Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On the other hand we actually do have statements about Judea and
> Hebrew.
> > The letter of Aristeas (2c BCE) says that the people of Judea "do
> not speak
> > Aramaic, as is commonly supposed, but a different language"
> > (Aristeas11-12). This is understandable, because Egyptians would
> be able
> > to do business with Judea in Aramaic, but now Aristeas informs
> them that
> > Judea's own language was different and was needed for translating
> the torah
> > into Greek. It was Hebrew.

Does anybody really take the Letter of Aristeas seriously any more?  Just 
about everything 
in it was discredited ages ago.  I'm amazed you even bring it up as evidence 
for anything.

> > You are free to doubt the author, but that is what he said.
> > Matthew Black AAAG quoted this and missed the point,
> > making the ridiculous claim that the author was referring to two
> dialects
> > of Aramaic. Why is Black's reading ridiculous? Because it was a
> language
> > related to Torah (Hebrew), and the Greek itself used ETERA rather
> than
> > ALLH to refer to the language. Some over here, when they've seen
> Black's
> > quote, just chuckle and roll their eyes,
> >
> 
> Why bring in Black? He is irrelevant to this discussion.

Furthermore, as one who also dabbles in NT textual criticism, Black's 
theories are anything 
but generally accepted.  

I'll try to address the Josephus question later, but for now I'll just say 
that your "evidence" 
weak at best, and rather selective.

Dave Washburn

http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur