Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic

This from here: Did the Messiah Speak Aramaic or Hebrew? (Part 1) by E.A.Knapp

Upon closer inspection of the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, however, every supposed reference to “Aramaic” above actually has some form of the word Εβραιστι which unequivocally means “Hebrew.” Not Συριστι “Aramaic,” which we find in other places in the Bible such as Dan 2:4 (in the Greek OT). In fact, the word Συριστι never appears in the New Testament. The Aramaic language by name simply is not mentioned. This is a case where our translators tried to “help us out” because they were swept along in the wave of conventional wisdom which for many years took for granted that Hebrew couldn’t possibly have been a living language at the time of Jesus.

In fairness to the translators, many were probably confused by the New Testament’s repeated mentions of “Hebrew” which didn’t seem compatible with passages like Jesus’ words on the cross (“Eloi Eloi Lama Sabachthani” – “My G-d my G-d, why have you forsaken me?”) which are in Aramaic. We will come back to this instance and others like it in the second installment of this series. Undoubtedly adding to the confusion of the translators was the appearance of place names with Aramaic forms such as “Golgotha” which John calls Εβραιστι, Hebrew. At first glance this might lead one to think that Εβραιστι is being loosely used to refer to Aramaic rather than actual Hebrew, even though this assumption is counterintuitive. What is actually going on in the case of place names like “Golgotha” is that these terms have undergone the same absorption into Hebrew that place names like San Diego have in English. As a linguist recently explained, “as names, John has every right to call them Hebrew, just like I can write about the English name San Diego (from Santiago, Sant Yago, aka. Giacommo, James, from Sant Yakobos, from Ya`aqov).”

The simple truth is that the New Testament authors repeatedly and specifically mention people speaking Hebrew because people really were speaking Hebrew. Most or all of the New Testament authors cited also knew Aramaic, and they most certainly knew the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic. The least we can do is take them at their word when they say people were using Hebrew. ​

Your thoughts?

 

However that isn’t the argument of the article quoted.
That the words translated “Aramaic” do not occur in the originals.

Is that thinking supportable?

That is the question of this thread.

To explore and discern the article in light of scriptures.

 

Which seems to agree with the article cited in the OP.

 

I took from the first article that they present that Hebrew was more commonly used by the people and the translation should state "Hebrew" rather than "Aramaic."

Then the article turns around and later states just the opposite.

Perhaps it is my pitiful reading.

I haven't accessed the second article.

 

On a more personal level, perhaps I lean far more toward Hebrew than Aramaic. Here is a bit of my thinking. Not that my thinking is worthy of your acceptance, for it is not.

It is my impression that when folks write that have a target audience and that the style of writing conforms to that audience. If I write a love note to my wife, I certainly wouldn't want such stated in the typical formal business terms. And the same should be considered concerning the NT writings.

Luke's writing was to a person, Theophilus, and the writing is an extensive two-part account of the ministry and early growth of the church. These writings are typical of a more formal documentary, and therefore a higher level of word choice would be expected.

The other gospel writings, as well as the Revelation, would also follow along the lines of a formal documentary style.

The letters could be considered written to a close partner in a business relationship in which business is matters are determined yet personal care and concern are not excluded but often placed in terms of encouraging the partner to a higher level of productivity.

The exclusions of this are the highly personal letters to Timothy, Philemon, and Titus. These are quite informal and are more like two buddies sharing on the job and the responsibilities that come from the care of the workplace and productivity.

Now all that held, it would (imo) be very unlikely for the use of the term Aramaic to fit. Aramaic is more like a dialect rather than a developed language such as Hebrew, Greek, Latin. A dialect used by commerce such as what bankers, lawyers, architects... might use in which the common people would recognize as a flexible and changeable form. Sort of like how one might consider "pot" or "grass" or "bowl" or any number of other words in our common language. The Scriptures would never (imo) allow for such language as could assume corrupted word forms. For example, "gulgulta" (Aramaic) is ASSUMED to be corrupted by the writers to "Galgatha" - but neither Hebrew or Aramaic terms really fit. It is as if one from New Jersey met a west Texas and they had a friendly conversation about Pecos when the other is using pesos.

So, because I choose to consider God is one of precision, I really would rather land upon the ground in which is much firmer than that provided by the Aramaic. It just is reasonable that the style of the writers would submit the Hebrew rather than the Aramaic.

Whether that is actually the case is the cause of this thread.

 

In the article, the statements of the NT are actually Aramaic.

I don’t recall if the article mentions Daniel. I’ll have to go back and look.

 

However the article in the OP pertains to the NT not old, doesn’t it?