Steven Avery
Administrator
Discovering the Language of Jesus: Hebrew or Aramaic?
https://www.academia.edu/s/8e7ba3f52d
=======================================
John L Ronning
Thanks for this study – a lot of helpful info for those interested in the subject. While reading, I thought of the example of “bar-mitvah” – which is a combination of Aramaic (bar, son), and Hebrew (mitzvah, commandment). While I am open to the possibility of Jesus speaking not only Aramaic, but Greek and Hebrew, depending on who he is speaking with (some e.g. suggest that differences in language between John and the Synoptics is due to many of the words of Jesus in John being originally Hebrew. (OT), since they are largely in the area of Jerusalem and with scholars). However I do have a number of methodological objections which I think you need to consider. One is your claim that the NT Greek “ebraisti” means “literally” Hebrew and therefore should be translated as such and understood as equivalent or similar to OT Hebrew. This assumes that “meaning” comes from how a word is spelled, which is only partly true. The issue is “what did they mean by that word?” While you do find support for your view from Josephus, there is no support for it from the NT itself. The NT never uses the word “Syriac” for the Aramaic language, and the OT never uses the word “Hebrew” for the language in which it is (mostly) written. Indeed, when OT Hebrew is distinguished from Aramaic, it is called “the language of Judah” (Yehudith; 2 kings 18:26; Isaiah 36:11). While LXX uses “suristi” (Syriac) for Aramaic, it uses Iudisti, not ebraisti, for Hebrew. So the question of what language is meant by “Hebrew” in the NT is not something that can be settled by how the word “ebraisti” is spelled. As you discuss, many NT words can be readily understood as coming from the Aramaic language, and scholars have therefore assumed that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic. You counter that (1) many of these can also be understood as good Hebrew (which is fine with me); (2) those that do seem to be Aramaic can be explained as just Aramaic words that have found their way into Hebrew, and you point quite appropriately to Mishnaic Hebrew for support. However, one could with just as much justification argue for the opposite possibility, namely that “Hebrew” words in the Gospels are simply words that have entered the common Jewish Aramaic speech of Palestine. Methodologically, how would one know? Second question, does it really matter? Words such as talitha, gabbatha, etc., that seem more likely to be Aramaic can be “explained away” as possibly being also Hebrew, but what’s the point? Also, I have done a lot of studies in the Targums. The extant Targums do not reflect the exact form of the Aramaic language that would have been used in the first century, but there is a great deal of evidence that various expressions and interpretations found in the Targums, recited in the Synagogues from early times, are reflected in the Gospels, in fact it’s a feature of all of John’s writings, especially the way that the Targums often refer to God using the concept of the divine Word (“the Word” stands for “Yahweh the God of Israel;” John 1:1; 1 John 1:2; Revelation 19:13, etc.). In short, this is evidence that the Targums were in use in the Synagogues of Palestine in the first century, which means that after the Hebrew was read, the explanation was given in Aramaic, not Hebrew. This would be for the simple reason that Jewish Aramaic (called ebraisti) was the common language of the people, while (OT) Hebrew was understood by those who were educated (much like Latin as a common scholarly language in Europe centuries ago). Consequently it seems very likely that the three languages of Pilate’s inscription on the cross of Jesus were Latin, Greek, and Jewish Aramaic. I have written extensively about the Targums and John in The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology. There are also a several of my papers on academia that go into this. Thanks again for the stimulating study.
Douglas Hamp
Thanks for the great feedback!
John Ben-Daniel
The Book of Revelation is full of Targumisms, as noted by Prof McNamara, among others. Targums would only have been used in those parts of the country where Hebrew was less widely understood. Knowing now that Hebrew was still a living language in many parts of Judaea in the first century, it seems unlikely that Targums were used there. That leaves Galilee. Can we therefore infer that the Targums originated in Galilee and that those most familiar with them in the first century would have been Galileans?
John L Ronning
Well, not sure how much can be proven either way - my study of the Targums and their potential connections to John's Gospel deal a lot in dialogue with Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, although perhaps one might argue that since many of these occur at the feasts the people he was interacting with weren't necessarily from Jerusalem. My book is The Jewish Targums and John's Logos Theology (Baker/Hendrickson, 2010).
Douglas Hamp
John Ben-Daniel, could you share an example of a Targumism in Revelation? Thanks!!
