|
LANGUAGE OF THE BIBLE |
|
|
| INDEX: LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT GOSPEL DEVELOPMENT GREECE AND THE BIBLE HEBREW ARAMAIC |
| LANGUAGES
OF THE BIBLE
Contents:
LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE The Old Testament was first written in Hebrew, with the exceptions of much of Ezra 4-7 and Daniel 2:4b—7:28, which appear in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek, though Jesus and the early believers may have spoken Aramaic. Characteristics of Hebrew Hebrew is a Semitic language related to Phoenician and the dialects of ancient Canaan. Semitic languages have the ability to convey abundant meaning through few words. Importance rests on the verb, which generally comes first in the sentence because action is the most significant element. Similarly, modifiers (such as adjectives) follow nouns, lending greater weight to the nouns. Typical word order for a sentence is: verb—subject—subject modifiers—object—object modifiers. Deviation from this order gives emphasis to the word which comes first. Characteristics of Aramaic Aramaic is akin to Hebrew, and shares a considerable vocabulary with it. It began as the language of Syria and was gradually adopted as the language of international communication. After about 600 B.C., it replaced Hebrew as the spoken language of Palestine. Hebrew then continued as the religious language of the Jews, but the Aramaic alphabet was borrowed for writing it. Characteristics of Greek Greek belongs to the Indo-European language group. It spread throughout the Mediterranean world after about 335 B.C. with Alexander’s conquests. The New Testament is written in a dialect called koinee (meaning "common) which was the dialect of the common person. New Testament Greek is heavily infused with Semitic thought modes, and many Aramaic words are found rendered with Greek letters (for example, talitha cumi, Mark 5:41; ephphatha, Mark 7:34; Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, Mark 15:34; marana-tha, 1 Cor. 16:22). So also are such Latin words as "kenturion" (centurion) and "denarion" (denarius). Greek’s accurateness of expression and widespread usage made it the ideal tongue for the early communication of the gospel. Paul no doubt knew all three biblical languages, and Latin as well.
|
| * LANGUAGE
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. (Smith's) The subject of this article is not the language used by the writers of the New Testament (see New Testament, IV.), but the language of its speakers, the actual language of the discourses and conversations which stand reported in the Greek of the New Testament. On the question, What was the prevailing language of Palestine in the time of our Savior? there has been great difference of opinion and much earnest controversy. Some have maintained that the mass of the people spoke Aramaic only; others that they spoke Greek only; and yet others that they were acquainted with both languages, and could use this or that at pleasure. To understand the merits of the case, the simplest way will be to take up each of the two languages in question, and trace the indications of its use among the Palestine-Jews of the first century. We begin then with the Aramaic (the Jewish-Aramaic
or Chaldee, in distinction from the Christian-Aramaic
or Syriac, dialect). It is not unlikely that the long
intercourse, friendly and hostile, between the Kingdom of Israel and its
Aramaean neighbors on the north, especially the Syrians of Damascus, may
have produced some effect on the language of the northern Israelites.
But the effect must have been much greater when the Kingdom of Israel
was overthrown by the Assyrians, the higher classes carried into other
lands, and their places filled by importations from tribes of Aramaean
speech. That this Jewish-Aramaic was not
confined to a fraction of the people, but was in general and familiar
use among the Jews of Palestine in the first century, is proved by a
variety of evidence, outside of the N. T. as well as in it. Josephus
speaks of it repeatedly (B. J. pr. 1, v. 6, 3, v. 9, 2) as h
patriov glwssa, the tongue of the fathers and fatherland, or, as
we should say, the mother-tongue, the native, vernacular idiom. As such
he contrasts it with the Greek, which he describes (Ant. pr. 2)
as allodaphn hmin kai xenhv dialektou sunhyeian,
"a mode (of expression) alien to us and belonging to a foreign
language." Turning to the New Testament, we find
it stated (#Ac i:19) that when the
catastrophe of Judas became known to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the
place where it occurred was called Akeldama,
"field of blood," a name clearly Aramaic; and that it was
called thus th idia dialem tw autwn "in
their own dialect." This does not imply that the Aramaic belonged
to the inhabitants of Jerusalem exclusively, so as to be spoken by no
other population; nor that it belonged to them as their only language,
so that no other tongue was spoken in the city; but that it belonged to
them more properly than any other tongue which might be spoken there,
which could only be true of the native vernacular, h
patriov glwssa. Of our Lord himself it is expressly stated
that on three occasions he made use of the Aramaic: when with the
words taliya koumi he raised the daughter of
Jairus (#Mr v:41); when with effaya
he opened the ears of the deaf man (#Mr vii:34);
and when upon the cross, paraphrasing the first words of (#Ps
xxii), he cried, elwi, elwi, lama sabacyani
(#Mr xv:34); in (#Mt
xxvii:46), hli, hli, lhma sabacyani.
It is hardly supposable that among all his utterances recorded in the
Gospels these three were the only ones for which he used the native
idiom of the country. Yet it is not easy to say why out of a larger
series these alone should be given in the original form. In the last
case it seems probable that the Aramaic words actually uttered by our
Lord were given by the writer to explain how it was that some of the
bystanders conceived him to be calling on Elias. As to the other two, it
is noteworthy that they appear in only one of the Evangelists. The influence of the Greek in Palestine
began with the conquest by Alexander. The country fell under the
power of Macedonian rulers, the Ptolemies of Egypt, and afterwards the
Seleucidae of Syria, with whom Greek was the language of court and
government. It was used for the official correspondence of the state;
for laws and proclamations; for petitions addressed to the sovereign,
and charters, rights, or patents granted by him. The administration of
justice was conducted in it, at least so far as the higher tribunals
were concerned. At the same time commercial intercourse between the
countries under Macedonian rule came into the hands of men who either
spoke Greek as their native tongue or adopted it as the means of easiest
and widest communication. Partly for purposes of trade and partly as
supports for Macedonian domination, colonial cities were planted in
these regions, and settled by people who, if not all of Hellenic birth,
had the Greek language and civilization and bore the name of Greeks.
Such influences were common to the countries about the eastern
Mediterranean; and their effect in all was to establish the Greek as the
general language of public life, of law, of trade, of literature, and of
communication between men of different lands and races. It did not in
general supplant the native idioms, as the Latin afterwards supplanted
those of Gaul and Spain: it subsisted along with them, contracting but
not swallowing up the sphere of their use. Its position and influence
may be compared with those possessed, though in a much inferior degree,
by the French language in modern Europe. The people of Palestine were subjected to Hellenizing influences of a special character. Their Seleucid rulers, not content with the natural operation of circumstances, made strenuous efforts to impose upon them the Greek culture and religion. The great national reaction under the Maccabees, provoked by these efforts, was of no long duration. The Romans became masters of the country; and must have given new force to the Greek influences to which they had themselves yielded. It cannot be doubted that the Roman administration of state and justice in Palestine was conducted in the Greek, not the Latin, language. The first Herod, who reigned for many years under Roman supremacy, was manifestly partial to the Greeks. Caesarea, which he founded, and made, after Jerusalem, the greatest city in the land, was chiefly occupied by Greek inhabitants. Of many other cities in or near the Holy Land, we learn, mostly from incidental notices, that the population was wholly or partly Greek. Thus Gaza, Ascalon, Joppa, Ptolemais, Dora, as well as Caesarea, on the western sea-coast; Tiberias and Sebaste in the interior; and on the east and northeast, Hippos, Gadara, Scythopolis (or Bethshan), Pella, Gerasa, Philadelphia, and perhaps the remaining cities of the Decapolis. It is obvious that the Jews must have been powerfully affected by so many Greek communities established near them and connected with them by manifold political relations, —and especially the Jews of Galilee, surrounded as they were and pressed upon by such communities. While many Greeks were becoming settled in Palestine, Jews in yet larger numbers were leaving it to establish themselves in all the important places of the Grecian world. Without losing their nationality and religion, they gave up their Aramaic mother-tongue for the general language of the people round them. Had the Jews of Egypt retained the native idiom, the first translation of the Scriptures would probably have been made in Aramaic and not in Greek. Even Philo of Alexandria, an older contemporary of our Lord, gives no evidence in his voluminous and learned writings of an acquaintance with either Hebrew or Aramaic. But these Jews of the dispersion frequently returned to their fatherland; they gathered in crowds to the great national festivals; and in personal communication with their Palestinian kindred, did much to extend the use of their adopted language. In many cases they continued to reside in Palestine. Thus we hear (#Ac vi:9) of one or more synagogues of Libertines (Jewish freedmen from Italy), Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Cilicians, and peoples from western Asia Minor. That many would content themselves with their familiar Greek, as being sufficient for the ordinary purposes of communication, without taking the trouble to learn Aramaic, is a fact which can hardly be doubted. It is generally believed that the Hellenists, mentioned in (#Ac ix:29) and (as converts to Christianity) in (#Ac vi:1), were persons of this sort, —separated from those around them not by speaking Greek (for most others could do so), but by speaking only Greek. The satisfaction which Paul gave by his use of Aramaic (#Ac xxii:2), makes it easy to understand how such persons, who being settled in Palestine disdained to acquire the native idiom, might be looked upon with coldness or disfavor as a class by themselves, especially if they showed, as may often have been the case, a weakened attachment to other features of the national life. [Hellenists.] The Greek version of the LXX. did much to
make the Greek known and familiar to the Jews of Palestine. The
original Hebrew was an object of scholastic study; a learned
acquaintance with it was highly valued in popular estimation (Jos. Ant.
xx. 11, 2); and the number of scribes, lawyers, etc., who possessed such
knowledge was probably not inconsiderable; but to the mass of the people
the Hebrew Scriptures were a sealed book.
Nor was there, so far as we know, prior to the Christian era, any
Aramaic version. To the common man—the man of common education—if he
had any knowledge of Greek, the most natural and easy way to gain a
knowledge of the Scriptures was by reading the Greek translation. That
such use was made of it by great numbers of the people cannot well be
doubted. That Greek was generally understood by the people of Jerusalem, is evident from the circumstances of Paul’s address in (#Ac xxii). The multitude, who listened with hushed attention when he spoke to them in Aramaic, were already attentive while expecting to hear him in Greek. It does not follow that all understood him in the former language, or that all would have understood him in the latter. To gain attention, it would be enough that a large majority could understand the language of the speaker; those who could not, might still get some notion of the speech, its drift and substance, by occasional renderings of their fellows. The Greek New Testament is itself the strongest proof of the extent to which its language had become naturalized among the Jews of Palestine. Most of its writers, though not belonging to the lowest class, to the very poor or the quite uneducated, were men in humble life, in whom one could hardly expect to find any learning or accomplishment beyond what was common to the great body of their countrymen. We are not speaking of Saul or Luke or the unknown writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews; but of Peter, Jude, James, John, and Matthew, if (as is most probable) we have his Gospel in its original language. Yet we find them not only writing in Greek, but writing in a way which proves that they were familiar with it and at home in it. They do not write it with elegance or with strict grammatical correctness; but they show a facility, a confidence, an abundance of apt and forcible expression, which men seldom attain in a language not acquired during early life. Some have found in the Hebrew idioms which color their style an indication that they thought in Hebrew (or Aramaic), and had to translate their thoughts when they expressed them in Greek. But similar dioms occur in the compositions of Paul, who as the native of a Greek city must have been all his life familiar with the Greek language. When Greek began to be spoken by Hebrews, learning it in adult years, they had to go through a process of mental translation; and the natural result was the formation of a Hellenistic dialect, largely intermixed with Semitic idioms, which they handed down to their descendants. The latter, as they did not cease to speak an Aramaic idiom, were little likely to correct the Aramaic peculiarities in the Greek received from their fathers. Josephus speaks with emphasis of the difficulty which even a well-educated Jew found in writing Greek with idiomatic accuracy. The Greek style of a Jew, especially when writing on religious subject, was naturally affected by his familiarity with the LXX., which copied from the original many Hebrew forms of expression, and kept them alive in the memory and use of the people. In view of these proofs, the conclusion seems unavoidable that, as a general fact, the Palestine Jews of the first century were acquainted with both languages, Greek and Aramaic. It is probable, indeed, as already stated, that some were not acquainted with the Aramaic; and it is by no means improbable, though the proof is less distinct, that some were not acquainted with the Greek. Of both these classes the absolute number may have been considerable. But apparently they were the exceptions, the majority of the people having a knowledge more or less extended of both languages. Other instances of bilingual communities, of populations able for the most part to express themselves in two different tongues, are by no means wanting. One of the most striking at the present day is to be found in a people of Aramaean origin with a firmly held Aramaic vernacular, the Nestorian Syrians or Chaldee Christians. "In Persia most of the Nestorians are able to speak fluently the rude Tatar (Turkish) dialect used by the Mohammedans of this province, and those of the mountains are equally familiar with the language of the Koords. Still they have a strong preference for their own tongue, and make it the constant and only medium of intercourse with each other." (Stoddard, Preface to Modern Syriac Grammar in Journal of Amer. Oriental Soc. vol. v.) It is a common opinion that by the pentecostal gift of tongues (#Ac ii) the Apostles were miraculously endowed with a knowledge of many languages and the power of using them at pleasure. But this gift would seem from the tenor of the accounts to have been a kind of inspiration under which the speaker gave utterance to a succession of sounds, without himself willing, or perhaps even understanding, the sounds which he uttered. It does not appear from the subsequent history that the Apostles in their teaching made use of any other languages than Greek and Aramaic. It is not necessary to suppose that Paul spoke Latin at Rome, or Maltese in Melita (#Ac xxviii) or Lycaonian at Lystra (#Ac xiv). In the transactions at Lystra it is pretty clearly implied that Paul and Barnabas did not understand the speech of Lycaonia, and therefore failed to perceive and oppose the idolatrous intentions of the people until they had broken out into open act. In choosing between the two languages which they undoubtedly possessed, the Apostles were of course guided by the circumstances. Outside of the Holy Land, they would generally, if not always, make use of the Greek. In Syria, indeed, a considerable part of the people—the same for which the Peshito version was made in the next century—would probably have understood an address in the Aramaic of Palestine; but in Antioch, the capital, where the disciples were first called Christians, Greek must have been the prevalent language. Even in Palestine, Paul’s addresses to the Roman governors Felix and Festus would naturally be made in Greek. This is not so clear of the address to Agrippa, who had enjoyed a Jewish education. In the meeting of apostles and elders at Jerusalem (#Ac xv), occasioned by events in Antioch and attended by delegates from that city, the proceedings were probably in Greek, as also the circular letter which announced its result to "the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia." When Peter on the day of Pentecost addressed the multitude of Jews gathered from many different countries, he would naturally use the language which was most widely understood. It is true that the "Parthians and Medes and Elamites—and Arabians," if no others, would have been most accessible to an Aramaic address: so we judge from the fact that Josephus, writing for readers in these very lands, composed his history in the native tongue. Still, when we consider the "dwellers in Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome," it is probable that more would have understood Greek than Aramaic; so that if there was only one address in one language (which perhaps the terms of the narrative do not require us to suppose), it was probably made in Greek. The difficulty of determining the language used for each particular discourse is even greater in the Gospels than in the Acts. It seems reasonable to suppose that conversations between kindred and friends, and the familiar utterances of Christ to his disciples, were in Aramaic; the native idiom of the country, if not wholly given up, would naturally be employed for occasions like these. Yet as long as speakers and hearers had another language at command, there always remains, in the absence of express statements, a possibility that this, and not Aramaic, may have been used for any given conversation. And if, on the other hand it seems reasonable to suppose that our Lord in his more public discourses spoke Greek, there is a similar difficulty about being sure in particular cases that he did not use the other language which was familiar to him and to the mass of his hearers. A recent writer assumes that every discourse which, as reported to us, contains quotations from the O. T. in the words of the LXX., must have been pronounced in Greek; and this criterion, were it trustworthy, would decide many cases. But if an Aramaic speech containing Scripture quotations were to be reported in Greek by a writer familiar with the LXX., who seldom (if ever) read the Scriptures in any other form, is it not probable that he would give the quotations for the most part according to the LXX.? Sometimes, it is likely, he would depart from it, because he did not correctly remember its phraseology; and sometimes, because he remembered that the Aramaic speaker gave the passage a sense varying from that given by the LXX. As the writers of the Gospels were probably in this condition—of persons familiar with the LXX., who seldom (if ever) read the Scriptures in any other form—it is unsafe from the way in which they give the Scripture quotations to infer anything as to the language used by the speakers who quoted them. There are instances, however, in which the circumstances of the case afford some indications on this point. Thus in communicating with the people of Gadara, which Josephus calls a Greek city, our Lord would use the Greek language. Among the crowds who followed him before the Sermon on the Mount and who seem to have stood about the mountain while he was speaking, were some from Decapolis (#Mt iv:25). As already stated, the ten cities of that region were (most, if not all, of them) Greek. As our Lord had thus in the surrounding multitude of his auditors some who probably were unacquainted with Aramaic, there is plausible ground for believing that on this important occasion he made use of the Greek language. In the closing scenes of his life, when he was brought before the Roman governor for judgment and execution, it is nearly certain that Greek was used by Pilate himself and by the various speakers about his tribunal. It is stated in the Mishnah (Sotah, c. 9, n. 14), that when the war of Titus broke out, an order was issued in which fathers were forbidden to have their sons instructed in Greek. Whether this is true or not, it would be only natural that the excited patriotism of such a time should cause the Jews to set a higher value on their national tongue. Perhaps those who spoke Greek and Aramaic were now inclined as far as possible to discard the use of Greek; the Targums, which seem to have made their first appearance or to have assumed a permanent shape about this time, would be a help in doing so. At all events there is reason for believing that after this period there was a considerable population in Palestine who did not understand Greek. The general opinion of the Fathers (from Clement of Alexandria down) that the Epistle to the Hebrews was composed in Aramaic, had probably no other foundation than the belief that it would otherwise have been unintelligible to the Jews of Palestine for whom it was designed. This belief is of little weight as regards the original language of the epistle; but as regards the prevailing language of Palestine in later times it may not be without value. Eusebius of Caesarea, a native and lifelong resident of Palestine, declares (Dem. Evang. lib. iii.) that the Apostles before the death of their Master understood no language but that of the Syrians this he would hardly have done if Greek had been generally spoken by the Galilaeans of his own day. The discussion as to the language of Palestine in our Saviour’s time has been quite generally connected with the question whether Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew or in Greek. Most defenders of the Hebrew original (as Du Pin, Mill, Michaelis Marsh, Weber, Kuinoel, etc.) have maintained that this was the only language then understood by the body of the people. And many champions of the Greek original (as Cappell, Basnage, Masch, Lardner, Walaeus, etc.) have made a like claim for the Greek. For a full list of the older writers, see Kuinoel in Fabricius, Bibl. Graeca ed. Harles. iv. 760. We add the names of some writers who have treated the subject more at large. Isaac Vossius (De Oraculis Sibyllinis, Oxon. 1680), though a staunch believer in the Hebrew original, held that Greek was almost universal in the towns of Palestine, and that the Syriac still spoken in the country and in villages had become so corrupted as to be a kind of mongrel Greek. He found an opponent in Simon (Hist. Crit. du Texte du N. T., Rotterd. 1689), who allowed that Greek was the common language (langue vulgaire) of the country, but contended that the Jews, beside the Greek, had preserved the Chaldee which they brought with them from Babylon, and which they called the national language. Diodati of Naples (De Christo Graece loquente, 1767; reprinted London, 1843) went further than Vossius, asserting that Greek in the days of our Lord had entirely supplanted the old Palestinian dialect. Replies to this work were put forth by Ernesti (in Neueste Theol. Bibl., 1771) and De Rossi (Della Lingua propria di Cristo, Parma, 1772). De Rossi’s work was adopted by Pfannkuche as the basis of his essay on the Aramaean language in Palestine (in Eichhorn’s Allgem. Bibl., 1797), translated by E. Robinson (in Am. Bibl. Repos., 1831) with an introduction on the literature of the subject. Another translation (by T. G. Repp) is given in Clark’s Biblical Cabinet, vol. ii. Against Pfannkuche, who is one-sided in his advocacy of the Aramaic, Hug (Einl. in d. N. T., 4th ed., 1847; 3d ed. transl. by Fosdick, Andover, 1836) maintained the concurrent use of Greek. His position—which is nearly the same with that of Simon—is held substantially by most later writers, as Credner (Einl. in d. N. T., Halle, 1836) and Bleek (Einl. in d. N. T., Berlin, 1862). A somewhat more advanced position is taken by Dr. Alex. Roberts (Discussions on the Gospels, 2d ed., London, 1863), who, while admitting that both language were in general use, contends that our Lord spoke for the most part in Greek, and only now and then in Hebrew (Aramaic). J. H
|
| GOSPEL
- Development
Contents:
Development in the Old Testament Bisar is the Hebrew verb which means "to proclaim good news." Unlike the English language, Hebrew is able to convey the subject of the proclamation in the verb’s root; no direct object was needed with the verb bisar to make clear that the subject of an announcement was "good news." Originally, the word was used to describe the report of victory in battle (2 Samuel 4:10). Because the Israelites believed God was actively involved in their lives (including battles and wars) bisar came to have a religious connotation. To proclaim the good news of Israel’s success in battle was to proclaim God’s triumph over God’s enemies. Believing credit for the victory belonged to God, the Israelites’ proclamation of the good news of victory was, in fact, proclamation about God. The transition from the use of bisar in a military setting to its use in a personal context is not difficult to envision. If Israel proclaimed good news when God delivered the nation from its enemies, individuals ought also to proclaim good news when God delivered them from personal distress (Psalm 40:10). The nation’s victories in war and a person’s individual salvation both called for the announcement of what God had done. The Book of Isaiah marks the full religious development of the term within the Old Testament. By this time the word is most often used to describe the anticipated deliverance and salvation which would come from the hand of God when the long-awaited Messiah appeared to deliver Israel (Isaiah 52:7). The military-political and personal connotations of the word were fully united in the hope of a Deliverer who would both triumph over the earthly enemies of God’s people and usher in a new age of salvation. The arrival of this Messiah would be good news. In the Old Testament, the verbal form of bisar dominates in usage. A noun derived from the verb does appear on occasion, but the vast majority of references are to the verb itself. The good news of God’s saving work and the proclamation of that news cannot be separated. Development in the New Testament From approximately 300 B.C. until after the time of Christ, Greek was the dominant language of the biblical world. The Greek language crossed geographic and cultural barriers to provide a common tongue for government and commerce. During this same time period thousands of Jews emigrated from Palestine throughout Asia Minor. Consequently, many devout Greek-speaking Jews lived in the lands surrounding the Mediterranean Sea. In fact, many Jews who lived outside Palestine spoke Greek better than they spoke Hebrew. These people eventually translated their Scriptures and the important expressions of their faith into Greek. As translators performed their work on the Hebrew Bible, the Greek word most commonly used for bisar was euangelizesthai. In its most ancient usage, this Greek verb had many similarities with bisar. Like the Hebrew verb, euangelizesthai was a word used to announce victory in battle. Another similarity could be found in that the Greek verb originally needed no direct object to convey the subject of the proclamation. However, by the time the New Testament was written the usage of euangelizesthai had changed slightly. In later usage the word simply meant "to proclaim," and some object had to be used with the verb to explain the subject of the proclamation. This small shift in meaning explains why during the Christian era a noun derived from the Greek verb became much more common. Christians increasingly used euanggelion (the noun derived from euangelizesthai) as a specific term to describe the good news of Jesus. Euanggelion was indeed the content of their preaching. However, because the Greek language now allowed the content of their proclamation to be separated from the idea of proclamation itself, writers of the New Testament could also say the good news was confessed, taught, spoken, told, announced, and witnessed. Development in English Translations Earliest English editions of the Bible used the Anglo-Saxon word "godspell" to translate the noun euaggelion. Godspell meant "the story about a god" and was used because the story about Jesus was good news. As English developed, the word was shortened to "gospel," and the Anglo-Saxon meaning was lost. Because euaggelion was used specifically to refer to good news of Jesus, some translators have used other words to translate bisar in the Old Testament, even though the meaning of the two words are roughly the same. This distinction has been drawn in order to differentiate between the good news promised by the prophets and the good news which Jesus actually brings. Translators who make such a distinction often use "glad tidings" or an equivalent for the Hebrew. Usage in the New Testament In the New Testament "gospel" has two shades of meaning: it is both the actual message on the lips of Jesus about the reign of God (Mark 1:14), and it is the story told about Jesus after His death and resurrection (Galatians 1:11-12). In each case "gospel" refers to the work which God alone initiates and completes. Inasmuch as God has chosen to bring about the world’s reconciliation in this one particular way, there is only one gospel (Hebrews 1:1-2). Furthermore, since God is the One working through the saving activity of Jesus, God is also the Author of the gospel (1 Thes. 2:13). The gospel is God’s message to humankind (Romans 15:16). Only God calls and commissions the messengers of this good news, and, in addition, only God gives the messengers the story they are to make known (Romans 10:14-15; 1 John 1:5). Therefore, the proclamation of the good news is the continuation of the work which God began in Jesus Christ. God’s messengers are not merely telling about the history of salvation when they proclaim the good news; rather, they are an integral part of the work which continues through their efforts. The living Lord, Jesus Christ Himself, confronts listeners through the words of the messengers. To alter the message by adding extra requirements or by omitting crucial details is to pervert the gospel into a false message which ceases to have saving power (2 Cor. 11:3-4; Galatians 1:6-7). The Message of the Gospel The most basic summary of Jesus’ preaching appears in Mark 1:15. "The time is fulfilled," He said. "The kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mark offers no explanation what the good news is or what information it contains. Those readers who live several centuries after the writing of the New Testament must glean the message from careful study of all its books. The need for good news assumes a bad situation. The bad situation in which humans find themselves and the reason they need good news is that sin has entered each of their lives (John 8:7; Romans 3:23). Sin is a power that controls them and shapes their destinies (Romans 3:9; Romans 6:22). Sin’s power must not be underestimated. In fact, humans are helpless by themselves to overcome its grip on their lives (Romans 7:21-24). Because humans cannot overcome the power of sin by themselves, God has intervened on their behalf through Jesus. Jesus has come to seek out all persons so they may respond to God’s grace (Luke 15:1-10; Luke 19:10). God’s grace, which Jesus bears within Himself (John 1:14), overcomes sin’s power and offers forgiveness for individual sins (Mark 2:5; Romans 6:14). While God offers grace freely to everyone, this grace is not effective in overcoming the power of sin in a person’s life until that person accepts it (Matthew 19:20-22; John 1:12). Because Jesus bears God’s grace in Himself, grace is accepted only by receiving him (John 14:9-12). The marks of having accepted Jesus are repentance (Luke 13:3) and a changed life (Matthew 3:8; 1 John 1:5-7). The fact that forgiveness, freedom from sin, and a new life are possible is good news. Because all this is possible only through Jesus Christ, His message and His story are called the "gospel." Development of Written Gospels Within the New Testament, the word euanggelion always refers to oral communication, never to a document or piece of literature. Not until the beginning of the second century and the writings of the "church fathers" do we find references to "gospels" in the plural, indicating written documents. How did this transition from a spoken message to written books take place? Literacy was uncommon in the ancient world. Books and writing equipment were expensive and the education needed to use them was usually reserved for the rich alone. Consequently, many societies preserved and transmitted their national stories, traditions, and faith by word of mouth. These societies stressed the importance of telling and remembering their traditions from one generation to another. Such a system may seem fragile and unreliable by modern standards, but ancient societies trusted the methods and forms they developed to sustain the process. In times of crisis (such as an invasion by a foreign nation), however, certain learned individuals would try to guarantee the preservation of their society’s oral traditions by writing them down. They often wrote out of the fear of what would happen if their nation was defeated or destroyed and no one was left to transmit orally the living traditions to the next generation. The gospels of the New Testament developed along a pattern similar to other ancient writings. For many years the stories and teachings of Jesus were communicated primarily by word of mouth. In addition to the fact of limited literacy, members of the early church believed Jesus would return soon, so they felt no urgency to write down His teachings for the future. Then, about thirty years after Jesus’ ascension, three interrelated crises began to impinge upon the church. As a result of these crises, individuals responded to the leadership of God’s Spirit to write down the teachings, stories, and message of Jesus into what we call the Gospels. The first of these crises was persecution. The Emperor Nero initiated the first official persecution so he could use Christians as scapegoats for his own insane actions. After setting fire to the city of Rome in A.D. 64 as a way to clear a portion of the city for a construction project, Nero arrested Christians and accused them of committing the crime. Using torture, Roman officials extracted a "confession" from one Christian. On the basis of this supposed admission of guilt, Nero began a systematic persecution of Christians which included arrest, imprisonment, torture, and execution. The persecution begun by Nero continued in varying degrees of intensity during the reign of other emperors throughout the New Testament period. From a historical perspective, persecution may have strengthened the spirit of the early church, but that first generation of Christians felt their very existence was threatened. The second crisis involved the passing away of the generation of people who had actually seen Jesus in the flesh, heard His teachings, and witnessed His miracles. Some died in the persecutions and others simply aged enough to pass away from natural causes. The early church placed a high value on the experience of actually having seen and heard Jesus (Luke 1:2; 1 John 1:1). Therefore, the death of members of the original generation of Christians was viewed as a potential break in their linkage to the historical roots of their faith. The third crises was the perceived delay in Christ’s return to earth. Preaching