[B-Greek] Aramaic or Hebrew in NET Bible

Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com
Fri Jul 31 00:58:17 EDT 2009


STeven egrapse
>Hi Folks,

Mitch Larramore Augusta, GA
>As I read the NET Bible, the translators simply can not decide
>whether or not to translate hEBRAISTi "Hebrew" or "Aramaic." What is
>going on behind the scenes that is causing this confusion? Should it
>be Hebrew or Aramaic? It can't be both, can it?


Ken Penner did an excellent SBL presentation on this question, which
includes language and history and culture, presented at the SBL
in 2004.

One post on b-greek was at:

FW: [b-greek] Hebrew =/=Aramaic
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2003-May/025398.html

These materials used to be online in various forms.  Essentially I
believe it is safe to say that his case that Hebraisti == Hebrew and
that the Greek word for Aramaic would be distinct, (a form of Chaldee
or Syriac) was very strong.  I may have a summary in my archives, but
better would be to ask Ken Penner for the full material.

The Reformation Bible scholars, eg. the Geneva and King James Bible,
always understood this as Hebrew as well.  Apparently it changed when
a non-discarded theory (partly due to DSS) of Hebrew atrophy in the
1st century became popular in the 19th century.  However modern texts
do not always catch up so quickly to modern redicoveries.

Shalom,
Steven Avery>

Steve is essentially correct on all points, including the "now-discarded"
theory (that still serves as the matrix viewpoint for many in NT studies).
However, the view that 'Hebrew' EBRAISTI means 'Aramaic' is
older than the 19th century and goes back to the reformation era when
contact with Eastern Syriac churches brought the 'Aramaic' view. The
'Aramaic' view is formed on four and more misconcalculations,
1) a lack of knowledge that words/forms like RABBOUNI were Hebrew,
since they didn't find them in the Hebrew Bible, and
2) forgetting that names of a foreign etymology cross language
borders, (Ian is an English name, a Scottish name, a Hebrew name,
all of the above. A person could use Golgotha as a Hebrew word), and
3) not recognizing that Greek replaced Hebrew forms with Aramaic ones
as a matter of preference, e.g. sikera instead of sekar when 'translating'
the LXX, or writing PesaH as PASXA instead of PESAX when translating
from Hebrew. Greek interfaced with Aramaic over the whole mideast but
only interfaced with Hebrew in Yehud.
4) an assumption that people were relying on targums in Israel as their
scripture in the first century. Something that the DSS have shown to be
false. (DSS only have "Job" for certain, and that from an Eastern source.)
5) Josephus and others did not confuse the languages as is alleged by
moderns who seem to confuse them. When Josephus said that
SABBATA meant 'rest' in Hebrew he was correct. Shabat is not a verb
in Aramaic (they used naH) and the -A ending of SABBATA comes from
the processes behind point 3 above'. Josephus even knew that the
'patriarchal language' was Hebrew, see War 5:272, which shouldn't be
surprising for a highly educated tri-lingual.

So, contra BDAG,
EBRAISTI means, surprise, EBRAISTI, i.e. Hebrew,
and SYRISTI means, Aramaic, like at Daniel 2.4.
And NET would need updating if still propogating incorrect views.

ERRWSQE
Randall



--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth at gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life



More information about the B-Greek mailing list