Peshitta Forum
Wanna-be 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: Wanna-be Aramaic?!?! (/showthread.php?tid=799)



Wanna-be Aramaic?!?! - SkammyManX - 03-25-2004

Hi,

I am new to the langauge of Aramaic, or Assyrian or whatever it is its called. But I do know the script when I see it and recently I havn't been seeing it, in well...movies!

With the exception of The Passion which is mostly spoken (see the aramaic primary section for my defitency in that department) but in some other recent movies such as Stigmata and The Order in which someone had wrote "The Lanuage of Christ", I beg to differ!

Now on what ground do I, a beginner, have to argue -- well in comparing letters I noticed and remember with the ones I have been studying -- well...its not there.. For instance, one symbol from Stigmata was combination of | and < sort of like a K but not really -- I don't see on my chart of comparitive dialects and even more so rediculus is The Order in which its says "Blood In, Blood out" but in nothing aramaic at all, but the dood reading it says, "Its Aramaic! The language of Christ"

Now supposing I'm right, is this another Rembrant painting in which its "suppose" to look like aramic when its a completely different language, and how can they get away with that -- especially if its one of the main points of the movie?!

If I am wrong -- then I need a new print out because I am learning the wrong language!

Skamz


Re: Wanna-be Aramaic?!?! - abudar2000 - 03-25-2004

shlomo SkammyManX,

In Aramaic we have many different scripts used to write Aramaic, and these scripts could look very different one from the other.

A script doesn't equal A language.

If you want I can write the same Aramaic sentence with the different Aramaic Scripts.

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon

SkammyManX Wrote:Hi,

I am new to the langauge of Aramaic, or Assyrian or whatever it is its called. But I do know the script when I see it and recently I havn't been seeing it, in well...movies!

With the exception of The Passion which is mostly spoken (see the aramaic primary section for my defitency in that department) but in some other recent movies such as Stigmata and The Order in which someone had wrote "The Lanuage of Christ", I beg to differ!

Now on what ground do I, a beginner, have to argue -- well in comparing letters I noticed and remember with the ones I have been studying -- well...its not there.. For instance, one symbol from Stigmata was combination of | and < sort of like a K but not really -- I don't see on my chart of comparitive dialects and even more so rediculus is The Order in which its says "Blood In, Blood out" but in nothing aramaic at all, but the dood reading it says, "Its Aramaic! The language of Christ"

Now supposing I'm right, is this another Rembrant painting in which its "suppose" to look like aramic when its a completely different language, and how can they get away with that -- especially if its one of the main points of the movie?!

If I am wrong -- then I need a new print out because I am learning the wrong language!

Skamz



- Paul Younan - 03-25-2004

Hi Skammy,

Actually, the script used in Stigmata was the very first ever ("original") Aramaic script. Here are the various scripts used to write Aramaic, beginning with the earliest Aramaic and ending with the latest:

Early Aramaic Script: (~1000 B.C.)
[Image: aramaic_script.gif]

Nabataean Script: (~250 B.C. or earlier)
[Image: nabataean_script.gif]

Hebrew Ashuri (Assyrian) Script: (~200 B.C. or earlier)
[Image: hebrew_script.gif]

Estrangelo Script: (~100 B.C. or earlier)
[Image: estrangelo_script.gif]

Serto ("Scratch") Script: (~500 A.D.)
[Image: serto_script.gif]

Swadaya ("Contemporary") Script: (~900 A.D.)
[Image: swadaya_script.gif]


ESTRANGELO 100 B.C.? - nashama - 03-25-2004

Hi Paul:
As intrigued as I am by your chart, where is the evidence that the Estrangelo Script dates to 100 B.C. or earlier? The earliest evidence that I have seen of anything remotely resembling Estrangelo is an inscription dated from 6 B.C. on an Edessan palace gate.

Regards,
Stephen Silver.


- Gentile - 03-25-2004

Paul, I have asked this before on the forum, but you know the type of Estrangelo font that Thackston uses in his Intro to Syriac book - don't you think that looks excellent! I really want a font like that to use so if you know what it is called and where to get it, please tell me <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

The one above is SPEdessa which is similar, but not quite as elegant as Thackston's one. Thanks!


- SkammyManX - 03-25-2004

Well I was proved wrong, but in a good way!

I am more confused now.

So now there are thousands of ways ( not literally ) to write Aramiac to to Speak it...

Which is the one that Jesus would write and speak?


- abudar2000 - 03-25-2004

Shlomo SkammyManX,

The writing is the same no matter what script you use.

The difference in speach is slight:
Here's an exmaple:

moryo <- Western Aramaic (aka Syriac)
marya <- Eastern Aramaic (aka Syriac)
marya <- Original Aramaic (at the time of christ)

abo <- Western Aramaic
awa <- Eastern Aramaic
aba <- Original Aramaic

From a written point of view (letter-for-letter) they're written the same way:
m,r,y,a <- First Word
a,b,a <- Second Word

Why the difference between "o" and "a", because the vowel used for both pronunciation is called zqapa (originally it was pronounced as "a", but because of outside interferance it became "o")

Why is there a "w" instead of "b" that is because of outside influences.

