/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

How different is modern Hebrew from old Hebrew? As different as old and modern English?

>>744785

He spoke Aramaic exclusively as that was the primary language in Palestine at the time and was the lignua franca of the Near East. He probably gave all his teachings in Aramaic.

Latin was used in the western Roman empire and only someone like Pilate and his officials would be regularly using it in the area they were in. It's highly unlikely Jesus would've known any Latin.

Hebrew at that point in time had mostly died out as a spoken language for the Jewish people and was probably only extensively known by scholars and priests for liturgical purposes. What little Jesus knew, if any at all, was probably only for certain prayers.

Jesus probably would've only used Greek when conducting business for carpentry. He probably knew just enough to have a small conversation. But there's little actual chance he ever taught in Greek.

>>744796

Jesus is God, so it's more than likely He could speak anything to anyone He wanted at any time, but going around and performing magic tricks was not what is Father's will was.

>>744798

Jesus was also a man who had to increase in wisdom (Luke 2:52). Don't be a docestic/monopysite. Those are heresies.

>Jesus spoke latin

link?

>>744796

>>744802

Jesus had infused knowledge of everything. That is orthodoxy belief not heresy.

>>744785

>Jesus spoke Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, and Latin.

He would have spoken Aramaic and a bit of Greek. Aramaic is obvious from some of the expressions He used, Greek is obvious because He read from Scripture (which would have been in Greek).

>>744787

>How different is modern Hebrew from old Hebrew? As different as old and modern English?

If Moses picked up a copy of his books in modern Hebrew, he wouldn't be able to read it. Old English, in the very least, still had some of the same characters as modern English (middle and early modern English are quite easy to read). The entire modern Hebrew alphabet is different now.

>>744831

>The existence of an infused science in the human soul of Jesus Christ may perhaps be less certain, from a theological point of view, than His continual and original fruition of the vision of God; still, it is almost universally admitted that God infused into Christ's human intellect a knowledge similar in kind to that of the angels. This is knowledge which is not acquired gradually by experience, but is poured into the soul in one flood. This doctrine rests on theological grounds: the Man-God must have possessed all perfections except such as would be incompatible with His beatific vision, as faith or hope; or with His sinlessness, as penance; or again, with His office of Redeemer, which would be incompatible with the consummation of His glory. Now, infused knowledge is not incompatible with Christ's beatific vision, not with His sinlessness, not again with His office of Redeemer. Besides, the soul of Christ is the first and most perfect of all created spirits, and cannot be deprived of a privilege granted to the angels. Moreover, a created intellect is simply perfect only when, besides the vision of things in God, it has a vision of things in themselves; God only sees all things comprehensively in Himself. The God-Man, besides seeing them in God, would also perceive and know them by His human intellect. Finally, Sacred Scripture favours the existence of such infused knowledge in the human intellect of Christ: St. Paul speaks of all the treasures of God's wisdom and science hidden in Christ (Colossians 2:3); Isaias speaks of the spirit of wisdom and counsel, of science and understanding, resting on Jesus (Isaiah 11:2); St. John intimates that God has not given His Spirit by measure to His Divine envoy (John 3:34); St. Matthew represents Christ as our sovereign teacher (Matthew 23:10). Beside the Divine and the angelic knowledge, most theologians admit in the human intellect of Jesus Christ a science infused per accidens, i.e., an extraordinary comprehension of things which might be learned in the ordinary way, similar to that granted to Adam and Eve (cf. St. Thomas, III., Q. i, a. 2; QQ. viii-xii; Q. xv, a. 2).

>Jesus Christ had, no doubt, also an experimental knowledge acquired by the natural use of His faculties, through His senses and imagination, just as happens in the case of common human knowledge. To say that his human faculties were wholly inactive would resemble a profession of either Monothelitism or of Docetism. This knowledge naturally grew in Jesus in the process of time, according to the words of Luke 2:52: "And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men". Understood in this way, the Evangelist speaks not merely of a successively greater manifestation of Christ's Divine and infused knowledge, nor merely of an increase in His knowledge as far as outward effects were concerned, but of a real advance in His acquired knowledge. Not that this kind of knowledge implies an enlarged object of His science; but it signified that He gradually came to know, after a merely human way, some of the things which he had known from the beginning by His Divine and infused knowledge.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen

You misunderstand what infused knowledge is. You are being a docetist heretic. Recant or go to hell.

>>744834

The Septuagint wouldn't be used by Palestinian Jews. He would have had to read from Hebrew in liturgical settings or perhaps use an Aramaic Targum.

>>744831

Matthew 24:36 NASB — “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

>le people who lived long ago were stupid meme

Being able to speak more than one language is pretty common, ameriburger

>>744839

Thanks for providing the Aquinas support for my statement.

Your second quote has no provenance and thus has no magisterial authority.

Christ having infused knowledge of everything is not docetism as it does not deny he also had a rational human intellect too.

I'm going to need to see an anathema on this position of infused knowledge of everything. Otherwise your condemnation of me is the mortal sin of usurpation and schism.

>>744785

> Wow that's a lot.

No, three languages is really not much. Everyone in my family is bilingual at the very least, and I am trilinugual myself. Maybe it seems much to Americans who are used to everyone else in the world knowing how to speak English that they don't bother with other languages.

>>744785

If you were raised in a household that spoke multiple languages, you'd know a lot of languages too.

As said, Aramaic was the regional language.

The Roman Empire controlled the territory and spoke Greek and Latin.

The Jews knew Hebrew for religious purposes.

Aramaic would be native, Greek would have been at least conversational. Hebrew could have been limited at worst, and Latin may never have come up.

