Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Ian,


My intention was to use the Aramaic of Daniel as an example of the immense
problems connected a dating of biblical texts on the basis of linguistics
alone. I did not intend to discuss the contents of the book of Daniel. If I
get time in the future, I would like to study this book from a historical
and archaeological point of view, because I find the material interesting.
The Aramaic part of it, however, is a part of the curriculum of
intermediate Hebrew in Oslo, so I will give a few comments on the basis of
my knowledge of it (but I will not continue a discussion about it).


IH
>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.

RF
You are of course right regarding Garbini, but what I tried to convey, was
that when he claims that the book of Daniel could not have existed in
Persian times, he is arguing from silence. If we do not a priori reject the
claims of an author, we should not compare the Aramaic of Daniel with
Persian Chancelry Aramaic but rather with Babylonian Chancelry Aramaic. How
in the world does Garbini know that what he, with his knowledge, views as
blatant errors, were not correct in the 6th century Babylon. How can we
know that it is not Garbini's knowledge of Aramaic that it the problem?

IH
>>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).

RF
I would not call this errors as long as they can be explained in a
plausible way. Remember that before 1924 (and the publication of "The verse
account of Nabonidus") the argument regarding Belshazzar was that he had
never existed (argument from silence). The inscriptions give Belshazzar the
title "Crown Prince", but factually he exercised royal prerogatives, issued
orders and made dcisions that normally would be handled by the supreme
ruler. An archaeological find that can justify the title "king" was made in
1979, when a statue of the governor of Gonzan was unearthed. On its skirts
we find the same inscription both in Assyrian (Accadian) and Aramaic. The
text in Assyrian can be translated "The governor of Gozan". In the Aramaic
text we find "king" as a translation of "governor". This shows that the
Aramaic MLK can be used for persons who are not supreme rulers. That
Belshazzar promised Daniel a position as the *third* in the kingdom (5:16),
could imply that Belshazzar only was the second.

You are right that no indication of "Darius the Mede" has been found. Only
the year when Darius became king is mentioned in Daniel. If we do not
reject the account before we have seen what it says, the text would suggest
that the rulership of Darius was not long-lasting. Some has connected
Darius with Gurbaru, the governor of Cyrus, but the most promising
suggestion I have seen, for the existence of another king beside or
subordinate to Cyrus for a short time, is an article I believe was written
by W. Shea. I do not have it at hand, and it is 10 years since I read it,
but I recall that Shea studied the titles of Cyrus found on tablets. On the
basis of a particular difference in the titles used, Shea concluded that
there must have been another "king" ruling for some months after the fall
of Babylon. As in the case of Belshazzar in the time before 1924, arguments
from silence are not conslusive.



IH
>>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.

RF
I agree that all kinds of information must be taken into account when we
try to date a book, but I have not argued for a particular date of Daniel;
my subject was the problems connected with the dating of Hebrew on
linguistic grounds.

IH
>>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.

RF
I will not comment on the case of Antiochus, I will only say that other
interpretations are equally possible or even better. My experience so far
is that only in a few verses in chapter 11 can a good case be made for a
connection with Antiochus. Can you refer to any sources that discuss most,
or all of the connections that are made with Antiochus in Daniel?



Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo