vid

I have read few times that Hebrew and Aramaic were pretty similar languages.

Now I took some time to study the "language relationship tree" on wikipedia, and it divides Northwest Semitic languages into three categories: Ugaritic, Canaanite (including Hebrew) and Aramaic. Canaanite languages include Hebrew, Phoenician, Moabite, etc...

That seems as if Aramaic was in fact quite different from Hebrew. At least more different than Phoenician, and as different as Ugaritic (names from Ras Shamra texts seemed quite different compared to Hebrew names, to me).

So, how much difference is there? Would Aramaic speaker understand spoken Hebrew (and also, spoken Ugaritic or Phoenician language)? When preacher was reading scripture to Aramaic speakers in Second Temple times, did he have to do some on-the-fly Hebrew to Aramaic translation in order for people to understand?

andrewcriddle

Hebrew and Aramaic were not mutually comprehensible.

In 2 Kings 18:26 the Jewish civil servants ask the Assyrian envoy to speak in Aramaic not Hebrew in order to prevent the ordinary citizens following the negotiations.

Later on (centuries later on) Aramaic Targums of the Hebrew Bible were produced, partly as a paraphrase to explain difficult passages, but mainly so that Aramaic speakers had a version of Scripture that they could understand.

Andrew Criddle

semiopen

My impression is that certain words might be understandable but that it would be difficult to follow a conversation. It might be equivalent to Spanish and Portugese.

Gershom Scholem did a fascinating analysis of why the Zohar was written by one person in 13th century Spain. The author was a rabbi who was fluent in Hebrew but whose Aramaic was relatively rudimentary.

One of the things that I've learned in the last few years is that most rabbis don't know Aramaic. I was astounded by that.

2 Kings 18:18:26 describes the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, where the Assyrian negotiators were urged to speak in Aramaic instead of Hebrew so the average people would not be freaked out.

Anat

They study Talmud, which is mostly in 5-6th century CE Aramaic, but to my knowledge their facility with the language is passive - they do not communicate in the language. And of course do not know more modern forms of the language (such as spoken by some groups in northern Iraq and the region).

Clivedurdle

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/...historyid=aa65

Hmm - the Persian Empire again...

(What is the date of the incident in 2 Kings?)

Clivedurdle

http://books.google.com/books?id=tRY...esult&resnum=7

Sargon and Sennacherib, contains brief history of Aramaic in its context.

Toto

Deep links to Google Books tend to cause problems:

Esther's revenge at Susa By Stephanie Dalley page 11

Amazon link (or via: amazon.co.uk)

andrewcriddle

Probably 701 BCE

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

What is it about some languages and if they change? I find the kjv hard and that is only four hundred years ago - Aramaic we are talking at least twelve hundred years. English did not really exist in 1100!

vid

Thanks to all of you. I wonder why many of articles I have read gave idea that languages are pretty close and the difference is not that important (especially ones about "Jesus' real name").