Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 02-09-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

I've already provided the evidence, in the form of the above citations.

ynquirer:
Do you have evidence to support your hasty allegation that Imperial Aramaic persisting unto the 2nd century is ex post rationalization?

Can you explain how Imperial Aramaic in northwest Arabia, Judaea, Palmyra, Babylonia, and Parthia somehow rests upon Daniel? Or would somehow connect to Daniel in any way? What possible relationship or dependency exists between northwest Arabia and the Aramaic in Daniel, for example?

Post Achaemenid Aramaic dialects are as a rule well attested. In Northern Arabia, Palmyra, and Parthia, there are a great number of stone-carved inscriptions with recognizable scripts, which can be more or less easily listed in as ‘witnesses’.

No such a thing has been found in Judea to attest second-century written Aramaic similar to Daniel's. There are several Aramaics as used by the Jews in the mid-2nd cent. or shortly afterward, such like Hasmonaean, Targumic and Qumranic, but they are not similar to Daniel's; they may not be called 'Imperial' in any reasonable meaning of the word.

Daniel remains an island in the linguistic sea of Judea during the Hellenistic period.

Agreed. At the very least the use of Aramaic can't be used to "prove" Daniel was written in the 2nd BC.

arnoldo · 02-09-2008, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The earliest copy of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls is later 2nd c. BCE. Therefore the DSS are no help for your efforts to date Daniel, because later 2nd c. BCE is half a century after the dating that has been argued here.
I don't know what vainness has you babbling about minimalism here. Why don't you spend some money and go and buy a scholarly commentary -- you know, book -- and invest your time trying to understand it?
spin

Don't you find it interesting the the other books found in the DSS are not thought to be "orginals" merely copies of earlier copies of earlier copies,etc.

The following books are part of the DDS.

1. 19 copies of the book of Isaiah
2. 25 copies of Deuteronomy
3. 30 copies of Psalms
4. ? copies of Jeremiah
5. ? copies of Ezekiel

The above are not disputed to all have been written before the 2nd BC

The only book in question is the BOOK OF DANIEL.

Spin, since your argument is that the book of Daniel was written between years A and B because after year B certain prophecies failed, can you please list the specific prophecies that failed? Thanxs in advance.

aChristian · 02-09-2008, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

You said there,

"As I pointed out there are too few examples (all in Daniel) to give a hard and fast definition. "

However the whole point is that you claim a hard and fast definition exists, yours.

You still are ignorant of the issue. The definition doesn't involve the English term used as I've already pointed out; it's the collocations. Your continued sidetracking of the thread on this subject only shows your lack of seriousness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

And you say (hard and fast) that the BDB and several translations are wrong when they translate it received.

As you don't understand the issue, you'll keep making the same mistake.

spin

You said,
"Sadly, you'll see that BDB provides Ezra as an example of when QBL is "take", though you must look at the Hebrew entry (p.867), giving the Hebrew as a late Aramaic loan word. The Aramaic entry you refer to is simply incomplete (just look at the number of examples) and must be read with the Hebrew entry. The verb is not interested in the act of being given which is arnoldo's fudge, but being there (in front of it) to possess. See Dan 7:18 where QBL is paralleled with XSN, "to possess". So, no. Try again.

spin
"
The verb is interested in you being there in front to possess something. You can take it forcefully or receive it gratefully. In either case you end up getting it. You keep trying to say that it has to mean that you take it forcefully and that arnoldo is fudging when he says it could mean that he received it gratefully. It can mean either although 'forcefully' seems going beyond the normal usage. Your definition is not required, as is evidenced from the many translations and the lexicon entries in both the Hebrew and the Aramaic. Arnoldo's is permissible.

aChristian · 02-09-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

You ought to read the Bible a little more closely.

And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, [that] wine [was] before him: and I took up the wine, and gave [it] unto the king. Now I had not been [beforetime] sad in his presence.

Neh 2:2 Wherefore the king said unto me, Why [is] thy countenance sad, seeing thou [art] not sick? this [is] nothing [else] but sorrow of heart. Then I was very sore afraid,

Neh 2:3 And said unto the king, Let the king live for ever: why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, [lieth] waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?

