Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jack Kilmon <jkilmon AT historian.net>]

Ian Hutchesson wrote:
> 
> At 07.43 15/05/99 -0500, 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.
> 
> That's somewhat what the following phrase indicated, though I would not
> want to be as precise as you have here.
> 
> >> -- and that of
> >> many -- who want to believe that Hebrew was not a working language of the
> >> day, despite the fact that there were three dialects of Hebrew evidenced 
> >> at
> >> Qumran, and a literature showing that Hebrew was seen as a spoken 
> >> language,
> >> ie phonetic decisions were being made by the scribes. (A perusal of
> >> Qimron's book on DSS Hebrew should show the living nature of the
> >> phonological decisions of the scribes.)
> >
> >The view that Hebrew was not a working language of the day is
> >no longer held by "many."  Hebrew was indeed a living language,
> >developing dialects, among certain social pockets, including
> >the religious elite and certainly the DSS people, whether the
> >scrolls were from a sequestered group at Qumran, Jerusalem or
> >perhaps even the temple itself.  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?
> 
> Stop guessing, Jack.

I did not "guess" the Leviticus and Job Targums in the DSS, Ian.
explain them.  I did not "guess" the large body of Aramaic epigraphic
evidence from this period with only ONE in Hebrew.

> The logic gets nowhere and is simply tendentious.

Only to you, my friend.

> You
> saw how much Aramaic was around in the DSS corpus and as you have no other
> window into the period you can't make any claims about the
> representativeness of that collection. It is the only one we've got and it
> shows Hebrew texts at a majority of 4 to 1.

This is too simplistic an analysis of the language usage of the DSS. I
see 20% of the texts in Aramaic as very significant.  I view the targums
in the collection as significant.  I see a Qumran Hebrew laced with
Aramaic influence and judge that significant.  Your analysis could be
used for the texts of the Vatican Library to claim that the common
language
of medieval Europe was Latin.

> 
> One angle you have never contemplated was that Hebrew was the working
> language of Jerusalem and with the conquest of Samaria under John Hyrcanus
> and the "forced conversion" of the Samaritans there was a need for Aramaic
> translations.

Both Qumran Targums post date this period.  Job is Herodian.

> 
> We have at least three situations to contemplate in the few centuries
> before the turn of the era rather than your guessing. 1) Aramaic was the
> common language; 2) Hebrew was the common language; and 3) the language use
> was heterogeneous. I tend toward the second (at least for Jerusalem), but
> then I'm biased by the DSS, though you will note that the Hasmoneans tended
> to issue coins that had both Hebrew and Greek inscriptions, to the basic
> exclusion of Aramaic.

C'mon.  These numismatic inscriptions were in Palaeohebrew...a symbol
of nationalistic fervor following the Maccabaean revolt.  Ben Kosiba
did the same.

> 
> >> 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.
> 
> And you haven't added anything to the argument this time either.
> 
> Jack, you persist in this belief of yours that actually has no evidence to
> support it. You've seen that both Aramaic and Hebrew were used during the
> time of Shimeon ben Kosebah -- as well as Greek -- so you can't draw any
> conclusions from that information, as the texts were of all text types.

Ben Kosiba in one of his Aramaic letters found at Nahal Hever states
that
he is writing it in Aramaic because he is not comfortable with Hebrew
yet.
You call that "no evidence?"


> Josephus used Hebrew, though you try the redefinition of "language of our
> fathers" to mean Aramaic, which doesn't really make sense as the "language
> of our fathers". You might also contemplate the fact that the writer of
> 2Macc (15:36) talks of Aramaic as the Syrian language, ie clearly not that
> of Jerusalem.

Josephus consistently refers to Aramaic words as "the Hebrew Language"
as does
Luke. 
I don't think that Luke can make it any clearer that Aramaic was the
spoken language.  In Acts 1:19, he says:  "And it was known to all the
dwellers at Jerusalem, insomuch as that field is called, TH IDIA
DIALEKTW AUTWN,
*IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE* Haceldama, that is to say, the field of blood."
Haceldama...haqel dema...is unambiguously ARAMAIC!  

 You continue to ignore the Epigraphic evidence of this period,
overwhelmingly
Aramaic, with but *one* Hebrew tomb inscription.  You also ignore the
genre
of the DSS texts in so far as which texts are in Hebrew (Biblical and
"sectarian")
and those texts that are directed to an Aramaic speaking audience...like
Genesis
Apocryphon, the Targums, etc.

Jack
-- 
______________________________________________

taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

Jack Kilmon
jkilmon AT historian.net

http://www.historian.net