John L Ronning
Here are a few: (1) "Grace and peace from He Who Is And Who Was And Who Is To Come" looks like an adaptation of Tg Ps-Jonathan Deut 32:39, as a paraphrase of the divine name ("See now that I am he who is and who was, and I am he who will be"). This Targum passage also shows up rather heavily in John's Gospel also. (2) Rev 12:16, "The earth opened its mouth and drank up the river which the dragon poured out of his mouth" compared to Pal. Tgs. Exod 15:12, "The earth opened up its mouth and swallowed them" (the Egyptians). (3) Rev 12:17, "The dragon . . . went off to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus" - agrees with how the "seed of the woman" (Gen 3:15) is described in the Pal Tgs of Gen 3:15 (with a Christian adaptation). (4) "His name is called the Word of God" (Rev 19:13) - the passage draws on the depiction of the divine warrior (YHWH) in Isaiah 63. The Isaiah Targum 63:5 uses "the Word of my pleasure" for the divine wrath.
John Ben-Daniel
Thank you! I have a few more: Rev 2,11 "the second death" Tg. Neofiti Dt 33:6; Tg. Onqelos Dt 33:6; Tg. Isaiah 22:14; Tg. Jeremiah 51:39,57; In Rev 6,3-7 (horsemen 2,3 and 4): compare the expansions to Exodus 20 in the Targums Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan (the same terrible chastisements are anticipated for those who break the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th of the Ten Commandments); in Rev 19,13 "the cloak dipped in blood" Tg. Neofiti on Gn 49,11. In Rev 19:15, the link between the metaphor of wine production and the final eschatological battle is found also in the Targums of Isaiah (Tg. Is 63,3-4) and the Prophets (Tg. Neb. Joel 4,13-14). I In Rev 20,9, the fire from heaven: in the Targums of Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan on Nm 11,26. There must be more. As far as I know, a Canadian scholar called Trudinger (1960's) was among the first to spot the links between Tg and Rev, and for pointing them out, I have found Pierre Prigent among the best commentators (2001).
John L Ronning
Thanks for the tip - but more than $200 on Amazon. I see he does have a commentary on John also (2015), so I ordered that one. It seems to me that it's an academic scandal that the scholarly world has been so slow to incorporate insights from the Targums, especially to illuminate John's Logos (divine Word) theology.
John Ben-Daniel
Absolutely! But the question of dating has always been a deterrent, I think. Nevertheless, I have thrown caution to the winds and have argued that the Targumisms in John's Apocalypse, along with familiarity with the ascent apocalypse tradition (1Enoch) and the grammatical insouciance, which I have called Galilean Jewish Greek', all indicate the author is from Galilee. I have argued ('Ch.2 The Author of the Book of Revelation', on this site) that it was written by John son of Zebedee and these are all signs of authenticity. The frequency of Targumisms in the fourth Gospel may help to confirm common authorship, with high degree literary mediation - a bilingual amanuensis.
John L Ronning
Yes, I argue for common authorship also (including the Johannine epistles), see my article on academia, The Targum of Isaiah and the Johannine Literature.
John Ben-Daniel
Thanks! I have had a quick look. You are right about the need to work more on the Targumic substratum of the NT. Many of the pioneers were advancing in that direction, but at a certain point they were deterred by the huge dating gap (although everybody must have known that the texts were highly conserved). You would certainly enjoy reading Martin McNamara's book "Targum and Testament Revisited", 2nd edition, Eerdmans, 2010, if you haven't seen it already, for it appears he aimed to bring the Targums back into NT studies. Also, brilliant is Roger Le Deaut's "The Message of the NT and the Aramaic Bible", Roma, PBI (1982). Of particular interest is the way the Targums form a theological "bridge" between the Hebrew text and the NT, especially in their emphasis on forgiveness, to which the Pharisees/Rabbis tended to object. Their theology resembles the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, in my view, and that localizes it to a group of scribes that were closely associated with the Enoch tradition, but were more universal and liberal in their theology than the Qumranites. What I am getting at is that I think I have identified a northern branch of the Essenes at Mt Arbel, near the sea of Galilee, where the Parables of Enoch were written, and other works, like the Targums and Testaments. That is why I asked about the geography of the Targums. If you would like to know more about this, please take a look at "Mt Arbel, The Essenes and the Book of Parables" here at Academia, under my name. I feel something like this could help to bring Targum research back into the NT studies, and explain how a Galilean fisherman called John could have became the author of the fourth Gospel, the Letters and the Apocalypse. If you have comments, please let me know here or at john@newtorah.org.
John L Ronning
Many thanks - I have McNamara's revised work (he recommended my book The Jewish Targums and John's Logos Theology, which I dedicated to him, and he mentions it in his revised book). He is still active, apparently, just started following me on academia. Thank you for the reference to Le Deaut, I will try to get that. I have a more cynical view on why Johannine scholars reject the Targum background to the Logos title - late dates of extant Targums are just an excuse to ignore the NT evidence, and the intertestamental development and adaptation of the logos idea in judaism (seen in the Wisdom literature and Ezekiel the Tragedian (in his Greek play, around 2nd century BC, he has the Word shine out to Moses from the burning bush).
John Ben-Daniel
Can anyone offer an explanation for why Jesus gave Shimon (Peter) a nickname in Aramaic (Kayfa), and then gave a nickname in Hebrew (Bnei Rogez) to the sons of Zebedee?
Ken M Penner
Since my 2003 conference paper is cited, I should point to the publication of those ideas in New Testament Studies: https://www.academia.edu/39012105/Ancient_Names_for_Hebrew_and_Aramaic_A_Case_for_Lexical_Revisio
Douglas Hamp
Thanks Ken - you really helped me understand the topic.
Jim Armitage
Thanks for the link!
Albert Zaiser
As the article "Hebraisti in ancient texts" by Buth and Pierce shows, the expression Hebraisti never means Aramaic. Thus, the claim of Aramaic primacy rests on a weak foundation and most likely Matthew was first written in Hebrew. But we need to ask what are the consequences of a book written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Does it change the interpretation of verses like John 1:1. Should the sacred name be translated Mar Yah as in Aramaic or left as YHWH in Hebrew translations of the New Testament. Does an Aramaic New Testament lead to a radical shift in interpretation. Should we use the Aramaic spelling of the English and Latin name Jesus?
Douglas Hamp
Buth is a great scholar!
Jim Armitage
Two great papers by Randall Buth in The Language Environment of First Century Judaea Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels: Volume Two, edited by Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley. "Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does Ἑβραϊστί Ever Mean 'Aramaic'?", by Randall Buth and Chad Pierce. https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/9789004263406_04-EBRAISTI.pdf "The Riddle of Jesus’ Cry from the Cross: The Meaning of ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι (Matthew 27:46) and the Literary Function of ελωι ελωι λειμα σαβαχθανι (Mark 15:34)" https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/9789004263406_12-Buth-HLI-HLI.pdf
John L Ronning
Thanks - pretty persuasive. I do tho object to the statement that the Targums were relatively new in Jerome's time - they seem to explain a lot that is in John's writings, and not just the Logos title.
Barend Wesseloo
I want to thank you for the information. It set out the argument for Hebrew as the language very nicely. What is also important to remember is that the language you use in your daily life and at home is the language that determine your world view. Although we only have the NT in Greek we must start to read it from a Hebraic mindset because Jesus and his disciples' thinking processes were in Hebrew and therefore spoke and taught in Hebrew.
Albert Zaiser
The reduction of theophoric names like Yehoshua to yeshua could have been part of the effort to remove the abbreviated (yeho) trigrammaton from the names because of the desire to avoid saying the sacred name. We find that in names like Yoel which is Yeho-el. Perhaps you would like to comment on the claim that the New Testament was originally written in the Aramaic or Syriac language. Today we have many versions of the Peshitta which are supposedly superior to the Greek.
