Hebraic Perspective
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:54 pm
I wanted more information related to the Hebraic Perspective of our Bible. This lead me to a book writtened by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard entitled Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus. New Insights From a Hebraic Perspective. I find the topic both fascinating, interesting and related to our life studies in regards to understanding Scripture. I want to share this information and gather your thoughts on the subject.
Hebraic Perspective
Robert L. Lindsey wrote in the introduction that his own encounter with the strong Hebraism of the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke came several years ago when he had the occasion to attempt to translate the Gospel of Mark to Hebrew. Lindsey writes, “What first caught my attention was the very Hebraic word order of the Greek text of Mark. Usually I only need to find the correct Hebrew equivalents to the Greek words in order to give good sense and understanding to the text. In other words, the syntax or word relationships were just such as one would expect in Hebrew.”
Lindsey continues “All this was particularly surprising to me, for I remembered the problems I had as a student studying classical Greek in trying to juggle the words of Xenophon, Homer, Aeschylus, and Plato into the patterns of word order the English demands. What difficulty I had making those ancient Greeks speak English! And now, translating New Testament Greek into Hebrew, I was finding Greek written as if it were Hebrew.”
“The answer is that the original gospel that form the basis for the Synoptic Gospels was first communicated, not in Greek or Aramaic, but in the Hebrew language. Since the Synoptic Gospels are derived from an original Hebrew text, we are constantly "bumping into" Hebrew expressions or idioms which are often meaningless in Greek or in translations from the Greek.
The difficulty arises because many of the sayings of Jesus are actually Hebrew idioms. An idiom is "an expression in the usage of a language, that is particular to itself either in grammatical construction or in having a meaning which cannot be derived as a whole from the conjoined meaning of its elements." Some examples of English idioms would be: "Killing time," or "Hit the ceiling," or "Eat your heart out." Many of the idioms that Jesus used in his teaching can be understood only when properly interpreted in a Hebrew context. We tend to forget that the Old Testament comprises approximately 78% of the biblical text, and the New Testament only 22%. When we add the highly Hebraic portions of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts 1:1-15:35, approximately 43% of the New Testament) to the Old Testament, the percentage of biblical material originally written in Hebrew rises to 88%. Not more than 12% of the entire Bible was originally written in Greek. The assumption that the entire New Testament was originally communicated in Greek has led to a considerable amount of misunderstanding on the part of scholars and lay persons alike.”
The book starts with the…
Examination of the Aramaic Theories
It is interesting that the same individuals who espouse the inerrancy of the Scriptures will take a specific passage in the New Testament that refers to Jesus speaking Hebrew (Acts 26:14), or Paul speaking Hebrew (Acts 21:40), and say, "that means Aramaic, and not Hebrew.) The " Aramaic Theory" has so heavily influenced Biblical scholarship that even those who should be most capable of working with the Biblical text, namely, some Bible translators, have translated “Aramaic” when the original text specifically states "Hebrew."
Since the majority of scholars have favored Aramaic origins for the Synoptic Gospels, there must be strong reasons for their acceptance of this theory. But, when one examines the evidence one learns that there are no strong reasons available to support an Aramaic origin apart from the appearance of certain Aramaic, or what often seems to be Aramaic words or phrases scattered throughout the New Testament text, particularly the text of the Gospels. In fact, it is much stronger evidence against the theory of Aramaic origins.
A revolution is taking place in our understanding of the New Testament. With the rebirth of Israel in 1947-1948 came the dramatic discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These priceless, ancient manuscripts, followed a few years later by the discovery of the Bar-Chochba letters, became vital contributions to a fuller understanding of the New Testament writings.
Many scholars in Israel are now convinced that the spoken and written language of the Jews in the land of Israel at the time of Jesus was indeed Hebrew; and that the Synoptic Gospels were derived from original Hebrew sources. The scholars, fluent in both Greek and Hebrew, have proposed impressive solutions to major problems of New Testament interpretation. Important discoveries which they have made serve to illuminate the very Hebraic style of speech used by Jesus and his followers, and to make possible a more accurate translation of the Gospels. With a new understanding of the language Jesus spoke, they are now able to correct numerous mistranslations in the English text of the New Testament.
Jehoshua M Grintz wrote an article entitled "Hebrew as The Spoken and Written Language in The Last Days of The Second Temple" (Grintz 1960). On the basis of his study of Matthew's Gospel and other literature contemporary with the Gospels, Grintz asserted that "Hebrew was the only literary language of that time; and to this alone we can attribute the fact that the new sect of 'unlearned an ignorant men' (Acts 4:13) set out to right its main book, intended for its Jewish members, in this language" (Grintz 1960:46).
Grintz further emphasizes: "Moreover, Hebrew was then the main vehicle of speech in Jewish Palestine, or at least in Jerusalem and Judea." He provides evidence for this statement with a relevant story, narrated in the Talmud (Nedarim 66b) about the difficulties and Aramaic speaking Jew from Babylon had in communicating with his Jerusalemite wife.
