Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] RE: When did Hebrew cease to be a commonly spoken language?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Ken Penner" <pennerkm AT mcmaster.ca>
  • To: "'Schmuel'" <schmuel AT escape.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] RE: When did Hebrew cease to be a commonly spoken language?
  • Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:35:43 -0400

Hi Schmuel,

My research also showed it is implausible that Hebraisti ever referred to
Aramaic, but I tried to refrain from ridiculing the idea. At the time the
Hebraisti=Aramaic theory was developed in the late 1800's, the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Bar Kokhba letters had not yet been discovered, and Segal had
not yet published his Mishnaic grammar. At the time, there was little
evidence of the use of Hebrew in the first century. But we no longer have
that excuse. Hebrew was certainly in USE at that time, but scholars have so
far been undecided about the EXTENT of its use.

This is where I sought to make a contribution. If Hebrew was not commonly
understood, Luke's statement (Acts 21&22) that Paul addressed the Jerusalem
crowd in Hebrew is implausible. Conversely, if Paul DID address the people
in Hebrew, then presumably Hebrew WAS commonly understood. I addressed the
question from this second approach, by trying to determine the probability
that Hebraisti could refer to Aramaic.

I asked two questions: (1) Were Hebrew and Aramaic clearly distinguished by
ancient authors? My research showed that the answer is YES. (2) How can we
account for the apparently anomalous evidence? I adduced parallel examples
from ancient Jewish documents that refuted each counter-example usually
given in the Hebraisti=Aramaic argument.

My conclusion was modest: We must revise the standard NT lexicon and the NIV
and NRSV at Acts 21-22 to indicate "Hebrew (or possibly Aramaic)" rather
than "Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew)".

> Can the Greek word also refer to both ? ie. the family of
> semitic languages...
> ie .. does it have to be an either/or proposition ?

This was my first question: were the names for the two languages clearly and
consistently distinguished, or could one name refer to two languages? I
found they were almost always clearly distinguished. But some things are
still unclear, for example, which is the Jewish "ancestral" language (of 1&2
Maccabees and Josephus)? I suspect it is Hebrew, but I am not yet sure.

> Is your paper, or a summary, available ?

I can send anyone interested a copy of my handout, which has an outline of
the argument and evidence.

Ken Penner, M.C.S. (Regent College), M.A. (McMaster)
Ph.D. (cand.), Religious Studies,
Biblical Field (Early Judaism major)
McMaster University
Hamilton, Canada
pennerkm AT mcmaster.ca
Vocabulary Memorisation Software:
http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/westerholm/flash or http://sensoft.nav.to





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page