Saro Fedele
In the following text there are some clues that help us to avoid the modern viewpoint to discard the possibility that Hebrew (also Qumranian Hebrew) was spoken in the first century AD: Some Linguistic Aspects of the Qumran Texts, Menahem Mansoor, 1958; Les charactéristiques de l’hébreu qumranien et leur inférence sur le problem historique, Jacques Schreiden, 1959; Die Sprachenfragen in der Qumran-Gemeinshaft, Stanistalv Segert, 1963; Hebrew Language, The Dead Sea Scrolls, E. Y, Kutscher, 1971. A History of the Hebrew Language, E. Y, Kutscher, 1982, pages 93ss; A History of the Hebrew Language (Historia de la lengua Hebrea, 1988) by Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (on the chapter about the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Texts); Qumran Hebrew. Some Typological Observation, Shelomo Morag, 1988. Another fine text is “The Nature of DSS Hebrew and Its Relation to BH and MH”, by E. Qimron, 2000, where he demonstrates that the Hebrew of the DSS time was a live tongue, in literary texts and in common talks, that is, not used only for liturgical purposes. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church that once said in 1958 in its first edition, Hebrew "ceased to be a spoken language around the fourth century BC", now says in 1997 in its third edition, Hebrew "continued to be used as a spoken and written language in the New Testament period". ["Hebrew" in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edit. F.L. Cross, first edition (Oxford, 1958), 3rd edition (Oxford 1997)]. I have recorded also this following argument (but, regrettably, I did not record the author of it. However the arguments here considered remain valid to demonstrate the point at issue): "Randall Buth has pointed out to me a fascinating indication that Hebrew was the spoken language in the first century. The Jewish historian Josephus describes an incident that took place during the siege of Jerusalem (War 5:269-272). Josephus relates that watchmen were posted on the towers of the city walls to warn residents of incoming stones fired from Roman ballistae. Whenever a stone was on its way, the spotters would shout “in their native tongue, ‘The son is coming!’” (War 5:272). The meaning the watchmen communicated to the people was: Ha-even ba’ah (the stone is coming). However, because of the urgency of the situation, these words were clipped, being abbreviated to ben ba (son comes). (This well-known Hebrew wordplay is attested in the New Testament: “God is able from these avanim [stones] to raise up banim [sons] to Abra-ham” [Matt 3:9 = Luke 3:8].) The wordplay (and pun) that Josephus preserves is unambiguously Hebrew. This wordplay does not work in Aramaic: kefa ate (the stone is coming), or the more literary avna ata, when spoken rapidly, do not sound like bara ate (the son is coming). Another Aramaic word for “stone,” aven, which is related to Hebrew, changes the gender of the verb and, in any case, does not work with 'son'. Certainly, a warning about an incoming missile needs to be as brief as possible (and, of course, shouted in the language of speech). How many words would an English-speaking soldier use to warn his unit of an incoming artillery shell? The Hebrew-speaking spotters on the walls of the besieged city of Jerusalem needed only two, and these they abbreviated to one syllable each.” These and other texts/discussion, I avoid to mention here, demonstrate (a) in the Jesus' lifetime Hebrew was a live language; and (b) that the Hebrew of some Dead Sea Texts (coeval texts, at least some of them) is really Hebrew. And, since the lifetime of Josephus falls inside this timespan - and also the lifetime of Jesus overlap this range of years - there’s no reason to object to the arguments of Douglas Hamp.
Douglas Hamp
Excellent resources. Dr Buth was a mentor of mine when I studied in Israel.
Albert Zaiser
Hi Douglas. Excellent paper. It shatters the myth that Yeshua predominantly spoke Aramaic. You might like to know that during my talks with George Wesley Buchanan when he was working on a commentary on the gospel of John, he concluded that it was first written in Hebrew and I heartily agree. As you know, Aramaic and Hebrew are different enough to make it difficult for an Aramaic speaker to understand a Hebrew speaker. The mistakes of scholars are troubling. Someone should write a book entitled "Scholarly Blunders" which would be about 1,000 pages and counting. My question is how to spell the name of Jesus in Hebrew. The OT has both Jeshua and Jehoshua and first century ossuaries sometimes have both on the same ossuary. It makes more sense to me that Jesus would have been originally named Yehoshua which was later reduced to Yeshua but I can't be certain about that.
John L Ronning
Note that "Yeshua" is the Aramaic version of "Joshua" - you can see that in Ezra from the different spellings of the name Joshua (the high priest) - Yoshua in the Hebrew section, Yeshua in the Aramaic, so Iesous in Greek (i.e. Jesus) is more likely derived from the Aramaic spelling, though we can't be sure, and why would it matter anyway?
Douglas Hamp
I understand Yeshua to be a late Biblical Hebrew reduction of Yehoshua. Those who came with Zerubbabel were Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, and Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel: (Ezra 2:2) My full name is Douglas but I go by Doug - this may have been a similar situation, just like Michael > Mike, Christian > Chris, Benjamin > Ben. I am honored that you liked the book.
Ephrem Poppish
I always give pause to "Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani", The Gospels give witness to much mockery...........are they not mocking Galilean Aramaic? Note: Sokoloff dictionary on Galilean Aramaic
Douglas Hamp
I wrote this book in 2005 showing the ample support that Jesus and the disciples spoke Hebrew on a daily basis. I hope you enjoy!
Donald Barger
Looking forward to reading. Thanks!
https://www.academia.edu/s/8e7ba3f52d
https://www.facebook.com/doughamp
=======================================
John L Ronning
Thanks for this study – a lot of helpful info for those interested in the subject. While reading, I thought of the example of “bar-mitvah” – which is a combination of Aramaic (bar, son), and Hebrew (mitzvah, commandment). While I am open to the possibility of Jesus speaking not only Aramaic, but Greek and Hebrew, depending on who he is speaking with (some e.g. suggest that differences in language between John and the Synoptics is due to many of the words of Jesus in John being originally Hebrew. (OT), since they are largely in the area of Jerusalem and with scholars). However I do have a number of methodological objections which I think you need to consider. One is your claim that the NT Greek “ebraisti” means “literally” Hebrew and therefore should be translated as such and understood as equivalent or similar to OT Hebrew. This assumes that “meaning” comes from how a word is spelled, which is only partly true. The issue is “what did they mean by that word?” While you do find support for your view from Josephus, there is no support for it from the NT itself. The NT never uses the word “Syriac” for the Aramaic language, and the OT never uses the word “Hebrew” for the language in which it is (mostly) written. Indeed, when OT Hebrew is distinguished from Aramaic, it is called “the language of Judah” (Yehudith; 2 kings 18:26; Isaiah 36:11). While LXX uses “suristi” (Syriac) for Aramaic, it uses Iudisti, not ebraisti, for Hebrew. So the question of what language is meant by “Hebrew” in the NT is not something that can be settled by how the word “ebraisti” is spelled. As you discuss, many NT words can be readily understood as coming from the Aramaic language, and scholars have therefore assumed that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic. You counter that (1) many of these can also be understood as good Hebrew (which is fine with me); (2) those that do seem to be Aramaic can be explained as just Aramaic words that have found their way into Hebrew, and you point quite appropriately to Mishnaic Hebrew for support. However, one could with just as much justification argue for the opposite possibility, namely that “Hebrew” words in the Gospels are simply words that have entered the common Jewish Aramaic speech of Palestine. Methodologically, how would one know? Second question, does it really matter? Words such as talitha, gabbatha, etc., that seem more likely to be Aramaic can be “explained away” as possibly being also Hebrew, but what’s the point? Also, I have done a lot of studies in the Targums. The extant Targums do not reflect the exact form of the Aramaic language that would have been used in the first century, but there is a great deal of evidence that various expressions and interpretations found in the Targums, recited in the Synagogues from early times, are reflected in the Gospels, in fact it’s a feature of all of John’s writings, especially the way that the Targums often refer to God using the concept of the divine Word (“the Word” stands for “Yahweh the God of Israel;” John 1:1; 1 John 1:2; Revelation 19:13, etc.). In short, this is evidence that the Targums were in use in the Synagogues of Palestine in the first century, which means that after the Hebrew was read, the explanation was given in Aramaic, not Hebrew. This would be for the simple reason that Jewish Aramaic (called ebraisti) was the common language of the people, while (OT) Hebrew was understood by those who were educated (much like Latin as a common scholarly language in Europe centuries ago). Consequently it seems very likely that the three languages of Pilate’s inscription on the cross of Jesus were Latin, Greek, and Jewish Aramaic. I have written extensively about the Targums and John in The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology. There are also a several of my papers on academia that go into this. Thanks again for the stimulating study.
Douglas Hamp
Thanks for the great feedback!
John Ben-Daniel
The Book of Revelation is full of Targumisms, as noted by Prof McNamara, among others. Targums would only have been used in those parts of the country where Hebrew was less widely understood. Knowing now that Hebrew was still a living language in many parts of Judaea in the first century, it seems unlikely that Targums were used there. That leaves Galilee. Can we therefore infer that the Targums originated in Galilee and that those most familiar with them in the first century would have been Galileans?
John L Ronning
Well, not sure how much can be proven either way - my study of the Targums and their potential connections to John's Gospel deal a lot in dialogue with Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, although perhaps one might argue that since many of these occur at the feasts the people he was interacting with weren't necessarily from Jerusalem. My book is The Jewish Targums and John's Logos Theology (Baker/Hendrickson, 2010).
Douglas Hamp
John Ben-Daniel, could you share an example of a Targumism in Revelation? Thanks!!