Professor David Flusser of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem claims there are hundreds of Semitisms (Semitic idioms) in the Synoptic Gospels which could only be Hebrew, but there are no Semitisms which could only be Aramaic without also being good Hebrew.
Dr. Moshe Bar-Asher a foremost Aramaic scholar at the Hebrew University, says that he believes the Synoptic Gospels go back to a Greek translation of an original Hebrew (not Aramaic!) document.
Professor Frank Cross, of Harvard University, is probably the leading living authority on the handwriting of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Professor Cross has stated that by observing the handwriting of the various scribes who copy the scrolls over the centuries at Qumran, yet can be seen that the dominant language of Palestine, beginning about 130 B.C., was Hebrew. since, after 130 B.C., the scribes of Qumran no longer made mistakes when copying Hebrew texts, Cross determined that their principal language was Hebrew, and that they had an inferior knowledge of Aramaic grammar and syntax.
An impressive amount of extra biblical evidence points to the use of Hebrew in the first century Israel: the testimony of the Church fathers, the Dead Sea Scrolls, coins, and inscriptions from the first century B.C.- A.D., the writings of Josephus, and Rabbinic literature. Even at Masada, Herod's stronghold overlooking the Dead Sea, archaeologists excavated from 1963 to 1965 under the direction of Professor Yigael Yadin. The epi- graphical evidence is staggering: fragments of 14 scrolls, over 4000 coins, and more than 700 ostraka (inscribed pottery fragments) in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. Here too, the ratio of Hebrew to Aramaic exceeds nine to one.
There is also textual evidence to prove that Jesus delivered his parables in Hebrew. Note how Hebraic they are, as illustrated by the parable of the prodigal son:
And his father saw him, and had compassion, and fell on his neck,
and kissed him…. And the father said to his servants, "bring quickly the
best robe, and put it on him, and put [literally, "give," a Hebrew idiom] a ring
on his hand and sandals on his feet, and bring the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat and make merry" (Luke 15:20, 22, 23).
This passage is an excellent example of one of the characteristic features of Hebrew syntax. Greek, like other European languages, does not have this kind of sentence structure with the conjunction "and" appearing over and over again. Greek prefers to subordinate an independent clause to the main clause of the sentence. For example: "when I woke up, I got dressed. As soon as I ate breakfast, I brush my teeth. After I read the morning newspaper, I drove to work." Hebrew, on the other hand, prefers to join clauses with the conjunction "and." To the European, this continual usage of "and" is distracting and sometimes irritating.
To be continued.
Paul
Hebraic Perspective
Robert L. Lindsey wrote in the introduction that his own encounter with the strong Hebraism of the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke came several years ago when he had the occasion to attempt to translate the Gospel of Mark to Hebrew. Lindsey writes, “What first caught my attention was the very Hebraic word order of the Greek text of Mark. Usually I only need to find the correct Hebrew equivalents to the Greek words in order to give good sense and understanding to the text. In other words, the syntax or word relationships were just such as one would expect in Hebrew.”
Lindsey continues “All this was particularly surprising to me, for I remembered the problems I had as a student studying classical Greek in trying to juggle the words of Xenophon, Homer, Aeschylus, and Plato into the patterns of word order the English demands. What difficulty I had making those ancient Greeks speak English! And now, translating New Testament Greek into Hebrew, I was finding Greek written as if it were Hebrew.”
“The answer is that the original gospel that form the basis for the Synoptic Gospels was first communicated, not in Greek or Aramaic, but in the Hebrew language. Since the Synoptic Gospels are derived from an original Hebrew text, we are constantly "bumping into" Hebrew expressions or idioms which are often meaningless in Greek or in translations from the Greek.
The difficulty arises because many of the sayings of Jesus are actually Hebrew idioms. An idiom is "an expression in the usage of a language, that is particular to itself either in grammatical construction or in having a meaning which cannot be derived as a whole from the conjoined meaning of its elements." Some examples of English idioms would be: "Killing time," or "Hit the ceiling," or "Eat your heart out." Many of the idioms that Jesus used in his teaching can be understood only when properly interpreted in a Hebrew context. We tend to forget that the Old Testament comprises approximately 78% of the biblical text, and the New Testament only 22%. When we add the highly Hebraic portions of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts 1:1-15:35, approximately 43% of the New Testament) to the Old Testament, the percentage of biblical material originally written in Hebrew rises to 88%. Not more than 12% of the entire Bible was originally written in Greek. The assumption that the entire New Testament was originally communicated in Greek has led to a considerable amount of misunderstanding on the part of scholars and lay persons alike.”
