Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 02-07-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Unfortunately Makujina merely shows the possibility of an old idiom in the text, which fits within Garbini's framework of a 2nd c. BCE attempt to reproduce Persian chancelry Aramaic.

Apart from the Persian Idiom the Aramaic is from the era of the persian empire not the 2nd BC.

Your source's Persian idiom is to be found in the early part of Daniel, during the reign of Nebuchadrezzar and well before the arrival of the Persians. Now it took quite a long time for Persian influence to seep into Aramaic, as the Persians used their own language and studies have shown a gap of about 100 years between the arrival of the Persians and a noticeable effect on Aramaic. Persian idioms in the Babylonian section of Daniel are anachronisms, just as is the reference to "satraps" being called for by Nebuchadrezzar in Dan 3:2. Rather than helping your efforts to bolster the absurd claim that Daniel was actually written when it was set, you further undermine the claim.

spin

makerowner · 02-07-2008, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Well the text implies it rather strongly. It includes a letter supposedly written by Nebuchadrezzar that would have been older than the 2nd century BC if it were genuine.

Therefore, Daniel is a pseudo-prophetic book, isn't it? Not that “the abuse of the book by christians intent on turning it into prophecy” - spin dixit, post #3 - but that the writers themselves purported to have the book look like prophetic. Is that your view?

I don't really know enough about the subject to evaluate one way or the other. The presentation is rather different than the prophetic books of the OT, in that Daniel has visions rather than "thus sayeth the Lord..."

arnoldo · 02-07-2008, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Apart from the Persian Idiom the Aramaic is from the era of the persian empire not the 2nd BC.

Wrong. The Imperial Aramaic language persisted well into the 2nd century, so it isn't surprising to find it in Daniel. It's a total fallacy to claim that it was only spoken in the 5th and 4th centuries.

IOW, you can't use the Aramaic in Daniel to date the text to 2BC, right?

spin · 02-07-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Wrong. The Imperial Aramaic language persisted well into the 2nd century, so it isn't surprising to find it in Daniel. It's a total fallacy to claim that it was only spoken in the 5th and 4th centuries.

IOW, you can't use the Aramaic in Daniel to date the text to 2BC, right?

The important thing is that the 6th c. BCE can be excluded, as it's too early for Persian influence on the Aramaic. Then, Garbini indicates errors in Daniel's Persian Aramaic apparently caused by lack of knowledge of the language, suggesting post-Persian period.

spin

ynquirer · 02-07-2008, 04:26 PM

Why, then, was Aramaic used at all?

arnoldo · 02-07-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

IOW, you can't use the Aramaic in Daniel to date the text to 2BC, right?

The important thing is that the 6th c. BCE can be excluded, as it's too early for Persian influence on the Aramaic. Then, Garbini indicates errors in Daniel's Persian Aramaic apparently caused by lack of knowledge of the language, suggesting post-Persian period.

spin

Are you implying that the writers of Daniel in the 2nd century were trying to fake Persian Aramaic to fool the readers into thinking that it was written in the 6th c. BC?

spin · 02-07-2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The important thing is that the 6th c. BCE can be excluded, as it's too early for Persian influence on the Aramaic. Then, Garbini indicates errors in Daniel's Persian Aramaic apparently caused by lack of knowledge of the language, suggesting post-Persian period.

Are you implying that the writers of Daniel in the 2nd century were trying to fake Persian Aramaic to fool the readers into thinking that it was written in the 6th c. BC?

Words like "fake" and "fool" may be your modern efforts in understanding the text, but not mine. (To contextualize a little, would you call Paul's 3rd letter to the Corinthians or his letter to the Laodiceans either to be a "fake" or intended to "fool"? I chose them rather than Colossians or the Pastorals to avoid quibbling over their authenticity, but the same question applies, for Paul didn't write any of them.)

Garbini (already cited) argues that Daniel was originally written in Hebrew then part of it translated into Aramaic. So, whatever the purpose of the Aramaic, it wasn't part of the original intent.

spin

arnoldo · 02-07-2008, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Are you implying that the writers of Daniel in the 2nd century were trying to fake Persian Aramaic to fool the readers into thinking that it was written in the 6th c. BC?

Words like "fake" and "fool" may be your modern efforts in understanding the text, but not mine. (To contextualize a little, would you call Paul's 3rd letter to the Corinthians or his letter to the Laodiceans either to be a "fake" or intended to "fool"? I chose them rather than Colossians or the Pastorals to avoid quibbling over their authenticity, but the same question applies, for Paul didn't write any of them.)

Garbini (already cited) argues that Daniel was originally written in Hebrew then part of it translated into Aramaic. So, whatever the purpose of the Aramaic, it wasn't part of the original intent.

spin

Is Garbini the same as this individual?

Source Cite: ATHAS, George, 'Minimalism': The Copenhagen School of Thought In Biblical Studies, Edited Transcript of Lecture, 3rd Ed, University of Sydney, 1999
Giovanni Garbini (University of Rome)

Quote:

These men are all ordinary human beings like all of us. Yet, these able scholars are seen by the wider community of scholars as arch-fiends, villains, because they just want to throw the Bible out the window. They do not want to use it for reconstructing the history of Ancient Palestine. Or rather, they use the Bible very differently to the way most scholars use it. So what exactly is their approach? How do Minimalists do history? Firstly, we have to understand their framework - their basis for doing things the way they do.

(1) The Bible is a corpus of literary texts, first and foremost. They have to be treated as texts - as stories with characters and plots. It is a mistake, say 'Minimalist' scholars, to claim that they are historiography. That is, that they record history or that the biblical literature is like a history book. No, 'Minimalists' say that the Bible must firstly be treated as story, not history, because the authors of the biblical texts created stories - they did not write objective history. The texts were not written as historiography, not as newspaper articles. They were written as story, much like a novel today. There may be persons in the story that actually existed at some point in time, but that is irrelevant. What actually happened back in Syria-Palestine 3000 years ago is irrelevant to the story. What matters is the characters and what happens to them in the story.

Minimalist

spin · 02-07-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Garbini (already cited) argues that Daniel was originally written in Hebrew then part of it translated into Aramaic. So, whatever the purpose of the Aramaic, it wasn't part of the original intent.

Is Garbini the same as this individual?

Why do you ask?

spin

arnoldo · 02-07-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Is Garbini the same as this individual?

Why do you ask?

spin

Just trying to check your sources

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-07-2008, 04:26 PM	#515
ynquirer Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 572	Why, then, was Aramaic used at all?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.