John L Ronning
Here are a few: (1) "Grace and peace from He Who Is And Who Was And Who Is To Come" looks like an adaptation of Tg Ps-Jonathan Deut 32:39, as a paraphrase of the divine name ("See now that I am he who is and who was, and I am he who will be"). This Targum passage also shows up rather heavily in John's Gospel also. (2) Rev 12:16, "The earth opened its mouth and drank up the river which the dragon poured out of his mouth" compared to Pal. Tgs. Exod 15:12, "The earth opened up its mouth and swallowed them" (the Egyptians). (3) Rev 12:17, "The dragon . . . went off to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus" - agrees with how the "seed of the woman" (Gen 3:15) is described in the Pal Tgs of Gen 3:15 (with a Christian adaptation). (4) "His name is called the Word of God" (Rev 19:13) - the passage draws on the depiction of the divine warrior (YHWH) in Isaiah 63. The Isaiah Targum 63:5 uses "the Word of my pleasure" for the divine wrath.
John Ben-Daniel
Thank you! I have a few more: Rev 2,11 "the second death" Tg. Neofiti Dt 33:6; Tg. Onqelos Dt 33:6; Tg. Isaiah 22:14; Tg. Jeremiah 51:39,57; In Rev 6,3-7 (horsemen 2,3 and 4): compare the expansions to Exodus 20 in the Targums Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan (the same terrible chastisements are anticipated for those who break the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th of the Ten Commandments); in Rev 19,13 "the cloak dipped in blood" Tg. Neofiti on Gn 49,11. In Rev 19:15, the link between the metaphor of wine production and the final eschatological battle is found also in the Targums of Isaiah (Tg. Is 63,3-4) and the Prophets (Tg. Neb. Joel 4,13-14). I In Rev 20,9, the fire from heaven: in the Targums of Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan on Nm 11,26. There must be more. As far as I know, a Canadian scholar called Trudinger (1960's) was among the first to spot the links between Tg and Rev, and for pointing them out, I have found Pierre Prigent among the best commentators (2001).
John L Ronning
Thanks for the tip - but more than $200 on Amazon. I see he does have a commentary on John also (2015), so I ordered that one. It seems to me that it's an academic scandal that the scholarly world has been so slow to incorporate insights from the Targums, especially to illuminate John's Logos (divine Word) theology.
John Ben-Daniel
Absolutely! But the question of dating has always been a deterrent, I think. Nevertheless, I have thrown caution to the winds and have argued that the Targumisms in John's Apocalypse, along with familiarity with the ascent apocalypse tradition (1Enoch) and the grammatical insouciance, which I have called Galilean Jewish Greek', all indicate the author is from Galilee. I have argued ('Ch.2 The Author of the Book of Revelation', on this site) that it was written by John son of Zebedee and these are all signs of authenticity. The frequency of Targumisms in the fourth Gospel may help to confirm common authorship, with high degree literary mediation - a bilingual amanuensis.
John L Ronning
Yes, I argue for common authorship also (including the Johannine epistles), see my article on academia, The Targum of Isaiah and the Johannine Literature.
John Ben-Daniel
Thanks! I have had a quick look. You are right about the need to work more on the Targumic substratum of the NT. Many of the pioneers were advancing in that direction, but at a certain point they were deterred by the huge dating gap (although everybody must have known that the texts were highly conserved). You would certainly enjoy reading Martin McNamara's book "Targum and Testament Revisited", 2nd edition, Eerdmans, 2010, if you haven't seen it already, for it appears he aimed to bring the Targums back into NT studies. Also, brilliant is Roger Le Deaut's "The Message of the NT and the Aramaic Bible", Roma, PBI (1982). Of particular interest is the way the Targums form a theological "bridge" between the Hebrew text and the NT, especially in their emphasis on forgiveness, to which the Pharisees/Rabbis tended to object. Their theology resembles the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, in my view, and that localizes it to a group of scribes that were closely associated with the Enoch tradition, but were more universal and liberal in their theology than the Qumranites. What I am getting at is that I think I have identified a northern branch of the Essenes at Mt Arbel, near the sea of Galilee, where the Parables of Enoch were written, and other works, like the Targums and Testaments. That is why I asked about the geography of the Targums. If you would like to know more about this, please take a look at "Mt Arbel, The Essenes and the Book of Parables" here at Academia, under my name. I feel something like this could help to bring Targum research back into the NT studies, and explain how a Galilean fisherman called John could have became the author of the fourth Gospel, the Letters and the Apocalypse. If you have comments, please let me know here or at john@newtorah.org.
