Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>]

2006/5/1, Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>:
> My question was, is this an Aramaic phrase that was
> inserted into the Hebrew text, in the same way that
> Jeremiah 10:11 is Aramaic?
>
> For me the clue is the Aramaic reading of MDHBH. In
> Hebrew, the term is unknown. My question, are the
> other four words in the phrase also Aramaic?
> Because I don't know Aramaic (beyond enough to read
> the Aramaic sections of Tanakh), I can't answer
> that question. If those words are Aramaic, do they
> have the same meanings as in Hebrew?
>
> Any Aramaic scholars out there?



The idea that it is an Aramaic insertion into the Hebrew would, i.m.h.o., be
incorrect. Why such an insertion and with what purpose?
If a single word or a few loose words look Aramaic (even for the sole reason
of them occurring only once in MT), but are found in a Hebrew text, we have
no means of arguing that it is not Hebrew. It may or may not be an Aramaic
loanword, but unless we have a full, evidently Aramaic sentence like Jer.10,11
(a sentence that seems to be in Aramaic for specific reasons of rhyme, or
simply the fact it was a known Aramaic line)*, we are dealing with Hebrew.
After all, that's what makes a B-Hebrew  word a B-Hebrew word (unless proved
otherwise): the fact that it is found within the Hebrew corpus of the MT.

regards,
Herman, Rotterdam

*for the same reason, in Holland one would never translate things like "to
be or not to be" into Dutch, if, for whatever reason, quoted.

PS Isn't Aramaic just bad Hebrew, after all? ;)