Peshitta Forum
O.T and N.T. Aramaic - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: O.T and N.T. Aramaic (/showthread.php?tid=3187)

Pages: 1 2


O.T and N.T. Aramaic - Bruce - 11-01-2013

Hello Scholars,

What is the difference in the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra compared to the Aramaic New Testament, 50 A.D.?

I have 'Introduction to Syriac' N.T. (Thackston) and, 'An Introduction to Aramaic (Frederick E. Greenspahn) O.T..

Would learning O.T. Aramaic be of little value in my study of Syriac? Would Dr. Van Pelt's book on O.T. Aramaic help?

Would you please recommend Syriac grammars for the understanding of the New Testament?


Thank you for your help.
Dr. Bruce


Re: O.T and N.T. Aramaic - distazo - 11-03-2013

Bruce Wrote:Hello Scholars,

What is the difference in the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra compared to the Aramaic New Testament, 50 A.D.?

Hi, I am not a scholar,
The most qualified to answer this question would be Steve Caruso (forum member), I think, but the Aramaic of Dani?l is Imperial Aramaic.

The NT from 50AD does not exist. At least, I know of none. Even not of Greek. The most complete ancient Aramaic NT is from Egypt 5th century, having Western Syriac type and language. The difference is that those two are two different dialects, and they differ probably just as much as Spanish and Italian.


Re: O.T and N.T. Aramaic - Paul Younan - 11-03-2013

distazo Wrote:
Bruce Wrote:The difference is that those two are two different dialects, and they differ probably just as much as Spanish and Italian.

Shlama Akhi,

Spanish and Italian are not dialects, they are completely different languages.

Pick any 10 people today who speak modern Neo-Aramaic dialects, and read to them the Aramaic of Daniel. And I will bet you all 10 people who speak modern Neo-Aramaic will understand the Aramaic of Daniel 100%. They will even translate what it means to you in English.

Now do the same with Spanish speakers of Italian. Or vice versa. Or better yet, ask them to understand the text of a 2,600 year old Latin text.

If you are equating Aramaic dialects with Spanish vs Italian, I don't think you really comprehend how contiguous the Aramaic language has been over it's nearly 3,000 year history.

+Shamasha


Re: O.T and N.T. Aramaic - distazo - 11-03-2013

Paul Younan Wrote:
distazo Wrote:
Bruce Wrote:The difference is that those two are two different dialects, and they differ probably just as much as Spanish and Italian.

Shlama Akhi,

Spanish and Italian are not dialects, they are completely different languages.

If you are equating Aramaic dialects with Spanish vs Italian, I don't think you really comprehend how contiguous the Aramaic language has been over it's nearly 3,000 year history.

+Shamasha

They are languages, but that is more a political border. They could be called a Latin dialect right? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> I understood from an italian collegue, he just understands Spanish, without having learned it.
So, they are not totally different languages.

When I look at the CAL (comprehensive
Aramaic lexicon project) , the kind of words quite differ as well among those Aramaic dialects.

But this is just my 2 cents. If you really think I misunderstand the difference, this is very possible. I'm just a 'germanic' language speaker.


Re: O.T and N.T. Aramaic - Paul Younan - 11-04-2013

Shlama Akhi

Mexicans cannot understand Italian, and Italians cannot understand Spaniards. If your Italian friend claims otherwise, then he is not being truthful.

I recommended that you find 10 Neo-Aramaic speakers (Assyians, Chaldeans or Jews) and read the Aramaic of Daniel to them and have them translate it for you. This is a 2,600 year old Aramaic variety that they will all understand as much as you would find King James English understandable.

You speak a Germanic language. That language has evolved far more in 500 years than Aramaic has in 3,000 years.

The Aramaic of Daniel's time compared to today's Neo-Aramaic (not to mention NT times) is absolutely *nothing* like Italian vs Spanish. It is more like the English of the King James Bible vs modern American English. Or the Arabic of the Koran vs modern Arabic. It's very close.

No matter how old an inscription in Aramaic that they find on an excavation, I still can read it very easily. Some people make way too much out of variances in time and place. The language is still the same language.

Try to understand Beowulf. See how much the language has changed over time. That is *not* the case with any Semitic language. Hebrew, Aramaic or Arabic.

+Shamasha


Re: O.T and N.T. Aramaic - distazo - 11-04-2013

Paul Younan Wrote:You speak a Germanic language. That language has evolved far more in 500 years than Aramaic has in 3,000 years.

