Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 11.37 16/05/99 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
>
>
>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.  

What about "groups"? What makes you think that any single group was
responsible?

>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.

Naturally, if you want to assume that 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.

Read my previous post again. I outlined a number of text types in Hebrew.
In comparison there are very few in Aramaic: with the exception of a
translation of Job into Aramaic we have mainly esoteric texts. This is not
the case for Hebrew, which has a full range of text types. Is this so
difficult, Jack? You are the one who wants to stretch Aramaic.

>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.

If the majority of Aramaic texts are early, then you can't really talk too
much about Aramaic being influenced by Hebrew.

>> 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 

Who said that? I was talking about Jerusalem. At least I think that there
is enough evidence to talk about Jerusalem. I don't really know about
anywhere else. And I don't see how anyone else would either.

>and Aramaic an
>"official" language, there would be Hebrew influence on 1st
>century Aramaic as a course of natural linguistic drift.  

What is your yardstick to say what to expect in the way of changes to Aramaic?

>Instead,
>Qumran Hebrew in heavily influenced by Aramaic.  

Again, if you go back to Qimron he says that QH was not as influenced as
one might think. He also says that there is a strong Hebrew component that
needs to be accounted for. (p116,117)

>By itself, this
>may not be necessarily conclusive but when factored with the
>rest of the evidence, it is.

The rest of the evidence you have provided, Jack doesn't exist for the
period before Herodian times. And I am still working on the notion that the
scrolls hit the caves in 63 BCE. I have seen nothing that contradicts this
idea, nothing substantive to justify texts from any period after that.
 
>> >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.

Simply list the texts, Jack. Do it. See what you've got. You can avoid
looking at the evidence all you like. But that's what you are doing. Have I
gotta list it all for you? To pin you down on this. You'll probably squirm
around until I do.

Try this for a start:

              Hebrew           Aramaic

Rules:        many               none

Purification
works         many               none

Apocalyptic   numerous           some

Commentaries  numerous           none

Para-biblical numerous           numerous

Wisdom        numerous           none

Benedictions  some               none

Hymns         numerous           none

Liturgical    numerous           none

Astronomical  some               some

Apocryphal
  psalms      some               none

Collections
  of quotes   some               none 

Do you get the basic idea, Jack. Hebrew is represented in all the text
types listed here. Aramaic is represented in a *quarter* of the types. Am I
misrepresenting the facts, Jack?

>> 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 

As you have Enoch in Aramaic you have Jubilees in Hebrew. The pseudo-Daniel
material is para-biblical and there are numerous parabiblical works in both
languages.

>and the wisdom literature for that genre (such as WisSol) 

??

>and the
>testimentary literature such as T12P are all in Aramaic.  

Priestly material. Not at all for the common folk, Jack.

>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 term was coined for a later era. It has merely been retrojected into
the DSS. If you mean anything more than a translation from Hebrew into
Aramaic -- and you pointedly do -- then the term is an anachronism.

>The DSS Targums clearly show this was a practice.  

The plural is misleading. The so-called Leviticus Targum is only the Azazel
text.

>TJob and TLev are LITERAL
>translations in the COMMON tongue.  

Your pointlessly repeating the dogma. You first assume that it is the
common tongue, then all else follows.

>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 

Fragment, maybe not. But there is not enough of the text to say that it was
anything more than a translation of the Azazel text.

>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.  

Sorry, yes, there was a small fragment of another dose of Job. Not enough
to assume that it was a whole text however. Note for example that there
were numerous commentaries on Isaiah, but no-one would be able to say that
they each originally dealt with the whole text. You would just like the
fragment of Job and that of Leviticus to have covered the whole text. There
is no necessity from the evidence we have.

>They are STILL targumim 

If you simply mean that they are a translation into Aramaic, then why don't
you just call them "Aramaic translations" and we would have one less
terminological problem.

>and the
>function of a targum was to translate a Hebrew text for
>lectionary purposes into the COMMON language.  

Ahh, but you see, you do have more up your sleave and nothing that you can
justify. This is unfortunately the retrojection of a later period into the
DSS, which you cannot justify.

>You cannot logically
>call targums anachronistic to the dss when there are three
>targums staring you in the face.

The way translations from Hebrew into Aramaic were used in later times is
no reflection on how they were used in the first century BCE. Therefore
your argument is anachronistic. You are saying things that you have no
evidence for other than from some much later period.

>> 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.  

You've got to be kidding me.

>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.

You don't know how they were used.
 
>> >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.  

Let's take out all those texts that are uncomfortable for your beliefs, Jack.

And your figures don't add up. (In cave 1 for example there were 29 Hebrew
non-biblical texts to 6 Aramaic. 6/2 in cave 2. 5/1 in cave 3. 5/1 in cave
5. 11/4 in cave 6. 9/2 in cave 11. And I gave up on cave 4 at about 4Q480,
having identified over two hundred Hebrew texts for forty Aramaic. You
figures seem cooked.

