Biblical Hebrew Forum

[yochanan bitan-buth <ButhFam AT compuserve.com>]

My point was about Aramaic in general, and the Job targum was used for
contemporary reference.
Rolf wrote:
>Several years ago I compared all the verb forms of the Targum of Job and
>the MT. 

I also wrote a paper some years ago with Job verb data, just a bit of which
appears in the Sheffield article, "Hebrew Poetic Tenses and Magnificat"
JSNT (21) 1984:67-83. Aramaic sometimes "levels" the Hebrew poetic play. So
does the LXX in the Psalms (see the article for some nice examples). It
means that you need to evaluate individual forms in Qumran Job. Statistics
of one fragmentary poetic document may not produce one unique pattern, you
need to look at each example. What is the author doing? Why? How is the
textual preservation? It is not so hard if you already know the Aramaic and
Hebrew verbs. If not,  -->

. . . To see the Aramaic view of the Hebrew verbs you should turn to the
Genesis Apocryphon. 
(And Tobit: bit of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek 1 and 2.  Plus occasional
quotes sprinkled through the Aramaic parabiblical lit like Levi Document
and Vision of `amram.)
GnApoc is sufficient for a scholar to follow, especially in columns 19-22
where it often quotes the Hebrew text. the 1st person forms absolutely rule
out participial readings in the clear places. I point this out so that
tight Biblical verb reflexes in column 21-22 are not vocalized against
Aramaic sensitivities.

Additionally, the verbs pattern pretty much like those targums that come on
stage in the 2nd century CE. It is not good scholarship to just dismiss
massive contrary evidence: "The other Targums are too young to be of any
importance." (Onkelos is probably 150-200CE, central Aramaic dialect, also
like the Palestinian type of targum from around the same time 150-250CE,
western Aramaic dialect, even preserving traces of an older Judean flavor
[from 70-135CE?]. Hardly so young as to absolutely dismiss, but more
importantly, a direct continuum with Qumran. Definitely not a revolution.)

You are right to be leary of Daniel's participles for speech margins for
they would mislead you about the language. In fact, in several places where
an unambiguous form is used you will find suffix verbs, `ano and `anat. The
bottom line, though, is simply that Daniel wrote with a lot of 'narrative
presents'.

As for Aramaic of the period--a period when literary Hebrew still used the
vayyiqtol--the texts clearly support the equation of Aramaic suffix tense
with literary/biblical Hebrew vayyiqtol. One of the many facts with which
to approach biblical Hebrew.

yisge shlamxon
Randall Buth
ps to rolf: i've appended the article you enquired about.
i'll send the drogulin font using lower ascii Hebrew keyboard separately.