1

Tice

Cornerstone University

HEBREO-ARAMAIC IDIOMS IN THE GREEK SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

A Study from Linguistic Criticism

Brian Tice / Box 3594

Biblical Criticism

Professor Andrew Smith

2 December 2005


One of the major impediments to the accurate interpretation of the New Testament Scriptures over the past 1500 years has been the almost universal tendency to divorce the New Testament from its Jewish context. The early Church, even into the Fourth Century of the Common Era, existed in a primarily Jewish setting and context with almost exclusively Jewish Christians as its leaders. That being the case, much of the Greek language used by the New Testament writers, all of whom are believed to have been Jewish, reflects the idiomatic form and psycholinguistic character of the Semitic languages common to them – Hebrew and Aramaic. Such idioms appear throughout the New Testament[1], but are particularly frequent in the Synoptic Gospels.

Linguistic criticism endeavors to explore a text and the effects that elements of language have upon it. One method might be comparing pre-vowel-pointing Hebrew renderings of the Torah to transliterated Hebrew words in the Septuagint Proper to study how the Hebrew would have been pronounced or how it compares with later Hebrew. In so doing, the linguistic critic may determine which psycholinguistic elements of the source language influence the rendering in a language not primary to the author, or the grammatical structure of the language and how its structure may affect interpretation of the text.

Different languages have different ways of conveying an idea, and one of the aims of linguistic criticism is to determine what idea, specifically, the author is trying to transmit through the text. This often involves pinpointing the source of the linguistic device used, whether an idiom or a loanword or a new word of the author’s own invention. If it is a loanword, the source language will shed light on its meaning; as would be the case for idioms. Idiomatic expressions and authorial inventions also relate information about the source culture and its customs and traditions.

Even the most adamant Jew-haters in the early Church admit the Jewish influence upon on it during its first four centuries. Consider the fervent desire of Fourth Century theologian St. John Chrysostom, who desired to have the practice of Christians worshipping at Jewish synagogues and observing the Vayikra (Leviticus) 23 high holy days to be purged from the Christian experience. He wrote in Adversus Judaeos, “Some of these (Christians) are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now.”[2] Chrysostom’s statement was driven by his ardent hatred of Jews and the Jewish influence upon the Christian faith, which he himself discussed at great length in the seven homilies that comprise Adversus Judaeos, including such audacious pronouncements as, “We must hate both them (the Jews) and their synagogue.”[3]

If the Jewish festival calendar was part of the early Church, it would stand to reason that other aspects of Jewish culture could be seen in it, as well. Careful study of the New Testament Scriptures reveals that this is, in fact, the case. Though written in Koine Greek, the phraseology is in many places not consistent with normal Greek idiomatic vernacular, but rather reflects a Semitic influence, often carrying common Hebrew or Aramaic idiomatic expressions from the Semitic language into the Greek verbatim. In a few instances, these phrases even appear in the Greek text in transliterated form as Aramaic quotations followed by a note of translation.

The most familiar occurrence of this is the account of Yeshua’s words on the Cross: “Eli, Eli! L’mah sh’vaktani.” Matthew’s Gospel does not translate the phrase at all, probably assuming that its meaning would be apparent to his intended audience. Translators of the text have added into it the translation, “My God, My God! Why have you deserted Me?” (Matthew 27: 46), assuming that Yeshua was quoting Psalm 22:2(1).[4] A proper translation of the expression, however, reveals that this is an incorrect rendering of the Aramaic. Assyrian Peshitta Bible translator Alexander Victor notes that sh’vaktani “means ‘left me’ in the sense of the purpose for which Jesus was left on the cross. It absolutely does not mean ‘forsaken’ in this usage.”[5]

Victor is not alone in this observation. Charles Weber has written, “A passage that has caused considerable difficulty is resolved by the Peshitta Bible. Christ Jesus on the cross (Mark l5:34) does not say ‘My God, why hast thou forsaken me,’ but ‘this was my destiny.’” [6] Aramaic ethnologist Dr. George Mamishisho Lamsa, even as early as 1935, was convinced of the same point and argues that Eli, Eli! L’mah sh’vaktani is an expression still in common usage in Aramaic-speaking Assyria today by any who “suffer and die unjustly.”[7] If the intended message was “Why has thou forsaken Me?,” the word sh’vaktani would not communicate that; the word n’shatani would appear in its place.

