Hebrew or Aramaic?

[biscuit1953]

I have just dicovered that half the Bible versions translate the language Paul spoke in Acts 22:2 as ?Aramaic? while others translate it as ?Hebrew.?  I have Googled this without much help except that they are similar languages similar to Spanish and Portuguese and after going to Strongs Concordance am even more confused because it seems to be saying that they are the same.  It states the following:

?????????
Hebrais
heb-rah-is'
From G1446; the Hebraistic (that is, Hebrew) or Jewish (Chaldee) language: - Hebrew (Aramaic). 

If you are teaching a Sunday School class and this came up how would you explain this?  Would either translation be correct?

I just realized the first edition of the Holman Christian Standard Bible translates it as "Hebrew" while the CSB translates it as "Aramaic."  Supposedly the CSB is more literal than the original version. 

 

[Ransom]

When Acts 22:2 (and 21:40) says Paul addressed the crowd in the Hebrew language, it's best understood to mean "the language of the Hebrews" - which at the time was Aramaic - as opposed to the Greek that he had just been speaking to the Romans. No doubt they would have understood him in Greek, as it was the everyday language of the Roman Empire, but by speaking in their own local language, he was making an appeal to them as a fellow Jew.

Aramaic was the administrative language of the Assyrians and neo-Babylonians, and hence it became the lingua franca of Mesopotamia and the Middle East, including Palestine. After several generations of living under Assyrian and Babylonian rule, the Palestinian Jews' first language was Aramaic rather than Hebrew, which was relegated to religious use - just as the Jews living in the Hellenistic world spoke Greek.

 

[biscuit1953]

When Acts 22:2 (and 21:40) says Paul addressed the crowd in the Hebrew language, it's best understood to mean "the language of the Hebrews" - which at the time was Aramaic - as opposed to the Greek that he had just been speaking to the Romans. No doubt they would have understood him in Greek, as it was the everyday language of the Roman Empire, but by speaking in their own local language, he was making an appeal to them as a fellow Jew.

Aramaic was the administrative language of the Assyrians and neo-Babylonians, and hence it became the lingua franca of Mesopotamia and the Middle East, including Palestine. After several generations of living under Assyrian and Babylonian rule, the Palestinian Jews' first language was Aramaic rather than Hebrew, which was relegated to religious use - just as the Jews living in the Hellenistic world spoke Greek.

Too many times we can't break outside of the box and think.  The simple phrase "language of the Hebrews" makes perfect sense in the context!  This explains why translators struggle on which word to use since either one would fit the scenerio.  Once again you have explained a passage of scripture where it seems like a light was turned on in my head.  Thanks.

 

[bgwilkinson]

The following short description of the Aramaic Targums is excerpted from Bruce M. Metzger's article, "Important Early Translations of the Bible," Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (Jan 93), pp. 35ff.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/aramaic4.html

 

[Steven Avery]

Two different languages.  The Spanish-Portuguese analogy is ok, but I am pretty sure that Hebrew and Aramaic natives have more difficulty with the other language than the Span-Port situation.  In my experience they really cannot converse easily, and are likely to look for English as a common language. While Spanish and Portuguese folks have fun communicating .  (I'm not counting weird dialects like those South American chirpers that go a mile a minute.)

Hebraisti is Hebrew, the words for Aramaic are something like Syriac and Chaldee (this may vary by dialect) and Josephus is important in this distinction, although it is rather obvious. 

In the New Testament there are a number of references to Hebrew, none to Aramaic, although at times it is thought that Aramaic words are being given and then translated.  In the NT, "Aramaic" is simply a mistranslation in many corruption versions.  It arose around the 1800s towards times of textual and translational confusions and is being corrected in recent years.  Holman appears to be going backwards, but with corruption versions, anything goes.

If you can find the paper or notes by Ken Penner at SBL years back, it is excellent. Alan Millard, Douglas Hamp and maybe Randall Buth should all be good sources as well.

Steven

 

[Ransom]

Two different languages.

Feeling a little ignored, Stevie? We've already covered this without your help.

If you can find the paper or notes by Ken Penner at SBL years back, it is excellent. Alan Millard, Douglas Hamp and maybe Randall Buth should all be good sources as well.

Since you can't name them, I doubt you've even read them - as usual.

 

[Steven Avery]

We've already covered this without your help.

