Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jakob and James
#1
The name for the patriarch Jacob is ιακωβ, but the name for James is ιακωβος. Why else would the distinction be made if it was translated from the Aramaic as only Yaqob?
Reply
#2
Is it possible that in Greek these are two different genitives of the same name?

Otto
Reply
#3
No, since they're both used in the nominative form. Iakwb when referring to the patriarch is actually undeclinable, and we only get what case it's in by its definite article, but Iakwbos elsewhere and only when referring to what the English bible translates as James (that is, the disciple James and the brother of Jesus James) is Iakwbou in genitive form; it declines like a normal 2nd declension. However, the Aramaic has only YQWB Yaqob.

Chris
Reply
#4
Shlama Chris,

Are you saying "Yaqov" had a Greek name ? Iakobos is a Greacian form of the Aramaic name Yaqob, to distinguish it from the patriarch's name.
Quote:2385 Iakwbov Iakobos ee-ak???-o-bos

the same as 2384 Graecised; ; n pr m

Why would The Peshitta use "Yaqob" consistently throughout, if it were translated from the different Greek forms ? [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]bwq(y [/font].

Dave Bauscher
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply
#5
Shalom Dave

You ask:
Quote:Why would The Peshitta use "Yaqob" consistently throughout, if it were translated from the different Greek forms ? bwq(y.
Because Aramaic only has one form for the word. Adding a Greek ending to an already existing Aramaic word would be useless. However, the question for Aramaic primacists is why the Greek would bother to distinguish the two if it was translated from a text using the same word for both of them? The answer: It wouldn't. It was written in Greek.

best regards,

Chris
Reply
#6
Shlama Chris,

I already answered that question. You were not reading:
"to distinguish it from the patriarch's name".
The Peshitta has Yaqob for both because both had the same name . "Iakobos" is a Greek form of a Semitic name.
You do believe the apostles were Israeli Jews, do you not ? They certainly were not Greek.

Have you read of the recent discovery of James's Ossuary of the first century ? It has an Aramaic inscription ,"Yaqob akhi d'Yeshua Bar Yosip". -"Jacob brother of Yeshua son of Joseph." Same spelling as the Peshitta for our Lord's brother.

Read Josephus' testimony in his introduction and Antiquities 20,11,2. He wrote all his works in Aramaic and had them translated into Greek. He wrote that the people of Palestine did not know Greek and would not learn it, as it was undesireable for them to learn the languages of Gentiles.He knew of two or three men fluent in Greek, and he himself had studied it and was a very learned Pharisee and priest.Yet he said he was not fluent in that language.

That has been pretty well established. There is no other first century historian that contradicts Josephus' testimony
on this point. If the Jews of Palestine did not understand Greek, how would they have written the NT in Greek and to whom would they have written it ? It doesn't take a nuclear
physicist to figure this out. The NT would have been written in the language of the writers and their audience. It was later translated into Greek, even as The LXX and Josephus' works were.

Aramaic does sometimes transliterate words from Greek and Latin, especially names, such as "Petrus" , for "Petros" in Acts 1:13 and 1 Peter 1:1;2 Peter 1:1. Why is that useless ? Simeon Kapha had preached to some Gentiles and they received his message. They called him "Petros".The Aramaic preserves that in three places.

Sorry, but the Greek is nothing but a translation. If you want evidence, I can provide plenty. If you want only to assert your position and support it by asking questions, then you reveal the lack of evidence to support your position.

Blessings,

Dave
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply
#7
gbausc Wrote:You do believe the apostles were Israeli Jews, do you not ? They certainly were not Greek.
I don't believe in the apostles as was written of them. And I certainly don't believe that these apostles from Palestine wrote the New Testament.

Quote:Have you read of the recent discovery of James's Ossuary of the first century ? It has an Aramaic inscription ,"Yaqob akhi d'Yeshua Bar Yosip". -"Jacob brother of Yeshua son of Joseph." Same spelling as the Peshitta for our Lord's brother.
I've also read that it was forged, that Golan had forgery tools in his house, and that he is currently on trial and facing jailtime for it.