The book starts with the…
Examination of the Aramaic Theories
It is interesting that the same individuals who espouse the inerrancy of the Scriptures will take a specific passage in the New Testament that refers to Jesus speaking Hebrew (Acts 26:14), or Paul speaking Hebrew (Acts 21:40), and say, "that means Aramaic, and not Hebrew.) The " Aramaic Theory" has so heavily influenced Biblical scholarship that even those who should be most capable of working with the Biblical text, namely, some Bible translators, have translated “Aramaic” when the original text specifically states "Hebrew."
Since the majority of scholars have favored Aramaic origins for the Synoptic Gospels, there must be strong reasons for their acceptance of this theory. But, when one examines the evidence one learns that there are no strong reasons available to support an Aramaic origin apart from the appearance of certain Aramaic, or what often seems to be Aramaic words or phrases scattered throughout the New Testament text, particularly the text of the Gospels. In fact, it is much stronger evidence against the theory of Aramaic origins.
A revolution is taking place in our understanding of the New Testament. With the rebirth of Israel in 1947-1948 came the dramatic discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These priceless, ancient manuscripts, followed a few years later by the discovery of the Bar-Chochba letters, became vital contributions to a fuller understanding of the New Testament writings.
Many scholars in Israel are now convinced that the spoken and written language of the Jews in the land of Israel at the time of Jesus was indeed Hebrew; and that the Synoptic Gospels were derived from original Hebrew sources. The scholars, fluent in both Greek and Hebrew, have proposed impressive solutions to major problems of New Testament interpretation. Important discoveries which they have made serve to illuminate the very Hebraic style of speech used by Jesus and his followers, and to make possible a more accurate translation of the Gospels. With a new understanding of the language Jesus spoke, they are now able to correct numerous mistranslations in the English text of the New Testament.
Jehoshua M Grintz wrote an article entitled "Hebrew as The Spoken and Written Language in The Last Days of The Second Temple" (Grintz 1960). On the basis of his study of Matthew's Gospel and other literature contemporary with the Gospels, Grintz asserted that "Hebrew was the only literary language of that time; and to this alone we can attribute the fact that the new sect of 'unlearned an ignorant men' (Acts 4:13) set out to right its main book, intended for its Jewish members, in this language" (Grintz 1960:46).
Grintz further emphasizes: "Moreover, Hebrew was then the main vehicle of speech in Jewish Palestine, or at least in Jerusalem and Judea." He provides evidence for this statement with a relevant story, narrated in the Talmud (Nedarim 66b) about the difficulties and Aramaic speaking Jew from Babylon had in communicating with his Jerusalemite wife.
Professor David Flusser of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem claims there are hundreds of Semitisms (Semitic idioms) in the Synoptic Gospels which could only be Hebrew, but there are no Semitisms which could only be Aramaic without also being good Hebrew.
Dr. Moshe Bar-Asher a foremost Aramaic scholar at the Hebrew University, says that he believes the Synoptic Gospels go back to a Greek translation of an original Hebrew (not Aramaic!) document.
Professor Frank Cross, of Harvard University, is probably the leading living authority on the handwriting of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Professor Cross has stated that by observing the handwriting of the various scribes who copy the scrolls over the centuries at Qumran, yet can be seen that the dominant language of Palestine, beginning about 130 B.C., was Hebrew. since, after 130 B.C., the scribes of Qumran no longer made mistakes when copying Hebrew texts, Cross determined that their principal language was Hebrew, and that they had an inferior knowledge of Aramaic grammar and syntax.
An impressive amount of extra biblical evidence points to the use of Hebrew in the first century Israel: the testimony of the Church fathers, the Dead Sea Scrolls, coins, and inscriptions from the first century B.C.- A.D., the writings of Josephus, and Rabbinic literature. Even at Masada, Herod's stronghold overlooking the Dead Sea, archaeologists excavated from 1963 to 1965 under the direction of Professor Yigael Yadin. The epi- graphical evidence is staggering: fragments of 14 scrolls, over 4000 coins, and more than 700 ostraka (inscribed pottery fragments) in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. Here too, the ratio of Hebrew to Aramaic exceeds nine to one.
There is also textual evidence to prove that Jesus delivered his parables in Hebrew. Note how Hebraic they are, as illustrated by the parable of the prodigal son:
And his father saw him, and had compassion, and fell on his neck,
and kissed him…. And the father said to his servants, "bring quickly the
best robe, and put it on him, and put [literally, "give," a Hebrew idiom] a ring
on his hand and sandals on his feet, and bring the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat and make merry" (Luke 15:20, 22, 23).
This passage is an excellent example of one of the characteristic features of Hebrew syntax. Greek, like other European languages, does not have this kind of sentence structure with the conjunction "and" appearing over and over again. Greek prefers to subordinate an independent clause to the main clause of the sentence. For example: "when I woke up, I got dressed. As soon as I ate breakfast, I brush my teeth. After I read the morning newspaper, I drove to work." Hebrew, on the other hand, prefers to join clauses with the conjunction "and." To the European, this continual usage of "and" is distracting and sometimes irritating.
To be continued.
Paul