Excerpt from: Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus – New Insights From a Hebraic Perspective by David Biven and Roy Blizzard, Jr. (Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., Shippensburg, PA)
Introduction
It is indeed unfortunate that of all the New Testament writings, the words and sayings of Jesus himself are the most difficult to understand. Most Christians are unconsciously devoting the majority of their time in Bible study to the Epistles – almost completely ignoring the historical and Hebraic Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Without really understanding why, they tend to just “read over” the Synoptic Gospels. Phrases such as “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3)[1] sound so beautiful and poetic, but for the English speaker, do they convey any real depth of meaning?
Why are the words of Jesus that we find in the Synoptic Gospels so difficult to understand? The answer is that the original gospel that formed the basis for the Synoptic Gospels was first communicated, not in Greek, but in the Hebrew language. This means that we are reading English translations of a text which is itself a translation. 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 more Hebraic the saying or teaching of Jesus, the more difficult it is for us to understand. But it is just these Hebraic teachings that are often the strongest or most important. 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 peculiar to itself either in grammatical construction or in having a meaning which cannot be derived as a whole from the conjoined meanings of its elements.”[2] Some examples of English idioms would be: “Kill time,” or “Hit the ceiling,” or “Eat your heart out.” Many of the idioms that Jesus used in his teachings can be understood only when properly interpreted in a Hebrew context.
David Bivin relates his own experience as follows:
I began my Bible reading as a teenager. My greatest difficulty was trying to understand the words of Jesus. I would note sayings of Jesus, such as “For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?”(Luke 23:31);[3] or “…From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force”(Matthew 11:12).[4]
Picture a teenager trying to make sense out of such good King James English as, “I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!” (Luke 12:49-50).[5] I would question my pastor or teachers or visiting seminary professors as to the meaning of such passages and would invariably receive the common response: “Just keep reading, son, the Bible will interpret itself.”
The truth is that one can keep reading the Bible forever, and the Bible will not tell him the meaning of these difficult passages. They can be understood only when translated back into Hebrew. What my pastor and teachers should have admonished was, “Son, learn Hebrew! These are all Hebrew expressions or idioms that can be understood only if you know Hebrew.”
These men of God I questioned could not help me; however, they cannot be blamed for the lack of an answer. No one had ever suggested to them that the most important tool for understanding the Bible – both Old and New Testaments – is Hebrew, and that Hebrew is the key to understanding the words of Jesus.
By the time I went to Israel at the age of 24 to study at the Hebrew University, I had almost stopped reading the Gospels. It wasn’t that I wasn’t reading the Bible. I was reading the Bible more than ever before, but I was unconsciously neglecting the Gospels; yet, here were the real words and teachings of Jesus.
Our reasons for writing this book are not only to show that the original biography of Jesus was communicated in the Hebrew language, but to show that the entire New Testament can only be understood from a Hebraic perspective.
Most Christians are aware that the Old Testament was originally communicated in Hebrew, and that it is important to know Hebrew to understand the Old Testament. What they do not recognize, however, is the importance of Hebrew in understanding the New Testament.
It should be emphasized that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is, in its entirety, highly Hebraic. In spite of the fact that portions of the New Testament were communicated in Greek, the background is thoroughly Hebrew. The writers are Hebrew, the culture is Hebrew, the religion is Hebrew, the traditions are Hebrew, and the concepts are Hebrew.
We tend to forget that the Old Testament comprises approximately 78 percent of the biblical text, and the New Testament only 22 percent. When we add the highly Hebraic portions of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts 1:1-15:35, [6] approximately 43 percent of the New Testament) to the Old Testament, the percentage of biblical material originally written in Hebrew rises to 88 percent (or 87 percent if we omit the portions of Ezra and Daniel – less than 1 percent of the Old Testament – composed in Aramaic). Not more than 12 percent of the entire Bible was originally written in Greek. When we subtract from that 12 percent the 176 quotations from the Old Testament (14 Old Testament quotations in John and 162 from Acts 15:36 to the end of the New Testament), the percentage of the Bible originally composed in Hebrew rises to over 90 percent.
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 laypersons alike. Today, as a result of recent research, we know that the key to our understanding of this material is Hebrew. To this present day there has been in New Testament studies a disproportionate stress placed on the study of Greek and Hellenism. If any additional advances are to be made, especially in better understanding the words of Jesus, the concentration must shift to the study of Hebrew history and culture, and above all, the Hebrew language.
An Examination of the Aramaic and Greek Theories
In view of the fact that the majority of New Testament scholars have in recent times favored an Aramaic or Greek origin for the Synoptic Gospels, it is necessary for us to examine the pros and cons of these two theories.
The Aramaic Theory
It is interesting that the same individuals who espouse the inerrancy of the Scriptures will take the specific passages in the New Testament that refer 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 the most capable of working with the biblical text, namely, Bible translators, have translated “Aramaic” when the original text specifically states “Hebrew.” For example, The New International Version, published by Zondervan Bible Publishers, in both of the above-mentioned passages in Acts, purposely translates “Hebrew” as “Aramaic,” and only in 26:14 does it even bother to give the footnote “or Hebrew” in italics at the bottom of the page. The New American Standard Bible translates “Hebrew dialect” in both passages, but adds the footnote, “i.e. Jewish Aramaic.”
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 seem to be Aramaic, words or phrases scattered through the New Testament text, particularly the text of the Gospels. In fact, there is much stronger evidence against the theory of Aramaic origins.[7]
According to the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Bezae, three of the most ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, dating from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., it is stated that the inscription “This is the King of the Jews” (Luke 23:38) over the cross of Jesus was written in “Greek, Latin, and Hebrew letters.” Is it not significant that the oldest Greek textual tradition infers that Hebrew was more popular than Aramaic in this period?
Those who claim an Aramaic cultural milieu for that period have often noted that our Gospels contain Aramaic words like “Talitha cumi,” “Ephphata,” “Rabboni,” and a few others. Although it is true that our Gospels do have some Aramaic words, so do all the Hebrew documents written around the time of Jesus – for instance, the Mishnah and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Book of Jeremiah, dating from a much earlier period and overwhelmingly Hebrew, includes a sentence in Aramaic (Jeremiah 10:11). Even the Book of Genesis contains a two-word Aramaic phrase (Genesis 31:47).[8]
In the Hebrew of the first century, we find many Aramaic loan words, i.e., words borrowed from Aramaic. This is also true of the New Testament; however, upon closer scrutiny, many supposed Aramaic words turn out to be Hebrew. For instance, sikera (strong drink, Luke 1:15), is always included in lists of the Aramaic words of the New Testament. Because of the ending “a,” it is assumed that sikera is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic shikra, rather than the Hebrew sheichar. However, if one will check in Hatch-Redpath’s A Concordance to the Septuagint,[9] he will note that sikera is the standard Greek translation of the Hebrew sheikar. The “a” ending is not the Aramaic definite article, but simply the Greek neuter ending. What is true of the “a” in sikera is also true of the “a” in Sabbata (Matthew 12:10) and Pascha (Passover, Luke 2:41).
Even the presence of an Aramaic word, such as Abba (Mark 14:36), does not prove the existence of an Aramaic original. Abba appears over and over in the Hebrew writings of the period as a loan word, borrowed from Aramaic because of its special flavor and used in the same way as we use “daddy” or “papa” in English. Today, in modern Israel, children use Abba in addressing their fathers, exactly the same way as it was used in the time of Jesus.
