Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
John 19:19 (YHWH?)
#31
I think it is a huge mistake to say that Aramaic was used exclusively in the first century, and that Hebrew was not the common language anymore, that most people didn't speak it. Go through the Gospels and see how many waw-consecutives you find. That is not a Syriac form. It may have bled over into Judean Aramaic, but it is not Syriac, or proper Aramaic of any sort. See also the Siloam inscriptions, the testimony of the Mishnah, the DSS, and the Apocrypha.
There can't really be any question that Yeshua spoke Biblical Hebrew quite often. The grammatical forms he used were too often foreign to proper Aramaic. I have a monograph by a brilliant scholar, Dr. Lewis Tyler, who points out some of these forms. I'll see if I can find it and post some examples.

Shalom,
David
Reply
#32
Dawid Wrote:I think it is a huge mistake to say that Aramaic was used exclusively in the first century, and that Hebrew was not the common language anymore, that most people didn't speak it. Go through the Gospels and see how many waw-consecutives you find. That is not a Syriac form. It may have bled over into Judean Aramaic, but it is not Syriac, or proper Aramaic of any sort. See also the Siloam inscriptions, the testimony of the Mishnah, the DSS, and the Apocrypha.
There can't really be any question that Yeshua spoke Biblical Hebrew quite often. The grammatical forms he used were too often foreign to proper Aramaic. I have a monograph by a brilliant scholar, Dr. Lewis Tyler, who points out some of these forms. I'll see if I can find it and post some examples.

Shalom,
David

Hey David,

Why do you think I posted the earlier point about Yiddish? Is that a proper Germanic language?

Of course there were Jewish peculiarities with the Aramaic of the Levant. Just like there's Akkadian peculiarities with the Aramaic of Mesopotamia.

What's your point?

PS - waw-consecutives are a very prominent feature in "Syriac" form. Do you know "Syriac"?
Reply
#33
Paul Younan Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:I think it is a huge mistake to say that Aramaic was used exclusively in the first century, and that Hebrew was not the common language anymore, that most people didn't speak it. Go through the Gospels and see how many waw-consecutives you find. That is not a Syriac form. It may have bled over into Judean Aramaic, but it is not Syriac, or proper Aramaic of any sort. See also the Siloam inscriptions, the testimony of the Mishnah, the DSS, and the Apocrypha.
There can't really be any question that Yeshua spoke Biblical Hebrew quite often. The grammatical forms he used were too often foreign to proper Aramaic. I have a monograph by a brilliant scholar, Dr. Lewis Tyler, who points out some of these forms. I'll see if I can find it and post some examples.

Shalom,
David

Hey David,

Why do you think I posted the earlier point about Yiddish? Is that a proper Germanic language?

Of course there were Jewish peculiarities with the Aramaic of the Levant. Just like there's Akkadian peculiarities with the Aramaic of Mesopotamia.

What's your point?

PS - waw-consecutives are a very prominent feature in "Syriac" form. Do you know "Syriac"?
I would not say that I "know 'Syriac'" but I have been studying it, esp in the context of the Peshitta, quite a lot in the last couple of years.
Yiddish is a form of Middle German, only with a superabundance of Hebrew and Aramaic loan words. It also borrows from Hebrew and Aramaic grammar, if I understand it correctly.
Ironically, the waw-consecutive is even foreign to Mishnaic Hebrew. Why? Because of Aramaic influence! So now we are forced to assume that Aramaic got the waw-consecutive because of Hebrew, and Hebrew lost it because of Aramaic. Most curious, indeed.
Even Pickering said, "I conclude that all His public teaching, no matter where, must have been in Hebrew."
How about Luke 22:15, where it clearly uses the infinitive absolute followed by a finite verb to convey emphasis? this is another exclusively Hebrew form.

Shalom,
David
Reply
#34
Dawid Wrote:How about Luke 22:15, where it clearly uses the infinitive absolute followed by a finite verb to convey emphasis? this is another exclusively Hebrew form.

Do you consider the Epic of Gilgamesh (Akkadian), or the Amarna Letters from Byblos (Canaanite), "Hebrew?"

I don't think you know Syriac, or Hebrew for that matter, particularly well at all. You sound like you're cutting and pasting from somewhere, or using someone else's ideas.

Do you think Hebrew popped up out of nowhere or something?
Reply
#35
Paul Younan Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:How about Luke 22:15, where it clearly uses the infinitive absolute followed by a finite verb to convey emphasis? this is another exclusively Hebrew form.

Do you consider the Epic of Gilgamesh (Akkadian), or the Amarna Letters from Byblos (Canaanite), "Hebrew?"

I don't think you know Syriac, or Hebrew for that matter, particularly well at all. You sound like you're cutting and pasting from somewhere, or using someone else's ideas.

