Category Archives: Biblical languages

Resources for Biblical Aramaic

29 Saturday Sep 2018

Posted by in Bible scholarship, Biblical languages

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

I have previously published a post on Aramaic that provides historical background to the language and describes its relevance for biblical studies. My aim in the present post is to give an overview of resources available for the study of Biblical Aramaic, and to provide an evaluation of these resources. Prices quoted are current at the time of posting.

Grammars

Hebrew and Aramaic are closely related, something like Spanish and Italian. Thus, Biblical Aramaic (BA) beginning grammars are designed for students who already have a working knowledge of Biblical Hebrew (BH). Because these grammars build on a student’s Hebrew knowledge, they are intended to teach Aramaic grammar in only one semester, rather than the usual full year. The four key Aramaic grammars that I recommend are Johns, Jumper, Schuele, and Rosenthal. One nice thing about these four books is that they are all small, thin volumes that are easily portable.

Johns, Alger F. A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Rev. ed. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1972.

Jumper, James N. An Annotated Answer Key to Alger Johns’s A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Rev. ed. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2003.

  • Amazon price: $14.99 (Johns); $14.99 (Jumper); Logos price: $23.99 (both Johns and Jumper)
  • Number of Lessons: 20
  • Johns is my favorite introductory grammar for Biblical Aramaic. Johns is Adventist, but he doesn’t have any specifically Adventist theology in his grammar. What is important for me is that Johns has a conservative view of Daniel and Ezra, and this view comes through in both Johns’ grammar and in Jumper’s answer key.
  • I also like the fact that Johns and Jumper were both trained in Semitics. Johns studied Semitics under William Foxwell Albright, and he studied Aramaic under Joseph Fitzmyer. He is not just an OT Hebrew professor who also teaches Aramaic, but is someone whose knowledge of Aramaic is much broader and deeper than Biblical Aramaic alone.
  • If you know Biblical Hebrew well, you can teach yourself Biblical Aramaic in a summer, doing a chapter of Johns a week and checking your work with the answer key. Many of the early exercises in Johns are made-up, but the later exercises will lead you through a translation of all of Aramaic Ezra. Translating the biblical text and reading the annotations in Jumper’s answer key was something that I found very helpful.

Schuele, Andreas. An Introduction to Biblical Aramaic. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012.

  • Amazon price: $22.16 (paperback); $12.99 (Kindle)
  • Schuele is arranged as a reference grammar, but is written at an introductory level. It can be used by itself to learn biblical Aramaic, but it is best used as a complement to Johns. Since it is more technical than Johns, students will find it helpful for providing fuller explanations for things that Johns may only explain briefly.
  • Schuele’s comparative word list on pp. 93-94 is helpful.
  • Includes an answer key for exercises.
  • For a review of Schuele, see Brian Davidson, Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 23, no. 2 (2013), 249-50, available here.

Rosenthal, Franz. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. 7th, expanded ed. Porta Linguarum Orientalium. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006.

  • Amazon price: $31.19
  • Rosenthal is the best intermediate/advanced reference grammar of Biblical Aramaic.
  • After working through an introductory grammar, you can continue your Aramaic study by translating all the Aramaic portions of the OT. As part of this exercise, I would recommend looking up the references in Rosenthal for each verse. This well help greatly to solidify your understanding of Aramaic grammar.
  • I would recommend having Rosenthal at your side whenever you are translating biblical Aramaic, and looking up his references to each verse.
  • Rosenthal is also an excellent tool to consult when doing exegetical work in biblical Aramaic.

Greenspahn, Frederick E. An Introduction to Aramaic. 2nd ed. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.

  • Amazon price: $47.95 (softcover); Logos price: $43.99 (English); $11.99 (Spanish)
  • Number of Chapters: 32; answer key in back
  • Greenspahn differs from the other grammars in this list in that it is designed to be a general introduction to Aramaic, not just an introduction to Biblical Aramaic, though its focus is on Biblical Aramaic. Compared to Johns, it is a much longer introductory grammar that is designed to be part of a year-long Introduction to Aramaic course in a Semitics program, rather than a one-semester Biblical Aramaic course in a seminary program. Greenspahn’s method is, unfortunately, based on the view that the Bible is not any more special than other works of literature. He says, “With only some 200 verses of the Bible in Aramaic, there would be little reason to learn the dialect for that reason alone” (p. 1).
  • Greenspahn’s grammar is liked by many Aramaicists. However, as the SBL grammar, it is heavily colored by higher criticism, and for me this ruins the book. The commentaries that he recommends for Ezra and Daniel are all critical commentaries. On p. 5, he says, “scholars are not certain about the historical reliability of biblical statements about the patriarchs.” His comments on Daniel 7 are in line with the critical interpretation of that key prophetic chapter.
  • One thing that bothered me when using Greenspahn was the way he cavalierly edits the biblical text in the homework exercises. In theory, the homework exercises require the translation of the entire corpus of Biblical Aramaic, but nearly all of the biblical texts are “simplified” and “abridged” and “normalized” in order to fit the plan of Greenspahn’s grammar. To Greenspahn, the biblical text is not sacred, so there is nothing bothersome about changing it to suit his purposes. Only Daniel 7 is presented without modification.
  • Greenspahn uses a different system of nomenclature for the Aramaic verbal system than any other grammar of Biblical Aramaic, which can be confusing. The system Greenspahn uses has its merits, but it is designed for comparative Semitics scholars and linguists, not for clergymen who want to learn Biblical Aramaic. It would be helpful if Greenspahn at least used the nomenclature of both systems, so that students would be able to understand other grammars, lexicons, and commentaries.
  • Many of the homework exercises are too challenging for most students. Asking students to translate unpointed extrabiblical Aramaic texts and write in the correct vowels is okay for an advanced Semitics program, but not for a seminary class in Biblical Aramaic. The same could be said for the exercises which ask students to translate English sentences into Aramaic.
  • In summary, this grammar has an arrogant tone, which is evident in (1) Greenspahn’s glib handling of the biblical text; (2) Greenspahn’s strident dismissal of the authenticity of Daniel, without so much as mentioning that there are many competent scholars who believe the book is authentic; (3) Greenspahn’s replacement of standard BA verbal nomenclature with the labels used by Semiticists; (4) Greenspahn’s presentation of homework exercises that are too challenging for anyone but gifted Semitics students.
  • Greenspahn’s comments on Aramaic grammar are generally reliable, where they are not colored by his theology. But Johns is easier to understand and better organized.
  • Greenspahn is apparently the only Biblical Aramaic grammar available in Spanish.

Van Pelt, Miles V. Basics of Biblical Aramaic. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

  • Amazon price: $30.54 (softcover), $92.09 (softcover + DVD lectures); Logos price: $37.99
  • Number of Lessons: 22; answer key available online here
  • Van Pelt’s approach is the polar opposite of Greenspahn’s. He says, “This book was not written for Aramaic scholars or for students interested in comparative Semitic grammar” (p. x). Van Pelt makes no attempt whatsoever to explain the place of Aramaic in the Semitic language family or the history of the Aramaic language. He calls Biblical Aramaic “Jewish Literary Aramaic,” which to me sounds too much like “Holy Ghost Greek,” as the language of the New Testament was once conceived. In reality, Biblical Aramaic belongs to the Imperial Aramaic dialect.
  • Van Pelt’s grammar is popular because of the Zondervan marketing machine, but it is oversimplified for language purists. Van Pelt has a Ph.D. in Old Testament from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, but was not trained as an Aramaicist or a Semiticist. Thus, his explanations are not as precise as those in other grammars, and are too dumbed-down at times. Van Pelt mentions in the preface that he received some assistance from his colleague Peter Lee, who has a Ph.D. in Semitics and Egyptian languages, but the fact that he needed help hardly gives me confidence in this grammar, and I don’t trust its technical accuracy. The Basics of Biblical Hebrew grammar coauthored by Pratico and Van Pelt has also been criticized for technical inaccuracy, such as referring to wāw-consecutives as “the converted Perfect” and “the converted Imperfect.”
  • Example #1: Van Pelt unhelpfully refers to the Aramaic infinitive as the “infinitive construct,” on the assumption that this will help students who know Biblical Hebrew understand the function of the Aramaic infinitive. However, this terminology is unique to Van Pelt. Aramaic only has one infinitive, and so Aramaicists do not use the term “infinitive construct,” which is strictly a Hebrew grammar term.
  • Example #2: Van Pelt does not use any diacritics or guttural markers in his transliterations, on the assumption that these will make the grammar too difficult. Many Semiticists would say that Van Pelt misrepresents the sounds of Aramaic by omitting these diacritics.
  • Example #3: Van Pelt seems to treat Aramaic as a dialect of Hebrew in order to “help” students learn the language, but from a linguistic standpoint this is incorrect (p. 3).
  • I would not use or recommend Van Pelt’s grammar out of concerns about its linguistic accuracy.

Lexicons

  • HALOT is the primary lexicon I recommend for Biblical Aramaic (Amazon; Accordance; Logos). In Hebrew, I often prefer BDB to HALOT (more conjectural, interpretive), although I use both. But in Aramaic, HALOT is much better than BDB due to advances in Aramaic studies and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I generally don’t even look at BDB in Aramaic.
  • An excellent supplement to HALOT is Vogt, Ernst. A Lexicon of Biblical Aramaic: Clarified by Ancient Documents. Translated and revised by J. A. Fitzmyer. Subsidia Biblica 42. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011. (was $37.50 on Amazon)
  • Volume 16 of the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT) covers Biblical Aramaic. This is an excellent, in-depth resource that is well respected in mainstream scholarship. (Logos; Amazon)
  • Another good resource for Biblical Aramaic is the Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains in Logos.
  • There are also Biblical Aramaic vocabulary lists in Johns (A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic) and Mitchel (A Student’s Vocabulary for Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic—Amazon price: $11.58 for 2nd ed.; Logos price: $12.99 for 1st ed.).
  • The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL = “Targum Lexicon” in Logos) is the best all-around Aramaic lexicon. CAL can be accessed online for free. The online version is more complete than the version in Logos. Be aware that CAL covers all periods of Aramaic, and not just Biblical Aramaic. For Biblical Aramaic definitions, look for the abbreviations BAEzra and BADan (example). In Logos, the abbreviation is “BibAr” (also “BibArEzra” or “BibArDan”).
  • Less useful is Cook, Edward. Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. (Amazon price: $54.50; Accordance price: $49.90). This dictionary is designed for use with Aramaic texts from Qumran; Biblical Aramaic is from an earlier period.
  • Jastrow’s Dictionary of the Targumim (available free here and here; for purchase in Logos here) and Smith’s Syriac Dictionary (available free here and here; for purchase in Logos here) can be used with CAL for diachronic word studies, but should not be used for translating Biblical Aramaic.

Other resources

  • Bible software – (1) Both Accordance and Logos offer two different syntax trees for the entire Old Testament, including the Aramaic sections. These syntax trees will be very helpful for understanding the grammar of the text if you are weak in Aramaic. Of course, it is ideal if your knowledge of Aramaic advances to the point where you can evaluate these syntax trees critically, but for the most part the grammar is straightforward. (2) Accordance and Logos both have tagged Targumic texts. Accordance has the most complete tagging, but doesn’t provide information from CAL, like BibleWorks and Logos do. (3) Accordance and Logos also offer Syriac resources.
  • Online platforms – Various online platforms are available for the study of Biblical Aramaic, most notably Jesus Spoke Aramaic.
  • Biblical Aramaic: A Reader and Handbook. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2016. (Amazon price: $22.50; CBD price: $19.99) – This volume is small enough to be easily portable, and provides a handy way to keep your biblical Aramaic fresh by reading through it periodically. The lists in the back are also handy. You can read through Biblical Aramaic using this volume for review quite quickly. You can get similar information in your Bible software or apps, but the reader is probably better for language proficiency.
  • Kline, Jonathan G. Keep Up Your Biblical Aramaic in Two Minutes a Day: 365 Selections for Easy Review. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2017. (Amazon price, hardcover: $36.49; CBD price, imitation leather: $17.99)
  • Audio recordings – Biblical Aramaic is a small enough corpus so that you listen to all of it in an hour or two. (1) One way to hear the Aramaic portions of the Bible read with modern Hebrew/Sephardic pronunciation is to listen to the recording of Abraham Schmueloff, which is available in various places online, such as here. (2) The best free online recordings are from the 929 Project. I have made playlists of Omer Frenkel’s reading of Ezra and Daniel in Hebrew and Aramaic on SoundCloud.
  • Flashcards – The small size of the Biblical Aramaic corpus makes memorizing the entire vocabulary of Biblical Aramaic an achievable goal. With the vocabulary memorized, you will be able to sight read all the Biblical Aramaic texts. Various flashcard apps can be used to help with this.
  • Comparative Semitics – (1) See my chart of Semitic phonological equivalences. A chart like this one is important for recognizing Aramaic cognates of Hebrew words. An Aramaic word and a Hebrew word that are from the same Semitic root may be spelled differently due to differences in the development of Hebrew and Aramaic phonology from Proto-Semitic (example: דְהַב in Aramaic = זָהָב in Hebrew). (2) See my chart of the Semitic verbal system. This chart will help you remember the function of Aramaic verbal stems by showing their Hebrew equivalent.

Going beyond

It is possible to gain a working knowledge of Aramaic solely by studying Biblical Aramaic. However, the biblical corpus is too small to develop expertise in the Aramaic language simply by reading and rereading Biblical Aramaic. For example, doing a word study in Aramaic usually requires researching extrabiblical usage. This the opposite of the situation for Classical Hebrew, which has a large biblical corpus and a very small extrabiblical corpus. In Aramaic, the biblical corpus is generally too small for lexical studies, but there is a huge corpus of extrabiblical Aramaic, so that our knowledge of ancient Aramaic is actually much greater than our knowledge of ancient Hebrew. There are various ways to “go beyond” Biblical Aramaic in order to become an Aramaic expert. This usually entails study in a Semitics program, although there are some things you can do on your own.

  1. Judaic Aramaic – Studying extrabiblical Jewish texts written in various Aramaic dialects will give one the sort of exposure to a large corpus of literature that is needed to develop skill in a language. The Targumim and Midrashic literature are very helpful in this regard. For texts closer to the biblical period, one can study the Elephantine Papyri, the Aramaic texts from Qumran, and Jewish inscriptions from the Second Temple Period.
  2. Syriac – Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic with a vast corpus of literature and many connections to biblical studies. Syriac is useful for textual criticism in both the OT and the NT. It is also useful for Comparative Semitics and Patristics. Syriac is still used in the liturgy of some Eastern churches.
  3. Imperial Aramaic – For those who wish to focus on Biblical Aramaic, the study of extrabiblical Imperial Aramaic literature (including inscriptions) is recommended.
  4. Neo-Aramaic – For those who wish to learn Aramaic as a spoken language, there are various dialects of Neo-Aramaic in existence, such as Assyrian and Chaldean. But be aware that there are significant differences between Neo-Aramaic and Biblical Aramaic. For more information, see the articles on Neo-Aramaic here and here.
  5. Comparative Semitics – Learning other Semitic languages besides Hebrew will also increase one’s grasp of Aramaic. The Semitic languages are closely related, so if one learns Arabic, Akkadian, Ethiopic, Ugaritic, et al. he will be able to understand how the specific grammar and vocabulary of Biblical Aramaic fits within the overall pattern of Semitic grammar and vocabulary.

The tiqqunê sopherim: emendations or glosses?

03 Saturday Feb 2018

Posted by in Bible scholarship, Biblical languages

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Note: This is the second article in a series on Old Testament textual criticism.

Occasionally the reader of BHS will come across a note which reads “Tiq soph, lect orig . . . .” These abbreviations mean “Tiqqunê sopherim, original reading. . . .” The equivalent note in BHQ simply shows a variant reading followed by the symbol ✣, which directs the reader to the textual commentary. Tiqqunê sopherim is a Hebrew term which means “emendations of the scribes.” According to rabbinic sources and the Masoretes, these are places where scribes of an earlier Jewish tradition had altered the original text of the OT out of theological sensitivities. Normally this involved a statement that was disrespectful to God and therefore, in their judgment, could not be said aloud when reading. The disrespectful term was replaced with a term that could be acceptably read. The Masoretes noted what they believed was the original reading, but their extremely conservative copying practices forbade them from altering the main text of their manuscripts. Many of the tiqqunê sopherim seem strange to Christian students of the Bible, since the things in the text which were theologically troublesome for Jews are very different from those things which might seem problematic to Christian scribes. The tiqqunê sopherim have more to do with matters of reverence than with matters of systematic theology.

Although rabbinic lists vary, the main lists have eighteen verses with alleged emendations, as shown below, with McCarthy’s evaluation of the authenticity of each tradition (in Carmel McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Emendations in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 36 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981], 61-129).

