Hebreu i arameu a Palestina al començament de l'era cristiana

In the first century C.E., Palestine was a country of many languages, as were most contries of the Middle East. Owing to its chequered history, and being a centre of transit trade, it was perhaps more so than in neighbouring countries. In the literature produced and read in the firts century C.E., the Hebrew language appears in several distinct forms, which are representatives of different stages in the historical development of the language. Late biblical Hebrew persisted in use for a period as long as that of its predecessor, from ca. 500 until the latter part of the first century B.C.E., when we find it used in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Late biblical Hebrew must have been widely understood and read in circles close to nascent Christianity, as well as by the early Christians themselves. As is well known, the Apocrypha and Pseudoepigrapha were preserved by the Church alone, having been rejected by official pharisaic and rabbinic Judaism. Our earliest datable written documents in mishnaic Hebrew are some letters of Bar Cochba written in the years 132-5 C.E. Probably a good deal earlier, but not datable with any confidence, is the Copper Scroll from Qumran. If mishnaic Hebrew was a spoken language in the first century C.E., we are entitled to assume that it must have been spoken, in some form or other, for some centuries previously, and can thus make it, and not Aramaic, the factor responsible for some of the non-biblical- Hebrew features of the late biblical Hebrew and the basic component of the mixed language. Needless to say, the recognition that mishnaic Hebrew was a living language does not imply that there was no Aramaic spoken in Palestine in the Second Temple period. The oldest of the Jewish transitional dialects is biblical Aramaic, the language of the Aramaic passages in Ezra and Daniel (as well as one verse in Jeremiah and two words in Genesis 31,47). Questions of spoken language are discussed in the article only in so far as they throw light on the origins and character of a written form of language. It is of course natural for anyone interested in the period to wish to know in which language the personages mentioned in the literature of this period spoke and taught, even without considering the importance the identification of that language may have for the undrstanding of their thought in general and of certain statements reported of them in particula. 'The language of Jesus' has proved to be a problem which has generated much discussion and can be considered as being unsolved. Historical sources rarely mention what language is spoken in a certain place or milieu. However, if they do so, the information given may be difficult to interpret. Moreover, a spoken language at a given time and place may often be something quite different from the norm with which we associate it. Regarding the relation between Hebrew and Aramaic at the time we are discussing, we may assume that mishnaic Hebrew was a fully living spoken language in Judaea at the time of the Maccabean revolt, and that it ceased to be spoken sometime in the third century C.E. The first century C.E. is somewhere upon that line. Mishnaic Hebrew was still spoken, but was already both displaced to some extent by Aramaic as home language and Aramaicized to some extent. It may be assumed that immediately after the beginning of the Maccabean revolt, Hebrew was in a very healthy state. Being an important symbol in the struggle against Greek influence, it may possibly have made good some previous losses. While we may assume that in Jerusalem and Judaea mishnaic Hebrew was still the ruling language, and Aramaic took the second place, the situation must have been reversed in areas such as the coastal plain and Galilee. There Aramaic, and possibly Greek, were the dominant languages spoken by people from all classes, while Hebrew mainly functioned as a literary language. Those who, like Jesus, took part in the discussions in the synagogues (Mark 1,21) and in the Temple of Jerusalem (Mark 11,17) and disputed on Halakah (Matthew 19,2) no doubt did so in mishnaic Hebrew. In other words, while in Jerusalem mishnaic Hebrew was a home language and probably already also a literary language, and Aramaic a lingua franca, in Galilee Aramaic was a home lanuage and mishnaic Hebrew the upper language of a diglossia. It emerges that, while the events described in the New Testament took place in a time when Hebrew was still strong and dominant, the descriptions of those events were finally formulated in circumstances where Aramaic had gained the ascendancy, and speaking Hebrew outside halakic discussions or midrashic lectures had become an anomaly. It is therefore quite likely that the authors and redactors of the Gospels unwittingly described, in the few references to language in their account, conditions of the post-70 period rather than those of the time of the events. [The article published here is a Catalan translation of the following work: Chaim Rabin «Hebrew and Aramaic in the first century», published in: S. SAFRAI and M. STERN [ed.], The Jewish people in the first century, Assen/Amsterdam, Van Gorcum, 1976, vol. 2, p. 1007-1039

Studies in Early Arabic dialects.

