Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>]

Dear Dave,

 The
> interpretation of the Aramaic phrases are  mentioned.

Can you develop this a little more for me?  I'm not sure what you're saying.

I am thinking of Mark 5:41 and the raising of Jairus' daughter and the use of
"Talitha Cum."

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew as a Spoken Language vs. Aramaic


> On 26 Oct 2007 at 12:39, Bryant J. Williams III wrote:
>
> > Dear Dave,
> >
> > K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, Chapter 7, "Principles of
> > Linguistic Studies," III: (c), "The Question of Aramaisms," pp. 145-146. 
> > See
> > also page 108, footnote 84.
> >
> > In this section of the book he cites or quotes the following: Eissfeldt,
R.D.
> > Wilson, BASOR 89 (1943), C.H. Gordon, C. Viirolleaud, E.J. Young, J.
> > Aistleitner, M. Dahood, A. Dupont-Sommer, Wiseman, W.F. Albright, E. 
> > Forrer,
E.
> > Ebeling, B. Meissner, etc. just to list a few. He further uses the Amarna
> > Letters and Assyrian texts from Tiglath-Pileser I of the prove the point.
>
> I'll have to see if I can get my hands on that work, because I'm not sure I
can see what the
> Amarna letters or Assyrian texts would have to do with the so-called
Intertestamental
> Period.
>
> > What I think is happening is that when Aramaic became the official 
> > language
of
> > most of the Levant Hebrew was still spoken and used through to the 
> > Rabbinic
> > period by the people.
>
> This is where we disagree.  I think it was used by the religious leaders and
some of the elite,
> but not by the common people except in contexts such as synagogue rites etc.
>
> > The references to "Hebrew" in the New Testament is
> > commonly understood to refer to Aramaic. I think this is wrong.
>
> Once again, we disagree.  And I have no problem with that.
>
>  The
> > interpretation of the Aramaic phrases are  mentioned.
>
> Can you develop this a little more for me?  I'm not sure what you're saying.
>
> > The references to Hebrew
> > being spoken, e.g., Paul in the Temple precincts during his arrest, is
actually
> > Hebrew. The Sanhedrin meeting for Jesus' trial would have used Hebrew.
>
> Perhaps, though I doubt this is certain.  In any case, Jesus probably would
have understood
> it, being somewhat of an unofficial rabbi himself.  As for Paul's address, I
think the jury is
> still out, especially since we know that Aramaic was spoken and even have 
> some
examples
> of transliterated Aramaic, but there's no word in the New Testament for
"Aramaic."
>
> An
> > example of one language being used but another used at the same time would
be
> > Koine Greek during the ascendancy of the Roman Empire from roughly 200 BC 
> > to
200
> > AD. Greek was the official language of the Roman Empire, while Latin was
still
> > used. By 200 AD, if not earlier, the situation reversing itself, at least 
> > in
the
> > West, while Greek was still used by the Byzantine Greek East.
>
> But once again, we're not talking about a complete displacement of the 
> people
to a land
> where a different language was spoken and nobody gave a rip what their
previously-native
> tongue was.  So Greek really isn't analogous.
>
> > From a closer time
> > period, after the Battle of Hastings, Norman French was used in England by
the
> > nobility, but it was the Saxon English that was used by the common people.
> > Eventually, although Latin was still used in churches, official decrees,
etc.,
> > it was English that was understood by almost everyone.
>
> Same objection.  The English weren't transported back to France where 
> English
wasn't used
> at all.
>
> > Thus, I can still see
> > very much of Hebrew being understood by all classes of people through the
> > Rabbinic period especially considering that Latin, Greek, Hebrew was used 
> > on
the
> > indictment of Jesus.
>
> The question there would be, who wrote it?  If the Sanhedrin wrote it, it
might have been
> Hebrew.  But the stories tell us the Roman procurator wrote it and the
Sanhedrin objected to
> it.  Would Pontius Pilate be likely to have known Hebrew?  Considering what 
> we
know about
> the man, he probably thought both languages sounded like gibberish :-) and
couldn't have
> cared less which one actually went on the placard.  I'm assuming he had an
underling do
> the actual work, and can easily see him telling such an underling, "Write it
in Latin and
> Greek and whatever that other noise is that these people make."  So again, 
> it
seems to me
> that the evidence is equivocal, at the very least.
>
>
> Dave Washburn
> Why do it right when you can do it again?
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of
Com-Pair Services!
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.11/1094 - Release Date: 10/26/07
8:50 AM
>
>


For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of 
Com-Pair Services!