Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>]

From: fred burlingame 
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 1:59 PM
To: Jack Kilmon 
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] FYI: Aramaic study


opinions are fun.

everyone has some.

but the fact remains; the earliest complete targum dates to century 15 a.d.

regards,

fred burlingame

On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon AT historian.net> wrote:

  Fred, you think I am speculating that targums were translations or 
"interpretations" of Hebrew Biblical texts written in the commonly spoken 
language, in this case Aramaic?  Given the lack of survivability of written 
texts over centuries in Palestine, we are lucky to have the DSS because of 
the environment in which they were placed. A targum is, IMO, the compelling 
evidence that Aramaic was the common language. How many B.C.E. targums does 
it take?  One?  Three?  100?  Is 4Q Targum Leviticus sufficient?  Is the 
Genesis Apocryphon sufficient?  I think the Targum of Job is more than 
sufficient.  How about the Targums of the Talmudic period that, through their 
Western Aramaic substructures, had their origins in first century Palestine?  
The Peshitta Old Testament is a targum, written between 100 BCE and 100 CE.  
I will hang my hat on the Targum of Job because it is unique in being a rare 
literal targum, fairly faithful to the Hebrew book of Job.  The language of 
the Job Targum is older than the Genesis Apocryphon dated to the 1st century 
BCE. (Kutscher, 1958, 1965) and dated to the second half of the second 
century BCE.  Job, then, is the oldest extant Aramaic targum.  The evidence 
for written targumym this early is found in the literature, i.e. R. Le Deaut, 
1966.  The Babylonian Talmud references a targum of Job, probably a copy of 
the Qumran text, taken out of circulation by Gamaliel (between 25 and 50 CE). 
The Talmud (bShabbat 115a; jShabbat 15c) does not give a reason but my bet 
would be because it WAS a faithful translation rather than the more 
acceptable interpretation or paraphrase, Hebrew as the Holy Tongue (lashon 
haQodesh) being acceptable in Palestine for Biblical texts (referenced in the 
DSS as previously presented) where even the LXX was eschewed. The LXX's 
epilogue to Job (42:17b): outos ermhneuetai ek ths suriakhs biblou  "this was 
translated from the Aramaic  book" clearly refers to a targum. Targumym were 
Biblical texts written in the common language to be read to the common folk.  
You think this is speculation?

  The DSS Yahad consisted of men from the community in Palestine whose native 
language was Aramaic but as a community of  "covenanters" spoke Hebrew as a 
community, a Hebrew that over two centuries developed its own dialect. Their 
Aramaic, however, preserved in about 20% of their texts, was similar to the 
Judean Aramaic of Palestine preserved in other texts and epigraphy.

  Speaking of epigraphy  There is evidence of what illiterates spoke.  There 
is an entire class of epigraphy by illiterates and quasi-literates. Ossuarial 
inscriptions crudely scrawled on the boxes by either illiterates 
  copying from an ostraca or quasi-literates using primitively executed 
scripts, poor spelling and poor grammar.  The language poorly executed in 
epigraphy is the language commonly spoken with spelling phonetically.  The 
illiterate 90%+ (more like 95%) includes a segment of the population that is 
semi-literate who can make out certain words or recognize a name or two but 
cannot read or write well at all.  Most ossuarial inscriptions are this type. 
 If you want to see a good example, look at the Talpiot "Jesus box" which is 
#704 in Rahmani.  There are many more and I have examined them all. The same 
for some ostraca and graffiti.

  Graffiti is the language of the street.  For 200 years surrounding the time 
of Jesus (whose only recorded words in his own language are Aramaic), this 
graffiti, with its primitive execution, poor spelling and poor orthography is 
in Aramaic...not a single example of Hebrew.  See "Aramaische Texte vom Toten 
Meer mit Ergänzung" by Klaus Beyer.

  Speculation indeed!

  Jack

  Jack Kilmon
  San Antonio, TX







  From: fred burlingame 
  Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 9:15 AM
  To: Jack Kilmon 
  Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] FYI: Aramaic study


  apparently you have never heard of speculation?

  regards,

  fred burlingame


  On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon AT historian.net> wrote:

    Apparently you have never heard of targumym?

    Jack



    From: fred burlingame 
    Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 4:55 PM
    To: Jack Kilmon 
    Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] FYI: Aramaic study


    the hebrews don't speak the language of their adversaries (arabic) in 
their galilee synagogues today; and they didn't speak the language of their 
adversaries (aramaic) in their synagogues then.

    it's just that simple.

    regards,

    fred burlingame