John L Ronning
Many thanks - I have McNamara's revised work (he recommended my book The Jewish Targums and John's Logos Theology, which I dedicated to him, and he mentions it in his revised book). He is still active, apparently, just started following me on academia. Thank you for the reference to Le Deaut, I will try to get that. I have a more cynical view on why Johannine scholars reject the Targum background to the Logos title - late dates of extant Targums are just an excuse to ignore the NT evidence, and the intertestamental development and adaptation of the logos idea in judaism (seen in the Wisdom literature and Ezekiel the Tragedian (in his Greek play, around 2nd century BC, he has the Word shine out to Moses from the burning bush).
John Ben-Daniel
Can anyone offer an explanation for why Jesus gave Shimon (Peter) a nickname in Aramaic (Kayfa), and then gave a nickname in Hebrew (Bnei Rogez) to the sons of Zebedee?
Ken M Penner
Since my 2003 conference paper is cited, I should point to the publication of those ideas in New Testament Studies: https://www.academia.edu/39012105/Ancient_Names_for_Hebrew_and_Aramaic_A_Case_for_Lexical_Revisio
Douglas Hamp
Thanks Ken - you really helped me understand the topic.
Jim Armitage
Thanks for the link!
Albert Zaiser
As the article "Hebraisti in ancient texts" by Buth and Pierce shows, the expression Hebraisti never means Aramaic. Thus, the claim of Aramaic primacy rests on a weak foundation and most likely Matthew was first written in Hebrew. But we need to ask what are the consequences of a book written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Does it change the interpretation of verses like John 1:1. Should the sacred name be translated Mar Yah as in Aramaic or left as YHWH in Hebrew translations of the New Testament. Does an Aramaic New Testament lead to a radical shift in interpretation. Should we use the Aramaic spelling of the English and Latin name Jesus?
Douglas Hamp
Buth is a great scholar!
Jim Armitage
Two great papers by Randall Buth in The Language Environment of First Century Judaea Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels: Volume Two, edited by Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley. "Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does Ἑβραϊστί Ever Mean 'Aramaic'?", by Randall Buth and Chad Pierce. https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/9789004263406_04-EBRAISTI.pdf "The Riddle of Jesus’ Cry from the Cross: The Meaning of ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι (Matthew 27:46) and the Literary Function of ελωι ελωι λειμα σαβαχθανι (Mark 15:34)" https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/9789004263406_12-Buth-HLI-HLI.pdf
John L Ronning
Thanks - pretty persuasive. I do tho object to the statement that the Targums were relatively new in Jerome's time - they seem to explain a lot that is in John's writings, and not just the Logos title.
Barend Wesseloo
I want to thank you for the information. It set out the argument for Hebrew as the language very nicely. What is also important to remember is that the language you use in your daily life and at home is the language that determine your world view. Although we only have the NT in Greek we must start to read it from a Hebraic mindset because Jesus and his disciples' thinking processes were in Hebrew and therefore spoke and taught in Hebrew.
Albert Zaiser
The reduction of theophoric names like Yehoshua to yeshua could have been part of the effort to remove the abbreviated (yeho) trigrammaton from the names because of the desire to avoid saying the sacred name. We find that in names like Yoel which is Yeho-el. Perhaps you would like to comment on the claim that the New Testament was originally written in the Aramaic or Syriac language. Today we have many versions of the Peshitta which are supposedly superior to the Greek.
