Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

I expect we are boring everyone else on this list by now, but I will 
paraphrase Josephus' logic for you at your request: "Many of the 
Jewish people have learned Greek, especially freedmen and servants 
[presumably for perceived economic advantage]. But we of the upper 
classes consider this rather vulgar and beneath us. For this reason I 
never learned Greek." I accept that the freedmen and servants could be 
taken as non-Jewish Aramaic speakers, but the distinction Josephus is 
making between those who learn Greek and those who do not looks more 
like a class difference to me. Whichever way you take it, this is 
clear evidence that there were many people (the freedmen and 
servants), either Jews or others living in close proximity to them, 
who learned Greek as a second language and so were bilingual.

As for my last paragraph, you are taking me too seriously. I should 
have put a ;-) after it. But I have a serious point, which we can 
understand from the type of hypothetical court case which we used to 
discuss. You are making a case for your hypothesis that bilingualism 
was rare, and the other side has brought forward this witness Josephus 
with evidence contrary to your hypothesis. As an impartial observer, I 
can say that your best hope to rescue your hypothesis is to cast doubt 
on the reliability of the witness Josephus, especially as you have 
shown yourself an expert at casting such doubt in your contributions 
on various Hebrew Bible passages, most recently Ezra.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[9]: Hebrew & Aramaic again (Peter)
Author:  mc2499 AT mclink.it at internet
Date:    20/07/1999 19:19


At 23.58 20/07/99 -0400, peter_kirk AT sil.org wrote:
>You misunderstand my argument. I am sure that Josephus' meaning (as 
>reasonably accurately reflected in the older translation) was that 
>knowledge of Greek was widespread among the Jews, especially the 
>despised lower classes. This is the clear evidence for widespread 
>bilingualism which you insist is lacking.

You misunderstand Josephus's argument. He is arguing against a wide 
knowledge of other languages in the Hebrew society. That's why his Greek 
isn't as good as he'd like it to be. His people aren't interested in such 
common things. There is no indication of bilingualism in the statement. 
You're cooking the book. But please try to paraphrase Josephus's logic 
regarding his own abilities in Greek: what is the connection between his 
own inability to pronounce Greek and the argument that follows that is 
supposed to put his inability in a context?

>So if you want to continue
>to argue that bilingualism was very rare, you will have to take up my 
>hint, eat the rest of your words here, and reject Josephus as no more 
>historical than Ezra!

This is doesn't have much sense to me. You abuse one passage of Josephus 
and then write the above!


Cheers,


Ian


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.