B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

I love it when Hebrew syntax jumps out as I read a NT passage.
Luke 2:9
"And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear." (DRA).
An awkward rendering of course, but only because the translator was trying to stay as close to the Greek as possible. Phillips did a decent job trying to convey the feeling of this verse: "Suddenly an angel of the Lord stood by their side, the splendour of the Lord blazed around them, and they were terror-stricken."

So what does the Greek say:
"και ιδου αγγελος κυριου επεστη αυτοις και δοξα κυριου περιελαμψεν αυτους και εφοβηθησαν φοβον μεγαν"

The entire sentence cries out a Heb. original. The two sections that bear this out the most are the opening phrase, and the closing phrase.
1. Notice the opening "και ιδου" is a rendering of "והנה". It's not anymore Greek than it is English to say "and lo" or "and behold." In our idiom we would say something like "and out of the blue."
2. Notice the expression in the last phrase, "εφοβηθησαν φοβον μεγαν." Again this is none other than the typical Hebraic "cognate accusative." But not just any cognate accusative but one found repeatedly in the Tanach.

Jonah 1:10 reads:
וַיִּֽירְא֤וּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁים֙ יִרְאָ֣ה גְדוֹלָ֔ה

Verse 16 of the same chapter has three separate cognate accusatives:
וַיִּֽירְא֧וּ הָאֲנָשִׁ֛ים יִרְאָ֥ה גְדֹולָ֖ה אֶת־ יְהוָ֑ה וַיִּֽזְבְּחוּ־ זֶ֙בַח֙ לַֽיהוָ֔ה וַֽיִּדְּר֖וּ נְדָרִֽים׃
and they feared a great fear the LORD (they feared the LORD exceedingly), and they offered an offering, and they vowed vows.

This way of expressing "fear exceedingly" is not confined to the root יָרֵא.
In Psalm 53:5 we read, שָׁ֤ם פָּֽחֲדוּ־ פַחַד֮; There they were in great fear
Neither are BH speakers averse to qualifying the verb with the adverb מְאֹד, sometimes doubling it (1 Kings 10:4, וַיִּֽרְאוּ֙ מְאֹ֣ד מְאֹ֔ד).

3. Furthermore, the phrase αγγελος κυριου επεστη αυτοις seems to translate a nominal Hebrew phrase like מלאך יהוה עליהם or possibly אליהם.
4. Finally, there is the excessive use of και. Native Greek writers prefer δε as consecutive "and." The use of και is an indication that the translator/writer was translating the waw.

What is really interesting is how modern Hebrew translates this verse. לפתע נגלה אליהם מלאך ה', והשדה נמלא זוהר כבוד ה'. הרועים נבהלו מאוד (HHH). I don't know modern Heb. but this seems to me to be reading like a western language.

Jonathan Mohler

The question, really, would be whether one is arguing that Luke's account was originally written in Hebrew then translated to Greek by someone else, or whether Luke was translating an account told to him in Hebrew into Greek.

I have no issues with Luke translating a Hebrew account into Greek (see LXX), so seeing Hebrew syntax in an NT passage isn't surprising.

What I would also like to point out is the distinct lack of a single definite article in the entire sentence. That again should demonstrate that we're looking at a Greek translation, rather than a Greek composition.

I should point out in the critical editions, the start of Luke 2:9 is just και (based on mainly Sinaiticus and Vaticanus I see), not και ιδου.

When it comes to the NT however, what "native Greek writers" would prefer shouldn't really form the basis of an argument - δε in the NT is more contrastive than consecutive, probably due to influence from the LXX (NT uses καὶ over 10,000 times; δε just slightly less of 3,500; LXX has καὶ nearly 58,000 (!!!) times; δε a mere 4,800 - that's a mere 8% of the total uses of καὶ).

To say that this hasn't influenced the NT writers would be a bit of an understatement.

Ste Walch wrote,

"The question, really, would be whether one is arguing that Luke's account was originally written in Hebrew then translated to Greek by someone else, or whether Luke was translating an account told to him in Hebrew into Greek."

I was thinking along these lines myself. I am inclined to believe the latter, as Luke probably acquired both oral and written accounts. I am also inclined to believe Luke was Jewish, not Greek.

I have no issues with Luke translating a Hebrew account into Greek (see LXX), so seeing Hebrew syntax in an NT passage isn't surprising.