Saro Fedele
In the following text there are some clues that help us to avoid the modern viewpoint to discard the possibility that Hebrew (also Qumranian Hebrew) was spoken in the first century AD: Some Linguistic Aspects of the Qumran Texts, Menahem Mansoor, 1958; Les charactéristiques de l’hébreu qumranien et leur inférence sur le problem historique, Jacques Schreiden, 1959; Die Sprachenfragen in der Qumran-Gemeinshaft, Stanistalv Segert, 1963; Hebrew Language, The Dead Sea Scrolls, E. Y, Kutscher, 1971. A History of the Hebrew Language, E. Y, Kutscher, 1982, pages 93ss; A History of the Hebrew Language (Historia de la lengua Hebrea, 1988) by Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (on the chapter about the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Texts); Qumran Hebrew. Some Typological Observation, Shelomo Morag, 1988. Another fine text is “The Nature of DSS Hebrew and Its Relation to BH and MH”, by E. Qimron, 2000, where he demonstrates that the Hebrew of the DSS time was a live tongue, in literary texts and in common talks, that is, not used only for liturgical purposes. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church that once said in 1958 in its first edition, Hebrew "ceased to be a spoken language around the fourth century BC", now says in 1997 in its third edition, Hebrew "continued to be used as a spoken and written language in the New Testament period". ["Hebrew" in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edit. F.L. Cross, first edition (Oxford, 1958), 3rd edition (Oxford 1997)]. I have recorded also this following argument (but, regrettably, I did not record the author of it. However the arguments here considered remain valid to demonstrate the point at issue): "Randall Buth has pointed out to me a fascinating indication that Hebrew was the spoken language in the first century. The Jewish historian Josephus describes an incident that took place during the siege of Jerusalem (War 5:269-272). Josephus relates that watchmen were posted on the towers of the city walls to warn residents of incoming stones fired from Roman ballistae. Whenever a stone was on its way, the spotters would shout “in their native tongue, ‘The son is coming!’” (War 5:272). The meaning the watchmen communicated to the people was: Ha-even ba’ah (the stone is coming). However, because of the urgency of the situation, these words were clipped, being abbreviated to ben ba (son comes). (This well-known Hebrew wordplay is attested in the New Testament: “God is able from these avanim [stones] to raise up banim [sons] to Abra-ham” [Matt 3:9 = Luke 3:8].) The wordplay (and pun) that Josephus preserves is unambiguously Hebrew. This wordplay does not work in Aramaic: kefa ate (the stone is coming), or the more literary avna ata, when spoken rapidly, do not sound like bara ate (the son is coming). Another Aramaic word for “stone,” aven, which is related to Hebrew, changes the gender of the verb and, in any case, does not work with 'son'. Certainly, a warning about an incoming missile needs to be as brief as possible (and, of course, shouted in the language of speech). How many words would an English-speaking soldier use to warn his unit of an incoming artillery shell? The Hebrew-speaking spotters on the walls of the besieged city of Jerusalem needed only two, and these they abbreviated to one syllable each.” These and other texts/discussion, I avoid to mention here, demonstrate (a) in the Jesus' lifetime Hebrew was a live language; and (b) that the Hebrew of some Dead Sea Texts (coeval texts, at least some of them) is really Hebrew. And, since the lifetime of Josephus falls inside this timespan - and also the lifetime of Jesus overlap this range of years - there’s no reason to object to the arguments of Douglas Hamp.
Douglas Hamp
Excellent resources. Dr Buth was a mentor of mine when I studied in Israel.
Albert Zaiser
Hi Douglas. Excellent paper. It shatters the myth that Yeshua predominantly spoke Aramaic. You might like to know that during my talks with George Wesley Buchanan when he was working on a commentary on the gospel of John, he concluded that it was first written in Hebrew and I heartily agree. As you know, Aramaic and Hebrew are different enough to make it difficult for an Aramaic speaker to understand a Hebrew speaker. The mistakes of scholars are troubling. Someone should write a book entitled "Scholarly Blunders" which would be about 1,000 pages and counting. My question is how to spell the name of Jesus in Hebrew. The OT has both Jeshua and Jehoshua and first century ossuaries sometimes have both on the same ossuary. It makes more sense to me that Jesus would have been originally named Yehoshua which was later reduced to Yeshua but I can't be certain about that.
John L Ronning
Note that "Yeshua" is the Aramaic version of "Joshua" - you can see that in Ezra from the different spellings of the name Joshua (the high priest) - Yoshua in the Hebrew section, Yeshua in the Aramaic, so Iesous in Greek (i.e. Jesus) is more likely derived from the Aramaic spelling, though we can't be sure, and why would it matter anyway?
Douglas Hamp
I understand Yeshua to be a late Biblical Hebrew reduction of Yehoshua. Those who came with Zerubbabel were Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, and Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel: (Ezra 2:2) My full name is Douglas but I go by Doug - this may have been a similar situation, just like Michael > Mike, Christian > Chris, Benjamin > Ben. I am honored that you liked the book.
Ephrem Poppish
I always give pause to "Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani", The Gospels give witness to much mockery...........are they not mocking Galilean Aramaic? Note: Sokoloff dictionary on Galilean Aramaic
Douglas Hamp
I wrote this book in 2005 showing the ample support that Jesus and the disciples spoke Hebrew on a daily basis. I hope you enjoy!
Donald Barger
Looking forward to reading. Thanks!
Last edited: