Jesus Spoke Hebrew: busting the Aramaic Myth

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. DEAD SEA SCROLLS The Dead Sea Scrolls, known to date from the same general period, reveal an overwhelming preponderance of Hebrew texts. The figure is generally accepted as around 80%, with Aramaic and Greek taking up most of the balance. In their comprehensive translation of the Qumran literature, Michael Wise and others observe that: “Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the dominant view of the Semitic languages of Palestine in this period was essentially as follows: Hebrew had died; it was no longer learned at mother’s knee. It was known only by the educated classes through study, just as educated medieval Europeans knew Latin. Rabbinic Hebrew … was considered a sort of scholarly invention – artificial, not the language of life put to the page. The spoken language of the Jews had in fact become Aramaic … The discovery of the scrolls swept these linguistic notions into the trash bin … the vast majority of the scrolls were Hebrew texts. Hebrew was manifestly the principal literary language for the Jews of this period. The new discoveries underlined the still living , breathing, even supple character of that language … prov[ing] that late Second-Temple Jews used various dialects of Hebrew…”[1]. This sheer dominance of Hebrew goes far beyond the Biblical writings, which actually comprise, by Emanuel Tov’s calculations, just 23.5% of the overall Qumran literature.[2] It includes also the famed Copper Scroll (written, as Wolters notes, in “an early form of Mishnaic Hebrew”[3]), the day-to-day letters (where Hebrew, says Milik, is the “sole language of correspondence”[4]), and its general commentaries and literature (where, as Black concedes, “Hebrew certainly vastly predominates over Aramaic”[5]). No wonder the Scrolls are said to “prove that late Second Temple Jews used various dialects of Hebrew”. And not just as an “artificial” language, but a “natural, vibrant idiom”, as the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls declares[6]. How else can such extensive evidence of the Hebrew language be taken – from commentaries to correspondence, from documents to daily rules? Likewise with the sixteen texts found at Herod’s stronghold of Masada, all predating the fortress’ overthrow in 73. No less than fifteen are definitely in Hebrew[7], with some doubt over the final one. Is it conceivable that Hebrew would have been used for ordinary communications (Biblical texts are again in a minority) if it was not the language of daily life? Surely the burden of proof must lie with those who would argue otherwise. MOSES SEGAL Well before the Scrolls and Masada provided their archaeological insights into Hebrew’s place in late second temple language, Moses Segal had come to the same conclusion on purely linguistic grounds. Co-translator of the Talmud and winner of the Israel Prize for Jewish Studies, Segal was a Hebrew lexicographer of the first order. While still believing that Jesus, as a Galilean, probably spoke Aramaic, he was in no doubt that the prevailing Judaean language of the time was Hebrew, as he already wrote in 1927: “In earlier Mishnaic [rabbinic] literature no distinction is drawn between Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. The two idioms are known as Leshon Hagadesh, the Holy Tongue, as contrasted with other languages … What was the language of ordinary life of educated native Jews in Jerusalem and Judaea in the period from 400BCE to 150CE? The evidence presented by Mishnaic Hebrew and its literature leaves no doubt that that language was Mishnaic Hebrew”.[8] Such is the observation of one of the outstanding Hebrew scholars of the twentieth century, and editor of the Compendious Hebrew-English, English-Hebrew Dictionary. For Segal, as for the Dead Sea scholars, there is no doubt that the “language of ordinary life” in first century Judaea “was Mishnaic Hebrew”. It was the first language acquired by children in the home, and the natural medium of communication in daily speech. As Milik early recognized, “Mishnaic [Hebrew] … was at that time the spoken dialect of the inhabitants of Judaea”.[9] WHAT IS GOING ON? It is astonishing, in light of this, that the Aramaic assumption – at least as it pertains to the language of first century Judaea – still persists. As relatively recently as 1994, Angel Saenz-Badillos could claim, in his major study A History of the Hebrew Language, that “the exile [ie., 586BC] marks the disappearance of the [Hebrew] language from everyday life, and its subsequent use for literary and liturgical purposes only”.[10] What is going on here? On the one hand, the clear archaeological and linguistic evidence for Hebrew’s daily use in late second temple Judaea, yet on the other a protracted scholarly denial of the same! No wonder Oxford’s Edward Ullendorff takes Saenz-Badillos to task: “I cannot accept the author’s novel argument [cited above] … This assumption would curtail the active life of Hebrew by about half a millennium. Of course colloquial Hebrew will have changed somewhat, possibly as a result of external influences, during the post-exilic era, but it no doubt remained the principal vehicle of communication”.[11] Time was, when Saenz-Badillos’ obituary for Hebrew as a living language would have held centre-stage. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church spoke for virtually the entire scholarly world (Segal and Harris Birkeland[12] two notable exceptions), when, in its first edition of 1958, it confidently stated that Hebrew had “ceased to be a spoken language around the fourth century BC”.[13] Yet such was the mounting weight of evidence to the contrary, that by its third edition, in 1997, this had become “Hebrew continued to be used as a spoken and written language … in the New Testament period”.[14] This represents a remarkable about-turn, due, not least, to the extensive publication of the Scrolls in the intervening period. How fitting that from the lowest geographical region on earth – the Dead Sea – where death reigned even in its name, there should break forth from the “dead”, as it were, the vindication of Hebrew’s primary place in the language of first century Judaea, exactly as the New Testament consistently showed! Truly, “this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes” (Psalm 118:23). THE TALMUD A clear distinction was made, among the Jewish people themselves, between Hebrew and Aramaic. Not only was Hebrew the choice of scholarship and literature, but it was also upheld as the normative language of daily life. “In the land of Israel”, said the Mishnah, “why the Aramaic tongue? Either the Holy Tongue (Hebrew, sic) or the Greek tongue”.[15] Aramaic had no “prestige”, and “commanded no loyalty”, as Safrai and Stern observe, whereas Hebrew had both. Even in the later times of the Talmud, it was forbidden to retrieve a burning Aramaic manuscript from a fire on the Sabbath, whereas it was permitted of a comparable Hebrew text.[16] To depart from the synagogue service during a Hebrew Bible reading was forbidden, but not for an Aramaic reading.[17] Even memorising the Scriptures in Aramaic was not enough, whereas just to hear them in Hebrew, without understanding a word, was to “perform [one’s] obligation”![18] To the Jewish people, it was Hebrew that was “the Holy Tongue”, whereas Aramaic was seen as “the language of the Evil Force”.[19] Not that the latter was rejected altogether, but that it was regarded as a second fiddle language to Hebrew – the real “tongue of the fathers” and medium of ordinary speech. Thus the Jerusalem Talmud declares that “Four languages are of value: Greek for song, Latin for war, Aramaic for dirges, and Hebrew for speaking”.[20] That was the place for Aramaic – in “dirges”. But to Hebrew belonged the high ground of daily speech (“for speaking”) and worship. Thus for a Jewish father not to speak to his son “in Hebrew”, from the time he was a toddler, and teach him the Law, was “as if he had buried him”.[21] Concerning Aramaic, by contrast, the rabbis warned: “Whoever makes personal requests [in prayer] in Aramaic, the ministering angels pay no attention, since angels do not understand Aramaic”[22]. This, of course, is not a canonical position, but merely reflects the depth of feeling against Aramaic among the Jewish scholars. Indeed, the Talmud relates an earlier occasion when Gamaliel – the same Gamaliel under whom Paul had studied (Acts 22:3), and whose astute word concerning the Christians is recorded in Acts 5:34-40 – was sitting on the still-unfinished temple steps. Someone showed him a copy of an Aramaic translation of Job, the first and at that time the only “Targum”. So disgusted was he by it, that he told the builder to “bury it under the rubble”.[23] Such was the regard for a pioneering attempt at an Aramaic portion of Scripture, in the Judaea of Jesus’ time! The internal Jewish evidence is thus all one-way traffic for Hebrew. JOSEPHUS As a contemporary, and largely an observer, of the final years of the second temple, Josephus (37-100AD) is an invaluable witness to the period. While not without his faults, they are, as historian Paul Maier notes, heavily outweighed by his credits, particularly for the period during which he and his parents lived, when, as Maier says, he is “at his best”.[24] Like the Mishnah and Talmud, Josephus takes pains to distinguish Hebrew from Aramaic, showing that it was Hebrew that was spoken in the first century Israel of which he was largely a part. When news of the emperor Tiberius’ death is hastily conveyed to Agrippa on his way to the bath, the message is given “in the Hebrew tongue” (glosse te Hebraion, Antiquities xviii, 228). Presumably Hebrew was the most natural and readily understood language in such an emergency situation. Concerning this “Hebrew tongue”, he writes in another passage: “… though their script seemed to be similar to the peculiar Syrian (Aramaic, sic) writing, and their language to sound like the other, it was, as it happened, of a distinct type” (idiotropon, Ant. xii, 2, 1. Thackeray translation). Thus elsewhere he writes: the “Sabbath … in the Hebrew language” (Ant. 1:33); “Adam … in Hebrew signifies …” (Ant. 1:34); “Israel … in the Hebrew tongue” (Ant. 1:333); “written in the Hebrew books” (Ant. ix, 208); “the books of the Hebrews” (Ant. x, 218). It is difficult to see how “the Hebrew language” here can denote anything but Hebrew. Not only do the uniquely Hebrew connotations of “Sabbath”, “Israel”, etc., require it, but so too does the fact that, at the time of Josephus, the only holy “Hebrew books” possessed by the Jews were the actual Hebrew Scriptures – the Aramaic Targums (Job aside) not yet having come into being. So when we come to Josephus’ address to his own countrymen from outside the walls of besieged Jerusalem, there can be no doubt as to what language he speaks. He addresses them, of course, “in their own language” (War 5:9, 2), which he explicitly states, of the same episode, to be “the Hebrew language” (War 6:2, 1). Given the consistent meaning of “Hebrew” as real Hebrew, not Aramaic, elsewhere in Josephus, and the distinction he himself draws between the two languages, how can “Hebrew” here be taken at anything other than face value? That is, Josephus’ address to the Jews of around 69AD, like Paul’s address to the Jews of around a decade or so previously in the same city, were both – as the respective texts of Josephus and Acts state – “in the Hebrew language” (Acts 22:2). Logic would further require that the only reason this was so, was because “the Hebrew language” was the vernacular of Judaean Jews at the time. JOT AND TITTLE But what does this mean, in terms of our enquiry into Jesus’ language? A great deal, actually. Self-evidently there is a nexus between the Jewish vernacular of first century Israel, and the language Jesus spoke. It would fly in the face of common sense if the “Word made flesh” addressed the very countrymen he was first sent to by his Father, in anything other than their normal tongue.