Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Fred P Miller <fmoeller AT ao.net>]

Jack Kilmon wrote:

> Ian Hutchesson wrote:
> >
> > At 23.42 14/05/99 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
> > >Targums are very Jewish, Dan.  They can be a paraphrase or a direct
> > >translation of a Hebrew text in the common language...Aramaic.
> >
> > Understand of course that this is only Jack's point of view
>
> And the view of the majority of ANE historians and linguists.
>
> > -- and that of
> > many -- who want to believe that Hebrew was not a working language of the
> > day, ....
>
> The view that Hebrew was not a working language of the day is
> no longer held by "many."  Hebrew was indeed a living language,
> [but]  It was not the evry day language of the common folk.
>
> If Hebrew was the common tongue of the common folk, there
> would be no Targums, would there?
>
> >
> > So it is unlikely that there was a simplistic situation in which one could
> > describe Aramaic as the "common language".
>
> Well, we have been down this road before.
>
> Jack
>

I have not been "down this road before" and would appreciate being directed 
to the
previous discussions on this topic.

But it seems to me that the case is proved:  Hebrew was a language not 
understood by the
"common folk."

It is agreed in the preceeding that it was understood by elitist religious 
groups in the
temple and else where.

This idea is supported by the New Testament.  Jesus was one of the "common 
folk"  Every
direct quotation of what he literally said, i.e. "tabitha qumi" and "Eloi 
Eloi lama
sabachtani" (for instance) is Aramaic while Paul (educated by one of the 
foremost Rabbis
of his day  not one of the "common folk" and as he said "being more 
exceedingly zealous
of the traditions of my fathers." when defending himself in the Temple, he 
spoke to
those assempled in the Hebrew tongue (when they heard that he spoke in the 
Hebrew tongue
to them, they kept the more silence:")

It seems obvious to me that Hebrew was spoken by a limited number of urban 
dwellers and
elitist religionists while Aramaic was the language of the "common folk" 
which has
already been proposed by Mr Hutchessen.   and as Mr Kilmon notes: thus the 
need for a
targum to be read to the "common folk." So what is the argument about?

Fred P Miller
--
Fred P Miller
For Bible Study Majoring in Isaiah
Http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller