12-14-2007, 04:33 AM
Dear Brantana,
I'm not a Syriac speaker nor a scholar like some here but...........when the New Testament says "in Hebrew", I believe that what it really means is "in Aramaic".
Do I have some scholarly 'proof' for this view? NO, I don't.
But if Hebrew was being 'targummed' in the Synagogues by this time, and the average Jew could no longer understand Hebrew, I think that it's even more likely that this expression mean't "in Aramaic".
Shlama, Albion
I'm not a Syriac speaker nor a scholar like some here but...........when the New Testament says "in Hebrew", I believe that what it really means is "in Aramaic".
Do I have some scholarly 'proof' for this view? NO, I don't.
But if Hebrew was being 'targummed' in the Synagogues by this time, and the average Jew could no longer understand Hebrew, I think that it's even more likely that this expression mean't "in Aramaic".
Shlama, Albion
brantana Wrote:Shlama all,
Quick question on this topic, and I may be showing ignorance, but here it is anyways...
If Latin was inscribed on the cross for the Imperial Roman and Greek was inscribed due to its pervasiveness throughout the Mediteranean, was Hebrew not utilized because it was the preiminent language of the Judean area vice Aramaic? Or stated another way: Why was Hebrew utilized when stating "Yeshua, King of the Jews" if the most common language of the area was Aramaic?
Ma'a Salama