Why this obsession with Aramaïc?

by Damien F. Mackey “But there is another issue at stake. Aramaic is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament. Yet on numerous occasions it speaks of the “Hebrew” language in first century Judaea – from the title over Jesus’ cross “in Hebrew” (John 19:20), to descriptions of places like Gabbatha and Golgotha “in the Hebrew tongue” (John 5:2; 19:13, 17; Rev. 9:11; 16:16), to Paul gaining the silence of the Jerusalem crowd by addressing them “in the Hebrew tongue” (Acts 21:40; 22:2), to Jesus himself calling out to Paul, on the Damascus road, “in the Hebrew tongue” (Acts 26:14)”. Brenton Minge The NIV version of Acts 26:14 translates, quite misleadingly: “We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads’.” What is the justification for this, when the Greek text has clearly, in the Hebrew language (τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ)? I, heavily dependent upon the fine research of Brenton Minge, wrote about this controversy in my article: Jesus was a Hebrew, not Aramaïc, speaker (2) Jesus was a Hebrew, not Aramaïc, speaker | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Here is a part of what I wrote there: Jesus Spoke Hebrew, written by Brenton Minge, is a most important book for, as its sub-title reads: Busting the “Aramaic” Myth. I give here only the beginning of it, but recommend that one reads the entire book itself: JESUS SPOKE HEBREW The powerful Mel Gibson movie, The Passion of the Christ, has once again raised the question of what language Jesus actually spoke. Some say it doesn’t matter, and in one sense they are right. Jesus is still the Saviour of the world, who walked on water, raised the dead, and made atonement for our sins by his blood, whether he spoke Hebrew or Hindustani. Yet in another sense it DOES matter. If your natural language is, say, English, and I go about claiming it to be Dutch, I am clearly misrepresenting you. While there is nothing whatever wrong with Dutch, it is a simple matter of fidelity to the record, and of doing justice to the person. By the same token, if Jesus’ “mother-tongue” was Hebrew, then it is as much a misrepresentation to claim he spoke Aramaic – as is all but universally held – as to say Churchill spoke in Spanish, or Tolstoy wrote in Norwegian. But there is another issue at stake. Aramaic is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament. Yet on numerous occasions it speaks of the “Hebrew” language in first century Judaea – from the title over Jesus’ cross “in Hebrew” (John 19:20), to descriptions of places like Gabbatha and Golgotha “in the Hebrew tongue” (John 5:2; 19:13, 17; Rev. 9:11; 16:16), to Paul gaining the silence of the Jerusalem crowd by addressing them “in the Hebrew tongue” (Acts 21:40; 22:2), to Jesus himself calling out to Paul, on the Damascus road, “in the Hebrew tongue” (Acts 26:14). In each instance, the Greek text reads “Hebrew” (Hebrais, Hebraios or Hebraikos), the natural translation followed by nearly all the English versions, as also by the Latin Vulgate and the German Luther Bible. Do we have the right to insert “Aramaic” for this plain reading – particularly when the Jewish people of the period, as we shall see, were so insistent on distinguishing them? The evidence is compelling that we do not, and that the New Testament expression, “in the Hebrew language”, ought to be taken as read. …. Regarding Paul’s encounter with Ananias, see my articles: Luke may be Paul’s healer, Ananias of Damascus. Part Two: St. Luke kept returning to Damascus incident (2) Luke may be Paul's healer, Ananias of Damascus. Part Two: St. Luke kept returning to Damascus incident | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Luke may be Paul’s healer, Ananias of Damascus. Part Three: Benedictus "… redacted in a Semitic language" (2) Luke may be Paul's healer, Ananias of Damascus. Part Three: Benedictus "… redacted in a Semitic language" | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu