Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Claims to Greek from "From Jesus to Christ"
#16
Quote:You've heard that modern Hebrew was resurrected sometime last century after the return of the Jews to the land of Israel. I ask you: when did Hebrew die out, finally? There was a point in which it did - otherwise, they wouldn't have needed to "resurrect" it!

Touche!

Again I see your wisdom in this Paul!

Darnit Paul,...when are you gonna write a book that contains what you have learned on these subjects?
Reply
#17
Shlama Akhi Dave,

It is also important to keep in mind that the first "Hebrews" (Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, Rachel and Leah) were, in fact, "Arameans." (Gen. 25:20, Gen. 28:2, Gen. 29:16, Deut. 26:5)

Remember, before Jacob had his children who bore the names of the tribes of Israel - this family was Aramean and they called themselves Arameans and they made sure they married Arameans!

If any language has a claim to being the "language of the Hebrews", Aramaic is it! This was not some foreign language to these people.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#18
Again you are right Paul!

Tell me though, why the usage of Hebrew for the religious texts???

Poke, poke, perry, perry!
Reply
#19
Slomo oh Dave,

Just to complement a bit ahoon Paul:

Here's a quote from a book:

"Every Israelite must confess his Aramean origin before the Altar of the Lord every time he offers a sacrifice to God: <<And thou shalt answer and say before the Lord thy God: an Aramean ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt and sejourned there, few in number; and he became there a nation...>>"

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#20
Paul and I joke back and forth sometimes <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Believe me, I do admire his wisdom and insight! I do stir things up at times though. All in good fun.
Reply
#21
Shlama Khabibi Dave,

Dave Wrote:Tell me though, why the usage of Hebrew for the religious texts???

What you see as Hebrew is a highly specialized Aramaic dialect that developed a few generations later after being isolated in Canaan from the rest of Aramean-hood.

To offer you an additional proof, consider this:

In Aramaic, to say "what?" is "Maana?" (c.f., Mattai 5:46, the words on the Cross, and several hundred other verses in the N.T.)

However, to say the same thing in Hebrew is "Ma?" (c.f., Genesis 4:10 and several hundred other verses in the O.T.) See the difference? Manna? vs. Ma?

Now, what did the "Hebrews" call the food that God sent them during the forty years "wandering" (pun intended) in the desert? (hint: this was before they settled into Canaan and adopted the Canaanite languages.)
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#22
I grabbed this real quick from the web:

Quote:THE Israelites set out across the desert. But they kept saying, "If only we had died in Egypt, instead of starving here! Now who will give us any meat in this desert?"
The Lord said to Moses, "I will rain food from heaven for you. And you shall know that I am the Lord your God." That very evening many birds came. The people caught them and ate.
The next morning when the people looked out of their tents, they saw all around the camp, on the sand, little white flakes, like snow or frost. Since they had never seen anything like this before, they said, "What is it?" In the language of the Israelites, the Hebrew language, "What is it?" is the word "Manhu." From then on this new thing was given the name "Manna."
And Moses said to them, "This is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat. Go out and gather it, as much as you need. But take only as much as you need for today, for it will not keep; and God will give you more tomorrow."
So the people went out and gathered the manna. The taste of it was like bread made with honey.
When some of the people tried to keep the manna until the next day, it spoiled during the night. So each morning they took up just enough of
the manna for that day. On the sixth day they gathered twice as much, to provide for the Sabbath, and it did not spoil. On the seventh day manna did not fall In this way God showed that His day must be kept holy.
God sent the Israelites manna for forty years in the desert, until they came to the Promised Land.

Correct??
Reply
#23
Quote:What you see as Hebrew is a highly specialized Aramaic dialect that developed a few generations later after being isolated in Canaan from the rest of Aramean-hood.

In all seriousness, why the distinction Paul? Why was this utilized for the religious texts/services and the sister/common dialect utilized for the day to day?
Reply
#24
Shlama Akhi Dave,

Dave Wrote:In all seriousness, why the distinction Paul? Why was this utilized for the religious texts/services and the sister/common dialect utilized for the day to day?

