Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Caro Niccacci,

I have seen the analogy made between the Hebrew of the DSS and Latin many
times. I have never seen anything other than the analogy itself to make the
idea work. One states the situation with Latin in the Catholic church as a
demonstrable fact, then one goes on to impute that it was also the case
that while most people spoke something else, those who wrote the DSS spoke
the form of Hebrew found in the scrolls. This is an argument by analogy,
whereas analogy is used merely for elucidation of something less known by
parallelling it with something better known. However, the situation with
DSS Hebrew versus language X (whatever may have been spoken that was not --
according to the user of the analogy -- DSS Hebrew) is totally unknown:
there is no elucidation, there is only hypothesis. At the same time the
parallel is not a good one: Latin was an obvious choice because the church
was found in numerous countries where there were numerous languages. It was
in fact a church-based lingua franca, spread through many countries. This
situation is not analogous with that in Judea. If the religious texts were
in biblical Hebrew and MMT & the Copper Scroll were in a Hebrew more
similar to biblical Hebrew, why not use that as a learned language?

>As far as my knowledge goes, exactly the same verbal system is used
>throughout the different phases of Hebrew, Mishanic Hebrew excluded. In the
>last months I have been studying Ben Sira--well, I think that he uses the
>different forms in the same way as classical Hebrew. Also the Hebrew of
>Qumran imitates the classical language exactly, as far as I can see. This
>Hebrew was most likely a learned language used by cultivated people,
>similar to what was Latin in Christian, esp. Catholic, university
>tradition. Note that I speak of verbal system only. Clear differences
>exist, of course, on morphology and lexicography.

Wouldn't a form of Hebrew similar to Mishnaic H. be more likely to have
been a learned language -- as it is more similar to the biblical Hebrew --
whereas that found in the DSS would be the ordinary spoken language? The
great Isaiah scroll is basically in DSS Hebrew. (Perhaps a DSS targum of
Isaiah, Jack? Sorry, it's translated into DSS Hebrew, not Aramaic, so it's
not significant, right?)


Distinti saluti,


Ian