Perhaps the most often quoted Aramaism in the New Testament is the sentence in Mark 15:34, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabakthani.” These words are Aramaic, but it is doubtful that Jesus spoke them as Mark records – the people hearing the words thought Jesus was calling Elijah. For them to make such a mistake, Jesus would have to have cried, “Eli, Eli,” not “Eloi, Eloi.” Why? Because Eli in Hebrew can be either “My God,” or a shortened form of Eliyahu, Hebrew for Elijah. But the Aramaic “Eloi” can be only “My God.” One must note that Matthew’s account records just that, i.e., “Eli, Eli, (Matthew 27:46). Further, lama (“why”) is the same word in both languages, and sabak is a verb which is found not only in Aramaic, but also in Mishnaic Hebrew.
On the basis of the few Aramaic words that might be found, should we overlook the many more numerous Hebrew words that appear in the Greek text of the Gospels, such as: levonah (frankincense, Matthew 2:11), mammon (Luke 16:9), Wai (Woe! Matthew 23:13), rabbi (Matthew 23:7,8) Beelzebub (Luke 11:15), corban (Mark 7:11), Satan (Luke 10:18), cammon (cumin, Matthew 23:23), raca (a term of contempt; literally, “empty,” Matthew 5:22), moreh (rebel, Matthew 5:22), bath (a wet measure, between 8-9 gallons, Luke 16:6), kor (a dry measure, between 10-12 bushels, Luke 16:7), zuneem (tares, Matthew 13:25), Boanerges (Mark 3:17), mor (myrrh, Luke 7:37), sheekmah (sycamore, Luke 17:6), and amen, which appears about 100 times in the Greek text of the Gospels.
Today, the evidence for Hebrew is quite overwhelming, and yet many Christians still cling to the outmoded Aramaic hypothesis as if their faith depended upon it. Over the years, whenever any scholar argued in favor of Hebrew or when Hebrew scrolls or inscriptions came to light, advocates of the Aramaic theory were quick to explain away the evidence. For example:
1. When the New Testament or Josephus says, “Hebrew,” proponents of the Aramaic hypothesis say “What is meant is ‘Aramaic.’”
2. When only Hebrew, Greek or a few Latin inscriptions were found from the Roman period in the Temple Mount excavations, it was said of the Hebrew inscriptions: “They are only representative of the Hebrew used by the priests in the sacred area, but not indicative of the spoken language of the common man.”
3. It was said of the Mishnah and other rabbinic works: “These admittedly are written in Hebrew, but it is an artificial language used only for study and discussion by the Rabbis and their students in the Talmudic academies.”
Concerning this last argument, it should be noted that as early as 1927, the great Jewish scholar, M.H. Segal, demonstrated conclusively that Mishnaic Hebrew was not an artificial language used only by rabbinic scholars in Talmudic academies, but that it exhibits all the characteristics of a living language.[10]
The authors do not wish to imply that Aramaic, as well as Greek, were not spoken in Israel in the first centuries B.C.-A.D. Certainly most of the people were multilingual, or at least bilingual, with Aramaic, Greek, and even some Latin in common use alongside of Hebrew.
To quote Segal:
What was the language of ordinary life of educated native Jews in Jerusalem and Judea in the period from 400 B.C. to 150 A.D.? The evidence presented by Mishnaic Hebrew and its literature leaves no doubt that that language was Mishnaic Hebrew. Of course, those educated Judeans also understood Aramaic, and used it even in writing, but only occasionally, and not habitually – in the same way as…the Flamund in Belgium may often use French (Segal 1927:13).
Segal’s conclusions were largely ignored by Christian scholars and soon forgotten.
Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, the leading proponents of the Aramaic theory have gradually begun to modify their views. Matthew Black, for instance, in the third edition [11] of his influential book, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, remarks:
The Qumran discoveries have also shed fresh light on the problem. M. Wilcox writes: “With regard to the matter of language, we ought to note that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has now placed at our disposal information of a highly interesting and relevant nature…. The nonbiblical texts show us a free, living language, and attest the fact that in New Testament times, and for some considerable time previously, Hebrew was not confined to Rabbinical circles by any means, but appeared as a normal vehicle of expression.”[12]
If this is a correct estimate of the Qumran evidence, where Hebrew certainly vastly predominates over Aramaic, then it may be held to confirm the view identified with the name of Professor Segal that Hebrew was actually a spoken vernacular in Judaea in the time of Christ (Black 1967:47).
It cannot be ignored when discussing the linguistic milieu of first-century Palestine that the foremost Aramaic theorist, Matthew Black, is now obliged to admit: “We must nevertheless allow possibly more than has been done before for the use of Hebrew in addition to (or instead of) Aramaic by Jesus Himself.” (Black, 1967: 49).
The Greek Theory
Although the overwhelming majority of scholars subscribe to a Semitic origin for the Gospels, there are those, nonetheless, such as the English scholar Nigel Turner,[13] who propose a Greek origin. Apart from linguistic and cultural arguments for Semitic origin, it remains an important fact that the poor Greek of the Synoptic Gospels is found basically only in literary works that are translations from Semitic originals, such as the Septuagint.
Many Gospel expressions are not just poor Greek, but actually meaningless in Greek. One brief example will suffice to illustrate this fact. The text of Matthew 6:22-23 literally reads: “The lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is good, your whole body is full of light; but if your eye is bad your whole body is full of darkness…” The expressions “good eye”[14] and “bad eye” are common Hebrew idioms for “generous” and “miserly.” Greek has no such idioms, and in Greek this statement of Jesus is meaningless, just as it is in English.
Why is the Greek of the Gospels such poor Greek? Very simply, because the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not really Greek, but Hebrew words in Greek dress, or we might say, “translation” Greek. Are we claiming that the Synoptic Gospels were not originally written in Greek? To this we must answer “yes” and “no.” The Synoptic Gospels as we have them today were originally written in Greek; however, the text from which they descended was originally translated from a Hebrew archetype.
It is easy to see how scholars, not understanding this process of Gospel textual transmission, could assume a Greek text. However, it is the undertext of our canonical Gospels that reveals the Hebrew original.[15]
Our canonical Gospels are based on Greek texts derived from the Greek translation of the original Hebrew story of the life of Jesus.
It is most unfortunate that our Bible colleges and seminaries focus their attention on Greek and Hellenistic theology, and fail, by and large, to equip their students with the proper tools that would allow them to do serious biblical exegesis. A strong statement, to be sure; but sadly, all too true. It cannot be overemphasized, that the key to an understanding of the New Testament is a fluent knowledge of Hebrew and an intimate acquaintance with Jewish history, culture, and Rabbinic Literature.
The evidence for Aramaic or Greek origins of the Synoptic Gospels simply will not stand up under critical analysis. There is far more substantial evidence indicating a Hebrew origin of the Synoptic Gospels.
1. See pages 81-82 of the Appendix.
2. Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language (G. & C. Merriam Co.).
3. See pages 82-84 of the Appendix.
4. See pages 84-87 of the Appendix.
5. See pages 87-103 of the Appendix.
6. The first 15 chapters of Acts show some of the same textual evidence as the Synoptic Gospels of being originally communicated in Hebrew. They deal with events in Jerusalem and are recounted in a Hebrew context. In Acts 15:36 there is a shift to Greek as Luke himself begins to describe Paul’s missionary journeys.
7. See pages 31-33 for a short history of the Aramaic language.
8. We have previously noted (page 5) that portions of Ezra and Daniel (Ezra 4:8-6:18, 7:12-26; Daniel 2:4-7:28), less that 1% of the Old Testament, were composed in Aramaic.
9. See Bibliography, page 129. (The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, from the second century B.C.)
10. In Fact, Segal first put forward his views in 1909 in an article which appeared in the Jewish Quarterly Review, Volume XX, pages 647-737.
11. The second edition of Black’s book was written before the Qumran texts became available to scholars.
12. Max Wilcox is one of the many student of Professor Black. The quotation is from Wilcox’s The Semitisms of Acts (1965), page 14.
13. See Bibliography, page 130.
14. See the discussion of “good eye” on pages 104-105 of the Appendix.
15. See Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion of the evidence for the Hebrew undertext.
[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 1/8/2004 10:04p).]