[25] As face answers to face in a mirror, so the prevailing language of his people at the time must, by any reasonable standard, have been the language Jesus used. Once that “prevailing language” is established, it requires no great leap to determine what Jesus spoke. The only way around this is to resort to the artificial construct of an “interpreter”, or to the circuitous explanation of Jesus being fluently bi- or tri-lingual during his earthly ministry, which – though by no means inconceivable or, still less, impossible, for the very Son of God – certainly has no actual support from Scripture, and must remain, therefore, a supposition. Consistent with this, we find Jesus speaking of the “jot” and “tittle” of the Law in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:18). By universal consent, this refers to the text of the Hebrew Bible. Let two modern authorities suffice – one Catholic, one Protestant: “‘Jot’ refers to ‘yod’, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet; ‘tittle’ is a slight serif [or hook] on a Hebrew letter that distinguishes it from another”. (The New Jerome Bible Commentary, emph. added). Likewise John Broadus, in his Commentary on Matthew: “Jot, in the Greek iota, signifies the Hebrew letter iod (pronounced yod) … tittle – in the Greek, horn – denoting a very slight projection at the corner of certain Hebrew letters …” (emph. added). Would Jesus have used such a term, indeed two of them, both referring to the “Hebrew letters” of the “Hebrew alphabet”, if his immediate audience did not understand Hebrew? Would a French speaker, addressing his or her own countrymen today, use the umlaut of the German Bible to illustrate a point! Hardly. The most obvious conclusion is that, as Jesus was referring to the Hebrew alphabet – which no one disputes – his hearers must have understood that same alphabet, otherwise the point would have been lost on them. Logically, therefore, Jesus must have been speaking Hebrew, and his audience must have understood him in Hebrew. Should it be objected that, as the Hebrew and Aramaic alphabets were the same, Jesus could just as well have been referring to the Aramaic alphabet, we would respectfully reply that this is to miss the point. Jesus expressly says “the jot and tittle of the Law”, there being but one “Law” in Israel – the Hebrew Bible. Even the Talmud declares, “the Torah is in Hebrew” (Soferim 35a). “EXAGGERATED” INFLUENCE But what of Jesus’ reference to “mammon” in the same sermon (Matt. 6:24) – quite possibly an Aramaic word? This is no difficulty. Loan words frequently occur between languages, as with Italian words like pizza and pasta today in English. There is no reason why Hebrew should be any exception. Yet we must beware of reading too many “Aramaisms” into the New Testament. In a parallel context, Segal observes that “Aramaic influence on the Mishnaic Hebrew vocabulary has been exaggerated …. It has been the fashion among writers on the subject to brand as an Aramaism any infrequent Hebrew word …. Most of the ‘Aramaisms’ are as native in Hebrew as they are in Aramaic.”[26] Even the very term “Mishnaic Hebrew” can, through overuse, become an historical exaggeration, as though second temple Hebrew were a different species from “normal” Hebrew – an inevitable result of emphasizing small differences rather than recognizing greater commonalities. Just as Elizabethan English and modern English are still, whatever their differences, both English, so Biblical Hebrew and “Mishnaic” Hebrew are likewise both Hebrew. DEMOLISHED In New Testament studies, an over-exuberance for Aramaic at first led C.K. Barrett to attribute a quotation in John (Jn. 12:40) to Aramaic influence, only to change it to Hebrew in his commentary of eight years later.[27] Luke 6:7, too, was once held by scholars like Black, Fitzmyer and Wilcox to be an “Aramaic” construction, found nowhere else in the Greek of the period. Subsequently, J.A.L. Lee demolished this in his study “A non-Aramaism in Luke 6:7”, citing no less than 23 parallel constructions in Greek literature of the period![28] Time and again the Aramaic assumption has turned out to be a lemon, prompting Semitist Kenneth Kitchen to observe that “some ‘Aramaisms’ are actually Hebraisms in Aramaic”.[29] What is more, merely because a word does not appear in the Old Testament Hebrew Bible, does not automatically make it a candidate for the Aramaic club. “Hosanna” and “Gehenna” are words not found in that form in the Hebrew Old Testament. Yet both occur in Mishnaic Hebrew, and are found, in identical form, in the modern Hebrew dictionary. Yet they were once claimed to be “Aramaic”. And even if originally they were, so what! “Restaurant” and “serviette” are good French words, yet today they are well and truly part of standard English. Besides, as Glenda Abramson has noted, there were some 20,000 words in “Mishnaic” Hebrew, as against some 8,000 used in the Old Testament Bible.[30] Thus there is statistically a 2½ times greater likelihood that a Hebrew word will not be found in the Old Testament, yet still be a regular part of the Hebrew language of the New Testamental period. So the days are gone for the reflex assignation of “Aramaic” to any New Testament Semitism not found in the Old Testament. “GHOST WORDS” That this vice – of seeing “Aramaisms” when they are not really there – is still disturbingly with us, can be seen from Michael Sokoloff’s penetrating review of the highly respected Koehler-Baumgartner Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. He writes: “Unfortunately, as we shall see in the following notes, the author of the Aramaic section … has included in his discussions a large number of ghost words from ‘Jewish Aramaic’, non-existent and unreconstructed vocalizations of Aramaic words, and even Hebrew words which were mistakenly quoted as being Aramaic”, adding, in his footnotes, that the author “quotes Hebrew words as if they were Aramaic”.[31] This is a trenchant criticism. Here we have one of the leading Hebrew-Aramaic lexicons of our time, taken to task for perceived “ghost words from ‘Jewish Aramaic’” (ie., they do not exist), “non-existent and unreconstructed vocalizations of Aramaic words” (ie., they are artificial creations), and “Hebrew words … mistakenly quoted as being Aramaic” (ie., it simply confuses the two languages). How cautious this should make us against an uncritical acceptance of so-called “Aramaisms” in the Bible, and the frequently recycled textbook claims concerning them. While some may indeed be in the text, many more exist only in the eye of the beholder! JESUS AT NAZARETH Jesus’ appearance at the synagogue of Nazareth, where he first read from and then expounded Isaiah 61, is highly instructive. In later times, when the Targums were required in Jewish worship, the following was the laboured format for such readings: “… the Hebrew Pentateuch was read … one verse at a time. It was then translated orally, without reference to the written text … The translation was to be recited in a lower voice than that of the reader. All these precautions were to ensure that the uneducated public would not mistake the Aramaic translation for the original Torah”.[32] None of this with Jesus’ reading on that occasion. First he “stood up to read”, then he sat down and “began to say to them … gracious words” (Luke 4:16, 20 – 22). No rigmarole with lowered voice or translation. Just a straight reading from the Hebrew Scriptures, followed by a plain exposition to an audience that clearly understood both them and him. Their negative reaction was not due to any linguistic change of track, but rather to their taking exception to his claim that the Gospel was poised to pass from Israel to the Gentiles, as represented by the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian (vv. 25 – 27). What are we to conclude, in light of these “givens” that (a) The Targums were only widely introduced to counter the decline in Hebrew, (b) They were clearly not present on this occasion, and (c) The exclusive language of liturgy and worship in late second temple Israel was Hebrew in any case,[33] but that both Jesus and his Nazareth audience spoke, and were speaking on that occasion, Hebrew. There seems no honest way around this. Indeed, the very notion of a Hebrew-born Messiah, first making his appeal to the Hebrew people (‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’), supported by the Hebrew Scriptures, in anything other than the Hebrew language would seem a contradiction in terms. What is more, Galilee as a region was well-nigh as Jewish as Judaea. Josephus described its population in his day as predominantly Jewish, while “Hebrew language and literature” still “dominated the region at this time”[34], as Chancey and Meyers note. The Mishnah says that “The men of Galilee wrote in the same manner as the men of Jerusalem”.[35] So Jewish was Galilee, in fact, that in 102BC its cities were considered fair game by an enemy on the Sabbath, knowing the Galilean Jews would not go out to battle on their day of rest.[36] The very synagogue itself took its architectural shape from the “Galilean model”.[37] Tiberias, in Galilee, later became the seat of the Sanhedrin, and it was there that the Mishnah received its final form. To suggest, therefore, that while Hebrew might have been the vernacular of Judaea, Aramaic will have to do for the Jewish population of Galilee, is a discrimination which is historically untenable. SAMARITAN DEALINGS Jesus’ considerable dealings with the Samaritans – his discourse with the woman at the well, his healing of the tenth leper, the welcome on one occasion from “many [who] believed because of his own word”, and their refusal on another to have him stay in their town [38] –further point to his language as having been Hebrew. Reduced today to some 600 people (the last remaining group on earth who still sacrifice the Passover lamb), the Samaritans are proud of what they see as their unbroken custodianship of the Hebrew language from earliest times. The centrepiece of Samaritan life has always been the ancient Hebrew scroll of Moses’ five books, written in early Hebrew script, which every Samaritan child is required to read from the age of four or five. As Encyclopaedia Judaica notes: “The child reads the Pentateuch in the ancient Hebrew script, and in the special Samaritan pronunciation, as transmitted from generation to generation, and also learns writing. Able children complete the reading of the Pentateuch at the age of six, but some take as long as until the age of ten”!![39] So strict is their insistence on Hebrew that, to this day, Miriam’s song of triumph at the Red Sea is read in Hebrew over the bride at every Samaritan wedding, while, following a funeral, the entire Hebrew Pentateuch is read at the home of the grieving family on the following Sabbath. It hardly needs to be said that such a people, so jealous of their Hebrew scroll and so zealous for the preservation of the spoken Hebrew language down to this day, spoke Hebrew at the time of Christ. Indeed several Samaritan writings have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls – all in Hebrew – prompting some scholars to argue that the Scrolls community was actually Samaritan![40] A futile case, almost certainly, not only because of the geographical location of Qumran in Judaea rather than Samaria, but also because of the numerous Psalms, Prophets, and other historical Old Testament books found at Qumran – none of which the Samaritans accept as part of their Bible. Yet it does highlight the Samaritan commitment to Hebrew, and their unbroken continuity of the Hebrew language from before Ezra (whom they denounce as a “revisionist” of the Hebrew script!), down to modern times. What are we to make of this, in terms of Jesus’ repeated encounters with the Samaritans? Must the stilted explanation be invoked that he “switched languages”? Is it not more natural, and certainly more consistent with the evidence, to accept that as they spoke Hebrew – about which there can be no doubt – so did Jesus.