The quest of the historical Jesus : $b a critical study of its progress from Reimarus to WredeSchweitzer, Albert
Religion
The quest of the historical Jesus : $b a critical study of its progress from Reimarus to Wrede
Schweitzer, Albert
Jesus Christ -- Biography -- History and criticism; Jesus Christ -- Historicity
The influence of Aramaic upon Jewish literature begins to be noticeable
about the year 600. Jeremiah and Ezekiel, writing in a foreign land in an
Aramaic environment, are the first witnesses to its supremacy. In the
northern part of the country, owing to the immigration of foreign
colonists after the destruction of the northern kingdom, it had already
gained a hold upon the common people. In the Book of Daniel, written in
the year 167 B.C., the Hebrew and Aramaic languages alternate. Perhaps,
indeed, we ought to assume an Aramaic ground‐document as the basis of this
work.
At what time Aramaic became the common popular speech in the post‐exilic
community we cannot exactly discover. Under Nehemiah “Judaean,” that is to
say, Hebrew, was still spoken in Jerusalem; in the time of the Maccabees
Aramaic seems to have wholly driven out the ancient national language.
Evidence for this is to be found in the occurrence of Aramaic passages in
the Talmud, from which it is evident that the Rabbis used this language in
the religious instruction of the people. The provision that the text,
after being read in Hebrew, should be interpreted to the people, may quite
well reach back into the time of Jesus. The first evidence for the
practice is in the Mishna, about A.D. 150.
In the time of Jesus three languages met in Galilee—Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek. In what relation they stood to each other we do not know, since
Josephus, the only writer who could have told us, fails us in this point,
as he so often does elsewhere. He informs us that when acting as an envoy
of Titus he spoke to the people of Jerusalem in the ancestral language,
and the word he uses is ἑβραΐζων. But the very thing we should like to
know—whether, namely, this language was Aramaic or Hebrew, he does not
tell us. We are left in the same uncertainty by the passage in Acts (xxii.
2) which says that Paul spoke to the people Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ, thereby
gaining their attention, for there is no indication whether the language
was Aramaic or Hebrew. For the writers of that period “Hebrew” simply
means Jewish.
We cannot, therefore, be sure in what relation the ancient Hebrew sacred
language and the Aramaic of ordinary intercourse stood to one another as
regards religious writings and religious instruction. Did the ordinary man
merely learn by heart a few verses, prayers, and psalms? Or was Hebrew, as
the language of the cultus, also current in wider circles?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account