The Aramaic of Daniel's time compared to today's Neo-Aramaic (not to mention NT times) is absolutely *nothing* like Italian vs Spanish. It is more like the English of the King James Bible vs modern American English. Or the Arabic of the Koran vs modern Arabic. It's very close.

No matter how old an inscription in Aramaic that they find on an excavation, I still can read it very easily. Some people make way too much out of variances in time and place. The language is still the same language.

Thank you for the clarification. Indeed, I hardly can read Beowulf, and most Germanic names, as my own name, still given to children, are not understood. It's just a tradition.
I have no 10 people who could try that for me, but just one, butI believe you.

Regards


Re: O.T and N.T. Aramaic - SteveCaruso - 11-04-2013

Paul Younan Wrote:No matter how old an inscription in Aramaic that they find on an excavation, I still can read it very easily. Some people make way too much out of variances in time and place. The language is still the same language.

Just to have a *little* fun with that, how would you Akhi -- off the cuff -- translate the following?

YHB )LY(ZR )DM (L QRYBWY WMN YD HW) PRY$ BNHRH DNGYD LNYS XLMYYH WTMN (L GYPYH )YNHR DXMH

(No peeking at a dictionary [I *will* be able to tell if you did :-) ] and this makes use of phraseology common to a single classical dialect.)

.


Re: O.T and N.T. Aramaic - distazo - 11-04-2013

Well, Paul,

I just checked with one Syrian guy, who also can read ktobonoyo, and turoyo (including Serto script and Estrangelo). So, he basically speaks modern aramaic, and he understands the language of the NT
I gave him a quote of Daniel 7:15 transliterated in Latin letters.

He just could read 'my spirit, I, Daniel'.

Maybe, Paul, you project your intellect unto the whole of the Aramaic community? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Steve
stevecaruso Wrote:WMN YD HW) PRY$
I guess it says this:
"And from knowledge he discerns"


Re: O.T and N.T. Aramaic - SteveCaruso - 11-05-2013

distazo Wrote:Seve
stevecaruso Wrote:WMN YD HW) PRY$
I guess it says this:
"And from knowledge he discerns"

I'll give this section as a hint, but I'll include the next word as well, as it's important context to resolve the verb:

WMN YD HW) PRY$ BNHRH = "And immediately, he set sail upon the river." :-)

Broken down:

"min yad" = "immediately/at once" (literally "at hand"),
"hu paresh" = "he separated" however, in the context of "b'nahara" ("upon the river") the verb "paresh" specifically becomes "to sail" (as in with a boat).
"b'nahara" = lit. "in/with the river" in context of "paresh" the "b'-" resolves to "upon" and the final he indicates the definite state, as this dialect retains emphatic distinction.

The rest is also just as fun to decipher, and I'll give a full translation in a bit. :-)

In the meantime, I have another line of text from a manuscript I'm presently transcribing. This time it's a dialect of Eastern persuasion, but might present some of the same curiosity:

B$WM)YHWN DHYY) RBY) MR)WR)B NHWR) $)NY) LM)N (QRY) DNYNY)N WLM)N D(M)RLX M)ML) HD)

Again, this is more Aramaic from a Classical dialect. Give it a shot.

In short: Aramaic isn't monolithic.


Re: O.T and N.T. Aramaic - Paul Younan - 11-06-2013

SteveCaruso Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:No matter how old an inscription in Aramaic that they find on an excavation, I still can read it very easily. Some people make way too much out of variances in time and place. The language is still the same language.

Just to have a *little* fun with that, how would you Akhi -- off the cuff -- translate the following?

YHB )LY(ZR )DM (L QRYBWY WMN YD HW) PRY$ BNHRH DNGYD LNYS XLMYYH WTMN (L GYPYH )YNHR DXMH

(No peeking at a dictionary [I *will* be able to tell if you did :-) ] and this makes use of phraseology common to a single classical dialect.)

.

Shlama Akhi Steven,

At a disadvantage, "Off the cuff", without reference to time and place (and, especially context) I would have read this phrase as:

"Gave Eliezar the man to his relatives, and at hand became separated in the river that streches/is elevated to "the point of dreams""?, and there upon the bank was revealed his anguish/warmth ?....." (not sure of these words without further context - the phrase "d'ngyd l'nys khlmayyeh" could very well also be an idiom meaning "to expound on the interpretation of dreams" - again, without context, it is hard to tell - and an unfair tactic to have employed by you!)

Now, for a little fun of my own, let's see how much better you do with an old English phrase (no peeking at dictionaries, not that I would be able to tell, but that I trust you!" (I'm not testing you in old English, merely pointing out how much more the English language has changed in a much shorter span of time.)

