Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: targums

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[2]: targums
  • Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 23:23:58 -0400


Dear Paul,

Thank you for the Philippines analogy, even if Ian doesn't think much
of it (he might prefer the following as I am tending to support his
general hypothesis). But which language is like English and which like
Tagalog and the others? The situation may be more like here in
Azerbaijan, where the common people speak Azerbaijani (but with
significant Russian influence after 200 years of close contact) and
the elite tend to speak Russian (with relatively little Azerbaijani
influence as this is a standardised international language - for that
reason we do not see the analogy of Jack's '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.') However, after a political change, official
documents are now in Azerbaijani and Russian is on the wane.

On this analogy, Hebrew is like Azerbaijani, the continuing language
of the common people (or at least of a significant part of them), and
Aramaic is like Russian, the language which the elite came to use
while they were part of an empire but which is losing ground in a
newly independent state with an ideological commitment to the "mother
tongue" of the ethnic group. Here we get situations like the rabbi who
asked his maid for help with Hebrew: he, from the elite, was trying to
write in Hebrew to be "politically correct" but actually didn't know
it as well as his maid from the "common people". This is of course
another guess, but one that looks more plausible to me than the
opposite one that the common people spoke Aramaic and the elite
Hebrew. The languages of common peoples tend to be much more stable
than those of elites, which can shift according to political winds.

But then I think this whole rather childish argument (excepting your
contribution) is flawed by trying to generalise over a period of more
than 200 years (from the Maccabees to Josephus) of political flux, in
which the fates of different languages at least among elite groups
may have changed very rapidly. The participants ahve started writing
of "the first century" without defining which of the two first
centuries they are writing about and quoting authors from both. If
you tried to generalise about the language situation here over the
last 200 years, you would be wasting your time!

Peter Kirk

PS: Jack wrote "ALL biblical texts were in Hebrew. LXX aside." but
earlier in the same posting "TJob and TLev are LITERAL translations in
the COMMON tongue." This is a clear contradiction. Either define
"biblical texts" as "biblical texts in the original", which does not
help to answer the question, or accept translations into Greek and
Aramaic equally, in which case the initial statement is incorrect.


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________ Subject: Re: targums
Author: zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph at internet
Date: 15/05/1999 16:35


Ian Hutchesson wrote:

> At 11.17 15/05/99 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> >I see 20% of the texts in Aramaic as very significant.
>
> Well, yes. Perhaps a fifth of the population used Aramaic.

Ian,

IMHO, it is *you* that has the faulty logic here. You are taking a body of
evidence
from a single community and generalizing it for the entire "nation". While
it m
ay
be
(and quite likely is) the case that the Qumran community used Hebrew
extensively
,
maybe even almost exclusively, that in no way demands that the community was
a
representative of the populus as a whole. And, were the Qumran community
primarily
Hebrew, the presence of 20% Aramaic *is very* significant.

You're going to say that I'm guessing, but you keep failing to acknowledge
that
you,
too, are guessing and generalizing without specific evidences. In fact, you
are
ignoring the fact that the targums were indeed written, and written for some
purpose.
If Hebrew was so predominant in the populus in general, then please explain
the
need
for Aramaic targums?

As far as Jack's Latin illustration, that pattern has the support of holding
tru
e
in
other cultures that had an "elitist" language. For example, if one were to
look
at
the legal and educational texts of the Philippines, one would conclude that
English is
by far the predominate language. The fact of the matter is that, while
almost a
ll
the
people know some English, few are comfortable with it, and even fewer speak
it a
s
their primary language. Both of you are guessing, but Jack is the only one
of
you
that at least admits it.

Paul
--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Isabela, Rep. of Philippines

zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph




---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page