Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

-----Original Message----- 
From: Kimmo Huovila
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 2:01 AM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [b-hebrew] 5th century BCE to 3rd century CE sociolinguistics 
(Buth,Kilmon)

I hope this is not too off-topic for the list.

One of the most interesting (to me) threads over the last year has been
Randall Buth and Jack Kilmon's debate on the status of Hebrew and Aramaic
around 1st and 2nd centuries CE. At the time I was unable to participate, 
but
if I may reopen (and somewhat broaden) the question, I would be very
interested in how they see the sociolinguistic situation and its development
in the second temple period and some time beyond (say 5th century BCE to 3rd
century CE) in Israel. Who and in what situations would use the following
languages:
- High Hebrew
- Low Hebrew
- Aramaic
- Greek
- Latin
(I am not sure if Jack Kilmon makes a distinction between high Hebrew and 
low
Hebrew as Randall Buth does).

Contributions also from other list members is, of course, welcome.

Kimmo Huovila

Hi Kimmo:

I think most languages have  written and vernacular forms and I just assume 
that Randall was referring to EBH as "High Hebrew" but will wait for him to 
respond.  Although Aramaic was the spoken vernacular of the 95% of the 
people who were illiterate in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, I too am 
interested in the social "pockets" where Hebrew was still "living" (other 
than the priestly communities) and the failed attempts under the Maccabees 
and Bar Kochba to revive it. I will give you my "off the cuff" response for 
now (I have to get to some classwork) and will look forward to Randall's 
response.

Hebrew - At the temple and synagogues for the reading of scripture where a 
lector simultaneously translated into Aramaic for the supplicants from the 
public.  That portion of the DSS "Yahad" that spoke Hebrew where it 
developed as a spoken dialect.  I don't know what other "pockets" used 
Hebrew, certainly scribal schools and the Samarians perhaps.

Aramaic - the general public or am ha-aretz, most of whom did not read or 
write but a portion of whom could be classified as "semi-literate" being 
able to read or recognize certain phrases and words.

Greek - The primary medium of exchange in commerce and with the Romans and 
their auxiliaries.  There may have been certain words or phrases in 
monumental inscriptions recognized by the general Aramaic speaking public 
where Greek loan words suggest the recognition of some Greek, a relic, 
perhaps of the Hellenistic and Seleucid Periods.

Latin - Roman legionnairies,  Roman administrative and monumental usage.

Hebrew was indeed a living and
dialect-developing language in several social pockets in and outside of
Judea.  If it were not so, we would not have so much fun with the DSS of
several centuries.  For a long time, Aramaic-invested scholars  eschewed the
suggestion of Hebrew use at all in the 2nd temple period.  Ditto for
Hebrew-invested scholars or nationalists for Aramaic.  This is well
demonstrated when Yigael Yadin showed Ben Gurion the Aramaic letters of
Shimeon bar Kochba and Ben Gurion flew off the handle because they were not
in Hebrew (They were mainly in Aramaic). Some New Testament scholars totally
invested in NT Greek get red in the face and apoplectic when I discuss the
Aramaisms of the NT and the benefit retroversion can play in resolving
variations in the Greek texts for a pericope whose oral or written source
was Aramaic.  Then there are the religious biases among "Messianic
Christians" who claim the New Testament was originally authored in Hebrew or
Aramaic (Even the Pauline Corpus). My point is that there is a great deal of
tendentiousness to this issue, even among scholars where you would not
expect agenda-driven paradigms.  As a scientist, I try to look only at the
evidence.   Tomb and amulet, graffiti and some ossuarial inscriptions are
more than just place or personal names and have been found in the Galilee,
Carmel and Northern Judea.  Aramaic ostraca and jar inscriptions from Arad,
tel Jemmeh and Tel Beersheba.

One strong indicator, IMO, for the "language of the street" is the writing
OF the "people of the street," the larger group between literate and
illiterate that statistics overlook...the quasiliterate.  This takes its
form most noticeably on ossuaria where the family members of the deceased
scrawled the names on the box in what is normally a graffito style.  No
better example is the extremely awkward scratches of the High Priest
Caiaphas' name and, perhaps, on the James Ossuary.
ALL of the Semitic inscriptions on all of the catalogued ossuaria are in
Aramaic.  The language commonly spoken will be the language commonly
misspelled or grammatically incorrect on ossuaria, ostraca, graffiti, and
that is nearly exclusively Aramaic.  I also think that loan words will drift
from the common tongue to the language of literati and liturgy as
demonstrated in the peppering of 2nd temple Hebrew with Aramaic loan words
and the relative few Hebrew loan words in Aramaic up to the 1st half of the
1st century.  In short, besides an overwhelming amount of other indicators
for Aramaic as the commonly spoken language, graffiti is the strongest and
graffiti (like Hamath) was in Aramaic.

Regards,

Jack

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, TX