Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com>]

Ken Penner wrote:

> Hi Peter,
>
> Could you tell us on what evidence you base your view that Hebrew was the
> street language and Aramaic the official/erudite language in second temple
> Judea?
>
> W. Chomsky does argue for this view in "What was the Jewish vernacular
> during the Second Commonwealth?" JQR 42 (1951/2) 193-212, but the more
> rigorous survey of the evidence for the use of Hebrew and Aramaic in the
> first century CE by C. Rabin points to the conclusion Karl expressed: Hebrew
> was a high-status language, and Aramaic was "a means of communication, no
> more" ("Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century," in S. Safrai/M. Stern,
> [edd.], _The Jewish People in the First Century_, II, [Assen, 1976],
> 1007-1039, page 1032).
>
> Ken Penner, M.C.S. (Biblical Languages, Greek Focus), M.A. (Hebrew Poetry)
> Ph.D. (cand.), McMaster University
> pennerkm AT mcmaster.ca
> Flash! Pro: http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/westerholm/flash or
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flash_pro/join or 
> http://sensoft.nav.to
>
>
>  
Good question, Ken, and one for which I admit I do not really have a 
good answer. I think perhaps I should have written that this was the 
general impression I had gained from the recent discussions on this 
list, including Jack's claim that "ALL of the Semitic inscriptions on 
all of the catalogued ossuaria are in Aramaic" (in a posting on 14 June 
which needs modifying in view of the evidence that the James Ossuary 
which he cites is a forgery). I would expect such inscriptions in 
general to be in a more official language rather than a street language. 
I was also thinking in terms of such articles as Randall Buth's 
"Language Use in the First Century: Spoken Hebrew in a Trilingual 
Society in the Time of Jesus", Journal of Translation and 
Textlinguistics Vol. 5 No. 4 (1992): 298–312. (This appears to be an 
updated version, or perhaps just a reissue, of an article which Michael 
cited.) But, as Buth points out, it is surely more correct to say that 
Greek, rather than Aramaic, was used for official non-religious purposes 
during the Hellenistic period including the first century CE. Yet Buth's 
evidence, while not confirming the idea which I put forward, is also 
radically contradictory to the conclusions of C. Rabin and of Karl. But 
then I see that Michael has moved this discussion forward in a helpful 
direction.

Anyway, I am confused about exactly what period we are talking about. 
Discussion seems to swing between first century CE examples and the 
Elephantine letters, which are from the Persian part of the Second 
Temple era in which Aramaic certainly was used for official purposes. So 
I can in fact quote this Persian period evidence, even the Aramaic 
letters quoted in the book of Ezra, in answer to your initial question. 
But I guess you really had in mind the later part of the Second Temple 
period.

--
Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/