Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear Henry,

You wrote:

>Hebrew and Aramaic are simply not linguistic "dialects", 

(There is a problem with linguistic terminology here. I have difficulty
using "dialect" and "language" with any real difference: is Hindu English
any closer to Jamaican English linguistically than Hebrew and Aramaic? Or
Scottish English and Harlem Egnlish?)

>considering
>that Aramaic must have split off from the Hebrew-Phoenician-Moabite-etc.
>branch before 1500 B.C (possibly considerably before).  It's true that
>"wave" diffusion worked against "tree" separate development in
>preserving linguistic similarity, but the end result was that there
>would have been only a rather limited mutual intelligibility between
>monolingual speakers of the two languages.  Just look at the numerals
>from one to three -- the number "two" would be totally incomprehensible
>between Hebrew and Aramaic speakers unless it had been specifically
>learned (i.e. unless bilingualism was acquired with respect to that word), 

(You'd think the men who sell carpets to foreigners in the Istanbul bazaar
were multilingual, wouldn't you?)

>while the number "three" could only be understood in the light of
>a working knowledge of corrrespondences between Hebrew and Aramaic
>(i.e., that Hebrew [sh] often corresponds to Aramaic [t]).  Consider
>2 Kings 19:26ff.

>It may not be obvious from the abridged translation, but the
>Shahnameh, if I remember correctly, is actually supposed to be a
>history from the creation to the Arab conquest according to native
>Persian sources (written up by a court poet, not an epic folk bard),
>and the Khosrows are historical monarchs of the Sassanid dynasty.

I see now more the logic of your comparison. I don't however see it as too
helpful in the general discourse.

>It's a no-brainer that there will be more archeological and epigraphical
>evidence for (some of) Josephus than for the New Testament, since
>Josephus frequently describes large-scale political-military events,
>while the NT is most concerned with smaller personages who were not
>political movers and shakers.  

And Josephus constantly referred to where he got the information,
indicating that he was quoting Polybius of Megalopolos or Nicholaus of
Damascus or any of the several other historians he had available. What we
mainly get in the NT is anonymous information with scads of "folkloristic"
content.

>Jesus did stir up a fuss among the Jewish
>religious-political leadership, but not necessarily more so than a
>number of messianic figures and/or political revolutionaries and/or
>bandits who were active during that period.  But anyway, inscriptions
>mentioning Pontius Pilate and Nazareth have turned up in the past fwe
>decades.

Pilate ok, but what date are you referring to regarding Nazareth? There are
no such indications from the first century to my knowledge. There has been
a vain but persistent biblical archaeological campaign to find a Nazareth,
with almost no tangible results other than a few graves.

But historical references are not enough in themselves. You can put
historical references in non-historical works. What was the genre of the
works you are referring to? With Josephus the genre is clear: Jewish
apologetic history.

>You're right that the Wadi Murabba'at documents indicate some secular
>role for Hebrew (more than the DSS, I think), but legal documents are
>still a long way from haggling for vegetables in the marketplace; 

Legal documents need to be clearly understood by the participants. They are
more important than the hagglings in a market.

>and
>since they were found in a "Bar Kochba" context, there's the factor of
>self-conscious Jewish nationalism to consider.

Deeds and contracts?

>>> Do you have evidence for Hebrew/Aramaic interpreters?
>
>> I guess Pontius Pilate was supposed to have been speaking either
>> Hebrew or Aramaic -- or was the crowd able to understand Latin?
>
>Actually, Pontius Pilate would most probably know Greek (as Roman
>gentleman generally did), 

(Is there anything Roman gentlemanly about Pilate?)

>and there also probably would have been enough
>Greek-speakers in the crowd so that those who did understand it could
>explain it to those who didn't, 

So, you are advocating a bunch of Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic trilinguals in the
crowd?

>so it could be theoretically possible
>for translators to be dispensed with (of course, I'm only speculatiing
>on probabilities here).

The upshot of course is that you can't argue that there was bilingualism
merely because there is no mention of translators.


Cheers,


Ian