[b-hebrew] FYI: Aramaic study

fred burlingame tensorpath at gmail.com
Tue Dec 28 10:08:04 EST 2010


hello karl;

how, when and by whom the biblical hebrew language was consumed bear
intimate relevance to the purposes of this forum, your inability to see it,
notwisthstanding. perhaps your wish not to see it.

and it's not my conclusion that the isaiah scroll would have been read
in hebrew language and then in aramaic language in the synagogue in 10 a.d.,
galilee. because the congregation understood no longer the hebrew language.
jack's learned comments implied and/or stated that conclusion.

my conclusion = aramaic, being the language of the congregation's bitter and
historic enemies (just like the arab speaking people today), would no more
have darkened the doorstep of the 10 a.d. synagogue ... than the arab
language darkens the doorsteop of the 2010 a.d., synagogue ... in galilee.

regards,

fred burlingame
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 11:42 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph at gmail.com> wrote:

> Fred:
>
>  On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 7:52 PM, fred burlingame <tensorpath at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> You hit the nail on the head.
>>
>> That's exactly what I am talking about ...
>>
>> And I am having a little difficulty believing that was the scenario at
>> this
>> synagogue's services circa 10 a.d.
>>
>> a. the leader of the synagogue opens the scroll of isaiah in biblical
>> hebrew
>> language and reads from it to the congregation.
>>
>
> So?
>
>>
>> b. the congregation has no clue what he is reading or saying.
>>
>
> I don’t know how you could be more far off.
>
> A similar situation occurs all the time around the world, only it deals
> with dialects and secondary languages within a land. The reason for the
> controversy mentioned in Ezra 10 and Nehemiah 13 is that the non-Jewish
> wives in Aramaic speaking Judea were teaching their children their own
> languages instead of Hebrew. In other words, though everybody’s native
> tongue was Aramaic, Hebrew was required learning for all Jews (at least all
> men).
>
>>
>> c. the leader of the synagogue then opens a targum of isaiah and reads in
>> aramaic the same passage.
>>
>
> No need. The people already got at least the gist of the passage. The
> targums were for studying at other times, other than the services.
>
>>
>> d. the congregation understands "c."
>>
>
> No need, they got at least the gist of the Hebrew, so there was no “c”.
>
>>
>>>>
>> But ארץ ישראל was a theocracy under alien army occupation in 10 a.d., an
>> entirely different cultural situation; and one whose native language =
>> hebrew.
>>
>
> That’s really quite a stretch, with no evidence to back it up.
>
>>
>>>> The mainstream likes to say greek or aramaic was the language of the day
>> in
>> judah 10 a.d. But where is the proof? The only large corpus of documents
>> from that period attests hebrew as the primary language and biblical
>> hebrew
>> as the bulk of those documents. Qumram may have been a marginalized
>> minority. But where is the proof that the majority spoke aramaic?
>>
>
> Where is the proof that they didn’t? Your hypothetical argument does not
> equal evidence.
>
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> fred burlingame
>>
>> And what does all this have to do with a study of Biblical Hebrew language
> and literature? Any at all?
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list