Yes, but your information was wrong:

When Acts 22:2 (and 21:40) says Paul addressed the crowd in the Hebrew language, it's best understood to mean "the language of the Hebrews" - which at the time was Aramaic -

If the gentleman wants help finding the papers and books, I can pull more information.

Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Since you can't name them, I doubt you've even read them -

Here is the one that I really like:

Ancient names for Hebrew and Aramaic: A Case for Lexical Revision
Ken Penner
https://www.academia.edu/1669907/Ancient_names_for_Hebrew_and_Aramaic_A_Case_for_Lexical_Revision

And  my wife and I were in Israel for a month, now that I am back home in Asheville, I did a forum check and realized I had not checked anything at FFF.

 

[Steven Avery]

Discovering the Language of Jesus: Hebrew Or Aramaic? (2005)
Douglas Hamp
https://books.google.com/books?id=12KTD95EhQcC

Douglas Hamp uses a lot of the Ken Penner material.  He may also have a YouTube.

Steven

 

[Ransom]

Yes, but your information was wrong:

To which your only rebuttal was "go read all these articles I didn't cite specfically enough to actually find."

To which I respond, "No. Do your own homework, Avery."

 

[Ransom]

I did a forum check and realized I had not checked anything at FFF.

So you're basically looking for attention by insinuating yourself into a conversation. Got it. Hope you enjoyed the attention.

 

[Steven Avery]

To which your only rebuttal was "go read all these articles I didn't cite specfically enough to actually find."

Check the thread.  I gave you the url to the main superb article by Ken Penner. 

And at least the readers know that we have opposite positions, I say that Hebraisti in the NT means the Hebrew language, you say it refers to Aramaic.

And I was simply giving good references and information, and incidentally correcting your error,  your personal stuff is simply weird.

Steven

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hi, Steve. You have burned me too many times in the past with dodgy citations, I am no longer biting.

While I don't bother anymore with your arguments welcome back.

 

[Ransom]

Check the thread.  I gave you the url to the main superb article by Ken Penner. 

A self-published paper by a grad student. Yawn.

And at least the readers know that we have opposite positions, I say that Hebraisti in the NT means the Hebrew language, you say it refers to Aramaic.

Yeah, we all know you're in love with your ability to use Google and pretend it is scholarship.

And I was simply giving good references and information, and incidentally correcting your error,

The only evidence of my "error" is your own say-so, which I will at least admit I put in somewhat higher esteem than, say, a Scientologist's.

 

[Steven Avery]

The case presented by Ken Penner was extremely strong, and nobody has really tried to refute it afaik.

"Assistant Professor, Religious Studies - St. Francis Xavier University ... PhD in Religious Studies at McMaster University with a major in Second Temple Judaism, and a minor in Early Christianity. "
http://people.stfx.ca/kpenner/

My conclusion, you are just upset that the AV has it right, so you have to harumph.

Steven

 

[Ransom]

The case presented by Ken Penner was extremely strong

Then I'm sure the clear and concise paraphrase of his arguments, which you will be posting to this thread promptly, will be extremely persuasive.

Ball's in your court, Stevie. Put up or shut up.

"Assistant Professor, Religious Studies - St. Francis Xavier University ... PhD in Religious Studies at McMaster University with a major in Second Temple Judaism, and a minor in Early Christianity. "
http://people.stfx.ca/kpenner/

The email address on the paper indicates that he was at McMaster at the time of writing. Therefore, it is precisely what I said it was: a self-published paper by a grad student, and not a peer-reviewed scholarly paper by an assistant professor at StFX.

Avery, when are you ever going to learn that when you get caught in a lie, your attempts at damage management will  always fail, simply because you are incapable of a competent grasp of the facts?

 

[Steven Avery]

What are you accusing of being a lie?

Showing that Ken Penner is a respected scholar?  You are weird.

Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi, Steve. You have burned me too many times in the past with dodgy citations, I am no longer biting.

Actually, I do not remember you ever discussing any citations.  Do you have an example?

While I don't bother anymore with your arguments welcome back.

Thanks. You never gave any arguments to bother with. You would pull out one quote from AV Preface, and then go quiet.

 

[Ransom]

What are you accusing of being a lie?

Showing that Ken Penner is a respected scholar?  You are weird.

Where have you shown that Ken Penner is a "respected scholar"? At best, you have shown that he is employable.

The case presented by Ken Penner was extremely strong

Then I'm sure the clear and concise paraphrase of his arguments, which you will be posting to this thread promptly, will be extremely persuasive.

Still waiting for you to do your job and persuade us, Avery.