Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] When did Hebrew cease to be a commonly spoken language?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com>
  • To: 'Hebrew' <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] When did Hebrew cease to be a commonly spoken language?
  • Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:27:31 -0700

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/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page