Neh 2:4 Then the king said unto me, For what dost thou make request? So I prayed to the God of heaven.

Neh 2:5 And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it.

Let's omit the best part:

Then the king said to me, the queen sitting beside him, “How long will your journey be, and when will you return?” So it pleased the king to send me, and I gave him a definite time. 7 And I said to the king, “If it please the king, let letters be given me for the governors of the provinces beyond the River, that they may allow me to pass through until I come to Judah, 8 and a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the fortress which is by the temple, for the wall of the city and for the house to which I will go.”

A wall and a house for Nehemiah.

You apparently have a different Nehemiah than the one in the bible.

That's irrelevant to Cyrus proclamation. Isaiah knows about it. You want to ignore it.

Yes, build a temple for no people. This is just pedantry. The building of the temple meant the construction of the city. Let's build a temple among the ruins. Yeah, sure. But you want to fake another "prophecy".

Of course your silly fudge doesn't explain the text at all. Seven weeks of years after the proclamation will be the time of the messiah prince [H:M$YX NGYD]. However, you seem oblivious to this, wanting to make the 470th year the death of Jesus. Who was the messiah prince who came after seven weeks of years after the proclamation? Who was the prince whose soldiers come when the messiah is cut off in the same year? Who does the prince make a covenant with for seven years? When is the daily sacrifice stopped for only 3 1/2 years?

In reality all this last week of years is clear:
172/1 Onias III (the anointed one) is killed
Menelaus and his supporters are given control of Jerusalem by Antiochus
167 Antiochus starts his persecution, stopping sacrifices and setting up the abominations.
164 the temple is rededicated and Antiochus dies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

...whereas Artaxerxes command was giving Nehemiah permission to rebuild Jerusalem.

There was no proclamation. Artaxerxes simply gives his permission and gets some letters written. Nehemiah builds a wall, not the city.

spin

You completely ignored my quote of Nehemiah which contradicts everything you are saying.

Sheshonq · 02-09-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

I've already provided the evidence, in the form of the above citations.

ynquirer:
Do you have evidence to support your hasty allegation that Imperial Aramaic persisting unto the 2nd century is ex post rationalization?

Can you explain how Imperial Aramaic in northwest Arabia, Judaea, Palmyra, Babylonia, and Parthia somehow rests upon Daniel? Or would somehow connect to Daniel in any way? What possible relationship or dependency exists between northwest Arabia and the Aramaic in Daniel, for example?

Post Achaemenid Aramaic dialects are as a rule well attested. In Northern Arabia, Palmyra, and Parthia, there are a great number of stone-carved inscriptions with recognizable scripts, which can be more or less easily listed in as ‘witnesses’.

No such a thing has been found in Judea to attest second-century written Aramaic similar to Daniel's. There are several Aramaics as used by the Jews in the mid-2nd cent. or shortly afterward, such like Hasmonaean, Targumic and Qumranic, but they are not similar to Daniel's; they may not be called 'Imperial' in any reasonable meaning of the word.

Daniel remains an island in the linguistic sea of Judea during the Hellenistic period.

An interesting claim you have there. But it's merely a more verbose re-working of your original assertion.

What you need is a definite statement by a scholarly work that say this; two such works would be better. Words to the effect; "Contrary to the numerous examples of Imperial Aramaic elsewhere in the 2nd century ANE, we find only a solitary example in Judea; that of Daniel." Or, "our sources for Imperial Aramaic in Judea amount to exactly one: the Aramaic in Daniel."

Feel free to show your work.

Sheshonq · 02-09-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Post Achaemenid Aramaic dialects are as a rule well attested. In Northern Arabia, Palmyra, and Parthia, there are a great number of stone-carved inscriptions with recognizable scripts, which can be more or less easily listed in as ‘witnesses’.

No such a thing has been found in Judea to attest second-century written Aramaic similar to Daniel's. There are several Aramaics as used by the Jews in the mid-2nd cent. or shortly afterward, such like Hasmonaean, Targumic and Qumranic, but they are not similar to Daniel's; they may not be called 'Imperial' in any reasonable meaning of the word.

Daniel remains an island in the linguistic sea of Judea during the Hellenistic period.

Agreed.

