Rewind
And when he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with this hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying, Acts 21:40
Hebrew Dialect – The single greatest impediment to understanding the words of the New Testament authors is our refusal to hear them in their own culture. For nearly two thousand years, the Church has generally considered the apostles as if they were Christian converts from Judaism. Yes, the Church acknowledges these men were ethnic Jews, but it contends, even today, that they left Judaism behind to become followers of the Christ. Hear the words of Ronald Fung. Claiming to describe Paul’s “pre-conversion” life, he writes, “the fanatical zeal which he [Paul] displayed as a devotee of Judaism was inspired not only be his desire to please God, but also be a desire to seek the favor of men, but the call of Christ had set him free . . .” In addition, Fung cites Barclay approvingly, claiming “faith in Christ and full commitment to the Torah are mutually exclusive in Paul’s soteriology.” Claims like this about Paul are not unusual in Christian theology. As far as the history of the Church is concerned, Sha’ul, the Jewish rabbi, converted to Christianity to become Paul, the apostle, a Greek-thinking apologist for a radical break from the legalism of the Jews. Of course, that isn’t what Paul says (but who cares what he says).
As a result of the theological bias, other elements enter the vocabulary of the Church. We inherit “mind-body-soul” from Greek philosophy and think it is Pauline. We speak as if Paul’s comments about women in particular circumstances are universal principles for all times and places (a Greek idea lodged in the eternal logos). We move toward an interior religious experience (individualism) rather than a community (Body). All of this changes when we take Sha’ul at his word. He is a Pharisee, a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin, a follower of the Way, a believer that Yeshua is HaMashiach. So, when Sha’ul speaks to this audience at the Temple, he addresses them in Hebrew.
Ah, but you might object. The Greek text reads te ‘Ebraidi dialekto (in Hebrew dialect). Yes, it does say this, but look at Acts 2:7 where the same Greek word, dialekto, is used. Clearly in Acts 2 the word must mean language, not dialect. The surprise of the men from outside Israel is this: “these men speak to us in our own language.” So, why do the translators use the word “dialect” in Acts 21? Once again, we encounter theological prejudice. The claim that Jews in the first century spoke Aramaic is based on a particular theological view of the Babylonian captivity. But support for this claim is not found in the text or the archeology. It’s another example of the artificial separation of the Church from its Jewish roots. Is it any surprise the Church required specific renunciation of Judaism? Consider the following:
“I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms, unleavened breads and sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all the other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspirations, purifications, sanctifications, and propitiations, and fasts and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and hymns and chants, and observances and synagogues, absolutely everything Jewish, every Law, rite and custom and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition, or shall be found eating with Jews, or feasting with them, or secretly conversing and condemning the Christian religion instead of openly confuting them and condemning their vain faith, then let the trembling of Cain and the leprosy of Gehazi cleave to me, as well as the legal punishments to which I acknowledge myself liable. And may I be an anathema in the world to come, and may my soul be set down with Satan and the devils.”
Sha’ul spoke to them in Hebrew. He was one with his own people in thought and language. The only way we will ever understand him is to enter into Jewish thought and language. Then, perhaps, we can begin to recover a wasted legacy. It’s time to rewind.
Topical Index: Hebrew language, dialect, dialekto, Acts 2:7, Acts 21:40
Post note: You might find another required affirmation of the Church just as disturbing: “I accept all customs, rites, legalism, and feasts of the Romans, sacrifices. Prayers, purifications with water, sanctifications by Pontificus Maxmus (high priests of Rome), propitiations, and feasts, and the New Sabbath “Sol dei” (day of the Sun), all new chants and observances, and all the foods and drinks of the Romans. In other words, I absolutely accept everything Roman, every new law, rite and custom, of Rome, and the New Roman Religion.”
Stefano Assemani, Acta Sanctorium Martyrum Orientalium at Occidentalium, Vol. 1, Rome 1748, page 105
For today’s photo, click here – Barcelona
the whole concept of two Pauls is depicted in the story that God changed his name from Saul to Paul when that did not happen after all. while he went by both names – it appears that Paul was used when he was dealing with Greeks.
