Timothy's Scriptures

[Tandi]

Hi Everyone,

Question:

Timothy knew from childhood the holy, inspired Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation. What language did he read or hear them in, Hebrew or Greek?

 

[Psander]

Lxx

obviously, Greek and the LXX, else, Paul would have written to him in Hebrew.

 

[Tandi]

Not one jot or tittle

Why did Jesus use the term "jot (yod) or tittle" which refer to Hebrew Scriptures, not Greek?

 

[Tandi]

Superscription

And why was the superscription, "King of the Jews" written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin if Hebrew was a dead language at the time?

 

[Psander]

εβραικοις

And why was the superscription, "King of the Jews" written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin if Hebrew was a dead language at the time?

It is far from established that εβραικοις (Hebraikois) refers to Hebrew here. It could just as easily refer to Aramaic. In fact, the designations Latin, Greek, and "Hebrew" in this Greek refer not to specific languages but to specific peoples. Hence, whatever language was spoken by the Hebrews is what is referenced in this passage.

Even if it can be shown that the reference to "Hebrew" is indeed about "Hebrew," this does not mean Hebrew was a lingua franka. Many sacrosanct languages are used to convey meaning not because they are common but because are sacred.

Peter

 

[Tandi]

Hebrew tongue in the Book of Acts and Revelation

Other examples of the Hebrew language being alive and well:


Act 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto [them] in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Act 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Act 26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Rev 9:11 And they had a king over them, [which is] the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue [is] Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath [his] name Apollyon.

Rev 16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

 

[Psander]

how?

Hello,

How do these establish your point? How do you deal with the fact that most understand the Lukan verses are references to Aramaic?

Peter

 

[Tandi]

Discovering the Language of Jesus: Hebrew or Aramaic?

Hello,

How do these establish your point? How do you deal with the fact that most understand the Lukan verses are references to Aramaic?

Peter

I have heard that it is now in dispute concerning the predominance of Aramaic. The DSS have evidenced many Hebrew texts. I will gather my notes and post tomorrow. Maybe you can find something in scholarly journals. This is all I could find so far:

http://www.ccsom.org/languageofjesus/

Going out to the sukkah to watch the moon rise. : )

 

[Psander]

dss

To use the DSS to represent mainstream Judean and Diasporic practice is a bit of a stretch. How do you know they represent mainstream Jewish polity in any matter?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hebrais == Hebrew .. no surprise there

Hi Folks,

Acts 21:40
And when he had given him licence,
Paul stood on the stairs,
and beckoned with the hand unto the people.
And when there was made a great silence,
he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Acts 22:2
And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them,
they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Acts 26:14
And when we were all fallen to the earth,
I heard a voice speaking unto me,
and saying in the Hebrew tongue,
Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

It is far from established that εβραικοις (Hebraikois) refers to Hebrew here. It could just as easily refer to Aramaic.

This is a myth. Hebraikois is clearly a reference to Hebrew, etymologically and contextually, while other words existed in Greek for Aramaic.

Ken Penner wrote a paper on this very point, here is a discussion, the paper and notes are a good read. Hebraisti as Aramaic is simply a modern version blunder, recent scholarship has caught up to the Reformation Bible.

RE: [biblical-studies] Aramaic was called "Hebrew"?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblical-studies/message/3376
"Aramaic was never called Hebrew until well after the Bar Kokhba revolt...ancient authors had no trouble distinguishing Hebrew and Aramaic. They regularly called Hebrew (in chronological order) the language of Canaan, Judean, Ibrit/Hebraisti/Hebrais, or the holy language. They called Aramaic Aramit, Syristi/Syriake/Syrum, Chaldean, Sursi, or Targum."

Ken Penner points out that Philo was the only exception to this (Philo used both words).

Ken Penner notes
http://ocp.acadiau.ca/kpenner/papers/hebrais/hebrais.doc.
We should expect there to be sound reasons for interpreting a word contrary to its etymological meaning and its normal usage. After all, Paul uses the same adjective, Hebraios, to call himself a “Hebrew of Hebrews”... the Bauer-Danker lexical entry for the words Hebrais and Hebraisti need to be revised to remove the assertion (or implication) that these words refer to any form of Aramaic. Hebrais, Hebraisti and other words for the Hebrew language are clearly and consistently distinguished from those for the Aramaic language

Ken Penner
What Language did Paul speak in Acts 21-22
Ancient names for Hebrew and Aramaic
http://ocp.acadiau.ca/kpenner/papers/hebrais/handout1.pdf

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Timothy and the Hebrew scriptures

Hi Folks,

Even if it can be shown that the reference to "Hebrew" is indeed about "Hebrew," this does not mean Hebrew was a lingua franka. Many sacrosanct languages are used to convey meaning not because they are common but because are sacred.

