NT Greek meets Semitic

RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Just how different are Hebrew and Aramaic?

Post by RandallButh »

Stephen Hughes wrote: How different are the various forms of Aramaic and Hebrew that they would have a discernibly different effect on the Greek?
Are their word-orders, grammars or syntaxes so different that it might affect the Greek differently?
Yes and no. Persian period Aramaic has a word order distinct from Hebrew, but late SecondTemple western Aramaic and Hebrew are close enough that there is little to distinguish them once translated into Greek. (PS: "little" does not mean "none", connectives and syntax do have slight identity points.) However, both H and A restrain 'translation Greek' because of their restricted order vis a vis Greek. Verb tenses and vocabulary choices/collocations are also affected.
With regard to features of the Greek other than loan words;
  • Are you making an academic point about how scholarly debate on the NT should be posited with regard to the language situation in Palestine at that time? OR
  • Should we be aiming to look to find recognisably "Aramaic influenced Greek" in one place, "Mishnaic Hebrewly influenced Greek" in another place, and so on for other semitic dialects...?
Both. The language profile affects interpretation. For example, people try reconstructing pieces of Mark into Aramaic when Mark's Greek profile doesn't fit Aramaic. On the other hand you get people saying things like "This scripture (builder's stone) can't be original to the parable of the vineyard because the wordplay is based on Hebrew, not Aramaic". Dumb and dumber.
With regard to accent;
  • Should we be looking at reading Greek with accents (here "accents" means προφοραί not τόνοι)?
    ...
Every little bit helps interpretation. Who wrote what? Who was the audience? What sources were used? These all play a role in gospel criticism. But when the basic linguistic background frameworks are wrong, lots of little mistakes can be made and compounded.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

References and resources for this topic?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

RandallButh wrote:Unfortunately, a meaningful discussion of the above requires acquaintance with quite a bit of material in their original language(s)
Let me ask a question here, which I originally asked on B-Hebrew. A Hebrew Lexicon which contains LXX glosses?

Have resources been developed to make it easier to make the best guess as to what Hebrew or Aramaic word or phrase is the origin of translation Greek? I guess these would be a start:
  • Hebrew-Greek reverse glossary
  • "Standard" syntactic transrormations
  • List of corresponding technical terms
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: NT Greek meets Semitic

Post by RandallButh »

Yes, the best reverse dictionary is Elmar Camilo Dos Santos, An Expanded Hebrew Index for the Hatch-REdpath Concordance to the Septuagint. It is more useful than Muraoka, but you won't need to try to track down a copy until fluent in Hebrew.

In addition to the reverse dictionary, you will want good access to a search engine for Qumran Hebrew and rabbinic texts in Hebrew. Bar-Ilan has the best texts for the rabbinic Hebrew.

Personally, I recommend becoming fluent in Hebrew before playing with these things. The addage, "a little XXXXXX is a dangerous thing" applies here, too, amply demonstrated in secondary literature.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Learning curves tend to be parabolic

Post by Stephen Hughes »

RandallButh wrote:I recommend becoming fluent in Hebrew before playing with these things. The addage, "a little XXXXXX is a dangerous thing" applies here, too, amply demonstrated in secondary literature.
Although we we initially aim for the stars in the things that we start (Per aspera ad astra), most undertakings hit the ground of practicability somewhere close to their starting point.

I have in mind initially to get to the point where I can follow what others asserting. Next, I hope to be able to comprehend what is being said. I don't expect to be come proficient enough to actively contribute to the debate.

I have an historical question about A/H based on what has been brought up;
  • Was the widespread use of Hebrew in Jerusalem because of an active revival like in the modern Zionist state where the current inhabitants had been speaking Aramaic a few generations earlier, like at the time of the LXX. OR
  • Was the situation in Alexandria an example of the loss of Hebrew as a community language in the diaspora?
I understand that a little have already been said about the fluidity of the linguistic situation around the time of Christ, but how does that relate to other regional centres?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: NT Greek meets Semitic

Post by RandallButh »

Aristeas (allegedly fitting the 3rd c BCE, but being written later) explicitly said that the people of Jerusalem do NOT speak Aramaic as is commonly assumed.
So, no, the idea that the populace first replaced Hebrew with Aramaic and then revived Hebrew is a figment of people trying to match the mistaken assumptions from the 19th century with facts on the ground.

On the other hand, yes, I would assume that the widespread use of Aramaic and Greek in a place like Alexandria represented the status quo there after a Jewish presence in Egypt of several centuries. Hebrew was not the main Jewish, non-Greek language in Alexandria. But we would also be rash to assume that all of those people were ignorant of Hebrew. The evidence simply points to the fact that the primary interface was Aramaic--Greek. And Philo probably did not know Hebrew, despite the etymologies.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: NT Greek meets Semitic

Post by Stephen Hughes »

RandallButh wrote:the idea that the populace first replaced Hebrew with Aramaic and then revived Hebrew is a figment of people trying to match the mistaken assumptions from the 19th century with facts on the ground.
Are you referring to mistaken assumptions about 19th century notions of romantic nationalism especially the relationship between nation-state and language? For example, the emergence of a number of literatures that accompanied the emergence of the post Othoman states especially in the Balkans?
RandallButh wrote:Aristeas (allegedly fitting the 3rd c BCE, but being written later) explicitly said that the people of Jerusalem do NOT speak Aramaic as is commonly assumed.
I can't find that reference in either Greek or English.

I can't think of a way to express that in Greek either.... Was there even a word for Aramaic in Greek. How were Hebrew and Aramaic differentiated?

