Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 18.50 15/05/99 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
>Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>> At 11.17 15/05/99 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
>> >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.
>> >>
>> >> >[..]
>> >> >
>> >> >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.
>> 
>> You are simply guessing that because there were two whole -- well, not
>> whole (there was so little of the Leviticus targum) -- targums found at
>> Qumran then there must have been need for almost every Jew to use Aramaic.
>> This is absurd, Jack. You have been clinging to these two targums (which
>> mean zippo as evidence for a common language) for too long and overlooking
>> what is just beyond your nose: most DSS were in fact in Hebrew.
>
>Ian, most DSS texts were in Hebrew because they were either biblical texts
>or they were "internal" texts and these DSS people used Hebrew.  It only
>shows that the DSS people spoke and utilized Hebrew.

You assume "DSS people". Unjustified assumption, Jack.

>You, on the other
>hand are ignoring not only the genre of the Aramaic texts but the
>influence of Aramaic on Qumran Hebrew.

Genre of the Aramaic texts?? This is the accusation I have been putting to
you. You ignore the text types (ie genre, Jack), preferring a more
restricted range as being indicative of something.

As to the Aramaic influence on Hebrew, we are going by Aramaic texts which
at least for Schiffman "In general, Aramaic texts found at Qumran were
pre-Qumranian; that is, they existed before the rise of the sect. Although
we cannot be certain that is the case with these Aramaic translations, it
is probable." We may not agree with Schiffman's conclusions, but the fact
that he dates all the Aramaic texts early doesn't help your case at all.
Aramaic was a literary and administrative language in Palestine under the
Persians. One would not expect it to show influence from Hebrew as it had a
strong written tradition.

>Those texts designed for a
>common audience are in the common language.
>Aramaic Apocalypse, 4Q246
>Aramaic Levi 1Q21, 4Q 213,214, 4Q541
>The Enochian literature:
>       4Q201,202,204
>       Giants 1Q23, 2Q26, 6Q8, 4Q530,531,532
>Genesis Apocryphon 1Q20
>Job Targum 11Q10, 4Q157
>Leviticus Targum 4Q157
>New Jerusalem 1Q32, 2Q24, 4Q554, 5Q15, 11Q18
>Pseodo-Daniel 4Q243-245
>Visions of Amram 4Q543-547
>Zodiac 4Q318

Now do the same for the Hebrew texts and see how paltry this list is.

For some reason, Jack you are happily oblivious of the restricted range of
text types in your list. Look at it. You have a few esoteric texts
(apocalyptic and priestly) such as Amram, TLevi, NewJeru, and not much else
other than one and a bit targums (which as you know is an anachronistic
term here). You are accusing me of what you are doing: looking at a few
texts of a restricted range of types and ignoring the bulk from a wide
range of types. This is unjustifiable. Hence this stuff is one-eyed to the
extreme:

>Don't look at the whole corpus and dismiss 20% of the texts...

Don't look at the 20% and dismiss the whole corpus.

>look at the audience for the texts in Aramaic.

Who was the audience for these, Jack?

>Aramaic Apocalypse, 4Q246
>Aramaic Levi 1Q21, 4Q 213,214, 4Q541
>The Enochian literature:
>       4Q201,202,204
>       Giants 1Q23, 2Q26, 6Q8, 4Q530,531,532
>Genesis Apocryphon 1Q20
>Job Targum 11Q10, 4Q157
>Leviticus Targum 4Q157
>New Jerusalem 1Q32, 2Q24, 4Q554, 5Q15, 11Q18
>Pseodo-Daniel 4Q243-245
>Visions of Amram 4Q543-547

Wouldn't you agree that they are mostly esoteric? (The so-called Leviticus
Targum is actually and simply a translation of the Azazel text -- one
cannot adduce anything more -- and thus relates to the Enoch material.)

>When you do this you
>can pursue a more interesting question...why would a "sequestered"
>isolated, Hebrew speaking sect produce texts whose audience are
>the common folk.  

The assumptions here cannot be derived from the source material. You are
still GUESSING. There is nothing particularly to say that we are dealing
with a '"sequestered" isolated, Hebrew speaking sect'. What we know is that
there are rules to be found amongst the tohorot and other books for all
facets of life and clearly not just for any '"sequestered" isolated, Hebrew
speaking sect'. Look at the range of rules and forget the restricted sect.