Agreeing with something you have not investigated and do not understand is merely cheerleading.

Quote:

At the very least the use of Aramaic can't be used to "prove" Daniel was written in the 2nd BC.

You're confused. IT isn't the use of Aramaic that puts Daniel in the 2nd century. It's the mistakes and other markers in the text that put Daniel at that time.

ynquirer · 02-09-2008, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Post Achaemenid Aramaic dialects are as a rule well attested. In Northern Arabia, Palmyra, and Parthia, there are a great number of stone-carved inscriptions with recognizable scripts, which can be more or less easily listed in as ‘witnesses’.

No such a thing has been found in Judea to attest second-century written Aramaic similar to Daniel's. There are several Aramaics as used by the Jews in the mid-2nd cent. or shortly afterward, such like Hasmonaean, Targumic and Qumranic, but they are not similar to Daniel's; they may not be called 'Imperial' in any reasonable meaning of the word.

Daniel remains an island in the linguistic sea of Judea during the Hellenistic period.

An interesting claim you have there. But it's merely a more verbose re-working of your original assertion.

What you need is a definite statement by a scholarly work that say this; two such works would be better. Words to the effect; "Contrary to the numerous examples of Imperial Aramaic elsewhere in the 2nd century ANE, we find only a solitary example in Judea; that of Daniel." Or, "our sources for Imperial Aramaic in Judea amount to exactly one: the Aramaic in Daniel."

Feel free to show your work.

Your own citation here (p.19) and this mine here (p.34) will do.

Sheshonq · 02-09-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The earliest copy of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls is later 2nd c. BCE. Therefore the DSS are no help for your efforts to date Daniel, because later 2nd c. BCE is half a century after the dating that has been argued here.
I don't know what vainness has you babbling about minimalism here. Why don't you spend some money and go and buy a scholarly commentary -- you know, book -- and invest your time trying to understand it?
spin

Don't you find it interesting the the other books found in the DSS are not thought to be "orginals" merely copies of earlier copies of earlier copies,etc.

The following books are part of the DDS.

1. 19 copies of the book of Isaiah
2. 25 copies of Deuteronomy
3. 30 copies of Psalms
4. ? copies of Jeremiah
5. ? copies of Ezekiel

The above are not disputed to all have been written before the 2nd BC

That's because the evidence points that way.

Quote:

The only book in question is the BOOK OF DANIEL.

You seem to think that all the copies found at Qumran have to be dated to the same time. They don't. They are each dated one at a time.

The evidence in Daniel points to first composition around the mid-160s BCE.

In both cases it's merely following the evidence.

wavy_wonder1 · 02-09-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Don't you find it interesting the the other books found in the DSS are not thought to be "orginals" merely copies of earlier copies of earlier copies,etc.

The following books are part of the DDS.

1. 19 copies of the book of Isaiah
2. 25 copies of Deuteronomy
3. 30 copies of Psalms
4. ? copies of Jeremiah
5. ? copies of Ezekiel

The above are not disputed to all have been written before the 2nd BC

The only book in question is the BOOK OF DANIEL.

it's difficult to follow your logic here. the metric for dating these individual books in light of qumran discoveries has nothing to do with whether or not they date anterior to the 2nd century, but by textual/historical analysis for each book. would you date enoch anterior to the 2nd century just because fragments of it were found at qumran?

dating biblical books isn't dependent upon whether or not they were found at qumran. do you see the fallacy of your reasoning here?

~eric

Sheshonq · 02-09-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

An interesting claim you have there. But it's merely a more verbose re-working of your original assertion.

What you need is a definite statement by a scholarly work that say this; two such works would be better. Words to the effect; "Contrary to the numerous examples of Imperial Aramaic elsewhere in the 2nd century ANE, we find only a solitary example in Judea; that of Daniel." Or, "our sources for Imperial Aramaic in Judea amount to exactly one: the Aramaic in Daniel."

Feel free to show your work.

Your own citation here (p.19) and this mine here (p.34) will do.

In point of fact, neither one will do. I asked for a definite statement that Imperial Aramaic in late time (200s BCE and earlier) Judea was limited to Daniel, and nothing else -- which is the claim you're trying to make.

Neither of these citations says that.

Try again.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.