Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] How Long was Hebrew a Living Language?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: dwashbur AT nyx.net
  • To: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] How Long was Hebrew a Living Language?
  • Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:22:09 -0700



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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page