I agree. I am surprised at the visceral negative reaction I get from most people (preachers and scholars) on this subject.

I should point out in the critical editions, the start of Luke 2:9 is just και (based on mainly Sinaiticus and Vaticanus I see), not και ιδου.

I noticed that as well. This could be an instance of the Byzantine mss preserving an older tradition. It's hard to see how this could be an addition since there is no motivation to hebraize the text. Also, it is more likely to have been accidentally dropped in transcription.

When it comes to the NT however, what "native Greek writers" would prefer shouldn't really form the basis of an argument - δε in the NT is more contrastive than consecutive, probably due to influence from the LXX (NT uses καὶ over 10,000 times; δε just slightly less of 3,500; LXX has καὶ nearly 58,000 (!!!) times; δε a mere 4,800 - that's a mere 8% of the total uses of καὶ).

Several comments:
1. There is such a thing as "Jewish Greek." And if Luke's language can be shown to be Jewish Greek, then that would simply reinforce the idea that he was Jewish himself.
2. I don't thing the LXX would necessarily influence the way 2nd Temple Jews spoke Greek, as much as their own common tongue, which was apparently not Aramaic but Hebrew. I would expect LXX syntax to play a part only when they quoted scripture.
3. The abundant use of καὶ in LXX is due to translational activity. In the NT, we have to discern when the use of καὶ is translational, and when it is just reflecting the Jewish Greek dialect. Quite difficult.
4. In Luke 2:9 it seems that the abundance of evidence (including your observsation below) points toward translation of a Hebrew tradition, most likely the Matthean account witnessed by the church fathers.

What I would also like to point out is the distinct lack of a single definite article in the entire sentence. That again should demonstrate that we're looking at a Greek translation, rather than a Greek composition.

Jonathan Mohler

Jemoh66 wrote:I was thinking along these lines myself. I am inclined to believe the latter, as Luke probably acquired both oral and written accounts.

Well at the start of his account, he does specifically state that he has compiled an "accurate account" of the things that had "been fulfilled"; so there's no need to presume he's lying about that.

I am also inclined to believe Luke was Jewish, not Greek.

I don't care either way on this.

I agree. I am surprised at the visceral negative reaction I get from most people (preachers and scholars) on this subject.

I'd be surprised at that as well. There something wrong with Luke being a translator of other people's accounts? It would be quite unusual for native Hebrew/Aramaic speakers to narrate what happened "on the fly" to Luke in Greek for him to write down.

I noticed that as well. This could be an instance of the Byzantine mss preserving an older tradition. It's hard to see how this could be an addition since there is no motivation to hebraize the text. Also, it is more likely to have been accidentally dropped in transcription.

There's a few Alexandrian mss that contain και ιδου (Alexandrinus being the main one), but it is quite hard to explain its omission in א B L W Ξ, and the ECF Eusebius is also a witness to its omission. Unfortunately there's no Pre-4th Century manuscript to check this in (and I don't think any of the other ECF quote Luke 2:9), so I'd say it's a good 50/50 split.

However, και ιδου is perfectly in tune with Luke's style in Chapter 2, so against the NA28 committee, I would place ιδου in brackets, at the very least.

Several comments:
1. There is such a thing as "Jewish Greek." And if Luke's language can be shown to be Jewish Greek, then that would simply reinforce the idea that he was Jewish himself.

Agreed.

2. I don't think the LXX would necessarily influence the way 2nd Temple Jews spoke Greek, as much as their own common tongue, which was apparently not Aramaic but Hebrew. I would expect LXX syntax to play a part only when they quoted scripture.

I would contrast the use of Jewish terms in Greek as an argument for LXX influence - σαββατον is not found in any non-Jewish Greek writers before the 1st Century CE, and even then it's only those Gentiles with LXX/NT influence that talk of it.

There are also quite a few LXX phrases used in the NT - εις τον αιωνα; οικος αυτου ολη/παντα; κατα τι γνωσομαι; λαμβανω προσωπον; ιλεως σοι; θαυμαζω προσωπον; εκξητεω αιμα; εκδικεω εκ + gen; εκ χειρος τινος; εις τα ωτα; αιμα αθωον - none of these, despite coming from the LXX, are used in Scripture quotes. They're also not normal Greek.

