Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jack Kilmon <jkilmon AT historian.net>]

Ian Hutchesson wrote:
> 
> At 18.50 15/05/99 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
> >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.

I use the term "DSS People" because SOME group wrote and owned
the DSS.  Whether that was a sequestered group at Qumran,
Essenes, Temple folk, ot the local Barnes and Noble...there
WERE a "DSS People."  It's not an assumption.

> 
> >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.

You are attempting to fashion this discussion on the use of
Hebrew/Aramaic to conform to your own paradign of DSS origins.
This is tendentious.  Although I do not disagree totally with
you on this issue, it IS a minority position....but it is
irrelevent to this discussion.

> 
> 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.

You are telling me that a position (by Schiffman) that is probably
not correct (Some Aramaic texts..in fact most..are early 1st
century BCE to early 1st century CE) does not help my case.
I'm sorry, but I see a logical problem here.


> 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.

If Hebrew was the "Lingua Franca" of Palestine and Aramaic an
"official" language, there would be Hebrew influence on 1st
century Aramaic as a course of natural linguistic drift.  Instead,
Qumran Hebrew in heavily influenced by Aramaic.  By itself, this
may not be necessarily conclusive but when factored with the
rest of the evidence, it is.

> 
> >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.

Obviously I did not list all of the Aramaic texts but when you
remove the Biblical texts that would be in Hebrew even if the
general populace spoke eskimo..the Aramaic texts make up 50%
of the texts.  Sorry...but that is VERY strong evidence.

> 
> 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).

The works that form a basis for Daniel/Enochian Judaism and the
wisdom literature for that genre (such as WisSol) and the
testimentary literature such as T12P are all in Aramaic.  These
works were also important to the early Jesus movement which can
be viewed as arising from the same subset.

How can you say the targums are anachronistic?  The DSS Targums
clearly show this was a practice.  TJob and TLev are LITERAL
translations in the COMMON tongue.  The Targums of the later
Tannaitic period such as Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan show a
DEVELOPMENT from those literal targums to an aggadic midrashic
form.

You seem to want to make an issue that the TLev was just a
fragment but this fragment was part of a larger complex work.
It matters not that there were but 3 targums found among
the surviving texts, Ian.  They are STILL targumim and the
function of a targum was to translate a Hebrew text for
lectionary purposes into the COMMON language.  You cannot logically
call targums anachronistic to the dss when there are three
targums staring you in the face.


> 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:

You dont seem to understand that ONE text in a corpus of 800
can tell us more than a hundred others.  If among those thousands
of fragments of 800 odd scrolls there had been ONE fragment of
the Gospel of Mark (no, I do not accept 7Q5 as Mark) that single
fragment would have been (to many) the most significant of the
entire cache.

Just as the Great Isaiah Scroll was very significant for the
study against the MT, the Targumim were significant because
they show that they were in use long before Tannaitic times.


> 
> >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.)

You don't seem to want to come to grips with this "20%" that
become 50% of the texts when the biblical texts are removed
from the model.  Biblical texts in Hebrew have no relevence
to the common language. ALL biblical texts were in Hebrew.
LXX aside.

> 
> >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'.

As usual, in your zeal to foster your own tendenz, you have
missed my point.  My point, more succinctly, was that the
presence of targumim and Aramaic (common language) texts
suggest lectionary use for a non-Hebrew speaking audience,
either Aramaic-speaking literati and/or the general populace.
This does not conform to what we believe about Essenes and
their practices.  I was passing you a bone to foster your
paradign about DSS origins....not that its relevent to
the point of this discussion.

> 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.

Again, you missed the point..but whether the DSS people were
a sequestered sect or not has no relevence.

> 
> >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?

Stick to the issue please.  Aramaic was the common tongue
of the non-literate general populace of Judea in the 1st century.
Who scribed, owned, cached the DSS is not relevent.

> 
> >> >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.

Not is you continue to think that the linguistic distribution
of these texts is parallel to the linguistic use of the
people of Palestine.

> 
> 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.

I'm sorry, but 50% of the non-biblical texts in Aramaic from
a Hebrew speaking community argues FOR my position.

> 
> >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.

Ian, even if ALL of the DSS were in Hebrew, it would not be
relevent to the common language of Palestine.

> 
> >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....

Not manipulation of the data...proper analysis of the data.

> 
> >> >> 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.

Well, three really 2 TJobs and TLev.

> 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.

Yes, and had there been a coke can found in provenance in
Cave 4, it would suggest that they drank coke..classic, of course.
Wouldn't need a case.

> >
> >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.

It would only show that the "recruits" to this organization did
not yet speak "Qumran Hebrew."

> >
> >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.

Not the more active among the DSS people...among the general
populace.  The DSS are not the only evidence here.  The epigraphy
of the time is most probative..as is the testimony of 1st
century authors.

> 
> >> >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?

No, they are a means of identifying the working language of
the group that owned the texts.....and that was Hebrew.

> >
> >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.

Again, this has to do with your tendenz for DSS origins and
is irrelevant.  I even share your "cautions" regarding the
consensus position...it has nothing to do with this
discussion.

> 
> 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.

That is the logical flaw in your argument.

> 
> >> >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.

Actually, I am claiming that Aramaic was the SPOKEN lingua
franca of the am ha-aretz, Palestinian Aramaic..not Imperial.

> >
> >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.)

I have some of those coins, Ian.  Be glad to send you a jpg.

<II Jewsih war material snipped>

> >> >
> >> >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.

Perhaps, but doubtful. Luke is still writing about the
"Language of the people" in the 1st century and is backed
up by Josephus.  Here are two ancient authors who claim that
Aramaic was the common tongue..and others that support it
indirectly.  Show me ONE ancient author who states that
Hebrew was the common language.

> 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.

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning but this
goes by me.  There are those who believe there is a literary
communication between Luke and Josephus...one direction or
the other.

> 
> >> 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.

Ian. you are answering your own statement here...I didn't say....
er type that...you did.

> 
> >>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.

Yes, it's Albright...he taught me...sue me.  And yes, I can
give linguistic exemplars from Luke that suggests he was
competent in Aramaic.

> 
> >> >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.)

Okie

> 
> >> >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.

And you don't apply that to Qumran Hebrew?  You can't envision that
many of the DSS people themselves were Aramaic-speaking?

> >
> >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.

I believe I am looking at the totality of evidence in
a more comprehensive manner than you....you being restricted
by a tendentiousness for irrelevent pardigms.  I do not
discount NT evidence as well.  I have no sacred cow here,
Ian, and you seem to have a whole herd.  Give me some sound
evidence that Hebrew, and not Aramaic, was the commonly
spoken language of the general populace of Palestine in
the first century and I will embrace it gladly as a
progression and victory in my historical understanding
of this period.  I am not saying that I could not be
mistaken..even in the face of all the evidence that
suggests otherwise.  There are some very brilliant
scholars that disagree with me as well as many that agree.

Jack
-- 
______________________________________________

taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

Jack Kilmon
jkilmon AT historian.net

http://www.historian.net