The evidence is strongest for Aramaic. The scriptures that were read could have been Targum translations. Otherwise Greek was the language of adminstration.

The sermon on the mount was likely given in Aramaic considering the places that were mentioned in the gospel before it.

Matthew 4:24-25

And the report of him went forth into all Syria: and they brought unto him all that were sick, holden with divers diseases and torments, possessed with demons, and epileptic, and palsied; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judaea and from beyond the Jordan.

>>744802

Brother, you got me. Thank you for pointing this out to me.

>>745720

Could you post/link Emmerich's account? I'm nondenominational, but what I've seen of her visions thus far seem genuine.

>>745484

Probably mainly Aramaic, with some knowledge of Hebrew from talking with rabbis. Greek and Latin were more business languages, so he might have spoken those like Americans can speak a little Spanish. The world he lived in was a Greco Roman one

>>745756

In the region it's believed Latin would have been used mostly by military personnel. But even then some the conscripts might have been Greek speakers.

>>745720

That Latin is atrocious.

>>745790

>internet larper criticises Latin from a Jesuit Latin, greek, Hebrew and Aramaic specialist.

Gonna need to qualify that statement lad

>>745822

It is church Latin for one.

The usual word for 'king' (rex) isn't heard when Pilate asks him if he is the king of the Jews. Instead I hear something that sounds more like the Semitic terms for it.

>>745840

Oh I see, that's interesting.

So it depends what you mean by old Hebrew. I'll preface by saying I am in no ways a scholar or student, just a guy casually learning Hebrew to better read the OT. The Hebrew that Moses wrote with used the paleo-Hebrew alphabet, which is based off the ancient Phonecian alphabet. During the time of the Babylonian exile the Jews adopted the Aramaic alphabet writing style; the language and character set stayed the same, but the way the characters were written changed. That Aramaic style is what we know as Ancient and modern Hebrew.

Now a very large part of Jewish way of life both back in OT times and as Talmundists following one rule: make sure you keep doing what your ancestors did. This means staving off foreign influences from changing your culture and making sure you stay very closely to your traditions. In this case, it means that modern Hebrew is very similar to ancient Hebrew. When they were forming the modern language (sometime in the late 19th or early-mid 20th centuries I think) they made sure it was as close as possible to the Masoretic texts. The Masoretic texts were copies of the Old Testament produced by a group of Jews called the Masorites. They existed in the 10th-15th centuries (I think). They were very meticulous with ensuring that the copy they were producing matched the original copy they were copying from very closely. All of this to say that modern Hebrew is very similar to ancient Hebrew. There are some small differences I think, as any language will change over time, but considering how old of a language Hebrew is, the modern equivalent is astonishingly close to the original.

Pronunciation is where more noticeable differences come in. There are a couple of dialects, but the most common that is spoken in Israel is the one derived from Jews living in central Europe. Whilst there, they picked up some pronunciations that aren't like the original. The most obvious is the letter 'Waw'. The closest match to the ancient is to pronounce it as 'wow', but modern Jews say 'vav' (vah-v, like the obv in obviously). So when you watch ancient Hebrew lectures online from seminaries, the youtube comment sections will be filled with people who either speak modern Hebrew, know someone who does, or have been to Israel, complaining about the pronunciation.

I have no idea if there are big grammar differences. I imagine there are some, but not massively.

TL;DR: Modern Hebrew is remarkably similar to ancient Hebrew. Moses used the same language but different way of writing the alphabet characters. The new characters came in when the Jews went off to exile in Babylon. Some of the pronunciation is different. Some of the grammar might be different. As for the Old/Modern English analogy, it is probably more accurate to say it is like Shakespear's and our English, maybe even not that big of a difference.

>>744787

>>745846

Forgot to link.

>>745853

>>745846

Fascinating, thanks

>>744785

well obviously since he's God he can speak anything he wants

Act 21 mentions the chiliarch in the barracks Paul was taken to when he went to Jerusalem spoke Greek so that would be the most likely secondary language for inhabitants of some of the Eastern Roman provinces in the Levant aside from their vernacular Aramaic dialect.

Taking the gospel of John truthfully, the Latin written on the crucifixion sign would probably be more of a formality. That isn't to say that among people in the government or military stationed in the eastern provinces there wouldn't be some who understood Latin.

Paul's writing the epistle to the Romans in Greek, where it would be easily translated to Latin is another indicator of Greek's more prominence.

>>745790

Pilate's actor is Polish.

>>745837

Ecclesiastical Latin is fair use as we know it is the very high stylistic form of Latin from the time. Pilate being high class Roman could and probably used it over the more guttural and primitive classical Latin (the only difference really being a few hard consonant sounds like G, V as W and C as K).

>>746013

It might have been the vulgar varieties that were more primitive. I imagine they probably spoke with varying degrees of colloquialism while what is known as the formal language was probably reserved for literary use and formal correspondence.

>>744796

>Therefore the Jews said among themselves, "Where is He about to go that we will not find Him? Is He about to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and to teach the Greeks?

Multi-lingualism was much more common even a hundred years ago, much less before the age of the printing press.

I have a bunch of muslim friends from the "stan" countries, they speak 4 languages quite easily, a few speak 7.

It's not that crazy if you live in such regions.

>>746013

>Ecclesiastical Latin is fair use as we know it is the very high stylistic form of Latin from the time

Ecclesiastical Latin has major Italian influence in its phonology, it is quintessentially medieval. Classical Latin was the language of the upper-classes in Jesus' time, Vulgar Latin was the language of the common man.