[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: orion Harrison on: Spoken DSS Hebrew.

    [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
    [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]

tim wrote:

> to anyone,
>
> First, thanks to Sigrid for the care in explaining the use of the
> modern
> model for an ancient situation. I see that this could set some
> parameters to begin with to ask, 'does the model apply?'
>
> Now I have another question, to anyone, and I hope it is not taken the
>
> wrong way. How much, if any, does an argument (if there is one) that
> Greek was an widely used language including among the peasant class
> relates to or is effected by the fact that the majority of the
> Christian
> Writings are, as we have them, in Greek?
>

    I don't see the 90% or so peasantry class generally competentin
Greek.  Even the educated and aristocratic Josephus, in the midst
of almost shameful bragadocio, admits that Greek is awkward for him,
having penned his tomes in his "own native language" and needing
"synergois" to help him with the Greek.  To use a bit of Kal v'Khomer,
If awkward for the educated Josephus, how much moreso for the
unlettered peasants?  If I am not mistaken, there is a virtual absence
of Greek "loan words" to 1st century Aramaic and probably few
in Hebrew..albeit the LXX had been under development for about
300 years and I would expect some.

    The merchant class probably used more Greek than the peasant
class.

> Also, if such a condition existed, that many people (or even a
> majority
> of people) were familiar with Greek and Hellenism, is there a tendency
>
> to view groups still using Hebrew as archaizing "hangers-on" while the
>
> majority of people were "moving on"?

    The continuing dialectic development of both Hebrew and
Aramaicdoesn't give me this impression.  We are speaking, of course, of
Syro-
Palestinian Jews rather than Diaspora Jews.

> Of course, you see theological undertones here, perhaps in "new"
> replacing "old"...
>
> So, my last question: I believe that the majority of scholars are
> sensitive to be being directed by existing theology or agendas, and
> work
> on facts. But how hard is this, to ignore culture, upbringing,
> personal
> religious conviction or affiliation, etc., to work from fact alone?
> (Is
> it fully possible?)  I realize that this last question is not really
> appropriate for the list, and I understand that it probably doesn't
> deserve a response, and expect none. I will not pose such questions
> normally, but curiousity is hard beast to tame.

    I think this assumes the strictly Christian thought that the "New"
Testament
replaces the "Old" Testament and also overlooks the Semitic (probably
Aramaic) substratum behind the New Testament.

    Although I am not surprised at 20% of the DSS in Aramaic, I am
surprised that so little of the DSS..at least those that survived..in
Greek.

    Does this mean that the religious elite eschewed Greek?  Or does
it mean that specifically the DSS People, with a somewhat nationalistic
and militant bent eschewed Greek as one of the "corruptions" of the
Temple cultus?

Jack

--
D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
   Jack Kilmon (jpman@accesscomm.net)


 http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium