Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

> So rather than being wrong, as Randall avers,
> phonetically written Aramaic reflected the local dialectal varients
> of Aramaic, not “wrong” Aramaic written by people who spoke
> another language.>

This is why Randall avers that reliable discussion of the data
requires a skilled control of the languages.
The form "bare-" for "sons of-" is not a dialectical form of any
old Aramaic. It is certainly NOT Galilean or Judean Aramaic,
of which we have oodles of examples in all registers of colloquial
text. It appears to be a simple mistake. People in antiquity also
made mistakes. Here is Sokoloff's comment:
"The spelling בריה Ms 461; 504 is most exceptional for a 1st
cent. CE document and the text should be reread."

In other words, he is not willing to accept it as Aramaic, AND
he knows what he is talking about. Of course, it is true
that labelling it a mistake is an interpretation. A person must
compare the text with the hundreds of other texts in order to
make a reasoned judgment.


-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life