The Thesis is an attempt to reconstruct the dialect geography of the North-Arabian language area before its enlargement by the Islamic Conquests in the seventh century A.D. It is based on statements by native philologists of the second to fourth centuries of the Hijra, as recorded in their own works and in later dictionaries, grammars, and commentaries. The data are examined in the light of phonetic and linguistic theory, and the geographical extension of the phenomena ascertained, wherever this is possible. The results of the geographical investigations are illustrated by a number of maps. Similarities between the different dialects and the other Semitic Languages on one hand, and the modern Arabic colloquials on the other, are pointed out, though no systematic treatment of these relationships is aimed at. CONTENTS: Reasons for the neglect of the dialects by the native philologists - The axiom of the identity of the Classical language with the Hijaz dialect - Nature and quantity of the available material The sholars from whom observations on the dialects are reported - Their scientific background - The value of their data - Discussion of some early works - The secondary sources - Their attitude to the dialects - Some sources of false data - Former studies of the subject by modern European and Oriental scholars - Methods of the Thesis - Map of the tribes dealt with. Discussion of the material pertaining to phonetics, morphology, and syntax of the following dialects: Yemen - Hudhail - Azd Sarat - Hijaz - Tayyi - Qudaa - The Eastern Group - Temim - Asad - Rabi'a Uqail - The Central dialects. The stratification of the dialects - The dialects and the modern colloquials - The basis of the Literary idiom. Alphabetical list of ca, 750 purely lexicographical data for all dialects - The data for the dialect of Jurhum - Data for South - Arabian dialects

Hebreu i arameu a Palestina al començament de l'era cristiana

In the first century C.E., Palestine was a country of many languages, as were most contries of the Middle East. Owing to its chequered history, and being a centre of transit trade, it was perhaps more so than in neighbouring countries. In the literature produced and read in the firts century C.E., the Hebrew language appears in several distinct forms, which are representatives of different stages in the historical development of the language. Late biblical Hebrew persisted in use for a period as long as that of its predecessor, from ca. 500 until the latter part of the first century B.C.E., when we find it used in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Late biblical Hebrew must have been widely understood and read in circles close to nascent Christianity, as well as by the early Christians themselves. As is well known, the Apocrypha and Pseudoepigrapha were preserved by the Church alone, having been rejected by official pharisaic and rabbinic Judaism. Our earliest datable written documents in mishnaic Hebrew are some letters of Bar Cochba written in the years 132-5 C.E. Probably a good deal earlier, but not datable with any confidence, is the Copper Scroll from Qumran. If mishnaic Hebrew was a spoken language in the first century C.E., we are entitled to assume that it must have been spoken, in some form or other, for some centuries previously, and can thus make it, and not Aramaic, the factor responsible for some of the non-biblical- Hebrew features of the late biblical Hebrew and the basic component of the mixed language. Needless to say, the recognition that mishnaic Hebrew was a living language does not imply that there was no Aramaic spoken in Palestine in the Second Temple period. The oldest of the Jewish transitional dialects is biblical Aramaic, the language of the Aramaic passages in Ezra and Daniel (as well as one verse in Jeremiah and two words in Genesis 31,47). Questions of spoken language are discussed in the article only in so far as they throw light on the origins and character of a written form of language. It is of course natural for anyone interested in the period to wish to know in which language the personages mentioned in the literature of this period spoke and taught, even without considering the importance the identification of that language may have for the undrstanding of their thought in general and of certain statements reported of them in particula. 'The language of Jesus' has proved to be a problem which has generated much discussion and can be considered as being unsolved. Historical sources rarely mention what language is spoken in a certain place or milieu. However, if they do so, the information given may be difficult to interpret. Moreover, a spoken language at a given time and place may often be something quite different from the norm with which we associate it. Regarding the relation between Hebrew and Aramaic at the time we are discussing, we may assume that mishnaic Hebrew was a fully living spoken language in Judaea at the time of the Maccabean revolt, and that it ceased to be spoken sometime in the third century C.E. The first century C.E. is somewhere upon that line. Mishnaic Hebrew was still spoken, but was already both displaced to some extent by Aramaic as home language and Aramaicized to some extent. It may be assumed that immediately after the beginning of the Maccabean revolt, Hebrew was in a very healthy state. Being an important symbol in the struggle against Greek influence, it may possibly have made good some previous losses. While we may assume that in Jerusalem and Judaea mishnaic Hebrew was still the ruling language, and Aramaic took the second place, the situation must have been reversed in areas such as the coastal plain and Galilee. There Aramaic, and possibly Greek, were the dominant languages spoken by people from all classes, while Hebrew mainly functioned as a literary language. Those who, like Jesus, took part in the discussions in the synagogues (Mark 1,21) and in the Temple of Jerusalem (Mark 11,17) and disputed on Halakah (Matthew 19,2) no doubt did so in mishnaic Hebrew. In other words, while in Jerusalem mishnaic Hebrew was a home language and probably already also a literary language, and Aramaic a lingua franca, in Galilee Aramaic was a home lanuage and mishnaic Hebrew the upper language of a diglossia. It emerges that, while the events described in the New Testament took place in a time when Hebrew was still strong and dominant, the descriptions of those events were finally formulated in circumstances where Aramaic had gained the ascendancy, and speaking Hebrew outside halakic discussions or midrashic lectures had become an anomaly. It is therefore quite likely that the authors and redactors of the Gospels unwittingly described, in the few references to language in their account, conditions of the post-70 period rather than those of the time of the events. [The article published here is a Catalan translation of the following work: Chaim Rabin «Hebrew and Aramaic in the first century», published in: S. SAFRAI and M. STERN [ed.], The Jewish people in the first century, Assen/Amsterdam, Van Gorcum, 1976, vol. 2, p. 1007-1039