[41] This is confirmed by the fact that the Samaritan woman, in her conversation with Jesus, used the Hebrew term “Messiah” (Jn. 4:25), not the Greek “Christ” – one of only two times this Hebrew expression is used in the Gospels, and showing the language in which their discussion must have taken place. THE GALILEAN ACCENT The key that has been overlooked in the whole question of Jesus’ mother tongue is the distinctive Galilean accent. Whereas Jerusalem Jews spoke a sort of “Oxford” Hebrew, their Galilean brethren spoke a type of “Scottish” Hebrew – that is, a Hebrew whose pronunciation differed from their own. The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia notes this in observing, of the Galileans, that “their pronunciation of Hebrew (sic) was different from that of the Jews of Judaea”.[42] Thus the Talmud declares that “The Judaeans … were exact in their language … but the Galileans … were not exact in their language … A certain Galilean once went about enquiring, ‘Who has amar?’ ‘Foolish Galilean’, they said to him, ‘do you mean an ‘ass’ for riding (hamar), ‘wine’ to drink (hamar), ‘wool’ for clothing (amar), or a ‘lamb’ for killing (amar)?’”[43] In both cases – “the Judaeans” and “the Galileans” – the same Hebrew language is clearly being spoken. Yet the Galileans speak it with a different accent (“their pronunciation of Hebrew was different from that of the Jews of Judaea”). There are historical antecedents for such regional differences. In the celebrated “shibboleth/sibboleth” case of Judges 12:6, both tribes were speaking the same Hebrew. Yet those from Gilead could pronounce “sh”, whereas those from Ephraim could not. Around the period of Jesus’ ministry, the Dead Sea Scrolls similarly reflect these dialect differences. Scrolls specialist Elisha Qimron draws attention to “illusory cases of defective spelling”, which reflect no more than differences in Hebrew dialect: “Ancient Hebrew was divided into dialects … in dealing with Hebrew as a living language, we must recall that we are dealing with … different traditions of pronunciation”.[44] In much the same way, Noah Webster in his early Webster’s Dictionary, distinguished within American English between the New England dialect, the Southern dialect, and the general American dialect – though all, of course, represent English[45]. This is a salutary warning against over-speciation, or reading too much into slightly varying forms. As the repeated “Aramaic” mirages, already noted and dispelled, have highlighted, academy assumptions can be “too-clever-by-half”. It was the Galilean accent which furnished the most striking examples of these “different traditions of pronunciation” in Hebrew. Thus Spolsky and Cooper observe: “The Talmud goes on to discuss in considerable detail the kinds of mistakes the people from Galilee made in their spoken Hebrew (sic), … especially ... the careless pronunciation which led to humorous misunderstandings”.[46] Recalling, of course, that what is held to be a “mistake” in one region, may be perfectly acceptable in another, just as “fulfill” (with “ll” ending) is deemed incorrect spelling in England, but represents correct usage in American English. Shades of Qimron’s “illusory cases of defective spelling”! To be different, is not necessarily to be wrong, particularly with something so supple as language. Merely because the Scots call a lake a “loch”, does not make it “incorrect”! Significantly Matthew draws attention to this Galilean accent, in reference to Peter’s denials during the night of Jesus’ trial: “Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away” (Matthew 26:73b, NIV). Likewise with the Majority Text of the parallel passage in Mark: “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean, and your accent shows it” (Mark 14:70b, NKJV, and margin). Two things are self-evident from this comment. First, that the Jerusalem bystanders understood Peter’s denials, even if they suspected them, so they must have been speaking the same language as he! Yet that they also recognised his Galilean accent (“you are a Galilean, and your accent shows it”, “your accent gives you away”), just as a Londoner would immediately recognise a Scot today. Same language, yet unmistakable pronunciation! No one, of course, recognises a different accent in someone speaking another language. As Isaiah reminds us in his prophecy of Galilee’s future greatness, the region was called “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Isaiah 9:1). Not because it was not Jewish, for he expressly calls it the “land of Zebulun and Naphtali”, two of the twelve tribes. Rather does his comment bespeak the considerable intermingling of Jews and Gentiles in Galilee (typical of the way the Gospel itself would one day go forth to Jew and Gentile alike from the pre-eminent Galilean, our Lord Jesus Christ; cf. v6.). Logically we would expect, from such an ethnic melting pot, a greater “Gentile” influence upon the Hebrew language in Galilee than in Judaea, which is exactly what we do find. Yet Hebrew it still remains, as we have seen from the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Jewish encyclopaedia, and the New Testament itself, just as Glasgow English is every bit as much part of the English language as its Oxford cousin, minor regional differences notwithstanding. JESUS’ WORDS Not surprisingly, the seven words of Jesus recorded in their original tongue, reflect these two aspects, namely (i) their essential identity with known Hebrew; yet (ii) some slight Galilean regional differences*. Ephphatha – Jesus’ command to the deaf mute to “be opened” (Mark 7:34) – is directly from the Biblical Hebrew phphatha, חתפ, meaning “open”, as found in the standard Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament,[47]. Thus even Bruce Metzger concedes that “‘ephphatha’ can be explained as either Hebrew or Aramaic”[48]. Isaac Rabinowitz is less ambivalent, declaring emphatically that “there are no valid philological grounds for affirming, and there is every valid reason to deny, that ephphatha can represent an Aramaic … form. The transliteration can, indeed, only represent the Hebrew niphal masculine singular imperative … Ephphatha is certainly Hebrew, not Aramaic”.[49] Likewise, cumi, or cum, in Jesus’ command to the dead daughter of Jairus to “arise” (Mark 5:41). The word comes directly from the Old Testament Hebrew םוק, “cum”, meaning “arise, stand up, stand”, while to this day the modern Hebrew for “get up” is cum.[50] What more appropriate, in the house of a synagogue ruler so familiar with Hebrew, than such a rich Hebrew command: “arise” – not to his Sabbath congregation to rise from their seats, but to his very own daughter to get up from the dead! Eloi, Eloi (“My God, My God”, Mark 15:34) is clearly related to the Hebrew word used at times for “my God” in the Psalms (cf. יחלא, “my God”, Ps. 18:28; 139:19; יחלא, “My God”, Mk. 15:34). Astonishingly – given that Eloi, Eloi has always been cited as proof of the Aramaic source of the words – we find that the Targum of Psalm 22:1(2) does not begin with “Eloi, Eloi” but “Eli, Eli”, as in the Hebrew.[51] In two ways “Eloi, Eloi” is different from the Aramaic – with “oi, oi” instead of “I, I” and the short “E, E” instead of the long “Ay, Ay” (as in “day”).[52] Clearly, we must look elsewhere than to Aramaic for its pronunciation. The obvious explanation lies in the distinctive Galilean accent which we have noted. That is, in Eloi, Eloi we have the Galilean Jesus quoting Psalm 22:1(2) from the Hebrew Bible, carefully recorded with his distinctive pronunciation by Mark. With equal fidelity to what transpired, Matthew dispenses with the accent as such, but still records the same utterance straight from the Hebrew Bible. This alone can account for the seemingly contradictory facts that (a) the bystanders misunderstood the form of address (“he is calling Elijah”); yet (b) they rightly understood the rest of the cry as representing Jesus’ deep desolation (“Let us see if Elijah will come and rescue him”), though obviously yet blind to the fact that here, in the very week of the Passover, the Lamb of God was bearing the sins of the world. Given that the cry was uttered “in a loud voice”, there is no possibility of it having been misunderstood on the grounds of its being inaudible. The only explanation, therefore, that adequately addresses both questions (how could they have misunderstood Jesus, yet perfectly understood the rest of the utterance from the Hebrew Bible?), lies in the fact that they (ie. the Jewish portion of the crowd) and he (ie. Jesus) were speaking the same Hebrew language, but he with a Galilean accent. If the accent is removed, there is no explaining how they could have misunderstood so loud a cry, while if a different language is invoked (they speaking Hebrew, he Aramaic), there is no way they would have understood him at all! Lama, הםל (Mark 14:34), or “lema” in some texts, is the stock Hebrew Old Testament word for “why?”, and is used over 170 times in the Hebrew Bible[53]. The identical word, lama, also means “why?” in modern Hebrew.[54] Sabachthani, ינתקבש, is directly from the Mishnaic Hebrew קבש, sabach, meaning “forsake, abandon”.[55] It is identically reproduced by Matthew, who, as Douglas Moo notes, “betrays no fondness for Aramaic”[56], so its Hebrew identity is further confirmed. To this day, the modern Hebrew for “forsake” – “zab” or “sab” – suggests an abbreviated form of it. Even talitha (“little girl”, Mark 5:41), at first glance the “least” Hebrew of all the seven words, is known to have been used by other Jews of the period, as it occurs in the Targum of Genesis 34:3 for “young woman”[57]. Merely because a word is in the Targum, of course, does not preclude it from being Hebrew, as the Targums contain many words – by one count almost half – either identical, or very similar, to the Hebrew Bible[58]. Talitha too has Hebrew roots, coming from the Hebrew talah, meaning “lamb” – a term hardly out of place on the lips of the Good Shepherd. Merely because it has a “tha” ending does not, of itself, make it “Aramaic”, since Gamaliel – whose strong views concerning Aramaic have already been noted – had a devout Jewish maidservant with the closely related name of Tabitha[59]. This is not, again, to deny a possible Aramaic influence for talitha, just as “lassie” is a regional Scottish term derived from old Norse for a young woman. Though not normally used in wider English, its use in Scotland does not mean the Scots speak “Norse”! Why then, given the clear Hebrew lineage of all these words, and in every case their perpetuation to this day, either directly or in closely related form, in modern Hebrew, is there any need to cast around for an “Aramaic” explanation for Jesus’ speech? It may have done for the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when the hubris of German critical scholarship led it to downplay the “Jüdischen” at every turn – their history, their heroes, and their holy tongue. But it will not do in the real world of 21st century scholarship, when fresh evidence is being uncovered, new insights are breaking forth, and the idols of the Schoolmen are at last being ground to dust.[60] ______________________________________________________________________________________________ The above is an excerpt from Jesus Spoke Hebrew: Busting the Aramaic Myth by Brenton Minge, published by Shepherd Publications (Brisbane, 2001). For more information or to order the full hard copy of this book ($US6) please write to Shepherd Publications, 30 Lytton Road, Bulimba Q 4171, Australia or email marty@sharesong.org. See also The Great Da Vinci "Con" by Brenton Minge. Also Harry Potter and Tolkien's Rings by DJ Gray. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edmund Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (Hodder & Stoughton, 1996), pp. 8, 9, emph. added. [2] Emanuel Tov, “A Qumran Origin for the Masada Non-Biblical Texts?” Dead Sea Discoveries, 7:1 (2000), 63. [3] Al Wolters, The Copper Scroll (Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), p. 11. [4] J.T. Milik, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (Oxford, 1955ff.), vol. 2, p. 70. [5] Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd edition, 1967), p. 47. [6] Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam, eds., Encyclopaedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford University Press, 2000), vol. 1, p. 344, emph. added. [7] Shemaryahu Talmon, “Hebrew written fragments from Masada”, DSD 3:2 (1996), 168. Tov, op. cit., 57. [8] Moses Segal, Mishnaic Hebrew Grammar (Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1927), pp. 2, 13; emph. added. Likewise Jacob Neusner (ed.), Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period (Peabody, Mass., Hendrickson, 1999), p. 280, where Qumran Hebrew “is a continuation of Late Biblical Hebrew, and is attested c. 200 BCE – c. 70CE”; emph. added. [9] J.T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (London, SCM Press, 1959), 95; emph. added. [10] Angel Saenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (1994), p. 52, emph. added; cited by Edward Ullendorff in his review of the same name, Journal of Jewish Studies, xlvi, 1-2. (Spring/Autumn 1995), 287. [11] Ullendorff, op. cit., 287, 288; emph. added. [12] Harris Birkeland, The Language of Jesus (Oslo, Dybwad, 1954). While Birkeland erred in supposing that, though ordinary Jews spoke Hebrew, the “upper class” spoke Aramaic, he was still closer to the mark with Hebrew than his modern detractors. Cf. John P. Meier’s dismissive comment, “Birkeland’s work is almost an embarrassment to read today”. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (New York, Doubleday, 1991), vol. 1, p. 288. Needless to say, Meier’s view is that “Jesus regularly and perhaps exclusively taught in Aramaic”, ibid., p. 268. [13] F.L. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, first edition (Oxford, 1958), entry “Hebrew”, 614. [14] F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, third edition (Oxford, 1997), entry “Hebrew”, pp. 741, 742; emph. added. [15] Tracate Sotah 49 b, cited in S. Safrai and M. Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1976), vol. 2, pp. 1032, 1036. Rabbi Meir (c. mid 2nd century), in a choice piece of “salvation by works”, said that “everyone who is settled in the land of Israel, and speaks the sacred language [ie., Hebrew] … is a son of the age to come”, j. Sheqalim 3, 3; cited in J.A. Emerton, “The problem of vernacular Hebrew in the first century AD”, Journal of Theological Studies, xxiv, 1 (1973), 15; emph. added. [16] E. Levine, The Biography of the Aramaic Bible, in Z.A.T.W., vol. 94, (1982), p. 358. [17] Megillah 4, 4, cited in Levine, ibid., p. 374. [18] D.H. Aaron in The Blackwell Reader in Judaism, ed. J. Neusner and A.J. Avery-Peck (Blackwell, 2001), 204. [19] Zohar, Exodus 129, cited in Levine, op. cit., p. 359. [20] Jerusalem Talmud, Tracate Sotah 7:2, 30a. [21] Sifre, Deut. 46, cited in Safrai and Stern, op. cit., p. 1034; emph. added. [22] b Sota 33a; b Shabbat 12b. [23] b Shabbat 115a, j Shabbat 16:15c. Elsewhere the same Gamaliel is recorded as having conversed “in Hebrew” with the emperor’s daughter; b Sanhedrin 90b-91b. For the question as to whether the fragmentary Qumran Job should even be designated a true Targum, see David Shepherd, “Will the real Targum please stand up?”, Journal of Jewish Studies, LI, 1 (Spring, 2000), 113. [24] Paul L. Maier, The New Complete Works of Josephus (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 1999), p. 13. Idem, Josephus: The Essential Works (Kregel, 1994), p. 11. Per Bilde confirms Josephus’ accuracy re contemporary events: “In fact, the accounts of Philo and, especially, of Josephus correspond with the Dead Sea Scrolls to a very large extent, as has often been demonstrated”; in Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), p. 67, emph. added. [25] See Matthew 15:24; John 5:36; 1:11. [26] Segal, op. cit., p. 8; emph. added. Interestingly, “mammon” also occurs in the Mishnah, Aboth 2, 17. [27] Craig A. Evans, “Isaiah 6:9-10 in Mark and John”, Novum Testamentum vol. 24 (1982), 133. [28] J.A.L. Lee, “A Non-Aramaism in Luke 6:7”, Novum Testamentum vol. 33, 1 (1991), 28ff. [29] As per J.D. Douglas and others, New Bible Dictionary (Leicester UK, IVP, 1996), p. 67; emph. added. [30] Glenda Abramson (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Jewish Culture (Basil Blackwell, 1989), p. 314. [31] Michael Sokoloff, book review, Dead Sea Discoveries 7:1 (2000), 79; emph. added. [32] M. L. Klein, “Palestinian Targum and Synagogue Mosaics”, Immanuel 11 (1980), 37, 38; emph. added. [33] “The first sure references to the reading of the Targum in the Synagogue … actually date only to the period when the sages who had survived the Bar Kokhba revolt [135] and the subsequent persecutions regrouped at Usha in Lower Galilee”; so Zeev Safrai, Immanuel 24/25, (1990), 189. [34] Mark Chancey and Eric M. Meyers, “How Jewish was Sepphoris in Jesus’ time?”, Biblical Archaeology Review, (July – August, 2000), p. 33. [35] Ketuboth 52b., emph. added. [36] Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, Keter Publishing House, 1972), entry “Galilee”, vol. 7, p. 266. [37] Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue (Yale University Press, 2000), p. 198. [38] See John 4:26; Luke 17:11-19; John 4:40-42; Luke 9:52, 53. [39] Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 14, p. 743; emph. added. [40] Thord and Maria Thordson, Qumran and the Samaritans, reviewed in Dead Sea Discoveries, vol. 6 (March 1999), 94 – 98. Paul E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 2nd ed. (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1959), pp. 153, 154, re ancient Samaritan Hebrew speech. [41] Whether or not Jesus may also on occasion have spoken Greek is a moot point. Certainly there is no evidence for it, though it cannot be ruled out as a possible “second” language in cosmopolitan Galilee. While Paul, as a learned former Pharisee, was fluent in both Hebrew and Greek (Acts 21:37, 40), Jesus never claimed any “academy” learning (cf. John 7:15), but rather that his doctrine was “His who sent Me” (v. 16). As the “Word made flesh”, he was saturated with the Scriptures, and so wise beyond measure that, even at twelve years of age, he amazed the temple scholars with his “understanding and answers” (Luke 2:42, 46-47). Yet, as the same “Word made flesh”, he chose in his Father’s will to be made like us, representatively, in all things, only without sin. This naturally includes having a “mother tongue” – for which Greek, whatever its considerable status in first century Palestine, could never be a serious candidate, particularly in light of his known recorded utterances in their original, like ephphatha, cumi, sabachthani, etc.. Not forgetting, too, the pains that learning Greek caused even Josephus, who confessed that “because I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue [ie., Hebrew], I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness”. Ant. 20:11, 2. [42] The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1944), vol. 4, pp. 500, 501; emph. added. [43] Erubin 53a and b, Soncino edition, vol. 5. [44] Elisha Qimron, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert: Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1994), pp. 66, 107; emph. added. Likewise F.I. Andersen, “Orthography in ancient Hebrew inscriptions”, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 36 (1999), 19, sub-heading “Hebrew Dialects”. [45] Paul Johnson, A History of the American People (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1997), p. 801. [46] Bernard Spolsky and Robert L. Cooper, The Languages of Jerusalem (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991), p. 22; emph. added. Interestingly, The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia says that “these differences [ie., between ‘the Judaeans’ and ‘the Galileans’ in pronunciation] have survived in the Sephardic and Ashkenazic dialects” down to modern times! Op cit., vol. 4, p. 501. [47] Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs, Gesenius’ Hebrew-English Lexicon (Oxford, 1958), p. 834. [48] Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan (eds.), The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 272. [49] Isaac Rabinowitz, “Ephphatha (Mark vii:34): Certainly Hebrew, not Aramaic”, Journal of Semitic Studies, 16 (1971), 155; emph. added. [50] Reuben Grossman and Moses Segal, Compendious Hebrew-English Dictionary (Tel Aviv, Dvir Publishing House, 1952), in. loc.. The Oxford-English Hebrew Dictionary, (Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 366. * No pretence is made of one’s being a Hebrew expert (I barely scraped through my five years of seminary Hebrew). But these are facts basically accessible to anyone prepared to do a little digging. [51] Douglas J. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Narratives (Almond Press, 1983), p. 267. [52] Ibid. [53] Francis Brown and others, op. cit., p. 554. James Barr, “Why? In Biblical Hebrew”, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 36, (April 1985), 9. Both the Received and Nestle texts have lama. [54] Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1987), p. 302. Grossman and Segal, op. cit., p. 171. [55] Grossman and Segal, op. cit., p. 371. [56] Douglas J. Moo, op. cit., p. 267. [57] Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1993), vol. 3, p. 332. [58] Based on a specimen comparison from Genesis 48 in Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic (Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1973), vol. 4(b), p. 411. See also Targumic and Cognate Studies, ed. by Kevin J. Cathcart and Michael Maher (Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), pp. 61, 62, for a comparison between parallel texts of Targum On(k)elos and the Massoretic Hebrew. [59] J. Israelstam and Judah J. Slotki, Midrash Rabbah Leviticus (London, Soncino, 1983), xix, 4. That the still-used Hebrew name “Tabitha” is no longer held to mean “gazelle” (Acts 9:36, mg.) is no problem, as the Jewish New Name Dictionary lists “Davida” as related to it, and it means “fawn” (Jonathan David Publ., 1989, 153). Compare the way the KJV near-equivalent of “hart” has virtually given up the ghost in less than four centuries! [60] It is hardly coincidental that Wellhausen, popularizer of the now-discredited “documentary hypothesis” concerning the Pentateuch (which Jesus expressly ascribed to Moses, John 5:46, 47), was also a leading proponent for an “original Aramaic” behind Mark’s Gospel – a view which likewise turned out to be a “fizzer”. For an up-to-date and extensive expose of the Wellhausen Old Testament theory, see Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1999), pp. 392 – 533.

....

Taken from: http://www.sharesong.org/JESUSSPOKEHEBREW.htm

Prophet Balaam Also Known As Priapus: John R. Salverda

John R. Salverda is here commenting on an article on Balaam that can be found (e.g.) at:
http://amaic-archaeology.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/is-there-any-evidence-to-prove.html

....

The character known from the Scriptures as Balaam, almost certainly had a real existence. Evidence for his historicity comes not only from the finds at Deir Alla, but there are other sources that testify to this, rather widely known, seer. In Thrace and Asia Minor he was known as “Priapus.” The Greeks have a “myth” about him arguing with his mule that goes as follows;

Dionysus had a favorite mule who had carried him faithfully throughout his life, however, for some reason the creature had lapsed into madness and was acting crazy. So, Dionysus decided to take him to the oracle at Dodana seeking some advice about a cure. He also took Priapus as a traveling companion. Along the way, no doubt in an attempt to get the cause of the mule's strange behavior from the creature's own point of view, the god granted his donkey the ability to talk. However, Priapus immediately fell into an argument with the mule, apparently over who had the greatest sexual prowess. Well, as the donkey was winning the argument, Priapus became uncontrollably angry and began beating the miserable creature with a stick again and again until the poor animal was dead. (Hyginus, in his "Poetica Astronomica" II, 23; see also his, "Fabulae," 160) Some say that it was this talking mule, who was set by Dionysus amongst the stars as one of the Asseli, in the constellation of the Presipae (the manger), that appears within the Zodiacal sign of Cancer.

Practically every part of this Greek myth has it's counterpart in the Scriptural story of Balaam's ass. As it is Priapus who has an argument with, and beats the talking mule with a stick, it must be he who is to be identified with Balaam, who likewise complains that his ass had "mocked" him. Dionysus is to be identified with Baal-Peor, (the calf god) whom Balaam taught (to which the term “the teaching of Balaam” refers). The reference to sexuality has its’ Scriptural counterpart in the Dionysian licentiousness that was supposed to accompany the rites of Baal-Peor.

Similarly, Priapus was known for attempting to “dishonor” Hestia, the virgin goddess (the Virgin Israel?) and he would have succeeded but for the timely loud braying of the ass he rode in on which woke Hestia up (Ovid Fasti 6.319).

King Midas (from central Asia Minor) had asses ears bestowed upon him by Apollo (Apollo-Pieria?), perhaps because he had harkened unto the teachings of Balaam.

Balaam was so well known in Asia Minor that hundreds of years later in the days of St. John the revelator, and hundreds of miles away in the city of Pergamos (Western Asia Minor), people were still clinging to his teachings (Revelations 2:14).

So much for the people of Thrace an Asia Minor and their version of Balaam, “Priapus.” In Greece proper they had their own version of Balaam, an even more popular character, whom they called “Melampus.” At least three Greek settlements had their own versions of the Balaam story that they had brought with them and transferred to their Greek colonies.

Melampus was a widely known prophet who could understand the speech of animals. In each local version of the Melampus story, the native King would hire him after difficult negotiations (just as in the Scriptural rendition of Balaam‘s tale), to lift a curse. This he would do by teaching the “proper” observance of the rites of Dionysus (the calf god). This is the essence of his story told at Orchomenus, about the daughters of King Minyas, at Argos, about the daughters of King Proetus, and also the story of King “Phylacus.”

Take note of the name “Phylacus” in comparison to the name of King Balak, (Balaam and Balak = Melampus and Phylacus) After an extremely difficult negotiations period, Phylacus hired Melampus to lift a curse of sexual infertility. In this story Melampus understands the speech of animals and injures his foot/leg.

All straight from the Scriptural story of Balaam and from a distant source that actually predates the final editing (by Ezra and Nehemiah) of the Old Testament. Once again the Greek myths, (written, as I believe, by uprooted Israelites) can help to verify the scriptures.

-John R. Salverda



....


Great stuff, John, I love it. Can I put up those comments?

If you are short of time, why not take some of the most impressive pieces and make short articles of these, rather than - at this stage - attempting to write a compendium.

Just a thought.

Damien M.


Dear Damien,

Here's one you can post;


Here is a very impressive connection between the Greeks and the Hebrews for you; The ancient “Hebrews” (Kabeiroi?) employed a group of loudly singing, warrior priests, to guard and carry the “Ark of God” (the cradle of Zeus?). These were called the “Korahites” (Kouretes), or “Korah’s sons” (“Korah bene,” Korybantes?). “… the Korahites, stood up to praise the LORD God of Israel with an exceedingly loud voice.” (2Ch 20:19).


During the wandering of the Jews, Korah and 250 of his followers were destroyed for rebelling against Moses. One such rebellion was the golden calf incident. The sons of Korah were preserved however and given their special responsibilities. They carried and guarded the Ark, not only singing loudly but also clashing cymbals and blowing trumpets. They were a group of warrior priests especially noted for their use of the sling and the bow.


The myths of the Kouretes are easily derived from the story of the Korahites, notably the wandering of Io by Apollodorus (Apollod. 2.1.3). He says that in the course of Io’s (the Jew‘s) wanderings, Hera had the Kouretes carry off Epaphus (the Egyptian calf god Apis) from Egypt to Syria, for which Zeus destroyed them.


They guarded/carried, not only the babes Zeus and Epaphus but also Dionysus/Zagreus calf gods all.


Of course, this identification brings up a very disturbing notion, namely that the Ark of the Covenant and the statue of the golden calf were closely related spiritual cult objects, even taken for each other. Consider this; King David dancing naked in front of the Ark and in the company of other “worthless fellows” exposing themselves to the slave girls, (2 Samuel 6) was a phallic procession; the likes of which one would expect when Dionysus was taken to Thebes and Cadmus danced as in Euripides and his “Bacchae” (I shall identify these two incidents in an up coming article about Cadmus and David).


Everywhere the “Phoenicians” (residents of the land of Israel) went, they took with them the tradition of the Kouretes. Crete (Europa), Rhodes and Samothrace (Cadmus), Carthage (Dido), and Phrygia were largely populated with people from the land of Israel, and were noted for the “mystery” religion of these same noisy, dancing, warriors.


Don’t take my word for it, do the research for yourself. Let me help you;


The Kouretes From Greek Mythology


The Korybantes (Ancient Greek:


Κορύβαντες) were the crested dancers who worshipped the Phrygian goddess Cybele with drumming and dancing. They are also called the Kurbantes in Phrygia, and Corybants in an older English transcription. The Kuretes were the nine dancers who venerate Rhea, the Cretan counterpart of Cybele, Mother of the Gods. A fragment from Strabo, book vii,[1] gives a sense of the roughly analogous character of these male confraternities, and the confusion rampant among those not initiated:


Many assert that the gods worshipped in Samothrace as well as the Kurbantes and the Korybantes and in like manner the Kouretes and the Idaean Daktyls are the same as the Kabeiroi, but as to the Kabeiroi they are unable to tell who they are"


These male dancers in armor, kept time to a drum and the rhythmic stamping of their feet. Dance, according to Greek thought, was one of the civilizing activities, like wine-making or music. The dance in armor (the "Pyrrhic dance" or Pyrriche [


Πυρρίχη]) was a male coming-of-age initiation ritual linked to a warrior victory celebration. Both Jane Ellen Harrison and the French classicist Henri Jeanmaire[3] have shown that both the Kouretes (Κουρῆτες) and Cretan Zeus (called "the greatest kouros (κοῦρος)" in the Cretan hymn found in an inscription at Palaikastro)[4] were intimately connected with the transition of young men into manhood in Cretan cities.


The Phrygian Korybantes were often confused by Greeks with other ecstatic male confraternities, such as the Idaean Dactyls or the Cretan Kouretes, spirit-youths (kouroi) who acted as guardians of the infant Zeus. In Hesiod's telling of Zeus's birth,[5] when Great Gaia came to Crete and hid the child Zeus in a "steep cave", beneath the secret places of the earth, on Mount Aigaion with its thick forests; there the Cretan Kouretes' ritual clashing spears and shields were interpreted by Hellenes as intended to drown out the infant god's cries, and prevent his discovery by his cannibal father Cronus. "This myth is Greek interpretation of mystifying Minoan ritual in an attempt to reconcile their Father Zeus with the Divine Child of Crete; the ritual itself we may never recover with clarity, but it is not impossible that a connection exists between the Kouretes' weapons at the cave and the dedicated weapons at Arkalochori", Emily Vermeule observed.[6] Among the offering recovered from the cave, the most spectacular are decorated bronze shields with patterns that draw upon north Syrian originals and a bronze gong on which a god and his attendants are shown in a distinctly Near Eastern style.[7]


Kouretes also presided over the infancy of Dionysus, another god who was born as a babe, and of Zagreus, a Cretan child of Zeus, or child-doublet of Zeus. The wild ecstasy of their cult can be compared to the female Maenads who followed Dionysus.


Homer referred to select young men as kouretes, when Agamemnon instructs Odysseus to pick out kouretes, the bravest among the Achaeans" to bear gifts to Achilles.[9] The Greeks preserved a tradition down to Strabo's day, that the Kuretes of Aetolia and Acharnania in mainland Greece had been imported from Crete.[10]


Pasted from


　


(Apollod. 2.1.3) Hera next sent a gadfly to infest the cow,8 and the animal came first to what is called after her the Ionian gulf. Then she journeyed through Illyria and having traversed Mount Haemus she crossed what was then called the Thracian Straits but is now called after her the Bosphorus.9 And having gone away to Scythia and the Cimmerian land she wandered over great tracts of land and swam wide stretches of sea both in Europe and Asia until at last she came to Egypt, where she recovered her original form and gave birth to a son Epaphus beside the river Nile.10 Him Hera besought the Curetes to make away with, and make away with him they did. When Zeus learned of it, he slew the Curetes; but Io set out in search of the child. She roamed all over Syria, because there it was revealed to her that the wife of the king of Byblus was nursing her son;11


　


Pasted from


The Korahites From Hebrew Theology


The record speaks with some emphasis of a line of Korahites doorkeepers.


In the latest Old Testament times one Mattithiah, "the first-born of Shallum the Korahite," held "the office of trust over the things that were baked in pans" (1 Chronicles 9:31). Shallum was "the son of Kore, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah." In this expression 15 or more generations are omitted between Ebiasaph and Kore, and perhaps as many between Kore and Shallum. The record proceeds to supply some of the omitted names between Kore and Shallum. The representative of the line in David's time was "Zechariah the son of Meshelemiah" (1 Chronicles 9:21). In all periods the Korahites were "keepers of the thresholds of the tent." Back in the time of "Phinehas the son of Eleazar," "their fathers had been over the camp of Yahweh" (1 Chronicles 9:19,20). Zechariah was, in his time, "porter of the door of the tent of meeting" (1 Chronicles 9:21), and Shallum was still the chief of the porters (1 Chronicles 9:17). The record for David's time supports and supplements this. It says that the doorkeepers, according to the arrangements made by David, included a Korahites contingent, its leading men being Meshelemiah and his son Zechariah (1 Chronicles 26:1,2,9,14), and that Meshelemiah was "the son of Kore, of the sons of Asaph." Adopting the common conjecture that Asaph is here a variant for Ebiasaph, we have here the same abridgment of the genealogical list as in 1Ch 9.


In 1 Chronicles 12:6 we have an account of 5 men who are designated as "the Korahites," who joined David when he was at Ziklag--Elkanah, Isshiah, Azarel, Joezer, Jashobeam. They are described as expert warriors, especially with the bow and sling...


More interesting, however, than the fighting Korahites who claimed succession from Moses to Nehemiah, are the. "sons of Korah" who were somehow connected with the service of song. One of the genealogies is introduced by the statement:


"These are they whom David set over the service of song in the house of Yahweh, after that the ark had rest. And they ministered with song before the tabernacle of the tent of meeting, until Solomon had built the house of Yahweh in Jerus" (1 Chronicles 6:31,32). ... In this way we are introduced to David's 3 great leaders in choral and orchestral music. Among them Heman the Korahite has at first the place of primacy, though Asaph, later, comes to the front. The events just referred to are mentioned again, more in detail, in the account of David's bringing the ark to Jerusalem.


Pasted from


According to Chronicles 9 and 26 and elsewhere in the writings of the Korahites were simply doorkeepers and guardians of the temple Possibly the late priestly story in Numbers 16 regarding the rebellion of Korahites and of the signal judgment that overtook them is the late traditional record of a rebellion of this guild of temple singers against the priests These were designated in post exilic days as the sons of Aaron that is the guild of priests that guarded the ark Hebrew ark In II Chronicles 20 however the Chronicler speaks of the Korahites singers but he assigns their activity to an early period in Israel's history thus confirming the conclusions already drawn In the days of the Levites of the sons of the Kohathites and of the sons of the Korahites stood to praise Jehovah the God of Israel with an exceedingly loud voice


Pasted from


　


Not only did the ground open and swallow all the men that pertained to Korah and their goods "alive," a fire came from God and "consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense" along with Korah (Numbers 6:32-35).


One of their family's duties was to carry the ark of the covenant.(Deuteronomy 10:8; I Chronicles 15:15)


Pasted from http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_smile-06/



-John R. Salverda



Dear John

....
I find it satisfying whenever you give a convincing Greek context to a biblical story,such as Balaam, and then a name like Phylac(us) - which one would not instinctively associate with Balak - becomes credible, makes sense. Sometimes, however, I do not see, 'feel', the connection (which does not necessarily mean that you are wrong, of course).

In the case of David, I would be more inclined to believe that an innocent display of religious exuberance, which became unwittingly exhibitionist, would have later been taken as full-on eroticism and orgiastic by the pagans.

There is no suggestion that Yahwistic religion involved phallic ritual.

Some thoughts

Damien.
 
 
Dear Damien,

Yes, but the religion of Baal-Peor was certainly orgiastic, and it was a direct competitor for the hearts of the Israelites (nomads who had to become city dwelling farmers and perhaps were looking for a "fertility" religion to help with their transition). The story of Zimri and Cozbi is an obvious allusion to the ritual of "sacred marriage," a well attested to rite that was used all over the Mediterranean in Egypt and in Babylon. David was no saint, and perhaps Michal was correct in her accusations (certainly there was no "sacred marriage" ritual, or fertility, in their house for the rest of her life).



