Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Henry Churchyard <churchyh AT ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>]

> Subject: Re[4]: Hebrew & Aramaic again (Peter)
> From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 18:57:38 -0400

> I would suppose that Pilate spoke in Greek, the most widely spoken
> language in the eastern part of the empire at the time.  I would
> suppose that most of his audience understood at least the basics of
> what he said.  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.  unlikely.  More likely there was a spectrum of bi- and
> trilingualism in the city, 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.

Thanks for nicely summarizing (it would be a little safer to say that
"many" in the audience would have understood the basics, instead of
"most").


> Subject: Re: Hebrew & Aramaic again (was: Josephus & 1Esdras)
> From: Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 21:39:47 +0200

>> 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), 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.

(I notice you didn't address, much less refute, the point about the
rather limited mutual comprehensibility of even the numerals 1 to 3.)


>> 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.

Well, by and large the Shahnameh is what you claim the Bible to be, so
I find it interesting to compare the two; however, I agree that this
doesn't directly prove anything about the Bible in any strict sense.


> 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.

The Bible simply doesn't contain much writing that was ever intended
to be historical in the Greek sense; usually the Biblical authors and
editors are more interested in the effects of events on the material
and spiritual wellbeing of the Jews, rather than in chronicling
political-military history for its own sake.  If you find this
attitude to be uncongenial and irritating, then there are plenty of
texts to study that were written in a proper historical frame of mind.


>> But anyway, inscriptions mentioning Pontius Pilate and Nazareth
>> have turned up in the past few decades.

> what date are you referring to regarding Nazareth?  There are no
> such indications from the first century to my knowledge.

I really can't tell you anything about it (briefly saw a mention of it
when flipping through BAR or something), but a quick web-search turned
up a reference at http://qumran.com/qumran/_qumrandisc/00000180.htm 
Maybe someone on the list knows more.


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

But less important in establishing that Hebrew was commonly used in a
wide range of contexts in everyday life.

>>> 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?)

Actually, I think I would keep one hand on my money-purse and the
other hand hovering above the hilt of my dagger when dealing with most
Romans of the political/office-holding classes.  But you knew
perfectly well what I meant (and chose to pointlessly quibble about
tangential terminology anyway).


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

My point was that there doesn't seem to be strikingly more explicit
mention of interpreters than of bilingualism, so no particular
conclusions can be drawn from an "argument from silence".


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

It's hard to acquire facility in understanding a foreign language
without also improving your ability to make yourself understood in
that language, to some degree.  Also, the ancient world did not have
television, and there were few situations similar to that of Estonians
watching Finnish television while only rarely coming into contact with
Finns.

--
Henry Churchyard   churchyh AT ccwf.cc.utexas.edu   http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/