12-15-2007, 07:19 AM
Hi Brantana,
The key word there is incorrectly. The presupposition is that it would be improper to call Aramaic, "Hebrew."
I think I've mentioned before that we Assyrians today, incorrectly I might add, refer to our language as "Assyrian." As you know, the language we speak today is in fact not Assyrian, it's Aramaic. The Assyrians spoke Akkadian. Akkadian died out a long, long time ago.
Is it improper, incorrect, to do so? To call our language "Assyrian?"
Yes, and No.
On the one hand, yes, it is, linguistically speaking, improper to call the language I speak "Assyrian" - but I do so all the time, as do the vast majority of speakers.
On the other hand, no, it's not improper....because that's the language that Assyrians now speak. We've spoken it for at least 3,000 years. Does 3,000 years entitle the speakers to call the language "Assyrian?"
By the time of Meshikha, the "Hebrews" had spoken Aramaic for at least 600-700 years. Would it have been improper for them to have referred to their particular Aramaic dialect as "Ibrayith?"
Perhaps the Gospel writer was less concerned with the technical nuances and differences between the Hebrew of Moses and the "Hebrew" of the writing above Meshikha?
The preponderance of evidence suggests that the religious folks didn't even converse in Mosaic Hebrew anymore, much less the common folks. The Targums are ample evidence of that.
To whose benefit would it have been to write the words above Meshikha in two living languages, and one dead one?
And by "Hebrew", why didn't the author of the Gospel point out that technical distinction of the script actually being an Aramaic one? What "Hebrew" was meant - that it was also written in the old Phoenician/Samaritan script?
Was Yukhannan really concerned about being precise about these things?
If we want to impose this level of technicality on the authors of the scripture, then we can fault Yukhanan again for calling the word "Gabbatha", "Hebrew" (c.f., Yukhanan 19:13)
Is "Gabbatha" a "Hebrew" word, or an "Aramaic" one?
If it's really Aramaic, and you know that it is, then why did Yukhanan call it "Ibrayith? ("Hebrew") ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabbatha
Hope that answers your question!
brantana Wrote:So why would a gospel author, who intimately knew the distinctions between Hebrew and Aramaic, incorrectly (emphasis mine, Paul) specify Hebrew, while correctly identifying two other languages (Latin and Greek), if indeed it was Aramaic written over Meshikha?
The key word there is incorrectly. The presupposition is that it would be improper to call Aramaic, "Hebrew."
I think I've mentioned before that we Assyrians today, incorrectly I might add, refer to our language as "Assyrian." As you know, the language we speak today is in fact not Assyrian, it's Aramaic. The Assyrians spoke Akkadian. Akkadian died out a long, long time ago.
Is it improper, incorrect, to do so? To call our language "Assyrian?"
Yes, and No.
On the one hand, yes, it is, linguistically speaking, improper to call the language I speak "Assyrian" - but I do so all the time, as do the vast majority of speakers.
On the other hand, no, it's not improper....because that's the language that Assyrians now speak. We've spoken it for at least 3,000 years. Does 3,000 years entitle the speakers to call the language "Assyrian?"
By the time of Meshikha, the "Hebrews" had spoken Aramaic for at least 600-700 years. Would it have been improper for them to have referred to their particular Aramaic dialect as "Ibrayith?"
Perhaps the Gospel writer was less concerned with the technical nuances and differences between the Hebrew of Moses and the "Hebrew" of the writing above Meshikha?
The preponderance of evidence suggests that the religious folks didn't even converse in Mosaic Hebrew anymore, much less the common folks. The Targums are ample evidence of that.
To whose benefit would it have been to write the words above Meshikha in two living languages, and one dead one?
And by "Hebrew", why didn't the author of the Gospel point out that technical distinction of the script actually being an Aramaic one? What "Hebrew" was meant - that it was also written in the old Phoenician/Samaritan script?
Was Yukhannan really concerned about being precise about these things?
If we want to impose this level of technicality on the authors of the scripture, then we can fault Yukhanan again for calling the word "Gabbatha", "Hebrew" (c.f., Yukhanan 19:13)
Is "Gabbatha" a "Hebrew" word, or an "Aramaic" one?
If it's really Aramaic, and you know that it is, then why did Yukhanan call it "Ibrayith? ("Hebrew") ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabbatha
Hope that answers your question!