Since Paul spoke to a crowd in Jersusalem in Hebrew, and archaeology has confirmed etymology and common sense, there is no doubt that Hebrew was a common language for the times (although not the lingua franca since it would be restricted mostly to those with Hebraic background). And we also know this was a literate society, largely because of the Hebrew Bible and the Aramaic Targumim. (Alan Millard has written on this and even the better informed skeptics agree on the literacy issue.)

As for Timothy, with his mother Jewish and the wide dissemination of the Hebrew Bible and with Paul the Hebraist talking of the scriptures, we can conclude that his scriptures of his youth were Hebrew.

And as shown by the Josephus Antiquities preface it is quite doubtful whether there were full copies of Greek scripture even in circulation.

Please keep in mind that Greek names were not uncommon among those proficient in Hebrew. At the time that Luke wrote his gospel account the Jewish high priest was named Theophilus. And that does not mean that Luke wrote the gospel in Hebrew . Even if Luke himself was a temple priest (per the book by Rick Strelan) writing in Greek would be simply common for wide dissemination (also good for language precision) much like Europeans and Asians and others today often write in English for maximum scholarship and dissemination. With English being today's lingua franca.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[Tandi]

Bar Kokhba coins

In researching whether or not Hebrew was a living language in the first century, I came across this news item about a recent find of coins from the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090909095100.htm

Apparently, the writing on these coins is in paleo-hebrew script:

After the Babylonian capture of Judea, when most of the nobles were taken into exile, the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet continued to be used by the people who remained to work the fields. One example of such writings are the 6th-century BCE jar handles from Gibeon, on which the names of winegrowers are inscribed. Beginning from the 5th century BCE onward, when the Aramaic language and script became an official means of communication, the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet was preserved mainly for writing the Tanakh by a coterie of erudite scribes, who most likely belonged to the sect of the Sadducees[citation needed]. Some Paleo-Hebrew fragments of the Torah were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The vast majority of the Hasmonean coinage, as well as the coins of the First Jewish-Roman War and Bar Kokhba's revolt, bears Paleo-Hebrew legends. The Paleo-Hebrew alphabet fell completely out of use only after 135 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet

Other evidence of paleo-Hebrew script common in the first century:

Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov...By Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H, Schiffman, Eva Ben-David. 2002 (page 226):

...there is more evidence indicating that Jews employed the paleo-Hebrew script during the Hellenistic period than there is regarding its use by the Samaritans. Jews used Hebrew script for stamping coins, administrative stamps (such as the “Jerusalem” stamp), writing scrolls (found at Qumran and Masada), inscriptions (a column’s fragment of a marble slab found near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and the Abba inscription), on ossuaries (found on Mt. Scopus), on sarcophagi (discovered at Masada), as well as column fragments and tags (at Masada) during the Second Temple period. These finds confirm that Jews utilized the paleo-Hebrew script during the Second Temple period for official purposes (on seals, coins, and perhaps even in an inscription from the Temple Mount), religious needs (the scrolls), and even in daily life.

Looking for more......

 

[Tandi]

Scriptures for non-Hebrews

So even though it is pretty much established that Hebrew was a living language in the first century and that Jews had Hebrew Scriptures, in what language did the Gentiles hear the Scriptures read in the synagogue (Acts 15)?

How were the Greeks and others able to hear or read Scripture?

 

[Gerard Bouw]

The Aramaic Myth

It is the Roman Catholic Church that pushes the myth that Aramaic, not Hebrew was spoken by the Jews in New Testament times. The issue is the primacy of Peter. In Aramaic Peter means rock, in Hebrew it means stone.

By the same token, the RCC promotes the idea that at least Matthew was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. It's easy to show that false for then why would it have Jesus say "Eli Eli lama sabachthani" in Mat. 27:46 and the follow that by "that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" If it were written in Aramaic or Hebrew why not translate it directly instead of transliterating the Aramaic and then adding the translation?

 

[Gerard Bouw]

Gentiles were not allowed in the synagogues. Proselytes learned Hebrew. Every proselyte I know had learned Hebrew.

In the Philippines, pastors translate the KJV on the fly because in their view there is no reliable translation into Tagalog.

 

[Psander]

It is the Roman Catholic Church that pushes the myth that Aramaic, not Hebrew was spoken by the Jews in New Testament times. The issue is the primacy of Peter. In Aramaic Peter means rock, in Hebrew it means stone.

Peter means nothing in Hebrew or Aramaic. Can you explain?

