Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jack Kilmon <jkilmon AT historian.net>]

yochanan bitan wrote:

> peter asked:
> >Are you, or is anyone else, seriously propounding the view that the
> >Hebrew text of Job was a translation and that the Aramaic found at
> >Qumran is (something like) the original?
>
> shalom peter,
> i think the following is a consensus.
> qumran aramaic Job is a translation.
> hebrew Job was original, but it is in a hebrew dialect that is sui generis.
>
> there are those who suspect that Job is a translation from something else,
> but no one has proposed that  Qumran aramaic Job is original.

I'm not helping my own argument for an Aramaic common language for
1st century Palestine with this question...but bolstering the opposite view
is sometimes the best way to come to terms.  I think it was Father
Murphy-O'Connor (sorry, I'm not at home in the comfort of my library)
who proposed that the Essenes essentially packed up their toothbrushes
and moved back to Judea from Syria following the victorious Maccabaean
Revolt.  If this is true, it could explain the Aramaic texts, including Job.

Jack
--
______________________________________________

taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

Jack Kilmon
jkilmon AT historian.net

http://www.historian.net