Please consider the following quote from Herodotus with David as Cadmus and Balaam as Melampus;


"48. … the feast of Dionysus is celebrated by the Egyptians in the same way as by the Hellenes in almost all things except choral dances, but instead of the phallus they have invented another contrivance, namely figures of about a cubit in height worked by strings, which women carry about the villages, with the privy member made to move and not much less in size than the rest of the body: and a flute goes before and they follow singing the praises of Dionysus. As to the reason why the figure has this member larger than is natural and moves it, though it moves no other part of the body, about this there is a sacred story told. 49. Now I think that Melampus the son of Amythaon was not without knowledge of these rites of sacrifice, but was acquainted with them: for Melampus is he who first set forth to the Hellenes the name of Dionysus and the manner of sacrifice and the procession of the phallus. Strictly speaking indeed, he when he made it known did not take in the whole, but those wise men who came after him made it known more at large. Melampus then is he who taught of the phallus which is carried in procession for Dionysus, and from him the Hellenes learnt to do that which they do. I say then that Melampus being a man of ability contrived for himself an art of divination, and having learnt from Egypt he taught the Hellenes many things, and among them those that concern Dionysus, making changes in some few points of them: for I shall not say that that which is done in worship of the god in Egypt came accidentally to be the same with that which is done among the Hellenes, for then these rites would have been in character with the Hellenic worship and not lately brought in; nor certainly shall I say that the Egyptians took from the Hellenes either this or any other customary observance: but I think it most probable that Melampus learnt the matters concerning Dionysus from Cadmus the Tyrian and from those who came with him from Phoenicia to the land which we now call Boeotia." (Herod. 2,48,49)


As always, I greatly appreciate your thoughts, -John
 

Dear John
 
Certainly "David was no saint", as you say. The Uriah situation was appalling of course.
Though David probably became a saint in the end, a 'man after God's own heart'. Who can boast that?
There is no suggestion in the Scriptures - which we know do not hide the faults of kings - that David's Ark of the Covenant gyrations were in any way offensive to God or constituted any elements of apostasy.
 
Damien.  

On the Tudors and the Prophet Ezechiel

John Salverda re Tudor post of Tues May 29



....

I guess I just don’t buy it. “Tudor” was the real last name of these monarchs. Certainly it was “used” as such. It is known that Henry VII (Henry Tudor) went to extreme measures to “brand” the Tudor name (See; http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/mar/02/tudors-henry-vii-wars-roses?INTCMP=SRCH) The so called “Tudor Rose” was designed at the beginning of the Dynasty and was used as a emblem throughout (you can see it all over in the contemporary statuary and paintings). What is the point of this article? Surely the Dynasty itself was not a myth. Does the author intend to say that the “historic” stories of the period are mythic, or simply that the use of the term “Tudor,” during the Tudor Dynasty, is a myth? Sorry Dr. Davies but just because you can’t find any contemporary references to the name Tudor, is no evidence that it was unused at the time. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say. In this case I think that it is best to trust common sense on the matter. I on 'Tudor era' is misleading myth, says Oxford historian

....

Exchange re Tudors and Prophet Ezechiel




Dear John




I hope that your comment on the Tudors might get a discussion going.

The name Aeschylus ('Father of Tragedy') has struck me as a Greek version of Ezechiel (Eschyl = Ezchil).
And apparently a writer named Herder has actually referred to Ezechiel as an 'Aeschylus':
....
Whedon - Commentary on Ezekiel-Daniel
www.westbrookewesleyan.org/wesleyan-docs/.../WHD_CO08.PDFYou ....
....
by DD Whedon - 2002 .... "Herder has called him the AEschylus and Shakespeare of the Hebrews, while Schiller wished to study Hebrew chiefly because he longed to read Ezekiel in his ...".

Any ideas there?

Regards
Damien Mackey.

Dear Damien,



I too hope to loosen up your audience to the idea of a discussion, they think that they have nothing to add, but they could be wrong about that. Sometimes even what a person believes is a trifling remark can spark a significant idea in another. The process of “discussion” can be a very important one.

Now, as to the equation of the names “Ezekiel” and “Aeschylus.” In my opinion they are almost certainly transliterations of the same name. The Hebrew prophet Ezekiel lived only about one hundred years before the Greek playwright Aeschylus (conventionally speaking); and the Greek culture and people were heavily influenced and populated by Israelites, in my view.

As to the idea that they might be one and the same person; I would still need to be convinced of that. (I actually feel more certain about Homer = Omri, and Hesiod = Isaiah because of the supposed chronology) I am sorry to say that I couldn’t take into account the support articles that you sent me because they were in PDF format (I have declined to download Adobe for lack of disc space).

Never- the-less I do have some ideas that do tend to support the notion. Aeschylus seems to have had an intimate knowledge of Hebrew theology, for instance, he wrote “Prometheus Bound” Wherein he seems to be familiar with the Exodus wanderings, the Law Covenant, and the idea of the Messiah. With only but a small fraction of what he wrote available to us today, (he wrote about an hundred plays but we only less than ten have survived,) it is a bit difficult to tell what he may have been preaching to those ancient Greeks.

So far as I know he was the first Greek mythographer to link “the wanderings of Io” (the Jew), with Prometheus, the creator of man who was “bound” to his mountain (God bound by contract/covenant to Sinai). Aeschylus has Io, driven by a divinely ordained plague (gadfly) wander to the mountain of Prometheus, where he tells her that he will be freed from his “bindings” (covenant) by a descendant (the Messiah, by whom he means Heracles) of hers, thirteen generations hence. Re-read my article on Io (at http://westerncivilisationamaic.blogspot.com/2012/01/more-on-moses-as-hermes.html ) surely Aeschylus was relating traditions that he was fully familiar with.

I hope that this is of some help to you in your researches, but I must say, that Ezekiel seems to be more focused upon the future return of the tribes of Israel to join with Judah (Eze. 37:15). He does speak of the Exodus (Chapter 20) but not in the terms of God being “bound” to the covenant, to him the people were bound, but broke the covenant. He mentions David (thirteen generations from Abraham) in Messianic terms four times, but usually as a future Messiah who rules over the “re-gathered” Israel. He speaks of a future "peace covenant" without mentioning the dissolution of the old covenant at Sinai.

....

Aesop Undoubtedly Oriental in Origin

Ahiqar or Ahikar was an Assyrian sage known in the ancient Near East for his outstanding wisdom.

The Story of Ahikar, also known as the Words of Ahikar, has been found in an Aramaic papyrus of 500 B.C. among the ruins of Elephantine. The narrative of the initial part of the story is expanded greatly by the presence of a large number of wise sayings and proverbs that Ahikar is portrayed as speaking to his nephew. It is suspected by most scholars that these sayings and proverbs were originally a separate document, as they do not mention Ahikar. Some of the sayings are similar to parts of the Biblical Book of Proverbs, others to the deuterocanonical Wisdom of Sirach, and others still to Babylonian and Persian proverbs. The collection of sayings is in essence a selection from those common in the Middle East at the time.

Achiacharus is the name occurring in the Book of Tobit as that of a nephew of Tobit (Tobias) and an official at the court of Esarhaddon at Nineveh. There are references in Romanian, Slavonic, Armenian, Arabic and Syriac literature to a legend, of which the hero is Ahikar for Armenian (ԽիկարXikar), Arabic and Syriac. It was pointed out by scholar George Hoffmann in 1880 that this Ahikar and the Achiacharus of Tobit are identical. It has been contended that there are traces of the legend even in the New Testament, and there is a striking similarity between it and the Life of Aesop by Maximus Planudes (ch. xxiii-xxxii). An eastern sage Achaicarus is mentioned by Strabo. It would seem, therefore, that the legend was undoubtedly oriental in origin, though the relationship of the various versions can scarcely be recovered.

'Tudor era' is misleading myth, says Oxford historian

By Sean Coughlan


BBC News education correspondent

Costume dramas have often depicted the Tudors: How the BBC represented Henry VII in the 1970s Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

In pictures: The Tudors costumes

Why is Tudor fiction so popular? Listen

Summer dangerous time for Tudors

The idea of a "Tudor era" in history is a misleading invention, claims an Oxford University historian.



Cliff Davies says his research shows the term "Tudor" was barely ever used during the time of Tudor monarchs.



There are also suggestions the name was downplayed by Tudor royals because of its associations with Wales.



Dr Davies says films and period dramas have reinforced the "myth" that people thought of themselves as living under a "Tudor" monarchy.



"The term is so convenient," says Dr Davies, of Wadham College and the university's history faculty. But he says it is fundamentally "erroneous".



Missing name



During the reigns of Tudor monarchs - from Henry VII to Elizabeth I - he said there was no contemporary recognition of any common thread or even any recognition of the term "Tudor".



Henry VII was the first of the line of Tudor monarchs Dr Davies, who specialises in 16th-Century history, says "the rather obvious thought occurred to me" of investigating whether there had been any references to "Tudor" during the years of the Tudor monarchs.



His years of trawling through contemporary documents yielded almost no references - with only one poem on the accession of James I (James VI of Scotland) recognising the transition from Tudor to Stuart.



Surprised by this absence of any contemporary usage, he says he expected "clever American professors to come up with examples to prove me wrong" - but so far there has been no such evidence.



There might also be suggestions that the use of "Tudor" was deliberately omitted - as monarchs, always sensitive to rival claims, wanted to assert their legitimacy.



"I do think that Henry VII was defensive about his past and wanted to downplay 'Tudor', which might have been used by his opponents."



He says that in Welsh documents the name of Tudor is "celebrated" but it was "considered an embarrassment in England".



Henry VIII preferred to represent himself as the embodiment of the "union of the families of Lancaster and York", says Dr Davies.



False memory



Dr Davies suggests that the idea of a distinct Tudor period of history was first established in the 18th Century by the historian and philosopher, David Hume.