>It seems to suggest some form of public liturgy,
>a practice not normally assigned to Essenes.

What have Essenes got to do with it, Jack? Is this part of the unfounded
baggage or merely a non sequitur?

>> >explain them.  I did not "guess" the large body of Aramaic epigraphic
>> >evidence from this period with only ONE in Hebrew.
>> 
>> Here we go again. Ever thought about Statistics 101, Jack? You know the
>> sample you are attempting to use is so small that it is meaningless for
>> your purposes. Look at the full body of DSS texts. Hebrew represents most
>> text types, while Aramaic is quite restricted. There are -- to repeat --
>> four Hebrew texts to every one Aramaic text.
>
>This is a deceased equine you are flagellating here.  

You may choose to forget the bulk of the texts, because they are
uncomfortable for your theories, Jack, but normally one uses the facts to
guide their theories not their theories to sift out the facts.

None of the collections of rules for controlling everyday life of men,
women, boys, girls -- of everyone -- is written in Aramaic. All you've got
in Aramaic are specifically religious texts, and mainly esoteric at that.
Your exemplars argue against any common usage of Aramaic.

>Biblical texts
>would be written in Hebrew regardless of what the common language was!

You are claiming that the "targums" were in fact substituting the biblical
texts, but there is no evidence for this. All you are doing is arguing
against your own thesis, by showing most "biblical" texts are in Hebrew. So
what follows is you shaping the data to suit yourself but not the facts
because you have so few Aramaic texts to support your beliefs.

>Hebrew Biblical texts are not statistically significant regarding
>a common language.  These texts make up 29% of the whole.  The sectarian
>texts would be in the sect's working Hebrew dialect. These make up
>33% of the texts. Now compare the 20% Aramaic texts to the whole of
>non-sectarian texts and the number is extremely significant.
>Statistics 101 (first period), common sense 101 (second period).

Despite your blatant manipulation of the data you're still unable to get
figures that are helpful. Talking about common sense 101, Jack....
 
>> >> The logic gets nowhere and is simply tendentious.
>> >
>> >Only to you, my friend.
>> 
>> Try and spell it out for yourself, Jack. There are two targums. Therefore
>> one can say... ummm... well, there was need for two targums, and... ummm...
>> therefore Aramaic must have been the common language for why else are there
>> targums?... ummm... You have actually never fleshed out this stuff so that
>> it made sense in itself. You have had to assume that everyone basically
>> agrees with you for you to not even examine the lack of coherence to the
>> argument.
>
>We are not just talking about the Targums, Ian, we are talking about
>a LARGE percentage of the texts OUTSIDE of the biblical texts...texts
>composed for a COMMON audience, not Bible study or internal discourse

Sorry, Jack, but prayers, rules, open letters, poetry, commentaries, etc,
for you were for internal discourse. You are ignoring the range of text
types that show you are wrong. Plain wrong, Jack. Try and list the variety
of text types. Which in particular can you show indicates anything at all
about the COMMON audience? One Aramaic translation of a Hebrew text (Job)
doesn't cut the ice. You have a number of assumptions that you are not
bringing out into the light about your hypothesized writers of these texts.
 
>> >> 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.
>> 
>> Yes, a thousand texts and less than two hundred Aramaic ones. That's pretty
>> simple. Three dialects of Hebrew. Two of Aramaic.
>
>And a significant Aramaic influenced Hebrew!  Now just who do you think
>were the intended audience for those Aramaic texts?

"DSS also has many features not found in any other Hebrew tradition, in MH,
or in any Aramaic dialect... DSS Hebrew is not merely a mixture of BH, MH
and Aramaic, but also draws on a distinct spoken dialect." (Qimron, Hebrew
of DSS, p117). You are still manipulating the data with bias. 
 
>> >I see 20% of the texts in Aramaic as very significant.
>> 
>> Well, yes. Perhaps a fifth of the population used Aramaic.
>
>This whole paradigm of corresponding the linguistic distribution
>of the texts to the linguistic distribution of the general populace
>is specious and unsupported.

