Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Penner" <pennerkm AT mcmaster.ca>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>

PK>  In the same spirit, I reject Garbini's analysis. In case you
PK> wonder, I have read the Garbini article on your website, and, as a
linguist,
PK >I found its arguments unconvincing. One important point is that we
simply
PK >don't know enough about how Aramaic might have been spoken in Judaea in
the
PK >5th century BCE to prove that the Aramaic of Ezra is not of this origin.

IH> This is simply not true. You need to know what you are talking about
before
IH> commenting. There is a sizable amount of Aramaic from the Persian
period. If you've
IH> read his article you'll see how the Ezra redactor has misunderstood
things based on
IH> his lack of knowledge of the appropriate Aramaic.

I am with Peter on this one, Ian. I read your translation of the Garbini
article, too. Garbini ignores the Qumran texts of Daniel. They show the
transition from Hebrew to Aramaic. The earliest copy is from the late second
century BCE, within 50 years of its composition.

What is the "sizable amount of Aramaic from the Persian period" you are
referring to? The Elephantine papyri and what else? What can this tell us
about "how Aramaic might have been spoken in Judaea in the 5th century BCE"?

P.S. What do you do with Garbini's claim that Ezra is earlier than Daniel?

Ken Penner
Ph.D. student, Bibilical Field (Early Judaism)
McMaster University
Hamilton, Canada