Semitic Background of The Bible
Bread . . . something used to hold the main part of a sandwich together; a side item to go along with the main meal; something Western children tear the crust from before eating. Bread in the modern Western culture is really not a necessity. One could function quite easily without bread. Not so in Biblical days. At the very center of life during the times of Jesus and earlier, stood the stalks of grain that carried man from day to day. Without bread, there was no life. It is no accident that the most famous prayer in the Western world begins, “Our Father, Who art in heaven, Hallowed by Thy Name. Give us this day our daily bread.” Daily bread-life-one day at a time.
This book will probably not even scratch the surface of the subject. I hope it will at least reveal to the reader that the simplest things in the Bible often offer the deepest truths. It is those very things which Western man often quickly writes off as insignificant or secondary that can open the door to the great spiritual truths of which Jesus spoke.
The Language of The Bible
We know that at least three quarters of the Bible was originally written in the sister languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. The disciples of Christ spoke these languages. If they spoke Greek, it would have been a secondary language. Most scholars believe that what is incorrectly called the New Testament, (Matthew through Revelation), was originally written in Koine Greek, a common tongue, as opposed to Classical Greek, which was used more in the political and academic communities. There are scholars who hold that possibly some of the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Early church Fathers referred to a copy of Matthew, for example, which was written in the “Jews” language, which could mean either Hebrew or Aramaic, the latter being most likely. Other scholars, a small minority, believe most of the writings under the heading of “New Testament” were originally written in Aramaic. Whatever the case, the foundational languages of the Christian Bible are the Semitic sister languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. These languages are very different from Greek and English.
In the first place, Hebrew and Aramaic contain only a fraction of the number of words found in Greek and English. As a result, each word in those languages has to serve more meanings than in languages that contain more words. Even in English, which contains hundreds of thousands of words, words often have more than one meaning. In Aramaic, the primary spoken language in Jesus’ day, each word often had many different meanings.
Furthermore, it was crucial the listeners hear the heart of the speaker. A Semite would automatically reach beyond the literalness of a sentence and seek for meaning, intent, and spirit, rather than holding the speaker to a scientific scrutiny or exactness. Generally, they listen with much different ears than Westerners. These languages also required paying attention to facial expressions and body language in order to determine which meaning one was attaching to their words.
Another peculiarity of these two languages is their lack of words describing abstract concepts. If they wanted to express God’s omnipresence, they would associate Him with the wind. If they wanted to show His quick judgments, they gave Him the wings of a swift bird or made reference to lightning. Surely, they knew He did not have or need wings or send lightning bolts every time He had something to say that was urgent. It was their limited vocabulary, and the poetic nature of these languages, that caused them to attach abstract concepts to words normally describing physical objects of nature.
There are several types of figures of speech that describe the use of words in the above mentioned manner. It is impossible to try to bring these expressions into another language using a word-for-word literal approach. Slavish literalism has been a leading downfall of many English Bible translations. Translating literally “She is a hot tomato” into another language would not convey the true meaning of those words. Most Bible translations (including the KJV) depart from a literal word-for-word rendering even though they may “claim” to be a “literal” translation. Yet unfortunately, most translations still do not convey the true meaning of many Hebrew and Aramaic idiomatic expressions and figures of speech. An example of the importance of conveying meaning, rather than employing a literal word-for-word approach, can be found in the following example.
The King James Bible renders Psalm 26:2 as: Examine me, O LORD, and prove me; Try my reigns and my heart. The New King James Bible has: Examine me, O LORD, and prove me; Try my mind and my heart. The “reigns” of the KJV have become the “mind” of the NIV. The Hebrew word under examination here is “kelayoth” and literally means “kidneys.” The Semites had no problem determining the meaning of this passage of Scripture, even though they knew the word’s primary meaning was “kidneys.” As we can see here, the KJV and the NIV rightfully departed from “literal” translating in this passage even though the translators of these Bibles did not agree exactly how to render it in English. There are virtually thousands of other places where the intent or spirit of the author is not conveyed in many leading English Bible translations. We still have much to learn. Our translations are far from perfect even though many would have us think otherwise.
That the Biblical languages frequently employed figures of speech really should not bother us that much. We use them in English all the time. “You’re pulling my leg.” “Don’t pull the wool over my eyes.” “I’m hip.” “You’re far out.” “Cat got your tongue?” “He’s gone off the deep end.” “That’s a hot chick.” “That’s no sweat off my back.” “It’s raining cats and dogs.” “That’s a heavy thought.”, etc. These are only a few of the many thousands of other examples of idiomatic usage of words found in the English language. If these expressions were brought into another language literally, they would not convey the true “meaning” behind the expressions.
Life to the ancient Semite was very simple. As I said, their language was equally simple. The Creator in His wisdom chose this language, these people, and that time period in which to bring into existence the written words that would greatly affect billions of people for better or for worse. Can we learn the many different meanings these ancients attached to their handful of words? Can we know when these words were meant to be taken literally and when they were meant figuratively, and even when they were meant to be taken both ways at the same time?