Here is the phrase:

he aerist scop aelda barnum

Can you make anything out of that .... "off the cuff?" Even one word ? And how much older is the text you gave me, than the one above? Well, probably at least 1,500 years. And I would wager that I read more than you did, off the cuff.

+Shamasha

Notes: I never claimed Aramaic is monolithic, that's silly and goes against everything I've ever said here ... only relatively so compared to other languages like English. I said I can read it very easily, even in your latin characters above. Understanding a text takes more than just picking a phrase out of context, from an unnamed source.

Also, the point about "men yad", or "set sail" being a localised idiom is important - not to the reading of the text, but to the interpretation. Local idioms exist in modern Aramaic, even from village to village within the same family of dialects. Having local idioms does not a new language make.

Finally, just throwing out consonants without reference to time and place puts me at the disadvantage of not knowing, for instance, whether or not the daleth or lamedh which preceeds a word can be understood as a proclitic. Or, how to properly decipher possession/gender/number suffixes. While I do appreciate your challenge, no one really can translate something like that, with 100% accuracy.

Inscriptions/manuscripts are found in a certain location and dated, then they are translated based in large part on those pesky little nuances. One can hardly base decisions of etymology on such scant information.


Re: O.T and N.T. Aramaic - Paul Younan - 11-06-2013

SteveCaruso Wrote:B$WM)YHWN DHYY) RBY) MR)WR)B NHWR) $)NY) LM)N (QRY) DNYNY)N WLM)N D(M)RLX M)ML) HD)

Mandaic?

"b'shemayhon d'hayia, rabia, marawarab " (in the name of ... etc....)

It appears just at glancing to be a blessing upon the reader of our judgements and to the one who abides by these words, maybe a magic formula, etc....I could be way off, long work day ... going to sleep, been burning the candle at both ends at work. <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

(I'm not even going to attempt to translate anything from that oddball dialect, if indeed it's mandaic - not bothered enough to learn in that extreme isolate).


+Shamasha


Re: O.T and N.T. Aramaic - Paul Younan - 11-06-2013

Akhi Steven,

Here is an Aramaic phrase you can feel free to translated off the cuff, out of context and with no background to the story. More fun. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

AYT X) $WYX) D'L)MSH PL+ RY$) MN MNY) DSWT) W(YMN MLYL) KSH )XL RY$HDYH

It contains two idioms, and a play on words.

+Shamasha


Re: O.T and N.T. Aramaic - SteveCaruso - 11-06-2013

Akhi Paul,

I'm glad you took my challenge in the playful spirit it was made in. :-)

Paul Younan Wrote:At a disadvantage, "Off the cuff", without reference to time and place (and, especially context) I would have read this phrase as:

"Gave Eliezar the man to his relatives, and at hand became separated in the river that streches/is elevated to "the point of dreams""?, and there upon the bank was revealed his anguish/warmth ?....." (not sure of these words without further context - the phrase "d'ngyd l'nys khlmayyeh" could very well also be an idiom meaning "to expound on the interpretation of dreams" - again, without context, it is hard to tell - and an unfair tactic to have employed by you!)

...

Also, the point about "men yad", or "set sail" being a localised idiom is important - not to the reading of the text, but to the interpretation. Local idioms exist in modern Aramaic, even from village to village within the same family of dialects. Having local idioms does not a new language make.

Finally, just throwing out consonants without reference to time and place puts me at the disadvantage of not knowing, for instance, whether or not the daleth or lamedh which preceeds a word can be understood as a proclitic. Or, how to properly decipher possession/gender/number suffixes. While I do appreciate your challenge, no one really can translate something like that, with 100% accuracy.

Inscriptions/manuscripts are found in a certain location and dated, then they are translated based in large part on those pesky little nuances. One can hardly base decisions of etymology on such scant information.

The translation is, "Eliezar put blood upon his relatives, and immediately set sail upon the river that flows to the Island of Dreams. There, upon its shore, he remembered what he saw."

