Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Clarity on the definition of "Hebrew" as in Acts 22:2
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I would really like to hammer this down as to what is intended (the real definition on the word for "Hebrew") when a given New Testament writer mentions the "Hebrew" language as in Acts 22:2.

Is the writer , when saying something like, "which in the HEBREW is translated . . ." - like the apostle John did in his gospel about 5 times, referring to COMMON language of Aramaic spoken by Jews or does the writer mean the actual Hebrew language , the language of the temple and the scrolls?? (See John 1:41, John 1:42, John 5:2, John 19:13 and John 19:17)

Acts 22:2 says, "And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: . . ." (King James Version).

Here, let us keep in mind that at this point (in Acts 22:2) Paul, having just been arrested was just in the temple with some Gentiles. The Jews go ahold of him and arrested him and he is currently under Roman Custody - in JERUSALEM. I wish to hammer this down and asking for help. But, in my opinion, I think that when the authors of the New Testament say "Hebrew", as the example just stated above, (and pretty much ALL the references in John) - the author means just that - HEBREW and NOT the sister language of HEBREW; of which the sister language of Hebrew is Aramaic. Again, the authors, as Luke here in Acts 22:2 really means Hebrew - the mother tongue of the Jews BEFORE they were carried away into capitivity into regions of Assyria and Babylon. I say this because the context of these verses seems to strongly suggest this and NOT ONE author ever uses the word Aramaic. So, am I on the right course here?

Mike Karoules
Also, according to Acts 1:19 Peter says, "And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in THEIR proper TONGUE, 'ACEL'DAMA,' that is to say, "the field of blood."

I wish to ask if this is a specific Hebrew word or clearly an Aramaic word?? I don't know for sure but it seems to be that Peter is transliterating a HEBREW word here and this would overlap or go along with the same understanding as the other verses that I mentioned in my first post: John 1:41, John 1:42, Johyn 20:16 , John 19:13 and Acts 22:2; no??

Kindly,

Mike Karoules
I should have quoted the English translation of the Aramaic. But I will right now. How is Acts 1:19 significant to this issue?

Acts 1:19 (Etheridge); "And this has been known of all who dwell in JERUSALEM, and so is called IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COUNTRY 'Hakel-damo,' the interpretation of which is, 'A field of blood.' "

But here is Lamsa on Acts 1:19 (He seems to attempt to be more specific or add to it for some reason); Lamsa, Acts 1:19, "And this very thing is known to all who dwell in JERUSALEM; so that the field is called IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COUNTRY - 'Khakal-Dema,' whic is to say "Koriathdem,' the field of blood."

Is Peter basically doing the same thing as the writer John (John 1:41, John 1:42, John 5:2, John 19:13 and John 19:17) ??

Kindly,

Mike
Mike Kar Wrote:Also, according to Acts 1:19 Peter says, "And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in THEIR proper TONGUE, 'ACEL'DAMA,' that is to say, "the field of blood.

Hi Mike,

Both Khaqel and Qoryath (Kiryat in Hebrew) are Aramaic synonyms (like bag/sack in English.)

+Shamasha
Mike Kar Wrote:I would really like to hammer this down as to what is intended (the real definition on the word for "Hebrew") when a given New Testament writer mentions the "Hebrew" language as in Acts 22:2.

Is the writer , when saying something like, "which in the HEBREW is translated . . ." - like the apostle John did in his gospel about 5 times, referring to COMMON language of Aramaic spoken by Jews or does the writer mean the actual Hebrew language , the language of the temple and the scrolls?? (See John 1:41, John 1:42, John 5:2, John 19:13 and John 19:17)

Acts 22:2 says, "And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: . . ." (King James Version).

Here, let us keep in mind that at this point (in Acts 22:2) Paul, having just been arrested was just in the temple with some Gentiles. The Jews go ahold of him and arrested him and he is currently under Roman Custody - in JERUSALEM. I wish to hammer this down and asking for help. But, in my opinion, I think that when the authors of the New Testament say "Hebrew", as the example just stated above, (and pretty much ALL the references in John) - the author means just that - HEBREW and NOT the sister language of HEBREW; of which the sister language of Hebrew is Aramaic. Again, the authors, as Luke here in Acts 22:2 really means Hebrew - the mother tongue of the Jews BEFORE they were carried away into capitivity into regions of Assyria and Babylon. I say this because the context of these verses seems to strongly suggest this and NOT ONE author ever uses the word Aramaic. So, am I on the right course here?

