Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why does Hebrew and Greek appear in Pilatos' sign?
#1
First off, I don't believe Greek primacy, but I ask...

It says in Hebrew, Greek, and Roman for his sign....

First question, why was Greek written if it really was not spoken in the land?

Secondly, why Hebrew, when most people probably only knew Aramaic?

Thanks
~DC
Reply
#2
Shlama,


a possibility i've pondered for the "Hebrew" on the sign is that it actually means "Aramaic." the reason being that oft-times in the Gospels when the text calls something "Hebrew," the word used (like a proper name of a person or place) is distinctly Aramaic - not what we think of as Hebrew. this tells us immediately that the word Hebrew could indeed stand in for Aramaic, at least to the minds of the 1st century believers. soooo, it is just a possibility for the sign. i don't have a problem with it being Hebrew, mind you, but i have considered it could be referencing Aramaic.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#3
For the same reason you find multi-lingual signs all over the middle east today, Greek and Roman for the sake of soldiers and other foreigners there during that time.

Here's a couple of photos of multi-linguael signs in Israel today (Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic and English):

[Image: dynimage.php?mod=gallery&id=2401]

[Image: dynimage.php?mod=gallery&id=2394]

+Shamasha
Reply
#4
Burning one Wrote:Shlama,


a possibility i've pondered for the "Hebrew" on the sign is that it actually means "Aramaic." the reason being that oft-times in the Gospels when the text calls something "Hebrew," the word used (like a proper name of a person or place) is distinctly Aramaic - not what we think of as Hebrew. this tells us immediately that the word Hebrew could indeed stand in for Aramaic, at least to the minds of the 1st century believers. soooo, it is just a possibility for the sign. i don't have a problem with it being Hebrew, mind you, but i have considered it could be referencing Aramaic.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

Since we were on the subject of beer in another thread, this reminds me of the Foster's Lager commercial - 'Haw ta speeek Awstraleean'. Of course, it's English. But locals can refer to it as "Australian."

+Shamasha
Reply
#5
Paul Younan Wrote:
Burning one Wrote:Shlama,


a possibility i've pondered for the "Hebrew" on the sign is that it actually means "Aramaic." the reason being that oft-times in the Gospels when the text calls something "Hebrew," the word used (like a proper name of a person or place) is distinctly Aramaic - not what we think of as Hebrew. this tells us immediately that the word Hebrew could indeed stand in for Aramaic, at least to the minds of the 1st century believers. soooo, it is just a possibility for the sign. i don't have a problem with it being Hebrew, mind you, but i have considered it could be referencing Aramaic.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

Since we were on the subject of beer in another thread, this reminds me of the Foster's Lager commercial - 'Haw ta speeek Awstraleean'. Of course, it's English. But locals can refer to it as "Australian."

+Shamasha

Yeah, very much like that! or how about, "Hebrew. It's Aramaic for 'Beer.'"
Reply
#6
Burning one Wrote:a possibility i've pondered for the "Hebrew" on the sign is that it actually means "Aramaic." the reason being that oft-times in the Gospels when the text calls something "Hebrew," the word used (like a proper name of a person or place) is distinctly Aramaic - not what we think of as Hebrew. this tells us immediately that the word Hebrew could indeed stand in for Aramaic, at least to the minds of the 1st century believers.

For real? The "Hebrew" words in the gospel are Aramaic ones? <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->

List of "in Hebrew" ones I found:

Beth-khesda, Gafiftha, Gogultha, Rabbuli. (Greek Bethesda, Gabbatha, Golgotha, Rabboni)

Can you please verify these, both the Peshitto and the Greek transliterations?

Thanks
~DC
Reply
#7
DrawCloser Wrote:
Burning one Wrote:a possibility i've pondered for the "Hebrew" on the sign is that it actually means "Aramaic." the reason being that oft-times in the Gospels when the text calls something "Hebrew," the word used (like a proper name of a person or place) is distinctly Aramaic - not what we think of as Hebrew. this tells us immediately that the word Hebrew could indeed stand in for Aramaic, at least to the minds of the 1st century believers.

For real? The "Hebrew" words in the gospel are Aramaic ones? <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->

List of "in Hebrew" ones I found:

Beth-khesda, Gafiftha, Gogultha, Rabbuli. (Greek Bethesda, Gabbatha, Golgotha, Rabboni)

Can you please verify these, both the Peshitto and the Greek transliterations?

