Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

On 31 Aug 2009 at 0:22, Randall Buth wrote:

> "Is Hebrew a Dead Language" seems to ask the question in the
> wrong way. So I've changed the thread name
> 
> vayyixtov Washburn
> >Three Targumim were found at Qumran, so at least somebody was using
> them for a century
> or more before the destruction of Jerusalem.  There were several
> other
> items in Aramaic
> found in the caves, as well.>
> 
> The word 'them' may cover over the reality with generalities.
> what are these "Them"? 

I'm not sure I understand the question.  The "them" in my statement refers to 
the Targums 
that were found; I should hope that would have been obvious.

> It turns out that Qumran testifies to an
> absence of targum in their community, and presumably from those
> joining the community. 

First, I'm not prepared to make such a leap.  Second, I don't accept the 
"community" 
hypothesis.  So I don't find this statement convincing.

> and as David mentions, this is not because
> they had anything against Aramaic. They have quite a few Aramaic
> texts. But their Bible was primarily Hebrew, and understood in
> Hebrew, with a secondary access to -- Greek Bible.

Of course their Bible was primarily Hebrew; that really doesn't tell us 
anything about their 
use of or attitude toward Aramaic, or even of Targums.  
 
> Before Qumran we had three interesting stories about targumim. And
> all were
> focussed on Job for some reason.
> 1. The LXX mentioned that they used the 'Aramaic history' when
> translatiing Job.
> 2. Two stories about Gamliel and a targum to Job exist (tShabb.
> 13:2, yShabb
> 15c and other references not at hand)

OK.
 
> so what do we find at Qumran? Two copies of Aramaic Job, and a
> snippet from
> Lev 16 that may or may not refer to a targum of the whole book. 

Do you have a different hypothesis about what it was?  As far as I know, it's 
commonly 
accepted among Qumran scholars that it was a fragment of a Targum of 
Leviticus.

> And
> the long
> Job targum shows features of having been imported from the East.

What exactly are these "features"?
 
> So Qumran was willing to use Aramaic Bible when available, though
> from
> manuscript evidence they appeared to use the Hebrew Bible (plus some
> Greek).

Precisely.  Whoever put the scrolls in the caves used or had access to all 
three, and took 
steps to preserve all three.  I'm not sure what your point is.

> They apparently did not have access to a written targum of the
> whole
> Bible or even
> of the Tora.

This also is not a leap I am prepared to make.  What we have, we have by the 
accident of 
preservation.  That's the main hazard of archaeology and ancient manuscript 
study; what 
got preserved may or may not reflect the actual situation, we just don't 
know.  Statements 
like this are little more than speculation, and I prefer not to go that 
route. 

> And it appears that a targum of Job circulated in antiquity that
> was
> popular all over the Jewish world, with two copies turning up in our
> Qumran
> mss. there was good reason for this world-wide popularity of a Job
> targum.
> The Hebrew text has singular dialectical difficulties.

I'm still not sure what your point is.

Dave Washburn

http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur