Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear Peter,

>Do you have the Greek text of Josephus at hand? I know that in English 
>"common" can mean "vulgar", but can the word which Josephus used here 
>mean that, or does he mean (as I assumed) that knowledge of Greek was 
>widespread, even or especially among the lower classes? 

I'll provide the Greek for anyone who can make sense of it, for the idea
seems quite different from the Whiston translation.

 [20.262] legô dê tharsêsas êdê dia tên tôn protethentôn sunteleian, hoti
mêdeis an heteros êdunêthê thelêsas mête Ioudaios mête allophulos tên
pragmateian tautên houtôs akribôs eis Hellênas exenenkein:
 [20.263] echô gar homologoumenon para tôn homoethnôn pleiston autôn kata
tên epichôrion paideian diapherein kai tôn Hellênikôn de grammatôn
espoudasa metaschein tên grammatikên empeirian analabôn, tên de peri tên
prophoran akribeian patrios ekôlusen sunêtheia. 
 [20.264] par' hêmin gar ouk ekeinous apodechontai tous pollôn ethnôn
dialekton ekmathontas dia to koinon einai nomizein to epitêdeuma touto
monon ouk eleutherois tois tuchousin alla kai tôn oiketôn tois thelousi,
monois de sophian marturousin tois ta nomima saphôs epistamenois kai tên
tôn hierôn grammatôn dunamin hermêneusai dunamenois.

>Of course the 
>Romans in Palestine would have needed Greek-speaking servants, and 
>would-be servants might have learned Greek in the hope of getting a 
>plum job with a senior Roman.
>
>Re a point in your other posting on this topic: I would suppose that 
>Pilate spoke in Greek, the most widely spoken language in the eastern 
>part of the empire (and actually also in Rome) at the time. I would 
>suppose that most of his audience understood at least the basics of 
>what he said. He may also have had an interpreter; 

This was the point. Henry was arguing that because there was no mention of
interpreters, there probably weren't.

>I would guess there 
>would be some evidence somewhere if that was a widespread practice in 
>the Roman empire. Most conquerors assume that their subject peoples 
>understand the language of the empire, if they don't, that's their 
>problem! Anyway, as you said, Herod had promoted Greek culture and 
>language. You seem to be suggesting that all Jews who learned Greek 
>became monolingual, forgetting all their Hebrew and/or Aramaic and 
>cutting themselves off from their families and the surrounding 
>community. Possible, but unlikely. 

Send your non-English speaking families to Australia and the first
generation born there will have difficulties understanding their parents
(on all fronts). How long did it take for Hebrews in Egypt to sprout their
own Greek literature? Why Greek? Because it reflected the listeners' needs.
Not only possible, but probable.

>More likely there was a spectrum of 
>bi- and trilingualism in the city, 

I have not discounted a minimum of bi-s. It seems liekly that there were
such creatures, but that in itself does not in any way reflect any
widespread situation.

>with some monolingual speakers of 
>each of the three languages but with most people have some degree of 
>competence in two or three languages. I accept that this may not be 
>provable (especially if you reject such evidence as mine from 
>Josephus) any more than the date and authorship of the writings of 
>Josephus, but sometimes one has to accept things as probable short of 
>actual concrete proof.

If you read the Josephus passage in context, it is saying that other
languages are not given much value -- what is of much value, is the
learning of the Law.

>I'm afraid your evidence from the library doesn't help at all as we 
>are thinking primarily of biligualism in spoken language, 

It gives no indication of bilingualism. It does however show that Hebrew
was a strong, healthy, developing language, including a strong influence
from Aramaic. What is missing from the DSS is a wide selection of documents
in Aramaic. There are so few Aramaic TaNaCh documents.

>or at least 
>I thought we were. I can provide many modern examples of people who 
>are totally bilingual in spoken language but can only read and write 
>in one of the languages, because the other has no orthography or its 
>orthography is not used in that particular place, or simply because 
>the people have had formal education in only one of the languages they 
>know.

>An Estonian who watches and understands Finnish TV has acquired some 
>degree of bilingualism, which is not hard as the languages are quite 
>similar. 

You are shifting the significance of bilingualism here. Passive reception
of the significance of a language does not reflect bilingualism.

>I guess the Estonians who are now pouring into Finland 
>understand quite well when Finns talk to them, but have trouble making 
>themselves understood to Finns. That sort of one-sided bilingualism 
>could of course have happened in ancient times also, though not for 
>the same reason. I would guess that many Jews who could understand 
>Greek quite well would speak it very badly.

It doesn't matter that the examples I give are ones that show that the
people involved haven't learnt the other langauge. There were no schools in
Estonian that taught Finnish. They learnt Eesti and Russian.

>PS As for your back burner point, we can only make progress when we 
>agree the criteria to be used for judging the dating of Josephus as 
>well as Ezra and 1 Esdras. 

It seems to me that this is wilful avoidance, when you are normally quite
willing to accept the usual and well attested dating for Josephus.

>The book of Ezra and Josephus' works both 
>present themselves as in part the first person reminiscences, 

OK and so does Daniel and Enoch. This isn't a criterion in itself. You'll
end up proposing that there was a Lemuel Gulliver. 

>complete 
>with historical setting and specific dating, 

Given the apparent errors in historical content in Ezra/1 Esdras this
doesn't compute. Who for example is the Artaxerxes between Cyrus and
Darius? This smells Danielic in its inaccuracy. Oh, and you think well,
maybe, perhaps it wasn't Darius I who was referred to, but then Ezra is
supposed to have been the son of Seraiah.

>of a person unknown 
>outside these texts. If this is sufficient evidence to date Josephus' 
>works in the late 1st century AD, it is also sufficient evidence to 
>date Ezra in the 5th century BC.

So, you are arguing that Lemuel Gulliver was around in the seventeenth
century. 

Tertullian, for example, is well aware of Josephus's "Contra Apion",
referring to it and him in the "Apology" (ch19), which was written a
hundred years after the time of Josephus. The first examples of knowledge
of the canonical book of Ezra were seven hundred years or so after the
reputed date. If Josephus cannot be pinned down to the end of the first
century, then the first mention of Ezra, ie Josephus epitomising 1 Esdras,
would be some time before Tertullian.

While Josephus is brimming with historically verifiable information (which
almost always checks out correct when one can corroborate it), the few
historical references and indications in Ezra don't come off anywhere near
as well.

Josephus cites *very many* sources for his works, the latest of which is
from the first century. The Ezra tradition supplies three letters
ostensibly from the Persian chancelry, but the Aramaic has long been
recognised as not reflective of the period.

Josephus's credibility in the first century context is difficult to doubt.
Ezra's in the sixth century is not serious.


Cheers,


Ian