Quote:Read Josephus' testimony in his introduction and Antiquities 20,11,2. He wrote all his works in Aramaic and had them translated into Greek. He wrote that the people of Palestine did not know Greek and would not learn it, as it was undesireable for them to learn the languages of Gentiles.He knew of two or three men fluent in Greek, and he himself had studied it and was a very learned Pharisee and priest.Yet he said he was not fluent in that language.
However, the isn't the 'historical Jesus" and his "disciples" or "apostles" from Galilee, a bilingual area which you're confusing with Iudaea, which in effect you're right that Iudaea tried to remain as Semitic as possible leading up to their destruction in 70 CE.

Quote:That has been pretty well established. There is no other first century historian that contradicts Josephus' testimony
on this point. If the Jews of Palestine did not understand Greek, how would they have written the NT in Greek and to whom would they have written it ? It doesn't take a nuclear
physicist to figure this out. The NT would have been written in the language of the writers and their audience. It was later translated into Greek, even as The LXX and Josephus' works were.
Josephus' works weren't "later translated" into Greek. He had them authored into Greek for his audience: Rome. And then again, Galilee was a bilingual area (and stop using Palestine, the place hadn't existed yet).

Quote:Aramaic does sometimes transliterate words from Greek and Latin, especially names, such as "Petrus" , for "Petros" in Acts 1:13 and 1 Peter 1:1;2 Peter 1:1. Why is that useless ? Simeon Kapha had preached to some Gentiles and they received his message. They called him "Petros".The Aramaic preserves that in three places.
I hadn't even mentioned this. This is useless here. But then again, it would indicated the predominance of the Graecian culture on the NT, also by their coinage of the term euaggelion.

Quote:Sorry, but the Greek is nothing but a translation. If you want evidence, I can provide plenty. If you want only to assert your position and support it by asking questions, then you reveal the lack of evidence to support your position.
First you have to properly destroy my evidence, which you utterly failed to do so without resorting to circumstantial speculation.

Kindest regards,

Chris
Reply
#8
It seems clear that ιακωβος is a Greek alias, not a semitic name.

Otto
Reply
#9
Shlama Chris,

I am sorry for your unbelief in the NT and the Messiah it presents.

You wrote :
Quote:First you have to properly destroy my evidence
.

What evidence ?


You also wrote :
Quote:Josephus' works weren't "later translated" into Greek. He had them authored into Greek for his audience: Rome.

You have not read enough of Josephus. He plainly states he could not have written it in Greek. He also wrote that his originals were in the language of his country, which he sent to the barbarous people of the upper regions, etc, and that he had the work translated into Greek for the Romans. He did not "have them authored into Greek", as you stated, which statement doesn't even make sense.

Blessings,

Dave
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply
#10
Josephus seems to indicate he wrote first in his woen tongue (Aramaic?) and later translated these into greek.

Quote:I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/war-pref.htm">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... r-pref.htm</a><!-- m -->

Quote:Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks (2) worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures. And indeed I did formerly intend, when I wrote of the war, (3) to explain who the Jews originally were, - what fortunes they had been subject to, - and by what legislature they had been instructed in piety, and the exercise of other virtues, - what wars also they had made in remote ages, till they were unwillingly engaged in this last with the Romans: but because this work would take up a great compass, I separated it into a set treatise by itself, with a beginning of its own, and its own conclusion; but in process of time, as usually happens to such as undertake great things, I grew weary and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us unaccustomed language. However, some persons there were who desired to know our history, and so exhorted me to go on with it; and, above all the rest, Epaphroditus, (4) a man who is a lover of all kind of learning, but is principally delighted with the knowledge of history, and this on account of his having been himself concerned in great affairs, and many turns of fortune, and having shown a wonderful rigor of an excellent nature, and an immovable virtuous resolution in them all. I yielded to this man's persuasions, who always excites such as have abilities in what is useful and acceptable, to join their endeavors with his. I was also ashamed myself to permit any laziness of disposition to have a greater influence upon me, than the delight of taking pains in such studies as were very useful: I thereupon stirred up myself, and went on with my work more cheerfully.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/ant-pref.htm">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... t-pref.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)