Introduction
It is indeed unfortunate that of all the New Testament writings, the words and sayings of Jesus himself are the most difficult to understand. Most Christians are unconsciously devoting the majority of their time in Bible study to the Epistles – almost completely ignoring the historical and Hebraic Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Without really understanding why, they tend to just “read over” the Synoptic Gospels. Phrases such as “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3)[1] sound so beautiful and poetic, but for the English speaker, do they convey any real depth of meaning?
Why are the words of Jesus that we find in the Synoptic Gospels so difficult to understand? The answer is that the original gospel that formed the basis for the Synoptic Gospels was first communicated, not in Greek, but in the Hebrew language. This means that we are reading English translations of a text which is itself a translation. 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 more Hebraic the saying or teaching of Jesus, the more difficult it is for us to understand. But it is just these Hebraic teachings that are often the strongest or most important. 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 peculiar to itself either in grammatical construction or in having a meaning which cannot be derived as a whole from the conjoined meanings of its elements.”[2] Some examples of English idioms would be: “Kill time,” or “Hit the ceiling,” or “Eat your heart out.” Many of the idioms that Jesus used in his teachings can be understood only when properly interpreted in a Hebrew context.
David Bivin relates his own experience as follows:
I began my Bible reading as a teenager. My greatest difficulty was trying to understand the words of Jesus. I would note sayings of Jesus, such as “For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?”(Luke 23:31);[3] or “…From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force”(Matthew 11:12).[4]
Picture a teenager trying to make sense out of such good King James English as, “I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!” (Luke 12:49-50).[5] I would question my pastor or teachers or visiting seminary professors as to the meaning of such passages and would invariably receive the common response: “Just keep reading, son, the Bible will interpret itself.”
The truth is that one can keep reading the Bible forever, and the Bible will not tell him the meaning of these difficult passages. They can be understood only when translated back into Hebrew. What my pastor and teachers should have admonished was, “Son, learn Hebrew! These are all Hebrew expressions or idioms that can be understood only if you know Hebrew.”
These men of God I questioned could not help me; however, they cannot be blamed for the lack of an answer. No one had ever suggested to them that the most important tool for understanding the Bible – both Old and New Testaments – is Hebrew, and that Hebrew is the key to understanding the words of Jesus.
By the time I went to Israel at the age of 24 to study at the Hebrew University, I had almost stopped reading the Gospels. It wasn’t that I wasn’t reading the Bible. I was reading the Bible more than ever before, but I was unconsciously neglecting the Gospels; yet, here were the real words and teachings of Jesus.
Our reasons for writing this book are not only to show that the original biography of Jesus was communicated in the Hebrew language, but to show that the entire New Testament can only be understood from a Hebraic perspective.
Most Christians are aware that the Old Testament was originally communicated in Hebrew, and that it is important to know Hebrew to understand the Old Testament. What they do not recognize, however, is the importance of Hebrew in understanding the New Testament.
It should be emphasized that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is, in its entirety, highly Hebraic. In spite of the fact that portions of the New Testament were communicated in Greek, the background is thoroughly Hebrew. The writers are Hebrew, the culture is Hebrew, the religion is Hebrew, the traditions are Hebrew, and the concepts are Hebrew.
We tend to forget that the Old Testament comprises approximately 78 percent of the biblical text, and the New Testament only 22 percent. When we add the highly Hebraic portions of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts 1:1-15:35, [6] approximately 43 percent of the New Testament) to the Old Testament, the percentage of biblical material originally written in Hebrew rises to 88 percent (or 87 percent if we omit the portions of Ezra and Daniel – less than 1 percent of the Old Testament – composed in Aramaic). Not more than 12 percent of the entire Bible was originally written in Greek. When we subtract from that 12 percent the 176 quotations from the Old Testament (14 Old Testament quotations in John and 162 from Acts 15:36 to the end of the New Testament), the percentage of the Bible originally composed in Hebrew rises to over 90 percent.
