Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: [b-hebrew] Fw: Aramaic to them?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Fw: Aramaic to them?
  • Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:12:51 -0500

Dear Ken:

I don’t think anyone would argue that no one
spoke Hebrew during the late Second Temple
era, rather its use was restricted to an
educated elite who did not use it in their
everyday life. An example would be in Acts
22:2 where it mentions that Paul, as an
educated Jew, spoke in Hebrew, which had its
effect in quieting the crowd.

I can think of two more recent examples of the
same pattern: up until a few centuries ago, it
was the sign of an educated man that he could
speak in Latin, and there are some even today,
though I expect there are no more than a few
thousand people can speak it fluently. In this
regard, Latin is still a living language. But
for over a thousand years, nobody expected to
be able to go out and buy his vegetables in
the market speaking Latin. Similarly, in China
up to the 1920s, the language of court and
high literature was a variety of Chinese that
had not been spoken for close to two
millennia. It was the sign of an educated
Chinese to be fluent, speaking as well as
writing, in that archaic Chinese, but like
Latin, nobody expected to buy in the market
using that dialect.

The linguistic picture of Judea and Samaria
that I get is that of an educated elite who
knew and could speak Hebrew, the majority of
the common people knew a smattering of Hebrew
to a greater or lesser degree (after all, it
was the language of religion) but most of them
spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue. Jews in
the Diaspora mostly spoke Greek and/or
whatever local language was spoken where they
lived.

There was a wide variety of Greek knowledge.
Of the writers of the New Testament, Luke, an
educated man of the Diaspora, wrote in almost
classical Greek, while John wrote about as
close as one could get to Greek words on an
Aramaic grammar. Peter, as a rude fisherman,
knew Greek but apparently was never
comfortable in it. How well did he know
Hebrew?

In conclusion, while almost everyone knew at
least a smattering of Hebrew, only few spoke
it fluently, and if one wanted to buy
something in the market, he ought to know
either Aramaic or Greek.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Penner" <pennerkm AT mcmaster.ca>

> To voice my agreement with Harold on the point of languages in use in the
> first century, the presence of non-literary Hebrew notes among the Dead Sea
> Scrolls (besides the Qumran DSS), in conjunction with Segal's proofs in _A
> Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew_ should leave no doubt that Hebrew was a spoken
> language at the time.
> Opinions to the contrary are the remnant of scholarship undertaken before
> Segal's grammar (1927) and before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (c.
> 50 years ago), as I argue in a presentation to the CSBS last year,
> http://s91279732.onlinehome.us/papers/hebrais
>
> Ken Penner, McMaster/DSS
> Dead Sea Scrolls scholars' list owner,
> http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
>
> > "Jews were probably not speaking Hebrew in the first
> > century," said Rabbi
> > Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of the Jewish Theological
> > Seminary. "They were speaking Aramaic."
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page