Oh, irony now, Jack? You are putting forward an unsupportable hypothesis
about the predominance of Aramaic based on one and a bit targums and a
restricted range of texts from a restricted range of types and assuming
that despite the fact that Hebrew is shown in the DSS to have been
versatile and used for all sorts of jobs Aramaic was the more active one.
 
>> >I view the targums
>> >in the collection as significant.
>> 
>> We keep coming back to this. Why are the targums so significant, Jack, when
>> the War Rules, Community Rules, Halakhic documents, Zadokite Fragments,
>> Sabbath Songs, all the major texts in the corpus aren't as a means of
>> identifying a working language of the common Jewish folk?
>
>Those texts define the working language of the sect, not the general
>populace.

Sect? What sect? You are preaching, Jack. You know that the texts weren't
written in Qumran. You know that there are such a linguistic range in the
texts to see that they weren't written in one community. You know that
there are so many scribal hands that they couldn't have come from a
restricted origin -- not even over a period of hundreds of years: there is
no small scribal tradition to be found in them.

And you have no direct way of talking about a general populace from any
texts. However the range of types in Hebrew should be a reasonable
indicator of its wide usage.

>> >I see a Qumran Hebrew laced with
>> >Aramaic influence and judge that significant.
>> 
>> You mean you want to say that the dialects of Hebrew being used in the DSS
>> showed more similarities with Aramaic than the majority of biblical Hebrew
>> texts? Anything more I think will be going beyond the information
>> available. Where two languages meet there is often an exchange of
>> linguistic materials.
>
>Yet the Aramaic of the time shows little Hebrew influence...and just
>why do these two languages meet?

Aramaic was after all a lingua franca -- at least a written lingua franca.
As it was a more formalised phenomenon, having been used by the Persians as
the general means of communication, the written form covered up all the
diversity of langauges in actual use.
 
>> >Your analysis could be used for the texts of the Vatican Library to claim
>> >that the common language of medieval Europe was Latin.
>> 
>> 1) the Vatican Library part of the analogy needs to be shown to be
>> appropriate and you *can't* do so;
>
>It is an appropriate analogy.  

This is repeating yourself without dealing with the criticism. At least
wait a bit.

>We have an Italian-speaking religious
>elite who uses Latin in their correspondence and considered it the
>ONLY language for the bible and their "sectarian" writings. They used
>Latin in their liturgy.  As a child I had to use a "targum" (missal)
>to understand what was going on.
>
>> 2) we have enough external evidence to
>> say that your proposal regarding Latin is simply not true. You don't have
>> the knowledge to state part 2, and you are only hoping that the blatant
>> error in the analysis regarding Latin would rub off on your interpretation
>> of the situation. You just don't know, Jack. Admit it.
>
>What "external evidence" would that be?

We have enough other texts to show that Latin was not the common language.
You simply don't have the evidence to do the same for Hebrew. Guessing again.
 
>> >> 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.
>> 
>> That would mean that one should expect some Aramaic texts in circulation at
>> least to satisfy the needs of the Samaritan converts from the time of JH,
>> right?
>> 
>> (And are you using the too accurate to be serious palaeographic sequences
>> proposed by the cavalier F.M.Cross who has set up sequences that are more
>> accurate than any other period seriously dealt with by palaeography with
>> far fewer exemplars?)
>
>Well, Frank Cross and I had the same teacher.  

Congratulations. His palaeographic sequences seem to be conclusion directed.

>The C-14 tests seem to back him up.

Rubbish. Downright conflicts in TQahat, Masada Joshua, no overlap in TLevi
or the Temple Scroll. Not one appears at the centre of the C-14 range
(unless you look at the extremely wide range given for 1QH). What are you
on, Jack?

>> >> 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.
>> 
>> STOP GUESSING, Jack. You are saying things that sooth the conscience and
>> have no evidence to back them up. This may have been fine when we didn't
>> have the overwhelming evidence of the DSS to totally undermine this sort of
>> unsupported hypothesizing, but it's not justifiable now.
>
>The coins were in palaeohebrew, Ian.  Do you therefore want to claim
>that palaeohebrew was the common script?

The coins were for common use, Jack. They weren't for a restricted range of
people. But then, do you claim that all the coins were released with
Paleo-Hebrew? (You might consider the Jaffa hoard.)
 
