The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
samuelthesearcher, Hannah Walters, Harry Kevin, BadAppleGabe, Brian the Seeker
6,193 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 members (EastCatholic, 1 invisible), 516 guests, and 107 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,540
Posts417,759
Members6,193
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
Member
Member
R Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Quote
Originally posted by Teen Of The Incarnate Logos:
For what it's worth, I just spoke with a very knowledgeable Jew who said that Christ and his peers probably spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew.

Logos Teen
Please ask him...

What is the diffrence between High Hebrew (Temple Hebrew or Biblical Hebrew) which he might know as Sephardi - and common Hebrew?

Ask him what is the diffrence between common Hebrew (at the time of Christ) and Aramaic? and specfically in sound or phonetics. Were they very close or far diffrent.

Ask him if Hebrew is a variant of Aramaic? (this question is a test).

Depending upon his answers and my trust of them - I shall prepare my shoes for eating.

-ray


-ray
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
Member
Member
R Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Ya know Mikey...

I may have to eat many of my shoes...

I found this quite interesting...


http://www.triumphpro.com/lxx___dead_sea_scrolls.htm


-ray
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
Member
Member
R Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Quote
Originally posted by BradM:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RayK:
[qb] These sentences refute what you wrote
Yes - in all humility - I am being forced to re-examine my assumptions.

But it will be very very difficult for me to give up the belief that the gospels were orginally written in Hebrew (and I now admit that might have been Aramaic of some sort).

-ray


-ray
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
Member
Member
R Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Wait... wait... I am somewhat redeemed!

http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew.htm

2.1 Biblical Hebrew
As stated earlier, Biblical Hebrew (see Steiner and Encyclopedia Judaica) is the literary form of the very conservative dialect of Jerusalem. It crystallized in Jerusalem about 900 BCE and showed little change until the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BCE. From then on it became more and more an archaic literary vehicle radically different from the spoken Hebrew. As a literary dialect it was used until the fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE.
Biblical Hebrew can be divided into:
� a poetic form, used in e.g. Job, Psalms;
� a semi-poetic form of rhythmic speech used in e.g. Isaiah which may be compared to blank verse; and,
� a prose form which was probably fairly close to spoken Hebrew of the early First Temple period.
The poetic form is more archaic, uses a special vocabulary and the poetry written in it is highly stylized (see references in the Selected Bibliography below). The earliest poems may date from 1100 or 1200 BCE and the latest from about 450 BCE.
The prose form is much more straight-forward. It is divided into:
� a standard form used from about 900-500 BCE e.g. Genesis, Samuel, Kings; and,
� a later form influenced by spoken Hebrew and Aramaic
The Wisdom Books, such as Proverbs, are written with a special vocabulary where ordinary words may have special meanings.

2.2 Mishnaic Hebrew
With the destruction of the First Temple (587 BCE) the scribal schools and royal patronage of writers ended, Jerusalem was depopulated, the country was ruined and much of the population was exiled to Babylonia where the common language was Aramaic. Later, a small number of Babylonian Jews, probably mainly Aramaic speaking, returned to Judah where they provided the leadership, under Persian imperial patronage, for a slow restoration of Jerusalem and a much reduced Judah known as the province of Yahud.
When written sources again give us a look in, the linguistic situation of the country was:
� Greek was widely spoken in (see map of Hellenistic and Herodian Cities):
o Coastal plain;
o Decapolis (Jordan Valley north of the main Jewish area in Trans-Jordan);
o Greek cities within Jewish areas in Galilee;
o Greek cities within Samaritan populated areas of central and northern Samaria;
o Greek cities within Idumean areas in the northern Negev i.e. what was formerly the southern section of the territory of the tribe of Judah.
� Aramaic was the majority language of the country. Probably it was the only language, other than Greek, spoken throughout the country except for some areas of Judea between Lod and Jericho. It seems to have been the language of the upper classes in Jerusalem; and,
� A proto-Mishnaic form of Hebrew was probably spoken, along with Aramaic in some areas of Judea between Lod and Jericho;, and
� Late Biblical Hebrew which was a literary language, along side Greek and Aramaic for the Jewish population. There were no speakers of this artificial tongue. This is not dissimilar to the situation of Modern Literary Arabic today or Church Latin in the middle ages.
<<< meaning it was spoken in Church ceremony but not by the populus in general -ray>>