recorded in the New Testament has a distinct sense of urgency about it. The apostles believed that Jesus would be returning any day and that it was imperative for them to give as many people as possible the opportunity to respond to Him. Their constant emphasis was to communicate the gospel today, not to preserve it for the future. As a longer and longer period of time passed after Jesus’ ascension, the church became more and more concerned about preserving the message. The Purposes of the Evangelists From approximately A.D. 60 until A.D. 90, four individuals responded to the inspiration of God by writing down the message of, and about, Jesus. As they did, these individuals surely held several goals in common. Responding to the crises around them, they wanted to preserve the gospel message in an accurate form for believers who would follow in future generations. In this sense the authors were each trying to produce a book for the Christian community. They wrote down the good news of Jesus to strengthen, to educate, and to encourage those who already accepted its message. It is also clear that they intended to use a written form of the gospel as an additional tool for evangelism (John 20:30-31). The evangelists envisioned the written gospel as a vehicle to spread faith in Jesus Christ. In this sense, each evangelist was trying to produce a missionary book. Understanding the missionary character of the four Gospels is an important factor in their study. The Gospel writers’ primary interest was not to produce great works of literature, nor was their intention to write a biography in the modern sense of the word. Their principal objective was to convert individuals to faith in Christ. Thus, they wrote primarily to convince, not to record facts. The primary intention of the evangelists determined the shape and content of the written Gospels. One may wish the Gospel writers had included additional information about Jesus’ home life, His adolescence, or some other area of interest; but the Gospel writers were not led to believe that kind of data was crucial for faith. The evangelists structured their works to give the message maximum impact on the readers. They included material they felt was essential for the reader to know to be able to make a decision about Jesus’ identity. All other concerns regarding form and content of the Gospels was secondary to the missionary objective. While the teaching of the New Testament affirms that there is only one, true gospel, the books contained therein stand as testimony to the fact that the gospel is influenced by each personality which proclaims it. The church does not possess one account of the message of and work of Jesus which stands alone as the official record of His activity. Rather, the early church recognized the inspiration of four different accounts of the gospel. Each one was written from a slightly different perspective; each one had a different audience in mind; each one was designed to highlight the elements of the gospel which the author felt most important. The four Gospels witness both the divine inspiration of God and the individual, human personalities of their authors. Out of several gospels and other accounts of the life of Jesus (Luke 1:1-2), God led the early church to choose four which He had inspired. The Gospel of Mark Most scholars see Mark as the first written Gospel, though many scholars are providing reasons to claim Matthew was first. The simple structure, terse language, and sometimes poor grammar give the impression that this book was composed in a hurry. From references by church leaders in the second century, we learn that the shortest Gospel was written near the year A.D. 65 by a man named Mark (possibly John Mark) who was a follower of the Apostle Peter. Mark recorded the life and message of Jesus as he heard it from the mouth of Peter during the apostle’s teaching and preaching. The best evidence indicates Mark wrote the Gospel for Christians in Rome faced with the first great persecution and the loss of leaders such as Peter. Mark shows a definite interest in the power of Jesus’ words and actions—a power so great it destroys the forces of sin and evil. The exorcisms and other miracles were evidence to Roman Christians being victimized by evil that Jesus could deliver them just as He delivered the demoniac or healed the blind man at Bethsaida (Mark 5:1-20; Mark 8:22-26). The Gospel of Matthew Matthew is the most Jewish of the Gospels. It constantly presents Jesus as the fullfillment of Hebrew prophecy and in images which show Him similar to, but greater than, Old Testament personalities. For instance, the purpose of the nativity story in Matthew is to present Jesus as the royal Messiah from the lineage of David. The Sermon on the Mount portrays Jesus as a new Moses who teaches God’s law from the mountain. Written ten to twenty years after Mark, Matthew takes the general framework of the first written Gospel and adds to it extensive examples of Jesus’ parables and other teachings. While Mark emphasized the power and activity of Jesus, Matthew underscored His teaching. The Gospel of Luke Produced about the same time as Matthew, Luke is generally accepted as the only Gospel written by a Gentile and by a person who was not directly related to Jesus or to one of His original disciples. As one born outside the boundaries of Judaism, Luke had a profound interest in interpreting Jesus as the Savior of all humanity. Matthew traced Jesus’ lineage to Abraham to prove His pure Jewish heritage. Luke, on the other hand, traced His lineage all the way back to Adam to accentuate His common bond with all the human race. Luke mentions shepherds as the witnesses of the Messiah’s birth, because the filth associated with their occupation made them prime examples of society’s outcasts. The fact they were invited to the manger of Bethlehem indicates Jesus’ openness to everyone. The Gospel of John John was the last Gospel written. It is undoubtedly the most reflective and the most theological of the four. Although scholars cannot agree whether John’s primary audience was Jewish or Gentile, they do agree that a major emphasis of this Gospel was to combat the heresy of gnosticism. The most striking characteristic of John is its difference from the other three Gospels. The sequence of Jesus’ ministry, the vocabulary and tone of Jesus’ words, even the day on which Jesus is crucified are different in John than in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The constant reference to miracles as "signs," the "I am" speeches, and the total exclusion of story-like parables also set John apart from the other three. Rejected Gospels The early church perceived God’s inspiration in the four Gospels of the Bible, yet several other books which presented themselves as gospels also circulated during the church’s early history. These "gospels" were either inadequate Jewish interpretations of Jesus, or works heavily influenced by Gnostic heretics. All of the known rejected gospels were written much later than the four included in the New Testament, most commonly between A.D. 120 and 150. Among these works are The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, The Gospel According to the Egyptians, The Gospel of the Naassenes, The Gospel of Peter, and The Gospel of Thomas. God did lead the church to preserve four gospels so that it could continue to preserve and proclaim the richness of the gospel message of salvation to the diverse peoples of the world in their diverse needs.
