Biblical Hebrew Forum

[yochanan bitan <ButhFam AT compuserve.com>]

>> >The DSS Targums clearly show this was a practice.
>> 
>> The plural is misleading. The so-called Leviticus Targum is only the
Azazel
>> text.
>> 
i'll have to agree with ian. 
the significant thing about DSS aramaic bible is that it doesn't exist.
lots of hebrew, some significant greek, but no aramaic.
this is where NT scholarship has isolated itself from data. assuming
aramaic to be the main and only serious vehicle for wide expression in 1CE,
and assuming that aramaic translations were already existing, secondary
echos of the claim that qumran knew aramaic translations of the bible in
1CE continue to be passed on and assumed for NT scholarship. but qumran's
bible was in hebrew (plus some greek) and the breadth of their library
suggests that they are reflecting the wider Judean society around them.

lots of aramaic documents existed at qumran, but the bible wasn't one of
them. 
where are the fragments to torah, prophets or writings? 
their lack was NOT accidental, as can be concluded from the many
non-biblical aramaic texts recovered, plus multiple copies of Job (one from
cave 11, one from cave 4), also known from LXX job 42.17 and rabbinic
stories. Job was apparently "special", and i'll leave it to y'all to figure
out why a central literary aramaic dialect of such a text would have been
in circulation and found its way to Judea and Qumran.

yisge shlamxon
randall buth