It is far from established that εβραικοις (Hebraikois) refers to Hebrew here. It could just as easily refer to Aramaic. In fact, the designations Latin, Greek, and "Hebrew" in this Greek refer not to specific languages but to specific peoples. Hence, whatever language was spoken by the Hebrews is what is referenced in this passage.And why was the superscription, "King of the Jews" written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin if Hebrew was a dead language at the time?
I have heard that it is now in dispute concerning the predominance of Aramaic. The DSS have evidenced many Hebrew texts. I will gather my notes and post tomorrow. Maybe you can find something in scholarly journals. This is all I could find so far:Hello,
How do these establish your point? How do you deal with the fact that most understand the Lukan verses are references to Aramaic?
This is a myth. Hebraikois is clearly a reference to Hebrew, etymologically and contextually, while other words existed in Greek for Aramaic.It is far from established that εβραικοις (Hebraikois) refers to Hebrew here. It could just as easily refer to Aramaic.
Since Paul spoke to a crowd in Jersusalem in Hebrew, and archaeology has confirmed etymology and common sense, there is no doubt that Hebrew was a common language for the times (although not the lingua franca since it would be restricted mostly to those with Hebraic background). And we also know this was a literate society, largely because of the Hebrew Bible and the Aramaic Targumim. (Alan Millard has written on this and even the better informed skeptics agree on the literacy issue.)Even if it can be shown that the reference to "Hebrew" is indeed about "Hebrew," this does not mean Hebrew was a lingua franka. Many sacrosanct languages are used to convey meaning not because they are common but because are sacred.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabetAfter the Babylonian capture of Judea, when most of the nobles were taken into exile, the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet continued to be used by the people who remained to work the fields. One example of such writings are the 6th-century BCE jar handles from Gibeon, on which the names of winegrowers are inscribed. Beginning from the 5th century BCE onward, when the Aramaic language and script became an official means of communication, the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet was preserved mainly for writing the Tanakh by a coterie of erudite scribes, who most likely belonged to the sect of the Sadducees. Some Paleo-Hebrew fragments of the Torah were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The vast majority of the Hasmonean coinage, as well as the coins of the First Jewish-Roman War and Bar Kokhba's revolt, bears Paleo-Hebrew legends. The Paleo-Hebrew alphabet fell completely out of use only after 135 CE.
Looking for more.........there is more evidence indicating that Jews employed the paleo-Hebrew script during the Hellenistic period than there is regarding its use by the Samaritans. Jews used Hebrew script for stamping coins, administrative stamps (such as the “Jerusalem” stamp), writing scrolls (found at Qumran and Masada), inscriptions (a column’s fragment of a marble slab found near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and the Abba inscription), on ossuaries (found on Mt. Scopus), on sarcophagi (discovered at Masada), as well as column fragments and tags (at Masada) during the Second Temple period. These finds confirm that Jews utilized the paleo-Hebrew script during the Second Temple period for official purposes (on seals, coins, and perhaps even in an inscription from the Temple Mount), religious needs (the scrolls), and even in daily life.
Peter means nothing in Hebrew or Aramaic. Can you explain?It is the Roman Catholic Church that pushes the myth that Aramaic, not Hebrew was spoken by the Jews in New Testament times. The issue is the primacy of Peter. In Aramaic Peter means rock, in Hebrew it means stone.
I agree that Matthew was written originally in Greek...not Hebrew or Aramaic. There may have been an official Hebrew translation from the Greek, but it certainly is no longer extant.By the same token, the RCC promotes the idea that at least Matthew was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. It's easy to show that false for then why would it have Jesus say "Eli Eli lama sabachthani" in Mat. 27:46 and the follow that by "that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" If it were written in Aramaic or Hebrew why not translate it directly instead of transliterating the Aramaic and then adding the translation?
How was it a living language?So even though it is pretty much established that Hebrew was a living language in the first century and that Jews had Hebrew Scriptures, in what language did the Gentiles hear the Scriptures read in the synagogue (Acts 15)?
How were the Greeks and others able to hear or read Scripture?
Hello Peter,How was it a living language?
Knowledge of modern vernacular Hebrew is not equivalent to knowing Biblical Hebrew(s). Even if it can be shown that there was a spoken, vernacular Hebrew in 2nd Temple Judea, does this necessarily mean that the speakers could understand biblical Hebrew from hundreds of years prior? Modern vernacular Hebrew speaking Jews do not automatically understand what they hear and/or read in the Tanakh.
The Bible of Philo, Timothy, Paul, and the early gentile believers was undeniably the LXX of God. Oh, I am LXXO.
That is interesting about the pastors in the Philippines translating on the fly....makes me think that may be how Gentiles were taught Scripture in the first century. I also read that King James himself made his own translation of the Scriptures. Maybe this was a common way of learning....to paraphrase and give the sense of the Scriptures in one's own words or language. Yet, "the Scriptures" were the inspired words of God and were the standard.Gentiles were not allowed in the synagogues. Proselytes learned Hebrew. Every proselyte I know had learned Hebrew.
In the Philippines, pastors translate the KJV on the fly because in their view there is no reliable translation into Tagalog.
page 10 in a paper by Tim Hegg, "An Assessment of 'Divine Invitation' Teaching" .......We do know that many Gentiles regularly visited synagogues in the early centuries.....(see Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (Yale, 2000), pp. 115, 1121, 272-75, 350; Irina Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting: Diaspora Setting (Eerdmans, 1996) pp. 113-16)