Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: targums

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon AT historian.net>
  • To: Kelly McGrew <kelly AT mcgrew.net>
  • Cc: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: targums
  • Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 12:41:18 -0500




Kelly McGrew wrote:
>
> Let me posit a question....if the library of a modern day chasidic shul
> were found in
> 2,000 years, what conclusions would you draw based on the fact that:
>
> -Most works were in Hebrew, although it varies from 'Classical' (Biblical)
> through
> Mishnaic, Medieval, and Rabbinic, but little modern Hebrew is to be found;
> -Many works included Aramaic along side the Hebrew or Yiddish (like the
> Mikraot
> Gedalot for both Torah and NaKh; the Talmud, and Midrashim);
> -Several works were entirely or largley in Yiddish (some editions of the
> Mikraot
> Gedalot, the Mishnah Berurah, and other classics of Eastern European Jewry);
> -and no works were in English.
>
> That about sums up the Skulyner shul in Williamsburg (on Keap Street). No
> one speaks
> Hebrew or Aramaic as a daily language, although some do have the ability
> speak modern
> Hebrew (the langauge isn't used much outside of Israel in the chasidic with
> which I'm
> familiar); most speak Yiddish as their first language. English is commonly
> spoken for
> business purposes (yet the only evidence might be on the reverse of the
> title page:
> "Printed by Gross Brothers Inc.").
>
> My point, in case you missed it, is that it is probably difficult to
> determine the
> exact nature of the language based on a library which includes texts
> hundreds (in the
> case of Qumran) or thousands (in the case of Williamsburg) of years old.
> We can
> determine the languages in which they studied, all else is probably pure
> speculation.

I agree in that the linguistic distribution among the DSS is not
probative of the
linguistic usage of the general population in 1st century Palestine. If
I was a
philologist examining the Skulyner shul library in 4,000 CE, I might get
the
impression that Aramaic was the common language because the "expansion"
texts
on the Hebrew texts (Targumim, Talmud, Gemara) would be in
Aramaic....that is if
I had no extensive literature base for Williamsburg in general. The
same would
be true for libraries in Germany, Russia, etc. I might not know that
the Gemara
continues in Aramaic out of tradition from a time when Aramaic was the
common language.

Jack

--
______________________________________________

taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

Jack Kilmon
jkilmon AT historian.net

http://www.historian.net




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page