|
| GREECE
AND THE BIBLE
Contents:
GREECE (greeece), GRECIA (Gree’ cih u) (KJV) (Daniel 8:21; Daniel 10:20; Daniel 11:2) Located between the Italian Peninsula and Asia Minor, Greece itself is a peninsula with the Adriatic and Ionian Seas on the west and the Aegean Sea on the east. These seas, in turn, are a part of the larger Mediterranean Sea. Greece owes its rough terrain to the fact that it is the southern end of the central European mountain range. Another geographical feature is the numerous islands that lie in close proximity to the Greek mainland. The southernmost area, the Peloponnesus, is itself virtually an island, connected to the mainland by only a narrow neck of land known as the Isthmus of Corinth.Its mountainous nature has played an important role in the development of the country. First of all, it has an unusually long shoreline for such a small area, resulting from the fact that there are numerous bays and inlets, giving it many natural harbors. Since its mountains were heavily forested in earlier times, shipbuilding and the sea trade developed. Secondly, the rough terrain discouraged a sense of unity among its people since communication between them was not easy. Finally, the land for agriculture, while fertile, was limited so that what was produced could not sustain a large population. Small grains, grapes, and olives were the main agricultural products while the mountains provided pastures for sheep and goats. Historical Developments About the time of the great prophets in Israel (after 800 B.C.), city-states began to develop in Greece. The limited food supplies had forced Greeks to leave the homeland. As a result, colonies were established on the Mediterranean islands, Asia Minor, Sicily, Italy, and in the Black Sea area. Colonies provided the basis for trade; and trade, in turn, encouraged the growth of cities since the economy was not tied to agriculture. The high-water mark for the city-states was 500-404 B.C. The dominant city-states of the period were Athens and Sparta. About 500-475 B.C. Athens beat off a threat from the Persians. There followed what is known as the Golden Age of Athens. Under its great leader—Pericles—art, architecture, and drama flourished. Peloponnesian city-states feared the power of Athens, however, and united under the leadership of Sparta to war against Athens. The defeat of Athens in 404 B.C. began a period of decline for the city-states. About 350 B.C. Philip II came to the throne of Macedonia, a territory in what is now largely northern Greece. In the years that followed Philip brought all the Greek peninsula under his control, only to be assassinated in 336 B.C. He was succeeded by his twenty-year-old son, Alexander, whose schoolmaster had been the great philosopher, Aristotle. Alexander was one of the most outstanding military and organizational geniuses of human history. By the time of his death in 323 B.C., he had conquered an empire that spanned the Middle East from Greece to the western reaches of India, as well as Syria-Palestine and Egypt. Wherever he went, he left colonies that became dispensers of Greek language and culture, known as Hellenism. When the Romans took over much of this territory two centuries later, they imposed their legal and military system. They, in turn, were conquered by Greek culture. Thus we speak of the Graeco-Roman culture. When Christianity arose, it had Greek, which many linguists call the most flexible language ever devised, as a vehicle to spread its concepts. Christian theologians in later centuries would wed Christian concepts with Greek philosophical methods and ideas to develop Christian theology. Greece and the Bible Very few references to Greece appear in the Old Testament with most of them being found in the Book of Daniel (Daniel 8:21; Daniel 10:20; Daniel 11:2. See also Zech. 9:13). This is not true of the New Testament, however, especially as regards Paul’s ministry. Some of his most fruitful work was done in Greek cities. Philippi, in Macedonia, was the first church founded by Paul on European soil (Acts 16). It would become Paul’s special favorite among his churches and would be the recipient of his most intimate and loving letter, the Epistle to the Philippians. In the district of Thessaly, Paul founded two churches, Thessalonica and Berea (Acts 17:1-14). The Thessalonians also would be the recipients of Pauline letters, two of which are in the New Testament (1 and 2 Thessalonians). Just as Paul had problems while at Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-9), so he had problems explaining to the church about the return of the Lord. Bible students have long debated about Paul’s success or lack of it at Athens (Acts 17:16-33). While the worship of the Greek gods had declined, Paul’s experience in the marketplace at Athens shows that it was not entirely dead. It was, however, the sense of the failure of the older religions that led to the rapid acceptance of the Christian religion throughout the Roman empire. Paul, however, did not win a large number of converts at Athens, but he did win some. No city received more attention nor provoked more correspondence from Paul than Corinth. Located on the narrow isthmus that connects the Peloponnesus to the rest of Greece, Corinth was a brawling, sinful seaport town, the crossroads of the Mediterranean (Acts 18:1-17). Here Paul met two people who would be among his most valuable helpers, Priscilla and Aquila. He would be brought to trial; he would establish one of his most troublesome and controversial churches, and later he would write at least four letters to that church. Two survived to become a part of the New Testament. The Greek influence on the New Testament and Christianity is immeasurable. Koine, the Greek of the streets, is the language of the New Testament. At least five New Testament books are written to churches in Greek cities (Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians). All the other books in the New Testament are written in the Greek language. As the Christian gospel moved out into the the Mediterranean world, it had to communicate its values to people who were steeped in Greek culture and religion. Both gained from the relationship with people being transformed by the gospel and Christianity gaining a vehicle for its spread.
|
| HEBREW HEBREW (Hee’broo) The language in which the canonical books of the Old Testament were written, except for the Aramaic sections in Ezra 4:8-6:18; Ezra 7:12-26; Daniel 2:4b-7:28; Jeremiah 10:11, and a few other words and phrases from Aramaic and other languages. The language is not called "Hebrew" in the Old Testament. Rather, it is known as "the language (literally, lip) of Canaan" (Isaiah 19:18) or as "Judean" (NAS), that is the language of Judah (Neh. 13:24; Isaiah 36:11). The word "Hebrew" for the language is first attested in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) in the Apocrypha. In the New Testament the references to the "Hebrew dialect" seem to be references to Aramaic. Biblical or classical Hebrew belongs to the Northwest Semitic branch of Semitic languages which includes Ugaritic, Phoenician, Moabite, Edomite, and Ammonite. This linguistic group is referred to commonly as Canaanite, although some prefer not to call Ugaritic a Canaanite dialect. Hebrew has an alphabet of twenty-two consonants. The texts were written right to left. The script was based on that of the Phoenicians, a circumstance which did not make it possible to represent or to distinguish clearly among all the consonantal sounds in current use in classical Hebrew. For example, s and sh were represented by the letter shin, ‘ and g (’ayin and gayin) by the letter ’ayin, and h and ch by the letter heth. In addition six letters, beth, gimel, daleth, kaph, pe, and taw presumably had both soft and hard pronunciations depending on whether the letter was preceded by a vowel sound. It was not until the fifth century A.D. or later that dots and diacritical marks were employed to distinguish certain sounds. The "square" or Aramaic script began to be adopted for Hebrew in the post-exilic age of Judaism, although the archaic script continued to be used alongside it for quite sometime, even as late as the time of the Qumran or Dead Sea Scroll materials. The distinguishing characteristics of Hebrew are for the most part those shared by one or more of the other Semitic languages. Each root for