Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] FYI: Aramaic study

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>
  • To: "fred burlingame" <tensorpath AT gmail.com>, "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] FYI: Aramaic study
  • Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 20:52:28 -0600

The DSS testifies only to Hebrew used by the literate DSS yahad for their
biblical texts (no surpise) and their sectarian texts. 80% of the archives
in the Vatican library are in Latin. Do you think Latin was the commonly
spoken language of medieval Italy? A targum is a targum and it matters not
how many survived. Even ONE testifies to the spoken language. You also did
not address:

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.

Jack

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, TX


From: fred burlingame
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 6:08 PM
To: Jack Kilmon
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] FYI: Aramaic study


well; if you wish to talk about the dead sea scrolls, perhaps you missed the
facts that:

a. 80 percent of the dead sea scrolls ("DSS") written in hebrew;

b. and the remainder in aramaic (and a few in greek).

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

the DSS testify to hebrew as the language of the land; not aramaic or greek.

and that does present a problem for many.

regards,

fred burlingame


On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon AT historian.net> wrote:

How does how well a targum weathered the millennia effect the FACT that a
Targum was a translation or paraphrase or explanation of a Hebrew biblical
text in the common language? 11Q10, the Qumran Targum of Job consists of
thirty eight columns and is a targum of the 1st century BCE. The fragment of
the Targum of Leviticus, 4Q156, is still a targum and is the oldest from the
2nd century BCE. The Genesis Apocryphon "...fits squarely into the main
stream of targumim and midrashim and represents the oldest prototype of
both..." M. Lehman resQ 1 (1958-59) 251. The Targumim of the Beb-Ezra
Synagogue of the Cairo Genizah date to the 7th century. These are not
"speculations" nor "opinions" because they conflict with your position. These
are facts and there is a long bibliography.

Jack

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, TX


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








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page