[So far as I've heard that Greek doesn't have a separate word for Aramaic - reason being that Ἑβραϊστί means "What the Hebrew's speak", refering more to the people than to what we would define as "language". Modern Greek, with a new way of thinking about language, has the word Αραμαϊκά, but a word like Ἀραμαϊστί in the Koine period would mean the language of the Aramaeans - a people group's way of speaking.]
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: NT Greek meets Semitic

Post by RandallButh »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
RandallButh wrote:the idea that the populace first replaced Hebrew with Aramaic and then revived Hebrew is a figment of people trying to match the mistaken assumptions from the 19th century with facts on the ground.
Are you referring to mistaken assumptions about 19th century notions of romantic nationalism especially the relationship between nation-state and language? For example, the emergence of a number of literatures that accompanied the emergence of the post Othoman states especially in the Balkans?
Stephen,

Your first question refers to 19th century ideas that Hebrew had 'died out during the exile' and that any further reference must be artificial. When Josephus was describing Nehemiah hearing two people from Jerusalem speaking Hebrew (Ant 11.159-160), that should be taken on face value, since it fits everything that we now know. Artificiality is simply not an option any more, so looking at evidence no longer starts with an assumption of artificiality or resurrection, etc.
RandallButh wrote:Aristeas (allegedly fitting the 3rd c BCE, but being written later) explicitly said that the people of Jerusalem do NOT speak Aramaic as is commonly assumed.
I can't find that reference in either Greek or English.
Try Aristeas 11
Τί τὸ κωλῦον οὖν, εἶπεν, ἐστί σε τοῦτο ποιῆσαι; πάντα γὰρ ὑποτέτακταί σοι τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν. ¶ ὁ δὲ Δημήτριος εἶπεν Ἑρμηνείας προσδεῖται· χαρακτῆρσι γὰρ ἰδίοις κατὰ Ἰουδαίων χρῶνται, καθάπερ Αἰγύπτιοι τῇ τῶν γραμμάτων θέσει, καθὸ καὶ φωνὴν ἰδίαν ἔχουσιν. ὑπολαμβάνονται Συριακῇ χρῆσθαι· τὸ δ᾿ οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἕτερος τρόπος. ¶ Μεταλαβὼν δὲ ἕκαστα ὁ βασιλεὺς εἶπε γραφῆναι πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιερέα τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅπως τὰ προειρημένα τελείωσιν λάβῃ.
I can't think of a way to express that in Greek either.... Was there even a word for Aramaic in Greek. How were Hebrew and Aramaic differentiated?
Try Συριακῇ and friends.
συριστί means in Aramaic.
Ken M. Penner
Posts: 881
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada
Contact:

Re: NT Greek meets Linguistics

Post by Ken M. Penner »

RandallButh wrote:Steven E. Fassberg, “Which Semitic Language Did Jesus and Other Contemporary Jews Speak?” CBQ 74–2 (April 2012), 263–280.
The PDF is available at http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.t ... ssberg.pdf
Ken M. Penner
Professor and Chair of Religious Studies, St. Francis Xavier University
Co-Editor, Digital Biblical Studies
General Editor, Lexham English Septuagint
Co-Editor, Online Critical Pseudepigrapha pseudepigrapha.org
Ken M. Penner
Posts: 881
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada
Contact:

Re: NT Greek meets Semitic

Post by Ken M. Penner »

Stephen Hughes wrote:I can't think of a way to express that in Greek either.... Was there even a word for Aramaic in Greek. How were Hebrew and Aramaic differentiated?

[So far as I've heard that Greek doesn't have a separate word for Aramaic - reason being that Ἑβραϊστί means "What the Hebrew's speak", refering more to the people than to what we would define as "language". Modern Greek, with a new way of thinking about language, has the word Αραμαϊκά, but a word like Ἀραμαϊστί in the Koine period would mean the language of the Aramaeans - a people group's way of speaking.]
I address these questions in a couple of talks I gave, one from 2003: https://www.academia.edu/1669906/What_l ... nd_Aramaic and the other at SBL in 2004 https://www.academia.edu/1669907/Ancien ... l_Revision
Ken M. Penner
Professor and Chair of Religious Studies, St. Francis Xavier University
Co-Editor, Digital Biblical Studies
General Editor, Lexham English Septuagint
Co-Editor, Online Critical Pseudepigrapha pseudepigrapha.org
Devenios Doulenios
Posts: 230
Joined: May 31st, 2011, 5:11 pm
Location: Carlisle, Arkansas, USA
Contact:

Re: NT Greek meets Semitic

Post by Devenios Doulenios »

Randall,

Are there any freely-accessible online articles or book excerpts which discuss the evidence in favor of colloquial Hebrew use in NT times you could point me to?

I'm certainly open to the idea that Hebrew is the dominant language in the Semitic millieu then, but just wondering: how does the language of the Masada documents fit in? Aren't most of the Bar-Kosiba letters and other Jewish docs found at Masada in Aramaic? (I have only read Yadin's book, so there may be other evidence I'm not aware of.)

As always, a fascinating topic.

Δεβἐνιος Δουλἐνιος
Dewayne Dulaney
Dewayne Dulaney
Δεβένιος Δουλένιος

Blog: https://letancientvoicesspeak.wordpress.com/

"Ὁδοὶ δύο εἰσί, μία τῆς ζωῆς καὶ μία τοῦ θανάτου."--Διδαχή Α, α'
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”