Continue reading the main story

“

Start Quote

The word 'Tudor' is used obsessively by historians. But it was almost unknown at the time.”

End Quote

Dr Cliff Davies



University of Oxford

This has proved a very "seductive" way of approaching history, he argues. It also helps to create the idea of a separate historical period, different from what came before and after.



But the text-book writers and makers of period dramas should re-think their terminology, as he says that talking about "Tudor men and women" introduces an artificial concept which would have had no contemporary resonance.



If historians aim to "recover the thought processes" of past generations - he says it means understanding how they saw themselves and their own times.



Dr Davies says that in the late 16th Century people in England would have understood the idea of living in the reign of Elizabeth I - but would not have identified her as a Tudor.



"The word 'Tudor' is used obsessively by historians," says Dr Davies. "But it was almost unknown at the time."



More on This Story

Related StoriesIn pictures: The Tudors costumes 19 JANUARY 2011, ARTS AND CULTURE

Why is Tudor fiction so popular? 10 MAY 2012, TODAY

Summer dangerous time for Tudors 03 APRIL 2012, EDUCATION & FAMILY

Related Internet linksOxford University

Around the BBCBBC History: The Tudors The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites



....

Rebuilding the Christian Civilization

Categories:Church Teaching, Defending the Faith, Evangelization



Is it too late to reverse our "culture of death"? Pope John Paul II didn't think so. That is why he devised a grand strategy called the New Evangelization with the ultimate goal of building a "civilization of love". Dr. Scott Hahn, lay theologian, presents the biblical blueprint for the Holy Father's building project, along with practical steps we can use to implement this plan in our own homes.


This is a call to arms for Catholics! Dr. Hahn challenges us to turn the tide in the battle for our Church and our families.



Kelly - Gainesville, FL


Dr. Hahn's talk was a real eye opener that points out the urgent need for a new evangelization!

Bob - Syracuse, NY



....

Taken from: http://www.lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/speaker/dr_scott_hahn

Salmoneus as Judah

[The AMAIC considers the Middle East – West comparisons of John R. Salverda as interesting, with some of them we think being very likely. But we do not necessarily agree with all of the following]

by John R. Salverda

Brit-Am Background:

John R. Salverda shows parallels between the Greek hero known as Salmoneus and Judah the Patriarch, forefather of the Jews. This association may perhaps be paralleled by the confusion of Josephus ("Against Apion" 1.173) between the Solymi (a Phoenician-speaking people once found in Lycia in what is now southern Turkey) with inhabitants of Jerusalem. Homer placed the Phaeacians near the Solymi and there may indeed be grounds to identify the Phaeacians with inhabitants of Britain.

Salmoneus as Judah

Having practically exhausted the evidences for associating the Sisyphus cycle of Greek mythology with the Joseph cycle from the Hebrew Scriptures, we are still left with the character called Salmoneus.

1. The enmity between the House of Joseph and the House of Judah is comparable to that between Sisyphus and Salmoneus. Sisyphus keeps trying to establish his stone upon the archetypical mountain, while Salmoneus had appropriated the worship of god to his altars exclusively.

The story of Salmoneus seems to be based, however loosely, upon the history of the House of Judah with its holy city at Jerusalem, which was referred to once upon a time as, 'Salem,' and made the capitol because its great Temple was founded there by its famous King Solomon. At the beginning of Judean history, is the story of Judah and Tamar. Here we have a tale that has perplexed Biblical scholars for centuries not so much for what it contains, but rather for where it is located. Right smack in the middle of the Joseph cycle, just as he is being sold to Potiphar at the end of chapter 37, comes chapter 38 which contains the entire story of Judah and Tamar with no mention of Joseph throughout, and then, at the start of chapter 39, the narrative returns to the story of Joseph once again right where it left off, at the selling of Joseph to Potiphar, the continuity of the Joseph cycle being completely interrupted. This, apparent artificial, location of the Judah story we are told, in what seems more like a stretch than an explanation, is positioned to contrast the steadfast virtue of Joseph against the incestuous unrighteousness of Judah. Regardless of the Judah episode's placement, studying the Sisyphus cycle of Greek mythology as it relates to the Joseph cycle in the Scriptures, testifies in favor of believing, at least, that the Judah story was already a part of the Joseph cycle, even before the Joseph cycle was included in the book of Genesis. This is evident because, the myth of Sisyphus, ostensibly a collection of the Joseph stories that was current before its inclusion in the Genesis narrative, already contains its own version of the birth of Tamar's twins, as the story of Tyro's twins.

Before we get on with the comparison of these two stories let us first compare the names of the two mothers. The name "Tyro," we are informed by Robert Graves, author of, "The Greek Myths," was the name of "...the Goddess-mother of the Tyrians..." this was, no doubt, merely a worn down version of the more well known form of the name for the mother goddess of the Canaanites, "Ashterah," omitting the prefix, "Ash-" as perfunctory. Now, as is well known, the Greeks referred to the Canaanites as Phoenicians, a name that derives from the Greek name "Phoenix" which means, in their language, "palm tree," however, in Hebrew the word for "palm tree" is "Tamar." Thus, both women can be said to have names that associate them with the Phoenicians. Incidentally, the mother-in-law of Tamar, the wife of Judah, known only as, "the daughter of Shua" in the Scriptures, is identified as a Canaanitess, while the wicked step mother of Tyro, whom the Greeks called Sidero is thought to be the eponym of Sidon the original settlement of the Canaanites. Because, unlike the name Tyro, the name "Sidero" has retained its prefix, it is even more plausibly derived from the name of the widely known Canaanite goddess Ashterah. (those who doubt the original identification between the two names Sidero and Ashterah should consider the two comparable English terms sidereal and astro-.)

Let us now continue with the comparison of the two stories, of course, anyone who studies the two accounts will find many differences between them, no doubt the differences are as important, if not more important, than are the similarities, which are also many and are quite comparable. Both the stories of Tamar and Tyro begin with the killing of two brothers. In each case the pair of brothers die as a prerequisite to explain two things, why the respective women had no children, and why they were sent away to the place where each would eventually become pregnant with, each their own, set of twins. The two brothers who die in the tale of Tyro were her own children, (by Sisyphus) while those in the story of Tamar were her two husbands and represented her chance to have children. Tamar was sent away to live with her father, while Tyro was banished from Thessaly along with her father. Tamar's father-in-law Judah became a widower, while Tyro's father Salmoneus became a widower. Each woman, in the land of their exile, desiring to become pregnant, made a plan that involved waiting at a place where they each expected their intended to pass, Tyro on the riverbank at the confluence of two rivers, the Enipeus and the Alphieus, while Tamar waited on the roadside where the road to Enaim branched off of the road to Timnah. In each case, the sex act itself was intentionally deceptive, because one of the partners wore a disguise so as not to be recognized. Of course, as we have said, twin boys were born, in each case, as a result of the deception. Furthermore, the paternity of each pair of twins came into question, Salmoneus, Tyro's father, doubted the fatherhood of her twins, while Judah, Tamar's father-in-law, also had to be convinced in regard to her pregnancy. In each story, before the respective twins were born, the true father was revealed and he gave a little speech to the respective women, the intent of which was to justify, each their own, pregnancies and to legitimize the eventual progeny of it. Another weird coincidence, is the fact that both tales include a report, so saying that the first born was marked at birth, and got a colorful name as a result, the Scriptural "Zerah" was named after the "scarlet" ribbon that was tied around his wrist to mark his preeminence, while the mythical firstborn "Pelias," was named for the "black and blue" mark that he received when a horse stepped on his face at his birth. As it turned out, with each set of twins, both children grew up to be the founders of illustrious houses among the Aeolians and the Judeans respectively. Well, so much for the part of the myth of Salmoneus which has to do, however little, with Sisyphus, we shall now continue with the rest of the saga of Salmoneus.

Besides having an echo of the earliest history about the nation of Judah, these Greeks seem to have a few more details to add, such as the name 'Salmoneus' itself, which is an obvious Greek version of the name of that most illustrious of Judean rulers King Solomon. With this realization, an evolution of the myth of Salmoneus can be surmised to have occurred in three steps; firstly, the story about the birth of the Judean twins, Perez and Zerah, whose story, as we have said, precipitated the birth myth of the Greek twins Neleus and Pelias; secondly, the addition of the city of 'Salem' and the founding of the Temple by 'Solomon,' is ostensibly what lead to the use of the name 'Salmoneus' as well as the notion that he founded a city called 'Salmonia,' and appropriated the worship of Zeus to his altar; and thirdly, in the end of the myths about Salmoneus, we are told of the divine destruction of Salmoneus and his city, Salmonia. This third point would appear to have been too late to have been included in Greek mythology however, as the famous mythographer, H. J. Rose has pointed out, "It is noteworthy that Homer knows nothing of any evil reputation of Salmoneus, of whom indeed he speaks respectfully.' ('A Handbook of Greek Mythology,' p.83). The Homeric writings are much earlier than the rest of Greek mythologies and it was probably not until the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC., that an evil reputation became attached to the character of Salmoneus. The destruction of Jerusalem was looked upon by some, including the Greeks apparently, to have been an act of punishment upon the city, brought about by God Himself, this no doubt, gave rise to the parallel Greek myth about the destruction of Salmonia.

-John R. Salverda

For more articles by John R. Salverda on the Hebraic Connections of Greek Mythology, see:

"Helleno-Yishurin. The Hebrew Origin of Greek Legends"