Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Studium Biblicum Franciscanum <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>]

On  05/22/99 (The Latin analogy (was: die Flucht ins Prasens (was Ru) Ian
Hutchesson wrote:


> 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

Dear Ian Hutchesson,

Thank you for your comment.
I do not intend to argue on the issue of the spoken language since I have
no data about that.
Concerning the issue of verbal system, which was the subject of my message,
we have a remarkable fact, i.e. that the DSS follow the system of BH and
not that of Aramaic or Mishnaic Hebrew. In fact, the DSS use the so-called
inverted verbforms, which are not used in Aramaic or Mishnaic Hebrew. Am I
correct?
If this is the case, we have some solid evidence for discussion.
Some scholars think that Mishanic Hebrew was the spoken language for
centuries, parallel to classical Hebrew, which was still used in literary
compositions.
However, I can not discuss this subject.

Peace and all good.
Alviero Niccacci



Studium Biblicum Franciscanum      Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem      Fax  +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel

Home Page:     http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
Email          mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il