Do you think Hebrew popped up out of nowhere or something?
Hebrew I'm fair with. Syriac...I can say "shlama." That's about the extent of it.
Pardon me. I should not have said "exclusively." The point is that it is not proper Aramaic.
I am largely copying from "A New Look at the Language Jesus Spoke." You are right about that.
Reply
#36
Dawid Wrote:Pardon me. I should not have said "exclusively." The point is that it is not proper Aramaic.
I am largely copying from "A New Look at the Language Jesus Spoke." You are right about that.

Improper Aramaic?

Do you see a gloss in Luke 22:15 in the Aramaic of the Peshitta?

Any need for the author to explain to his Aramaic readership this improper infinitive absolute followed by a finite verb to convey emphasis?

It is very common in Aramaic, and very proper indeed.

The author of "A New Look at the Language Jesus Spoke" should have a new look at the evidence. There's no Hebrew in "Tlitha Qumi", "Eli, Eli lamana Shbaqthani", "Ephphatha", "Raqa", "Mammona", "Qurbana", "Kepha", etc. No way, shape or form.

I brought up Yiddish-from-German in this thread precisely because the relation of Jewish-Aramaic to Standard-Aramaic is roughly comparable to the relation of Yiddish-to-German, although the differences between Jewish-Aramaic and Standard-Aramaic was a lot less marked.

Yes, you will find an occasional Hebrew nuance in the Aramaic of Meshikha or the disciples, in which case you normally find a gloss in the Aramaic NT (to standardize the Aramaic.) "Golgotha" is a good example of this. Standard Aramaic is Qarqiptha, Judeo-Aramaic is Golgotha. "Khaqel-Dam" is another example where the Peshitta glosses to standard Aramaic to explain.

Neither is Hebrew, both are Judeo-Aramaic.
Reply
#37
David,

I'm going to demonstrate from modern Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, I hope Karl is reading this. Karl, please help here....please translate the following neo-Aramaic phrases:

(a) b'Khadutha Khdeelee

(b) b'Kipna Kpinee

© b'Zadutha Zdeelee

And also, once translated....can you tell me if they are "proper" Aramaic?

Thanks!
Reply
#38
Paul Younan Wrote:I'm going to demonstrate from modern Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, I hope Karl is reading this. Karl, please help here....please translate the following neo-Aramaic phrases:

I'll try, but like I said before my grasp of my Tyari dialect is far from perfect. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Quote:(a) b'Khadutha Khdeelee

In/by joy, I'm joyful (???)

Quote:(b) b'Kipna Kpinee

By hunger, I'm hungry/have hungered

Quote:© b'Zadutha Zdeelee

Don't know the first word but I know the second and can judge it to mean "by fear, I'm afraidl/have been afraid"

Quote:And also, once translated....can you tell me if they are "proper" Aramaic?

I have no idea. I guess it depends on what you mean by "proper Aramaic."

Quote:Thanks!

Glad I could (hopefully) help.
Reply
#39
Perfect,

You've now demonstrated that, even in modern neo-Aramaic, the infinitive absolute (Khadutha~"Joy") followed by a finite verb (Khdeelee~"I rejoiced") to convey emphasis ("I greatly rejoiced") is perfectly normal Aramaic, and quite common in fact.

The rest are "I greatly hungered", "I greatly feared", etc.
Reply
#40
His theory is based upon Greek primacy, so he says that the Hebrew was translated, but the Aramaic left as it was. My theory would be more likely to be that it was originally in Hebrew, and the Judean Aramaic was left as it was when translated to Syriac.
As you pointed out, Judeo-Aramaic, not Syrian Aramaic.

However, mightn't it be argued that these are proper in modern Aramaic due to its close association with the Peshitta, and that it went from the Peshitta into Syriac, rather than from Syriac into the Peshitta?
Reply
#41
Dawid Wrote:His theory is based upon Greek primacy,

....and therein lies the problem.

Dawid Wrote:...so he says that the Hebrew was translated, but the Aramaic left as it was.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

A Hebrew rendering of Meshikha's Aramaic teachings is only a little more comforting than a Greek rendering of Meshikha's Aramaic teaching. In either case, the original Aramaic that Meshikha delivered his Gospel in, is lost.

Dawid Wrote:My theory would be more likely to be that it was originally in Hebrew,

In Hebrew for the benefit of whom? Take a step back and think about the implications of that statement. They needed the Targums in Aramaic to understand the Tanakh.....why would someone purposely write a Gospel or Epistle in a language that maybe a handful of people understood?

Can you give me one Hebrew phrase or even word out of Meshikha's mouth that is Hebrew? Any word from Paul? Kepha?

Dawid Wrote:and the Judean Aramaic was left as it was when translated to Syriac.

So let me get this straight.....Meshikha's Aramaic words were first written down in Hebrew (lost once), then translated into "Syriac" (whatever that is....but now lost twice), and then this original Hebrew version is lost to all history, and all we have left is some of the Judean Aramaic....occasionally glossed to Syriac (or Standard Aramaic)?

Were Jesus and the Disciples Judeans, to have spoken Judean-Aramaic, or were they Galileans? Why was Peter's speech "recognized", his accent/dialect "noticed".....in Judea in the garden? Wasn't he charged with speaking like "one of them?"