  1. Genesis 18:22—”Yahweh was still standing before Abraham” (וְיהוה עוֹדֶנּוּ עֹמֵד לִפְנֵי אַבְרָהָם) was changed to “Abraham was still standing before Yahweh” (‎וְאַבְרָהָם עוֹדֶנּוּ עֹמֵד לִפְנֵי יהוה), because to “stand before” someone usually means to minister to an authority who is sitting. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation
  2. Numbers 11:15—”Your wretchedness” (בְּרָעָתְךָ) was changed to “my wretchedness” (בְּרָעָתִי), so as to avoid a disrespectful expression toward God. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation
  3. Numbers 12:12—”our mother’s womb” (אִמֵּנוּ) and “our flesh” (בְשָׂרֵנוּ) were changed to “its mother’s womb” (מֵרֶחֶם אִמּוֹ) and “its flesh” (בְשָׂרוֹ), in order to avoid an expression of disrespect regarding the origins of Moses. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation
  4. 1 Samuel 3:13—”his sons were cursing God” (‎כִּי־מְקַלְלִים אֱלֹהִים בָּנָיו) was changed to “his sons were cursing themselves” (‎כִּי־מְקַלְלִים לָהֶם בָּנָיו), so that the reader of the Scriptures would not have to speak aloud of cursing God. McCarthy: authentic emendation
  5. 2 Samuel 16:12—”Yahweh will look with His eye” (יִרְאֶה יְהוָה בְּעֵינוֹ) was changed to “Yahweh will look on my eye” (Qere: יִרְאֶה יְהוָה בְּעֵינִי), in order to avoid an anthropomorphism. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation
  6. 2 Samuel 20:1—”to his gods” (‎לֵאלֹהָיו) was changed to “to his tents” (‎לְאֹהָלָיו), in order to avoid reading aloud a call to apostasy. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation
  7. 1 Kings 12:16—”to your gods” (‎לֵאלֹהֵיךָ) was changed to “to your tents” (‎לְאֹהָלֶיךָ), in order to avoid reading aloud a call to apostasy. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation
  8. Jeremiah 2:11—”My glory” (‎כְּבוֹדִי) was changed to “their glory” (‎כְּבֹדוֹ), so as to soften the force of an expression of disrespect toward God. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation
  9. Ezekiel 8:17—”My nose” (‎אַפִּי) was changed to “their nose” (‎אַפָּם), to avoid expressing the blasphemous idea of putting a branch to Yahweh’s nose. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation
  10. Hosea 4:7—”My glory” (‎כְּבוֹדִי) was changed to “their glory” (‎כְּבוֹדָם), so as to soften the force of an expression of disrespect toward God. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation
  11. Habakkuk 1:12—”You will not die” (‎לֹא תָּמוּת) was changed to “we will not die” (‎לֹא נָמוּת), to avoid the unseemly concept of God’s death. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation
  12. Zechariah 2:12 (2:8 Eng.)—”My eye” (‎עֵינִי) was changed to “His eye” (‎עֵינוֹ), so as to refer to the divine eye euphemistically (in the third person). McCarthy: authentic emendation
  13. Malachi 1:13—”you have snuffed at Me” (‎וְהִפַּחְתֶּם אוֹתִי) was changed to “you have snuffed at it” (‎וְהִפַּחְתֶּם אוֹתוֹ), in order to avoid an expression of offense toward Yahweh. Some lists include Malachi 1:12 instead of or in addition to Malachi 1:13, claiming that “you profane Me” (‎וְאַתֶּם מְחַלְּלִים אוֹתִי) was changed to “you profane it” (‎וְאַתֶּם מְחַלְּלִים אוֹתוֹ). McCarthy: unauthentic emendation
  14. Psalm 106:20—”My glory” (‎כְּבוֹדִי) was changed to “their glory” (‎כְּבוֹדָם), so as to soften the force of an expression of disrespect toward God. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation
  15. Job 7:20—”I am a burden to You” (‎וָאֶהְיֶה עָלֶיךָ לְמַשָּׂא) was changed to “I am a burden to myself” (‎וָאֶהְיֶה עָלַי לְמַשָּׂא), because of the unseemliness of speaking of becoming a burden to God. McCarthy: authentic emendation
  16. Job 32:3—”yet they had condemned God” (וַיַּרְשִׁיעוּ אֶת־אֱלֹהִים or ‎וַיַּרְשִׁיעוּ אֶת־יהוה) was changed to “yet they had condemned Job” (וַיַּרְשִׁיעוּ אֶת־אִיּוֹב), in order to avoid reading an expression of blasphemy. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation
  17. Lamentations 3:20—”Your soul is bent down within You” (וְתָשִׁיחַ עָלֶיךָ נַפְשֶׁךָ with some variations in the tradition) was changed to “my soul is bent down within me” (וְתָשִׁיחַ עָלַי נַפְשִׁי), in order to avoid a strong anthropopathism. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation
  18. 2 Chronicles 10:16—”to your gods” (‎לֵאלֹהֵיךָ) was changed to “to your tents” (‎לְאֹהָלֶיךָ), in order to avoid reading aloud a call to apostasy. McCarthy: unauthentic emendation

McCarthy’s thorough evaluation of the tiqqunê sopherim shows that they were mostly traditions which developed from midrashic exegesis; he finds only three of the eighteen in the main list to be genuine scribal emendations.

There are a number of other places in the OT, outside of this list, in which it is suggested (either by ancient rabbinic sources or by modern scholars) that words were substituted for theological reasons. However, in many cases it is debated whether the substitutions are true tiqqunê sopherim (i.e., emendations by copyists), or whether they were a euphemism supplied by the original writers. Some of these include the following, with McCarthy’s evaluation:

  1. The substitution of “bless” for “curse” in 1 Kings 21:10, 13; Job 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9. McCarthy: original euphemism
  2. The substitution of “these men” for “our” in Numbers 16:14 and 1 Samuel 29:4. McCarthy: original euphemism (or not a substitution at all)
  3. Insertion of “the enemies of” before a name in 1 Samuel 20:16; 25:22; 2 Samuel 12:14. McCarthy: emendation
  4. Changing “Yahweh” to “the word of Yahweh” in 2 Samuel 12:9. McCarthy: emendation
  5. Addition of “the men” in 1 Samuel 2:17. McCarthy: probable emendation
  6. Names in which “Bosheth” (shame) or the name of the true God is substituted for “Baal” or the name of a false god: Jerubbaal/Jerubbesheth, Ishbaal/Eshbaal/Ishbosheth, Mephibaal/Mephibosheth, Eliada/Beeliada/Baaliada, Joram/Hadoram. These substitutions are complex to judge; in each case, there are three possibilities: (a) Some individuals were known by two or more names. (b) The original writers of Scripture altered these names for theological reasons. (c) A scribe or copyist emended these names. McCarthy’s evaluation is different in the case of different names and verses.
  7. The substitution of “Manasseh” for “Moses” in Judges 18:30. McCarthy: emendation
  8. Changing “who hate David’s soul” to “who are hated by David’s soul” in 2 Samuel 5:8. McCarthy: emendation
  9. Changing “your wives” to “your men” in 1 Kings 10:8 and 2 Chronicles 9:7. McCarthy: 1 Kgs 10:8 is an emendation; 2 Chr 9:7 is an original euphemism. (Note: McCarthy’s split evaluation is based on liberal theological presuppositions.)
  10. Changing “he was afraid” to “he saw” in 1 Kings 19:3. McCarthy: emendation (Note: This is not a true emendation, since it is only a difference in vocalization.)
  11. Changing “he prospered” or “he was victorious” (יוֹשִׁיעַ) to “he acted wickedly” or “he put them to the worse” (יַרְשִׁיעַ) in 1 Samuel 14:47. McCarthy: emendation
  12. Changing “this house will become lofty” (עֶלְיוֹן) to “this house will become a ruin” (לְעִיִּין) in 1 Kings 9:8 and 2 Chr 7:21. McCarthy: 1 Kgs 9:8 is an emendation; 2 Chr 7:21 is an original euphemism. (Note: McCarthy’s split evaluation is based on liberal theological presuppositions.)
  13. Changing “The City of the Sun” (עִיר הַחֶרֶס) to “the City of Destruction” (עִיר הַהֶרֶס) in Isaiah 19:18. McCarthy: emendation

It is noteworthy that in every instance in the above two lists where, in McCarthy’s judgment, an emendation was made, there is textual evidence for the original reading. In other words, we do not need to speculate about places where the Hebrew text might have been emended, because some manuscripts or ancient versions always preserve the original reading.