Mike Karoules

Mike, this has been discussed on this forum a million times. The "Hebrew tongue" of the 1st century (and actually since the 5th century BC) was Aramaic (actually, several different Aramaic dialects depending on the region), and not the old classical Hebrew of Moses. That's why they required Aramaic Targums - very few could understand the old written Hebrew. It certainly wasn't a spoken vernacular.

Real Hebrew was not resurrected until the 19th-20th century, but even the modern tongue has differences from the ancient language of Moses. For centuries in Europe, the "Hebrew tongue" was Yiddish. For centuries in the Middle East, the "Hebrew tongue" was Judeo-Arabic. For centuries in Spain, the "Hebrew tongue" was Ladino. You get my point, I think.

+Shamasha
I never heard that before in that way. Paul, I know that if my premesis is correct then the HEBREW (of the 1st century [not first century Aramaic] ) would NOT be exactly the same as the old Mosaic Hebrew. There would have been some modifications , no doubt, as is the case for ALL languages over the passage of time. But just for the sake of discussion, it seems to me that there would be a few Hebrews (remember the Apostle Paul said he was a Hebrew of Hebrews) that would retain much of their original language and the New Testament seems to bear that out. No??

Is not John20:16 a good example where Mary, after the resurrection of Messiah, and realizing she is talking with the risen Lord says, "Rabbi" in the HEBREW with all 3 Etheridge, Murdock and Lamsa bearing this out.

The end of John 20:16 John even tells us, yet again, using those similar words of ". . .which in the HEBREW means, 'Teacher.' " The last word there, being "teacher" seems to be the Aramaic translated term but Mary actually used the HEBREW word. (using Etheridge, Murdock and Lamsa). I am just taking a shot at it here.

I have yet to see any posts on this. But I gather, as you say, it has been discussed quite a bit. But it seems to me, just looking at the verses that JOHN wrote in John 20:16, John 5:2, John 19:13 and John 19:17, John is referring to actual HEBREW words, the old Hebrew, that is, the language the Jews spoke BEFORE they were exhiled into Assyria and later to Babylon, and which, some of the remnant Jews - like the national zealots; the Pharisees, the priestly class and a few select other Jews - (those "Hebrew of Hebrews") retained. Am I missing something here? Even at Dukhrana the term for Hebrew defined in ALL of these passages can mean HEBREW or ARAMAIC I was always under thisimpression since I have been studying the Bible and since I have been a christian.

Kindly,

Mike.
Mike,
would be better if you paste quotes instead of verses numbers.
You save time of ours.
Now I am pasting them:
John 20:16 - Jesus said to her, Mary. She turned around and said to him in Hebrew, Rabbuli! which means, My Teacher!
John 5:2 - And there was there in Jerusalem a certain place of baptizing, which was called in Hebrew Bethesda; and there were in it five porches.
John 19:13 - And when Pilate heard this declaration, he brought Jesus forth, and sat upon the tribunal, in a place called the pavement of stones; but in Hebrew it is called Gabbatha.
John 19:17 - bearing his cross, to a place called a Skull, and in Hebrew called Golgotha;

Yes, looks like they relate to Mosaic Hebrew.
Also we have Yeshua which means Savior (whereas Aramaic is Mahyanan), Bethlehem, Bethania.Angel said to Mary that you call his name Yeshua for He will save His people from their sins. This is Hebrew not Aramaic origin.
On the other side we also have Mishnaic Hebrew.
Mike Kar wrote
Quote:Also, according to Acts 1:19 Peter says, "And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in THEIR proper TONGUE, 'ACEL'DAMA,' that is to say, "the field of blood."
On the other side these can be loan words from Aramaic.
As much as I remember (but not 100% sure, needs to be rechecked) once I was reading Talmud and Aramaic words were mixed with Mosaic Hebrew words and also abundantly Greek words too.
So, the Hebrew language of that time could be looking like mixture of these languages.
Therefore I did not know that any of the writers of old ever called it Aramaic.

Concerning Acts 22:2
(Etheridge)Acts 22:2 - And when they heard that Hebrew he was speaking with them, the more they ceased; and he said to them,
(Lamsa)Acts 22:2 - And when they heard him speak to them in the Hebrew tongue (Aramaic), they were the more quiet: And he said,
Lamsa seems "corrected" the author of the Acts here.

In Greek it says in "Hebrew dialect". It is evident that the Jews had some dialect
within one big language, probably and this mixture was their dialect.