Thanks
~DC


Shlama,


yes, these would be Aramaic, though "Rabbuli" is highly likely as a scribal error for "Rabbuni."

as you performed your search, did you notice that every time "Hebrew" is used in the Gospels as a language referent it actually means "Aramaic," except for the sign on the cross? that is the one time the term "Hebrew" is not followed by an explicit place-name/word to verify it as actually Aramaic.

BBBBBUUUUTTTTT, notice also that the words called "Hebrew" but really Aramaic are all listed in the book of John, and chapter 19 has two explicit ones, where chapter 20 has one explicit reference. couched in between these is 19:20, the "Hebrew" on the sign. so, every other reference to "Hebrew" in John is clarified to be Aramaic by the word specified, without contest, except this one. should that help to color our interpretation of the actual Semitic language on the sign?

if one were to go simply by the evidence of every other instance where John mentioned "Hebrew," then it may actually have been written in Aramaic, and the title that he claims it to have had could perhaps literally be the statement he gives in the Aramaic of John 19:19. perhaps the problem is not a real problem at all; perhaps it is us who have created a problem when there isn't one. perhaps the only difference is that he gives the Aramaic phrase first, and afterwards calls it "Hebrew." based on all his other mentions of "Hebrew" in John, this would be consistent. however, since it doesn't explicitly say so, we are left to ponder. i am one to stick to the facts and teach the text itself, but i think looking at it this way merits a ponder, at the least. my gut feeling for a long time has been that it was likely just like John 19:19 said, especially knowing that the site was near pedestrian traffic, to be seen my multitudes, and even though Hebrew was alive to an extent, it would have made so much more sense for it to be actually in Aramaic, since the timing was also bringing traffic from afar for the festival of Passover/Unleavened Bread, who themselves would have been more likely to read Aramaic than Hebrew at a glance. if we're going to maintain Aramaic as the lingua franca of the Middle East, this would make the most sense in my book.

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#8
Shlama Akhi Jeremy,

Just a thought, but if Aramaic is written in "Hebrew" characters, we often refer to it as being "written in Hebrew." Like the Targums on this site, they are really Aramaic, but written in "Hebrew."

Could it be that John was not necessarily identifying the languages per se, but the scripts?

Is it wrong to say that "Shlama" is written in English? If "Shlama" were transliterated into Chinese, would it be inaccurate to say it is written in Chinese?

Look at the door sign I posted above showing the Assyrian Monastery in Jerusalem. Does the "Deir es-Syrian" in the English mean anything in English, or is it simply an Arabic phrase for "Assyrian Convent" written using Latin characters?

+Shamasha
Reply
#9
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Jeremy,

Just a thought, but if Aramaic is written in "Hebrew" characters, we often refer to it as being "written in Hebrew."

Could it be that John was not necessarily identifying the languages per se, but the scripts?

Is it wrong to say that "Shlama" is written in English? If "Shlama" were transliterated into Chinese, would it be inaccurate to say it is written in Chinese?

+Shamasha


Shlama akhi Paul,


this is a good thing to know, i was unaware of it! and i hadn't thought of this as a possibility. this perspective would erase any problem concerning the question of what was actually said, and leave it at a bare minimum of just "script reference." so, perhaps we're making even harder than it has to be....


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#10
Shlama again Akhi,

That was my initial thought anyway. What would be so odd about "Yeshu' d'nasrath Malka de-Yehudaye" being written in 3 different scripts ? (Hebrew, Greek and Latin scripts)

Much like the "Deir es-Syrian" in English above, right?

+Shamasha
Reply
#11
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama again Akhi,

That was my initial thought anyway. What would be so odd about "Yeshu' d'nasrath Malka de-Yehudaye" being written in 3 different scripts ? (Hebrew, Greek and Latin scripts)

Much like the "Deir es-Syrian" in English above, right?

+Shamasha


Shlama akhi,

yeah, it wouldn't be odd at all. it is definitely a valid point to consider in this!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#12
Interesting theory, Akhi Paul.

I'm kind of hung up on this, though. Would it make sense to transliterate (not translate) the same words into three different scripts? If a Greek speaker (for example) saw the sign and couldn't read the Aramaic version, wouldn't the Greek letters just be gibberish to him?