<< next we deal with common Hebrew -ray>>>

Spoken Hebrew underwent great changes of three kinds:
� Natural developments internal to the language (see Segal, Kutscher, Bendavid);
� A mixing of dialects due to the political upheavals, exile etc.; and
� The profound influence of Aramaic in vocabulary, semantics and grammar including inflection.
Christian scholars have, at times, claimed that Hebrew was completely replaced by Aramaic during this period. However, Segal, Greenfield and Levine have demonstrated that this was not the case. Modern linguistic study, research on contemporary sources, the Bar Kochba letters in a popular spoken Hebrew all show that Hebrew was <<at least>>a spoken language of southern Palestine until at least 135 CE when, in the wake of the Bar Kochba rebellion, the Romans evicted or killed the Jewish population in the areas in which Hebrew was still spoken. At that point, Aramaic and Greek became virtually the only spoken languages of the whole of what is now Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. An early form of Arabic was already spoken on the desert fringes of this area.
The Roman suppression of the first Jewish revolt against Rome (67-70 CE), including the destruction of Jerusalem led to a social-cultural-religious collapse. This included the disappearance of the priestly aristocracy and Jewish groups such as the Sadducees and Essenes <<last traces of Biblical Hebrew??>>. The earliest Rabbinic literature dates from the period 70-200 CE and it is written in the spoken Hebrew of the time, called, after the most famous literary product of the time, Mishnaic Hebrew.

I will say a few words about Mishnaic Hebrew.
In 1st century BCE-first century CE Judea many native Hebrew speakers would have been able to speak, or at least understand, Aramaic. It must be remembered, that Aramaic and Hebrew are about as different as Spanish and Italian. For example,
<<< a few lines deleted>>>
As I mentioned, Mishnaic Hebrew is very different from Biblical Hebrew - certainly more different than present day English is from the language of Shakespeare though less different than that of our language from that of Chaucer. It differed from Biblical Hebrew in the use of tenses, syntax, grammar and vocabulary. It was not used for poetry, prophecy or high prose. However, what it lacked in grandeur, grace and dignity it made up in precision. Mishnaic Hebrew probably preserves many words for work-a-day objects and activities that were never mentioned in the Bible due to the subjects discussed in the Bible or, more accurately, not discussed. Examples might include kevesh (preserves); gaHar (jetty) and zol (cheapness).
2.3 Between the Mishnah and the Revival of Hebrew in the Late 19th Century
All forms of Hebrew used in this period consisted, in varying portions, of 4 elements:
� Biblical Hebrew
� Mishnaic Hebrew
� The writers� native language
� Literary models that the writer was imitating consciously or unconsciously
---------

Unless I read this with wishful eyes - it semms to say that there did exist a Late Biblical Hebrew (used by Temple) a commonly spoken Hebrew (much diluted by local influences) and that common Hebrew was kin enough to current Aramaic so as to be understood.

yes?

-ray


-ray
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
Member
Member
R Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
It now seems to me that �

Matt was originally written in Hebrew (Oh - alright - Aramaic J
Mark - written in Aramaic-Hebrew
Luke - Greek
John - unknown but leaning toward Greek because of Mikey.


Matt and Mark both exhibit the traditional form of Hebrew books (opening sentence is the name of the book, first section expands on the name, book contents are the full expansion).

Robert Lindsay apparently noted the odd Greek with transliterated back to perfect Aramaic-Hebrew.

Luke - all agree hands down - Greek. (not in traditional Hebrew form)

John - not in traditional Hebrew form.

Regarding Matt and Mark - these are also the shortest while Luke and John are longer. The difference being that Matt and Mark do not add details to what traditional Jews would already know about - while Luke and John go further to detail Jewish customs etc..

I am unclear, as yet, as to how near or far Aramaic was to common Hebrew. Being written with different style characters does not bother me if the spoken was very close (giving the writer the choice to render in Aramaic or Hebrew.

For anyone who cares I ran across this site while following a Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic discussion.
http://www.peshitta.org/

"With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."

Which words �received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves � I am not yet sure about in the sense that they could not mean from Matt to Revelations - and I doubt many of the letters were yet included - so it seems to mean the gospels only. ? which may have not yet included Luke or John so may mean just Matt and Mark.

Correct me if wrong Mikey - but John's would have been written toward the end of his life and the other apostlels mostly dead - so this would not have included John's - with the date of Luke's remaining to be figured. huh?

That is where I am right now.


-ray
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 268
Member
Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 268
In the West the Latin Vulgate is the normative text, in the East the Septuagint is. How different are they?


Abba Isidore the Priest:
When I was younger and remained in my cell I set no limit to prayer; the night was for me as much the time of prayer as the day.
(p. 97, Isidore 4)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
Member
Member
R Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Quote
Originally posted by Gideon:
In the West the Latin Vulgate is the normative text, in the East the Septuagint is. How different are they?
http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/episcopal-life/Ask11%2701.html

The Vulgate is way way down on the list of what the west uses. It does not even appear in this Gallup Poll.

Of all the Chritians I know - only myself and an Orthodox priest have a Vulgate and it is for study purposes.

-ray


-ray
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 1
Member
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 1
Brother Ray,

I understand that most Traditional Catholics use the Vulgate/Douay Rhiems Bible. I use my Vulgate for Sunday & Holyday readings. You could say TC'S honor the Vulgate like Protestants do the KJV.

In Christ,
James

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Likes: 1
Member
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Likes: 1
Another difference of content between the Masoretic and Septuagint are the inclusion of more books of the "Apocrapha" in the Septuagint (LXX).

Even within various versions of the LXX there are differences. There are some differences in the apocrapha between those included in the Roman (Vulgate), Greek, and Slavonic versions of the LXX.

For example, in addition to those books from the LXX included in the Vulgate, the Greek LXX includes 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151 but not 2 Esdras.

The Slavonic contains 3 Maccabees, 2 Esdras and Psalm 151 but not the Prayer of Manasseh or 4 Maccabees.

Also the order of psalms is different between the LXX and the Masoretic, with the number of the Masoretic usually one higher than the LXX because of the splitting of Psalm 9 in the LXX to Psalms 9 and 10 in the Masoretic, etc.

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Personally myself.
I would prefer the text of the Septuagint as it was the Bible of the Early Christian Church. And how could Jerome draw on the Masoretic texts? Or did I misunderstand something. Jerome was writing in the 400's and as pointed out the Masoretic texts date from the 8th/9th century AD.
Stephanos I

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Member
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Quote
Originally posted by Stephanos I:
Personally myself.
I would prefer the text of the Septuagint as it was the Bible of the Early Christian Church. And how could Jerome draw on the Masoretic texts? Or did I misunderstand something. Jerome was writing in the 400's and as pointed out the Masoretic texts date from the 8th/9th century AD.
Stephanos I
Dear Stephanos,

If you are refering to my post, you are correct. I mispoke when I said that St. Jerome drew from the Masoretic. I meant to say that he drew from the Jewish texts available at that time instead of relying soley on the Greek editions of the Septuagint. The Armenian Church has always primarily used the Septuagint (and also the old Syriac versions). I, too, prefer the Septuagint and look forward to the new English translation which is forthcoming.

Thanks for the correction,

In Christ's Light,
Ghazar

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
Diak brings attention to an important fact about the development of Scripture: it developed.

The liquidity of the Scriptures is being demonstrated even more today in the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS).

In many cases, the DSS agrees with the LXX (Septuagint) and not the MT (Masoretic Text). In many other cases, the DSS agrees with the MT and not the LXX.

What does this tell us?

That the DSS may reflect an earlier version common to both the LXX and MT.

Joe

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
The Vulgate is still the official text for the Latin Church although it has gone through a revision because of Jerome's errors in traslation and as it is based on the Septuagint it has my vote of approval.
Personally I would say that for the Chrisitan Church the Septuagint should have a special place.
After all it was the translation which the Apostles and the early Church used in its doctrinal declarations.
Stephanos I

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Joe,
What does this tell me? It tells me that I should not be so adhered to a literal text but to the teaching Tradition and authority of the Church.
Stephanos I
The pillar and bulwark of truth 1 Tm 3:15 and that I should "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught" 2 Thes 2:15

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0