There was a time when many OT scholars assumed that the traditional list of eighteen tiqqunê sopherim was merely a representative sample out of a huge number of theological emendations that Jewish scribes systematically conducted throughout the OT. More recently, scholars such as McCarthy, Ellis Brotzman, and Emanuel Tov have called into question this assumption. In fact, most of the traditions about the tiqqunê sopherim were developed after the text form had already been fixed by means of strict copying practices which forbade any alteration of the sacred consonantal text. The tradition about emendations is mainly a record of midrashic interpretation, rather than text criticism. Tov writes the following in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), p. 66:

Another common characteristic of the corrections of the scribes is that most of them correct merely one or two letters, principally the pronomial suffix. If the corrections had represented changes in the text, it is hard to believe that the correctors would have limited themselves to such small details. Moreover, for some corrections it is improbable that the original text would indeed have read as the Masorah claims.

This agrees with McCarthy’s conclusion (The Tiqqune Sopherim, p. 250):

The actual extent of emendatory initiative undertaken by the ‘scribes’ was considerably restrained, and one must continually marvel at the overall fidelity and care taken by those to whom we are indebted for the transmission of the biblical text.

The reality is that the MT is an extremely conservative text. It is in the LXX (and, to a much lesser extent, the SamP) where we see evidence of frequent and large-scale emendations for theological reasons. Further, many of these emendations are directly concerned with systematic theology, rather than merely the formal expression of reverence. An example in the SamP is changing “Mount Ebal” to “Mount Gerizim” in Deuteronomy 27:4. Examples in the LXX include: (a) Changing “a little lower than God” to “a little lower than the angels” in Psalm 8:5. (b) Changing “seventh” to “sixth” in Genesis 2:2a. (c) Changing “pillars” to “stones” in Exodus 24:4. (d) Moving the oracles against the nations from Jeremiah 46–51 to Jeremiah 25 in order to match the statement about “this book” in Jeremiah 25:13. (e) Editing the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 in order to change the referents of the prophecy to events in the time of Antiochus IV and the Maccabees.

To summarize, the following principles should be applied to an analysis of the tiqqunê sopherim when doing textual criticism:

  1. It is very likely that some of the tiqqunê sopherim are genuine scribal emendations, but not all are. It should not be assumed that every such tradition represents a place where the text was emended.
  2. Some, probably most, of the tiqqunê sopherim are false traditions developed by midrashic exegesis.
  3. Tiqqunê sopherim that are not supported by manuscript evidence or readings of the ancient versions are far less likely to represent authentic emendations.
  4. The rabbinic tradition about tiqqunê sopherim is simply another witness to the text that should be considered alongside other textual witnesses; it is not authoritative.
  5. There are a few unrecorded places where the Proto-Masoretic Text was altered for theological reasons, but not many. Widespread emendatory activity should not be postulated.

The value of Benjamin Kennicott’s Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum

04 Thursday Jan 2018

Posted by in Bible scholarship, Biblical languages

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

,

In the eighteenth century, Benjamin Kennicott led a project to catalog all the variants in the consonantal text of Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts that were accessible throughout Europe, including only those manuscripts copied before the invention of the printing press. In the end, more than 600 Hebrew manuscripts were collated. The resulting two-volume work published in 1776–1780, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum, included a printed Hebrew text (the van der Hooght edition) with a critical apparatus below. In the Pentateuch, Kennicott also prints the Masoretic text (MT) and Samaritan Pentateuch (SamP) in parallel columns, with differences noted.  Only textual variants within the Masoretic or Samaritan manuscripts were recorded; Kennicott’s edition does not note variants from the LXX, the Vulgate, or other ancient translations. While many more Hebrew manuscripts have been discovered or become accessible since the time of Kennicott, no other complete catalog of Hebrew textual variants has ever been produced. Thus, someone who wants to see a complete apparatus for (consonantal) textual variants in the Masoretic Text will have to consult Kennicott. Even the editors of BHQ and BHS still rely on Kennicott when noting textual variants within the Masoretic tradition; they do not have their own catalog of textual variants in the MT.

I first learned of Kennicott after I was already accustomed to using BHS. BHS and BHQ print only a small fraction of the total number of variants within the MT; when they do note a variant, they give comparatively little information about the manuscript evidence and usually present only a negative apparatus. The thing that immediately struck me about Kennicott’s work was that there are as many or more textual variants among Hebrew manuscripts in the Old Testament as the Nestle-Aland editions show for Greek manuscripts in the New Testament. Scholars who claim that Kennicott’s work is of little value because the Masoretic manuscripts are “practically uniform” are simply wrong. It is true that most of the variants are very small (one word or one letter), but changing one letter of a Hebrew word often changes it to a completely different word, making a significant difference for the translation and meaning of the Hebrew text. Even spelling (orthographical) variations within the manuscript tradition can offer insights into the original inspired text. I soon realized that if I wanted to do serious study of a passage in the Old Testament, I would have to check Kennicott for textual variants that might affect my translation or exegesis.

A scholar who uses Kennicott will quickly develop a sense of patterns of textual variation within the Masoretic tradition, accruing invaluable insights. He will gain an understanding of which letters are commonly confused, which spellings are commonly changed, and which words or letters are commonly omitted or duplicated by mistake. In short, he will gain a sense of the nature of textual variants within the MT, which will help him greatly in deciding which readings are original. One will find that commentators often speculate about textual variants and propose emendations without having a solid evidential basis for their hypotheses.

When I first discovered Kennicott, I bought a reprint edition. Now Kennicott’s work is conveniently available online: vol. 1, vol. 2, and both volumes. These volumes can be saved as PDF files on your computer as a backup. Unfortunately, Kennicott has not been incorporated into any Bible software program, and probably will not be due to the lack of interest in it by contemporary OT scholars (though see this thread on the BibleWorks user forum; also, the Hebrew Bible Manuscript Explorer in Logos has a listing of Kennicott’s manuscripts, though without much information given).

Kennicott’s work is entirely in Latin and Hebrew/Aramaic, as Latin was the standard language of scholarly writing in the eighteenth century. The good thing is that one does not have to translate any Latin sentences to use Kennicott; one only needs a key to Latin terms used in the apparatus, as with BHS. Here is my understanding of the sigla in Kennicott’s apparatus:

  • ‸ = “omits”
  • * = “omitted” (in the parallel MT/SamP text)
  • 1º = “first occurrence”
  • 2º = “second occurrence”
  • bis = “twice”
  • forte = “accidentally,” referring to a copyist’s mistake
  • marg. habet = “margin has”
  • nunc = “now,” referring to a corrector
  • primo = “at first,” referring to the original reading of a manuscript
  • spat. post = spatium post = “a space after the . . .”
  • sup. ras. = supra rasura = “erasure above”; there is a sign above a word or letter indicating that it should be deleted
  • videtur = “it appears”

Kennicott’s edition has been criticized for not including variant readings of the Masoretic pointing. In my view, this criticism is unfair; there are so many consonantal variants, that attempting to collate all the variants in vowel points would have made the apparatus too large and the project too time-consuming. More importantly, the vowel points were not part of the original inspired text; thus, if one only wants to get back to the original text, the vowel points are of secondary importance. To see some variants in the vowel points, one can consult Giovanni de Rossi’s 1784–1788 work Variae lectiones Veteris Testamenti (vol. 1, vol. 2, vol. 3, vol. 4). Compared with Kennicott, de Rossi is more comprehensive for the variants he describes, but he only treats a fraction of the variants that are in Kennicott, and his work is much more difficult to understand for scholars who do not read Latin because it is not arranged as a formal apparatus. De Rossi includes a more expansive catalog of manuscripts, variants in vowel points, variants in ancient versions, and a written analysis or explanation of the variants.  De Rossi is also helpful for his list of Kennicott’s manuscripts and his descriptions of them (in vol. 1). Don’t forget to check de Rossi’s supplement at the end of vol. 4, as well as his Appendix.

