Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 14.45 18/05/99 -0400, yochanan bitan wrote:
>the significant thing about DSS aramaic bible is that it doesn't exist.
>lots of hebrew, some significant greek, but no aramaic.

You make this sound obvious, but I sure didn't think of it! This is a
clear, strong argument at least against Aramaic in its position in the DSS
and their wider context.

>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.

(I do normally chaif at "library" in this context. <grin>)

>lots of aramaic documents existed at qumran, but the bible wasn't one of
>them. 

And these Aramaic texts cry out for explanation.

>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. 

Again this seems pretty much spot on to me. (I bet people will hear it from
me in the future!)

The relationship between Aramaic and Hebrew in Jewish religious literature
is a mystery that needs to be cleared up. (Peter has rightly suggested the
need for an in-depth sociolinguistic analysis of what evidence there is to
establish the real linguistic situation in Jerusalem -- easier said than
done, of course, given the available evidence.) But it is only one of a
number of black holes in our understanding that craves to be resolved.
(Perhaps the most important other  asking elucidation is the "Samaritan
schism" which may in fact be related to the Aramaic question.)

>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.

We'd probably need the people responsible for them to get the why.


Ian