There are still many scholars who hold to the “forsaken” interpretation of the passage, such as Messianic scholar David H. Stern, but that interpretation simply does not stand up against the weight of the linguistic evidence now available. Stern’s argument for carrying Psalm 22:2(1) over into Matthew is that other particles of the 22nd Psalm appear in the same chapter, citing Matthew 27:39 and 27:43; however, both of these are paraphrastic instances at best, rather than verbatim transference from the psalm. [8] The same pericope from the Markan account (Mark l5) lacks any such additional allusions to Psalm 22. Though Luke’s Gospel certainly echoes Psalm 22 (Luke 18:31-32), a backwards reading of Luke into Mark and Matthew is poor hermeneutical practice. Luke was clearly making a comparison between David, about whose life Psalm 22 was actually written, and the Jewish Messiah Yeshua. Mark and Matthew likely did not write with that same intent. It should be noted that Luke uses neither the Aramaic phrase nor it’s Greek translation in his account of the paschal event.

Dr. Lamsa notes, “Hebrew is a branch of Aramaic, known as Western Aramaic.”[9] Gustaff Dalman suggests that the influence of the Aramaic dialect would be greater on the Koine Greek of the New Testament than the influence of Hebrew, since Aramaic was more vernacular in the first century than Hebrew.[10] The literary language of the Israelite people, however, has almost exclusively been Hebrew, notes Dalman, but even the form of the Hebrew used would reflect the idiosyncrasies of the dominant spoken language, whether Aramaic or the German, Spanish, or Arabic of later time periods.[11] The Hebrew used in the Torah reflects much more Egyptian influence than does the rest of the Tanakh, for example, through its use of Egyptian loanwords and idioms. Notable exceptions to Hebrew’s literary dominance are portions of Daniel written in Aramaic and the alleged primitive Aramaic “Gospel of Matthew.”

Eusebius notes that Procopius was a First Century martyr whose role in the Church included Aramaic interpretation (eJrmhneiva th'V tw'n Suvrwv fwnh'V).[12] Early Church historians hold that there had once existed a Semitic gospel from Matthew, this being recorded in the writings of Eusebius, Irenaeus, Jerome, and Origen. Though there is disagreement as to whether this Aramaic gospel is the alleged Quelle Document, the reports of its existence does suggest the probability of linguistic influence from Aramaic on at least Matthew’s gospel.

Though some prominent Assyriologists argue that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic, the prevailing opinion among biblical scholars is that the Gospels were first given in Greek. The extant Aramaic texts are not original autographs, and are believed by most to be translated from pre-existent Greek texts into the Aramaic language. Some argue that the Peshitta (Aramaic) gospels are actually more detailed than their Greek counterparts, suggesting that the Peshitta reflects an earlier text than do the Greek manuscripts. Regardless of whether or not the Aramaic came first, the Peshitta is valuable for giving the linguistic critic insight into the psycholinguistic dynamics of the Semitic world and a Semitic understanding of the material found in the Gospels. Comparisons to Second Temple Era extra-biblical writings in the Aramaic language are also employed in applying linguistic criticism to a text from that time period, which would include the synoptic Gospels.

The Aramaic language also enters the text of the Gospels in Matthew 5:22’s use of the word raca, which translates “to spit in another’s face.” In the account of Yeshua resurrecting the daughter of the synagogue official Ya’ir (Mark 5:21-43) using the Aramaic words, “Talita, kumi,” the interpretation of this phrase is not disputed. Lamsa indicates that, “the word talita means both ‘little girl’ and ‘sleep,’ thus the phrase can properly be interpreted as either ‘thou who sleepest, arise’ or ‘little girl, arise!’”[13] Luke renders the phrase in Greek instead of Aramaic, JH pai'ß, e~geire! (Luke 8:54); removing any ambiguity that may have otherwise come from the dual meaning of talita, since pai'ß overlaps with talita only on one definition: “child.”[14]

The New Testament writers often translate Aramaic idioms directly into Greek in a word-for-word exchange, sometimes losing the original sense of the passage altogether for audiences not contemporary to the writer. Linguistic criticism must often look outside the text to find its meaning. Luke 11:34 bears another such idiom, which through the lens of rabbinical teaching is brought into the realm of understanding. David Stern notes that “in Judaism, “having a good eye,” an ‘ayin tovah, means being generous, and “having a bad eye,” and ‘ayin ra’ah, means being stingy. [15] The rabbis of Hillel’s school taught that a person who gave 1/40th of his income had a good eye, while the person who only gave 1/60th had an evil eye.[16] Judging from the passage’s subject matter – anxiety about money, this interpretation is valid.