Qumran studies

New York135 p.; 21.8 c

Hebreu i arameu a Palestina al començament de l'era cristiana

In the first century C.E., Palestine was a country of many languages, as were most contries of the Middle East. Owing to its chequered history, and being a centre of transit trade, it was perhaps more so than in neighbouring countries. In the literature produced and read in the firts century C.E., the Hebrew language appears in several distinct forms, which are representatives of different stages in the historical development of the language. Late biblical Hebrew persisted in use for a period as long as that of its predecessor, from ca. 500 until the latter part of the first century B.C.E., when we find it used in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Late biblical Hebrew must have been widely understood and read in circles close to nascent Christianity, as well as by the early Christians themselves. As is well known, the Apocrypha and Pseudoepigrapha were preserved by the Church alone, having been rejected by official pharisaic and rabbinic Judaism. Our earliest datable written documents in mishnaic Hebrew are some letters of Bar Cochba written in the years 132-5 C.E. Probably a good deal earlier, but not datable with any confidence, is the Copper Scroll from Qumran. If mishnaic Hebrew was a spoken language in the first century C.E., we are entitled to assume that it must have been spoken, in some form or other, for some centuries previously, and can thus make it, and not Aramaic, the factor responsible for some of the non-biblical- Hebrew features of the late biblical Hebrew and the basic component of the mixed language. Needless to say, the recognition that mishnaic Hebrew was a living language does not imply that there was no Aramaic spoken in Palestine in the Second Temple period. The oldest of the Jewish transitional dialects is biblical Aramaic, the language of the Aramaic passages in Ezra and Daniel (as well as one verse in Jeremiah and two words in Genesis 31,47). Questions of spoken language are discussed in the article only in so far as they throw light on the origins and character of a written form of language. It is of course natural for anyone interested in the period to wish to know in which language the personages mentioned in the literature of this period spoke and taught, even without considering the importance the identification of that language may have for the undrstanding of their thought in general and of certain statements reported of them in particula. 'The language of Jesus' has proved to be a problem which has generated much discussion and can be considered as being unsolved. Historical sources rarely mention what language is spoken in a certain place or milieu. However, if they do so, the information given may be difficult to interpret. Moreover, a spoken language at a given time and place may often be something quite different from the norm with which we associate it. Regarding the relation between Hebrew and Aramaic at the time we are discussing, we may assume that mishnaic Hebrew was a fully living spoken language in Judaea at the time of the Maccabean revolt, and that it ceased to be spoken sometime in the third century C.E. The first century C.E. is somewhere upon that line. Mishnaic Hebrew was still spoken, but was already both displaced to some extent by Aramaic as home language and Aramaicized to some extent. It may be assumed that immediately after the beginning of the Maccabean revolt, Hebrew was in a very healthy state. Being an important symbol in the struggle against Greek influence, it may possibly have made good some previous losses. While we may assume that in Jerusalem and Judaea mishnaic Hebrew was still the ruling language, and Aramaic took the second place, the situation must have been reversed in areas such as the coastal plain and Galilee. There Aramaic, and possibly Greek, were the dominant languages spoken by people from all classes, while Hebrew mainly functioned as a literary language. Those who, like Jesus, took part in the discussions in the synagogues (Mark 1,21) and in the Temple of Jerusalem (Mark 11,17) and disputed on Halakah (Matthew 19,2) no doubt did so in mishnaic Hebrew. In other words, while in Jerusalem mishnaic Hebrew was a home language and probably already also a literary language, and Aramaic a lingua franca, in Galilee Aramaic was a home lanuage and mishnaic Hebrew the upper language of a diglossia. It emerges that, while the events described in the New Testament took place in a time when Hebrew was still strong and dominant, the descriptions of those events were finally formulated in circumstances where Aramaic had gained the ascendancy, and speaking Hebrew outside halakic discussions or midrashic lectures had become an anomaly. It is therefore quite likely that the authors and redactors of the Gospels unwittingly described, in the few references to language in their account, conditions of the post-70 period rather than those of the time of the events. [The article published here is a Catalan translation of the following work: Chaim Rabin «Hebrew and Aramaic in the first century», published in: S. SAFRAI and M. STERN [ed.], The Jewish people in the first century, Assen/Amsterdam, Van Gorcum, 1976, vol. 2, p. 1007-1039

Arabic/ Rabin

viii, 172 hal.; 18 cm

Taboos and Identity: Considering the Unthinkable

A taboo is an "unthinkable" action. Even the thought of violating a taboo triggers a punishment. We consider a model in which taboos are part of the definition of one's identity. Deliberating over breaking the taboo changes the individual's choice set, and provides information on possible private benefits. The strength of the taboo is determined by the number of individuals that obey it. We analyze the relationship between social heterogeneity and taboos' strength. We then examine societies in which individuals choose among several identities characterized by different taboos. We characterize the conditions that give rise to a multi-identity society. (JEL Z13)