Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Rolf wrote:

>in my view [Garbini] does not succeed well in this article. Stefanovic
>discusses 54  phrases and 9 other peculiarities in Daniel that also are
>found in the old inscriptions - thus giving positive evidence for his
>conclusion that the Aramaic of Daniel is old. Garbini discusses 5 (if I
>counted correctly) phrases of Daniel which he views to be young, and which,
>according to him, could not have existed in Persian times - this is
>evidence from silence. 

Dear Rolf,

Garbini is not arguing that the Aramaic language of Daniel is young: he is
arguing that it is not coherent, though it is attempting to simulate
Persian Chancelry Aramaic. One would therefore expect to find old forms in
the text. However, his argument is an attempt to show that the writer or,
more likely, translator did not in fact understand the language he was
simulating because there are some rather blatant errors that could only
have come from a lack of familiarity with the language.

>The book of Daniel dates the Aramaic visions and
>accounts to the 6th and 5th century BCE. 

And the book of Enoch dates itself in a distant past. We can't be
literalist when dealing with texts whose purposes are anything but
transparent to us two thousand or so years after the writing. The
difficulty is heightened by the fact that some of the kings mentioned are
simply wrong. There was no "Darius king of the Medes", Belshazzar was never
a king, and there doesn't seem to be any logical reason for these
formulations other than lack of knowledge of the period (though when Judith
speaks of Nebuchadnezzar king of Assyria I think there is a specific purpose).

>If we are discussing the age of
>Daniel exclusively  from a *linguistic* point of view, we neither should
>reject nor doubt this dating on historical grounds, but only ask for
>linguistic evidence. 

I don't think we can afford the luxury of discussing the age of a text
using purely linguistic grounds. If you look at a wide range of Garbini's
work, for example, you'll find him using everything he can to get at a
surer dating -- archaeology, iconography, linguistics, cultural significance.

>Apart from Egypt (Elephantine) the material is scarce,
>and this makes Garbini's conclusions quite speculative. One Hebrew example
>showing the problems with such arguments from silence, is the relative
>particle $ which has raplaced the biblical Hebrew )$R in Mishnaic Hebrew.
>This particle, however, is found in what is believed to be the oldest part
>of the Tanach, and following the line of Garbinis arguments this would make
>the song of Deborah a very young part of the Tanach and not one of the
>oldest.

I'll withhold comment here (for ignorance) until I read what Garbini says
in his article on the Cantico di Debora!

>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).

You're certainly right that I jumped in my chair about a "greatly
exaggerated" relationship with Antiochus IV. There are four separate
visions in ch. 7, 8, 9 & 11-12, that deal specifically with Antiochus. The
fourth beast in ch7 is the Macedonian elephant, whose horns are the
Seleucid kings down to the time when the little horn, Antiochus IV,
superceded three kings in short succession. In ch8 we find the little horn
again who extended to the east and south, and caused sacrifices to cease in
the temple, polluting it (Josephus cites this one prophecy as fulfilled by
Antiochus Epiphanes). The seventieth week starts with the removal of Onias
III; half a week later, Antiochus's pollution of the temple; the end of the
week (a time, times, and half a time later) is the "decreed end." Chapters
11-12 are a relatively accurate crypto-history of the Seleucid/Ptolemaic
conflict down to Antiochus's time (it merely gets the end wrong). Given the
persistence of Christian tendentious readings of the text (it may be an
apocalyptic text, but it certainly wasn't written as a messianic text), I
have to conclude that Antiochus IV in Daniel has not been stressed anywhere
near enough.

Ian

(I've dealt with Dan11 in some detail on my website.)

Ian Hutchesson
mc2499 AT mclink.it
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/histreli.htm