Also, I conclude based on the evidences that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and I am not Catholic.

By the same token, the RCC promotes the idea that at least Matthew was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. It's easy to show that false for then why would it have Jesus say "Eli Eli lama sabachthani" in Mat. 27:46 and the follow that by "that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" If it were written in Aramaic or Hebrew why not translate it directly instead of transliterating the Aramaic and then adding the translation?

I agree that Matthew was written originally in Greek...not Hebrew or Aramaic. There may have been an official Hebrew translation from the Greek, but it certainly is no longer extant.

Peter

 

[Psander]

So even though it is pretty much established that Hebrew was a living language in the first century and that Jews had Hebrew Scriptures, in what language did the Gentiles hear the Scriptures read in the synagogue (Acts 15)?

How were the Greeks and others able to hear or read Scripture?

How was it a living language?

Consider this....
Knowledge of modern vernacular Hebrew is not equivalent to knowing Biblical Hebrew(s). Even if it can be shown that there was a spoken, vernacular Hebrew in 2nd Temple Judea, does this necessarily mean that the speakers could understand biblical Hebrew from hundreds of years prior? Modern vernacular Hebrew speaking Jews do not automatically understand what they hear and/or read in the Tanakh.

The Bible of Philo, Timothy, Paul, and the early gentile believers was undeniably the LXX of God. Oh, I am LXXO.

xxoo

kol tuv,
Peter

 

[Tandi]

How was it a living language?

Consider this....
Knowledge of modern vernacular Hebrew is not equivalent to knowing Biblical Hebrew(s). Even if it can be shown that there was a spoken, vernacular Hebrew in 2nd Temple Judea, does this necessarily mean that the speakers could understand biblical Hebrew from hundreds of years prior? Modern vernacular Hebrew speaking Jews do not automatically understand what they hear and/or read in the Tanakh.

The Bible of Philo, Timothy, Paul, and the early gentile believers was undeniably the LXX of God. Oh, I am LXXO.

xxoo

kol tuv,
Peter

Hello Peter,

Cute post! You made me smile. : )

I am convinced that Hebrew was not a "dead" language. Therefore, it was "alive" and I believe Paul spoke in Hebrew in the verses quoted above to an audience that understood Hebrew. Aramaic was also spoken at the time, and Greek was the common and more universal language, as English is today. Modern Hebrew is resurrected from the nearly dead and is not exactly the same, yet it swiftly came into general usage in a short period of time. Humans seem to be gifted with the ability to learn languages. I heard that Hebrew almost became the official language of America in the early days, and that Hebrew was a required course at Harvard in the 1600's because the original purpose of the college was to encourage Biblical literacy.

Today, the modern version advocates tell us that the KJV is incomprehensible because the language is archaic, yet those who love and read the KJV understand it because we have grown accustomed to it and because it reads so poetically and is easy to memorize, etc.

From what I have seen of some of the LXX renderings, I am not impressed....and I think you are spoofing us about being LXXO. Hope to convince you to become dysLXXic.

kol tuv,

Tandi

 

[Tandi]

Gentiles were not allowed in the synagogues. Proselytes learned Hebrew. Every proselyte I know had learned Hebrew.

In the Philippines, pastors translate the KJV on the fly because in their view there is no reliable translation into Tagalog.

That is interesting about the pastors in the Philippines translating on the fly....makes me think that may be how Gentiles were taught Scripture in the first century. I also read that King James himself made his own translation of the Scriptures. Maybe this was a common way of learning....to paraphrase and give the sense of the Scriptures in one's own words or language. Yet, "the Scriptures" were the inspired words of God and were the standard.

Acts 15:21 seems to imply that the Gentiles were able to hear the Torah read and expounded upon at the synagogue on Sabbath. Maybe the Gentiles could hear from outside? Maybe they would gather by the river side and listen? (Acts 16:13) Maybe the Hebrew scroll was read silently or aloud by the reader, and then "targummed" in Greek or Aramaic?

Just some thoughts. Pardon my ignorance everyone.....I am still learning.

 

[Tandi]

Gentiles in Synagogue

Just happened to come across this reference:

We do know that many Gentiles regularly visited synagogues in the early centuries.....(see Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (Yale, 2000), pp. 115, 1121, 272-75, 350; Irina Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting: Diaspora Setting (Eerdmans, 1996) pp. 113-16)

page 10 in a paper by Tim Hegg, "An Assessment of 'Divine Invitation' Teaching" .......

http://www.torahresource.com/

Gentiles were not allowed in the Temple, but apparently they could visit synagogues. Even today, Gentiles are welcome in conservative-style synagogues.