A word in one language and its equivalent in another, though there is generally enough overlap of definitions to justify the connection, do not always or even usually cover the same exact set of possible connotations. The Aramaic words translated “abolish” and “fulfill” are among these. In Matthew 5:17, Yeshua says, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.” The Eastern text reads, “Do not expect that I have come to weaken the law or the prophets; I have not come to weaken but to fulfill.” Dr. Lamsa, whose native language is Aramaic, notes that “the Aramaic word nishrey means to untie, to loose, to weaken;” and the word translated “fulfill” means clarify or interpret correctly. [17] The accusation against Yeshua was actually, therefore, that he was weakening the Torah by interpreting it incorrectly, to which he responded that His interpretation was the correct one.

A common Hebraism that has found its way into the New Testament variety of Koine Greek is a linguistic device idiosyncratic to the Semitic languages called kal-ve-chomer, or “light and heavy,” also called a fortiori. Dr. Moseley writes of the method that it is a common First Century Hebraic vehicle “used by Jesus repeatedly to contrast the two stages of sin, the first being the “lighter” and the second stage the “heavier.”[18] Yeshua explains the concept in Matthew 23:23-24 saying,

“Woe to you hypocritical Torah-teachers and P’rushim![19] You pay your tithes of mint, dill, and cumin; but you have neglected the weightier matters of the Torah – justice, mercy, trust. These are the things you should have attended to – without neglecting the others! Blind guides! – straining out a gnat meanwhile swallowing a camel!”

This method of comparison is more often used more subtly; however, it is often missed by readers who are unfamiliar with the model.

One example of this device (of countless many in the New Testament) is the familiar verse, “If your right eyes makes you sin, gouge it out and throw it away! Better that you should lose one part of you than have your whole body thrown into Gei-Hinnom[20]” (Matthew 5:29). In the Aramaic vernacular, there is a tendency to “collapse into one word both mental and physical action, with either or both meanings acceptable.”[21] The message implied in Matthew 5:29 is more at the mental action – that if we cut off the sin in the lighter stage – it will not reach the heavier, more destructive stage. Dr. Lamsa’s explanation of the passage is this: “If you have a habit of envying, cut it out; cease.”[22] Examples of kal-ve-chomer are seen in extra-Biblical Aramaic sources of the era, as well, e.g. “the hand that promotes self abuse among men, let it be cut off.”[23]

Another oft misunderstood passage is the passage wherein a disciple of Yeshua answered his orders to follow Him across to the other side of the lake, “Sir, first let me bury my father,” to which Yeshua replied, “Let the dead bury their own dead” (Matthew 8:21-22; Luke 9:59-60). The misinterpretations of this dialogue stem from the idiomatic aspects of the phraseology. Scholars of Aramaic phraseology all find agreement in their interpretations of the first idiom, “Let me bury my father.” David Stern notes, “The father is not yet dead! If he had been, the son would have been at home ‘sitting shiv’a[24]’ (cf. Jn. 11:19-20).”[25] Dr. Lamsa’s English translation of the Peshitta Bible renders the passage more straightforwardly, “Let me go and take care of my father until he is dead (and then I will follow you).” [26]

It is the second idiom in the pericope that causes disagreement among the scholars. While the consensus opinion is that Yeshua’s suggestion is that the spiritually dead take care of the man’s father while the spiritual “go and proclaim the Kingdom of G-d” (Luke 9:60), Lamsa suggests that the response was recorded incorrectly and should actually read, “Let the town (matta) bury the dead (metta).”[27] Dr. Moseley finds a different interpretation in his examination of the customs of the time period in conjunction with the language. He explains that during the time of Yeshua’s earthly ministry, a custom had crept into the church which suggested there was an alternate means of salvation separate from faith in the Messiah. This was done through “secondary burial,” wherein the body of the deceased was buried on the day of his/her passing and left in the ground about one year, until the flesh decayed away. The body was then disinterred and the bones, absent the sinful flesh and thus freed from the sins of the person, were reburied in an ossuary.[28] He writes, “The seemingly piercing rebuke… was not aimed at this disciple’s care for his father, but toward a Jewish tradition concerning burial which violated the Scripture” by propagating a belief that the decaying away of the flesh between the two burials cleansed the person of his/her sins.[29]