There's also the use of Hebraic Plural words, which one would expect to be singular in Koine Greek - αγια; αξυμα; οικτιρμοι; ουρανοι; σαββατα; υδατα.

There is also one area which I believe needs further scholarly attention, and that is the use of εν as being equal to the Hebrew ב in the Greek NT.

There're a few more things in the NT that I could point to, but the above should suffice to show there is more than enough LXX influence on the Greek language of the NT, which doesn't coincide with normal Greek usage, regardless of whether it's an LXX quote or not

3. The abundant use of καὶ in LXX is due to translational activity. In the NT, we have to discern when the use of καὶ is translational, and when it is just reflecting the Jewish Greek dialect. Quite difficult.

Agreed. Though see above regarding LXX influence.

4. In Luke 2:9 it seems that the abundance of evidence (including your observation below) points toward translation of a Hebrew tradition, most likely the Matthean account witnessed by the church fathers.

We both seem to be agreed on that point.

Do you know if someone has a list of places that could at least be argued to demonstrate a Hebrew underlying to the Greek? It would be nice to see just how much of the NT we could split into like, definite Hebrew-underlying; possible Hebrew-underlying; and Greek-only sections.

I would contrast the use of Jewish terms in Greek as an argument for LXX influence - σαββατον is not found in any non-Jewish Greek writers before the 1st Century CE, and even then it's only those Gentiles with LXX/NT influence that talk of it.

There are also quite a few LXX phrases used in the NT - εις τον αιωνα; οικος αυτου ολη/παντα; κατα τι γνωσομαι; λαμβανω προσωπον; ιλεως σοι; θαυμαζω προσωπον εκξητεω αιμα; εκδικεω εκ + gen; εκ χειρος τινος; εις τα ωτα; αιμα αθωον - none of these, despite coming from the LXX, are used in Scripture quotes. They're also not normal Greek.

There's also the use of Hebraic Plural words, which one would expect to be singular in Koine Greek - αγια; αξυμα; οικτιρμοι; ουρανοι; σαβαττα; υδατα.

There is also one area which I believe needs further scholarly attention, and that is the use of εν as being equal to the Hebrew ב in the Greek NT.

There're a few more things in the NT that I could point to, but the above should suffice to show there is more than enough LXX influence on the Greek language of the NT, which doesn't coincide with normal Greek usage, regardless of whether it's an LXX quote or not

Fascinating! Did you do your studies on the LXX? Are there resources you would recommend?

We both seem to be agreed on that point.

Do you know if someone has a list of places that could at least be argued to demonstrate a Hebrew underlying to the Greek? It would be nice to see just how much of the NT we could split into like, definite Hebrew-underlying; possible Hebrew-underlying; and Greek-only sections.

I do not. It would be nice indeed to have such a resource. It would be fun to be in on the research too

I found a fantastic quote in a footnote, oddly enough, in a book entitled The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, (C. F. Burney, 1922).

The opinion of so great a Semitic scholar as H. Ewald {Die johann,
Schriften, 1861, i, p. 44) is worthy of quotation: 'The Greek language of the author
bears in itself the plainest and strongest marks of a genuine Hebrew. He is one
born among Jews in the Holy Land, one who grew up to manhood in this society,
without speaking Greek. Under the Greek mantle that he at a late date learned to
tlirow about himself, he still bears in himself the whole mind and spirit of his
mother tongue, and does not hesitate to let himself be led by it.' The discussion
by C. E. Luthardt on the language of the Gospel {St. John's Gospel, E. T., 1876, i,
pp. 15-64) is of considerable value.
Mention should here be made of the highly important work by Prof. A.Schlatter,
Die Sprache und Heimat des vierten Evangelisten (1902), with which the
writer was unacquainted until he had practically completed the present study.
Schlatter has demonstrated the Palestinian origin of the diction of the Fourth
Gospel in the fullest possible manner by citing Rabbinic parallels to its phraseology
verse by verse, the majority of verses throughout the whole Gospel being
thus illustrated (thus e.g. in ch. r parallels are cited for phrases in 34 out of the
total 51 verses), and his work is a marvel of industry and intimate knowledge
of the Midrashic sources which he employs. He has drawn, not from Aramaic,
but from Rabbinic Hebrew—the Mechilta (commentary on Exodus) and Siphre
(commentary on Numbers and Deuteronomy) which date in substance from the
2nd century A. D., with supplements from the Midrash Rabba (on the Pentateuch
and the Five Megilloth). He chooses these Rabbinic Hebrew parallels rather
than the Aramaic material which we possess e.g. in the Palestinian Talmud,
because the former are nearer in date to the Fourth Gospel and better illustrate
the religious thought of Palestinian Judaism in the first century; but, as he remarks
(p. 12), any phrase employed in Rabbinic Hebrew (the language of the Schools)
could without difficulty be similarly expressed in Aramaic (the popular medium
of speech in Palestine). Schlatter's conclusion is that the writer of the Gospel
was a Palestinian who thought and spoke in Aramaic, and only acquired his Greek
in the course of his missionary work (p. 9).