Benjamin Kennicott was a strong Christian, and it was his Christian faith that motivated him to collate Hebrew manuscripts in order to determine what was the original inspired text of the Old Testament. Today, Kennicott’s work is basically ignored by Old Testament scholars. The reason for this is directly related to higher criticism, which seeks to destroy biblical faith by treating the Bible as a purely human product. The critical view of the formation of Old Testament books is that each book was composed by many different authors/editors, in many different editions, over a long period of time. There is no direct evidence for the critical hypotheses, but they are considered dogma in contemporary OT scholarship, given that the alternative is accepting biblical faith. A component of redaction criticism and other forms of higher criticism is the hypothesis that the Masoretic text is corrupt, and in order to get past the hypothetical layers of editing to a hypothetical “initial” text, scholars must make substantial emendations to the received Hebrew text. Since the ancient versions, particularly the LXX, are often substantially different from the MT, they are a major source for the large editing changes contemporary critics wish to make to the Old Testament text. But some scholars want to essentially rewrite the whole OT to make it fit with their view of what the text should mean and how it was formed, so they add many of their own conjectural emendations even to what is in the LXX, often going so far as to propose entirely new Hebrew words on the basis of words in cognate languages. The textual variants in Kennicott are ignored by critical scholars because they are the sort of small variants one would expect to arise by mistake when copying manuscripts, rather than the large variants that would be created by someone who is editing the biblical text.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls tempered some of the most extreme assertions of critical scholars about the MT, at least for a while. Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls contain a text that is virtually identical to the medieval Masoretic manuscripts, with only small textual variants. This proved that Hebrew manuscripts were faithfully copied for at least 1,500 years. Thus, the fact that many of Kennicott’s manuscripts date to the late medieval period does not mean that they do not preserve readings of manuscripts that were copied in antiquity. The main reason why older Hebrew manuscripts are not abundant is because the Jews “retire” old manuscripts when they begin to wear out. However, the readings of medieval manuscripts are valuable because they are part of a manuscript tradition that was very carefully copied. By way of analogy, in NT textual criticism medieval manuscripts which have a text that is very similar to the earliest extant manuscripts are given significant weight. I would personally argue that the Masoretic text is a faithful representation of the original inspired text, and I would only propose emendations of the MT or follow readings of the LXX on rare occasions.

For scholars who hold a high view of the fidelity of the MT, Kennicott is a much more valuable tool for textual criticism than the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, BHS, or even BHQ. I still consult other critical editions, ancient versions, and commentaries, but Kennicott contains most of the variants that I would consider important for recovering the original inspired text. The 600+ manuscripts collated by Kennicott are a large enough sample so that the inclusion of more manuscripts likely would not change the balance of evidence significantly. Yet I hope that someday all extant Hebrew manuscripts will be collated in a digital critical apparatus that will make the variant readings they contain more accessible to scholars. As it is, Kennicott’s work remains the most comprehensive and authoritative textual apparatus of Hebrew manuscripts ever produced. I hope that along with a new collation of Hebrew manuscripts, there will also be a return in evangelical seminaries to doing textual criticism primarily from an apparatus of Hebrew textual variants, without telling students that they can only analyze OT textual variants if they do extensive work in Latin, Aramaic, Syriac, Ugaritic, and so forth.

I will close this post with an extended quotation from Benjamin Kennicott, The State of the Printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament Considered (Oxford: Oxford, 1759), 2:295, 298-300. Kennicott’s rational faith is clearly evident here, and is refreshing in comparison with the unreasonable skepticism of modern scholars:

The Original of the Pentateuch, in the hand-writing of Moses, was preserv’d with great care, being deposited in the side of the ark [Deut 31:26]; and with the ark was probably introduc’d into the temple at Jerusalem. . . . That this MS, wrote by the hand of Moses, was not stolen by the Philistines, but safely deposited in the temple; and that (after being conceal’d in the dangerous days of the idolatrous kings of Judah) it was found in the days of Josiah—-this seems clearly pointed out in the account given in 2 Chron, 34, 14. For there the copy of the law thus found by Hilkiah the priest is call’d ספר תורת יהוה ביד משה liber legis Jehovæ in manu (or per manum) Mosis. ’Tis scarce possible for words more naturally to describe a book written by Moses himself; or to vouch more fully, that the MS of the law then found was in the hand-writing of Moses. And perhaps all doubt will be remov’d, when ’tis consider’d farther—that, tho’ there are 15 places in the old Testament, which mention the words law of Moses and book of Moses, yet this one place only mentions the book of the law in the hand (or by the hand) of Moses: the reason of which seems to be that the other places speak of that law in general; but this place speaks of one particular MS, namely the original. . . . As to the point of age, this MS certainly might be the original; distance of time leaving it very possible. For the most extended chronology does not make the interval from the death of Moses to the death of Josiah 950 years; an age exceeded by that of several MSS preserv’d at this day.

Aramaic: The Bible’s third language

23 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by in Biblical languages

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

Aramaic has been in some ways a forgotten language in biblical studies, except at a very high academic level. The New Testament is written in Greek; nearly all the Old Testament is written in Hebrew, while the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the LXX) is significant to biblical studies. Yet 268 verses of the Bible were written in a language called Aramaic.

The portions of Scripture that were written in Aramaic include Ezra 4:8–6:18 and 7:12-26 (67 verses), Daniel 2:4b–7:28 (200 verses), Jeremiah 10:11, and various proper names and single words and phrases scattered throughout the Old and New Testaments. Despite the relatively small percentage of Scripture that is written in this language, the Aramaic portion of the Bible is disproportionately significant because of the importance of the book of Daniel to biblical prophecy. Aramaic is also important for New Testament studies, as several direct quotes from Jesus and others are preserved in the original Aramaic that was spoken by Palestinian Jews of the Second Temple period. New Testament verses which include Aramaic words transliterated by Greek letters are: Matt 5:22; 27:46; Mark 5:41; 7:34; 10:51; 14:36; John 1:42; 20:16; Acts 9:36, 40; Rom 8:15; 1 Cor 16:22; Gal 4:6.

In the Old Testament, four verses make a direct reference to the Aramaic language: 2 Kings 18:26, Ezra 4:7, Isaiah 36:11, and Daniel 2:4. Each of these verses calls Aramaic “Aramaic” (אֲרָמִית, an adverbial form of אֲרָמִי), though this used to be translated as “Syrian” or “Chaldee” in English. Aramaic is called “Hebrew” (Ἑβραΐς or Ἑβραϊστί) in the New Testament, since it was the tongue of the Hebrews (John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; 20:16; Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14). Some newer translations render the Greek word for “Hebrew” in these verses as “Aramaic,” which recognizes that these verses refer to the language we now call Aramaic.

Aramaic was originally the language of the Arameans, who were comprised of tribes that lived along the Euphrates River. Two of the most prominent of these tribes were the Syrians to the northwest, and the Chaldeans to the southeast. The word Aramaic is derived from Aram, a son of Shem who was the progenitor of the Arameans. In the earliest stages of the history of Aramaic, the language was only spoken in Aramean locales, including the area where Laban lived (cf. Gen 31:47; Deut 26:5). However, as the Syrians and Chaldeans gained prominence in the ancient Near East, their tongue became established as an international language of commerce and diplomacy, gradually displacing Akkadian. Akkadian was still the official language of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, although 2 Kings 18:26 indicates that Aramaic was already becoming established as a lingua franca of the ancient Near East by 700 BC. When the Chaldeans subsequently conquered Assyria, it was natural for them to use their own language of Aramaic as the administrative language of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, rather than adopting Akkadian. This is why Daniel 2:4 says the wise men of Babylon addressed the king in Aramaic, and why the following section of the book of Daniel is written in Aramaic. After the conquest of Babylon by Persia, the Persians also established Aramaic as the official language of their vast empire. This is why the portions of Ezra which record official correspondence are written in Aramaic.

At the time when the books of Daniel and Ezra were written, most Jews could speak and understand both Hebrew and Aramaic. They understood Hebrew as the language spoken at home, among themselves, and in the reading of the Scriptures, while Aramaic was the language spoken in broader society. Over time, Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the primary language spoken by the Jews who lived in Palestine and regions to the east. The Jews had not learned Aramaic in Palestine (cf. 2 Kgs 18:26), but they had to learn it in exile, since it was the language of their captors. Thus, the parts of the Old Testament which were composed in Aramaic were written in that language as a result of the Babylonian captivity.

Because of this, Aramaic was the native tongue of our Lord; Hebrew was rarely used as a spoken language by Jews of the first century AD.[1] There are several places where the Gospel writers preserve quotations from Jesus in the original Aramaic, including His cry from the cross, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani? (Mark 15:34). These words expressed Christ’s deepest feelings at a time of great personal anguish and emotion. That He spoke these words from Psalm 22:1 in Aramaic, rather than from the Hebrew original or the Greek Septuagint translation, shows that Aramaic was the language that He knew most intimately. Thus, the New Testament preserves Aramaic words because Aramaic was the mother tongue of Palestinian Jews in the first century AD.

The Greek of the New Testament was influenced by Aramaic, and so contains some Aramaic idioms and forms of expression, such as the phrase “answered and said.” Although the degree of Aramaic influence on the Greek of the New Testament has been a subject of much debate, it is fair to say that the style of New Testament Greek is Semiticized to one degree or another. But it is not true that parts of the New Testament were originally written in Aramaic, as some have claimed. No manuscript of any part of the New Testament has ever been discovered that is written in the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic dialect known to Jesus and the apostles.