Dawid Wrote:As you pointed out, Judeo-Aramaic, not Syrian Aramaic.

Why not Syrian Aramaic? Isn't that what the name "Aram" means? The original word for the Greek term, "Syriac?"

Aren't you just playing with semantics now?

Why would the Gospel be written first in either Hebrew, or Judean-Aramaic? Why not Nazarene, Galilean, Samaritan or Syrian Aramaic?

Did Jesus preach in Judean-Aramaic that His words should have been preserved in that dialect in written form?

Dawid Wrote:However, mightn't it be argued that these are proper in modern Aramaic due to its close association with the Peshitta, and that it went from the Peshitta into Syriac, rather than from Syriac into the Peshitta?

No, it mightn't. The Peshitta has no gloss in that verse. The Peshitta isn't shy when it needs to gloss something only a minority of Aramaic speakers would understand (again, Golgotha or Khaqel-dama).

There are actually several verses in the NT (and Peshitta OT, for that matter) that contain this Semiticism.

The question is, why would you think this type of Semiticism is a purely Hebrew thing? There's very little originality in Hebrew at all.

The bottom line is, your patriarchs (and even matriarchs) were Arameans. Unless your own scripture is lying to you when it calls them "wandering (-hebrew-) Arameans."

You act like it was some foreign language to you - it wasn't. Portions of the Tanakh were even penned in it. Aramaic was Hebrew before Hebrew even existed.

You didn't land on Canaan in a space ship from Mars.
Reply
#42
True. It doesn't make sense the way I've stated it. He is one that says that the original source material was in Hebrew, but that the Gospels themselves were composed in Greek. I disagree, naturally. My only question is whether the originals of the Gospels were in Hebrew or Aramaic.

You are assuming that his teachings were in Aramaic. I am not certain that they were. I think there are many indications that the people may very well have spoken Hebrew. Siloam inscriptions, the Mishnah, the DSS, etc.

No. Of course I can't. If they really were in Hebrew, then they were translated into Aramaic.

I don't know. Why not? You were the first one to make the suggestion. It's very possible that I'm playing with semantics. They're such fun. I have been attempting to point out that he must have spoken Hebrew. You are making the presumption that He spoke Aramaic. But I'm not sure that is so. The grammar seems to indicate that he spoke Hebrew, or at least Aramaic that was heavily influenced by Hebrew.

That is only if it is left in the original language/dialect. In this case it was translated literally from Hebrew to Syriac.
There is little originality in Hebrew, yes. However, this is clearly bad grammar according to Biblical Aramaic, so it must be from Hebrew influence.

They were Arameans...they were also 'Ivrim, descendants of Eber.

Either Aramaic was Hebrew before Hebrew existed...or perhaps Hebrew was Aramaic before Aramaic existed.

You're right. The space ship was from Saturn. But that's beside the point. <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->
Reply
#43
How can I be making a presumption that He spoke in Aramaic when even Greek primacists admit this basic fact?

Am I making a presumption that He spoke Aramaic when I read His words on the Cross, or telling the dead girl to rise? In the Greek version, of all things?

You say you know Hebrew - do those phrases look anything like Hebrew to you?

The only way the Hebrew scenario even remotely stands a chance, is if it were:

(a) first penned in a now-lost Hebrew (don't ask me for whom, I have no idea, certainly not the Jewish masses),
(b) then translated into a now-lost Judean Aramaic (again, don't ask me why Judean Aramaic, a dialect a few hundred thousand at most spoke)
© then translated into Syriac, Greek, Latin etc.

With Standard ("Syriac") Aramaic, you had an audience spanning from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf numbering literally in the tens of millions. Including Mesopotamian Jews, Syrian Jews, Persian Jews....not to mention Arameans, Chaldeans, Assyrians, etc.

Why "Syriac", you ask? Simply because take a good look at any map of the time. It would have been, like now, the dominant Aramaic of the day. Maybe because historically speaking, it's been the largest dialect by far. And the only one that still survives, against all odds, till this very day.
Reply
#44
Dawid Wrote:Either Aramaic was Hebrew before Hebrew existed...or perhaps Hebrew was Aramaic before Aramaic existed.

Ah, I get it. In that world-view, the language spoken in Aram wasn't Aramaic at all, it was Hebrew. Never mind that the Hebrews didn't even exist at the time.

I suppose Hebrew was the official language of Ur of the Chaldeans as well? Were they just trying to fool us with all those clay tablets in cuneiform Akkadian?
Reply
#45
I've attempted to explain many things, and you are ignoring those explanations. I am disinclined toward repeating myself, so I think it is time that this discussion drew to a close. You will no doubt take this as capitulation. I don't really care.

But don't you know what Jews believe about Hebrew? It is Lashon HaQodesh, the language that God used to speak the universe into being. Aramaic sprang up at the Tower of Babel. Before that, everyone spoke Hebrew. We <!-- s:inlove: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/inlove.gif" alt=":inlove:" title="In Love" /><!-- s:inlove: --> Hebrew. <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)