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 laypersons alike. Today, as a result of recent research, we know that the key to our understanding of this material is Hebrew. To this present day there has been in New Testament studies a disproportionate stress placed on the study of Greek and Hellenism. If any additional advances are to be made, especially in better understanding the words of Jesus, the concentration must shift to the study of Hebrew history and culture, and above all, the Hebrew language.
An Examination of the Aramaic and Greek Theories
In view of the fact that the majority of New Testament scholars have in recent times favored an Aramaic or Greek origin for the Synoptic Gospels, it is necessary for us to examine the pros and cons of these two theories.
The Aramaic Theory
It is interesting that the same individuals who espouse the inerrancy of the Scriptures will take the specific passages in the New Testament that refer 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 the most capable of working with the biblical text, namely, Bible translators, have translated “Aramaic” when the original text specifically states “Hebrew.” For example, The New International Version, published by Zondervan Bible Publishers, in both of the above-mentioned passages in Acts, purposely translates “Hebrew” as “Aramaic,” and only in 26:14 does it even bother to give the footnote “or Hebrew” in italics at the bottom of the page. The New American Standard Bible translates “Hebrew dialect” in both passages, but adds the footnote, “i.e. Jewish Aramaic.”
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 seem to be Aramaic, words or phrases scattered through the New Testament text, particularly the text of the Gospels. In fact, there is much stronger evidence against the theory of Aramaic origins.[7]
According to the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Bezae, three of the most ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, dating from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., it is stated that the inscription “This is the King of the Jews” (Luke 23:38) over the cross of Jesus was written in “Greek, Latin, and Hebrew letters.” Is it not significant that the oldest Greek textual tradition infers that Hebrew was more popular than Aramaic in this period?
Those who claim an Aramaic cultural milieu for that period have often noted that our Gospels contain Aramaic words like “Talitha cumi,” “Ephphata,” “Rabboni,” and a few others. Although it is true that our Gospels do have some Aramaic words, so do all the Hebrew documents written around the time of Jesus – for instance, the Mishnah and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Book of Jeremiah, dating from a much earlier period and overwhelmingly Hebrew, includes a sentence in Aramaic (Jeremiah 10:11). Even the Book of Genesis contains a two-word Aramaic phrase (Genesis 31:47).[8]
In the Hebrew of the first century, we find many Aramaic loan words, i.e., words borrowed from Aramaic. This is also true of the New Testament; however, upon closer scrutiny, many supposed Aramaic words turn out to be Hebrew. For instance, sikera (strong drink, Luke 1:15), is always included in lists of the Aramaic words of the New Testament. Because of the ending “a,” it is assumed that sikera is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic shikra, rather than the Hebrew sheichar. However, if one will check in Hatch-Redpath’s A Concordance to the Septuagint,[9] he will note that sikera is the standard Greek translation of the Hebrew sheikar. The “a” ending is not the Aramaic definite article, but simply the Greek neuter ending. What is true of the “a” in sikera is also true of the “a” in Sabbata (Matthew 12:10) and Pascha (Passover, Luke 2:41).
Even the presence of an Aramaic word, such as Abba (Mark 14:36), does not prove the existence of an Aramaic original. Abba appears over and over in the Hebrew writings of the period as a loan word, borrowed from Aramaic because of its special flavor and used in the same way as we use “daddy” or “papa” in English. Today, in modern Israel, children use Abba in addressing their fathers, exactly the same way as it was used in the time of Jesus.
Perhaps the most often quoted Aramaism in the New Testament is the sentence in Mark 15:34, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabakthani.” These words are Aramaic, but it is doubtful that Jesus spoke them as Mark records – the people hearing the words thought Jesus was calling Elijah. For them to make such a mistake, Jesus would have to have cried, “Eli, Eli,” not “Eloi, Eloi.” Why? Because Eli in Hebrew can be either “My God,” or a shortened form of Eliyahu, Hebrew for Elijah. But the Aramaic “Eloi” can be only “My God.” One must note that Matthew’s account records just that, i.e., “Eli, Eli, (Matthew 27:46). Further, lama (“why”) is the same word in both languages, and sabak is a verb which is found not only in Aramaic, but also in Mishnaic Hebrew.