After the resurrection of Jesus, the Syriac dialect of Aramaic became the language of the Syrian church. Aramaic also remained an important language for the Jews. Because of this, there are two major Aramaic translations of the Old Testament, the Jewish Targums and the Syriac Peshitta. There are a number of important Syriac versions of the New Testament. Much of Jewish rabbinic literature, and nearly all Syrian Christian literature, is written in Aramaic. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were also written in Aramaic.

Both Aramaic and Hebrew are West Semitic languages. Thus, Aramaic and Hebrew share many of the same linguistic characteristics and modes of expression. Overall, Hebrew grammar and morphology is somewhat closer to proto-Semitic, especially in its patterns of vocalization, though Aramaic has a fuller complement of distinct verbal stems. Some distinctive characteristics of Aramaic include the frequent use of the participle for a finite verb, the versatile particle דִּי, the use of a determined form instead of a prefixed definite article, and such idioms as “son of man” (for “man”) and “answered and said” (for “said”). Because of the importance of Aramaic in the Second Temple period, Hebrew gradually began to be written in Aramaic letters during that time, and Hebrew has used the Aramaic square script ever since.[2] However, Syriac and other dialects of Aramaic use different scripts, while the Targumim have a system of pointing that differs from the Masoretic pointing of the Old Testament.

One of the peculiarities of biblical Aramaic is that the divine name יהוה (Yahweh) is never used. For some reason, this name was only used in Hebrew. However, the term אֱלָהּ שְׁמַיָּא (the God of heaven) occurs very frequently in Aramaic, much more than in Hebrew. It is also interesting that there are no Old Testament books written entirely in Aramaic. This is apparently to retain the character of the Old Testament as a Hebrew text.

Because of the very long linguistic history of Aramaic, and the diverse number of groups that have spoken it, there are quite a variety of Aramaic dialects, of which Syriac is the most prominent. Some eighty percent of extant Aramaic writing is in Syriac, a language which is still spoken today (in various dialects) and is used in the liturgy of some Eastern churches. There are also distinct differences between different chronological periods of Aramaic. Although liberal scholars have long attempted to deny it, the Aramaic of both Daniel and Ezra is of the Imperial Aramaic dialect that would have been in use in the sixth century BC. It is noticeably different from both the Aramaic of Qumran and from first-century AD Jewish Palestinian Aramaic.

While Hebrew was used sparingly outside of the Bible, Aramaic was used very broadly. There is a huge corpus of Aramaic literature. From about 600 BC until AD 700, Aramaic was the primary trade language of the ancient Near East. It was also the primary spoken language of Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia at the time of Christ. Aramaic was only displaced by Arabic when the Muslims conquered the Middle East—though the language never died out completely, and is still spoken in pockets of Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. Aramaic is possibly the language with the longest continuous written record in the world. Because of the broad use of Aramaic outside of the Bible, there is rarely any doubt about the meaning of words or constructions in biblical Aramaic, as there are many opportunities to research their usage in extrabiblical literature.

Although there is only a limited amount of biblical material composed in Aramaic, the influence of the Aramaic language is felt throughout the Old and New Testaments, as it was present in the background from Genesis until Revelation. Aramaic also had a prominent place in the early church and in postbiblical Judaism. But insofar as it is directly used in the Bible, Aramaic is the language of the captivity and of the Redeemer.

Postscript: For recommended resources for the study of Biblical Aramaic, see this post.

[1] Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there has been a debate over the extent to which Aramaic had displaced Hebrew in Palestine by the first century AD. However, first-century AD inscriptions in Palestine are almost exclusively in Aramaic (or Greek), and Aramaic is consistently used by Jesus, rather than Hebrew. Jesus probably understood Hebrew, but as a literary, rather than spoken, language. He would have known Greek as a second language and spoke it on some occasions (as when dealing with Gentiles), but He would have been more at home in Aramaic.

[2] The Aramaic square script is also called the “Jewish script,” the “square script,” or the “Assyrian script.” Three stages in the development of this script at Qumran are called the “archaic script” (250-150 B.C.), the “Hasmonean script” (150-30 B.C.), and the “Herodian script” (30 B.C. – 70 A.D.). Despite the prevalence of the square script in Hebrew writing, twelve Qumran fragments were found written in a paleo-Hebrew script similar to the original Hebrew script in which most of the Old Testament was written, while several other Qumran manuscripts used the square script for the main body text and the paleo-Hebrew script for nomina sacra. See E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 206-7.

Koine Greek: the language of the New Testament

14 Saturday Nov 2015

Posted by in Biblical languages

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Jesus was born in “the fullness of time” (Gal 4:4), in a world dominated by Greek culture and Roman governance. Several propitious states of affairs providentially came together at this time, making it the perfect time for the Messiah to come—and also for the church to begin. One important aspect of the first century AD world is that the gospel message could be spread quickly after the formation of the church because the whole Mediterranean world shared a common government—allowing for freedom of travel—and also because the world understood a common language, which was called Koine Greek. Were it not for this common language, the books of the New Testament probably would have been written in a variety of different languages, and they would not have been accessible to all without a translation. Further, the early Christian evangelists could not have communicated the gospel to people in other parts of the world very easily without a shared tongue.

The prevalence of the Greek language in the Mediterranean world began with the establishment of Greek colonies, designed to enhance trade, from about 750 to 550 BC. These colonies ranged throughout the Mediterranean and Black Seas, including outposts in Spain, Gaul, Illyria, Corsica, North Africa, Egypt, Asia Minor, and elsewhere. But while Greek trade began to introduce the Greek language to the world, Greek only became the world’s dominant language through the efforts of Alexander the Great and his successors. Alexander deliberately sought to Hellenize the lands he conquered, especially by making them adopt the Greek language. Yet at one time there was no unified Greek language, for Classical Greek included a number of dialects, many of which had significant differences.

The form of Greek that the world spoke from the time of Alexander until well after the time of Christ was Koine Greek, not Classical Greek. The word Koine (κοινή) means “common”; hence, “Koine Greek” was the common dialect (κοινή διάλεκτος) of Greek. This term was first used to refer to the variety of Atticized Greek that Alexander’s army spoke as a bridge amongst the various regional dialects of Greek. As Alexander conquered Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, and westward past the Indus, he founded cities and outposts all along the way. Since his soldiers spoke Koine among themselves, this form of Greek became officially established in the lands Alexander conquered.

The Koine dialect had its foundations in the dominance of Athens in the fifth-century BC Delian League, in which the Athenian (Attic) dialect was imposed upon the other members of the confederacy as a lingua franca. After this, Attic Greek began to be used as a language of trade, then as a common language for military expeditions which assembled units from various parts of Greece. As a result of its common use in the business and military sectors, Attic/Koine finally began to be spoken throughout Greece as the everyday tongue of the populace, displacing other dialects. When Philip II of Macedon and his son Alexander united Greece, Koine was made the official language of the army and the royal court.

As Koine spread, it lost some of the peculiarities of the Attic dialect, and assimilated some characteristics of other dialects. This commonly involved simplification, as Koine adopted forms common to all the dialects. The use of Koine for everyday conversation rather than literature and poetry also contributed to its simplification. The development and simplification of Koine continued as it was adopted by foreigners and continuously spoken throughout the known world for hundreds of years.

As the Koine Greek language became more prevalent in the Mediterranean world, its influence also increased among the Jews. Beginning around 275 BC, a Greek translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament was made, which we know today as the Septuagint (Seventy), abbreviated LXX (70). The influence of this translation is seen in the frequent New Testament quotations of the LXX. Most Jews who lived in the Diaspora (i.e., outside of Palestine) spoke Koine Greek as their everyday language. Even in Palestine, most Jews would have had a working knowledge of Greek, in addition to their native tongue of Aramaic.

Assigning definite dates to the period of Koine Greek is not a clear-cut matter, since languages are always changing, and these changes tend to occur gradually. However, the period of Koine can roughly be dated from 334 BC, when Alexander crossed the Hellespont, until AD 330, when the movement of the Empire’s capital from Rome to Constantinople helped to isolate West from East, and allowed for Latin to replace Greek as the lingua franca of the West—though this Latinizing process had begun as early the second century AD. The time of Koine’s widest geographical distribution and most distinctively “Koine” linguistic qualities falls in the period between these dates, in the first centuries BC and AD.

Despite the linguistic simplification that occurred in Koine, the Greek of the New Testament is still a remarkably precise and explicit language. The vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of Greek allows for precise and subtle distinctions between various forms of expression. Verbs can occur in six different tenses, four moods, and three voices, each with its own nuance. Nouns and adjectives occur in five different cases so as to specify exactly their function in the sentence and their relationship to other words. Relative and demonstrative pronouns share the number (singular/plural) and gender (masculine/feminine/neuter) of their antecedent, which removes much potential ambiguity. Further, Greek has many technical or narrowly defined terms that communicate a very precise idea.

