Additionally, the antiquated Englyshe is no longer spoken anywhere in the world, That is unlike the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, which were the languages of the Biblical era. The KJV Language sounds lofty and "religious", but the early languages do not. They were the languages of the people! Jesus, who was a common tradesman, spoke Aramaic. Can you imagine Jesus speaking to thousands of common people in a language that few, if any, understood?
Did Jesus only speak in Aramaic? Maybe, maybe not.... Yet Jesus did not speak to Paul in Aramaic....
Act 26:14 "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
But Jesus did on the cross... Mar 14:36 And He was saying, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will." (As the word Abba means "Father" in Aramaic.)
It is interesting that some 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).
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. Cents, after 130 B.C., describes 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.
The Hebraic undertext is revealed not only in sentence structure but in many literalisms and idioms present, which are particular to the Hebrew language. And an ability to recognize these Hebraisms has caused much difficulty in the interpretation and understanding of many of the sayings of Jesus. However, many sayings of Jesus seem to make sense in English translation, but means something entirely different than what we think. For example:
The Kingdom of God is at hand [or literally, "near"] (Luke 10:9).
Whatsoever thou shall bind (or loose) on earth shall be bound (or loose) in heaven (Matt.16:19).
Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye tell in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:20).
Think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jolt or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5:17- 18).
The above sayings all seem to make sense. The problem is that many words in Hebrew have overtones that do not exist in English. A Hebrew word often has a much wider range of meaning than its English or Greek literal equivalent. Since our English gospels are derived from a Hebrew original, many of the English words do not mean what they appear to mean. As would be expected with a translation from Hebrew, we see the wider range of Hebrew meaning in many of the words used, rather than the more limited range of English or Greek meaning.
When we speak of Hebraisms or Hebrew idioms in our Greek or English text, what we are is really speaking about are "literalisms" - overly literal translations of Hebrew idioms. How can one detect a literalism? We detect a literalisms in the same way that we can tell if a person, who is speaking English, is thinking in another language. If, for instance, we hear a person say in English, "Throw the cow over the fence some hay," or "Go the hill down and turn the corner around," we know the speaker is speaking in German. If someone says, "Help you me to find the ball," we know the speaker is thinking in Spanish. "I want somebody a book to give" indicates that the speaker is Dutch. "We will be happy to receive your faces at our son's birthday party," indicates that the speaker is thinking in Hebrew. We can recognize the speaker's native tongue because every language has its own unique idioms and sentence structures. Often only the person who is familiar with the language of the idiom will understand the idiom. Rigidly literal translations of Hebrew idioms often give the reader the wrong impression.
In Hebrew, there are many synonyms for "salvation." The word "salvation" itself is little used. Other words express this concept more powerfully. "Righteousness" is one of the synonyms for "salvation." Zion is called "the city of righteousness" (Isaiah 1:26). The branch of David is called "the Lord is our righteousness"
Crazy how confusing it can all get real fast....
