Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Fw: Aramaic to them?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Fw: Aramaic to them?
  • Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 12:37:30 -0500

Peter:

When I visited Germany some three decades ago,
the Germans were very surprised that I had
been allowed to study Hebrew without knowing
any Latin.

The classical Gymnasium program was very
strict: first Latin, then after a few years to
be introduced to Greek for a couple of years,
only then possibly to learn Hebrew. But they
had already bowed to modernity in requiring
their students to study a couple of years
English. So here I came, even with only one
year of U.S. study of Hebrew, with better
knowledge of Hebrew than their students, but
no Latin.

That’s why the editors of the BHS expected
knowledge of Latin. And it is this pattern
that is one of the evidences why I don’t
think the common people in Judea and Samaria
spoke Hebrew in the market, on the street or
at home.

Michael:

Except for the story of Judah haNasi’s maid, I
had heard all your other examples, and they
remain unconvincing (as for Juday haNasi’s
maid, the story as originally told to me was
that Judah haNasi himself was surprised that
his maid knew Hebrew).

We have been over this before, and I don’t
want to beat it into the ground because, while
there is evidence both ways, the preponderance
of the evidence that I know of indicates that
the fluent use of Hebrew was limited to an
educated religious and governmental elite,
while it was expected that the common man to
have studied and understand at least some
Hebrew. That would mean that, as a sign of
higher class and erudition, the common man
would try either to write up his legal
documents in Hebrew, or hire an educated man
to do so for him. If a trader or Babylonian
visitor remained in Jerusalem long enough to
learn Hebrew, that would indicate that he was
either of a financial elite, or his cliental
was: a common pilgrim couldn’t afford to stay
long enough to learn the language. As for the
Mishnah, it was written by that elite.

This is not a polemic as I can see the
arguments of both sides, it is just that I see
one side’s evidence *slightly* more convincing
than the other.

Karl W. Randolph.



----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>

> On 28/02/2004 13:13, Karl Randolph wrote:
>
> >...
> >I can think of two more recent examples of the
> >same pattern: up until a few centuries ago, it
> >was the sign of an educated man that he could
> >speak in Latin, and there are some even today,
> >though I expect there are no more than a few
> >thousand people can speak it fluently. In this
> >regard, Latin is still a living language. ...
> >
>
> It still seems to be assumed that users of the Hebrew Bible know Latin,
> or at least it was when BHS was published 1976/77. Hence Philip's
> problem with "vel".
>
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page