On the basis of the few Aramaic words that might be found, should we overlook the many more numerous Hebrew words that appear in the Greek text of the Gospels, such as: levonah (frankincense, Matthew 2:11), mammon (Luke 16:9), Wai (Woe! Matthew 23:13), rabbi (Matthew 23:7,8) Beelzebub (Luke 11:15), corban (Mark 7:11), Satan (Luke 10:18), cammon (cumin, Matthew 23:23), raca (a term of contempt; literally, “empty,” Matthew 5:22), moreh (rebel, Matthew 5:22), bath (a wet measure, between 8-9 gallons, Luke 16:6), kor (a dry measure, between 10-12 bushels, Luke 16:7), zuneem (tares, Matthew 13:25), Boanerges (Mark 3:17), mor (myrrh, Luke 7:37), sheekmah (sycamore, Luke 17:6), and amen, which appears about 100 times in the Greek text of the Gospels.
Today, the evidence for Hebrew is quite overwhelming, and yet many Christians still cling to the outmoded Aramaic hypothesis as if their faith depended upon it. Over the years, whenever any scholar argued in favor of Hebrew or when Hebrew scrolls or inscriptions came to light, advocates of the Aramaic theory were quick to explain away the evidence. For example:
1. When the New Testament or Josephus says, “Hebrew,” proponents of the Aramaic hypothesis say “What is meant is ‘Aramaic.’”
2. When only Hebrew, Greek or a few Latin inscriptions were found from the Roman period in the Temple Mount excavations, it was said of the Hebrew inscriptions: “They are only representative of the Hebrew used by the priests in the sacred area, but not indicative of the spoken language of the common man.”
3. It was said of the Mishnah and other rabbinic works: “These admittedly are written in Hebrew, but it is an artificial language used only for study and discussion by the Rabbis and their students in the Talmudic academies.”
Concerning this last argument, it should be noted that as early as 1927, the great Jewish scholar, M.H. Segal, demonstrated conclusively that Mishnaic Hebrew was not an artificial language used only by rabbinic scholars in Talmudic academies, but that it exhibits all the characteristics of a living language.[10]
The authors do not wish to imply that Aramaic, as well as Greek, were not spoken in Israel in the first centuries B.C.-A.D. Certainly most of the people were multilingual, or at least bilingual, with Aramaic, Greek, and even some Latin in common use alongside of Hebrew.
To quote Segal:
What was the language of ordinary life of educated native Jews in Jerusalem and Judea in the period from 400 B.C. to 150 A.D.? The evidence presented by Mishnaic Hebrew and its literature leaves no doubt that that language was Mishnaic Hebrew. Of course, those educated Judeans also understood Aramaic, and used it even in writing, but only occasionally, and not habitually – in the same way as…the Flamund in Belgium may often use French (Segal 1927:13).
Segal’s conclusions were largely ignored by Christian scholars and soon forgotten.
Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, the leading proponents of the Aramaic theory have gradually begun to modify their views. Matthew Black, for instance, in the third edition [11] of his influential book, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, remarks:
The Qumran discoveries have also shed fresh light on the problem. M. Wilcox writes: “With regard to the matter of language, we ought to note that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has now placed at our disposal information of a highly interesting and relevant nature…. The nonbiblical texts show us a free, living language, and attest the fact that in New Testament times, and for some considerable time previously, Hebrew was not confined to Rabbinical circles by any means, but appeared as a normal vehicle of expression.”[12]
If this is a correct estimate of the Qumran evidence, where Hebrew certainly vastly predominates over Aramaic, then it may be held to confirm the view identified with the name of Professor Segal that Hebrew was actually a spoken vernacular in Judaea in the time of Christ (Black 1967:47).
