wavy_wonder1

On the other hand, 2 words are so far unique to the Aramaic of Daniel: ’drgzr and hdbr, both high titles (‘counsellor’, ‘companion’); and 4 words occur so far only in the Aramaic of Daniel and early (i.e. sixth-fifth century) documents: ’h©šdrpn (‘satrap’), dtbr (‘judge’), t(y)pt (‘magistrate’); ’zd’ (‘certified’, etc.). Here also, 3 are titles and 1 part of official style (cf.Rosenthal, GBA, §189). There is as yet no evidence that any of these 6 terms survived the Persian period (i.e. after c. 330 BC). This in itself is negative evidence, and therefore is inadequate. But there is limited positive evidence in its support, from the LXX (Old Greek and Theodotion)


http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pd...el_kitchen.pdf


ynquirer was asked to provide a scholar who said certain terms were unique. isn't that exactly what was done? (see post #595)



~eric

ynquirer

No. A little surprised of the arrogance of ignorance.

I never said that. Reread my posts.

That's exactly my opinion.

Ha, ha, ha. Very good, really!

Have you ever heard about the scientific comunity?

Do you mean to imply I am lying?

Don't be ridiculous. There are a few rules for a rational discussion to be entertained, and you have repeatedly proven you are not ready to abide by them.

Sheshonq

Arrogance?

Says the person who first claimed that Imperial Aramaic in late time (200s BCE and earlier) Judea was limited to Daniel, and nothing else. And then when asked to support that claim, you handwaved away your inability to do so? And tried to blame your failure on your opponent, instead of recognizing that the form of your own claim was what got you into that mess?

Arrogance like that, you mean? :rolling:


Yes, you did. Maybe you should read your own posts (or remember them for more than 24 hours):

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.



As if anyone cared. The only thing that counts is what you can support with evidence - not what your opinion is.

The question stands. Attempts to avoid it won't work.

Faux intellectualism is really hard for you to pull off; you might consider some other shtick. The question stands. (Oh, and for someone who confuses (a) the criteria for falsifiability with (b) burden of proof, you're in a poor position to be invoking "scientific community" as some kind of support - it's unclear that you even understand the principles of said community.)

I imply nothing.

1. You have made a claim that requires a certain amount of work.
2. Under the scenario where you have not done that work, there are three possibilities.
3. I merely enumerated what those possibilities are.

Of course, if you *have* done the work to support your claim, then by all means bring it forth.

1. Your attempt to play the martyr falls flat. You tried to foist burden of proof on your opponent, when you knew full well that burden is always on the claimant. That was dishonest and disrespectful of you to even attempt in the first place.

2. Any concept of rules for debate was destroyed when you came in here full of unsupportable hubris. You are only getting back exactly what you dished out; typically, you can't take that.

3. Having said all that, the problem of your claim remains: do you plan to support your claim, or not?

ynquirer

Thank you. I always appreciate every bit of common sense.

Sheshonq

No. What he was asked to provide is as follows:

1. The amount of Imperial Aramaic is -- according to you -- very limited. So enumeration should not be a problem.

2. You have made claims that these words in Daniel are unique or special in some way.

3. You've also failed to describe how you arrived at the conclusion that they are special, or offered any explanation for why this is the case or what significance you draw from that alleged status.

In short, he was asked to mount an argument with defense - not merely to toss out a claim, unattached to any source and without explaining what he (thinks) the significance might be.

Sheshonq

Except when you're asked to support a claim, in which case you respond that it's "off topic."

ynquirer

Do you want scholarship references saying that in such and such post-330 BC Aramaic texts a specific reference to the word 'satrap' - for instance - does not occur? Do you want scholarship references enumerating all the words that in a specific document do not occur?

:huh:

Sheshonq

Your original claim was:

You simply have no idea of how many post-330 BC Aramaic texts are extant.

To which he replied:

No, I don't. Why don't you tell me...

To answer makerowner's question, it seems a logical place for you to start would be to list how many post-330 BC Aramaic texts are extant. Can you handle that?

makerowner

What you're saying essentially is that you can't prove your assertion. Sheshonq has already asked this, but I haven't seen a response: where did you get this bit of information from?

ynquirer

In 1965, K.A. Kitchen, a scholar, made a claim that six Persian words in Daniel had not so far been found in post-330 Aramaic texts. This was affirmed in defiance of S.R. Driver’s previous (in the early 20th-cent.) claim that Daniel had to be dated in the 2nd cent. BC instead of the traditional (6th-5th cent. BC) dating. So to speak, Kitchen’s claim has stood for 40+ years a challenge to the mainstream dating of Daniel. If just one of the tens of researchers diving into post-330 BC Aramaic texts during these four decades had ever found just a mention of, for instance, the word ‘satrap’, he or she would have certainly taken notice of it, spread the info through scholarly journals, discussed it in congresses, quickly convinced mainstream supporters, and the fact would be well known today. Nothing of the sort, however, has happened so far.

I don’t need to scrutinize personally all the Aramaic texts of the Hellenistic period to support my claim. I just rely on the scientific community’s findings and lack thereof while you display a naïve, self deceptive notion of science. If you really want this debate to progress, you ought to show us scholarly references proving that Kitchen was mistaken and that I have missed relevant literature. Prove I am a poor ignorant, or else you will be showing - as you have done so far - your own ignorance, not of this topic alone but also of how every topic is rationally dealt with. That’s how this game works.

And enough is enough. This conversation is turning out to be only too boring.