On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Randall Buth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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.> > > 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. And that is exactly what we don’t have, sufficient documentation to rule out a local dialectal use of Aramaic. We have enough data to make a course grained analysis, but not fine enough to rule out that such a dialectal use could have been used in a local area, a single valley for example, for a limited time. All we can say for certain is that it is not normal, broad-based Aramaic use. > > -- > Randall Buth, PhD > www.biblicallanguagecenter.com > Karl W. Randolph. _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
