earlier Aramaic
inscriptions. By the way, Garbini dates the song of Deborah rather late cf.
his Il cantico di Debora, La Parola del Passato 33, 1978, 5-31.

        NPL
>  
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl AT teol.ku.dk
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.