Unlike the situation with ancient Hebrew, there is a great corpus of extrabiblical Greek literature that allows Bible scholars to see how New Testament words and grammatical constructions were employed in other literary works. Because of this, there is much more certainty about the meaning of rare words in the New Testament than there is in the Old Testament. There is also greater opportunity for scholars to do extensive research on key terms in the New Testament. An example of this is John Lee’s extensive study on the word ἕξις, which occurs only once in the New Testament (Heb 5:14), but over 6,000 times in extrabiblical Greek.[1] Another example is Wayne Grudem’s analysis of 2,336 occurrences of the word κεφαλή (head) in selected works of Greek literature, in connection with the egalitarian feminist interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23.[2] While much of extent Greek literature dates from the period of Classical Greek—and therefore is less useful for comparison with the New Testament—an ample number of works survive from the time of the New Testament, including both literary works and examples of vernacular Koine from papyrus letters.

Unlike in the Old Testament, the Greek style of the New Testament varies considerably among its writers and books. This is partly because many New Testament books were originally letters, and were not primarily written as literary works. Variation in style also occurs because of different personal writing styles, and different levels of familiarity with the Greek language. The most polished, Classical-style Greek of the New Testament is found in the book of Acts, which was written by Luke (a Gentile medical doctor). John’s Greek is the simplest and most non-native, though this does not mean that his content is simplistic. Many New Testament books use the kind of Greek that educated people would have used in letters. It should be noted that the New Testament was written on a literary level, and not on the level of vernacular speech—just as an educated English-speaker uses a more formal and proper form of the language when writing a document than when speaking to friends. The literary style of the New Testament ranges from that of a formal letter to that of a formal narrative or treatise.

The Greek of the New Testament has a heavily Semitic coloring, due in part to the influence of the Hebrew Old Testament on the New Testament and Christianity. In addition, since Aramaic was widely spoken in Palestine and Syria, the common Greek of Palestine and Syria contained Aramaic influences. Aramaic was the mother tongue of Jesus and most of the apostles. Thus, one frequently finds the word “hour” used in the sense of “moment” in the New Testament, which is an Aramaism (cf. Acts 16:18). The frequent use of the descriptive term “son of” is also an Aramaism (cf. Mark 3:17). One often finds the Greek words καί and δέ used like the Hebrew conjunction wāw in New Testament narratives, especially in the Gospel of Mark. There are even some examples of Greek words used with Semitic grammar, especially in quotations of the Old Testament and in the book of Revelation. For this reason, anyone who wants to be an expert in the Greek of the New Testament must also have a working knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic.

Jesus Christ came into the world at a time when there was a universal language. Because Koine Greek was understood by everyone, most early Christian missionaries spread the gospel in this language, and the whole New Testament was written in this language. Even New Testament books that were sent to Palestine (James, Hebrews) or Rome (Mark, Romans) were written in Koine Greek, since this language was understood by everyone. It was spoken by men of all races, geographic locales, and societal classes, from slaves and common laborers to kings and intellectuals. To summarize: Koine Greek was the world’s universal language.

[1] John A. L. Lee, “Hebrews 5:14 and Ἕξις: A History of Misunderstanding,” NovT 39:2 (Apr. 1997): 151-76.

[2] Wayne Grudem, “Does Κεφαλή (‘Head’) mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” TrinJ 6:1 (Spr. 1985): 38-59.

Why was the Old Testament written in Hebrew?

07 Saturday Nov 2015

Posted by in Biblical languages

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

In Genesis 12:1, God commanded Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto the land that I will show thee. It is because of the call of Abram (Abraham) to the land of Canaan that nearly all the Old Testament (except 268 verses) was written in the Hebrew language. Abraham’s native tongue, in “Ur of the Chaldees,” was certainly not Hebrew. Abraham probably spoke multiple major languages of the Ancient Near East; for details, see my post on Ur of the Chaldees. Abraham did not begin his life among Canaanites, but he was called by God to leave his homeland and move to the land of Canaan. There were several closely related dialects of the ancient Canaanite language, one of which was Hebrew.[1] Because Hebrew was the language of Canaan, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their sons adopted this language as their own. Their land was Canaan, not Mesopotamia or Egypt. When the Hebrews settled in Goshen, they purposefully retained the Canaanite language, and were able to do so because they lived in separation from the Egyptians. As God gave His Word to Abraham’s chosen seed in Jacob, He gave it in their language, which was Canaan’s language. Thus, it is ultimately because of God’s call to Abraham that nearly all biblical revelation before the coming Christ was written in Hebrew.

The name “Hebrew” is not used in the Old Testament to describe Israel’s language. What we call “Hebrew” is called “Jewish” (יְהוּדִי) six times in the Old Testament (2 Kgs 18:26, 28; 2 Chr 32:18; Neh 13:24; Isa 36:11, 13). In the New Testament, “Hebrew” (Ἑβραΐς or Ἑβραϊστί) is normally used to refer to Aramaic, but twice designates the language we today call Hebrew (Rev 9:11; 16:16).

Hebrew is an offshoot of the Proto-Semitic tongue that was probably the language spoken by Adam. The form of Semitic preserved in the Hebrew tongue[2] includes such features as the following: (1) As with other Semitic languages, Hebrew features a basic three-letter (triliteral) consonantal root for each word. (2) This triliteral root system allowed Hebrew to be written in a consonantal script, without vowels, accents or punctuation. Unlike Greek, however, Hebrew has always marked word divisions (by spaces, dots, or vertical lines). (3) Hebrew is a highly inflected language; that is, various forms of verbs, nouns, and adjectives are formed by internal changes to the basic consonantal form of the word, such as by altering vowels, doubling consonants, or adding prefixes, suffixes, or infixes. (4) There are few parts of speech; most concepts are expressed merely through the use of nouns and verbs. Nouns in construct often substitute for adjectives (e.g., “worthless men” are called “sons of worthlessness”). Prepositions and conjunctions are used frequently, of course, but a very limited number are used for a wide range of English ones. (5) As in all Semitic languages, Hebrew has a number of frequently occurring gutteral sounds and emphatic consonants. Many of these sounds are eliminated in modern Hebrew, which is influenced by the sounds of the German language. (6) Biblical Hebrew has only two verb tenses, perfect and imperfect. (7) All Semitic languages once had three numbers for verbs, nouns, and adjectives (singular, dual, and plural) and two genders (masculine and feminine). The dual form is latent in biblical Hebrew.

Biblical Hebrew remained incredibly uniform and stable throughout the thousand years from Moses to Malachi. There are only subtle variations in writing style, grammar, and vocabulary in the corpus of biblical Hebrew. This is quite different from the New Testament, wherein each author has a very distinctive writing style and grammatical peculiarities. The lack of variation among Hebrew writers occurs because Semitic grammar and idiom tend to be more rigidly fixed than in other language families.

The Hebrew language is beautiful, and rich in metaphor. Like other Semitic languages, Hebrew has a relatively simple vocabulary, and likes to use body parts or other concrete terms to express abstract concepts that English speakers would communicate using adjectival or adverbial modifiers or technical terms. This adds much color to the language and communicates graphic pictures, allowing the reader to form a more concrete idea of the actions described. For example, a variety of organs are used to refer to one’s innermost person: “heart,” “kidneys,” “liver,” and “bowels.” Where English would use the word “stubborn,” Hebrew would say “hard of neck.” Where English would say “with tremendous power,” Hebrew might say “with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.” For “settled,” Hebrew could have “pitched his tent”; for “looked up,” “lifted up his eyes”; for “miserable,” “bitter of soul”; for “before,” “to the face of”; for “burned up,” “burnt with fire”; for “killed,” “smote with the mouth (edge) of the sword”; for “the Israelites,” “the sons of Israel”; for “she irritated her,” “she caused her to thunder” (1 Sam 1:6); for “left,” “lifted up his feet” or “took his journey” or “went forth”; for “by means of,” “by the hand of,” etc. Many Hebrew idioms are altered to a more “English” form of expression in Bible translations, especially modern ones—but at the loss of the richness of the language. However, some Hebraisms have actually become English idioms through their translation in the King James Version (e.g., “the skin of my teeth,” Job 19:20). Hebrew is actually a very easy language to translate literally because of its simple vocabulary and forms of expression. Few words and expressions cannot be given an exact equivalent in the receptor language. Ironically, it is much more difficult to make a “dynamic equivalent” translation of the Old Testament than it is to make a literal translation. When the Old Testament is translated literally, there is very little loss of meaning, style, or rhythm from the original Hebrew.