verbs and nouns characteristically had three consonants, even in later periods when the use of four consonant roots was increased. Nouns are either masculine or feminine. They have singular, plural, or even dual forms, the dual being used for items normally found in pairs, such as eyes, ears, lips. While most nouns were derived from a verbal root, some were original nouns which gave rise to verbs (denominatives). The genitive relationship (usually expressed in English by "of") is expressed by the construct formation in which the word standing before the genitive is altered in form and pronunciation (if possible). The Hebrew verb forms indicate person, number, and gender. There are seven verbal stems which serve to indicate types of action: simple action, active or passive; intensive action, active, passive, or reflexive; and causative action, active or passive. In classical Hebrew the isolated verb form did not indicate a tense, but rather complete or incomplete action. Thus verbs are often referred to as perfect or imperfect, there being no past, present, future, past perfect, present perfect, or future perfect. The tense can be determined only in context, and sometimes even that procedure produces uncertain results. Classical Hebrew is a verb oriented language rather than a noun oriented or abstract language. The usual word order of a sentence is verb, subject, modifiers, direct object. The language is quite concrete in expression. However, the relatively simple structure and syntax of classical Hebrew did not keep biblical writers from producing countless passages of unparalleled beauty and power. While historical development took place in classical Hebrew from the eleventh century to the emergence of Mishnaic Hebrew, it does not seem possible to write the history of that development. It is generally agreed that the most archaic texts are poetic, such as Genesis 4:23-24; Exodus 15; Judges 5, although often it is difficult to decide what is archaic and what may be the result of an archaizing style. Books written toward the close of the Old Testament period, such as Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, and Ecclesiastes, show the Hebrew language undergoing a number of significant changes due primarily to Aramaic influence. Most of the Hebrew Bible now shows a homogeneous style which was most likely due to scribes in the late pre-exilic period copying the older texts in the dialect of Jerusalem. Thus, to be able to date an extant text does not necessarily mean that one can date the material contained in the text. There is some evidence of dialectical variations in the Hebrew spoken in biblical times. For example there is the shibboleth-sibboleth incident in Judges 12:5-6. Some Bible students think many of the difficulties of the text of Hosea may be clarified by considering the Hebrew of that book as an example of northern or Israelite idiom. The growing number of Hebrew inscriptions dating from the pre-exilic age provides an important supplement to the study of classical Hebrew. These inscriptions were chiseled into stone, written on ostraca (broken pieces of pottery), or cut into seals or inscribed on jar handles and weights. Some of the most important inscriptional evidence includes the Gezer calendar (tenth century), the Hazor ostraca (ninth century), the Samaria ostraca (early eighth century), the Siloam inscription (late eighth century), Yavneh-yam ostracon (late seventh century), jar handles from Gibeon (late seventh century), the Lachish ostracon (early sixth century), and the Arad ostraca (late seventh and early sixth centuries). To these may be added the Moabite Stone (Stele of Mesha, ninth century) and the Ammonite stele (ninth century) which contain inscriptions in languages very similar to classical Hebrew. Several benefits may be gained from these and other inscriptions for the study of classical Hebrew. First, we now have available an adequate view of the development of Hebrew script and orthography from the tenth century to New Testament times. Second, it now appears that literacy was earlier and more widespread in Israel than was thought previously. Third, the addition of new words and personal names and the like have enriched our knowledge of classical Hebrew. And fourth, details of the texts add new data on matters of history, material culture, and religion. There has probably not been a time since its inception when Hebrew has not been in use, even if mainly as a scholarly or literary language. Classical Hebrew was followed by Mishnaic Hebrew, the language of the Mishnah, which reflects Hebrew as it was known from around 200 B.C. to about A.D. 500 Mishnaic Hebrew was the language of the academy where the Scriptures were interpreted and where the oral interpretations of the sages were passed down. The language differs from the classical idiom in several important respects, including a greatly expanded vocabulary with the addition of words from Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, the use of new particles, idioms, and patterns of speech, and especially extensive development of the verbal stems. After A.D. 500 Rabbinic Hebrew was used as a literary language by the scholars who spoke different vernaculars. The medieval period saw a great flowering of Hebrew literature of all kinds, especially commentaries and philosophical works. The nineteenth and twentieth centuries have witnessed the development of modern Hebrew into a vital, living language as suitable for the sciences and literature as for everyday use, but this language represents a vast development and change from classical Hebrew of the Bible, particularly in the verbal system. |
| ARAMAIC
Contents:
ARAMAIC (ahr·uh·may’ihc) A North Semitic language similar to Phoenician and Hebrew was the language of the Arameans whose presence in northwestern Mesopotamia is known from about 2000 B.C. Related Old Testament Passages—2 Kings 18:26; Ezra 4:8-6:18; Ezra 7:12-26; Daniel 2:4b-7:28; Jeremiah 10:11. Related New Testament Passages—Mark 5:41; Mark 14:36; Mark 15:34. Old Testament Although the Arameans never founded a great national state or empire, by the eleventh century they had established several small states in Syria, and their language came to be known from Egypt to Persia. The oldest inscriptions in Old Aramaic are from Syria around 800 B.C. In the ninth century official or Royal Aramaic appeared. This was a dialect known from documents from Assyria and known best from documents from the Persian empire, for which Aramaic had become the official court language. Before 700 B.C. Aramaic had begun to supplant Akkadian as the language of commerce and diplomacy (2 Kings 18:26). Important for biblical history are the fifth century papyri from Elephantine, the site of a Jewish colony in Egypt. Official Aramaic continued to be used widely throughout the Hellenistic period. Parts of the Old Testament were written in Aramaic: Ezra 4:8-6:18; Ezra 7:12-26; Daniel 2:4b-7:28; Jeremiah 10:11. Two words in Genesis 31:47, Jegar-sahadutha (heap of witness) are in Aramaic. A number of Aramaic words came into common Hebrew usage, and several passages in the Hebrew Bible show Aramaic influence. New Testament The wide diffusion of Aramaic, along with its flexibility and adaptability, resulted in the emergence of various dialects. In Syria-Palestine the western group includes Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Samaritan, Palmyrene, and Nabataean. Jewish Palestinian Aramaic words and phrases occur in the New Testament, such as Abba (father) (Mark 14:36), talitha, qumi (maiden, arise) (Mark 5:41), lama sabachthani (why hast thou forsaken me?) (Mark 15:34). The Palestinian Talmud and the Targums (translations of Old Testament books into Aramaic) also were written in Palestinian Jewish Aramaic. The eastern (Mesopotamian) group includes Babylonian Jewish Aramaic, Mandaean, and Syriac. Characteristics Hebrew and Aramaic, as cognates or closely related languages, share several formal and phonological characteristics, including the predominance of basic root words with three consonants, the position of word accent, the use of pronominal suffixes, and the use of verbal stems or conjugations to indicate simple, intensive, and causative actions. However, the differences in the two languages show that they are not merely dialectical variations; each language has its own character and integrity.
|