The statement is partially true. The Aramaic Targums were made so that the people could understand what the ancient (dead) Hebrew language was saying. The Targums were used alongside the original in the Synagogues of 1st-century Israel, so the people could understand.

The ancient Hebrew texts were used in religious services, while the modern Aramaic vernacular was spoken outside of the synagogue.....for the same reason why the ancient Aramaic language is used in Church services today, while the modern vernacular Aramaic is spoken at home. The religious texts are fixed in the ancient language. Nobody can translate them or change even one letter in them.

Languages evolve. A language that doesn't evolve is a dead language. But the texts always remain fixed and unchangeable.

Similiarly, the ancient Arabic of the Koran is used in Mosques. But the modern Arabic is spoken outside of the Mosque. But nobody changes the Koran into modern Arabic.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#25
Quote:The ancient Hebrew texts were used in religious services, while the modern Aramaic vernacular was spoken outside of the synagogue.....for the same reason why the ancient Aramaic language is used in Church services today, while the modern vernacular Aramaic is spoken at home. The religious texts are fixed in the ancient language. Nobody can translate them or change even one letter in them.

Languages evolve. A language that doesn't evolve is a dead language. But the texts always remain fixed and unchangeable.

Similiarly, the ancient Arabic of the Koran is used in Mosques. But the modern Arabic is spoken outside of the Mosque. But nobody changes the Koran into modern Arabic

But they can still be understood straight off by speakers of the language, even though they speak just the modern version right? Is it just a case of for example going into a church now and hearing stuff like "Thou shalt not covet" which I, an English speaker, can understand even though I don't actually speak this way as I speak modern English. Is it the same kind of situation?
This post is sponsored by Thadmania! Inc
All rights reserved
Reply
#26
Shlama Akhi Gentile,

Yes, except that there are many tribes with some being closer to the ancient and others being pretty far away from it.

There are people who actually still speak and write the ancient language. Not many left, though.

Official Church communication throughout the world is written in the ancient tongue. (it's still the common language between the different ethnicities of the CoE)
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#27
I think I'm beginning to understand this further now. Paul your saying that the Hebrew language had died out for quite some time, to the point that the priests had to use a "modern" translation alongside as it was read ensure there was a complete understanding both given and read??

If this is the case, then I would understand what your saying about how a translation of Matthew into the Hebrew dialect would have been unthinkable, especially considering the timeframe and the audience it was intended for.

Am I understanding you correctly?
Reply
#28
Yes, Akhi. Notice the picture below:

[Image: stone.jpg]

This is from the official Hebrew version used in Synagogues today. Notice the original Hebrew on the far right and top. The Aramaic Targum (translation) is directly to the left of it. And finally, on the opposite page is the English Targum.

See how both Hebrew and Aramaic are placed side-by-side. This is because for more than two thousand years the Aramaic translation has helped the Jews understand what the original Hebrew says. And for modern-day Jews who understand neither, the English is provided on the opposite page.

The Jews would have not had a need for the Aramaic Targums to have been made if they still understood Hebrew when they returned from the Captivity.

So I think it's impossible for Matthew to have written a Gospel in Hebrew, because what would have been the point? (assuming he even knew how to compose in Hebrew) Who would have understood it, if they needed Aramaic Targums to understand an already Hebrew text - the O.T.!

And the O.T. is not entirely Hebrew. There are several chapters in several books that are in Aramaic. The O.T. is a Hebrew and Aramaic document.

Aramaic was already a biblical language before the N.T. came along. Unlike Greek.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#29
Hmmmm, very enlightening indeed Paul!! Thank you for helping me in this!!!

There is a confusion though. Why would anyone attempt to "market" (not sure if that would be the correct word for this) a Hebrew Matthew as an original version?

Now I would think that any Hebrew Matthew text would be a comparison tool only!?!
Reply
#30
Dave Wrote:There is a confusion though. Why would anyone attempt to "market" (not sure if that would be the correct word for this) a Hebrew Matthew as an original version?

I dunno. With most, I'm sure there is no agenda - just ignorance. With others that I have run across over the years, I'm not so sure.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)