The shift in pronunciation is slight, but the written text is the same. That's why a Western and Eastern Aramaic reader can read each others work.

In Lebanon if you go up to a city called Bshari you'll hear them pronounce all their words with an "o" instead of an "a", and in the capital you'll hear the "a" instead of the "o". But we all understand each other.

Hope this helps!

keefa-moron

SkammyManX Wrote:Well I was proved wrong, but in a good way!

I am more confused now.

So now there are thousands of ways ( not literally ) to write Aramiac to to Speak it...

Which is the one that Jesus would write and speak?



Re: ESTRANGELO 100 B.C.? - Paul Younan - 03-25-2004

nashama Wrote:Hi Paul:
As intrigued as I am by your chart, where is the evidence that the Estrangelo Script dates to 100 B.C. or earlier? The earliest evidence that I have seen of anything remotely resembling Estrangelo is an inscription dated from 6 B.C. on an Edessan palace gate.

Regards,
Stephen Silver.

Shlama Akhi Stephen,

I'm glad you're intrigued, but "remotely resembling"? Don't you think that statement is a little overboard? <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> I see, at most, 3 or 4 characters that are slightly different on the inscription vs. the later script. It's certainly a lot closer to the modern Estrangelo than the Hebrew Square script is to the Dead Sea Scroll script!

Here is a picture of the inscription (from 6 A.D.):

[Image: As55b.jpg]

[Image: translation.jpg]

The ~100 B.C. date I gave for the origin of the script is just an estimation (hence the ~ symbol.)

Considering that this script was used for the tomb of none other than the governor of Birta himself who died in 6 A.D., what date would you give for the origin of the script?


- SkammyManX - 03-25-2004

Aaaahhhh..okay -- so its just similar to say Cursive and printing? Its all the same...

Its kinda like that joke, "its all Greek to me"

But then that wouldn't apply here -- would it?! <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->


- abudar2000 - 03-25-2004

<!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
SkammyManX Wrote:Aaaahhhh..okay -- so its just similar to say Cursive and printing? Its all the same...

Its kinda like that joke, "its all Greek to me"

But then that wouldn't apply here -- would it?! <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->



ORIGIN OF ESTRANGELO - nashama - 03-25-2004

Hi Paul:
I agree with you for the most part. I'm not going to split hairs over which looks closer.....

whether...

a) the similarity of the 6 A.D. inscription at Biracek to 6th Century Estrangelo.

or...

b) the similarity between First Century B.C. Herodian Katav Ashuri with 12th Century Sephardic Hebrew.

You are probably being conservative, Paul. The origin of Estrangelo may be older than 100 B.C. Nevertheless, the Biracek inscription is the oldest known extant inscription. It's difficult to draw any conclusion as to the formation of the "original" letter forms (type text) without scribal artifacts from the time periods mentioned.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, date to the period mentioned, but there is not one Scribal Estrangelo Text from the same period. I know that the Qumran caves where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found were well preserved because of the dry desert environment, and the remote area.

I'm somewhat puzzled by the lack of extant First and Second Century Estrangelo New Testament texts. I can guess at what happened but I'd rather have solid evidence. Nevertheless, it's probable that the New Testament Peshitta (as well as the so-called Western Five) was originally written in Katav Ashuri, just like the Herodian text type of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It appears to me that the preservation of the New Testament texts in Estrangelo didn't take place till the 6th Century (perhaps sooner). By that time Estrangelo had developed to it's most beautiful scribal form (correct me if I'm wrong). Edessa became the hub of Christian scribal preservation and custodianship.

Regards,
Stephen Silver.


- Paul Younan - 03-26-2004

Shlama Akhi Stephen,

I agree with you about the original NT being written in a script like the one present in the bar-Kochba letters. However, for the New Testament to attract any attention whatsoever from all the rest of the Aramaic-speakers of the world, it would have to be in a script other than one used exclusively by the Jews.

In other words, what I am saying is that once the Apostles Peter, Thaddaeus, Thomas, etc. reached Edessa, Adiabene and Babylon - they were dealing with Aramaic-speakers and writers who were unfamiliar with the bar-Kochba type writing that was used exclusively by Jews.

At some point in time, these Aramaic speakers were either handed an NT in their own calligraphy or else they transcribed it themselves. There is a general oral tradition within the CoE which makes the latter more probable.

Anyways, in regards to the earliest date of the Estrangelo, we have no clue. You're right - it could be far earlier than 100 BC. The only thing we know of for sure is that the script wasn't invented for first-time use on the tomb of the governor of Birecik. Logic tells us that the script must have been well established by the time it was used on his tomb in 6 A.D.

The reason why you don't find any Estrangelo texts from the first 3 or 4 centuries is the same reason why they didn't find any Hebrew texts before the 12th century before they discovered the DSS. Until that time, the oldest text was sometime in the early 12th century, right? And what is that reason....????

That reason is that Semites destroy holy texts after they are copied so that they do not disintegrate and fall to the ground where they will be trodden on. If a manuscript is starting to fall apart and the name of God is in the text, then it is destroyed after being copied.

That's why you don't have any Hebrew texts of the Tanakh from the 3rd century (or the 2nd, or the 4th, or the 5th, etc.)

Take care Akhi.