This was in Middle Galilean (circa 5th-6th century), and most of these features aren't particularly idioms, but split etymologies that Western Aramaic dialects share. I kinda put it together off the cuff, but each element of it I can provide examples of from the middle portions of the Palestinian Talmud and the Rabba series (Bereshit, Vayikra, etc.). A breakdown:

- YHB (L is used instead of SWM for (to put, place). As I've discussed elsewhere SWM simply doesn't occur in Western dialects at all.
- )DM is Galilean (and Samaritan) for DM "blood".
- QRYB in Western dialects means "relatives" rather than "neighbors" as it resolved in Eastern dialects.
- MN YD is specifically a Galilean idiom for "immediately."
- PR$, as I mentioned does mean "to separate" usually, but in the context of the next word it means "to go sailing," even often on its own.
- NHR is as you'd think it is, "river" but the emphatic in Galilean and Samaritan orthography uses terminal He rather than Alef.
- DNGYD is from NGD, in Eastern dialects predominantly "to draw out." In Western dialects in the past participle it means "flows."
- LNYS is from the word NYS which is more often found in the plural as NYSYN "islands" (it's a Greek loan word, common in Galilean).
- XLMYYH you pretty much nailed. "The dreams," in conjunction with NYS it's "The Island of Dreams."
- WTMN = "and there" (in other dialects it tends to be TMH)
- (L GYPYH - You nailed it. :-)
- )YNHR is in Eastern orthography )TNHR, and in Galilean and CPA NHR in Ethpeel is the common form for "remember."
- DXMY is from the verb XMY which is much more common in Syriac is XZY "to see". This is a feature that is found in most Middle Jewish dialects and all Western dialects, and where XZY does occur in Galilean it's very rare and believed to be a "correction" made by later Eastern-speaking scribes.

Paul Younan Wrote:Now, for a little fun of my own, let's see how much better you do with an old English phrase (no peeking at dictionaries, not that I would be able to tell, but that I trust you!" (I'm not testing you in old English, merely pointing out how much more the English language has changed in a much shorter span of time.)

Here is the phrase:

he aerist scop aelda barnum

Can you make anything out of that .... "off the cuff?" Even one word ? And how much older is the text you gave me, than the one above? Well, probably at least 1,500 years. And I would wager that I read more than you did, off the cuff.

I do know a bit of Aeld Englisc vocab and grammar to begin with (as I go over Beowulf in some of my classes as an example of linguistic drift) but let me give it a try from memory, reading it *as* Old English. :-)

he = "He" in the nominative case.
aerist = I'd think "arising" or "resurrection" in; something to do with the verb arisan?
scop = "poet" in nominative singular, pronounced "shop" with sc = sh; gotta know that one if one has read any OE poetry. :-)
aelda = the plural nominative of aeld = "old (ones)?"
barnum = I'd guess the root is bairn in the plural dative, "for children" or "to children"

Putting it all together, though, I'm having difficulty as the declensions aren't matching as I'd expect them to. "He arose, the poet. Old ones to children." Something to do with new life? If it's poetry, the sentences are going to be really choppy to begin with with lots of alliteration; not at all conversational. :-)

How'd I do? :-) Terrible, I'm sure.

.


Re: O.T and N.T. Aramaic - SteveCaruso - 11-06-2013

Paul Younan Wrote:
SteveCaruso Wrote:B$WM)YHWN DHYY) RBY) MR)WR)B NHWR) $)NY) LM)N (QRY) DNYNY)N WLM)N D(M)RLX M)ML) HD)

Mandaic?

"b'shemayhon d'hayia, rabia, marawarab " (in the name of ... etc....)

It appears just at glancing to be a blessing upon the reader of our judgements and to the one who abides by these words, maybe a magic formula, etc....I could be way off, long work day ... going to sleep, been burning the candle at both ends at work. <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

(I'm not even going to attempt to translate anything from that oddball dialect, if indeed it's mandaic - not bothered enough to learn in that extreme isolate).


+Shamasha

You identified the language right away! :-) Indeed it is Classical Mandaic, and if you can get past the extremely plene and unorthodox orthography, it's a heck of a lot like Jewish Babylonian Aramaic with some differences of vocabulary and vowels. In their writings there is also a lot of theological jargon that isn't shared with other Aramaic dialects, as Mandaic theology is very different from Judeo-Christianity.

That line reads, "In the name of the Great Life, the sublime light is exalted! To whom shall I call, so that he might answer to me, and to whom shall I give this speech?"

.


Re: O.T and N.T. Aramaic - Paul Younan - 11-06-2013

I knew that must've been something you constructed from scratch. I've never read or heard conversational Aramaic of any variety quite that way.

I'm a way, you've accomplished what the authors of things like the Zohar did. A purely literary tongue in a way.

My Aramaic challenge above is constructed by myself as well. But you would find it readily in one particular dialect, with two idioms unique to it. Dictionaries of any kind will not help.

+Shamasha