Hebrew vs. Aramaic

[Jesusong]

This question has to do with Hebrew and Aramaic. In John 5:2; (Bethesda), 19:13 (Gabbatha), & 19:17 (Golgatha), the NIV states these words are Aramaic. The Greek texts uses the word Hebrais which is translated as Hebrew in the KJV and NASB, yet the NIV translates it as Aramaic. Are these words Aramaic or Hebrew? And what’s the difference between these two languages?

 

[justified]

Well, technically Aramaic was the tongue of the Hebrews. FYI, ESV also gives Aramaic. The languages are extremely similar, anyways. I can't say I have a preference exactly, except to say that the words are Aramaic, not Hebrew, so that we can assume by "by the Hebrews" was meant, "in Aramaic."

 

[Jesusong]

Thanks for answering my post.

so that we can assume by "by the Hebrews" was meant, "in Aramaic."

So why didn't the writer say it was Aramaic instead of Hebrew?

The reason why I'm asking this is that it came up in my Sunday School class (of which I'm the teacher). We were covering John's explanatory remarks in his gospel. The two common versions of the bible in my church are the KJV, and NIV. When the difference of the two became evident during this lesson is when the discussion of the Hebrew and Aramaic languages began. I stated that Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic, with a little Greek, and maybe some Hebrew. I figured that Hebrew and Aramaic were related in the same way as Canadian French and Parisian French, they both claim to speak French yet neither one can understand each other, and I stated it as such in the class. Is that acceptable?
Someone else in the class stated that Aramaic was the same language as Hebrew but a different dialect. I didn't think that was correct, but I wasn't sure so I didn't say anything difinitive.

When John wrote that "such n such" in Hebrew is "whatever," is he assuming that the reader will know that he is referring to the Aramaic language and not the acuatal Hebrew language, especially when he is using Aramaic words? And how is the reader to know when they don't know either?

 

[justified]

By New Testament times speaking in Hebrew was already relatively rare. You have people who speak Greek, Latin, and in Palestine, Aramaic. Aramaic and Hebrew are both Semitic and to read Aramaic you basically learn Hebrew and then learn some alternate pronunciations. It would sound quite a bit different, so perhaps the Quebec/Paris analogy is close. Of course, most Quebecue I know in Vermont could, with difficulty, understand French proper.

Now, the word used in those passages also happens to be that used in rabbinic texts to refer to the spoken language -- Aramaic. So we just kind of have to accept it. The word "Aramaic" just doesn't get used of the Hebrew tongue, it gets used of what we call Syriac.

 

[Nazaroo]

The simple answer is that Classical (OT) Hebrew to Aramaic is like Old Saxon/Shakespearian to modern English.

The changes in the language came about by the splitting up of the people into subdivisions, by geographical and cultural placement. After the Jews lived in Babylon for 400 years*, they no longer spoke proper Hebrew, and their vocabulary was altered, via loan words and slang. In Egypt, the Alexandrian Jews had a quite different accent, resulting in a different 'pointing' of the texts, (i.e., Alexandrian, Palestinian, and Babylonian pointings).
'pointings' by the time of Christ represent vowels, and hence pronunciation of the text.

But Aramaic, because of its different vocabulary and morphology, (word endings, declensions and coordination) really is a different dialect. It has to be learned separately from Classical Hebrew.

-------
edited: * this sentence is incorrect: what I meant to express was that there is a gap of up to 400 years between the earliest biblical Hebrew and the Aramaic of Jesus' time. Sorry for the imprecision and error. The basic linguistic point is still valid.

 

[Jesusong]

Hi Naz
The Jews were in babylon for 70 years. They were in Egypt for 400 years before they were led by Moses to the promised land.

From what I've learned through studying different places recently is that Israel picked up the Aramaic language through the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. When they returned to Israel very few understood Hebrew anymore. I've discovered a website that has a column called "Aramaic Thoughts" http://www.studylight.org/col/at/
click on the archive link to see all the past articles. I've subscribed to it and I'll get a new article once a week. They also have one for Greek too. I'm finding this very fascinating.

 

[justified]

Hebrew is a derivative of Akkadian, too. All these languages are related. A long time ago, Aramaic was called "chaldee." Probably a bad word for it, though.

 

[ScottBot]

Hebrew is a derivative of Akkadian, too. All these languages are related. A long time ago, Aramaic was called "chaldee." Probably a bad word for it, though.

Actually, it is a good word for it. There is a branch of the Catholic Church called the Chaldean Catholics who speak Aramaic, and are located in Iraq (where Babylon once was). They are the ones who provided consultation to Mel Gibson during the making of "Passion of the Christ" to teach the actors how to speak in Aramaic.

 

[Nazaroo]

Hi Naz
The Jews were in babylon for 70 years. They were in Egypt for 400 years before they were led by Moses to the promised land.

Your are correct. I not only worded that badly, but incorrectly.
The linguistic point however is still sound:
Classical Hebrew as recorded in the earliest fragments of the O.T. is about 400 years older than the 'Aramaic' of Jesus' time, with the result in a gap similar to that between Old Saxon or at least Shakespearian and modern English.

 

[justified]

What is your date for the earliest fragments of the OT (and I can only imagine here you mean stands of text, not ms fragments)

 

[Nazaroo]

What is your date for the earliest fragments of the OT (and I can only imagine here you mean stands of text, not ms fragments)

Yes I meant the *language* is 400 years older, not the fragments, although the language is represented *in* the fragments, for instance from Qumran, dated approx. 200 B.C. Of course there are older non-biblical fragments in the sense of quotations of the O.T. itself, pot sherds containing messages written to carry messages during wartime, (cities under siege),and Hebrew inscriptions (Phoenician characters) in stone.

Sorry, not very clear today. Tired.

 

[FreezBee]

.... dated approx. 200 B.C. Of course there are older non-biblical fragments in the sense of quotations of the O.T. itself, ....

Ooh, just to be annoying: might it not be the other way around? These "quotations" could have been standard formulae that were later incorporated into the OT.

... Tired.

I hope you have had a good sleep


- FreezBee