It cannot be ignored when discussing the linguistic milieu of first-century Palestine that the foremost Aramaic theorist, Matthew Black, is now obliged to admit: “We must nevertheless allow possibly more than has been done before for the use of Hebrew in addition to (or instead of) Aramaic by Jesus Himself.” (Black, 1967: 49).
The Greek Theory
Although the overwhelming majority of scholars subscribe to a Semitic origin for the Gospels, there are those, nonetheless, such as the English scholar Nigel Turner,[13] who propose a Greek origin. Apart from linguistic and cultural arguments for Semitic origin, it remains an important fact that the poor Greek of the Synoptic Gospels is found basically only in literary works that are translations from Semitic originals, such as the Septuagint.
Many Gospel expressions are not just poor Greek, but actually meaningless in Greek. One brief example will suffice to illustrate this fact. The text of Matthew 6:22-23 literally reads: “The lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is good, your whole body is full of light; but if your eye is bad your whole body is full of darkness…” The expressions “good eye”[14] and “bad eye” are common Hebrew idioms for “generous” and “miserly.” Greek has no such idioms, and in Greek this statement of Jesus is meaningless, just as it is in English.
Why is the Greek of the Gospels such poor Greek? Very simply, because the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not really Greek, but Hebrew words in Greek dress, or we might say, “translation” Greek. Are we claiming that the Synoptic Gospels were not originally written in Greek? To this we must answer “yes” and “no.” The Synoptic Gospels as we have them today were originally written in Greek; however, the text from which they descended was originally translated from a Hebrew archetype.
It is easy to see how scholars, not understanding this process of Gospel textual transmission, could assume a Greek text. However, it is the undertext of our canonical Gospels that reveals the Hebrew original.[15]
Our canonical Gospels are based on Greek texts derived from the Greek translation of the original Hebrew story of the life of Jesus.
It is most unfortunate that our Bible colleges and seminaries focus their attention on Greek and Hellenistic theology, and fail, by and large, to equip their students with the proper tools that would allow them to do serious biblical exegesis. A strong statement, to be sure; but sadly, all too true. It cannot be overemphasized, that the key to an understanding of the New Testament is a fluent knowledge of Hebrew and an intimate acquaintance with Jewish history, culture, and Rabbinic Literature.
The evidence for Aramaic or Greek origins of the Synoptic Gospels simply will not stand up under critical analysis. There is far more substantial evidence indicating a Hebrew origin of the Synoptic Gospels.
1. See pages 81-82 of the Appendix.
2. Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language (G. & C. Merriam Co.).
3. See pages 82-84 of the Appendix.
4. See pages 84-87 of the Appendix.
5. See pages 87-103 of the Appendix.
6. The first 15 chapters of Acts show some of the same textual evidence as the Synoptic Gospels of being originally communicated in Hebrew. They deal with events in Jerusalem and are recounted in a Hebrew context. In Acts 15:36 there is a shift to Greek as Luke himself begins to describe Paul’s missionary journeys.
7. See pages 31-33 for a short history of the Aramaic language.
8. We have previously noted (page 5) that portions of Ezra and Daniel (Ezra 4:8-6:18, 7:12-26; Daniel 2:4-7:28), less that 1% of the Old Testament, were composed in Aramaic.
9. See Bibliography, page 129. (The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, from the second century B.C.)
10. In Fact, Segal first put forward his views in 1909 in an article which appeared in the Jewish Quarterly Review, Volume XX, pages 647-737.
11. The second edition of Black’s book was written before the Qumran texts became available to scholars.
12. Max Wilcox is one of the many student of Professor Black. The quotation is from Wilcox’s The Semitisms of Acts (1965), page 14.
13. See Bibliography, page 130.
14. See the discussion of “good eye” on pages 104-105 of the Appendix.
15. See Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion of the evidence for the Hebrew undertext.
[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 1/8/2004 10:04p).]
