Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
John 19:19 (YHWH?)
#16
Paul Younan Wrote:Hi Yaaqub,

Does your Greek version have an editors note about how many times more Aramaic loan-words are in the Greek versions of the NT ?

If not, I can point out several to you.

Shlama Paul,

I don't have a greek version but I'm aware of a few by reading your writings/postings in the past and reading a few Aramaic Primacy books. I find it fascinating. I was just wondering what Andrew meant, if he meant that Matthew never used namusa or aurayta.
Reply
#17
It would be nothing short of a miracle if a Greek version did admit that. Maybe there are some but I've never heard a Greek primacist actually admit to something like that. <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->
Reply
#18
Returning back to my discussion with Paul...

Paul,
The script you reference would be the old Aramaic block letters... AND in the off-chance that I may know where you're going here, wouldn't local Jews and the Scripture's Jewish authors from the time have known the difference between written Hebrew words vs. written Aramaic words when they looked at the cross?

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this!
-b
Reply
#19
Hi Albion,

"Namusa" is an Aramaic word of Greek origin, long before Christianity arrived. The Greek word "Nomos" made it into several languages , like Arabic and even Mongolian ... when Alexander conquered the east, lots of different languages absorbed many different loan-words from Greek.

The presence of loan-words in a document is a very weak evidence of what language it was composed in. Think of "Paradise" in the NT - Luke 23:43, for example. The word "Paradise" is a Persian loan-word in Aramaic (and, Greek for that matter)

Does that mean that Luke wrote in Persian?

The Greek NT is loaded, absolutely loaded, with Aramaic loan-words.

In and of itself the presence of loan-words means nothing when determining the original language.

BTW - the Mandeans of Iraq (pre-Christian Gnostics) also speak Aramaic to this day, and they use the word "Namusa."
Reply
#20
brantana Wrote:Returning back to my discussion with Paul...

Paul,
The script you reference would be the old Aramaic block letters... AND in the off-chance that I may know where you're going here, wouldn't local Jews and the Scripture's Jewish authors from the time have known the difference between written Hebrew words vs. written Aramaic words when they looked at the cross?

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this!
-b

Hey -b,

Yep, you knew where I was going. You are correct that, technically, the script I reference is Aramaic.....but you know as well as I do that the script is called "Hebrew" today, even though it's nothing like the real Hebrew of old. It's actually Aramaic.

But I'm not letting you off the hook here, I'm bound and determined to ask my last question: What language is this website in?

[Image: jewishwebsite.jpg]
Reply
#21
Shlama Paul,

You know, I know that you aren't asking ME.

But.........The Israeli's would call part of that script "Modern Hebrew", and the rest of the script "block Hebrew" (I THINK).

But, it's NOT really "Hebrew", it's ARAMAIC.

I once tried to ask one of Dr. Robert Lindsey's students; "But isn't ABBA an ARAMAIC word, instead of Hebrew??"

And his response to me was "Well, modern Hebrew is FULL of Aramaic "loan words".

I'm sorry that I "butted in" here......I know that you didn't ask ME.

So, in Aramaic, what does "NaMusa" mean?

If you don't mind telling me?

OK, I'll step out of this conservation now......apologies.

Peace, Albion
Reply
#22
Das ist nicht Hebreisher. <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: --> That's my grandmother's old "mother tongue".
Reply
#23
Hey Albion,

No problem, it's more of a "global" question.

The website screen shot you see above is "Yiddish" ("Jewish"), which is really a Germanic language....written in "Hebrew", which is really an "Aramaic" script.

My point in all of this is to be really careful placing so much weight on the name of something.

If the above screenshot of a Germanic language written in an Aramaic script, can be called "Hebrew" .... or "Jewish" as "Yiddish" literally means, then what was written on the Cross above Meshikha could have been called "Hebrew" as well. Even though it was Aramaic.

Just like we Assyrians today call our language "Assyrian", even though it's Aramaic.

Hope I didn't lose anyone.

PS - see the post above for the explanation of "Namusa" <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#24
yaaqub Wrote:Das ist nicht Hebreisher. <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: --> That's my grandmother's old "mother tongue".

Grand-Mome Loshon ? <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Reply
#25
Thanks for the help Albion!

Paul Younan Wrote:My point in all of this is to be really careful placing so much weight on the name of something.

If the above screenshot of a Germanic language written in an Aramaic script, can be called "Hebrew" .... or "Jewish" as "Yiddish" literally means, then what was written on the Cross above Meshikha could have been called "Hebrew" as well. Even though it was Aramaic.

Paul,
In response I'll have to return to my earlier point when I asked "wouldn't local Jews and the Scripture's Jewish authors from the time have known the difference between written Hebrew words vs. written Aramaic words when they looked at the cross?" Since Hebrew was, at the least, the language of pious Jewish religious expression would the scripture's authors have not known the difference? The authors don't say a "Jewish language" (i.e. Yiddish or Jewish "ethnic language" [re: "Assyrian" ethnic language]) was written over Meshikha on the cross, but rather they specify the language as "Hebrew". Wouldn't the authors have known the difference? Especially since we are talking about locals being the authors, not Mediterranean Europeans who would most likely not known the linguistic differences.

Now, I am not saying that I disagree with you; however, someone recently posed this question to me and after some thought, I felt it was legitimate so I in turn wanted to challenge those more studied in this field than I to establish solid answers. So why would a gospel author, who intimately knew the distinctions between Hebrew and Aramaic, incorrectly specify Hebrew, while correctly identifying two other languages (Latin and Greek), if indeed it was Aramaic written over Meshikha?

Shlamkun (Plural?)
-b
Reply
#26
Hi Brantana,

brantana Wrote:So why would a gospel author, who intimately knew the distinctions between Hebrew and Aramaic, incorrectly (emphasis mine, Paul) specify Hebrew, while correctly identifying two other languages (Latin and Greek), if indeed it was Aramaic written over Meshikha?

The key word there is incorrectly. The presupposition is that it would be improper to call Aramaic, "Hebrew."

I think I've mentioned before that we Assyrians today, incorrectly I might add, refer to our language as "Assyrian." As you know, the language we speak today is in fact not Assyrian, it's Aramaic. The Assyrians spoke Akkadian. Akkadian died out a long, long time ago.

Is it improper, incorrect, to do so? To call our language "Assyrian?"

Yes, and No.

On the one hand, yes, it is, linguistically speaking, improper to call the language I speak "Assyrian" - but I do so all the time, as do the vast majority of speakers.

On the other hand, no, it's not improper....because that's the language that Assyrians now speak. We've spoken it for at least 3,000 years. Does 3,000 years entitle the speakers to call the language "Assyrian?"

By the time of Meshikha, the "Hebrews" had spoken Aramaic for at least 600-700 years. Would it have been improper for them to have referred to their particular Aramaic dialect as "Ibrayith?"

Perhaps the Gospel writer was less concerned with the technical nuances and differences between the Hebrew of Moses and the "Hebrew" of the writing above Meshikha?

The preponderance of evidence suggests that the religious folks didn't even converse in Mosaic Hebrew anymore, much less the common folks. The Targums are ample evidence of that.

To whose benefit would it have been to write the words above Meshikha in two living languages, and one dead one?

And by "Hebrew", why didn't the author of the Gospel point out that technical distinction of the script actually being an Aramaic one? What "Hebrew" was meant - that it was also written in the old Phoenician/Samaritan script?

Was Yukhannan really concerned about being precise about these things?

If we want to impose this level of technicality on the authors of the scripture, then we can fault Yukhanan again for calling the word "Gabbatha", "Hebrew" (c.f., Yukhanan 19:13)

Is "Gabbatha" a "Hebrew" word, or an "Aramaic" one?

If it's really Aramaic, and you know that it is, then why did Yukhanan call it "Ibrayith? ("Hebrew") ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabbatha

Hope that answers your question!
Reply
#27
Paul,
Thanks! Now, I won't concede that Hebrew was completely dead in those days (unlike Akkadian), considering the Tanakh was/is still read; however, I enjoyed your post. Are there other scriptural references like the one you noted where Aramaic is referred to as "Hebrew" or is Yukhanan 19:13 the singular occurrence?

Shukran jazeelan!
-b
Reply
#28
Shlama all--

There is no mistake. Matthew is the only writer who uses AURAYTA AT ALL in the Peshitta. He also uses NAMUSA elsewhere as a synonym. "exclusive" refers to the WRITER's use of AURAYTA, not to say Matthew did not use NAMUSA too in other verses/places because he did. It's just that Mark, Luke, John and all the rest of the NT writers never used AURAYTA.

Hope this clarifies.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#29
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama all--

There is no mistake. Matthew is the only writer who uses AURAYTA AT ALL in the Peshitta. He also uses NAMUSA elsewhere as a synonym. "exclusive" refers to the WRITER's use of AURAYTA, not to say Matthew did not use NAMUSA too in other verses/places because he did. It's just that Mark, Luke, John and all the rest of the NT writers never used AURAYTA.

Hope this clarifies.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Shalma Andrew,

Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood what you had said. Thanks again.
Reply
#30
brantana Wrote:Paul,
Thanks! Now, I won't concede that Hebrew was completely dead in those days (unlike Akkadian), considering the Tanakh was/is still read; however, I enjoyed your post. Are there other scriptural references like the one you noted where Aramaic is referred to as "Hebrew" or is Yukhanan 19:13 the singular occurrence?

Shukran jazeelan!
-b

Hi Brantana,

In the NT, whenever you read the word "Hebrew", it's really Aramaic.

Yukhanan 5:2 (Bethesda, "place of mercy")
Yukhanan 19:17 (Golgotha, "skull")
Yukhanan 20:17, (Rabuli, "my teacher")

In Acts 1:19, you have a very clear indication of what the "language of the country of Jerusalem" was. "Khaqel-Dama" is Aramaic, not Hebrew.

Tanakh has always been "read" and "written" in the old Hebrew....up until this very day, but there's a big difference between being read/written and being spoken as an everyday, living, vernacular.

By "dead", I did not mean that no one read or wrote it. I meant that no one communicated in it.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)