>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.  

No, Jack, I didn't miss your point: you want to say something that you
don't have the evidence to say.

>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.

Note: repeating a unfounded assumption will not make it anything other than
an unfounded assumption. Your theories are conclusion driven. You start
with the notion that Aramaic is "common language" and naturally, you don't
need any evidence for that. You're already there.

>This does not conform to what we believe about Essenes and

Still, what have the Essenes got to do with the discussion, Jack???

>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.

You assume that there was only a small group that spoke Hebrew and wrote
the majority of the texts. I have attempted to show that the texts deal
with a wide range of subjects and interests including regulation of all
aspects of all people's lives. There are no Aramaic texts that aim to deal
with aspects of common people's lives.
 
>> >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.  

Oh my, Jack. You drop the Essene word and when challenged respond this way.
Have you dropped a few cogs?

>Aramaic was the common tongue

Repetition without substance yet again.

>of the non-literate general populace of Judea in the 1st century.
>Who scribed, owned, cached the DSS is not relevent.

Unsubstantiated stuff, another time. So, you give up on the DSS based
arguments and now resort to dicta.
 
>> >> >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.

Have you got a better sample of language use for the period?
 
>> 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.

You figures are outrageously wrong. This is not guessing: this is inventing.
 
>> >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.

You have backed out -- during your post -- from the DSS argument. But you
offer no tangible evidence to take its place as a representation of
language use for the period.
 
>> >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.

I wish you would start.
 
>> >> >> 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.

I full text.

>> 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.

Ho hum. Nothing useful for you to say.

>> >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."

Unjustified assumption.

>> >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.  

Repetition without substance gets you nowhere.

>The DSS are not the only evidence here.  The epigraphy
>of the time is most probative..as is the testimony of 1st
>century authors.

The DSS is the largest collection of epigraphy we have. You want to ignore
it because it doesn't suit your beliefs.
 
>> >> >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.

What group, Jack? The ones that spoke Hebrew or the ones that spoke
Aramaic? The ones that spoke a Hebrew closer to Mishnaic Hebrew or the ones
that spoke a Hebrew closer to biblical Hebrew? Or again the ones that spoke
the Hebrew that a lot of the DSS were written in? We have at least three
different speech communities in Hebrew. You for some unknown reason insist
on making there be only one group.

>> >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.  

You talked about a "sect", Jack. You are assumption riddled. Point out an
assumption, and you cry irrelevant.

>I even share your "cautions" regarding the
>consensus position...

That's why you consistently use the stuff without qualification.

>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.

Come again, Toucan?
 
>> >> >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

But you don't deal with the evidence. You just repreat your beliefs.

>..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.

Then you would know that there was not only palaeo-Hebrew characters but
also *square Hebrew characters*, telling you that your assumptions are yet
again unfounded.

>> >> >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 

Please stop with the unjustified irrelevances. You can only guess when GLk
was written. We only have evidence from the latter part of the second
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.

Josephus simply does not claim that Aramaic 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.  

Read it again. It basically says that there is no evidence to indicate that
the DSS were later than 63 BCE.

>There are those who believe there is a literary
>communication between Luke and Josephus...one direction or
>the other.

Flight of fancy.
 
>> >> 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.

Oh, heavens, Jack. I'll just forget that you waffled on about GLk. When you
have something substantial to say about him, I'll read the evidence.
 
>> >>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.  

Yeah, this is the guy that pushed the wandering Aramaean fantasy.

>And yes, I can
>give linguistic exemplars from Luke that suggests he was
>competent in Aramaic.

Please do.

>> >> >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?  

I've gone through some of the text types above.

>You can't envision that
>many of the DSS people themselves were Aramaic-speaking?

On what grounds should I?

>> >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.  

Yawn, Jack. Nothing to say again. What you believe is not worth much to
anyone else until you back it up with evidence, but as you are not
forthcoming, I have to surmise that you've got none.

>I do not
>discount NT evidence as well.  

When you introduce a witness, you have to provide qualifications, otherwise
the witness cannot be judged relevant. You have no evidence that any NT
other than Paul was written in the first century. Therefore, the witness
can't be called.

>I have no sacred cow here,

Oh come off it, Jack.

>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.  

Until then, like with the DSS, on no evidence you'll sustain another
hypothesis. I don't strongly push Hebrew, for I don't really think there is
enough evidence for one to make any definitve statements. The bulk of the
evidence we do have suggests Hebrew.

>I am not saying that I could not be
>mistaken..even in the face of all the evidence that
>suggests otherwise.  

When will you provide any evidence?

>There are some very brilliant
>scholars that disagree with me as well as many that agree.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, Jack.


Ian