Much like a sentence of Chinese, written in latin characters... I might be able to pronounce it, but would certainly have no idea what it meant.

I might be overlooking some important feature of the historical setting, but it makes more sense to me that it would have been actually translated for the benefit of any who might see the sign.

(That the Aramaic words may have been written in Hebrew letters still makes sense to me. Probably equally as much sense as if it were written in Aramaic and the author/translator of the gospel called it Hebrew.)
Reply
#13
bknight Wrote:Interesting theory, Akhi Paul.

I'm kind of hung up on this, though. Would it make sense to transliterate (not translate) the same words into three different scripts? If a Greek speaker (for example) saw the sign and couldn't read the Aramaic version, wouldn't the Greek letters just be gibberish to him?

Hi B!

This was just an example which Paul gave to you, that the script in untrained eyes makes up the language!
Of course, the sign on the tablet above Yeshu was written in correct language, it was not transliterated.
To prove this point: In ancient Palmyra, they found also signs in 3 languages (Greek, Latin, 'Hebrew'/Aramaic). It was THE way, the Romans communicated with the people when they wrote public messages.
Palmyra is in Syria, as you know, and it was especially having an Aramaic speaking people, in those days; still, the signs were in 3 languages. It was just common Roman use in those areas.

Estrangelo, the script for the NT, developed in Edessa, did not exist in Jesus time. So, what Paul means, Jewish Aramaic was written using Hebrew Square script.
For a non Jew, it would just look like 'hebrew'
This is making a lot of sense to me!
Reply
#14
Shlama Akhay Brian & Distazo,

Brian - my parents, 2 sisters and 1 brother spoke/speak Aramaic perfectly. But none of them ever learned how to read and write it. In fact, in my immediate family only my maternal grandmother and I ever learned it. No uncles, aunts, cousins, etc., even though all are perfectly proficient in speaking and understanding it.

When my parents were in school in Lebanon, they obviously learned Arabic. They used to write Aramaic in the Arabic script. Both my sisters grew up there, so the same thing.

My younger brother and I were born here. We never learned Arabic. But we did of course learn the Latin script used to write English. We often send emails or text messages to each other in the Aramaic language, but using this same Latin script you are reading. Assyrians in Russia use the Cyrillic script.

My paternal uncle and his sons who lived in Greece in the 70s used to send my dad letters in Aramaic, but using the Greek script (he had a friend who was Greek read them to him.)

Search google for Assyrian forums and you'll find quite a few posts that are Aramaic, but in Latin (English) script.

I'm ashamed to say, but 90% of Aramaic speakers today cannot read and write in their own language. That's been going on for centuries.

In any case, I said all this to answer your question regarding historical and cultural settings during that time. Many people may not have been able to read the Aramaic script, but could do so in Latin or Greek characters (without the need to understand the Greek or Latin languages themselves.)

The name for this phenomenon, btw, is Garshuni.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garshuni">http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garshuni</a><!-- m -->

Jews in the Middle East used to write Arabic in Hebrew script, also. That's because when their lingua Franca changed from Aramaic to Arabic, they still used their own script to write Arabic.

To summarize, language and script are not always the same thing. Just look at the Targums on this site. Many different scripts have and continue to be used to write the Aramaic language. As far back as the empire where they wrote it in cuneiform.

If you're not confused yet, allow me to throw another monkey wrench into it. What's commonly referred to as "Hebrew script" isn't Hebrew at all. In fact, it is Aramaic. The square script. If you want to see the original Hebrew writing, take a look at the Torah of the Samaritans. They have preserved the old Hebrew script.

Why is the Aramaic script called "Hebrew?" For the same reason the Aramaic language back then was called "Hebrew", because the Hebrews used it. Simple.

So yes, they spoke "Hebrew" back then. And the sign was in "Hebrew." Which is really Aramaic.

Today Assyrians tell you they speak "Assyrian", even though it bears no semblance to the old Akkadian language that was known as Assyrian. They are actually speaking Neo-Aramaic. But this has become known today as "Assyrian." Why? It's simple, because that's who speaks it.

+Shamasha
Reply
#15
Thank you for that very informative post, brother.

It makes sense that Aramaic-speakers who had been educated in different parts of the empire would be able to read the words of their own language only if written in a foreign script. I had never considered that before.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)