Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Thanks for your response, Rolf. You wrote:

>Further do I agree with Alviero that the same verbal
>system is used in all the books of the Bible, in the DSS, and in ben Sira.

I guess I wasn't as clear as I would like to have been. I was in no sense
disagreeing with the "factual" aspect of Alviero's post. (I'm not able to
do so.) In fact, I should have thanked him for his comment in that regard.
I was merely looking at the hypothesis that emerged from the facts.

>However, there is some evidence that the Hebrew that was spoken was
>somewhat different from that which was written. James Barr coined the term
>"Middle Hebrew" (including proto-Mishnaic Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, and
>other dialects). You have correctly argued that all the sectarian documents
>at Qumran were written in Hebrew, and that this shows that Hebrew was
>spoken by the group. However, there seems to be a difference in the Hebrew
>used in the different documents. The Rule of the Community, the Damascus
>Document, the War Scroll, the Temple Scroll, the Hodayot, and the Pesharim
>are written in Late Biblical Hebrew while the Copper Scroll (3Q15) and
>Miqsat Ma'aseh Ha-Torah (4QMMT) seems to have been written in Middle Hebrew
>(see Al Wolters, "The Copper Scroll and the vocabulary of Mishnaic Hebrew,"
>RQ 14, 1990, pp 483-495, and Discoveries in the Judean Desert X, Qumran
>Cave 4 . V,1994, pp 65-108). This may indicate that their language was
>somewhat different from the biblical language which they wrote.
>
>From his study of 1QIsaa, Kutcher concluded: "We will now review our
>conclusions concerning our scribe's dialect. It's vocabulary was apparently
>largely similar if not identical with that of Mishnaic hebr. it does not
>seem to have been pure Hebrew, but rather a Hebrew-Aramaic patois." (E.Y.
>Kutcher, 1974, "The Language and the Linguistic Background of the Isaiah
>Scroll, p 61.)

It was Kutscher's conclusion that Qimron commented on in his "The Hebrew of
the DSS", 1986, p116, "Aramaic influences exist..., but not to the extent
assumed by Kutscher; many features he cites (such as digraphs... or
imperative forms of qal etc) can be explained even without positing any
Aramaic influence. Yet the fact that Aramaic has succeeded in penetrating
even the morphology proves how far reaching its impact was."

And on the following page, he says, "DSS Hebrew also has many features not
found in any other Hebrew traditions, in MH, or in any Aramaic dialect
[omitted list of examples]. Some of these unique features are ancient...
(as in the Babylonian tradition),... The vocabulary includes many words
known neither from other Hebrew sources nor from Aramaic; however, the
number of Semitic *roots* attested in Hebrew only in the DSS (and
unattested in Aramaic) is very small... These unique features show that DSS
Hebrew is not merely a mixture of BH, MH and Aramaic, but also draws on a
distinct spoken dialect."

He will obviously agree with the factual observations made on the verb
system and the Aramaic influence, but will also point to material whose
existence is unaccountable for in a fundamentally written, formal language.


Ian