>> >> >>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?"
>> 
>> This is overlooking the land contracts and other common people's documents
>> in Hebrew.

>And duplicates in Aramaic. MOST of the letters were in Aramaic!

Actually largest component of documents that I've read about from the ben
Koseba era were in Greek. And you are ignoring the Murabba'at evidence,
where "duplicates in Aramaic" aren't appropriate.

>> One doesn't have such documents in a language that is
>> unintelligible for them.
>
>Most historians are aware of the attempt to revive Hebrew by Ben Kosiba.
>Simeon himself admits he is more at ease in Aramaic.

Land sales in an unintelligble language don't make sense, Jack. Contracts,
the same. There were three languages in use in Palestine at the time of Ben
Koseba. They are represented in the documents at the time. Most documents
show that they were for destined for people who understood them. Ben Koseba
may have been familiar with one while the people he was writing to were
familiar with another.
 
>> >> 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!
>> 
>> Escaping into NT stuff is no use at all.
>
>Of course not. They, like Josephus, are only contemporary authors.

I know about Josephus who was writing at the end of the first century. GLk
could have been written in the middle of the second for all we know. The
later attacks on Marcion's gospel could easily indicate that. And then, you
know that I believe that the DSS were in the ground in 63 BCE. There seems
to be only one document that has been C-14 dated that causes trouble here
and it was under the care of people who used castor oil to clean the texts.
C-14 basically indicates first century BCE, no references to people after
63 BCE, so you can't claim that either Josephus or the writer(s) of GLk
were contemporary.

>> You have no idea of what the Lucan
>> source was for the information. 

Right. Neither do you. So you cannot pull him out of the hat.

>>But you would probably be right to assume
>> that the writer(s) had little or no knowledge of the original languages
>> involved.
>
>Actually, since the Lukan scribe more accurately translates Aramaic
>idiom in Greek it suggests strongly a competence in Aramaic.

This is Albright. But you have so few examples in GLk. How can you actually
make general statements about it? Statistics 101, Jack. 

>> >You continue to ignore the Epigraphic evidence of this period,
>> >overwhelmingly Aramaic, with but *one* Hebrew tomb inscription.
>> 
>> This seems to be misrepresenting the situation. Please define the period
>> your statistic refers to.
>
>The Herodian period through which Aramaic was resumed after the forced
>hellenization.  The semitic epigraphy of this period is almost exclusively
>Aramaic but for ONE Hebrew inscription, the Beni Hezer tomb.

Herod himself had waged an ideological war against Antigonus in which the
Hebrew of Antigonus was confronted with the Greek of Herod. With Herod's
victory in the real war it is not strange that Hebrew was generally
suppressed. Whereas the Hasmoneans released coins in two languages, Herod
released his only in Greek. Hence the reduction of public Hebrew usage.
(But I'd need to check out the basis of your claims here before commenting
further.)

>> >You also ignore the genre of the DSS texts in so far as which texts are
>> >in Hebrew (Biblical and "sectarian")
>> 
>> Songs, psalter, rules and regulations (you know, Jack, things to govern
>> everyday life), horoscopes, commentaries, a letter, prayers, poetry -- just
>> about every sort of text you could imagine.
>> 
>> >and those texts that are directed
>> >to an Aramaic speaking audience...like Genesis Apocryphon, the Targums,
etc.
>> 
>> What is the "etc." exactly, Jack? Your list otherwise is pretty thin. New
>> Jerusalem? TLevi? TNaphtali? TQahat? All pretty much elitist stuff,
>> wouldn't you think, Jack? I would have thought that the range of text types
>> in Aramaic was quite narrow, not really representative of a full-blown
>> literature at all.
>
>All this shows is that Aramaic was the primary language of many pietists
>as well.  You have to come up with more than mere refutation since the
>only language considered "the Hebrew language" by 1st century authors
>(gospelers and Josephus) is Aramaic.

Turn a blind eye, Jack. You don't want to notice the range of text types
found in Hebrew. Look at the contents of Martinez' DSS translation and see
the full range and see how much is supported by Aramaic.

If you can argue, Jack, by ignoring the simple facts of mass and range as
shown in the DSS, then you can say what you want.


Ian