Sounds like a movement to de-jewify the Church. This movement was alive and well when these translations and theological views were put in place. And they must have also contributed to the De-Judification movements of 1936 Nazi Germany and the holocaust as a whole.
Skip, Quick question: What version of the Bible are you using above? I checked five of my Bibles here in the house, on Acts 21:40, only one of them uses the word “dialect”, the others use “Hebrew tongue, or ” Hebrew language”-one uses “Aramaic”—then the footnote says,”it was probably Aramaic as—–” ( Must run, have obligations for others, this was a quick study above, and as I have time, I will study more thoroughly. But by the time I get back to it, everyone else will be off on another one, even if I write later, the format does not stay posted for others to look back long enough to be of value. —- So my later writings usually do not get feed backs. Does that make sense? Not complaining just stating the facts. Remember that none of this is about YOU or US, it is all about HIM, and when we are each doing our part the best we can, that is what it is supposed to be accomplishing. Only Jesus the Son of God, gets the Glory, no matter what language is used! Most of us are well aware of the imperfections of the Councils starting with the Nicean 325 A.D., added to in 381 A.D., and the rest down through history. Today, those councils, have brought many evils in doctrine, church doctrines, denominations, etc. BUT GOD IS STILL VICTORIOUS, AND WE ARE COMPLETE IN HIM! PRAISE HIS MANY HOLY NAMES IN ALL LANGUAGES– even when some have chosen to translate wrong, or some by mistake. Blessings to everyone in the name of Elohim , El*,El Shaddai,Yahweh—– We have been greatly blessed through those names!
p.s.I have been running into Messaniac Groups every other day down in C. TX: today an ad in the local paper to meet for The Feast of the Trumpets, just 16 miles away, and on and on. L.B.
The Scriptural quotation is from the NASB. Actually, it is closer to the Greek, but because even the NASB fails to recognize the word as an idiomatic expression for the Hebrew language (cf. Acts 2), we still get the side notes about Aramaic.
G-d’s chosen people always have been and always will be the Jew. That is a done deal. Our (common) salvation (according to Scripture) is to the Jew first and also to the Greek. We (the goyim) are the wild branch grafted in to the covenant promise of Israel. G-d is far from done with Israel. “I am the LORD, I change not”. They will look on Him whom they have pierced is one among many prophecies yet to be fulfilled. The gospel is foretold in the O.T. and fulfilled in the N.T.- we proclaim the good news to all from one book. As has been said and rightly so- Yeshua did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill. What started as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, still remains our “schoolmaster” to bring us further still into a right relationship with Messiah. “Be ye holy, for I am holy” is our daily goal and now through Christ, this holiness is to be lived out in the common round of our daily lives. We (the chosen ones), from all nations, both Jew and Gentile, male and female, who have entered into a blood covenant relationship with the living G-d through the atoning sacrifce of Yeshua Mashiach hold the eternal words of G-d in high esteem and through the power of the Ruach HaKodesh are able to live our daily lives as pleasing before the eyes of the Holy One. We have the security of His promises and the fellowship of ONE who lives within to guide us, guard us and gladden us along this amazing journey called life. Together, we will praise His name and look unto Him for our daily bread.
Spectacular photo!
“The claim that Jews in the first century spoke Aramaic is based on a particular theological view of the Babylonian captivity. But support for this claim is not found in the text or the archeology. It’s another example of the artificial separation of the Church from its Jewish roots.”
Hi Skip,
Isn’t Aramaic a dialect of Hebrew? I mean it isn’t like saying Jesus spoke Greek, or is it?
Thanks,
Mike
Aramaic is a sister language of Hebrew. They are closely related, but Aramaic is not a dialect of Hebrew. Galilean is a dialect (a particular style of pronunciation) just as Southern-drawl is a dialect of American English. But British English and American English are not two different languages.
The issue is important because the claim about Aramaic removes Yeshua and his time and culture from the Hebrew text, Hebrew idioms and Hebrew worldview. In other words, it gives us a different New Testament perspective.
Thanks Skip! I understand now.