It should be noted that Greek and Hebrew have exactly the same communicative capabilities. Some have claimed that Greek is a superior language, meaning that it can express concepts which Hebrew cannot. This is simply not the case. There is no New Testament theological concept that cannot be communicated in the Hebrew language. Also, there is nothing about the characteristics of the Hebrew language that creates a “Hebrew mind” which thinks differently from the “Greek mind.” Jesus and most of the apostles, including Paul, probably grew up speaking both Greek and Aramaic (and possibly Hebrew), yet had only one worldview and one way of thinking.

Four thousand years ago, God called Abraham out of his native country, and into a land of promise. Because of this, almost all of biblical revelation before Christ was written in the language of the Promised Land. This is the reason why Bible scholars devote so much time and energy to studying the Hebrew language, even though the number of surviving extrabiblical Hebrew texts from the Old Testament period is miniscule in comparison with the corpus of extant texts in such languages as Egyptian, Ugaritic, Hittite, and Akkadian. Unlike Aramaic and Greek, which had universal appeal, Hebrew was a very localized language, a tongue that was spoken only in Canaan—yet its importance far transcends the limited size of that land. The reason? Hebrew is the language of the Promised Land.

The following facts about Hebrew may help an English reader understand the Old Testament text more fully:

  • Hebrew typically uses the same word for “and” and “but”; the translation of this word is the decision of the translator. The word “and” can be given a variety of other translations, such as “now,” “then,” “so,” etc.
  • Names that end in “-iah” in English represent Hebrew “-yahu” or “-yah,” which are short forms of “Yahweh” (the LORD). Thus, the last name of Israel’s prime minister, Netanyahu, is “Nethaniah” in the English Bible.
  • The Hebrew word הַר can mean “mountain,” “hill,” or “hill-country.” Often translations use the word “mountain” where “hill” or “hill-country” is preferable.
  • Hebrew uses the same word for moral evil and general calamity (רַע). Older Bible translations often spoke of God bringing “evil” upon a nation, whereas newer translations usually use a word such as “calamity.”
  • “Heart” = “mind” in Hebrew; the same word is used for both (לֵבָב or לֵב), though sometimes words for other internal organs are translated as “heart” in English. This is in contrast to the English way of thinking, in which the heart and mind are thought to be totally distinct and sometimes opposed. On more than one occasion I have heard preachers make the point that the Bible uses the word “heart” in an Old Testament passage, rather than “mind,” but this is an exegetical mistake based on a lack of knowledge of the Hebrew language.

[1] We know that Hebrew is a Canaanite language because we have a written record of Phoenician and Moabite, and we can see that they are very close to Hebrew (especially Moabite). Ammonite and Edomite are preserved only in fragments, but appear to use a Canaanite script, vocabulary, and grammar. It is interesting that Ammonite, Moabite, and Edomite are very closely related to Hebrew, since Ammon, Moab, and Edom are countries that were populated by Abraham’s descendants or relatives. There is also evidence within the Hebrew language that it was a Canaanite tongue: the Hebrew word for “west” is “Sea” (יָם), referring to the Mediterranean, while the word for “south” is “Negev” (נֶגֶב), referring to the desert area south of Beersheba.

Further evidence that Hebrew was the language of Canaan comes from Isaiah 19:18, which apparently calls Hebrew “the language of Canaan.” Egypt and Mesopotamian countries are represented as lands of strange tongues (Deut 28:49; Psa 81:5; 114:1; Isa 28:11; Jer 5:15), whereas the lands of Philistia, Canaan, Edom, Moab, and Ammon are never represented as such. Without exception, Israelites were able to freely converse with Canaanites without an interpreter, whereas this was not the case with other nations (cf. Gen 42:23; 2 Kgs 18:26).

[2] All Semitic languages are closely linked in a way that Indo-European languages are not. Thus, Hebrew is similar to such languages as Aramaic, Ugaritic, Arabic, Amharic, and Akkadian. However, it is closer to, say, Aramaic than it is to Akkadian. Also, modern Hebrew is closer to biblical Hebrew than modern Greek is to biblical Greek, though there are important differences.

Language learning: a key to deeper Bible study

01 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by in Biblical languages

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Nearly every Bible-believing Christian in the world first hears and reads the Bible in a translation. In fact, the vast majority of Christians only read and study translations of the Bible. Only a small number of Christians—usually young aspiring pastors and Bible scholars—acquire professional training in one or more of the languages in which the Bible was originally written. Yet even out of this group of people, only a small number can actually read the Bible fluently in one or more of its original languages. Only a small number of these people, in turn, can read the Bible fluently in all three of the languages in which it was written. Very few people have read the Bible cover-to-cover entirely in its original languages (I have).

The three languages in which the Bible was originally written are the Classical dialect of Hebrew, the Koine dialect of Greek, and the Imperial dialect of Aramaic. Each of these languages also has modern forms (Aramaic has several modern dialects), but modern spoken Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic differ considerably from the ancient forms of these languages (especially so with Greek and Aramaic). For this reason, there is probably no one in the world who is fluent in both the ancient and modern forms of all three of these languages. The entire New Testament was written in Greek. The entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew, except for Ezra 4:6–6:18, Ezra 7:12-26, Daniel 2:4–7:28, and Jeremiah 10:11, which were written in Aramaic.

The Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek in the second century BC. This translation is called the Septuagint (Seventy), abbreviated LXX (70). However, Greek is not the original language of the Old Testament—most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with the exception of the 268 Aramaic verses listed above. Most seminaries emphasize the study of Greek over the study of Hebrew, and pastors are much more likely to have a working knowledge of Greek than of Hebrew (very few have studied Aramaic), but Greek is only the language of the New Testament, not the language of the entire Bible.

Before I learned Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic I did not think that they were important for studying and interpreting the Bible. I felt quite capable of studying and understanding the Bible without these languages, and I was annoyed when commentaries used Greek and Hebrew words without translating them. But my perspective changed after spending many years learning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and reading and studying the Bible in the original languages. Now, these languages seem completely indispensable for my study of the Bible. Of course, on one level, it is certainly possible to understand and study the Bible without knowing the original languages. But one can never delve very deeply into details of the text without this knowledge, and the one who tries will probably end up with many misinterpretations. Also, while there have been many significant battles in churches all over the world concerning which translation of the Bible to use, the translation problem becomes irrelevant when one can read and understand the Bible in its original languages.

Discussions of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic grammar can be very technical, and many pastors and laymen alike are quick to label them as irrelevant for practical Christianity. But our understanding of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic grammar is the basis for our understanding of the Bible, and there are no more relevant words to man than the words of God as recorded in the Bible. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, so every translation of the Old Testament is ultimately based on someone’s understanding of the Hebrew and Aramaic languages. No one today speaks the ancient form of Hebrew and Aramaic, so scholars have to study the grammar of these languages in order to understand the meaning of the Old Testament. This also involves the study of extrabiblical texts in Hebrew and Aramaic, the study of cognate languages (e.g., Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Arabic), and the study of ancient translations of the Old Testament (such as the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the Syriac Peshitta). In like manner, our understanding of the Koine dialect of the Greek language is the basis for our understanding of the New Testament, and for any translation of the New Testament. Those dry scholarly discussions of technical grammatical and lexical issues may seem totally irrelevant to your daily life, but they influence the Bible translation you read, the notes in your study Bible, and the interpretations your pastor reads in Bible commentaries. And there are many competing theories about the grammar of these ancient languages and the meaning of words in them; one cannot assume that scholarship is settled and that the final product of scholarly research has already arrived. Anyone who wants to be a Bible scholar must learn the languages in order to evaluate the issues for himself.

Admittedly, the situation of many Christians is such that they are not able to learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic (due in part to the church’s failure to promote the learning of these languages from an early age). But even if one does not know the original languages of the Bible, knowing some things about them can aid in one’s understanding of the Bible. For example, it is useful to know that at the time the Bible was written, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek made no distinction between capital and lowercase letters and used no punctuation. Thus, all capitalization and punctuation in English Bibles represent editorial decisions made by the translators, often based on decisions made by scribes who copied manuscripts during the Middle Ages. It is also useful to know that chapter and verse divisions were not part of the original text, although some early manuscripts do have line breaks between major sections. While the chapter and verse divisions in our modern Bibles generally make good sense, occasionally they do not. The reader should realize that these divisions are interpretive decisions, and that they can be wrong—unlike the biblical text itself, which is inerrant.

In my next three posts, I will look at each of the Bible’s three original languages in turn and will describe their significance and major characteristics.