Now that archeology has revealed that colloquial Hebrew was spoken as late as the 4th Century CE, it is not a stretch at all to think of a Hebrew original as opposed to an Aramaic.

Jonathan Mohler

Jemoh66 wrote:Fascinating! Did you do your studies on the LXX? Are there resources you would recommend?

Bar reading through the LXX, NT, Hebrew Tanakh and making notes, I haven't done any "official" studies per se. I've never studied for a degree in Biblical Studies.

With regards to resources etc., I can only really point to the works of Emmanuel Tov as such. I know of no prominent a scholar who's done work on both LXX and Hebrew Tanakh to the degree that he has.

I do not. It would be nice indeed to have such a resource. It would be fun to be in on the research too

Certainly would. Maybe a combined B-Greek and B-Hebrew task? Could be done

I found a fantastic quote in a footnote, oddly enough, in a book entitled The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, (C. F. Burney, 1922).

Interesting. So even as far back as the late 1800's/early 1900's, it was being noticed that there's an awful lot of Hebrew/Aramaic underlying to the Greek NT.

The book cited - Die Sprache und Heimat des vierten Evangelisten - is on archive.org - https://archive.org/details/diespracheundhei00schl

My German isn't that bad, so I should be able to read through this and get a better grasp of what Schlatter provides.

Now that archeology has revealed that colloquial Hebrew was spoken as late as the 4th Century CE, it is not a stretch at all to think of a Hebrew original as opposed to an Aramaic.

Plus hopefully, with the work of Ken Penner and others demonstrating that when the Greek NT writers say that people said things "in Hebrew", they did actually mean in Hebrew and not the silly belief that they meant Aramaic instead, scholars may have a bit more of an impetus to look at the Greek NT in a different, more Hebraic, light.

Edit:

There is also one place in the NT that I believe is seriously looked over when it comes to understanding the influence of the LXX on the Jews during its main tenure in those circles (200BCE - 100CE), and that is Matt 5:18, where we have the usual translated phrase, "not a jot or a tittle shall pass away from the Law". The word translated as "jot" is the Greek ιοτα, and never in Greek literature, except for one time, is ιοτα ever used to refer to anything other than the Greek letter iota itself. It is never used to refer to a "jot" or the Hebrew or Aramaic letter yod - the only place that the Greek Lexicons and Dictionaries give to provide the meaning "jot" is right here, in Matt 5:18. This to me would serve more as an advocation for the Greek LXX, rather than a complete and utterly different meaning for a letter that is never used anywhere else, either before or after the 1st century CE.

S_Walch wrote:

Jemoh66 wrote:Now that archeology has revealed that colloquial Hebrew was spoken as late as the 4th Century CE, it is not a stretch at all to think of a Hebrew original as opposed to an Aramaic.

Plus hopefully, with the work of Ken Penner and others demonstrating that when the Greek NT writers say that people said things "in Hebrew", they did actually mean in Hebrew and not the silly belief that they meant Aramaic instead, scholars may have a bit more of an impetus to look at the Greek NT in a different, more Hebraic, light.

Hebrew was spoken, true, in the same manner as medieval Latin. It continued to be spoken in that manner from apparently before the time of Ezra the Scribe until the birth of modern Hebrew in the 20th century. And like Latin, Hebrew continued to be developed and changed until that modern Hebrew is a different language from Biblical Hebrew.

There’s only one place in the New Testament where it mentions someone speaking in Hebrew, and that was Paul. Evidence from the DSS is that the Hebrew that Paul spoke already had a different grammar than did Biblical Hebrew.

There’s only one place where written Hebrew is mentioned, and that is the title above Jesus’ head on the cross. That Hebrew was used is consistent with its use in Judea like Latin was in the Middle Ages.

There are a few place names listed as being Hebrew names.

From the evidence in the New Testament, Hebrew was not used in daily life—not in the market nor in the home—at the time of Jesus and the Apostles. I have not seen any evidence from other sources that gives a different picture.

The picture we get from all sources is that the common language of the people and of the Apostles was Aramaic, a cognate language to Hebrew. And we can see its influence throughout the New Testament.

Only one author used high Greek, and that was Luke. One can notice that in his two books that he authored—Luke and Acts—and in the one book he co-authored with Paul—Hebrews.

Paul wrote in somewhat simplified but correct koiné Greek. He recognized that many of his audience used Greek as a lingua franca but were not necessarily that fluent in Greek.

I find John’s Greek the easiest to read, as it is not only the simplest, but also heavily influenced by Aramaic and Hebrew. I know Hebrew better than I know Greek, making John’s Hebrew influenced Greek the easiest to read.

Getting back to the question at hand, linguists recognize that when people speak more than one language, that sometimes those other languages influence even one’s native tongue. At times I have found myself using Chinese word order in English—it’s not necessarily wrong in English, just not the most common way of using English. I have caught myself using phrases that are direct translations from German or Norwegian in English. English is my native tongue, yet it has been contaminated.

From the New Testament record, Luke spent two years in Judea, dealing with people on the street and interviewing witnesses, before he wrote his gospel. As a highly educated Jew, Luke presumably knew both Aramaic and Hebrew before those two years. Therefore, is it any surprise to find Luke’s use of Greek contaminated by Hebrew and Aramaic? In fact, would it not be expected? And that contamination would be there even with his books originally being written in Greek?

Karl W. Randolph.

Ps: This is getting way off from Biblical Hebrew, the subject of this forum. Therefore, I don’t intend to write any more on it.

In a few areas, the writers of the New Testament consciously copied Hebrew manners of speech when they wrote in Greek, and at times that can help us to understand Tanakh. The most common I noticed is the use of the term αμαρτια instead of some other term for חטאה, the terms have the same basic meaning of erring, missing the mark. But other than that, I don’t see how discussing the Greek New Testament would help with studying Biblical Hebrew.

Karl,

Hebrew was spoken, true, in the same manner as medieval Latin. It continued to be spoken in that manner from apparently before the time of Ezra the Scribe until the birth of modern Hebrew in the 20th century.

This is an assumption, not a fact. It is rooted in the work done by 19th Century scholars who were just guessing. It was a good guess, but still just an assumption. It is an assumption that rises out of another unproven assumption, namely, that Aramaic was the language of the Jewish people. As I have pointed out before. The archeological evidence points the other way. It seems according to the evidence that Judeans spoke Hebrew colloquially. It was not confined to scholarship and worship. The only non-Hebrew artifacts ever found in Jerusalem are Latin or Greek. There are no Aramaic artifacts to this day. Thus your argument rests on two false premises.

And like Latin, Hebrew continued to be developed and changed until that modern Hebrew is a different language from Biblical Hebrew.

A language spoken by the people on a daily basis is more likely to "develop" and "change" over time than a language confined to worship.

There’s only one place in the New Testament where it mentions someone speaking in Hebrew, and that was Paul.

And the Aramaic bias persists, so that even translators ignore the Greek and render it "Aramaic." (see NIV). Yes he spoke Hebrew, but not in a synagogue, and not in a scholarly write-up, but to a rowdy mob of uneducated Jews. I was just reading this in the NIV: "When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet." It's absurd. The footnote in ESV reads, "Or the Hebrew dialect (that is, Aramaic); also 22:2." Revealing a bias passed down by scholarship based on assumption. No, when they heard him speaking in their native tongue, they became very quiet. Paul's speech is not high speech, it is biographical. The language is natural, and the people understand him.
Furthermore, this is not the only place in the NT where it mentions someone speaking in Hebrew. Paul testified that Jesus himself spoke to him in Hebrew, "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’" (Acts 26:14).

Add to all this that many of the statements made by Jesus only make sense when viewed as originally uttered in Hebrew, not Aramaic, and that all the church fathers testify that Matthew recorded the teachings of Jesus in Hebrew (whether we have this Matthew or not is not relevant).

Evidence from the DSS is that the Hebrew that Paul spoke already had a different grammar than did Biblical Hebrew.

I have no problem with that. I would expect a spoken language to continue to evolve due to natural phonetic and phonological processes, and pressure from Aramaic and Greek interaction.

Getting back to the question at hand, linguists recognize that when people speak more than one language, that sometimes those other languages influence even one’s native tongue. At times I have found myself using Chinese word order in English—it’s not necessarily wrong in English, just not the most common way of using English. I have caught myself using phrases that are direct translations from German or Norwegian in English. English is my native tongue, yet it has been contaminated.

Agreed. I grew up in Belgium. My mother spoke Texan in the home. I spoke French outside the home. I also studied Dutch and German. Then I spent years in Kenya teaching in Swahili. It gives me a unique take on all forms of English. I also notice changes in American English as they happen (live). For example Americans no longer use /ðɨ/ [the]. They only use the /ðə/ [the]. Listen and you will hear even on TV news, things like ðə animal. In fact, linguistically, we Americans add a glottal stop to words that begin with vowels.[the animal] /ðə ʔænɘməl/.

From the New Testament record, Luke spent two years in Judea, dealing with people on the street and interviewing witnesses, before he wrote his gospel. As a highly educated Jew, Luke presumably knew both Aramaic and Hebrew before those two years. Therefore, is it any surprise to find Luke’s use of Greek contaminated by Hebrew and Aramaic? In fact, would it not be expected? And that contamination would be there even with his books originally being written in Greek?

I agree. That was one of my points: that it is a difficult task to decide when we are faced with "Jewish Greek" or translation of a Hebrew original. Or for that matter translation of an Aramaic original as in Mark or John. The book I quoted from dates 1922. The author contends that John was written in Aramaic first. He believes John is more Aramaic than Mark. A fascinating read.
In my first post, I am contending that Luke 2:9 evidences translation from a Heb original. This does not entail that Luke wrote his work in Hebrew. That is why I believe he had a Hebrew document, minimally for the narrative of the angelic appearance to shepherds, maximally for the whole nativity account.

Ps: This is getting way off from Biblical Hebrew, the subject of this forum. Therefore, I don’t intend to write any more on it.

I don't think you should study one without the other, whether one is a BH scholar or a NT Greek scholar. This is not a dig at your method. I think what you are doing (reading the Tanakh over and over without MT pointing to get a feel for the text) is fantastic.

In a few areas, the writers of the New Testament consciously copied Hebrew manners of speech when they wrote in Greek, and at times that can help us to understand Tanakh. The most common I noticed is the use of the term αμαρτια instead of some other term for חטאה, the terms have the same basic meaning of erring, missing the mark. But other than that, I don’t see how discussing the Greek New Testament would help with studying Biblical Hebrew.

Exactly. Reinforces my point above.

Jonathan Mohler

Jemoh66 wrote:Karl,

Hebrew was spoken, true, in the same manner as medieval Latin. It continued to be spoken in that manner from apparently before the time of Ezra the Scribe until the birth of modern Hebrew in the 20th century.

This is an assumption, not a fact. It is rooted in the work done by 19th Century scholars who were just guessing. It was a good guess, but still just an assumption.

I have no idea about what those 19th century scholars said. For me, it’s based on history as recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah. Add Daniel to the list.

Jemoh66 wrote:It is an assumption that rises out of another unproven assumption, namely, that Aramaic was the language of the Jewish people. As I have pointed out before. The archeological evidence points the other way. It seems according to the evidence that Judeans spoke Hebrew colloquially. It was not confined to scholarship and worship. The only non-Hebrew artifacts ever found in Jerusalem are Latin or Greek. There are no Aramaic artifacts to this day.

From Jesus’ time, I have seen artifacts that were in Aramaic. Further, words transliterated in the New Testament were Aramaic. Documents found along with the DSS were in Aramaic. Letters found from the Jewish revolts were in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, including one where the writer admitted he didn’t know Hebrew.

In the medieval period, Latin was used for all official records. Charlemagne (Karl der Große) was not just a German warrior, but he learned to speak and read Latin in order to rule his empire. It was used for business contracts. It was used for diplomacy. It was used for high literature. It was used in the church.

From what I understand, Hebrew was used for all those uses except diplomacy in Judea.

Jemoh66 wrote:Thus your argument rests on two false premises.

And like Latin, Hebrew continued to be developed and changed until that modern Hebrew is a different language from Biblical Hebrew.

A language spoken by the people on a daily basis is more likely to "develop" and "change" over time than a language confined to worship.

See above, it was not confined to worship.

Jemoh66 wrote:

There’s only one place in the New Testament where it mentions someone speaking in Hebrew, and that was Paul.

And the Aramaic bias persists, so that even translators ignore the Greek and render it "Aramaic." (see NIV).

Who said anything about some translation? Look at the Greek original!

Jemoh66 wrote:Yes he spoke Hebrew, but not in a synagogue, and not in a scholarly write-up, but to a rowdy mob of uneducated Jews.

They were not uneducated, they were connected with the temple. Notice, they understood what he was saying. Further, it was expected that every Jew learn Hebrew, even when they didn’t speak it at home nor in the market.

Jemoh66 wrote:… No, when they heard him speaking in their native tongue, they became very quiet. Paul's speech is not high speech, it is biographical. The language is natural, and the people understand him.

Paul wowed the listeners by speaking Hebrew, as only the top educated could speak Hebrew fluently and naturally. He was accused of violating the temple, and his use of Hebrew was to dispel that claim.

Jemoh66 wrote:Furthermore, this is not the only place in the NT where it mentions someone speaking in Hebrew. Paul testified that Jesus himself spoke to him in Hebrew, "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’" (Acts 26:14).

I should’ve caught that one, as it is on my list for “Hebrew”.

Jemoh66 wrote:Add to all this that many of the statements made by Jesus only make sense when viewed as originally uttered in Hebrew, not Aramaic, and that all the church fathers testify that Matthew recorded the teachings of Jesus in Hebrew (whether we have this Matthew or not is not relevant).

Matthew was a government official, therefore needed to know Hebrew even if he didn’t speak it on a day to day basis.

Jemoh66 wrote:… Agreed. I grew up in Belgium. My mother spoke Texan in the home. I spoke French outside the home. I also studied Dutch and German.

When I was in college, I had a fellow student who spoke fluent Apache. His family was of German background but had spent a few generations in the U.S., so they spoke English at home. He went to a school that taught all in English. But almost all the students at the school were Apache Indians, and when they went out into the playground, they spoke Apache. My classmate learned Apache on the playground and in other interactions as he grew up.

From your background, you should recognize the picture given in Nehemiah and Ezra. For you, it didn’t matter what language you spoke at home, you lived in a French speaking milieu, you learned to speak French. I see the same thing among immigrant families here in the U.S., where they speak the parents’ language at home, but the children speak English better than they know their parents’ languages.

If Hebrew were the language spoken on the street in Nehemiah’s and Ezra’s time, then it wouldn’t matter what language was spoken in the home, the children would learn Hebrew. However, the picture given is that if the mothers were not Jewish, the children didn’t learn Hebrew. That means that Hebrew was not spoken on the street, not in the markets, but had to have special emphasis in its teaching. Sort of like Chinese school for the children of Chinese immigrants.

So what language did the people of Judea speak? Another clue, half the books of Daniel and Ezra are in Aramaic. They expected their audience to speak Aramaic, a language that was unintelligible to pre-Babylonian Jews. Aramaic then had no special religious meaning to Jews. But indications are that it was the language of the street and in the homes. Ezra preached in Hebrew, but his assistants explained what was preached, i.e. translated to the language of the street.

From the clues presented in Late Biblical Hebrew, it was the Latin of its time and place, not the language on the street nor in the home.

Jemoh66 wrote:

Ps: This is getting way off from Biblical Hebrew, the subject of this forum. Therefore, I don’t intend to write any more on it.

Jonathan Mohler

I’m not a Greek scholar, I know Hebrew better than Greek. One indication of that is that the NT author I find easiest to read in John, whose Greek is most similar to Hebrew. The hardest to read is Luke, whose writing is the most like classical Greek, and the least like Hebrew. Yet I’ve read the NT in Greek often enough to recognize the different styles.

However, as shown above, my claim is that already in Late Biblical Hebrew times, that the language of the market and hearth was Aramaic is based on what was written in Tanakh and how it was written. I make the assumption that that situation didn’t change afterwards, and I have seen no evidence that it did.

Karl W. Randolph.