Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
John 19:19 (YHWH?)
#61
Dawid Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:Shalom Akhi Dawid,

This is more of a psychological question to you, why do you suppose that the ultra-nationalist type in the 1st century would rather the people speak Greek, than Aramaic? <!-- s:tellme: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/tellme.gif" alt=":tellme:" title="Tell Me" /><!-- s:tellme: -->

Trick question here....think about this carefully before answering.
I see the trap, but I still have to answer honestly. Hellenism was the threat in the first century, so Aramaic would naturally be preferable. If Babylonian culture and religion had been the threat, Greek would have most likely been preferable. Whatever it takes to stave off assimilation.

Thanks for your answer, but I think you got it reversed. Allow me to explain.

According to the Mishna, apparently someone was really ticked off that the vernacular of the people was Aramaic. They posed a question:

Why Aramaic? In the Holy Land, speak either Hebrew or Greek.

Now I pose my question to you again, this is extremely important:

Why do you suppose these nationalist-types would prefer the masses speak Greek, rather than Aramaic ?
Reply
#62
I think you missed the point. The point is that Aramaic is in-between. Hebrew is Lashon HaQodesh, and what the Tanaim wanted them to speak. Greek was the language of the abominable Hellinists. There is another place in the Talmud where it is said that it is better to feed your children to pigs than it is to learn Greek.
So, if the choice were between Greek and Aramaic, I maintain that the religious nationalists of the day would have prefered Aramaic.

I'd also like to protest the idea that Messianic Judaism is only a recent development. Even if you deny the references in Acts, we were in existence before 70 C.E. as the Mishnah testifies.
There is evidence of a Notzri sect in the eleventh century, and throughout the Renaissance (Credit for this evidence should go to Mr. Dutillet and Mr. Munster). Then we spring up in England out of nowhere in the 19th century. Then there are guys like Simcha Pearlmutter who were taught about the Mashiakh by their rabbis.
Reply
#63
Hey Dawid,

Dawid Wrote:I think you missed the point.

Did I ?

Please explain the following quote from the Mishna:

Quote:Why Aramaic? In the Holy Land, speak either Hebrew or Greek.

This has a direct correlation to something happening today, and it's of extreme importance to this discussion.
Reply
#64
I already explained it in the light of other Mishnaic passages. You're trying to read something into this text that isn't there.
Reply
#65
The reason the ultra-nationalist authors of the Mishna would rather the masses speak Greek over Aramaic, is the same reason why ultra-nationalist Assyrians today would rather their people in Iraq speak Kurdish rather than Arabic.

It has nothing to do with who is the oppressor at any given moment.

You see, Arabic is so close to Aramaic, that if the people are encouraged to speak Arabic...it will be very easy to discard Aramaic altogether and it would be lost.

Not so with Kurdish, an Indo-European tongue. If our people in Iraq are encouraged to speak Kurdish rather than Arabic, then the likelihood of Aramaic being forgotten is a lot less.

Same thing during the time of the Mishna. The ultra-nationalists feared that because Aramaic and Hebrew were so close, that Hebrew would be forgotten. They would rather the people speak Greek, so that Hebrew would not get lost into Aramaic.

Nevertheless, the very fact of it being mentioned as a concern should tell you what the vernacular of the day was.
Reply
#66
Paul Younan Wrote:The reason the ultra-nationalist authors of the Mishna would rather the masses speak Greek over Aramaic, is the same reason why ultra-nationalist Assyrians today would rather their people in Iraq speak Kurdish rather than Arabic.

It has nothing to do with who is the oppressor at any given moment.

You see, Arabic is so close to Aramaic, that if the people are encouraged to speak Arabic...it will be very easy to discard Aramaic altogether and it would be lost.

Not so with Kurdish, an Indo-European tongue. If our people in Iraq are encouraged to speak Kurdish rather than Arabic, then the likelihood of Aramaic being forgotten is a lot less.

Same thing during the time of the Mishna. The ultra-nationalists feared that because Aramaic and Hebrew were so close, that Hebrew would be forgotten. They would rather the people speak Greek, so that Hebrew would not get lost into Aramaic.

Nevertheless, the very fact of it being mentioned as a concern should tell you what the vernacular of the day was.

Very good points, Paul. Very good.

And if our people ever began speaking Kurdish in place of Aramaic, or taking up the way of the Kurds, that would be the day hell freezes over. <!-- s:nervous: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/nervous.gif" alt=":nervous:" title="Nervous" /><!-- s:nervous: -->
Reply
#67
Shlama all,

Well, it seems to me that if a 1st or 2nd century Jew complained , "Why Aramaic? In the Holy Land, let them speak Hebrew or Greek." , it is plain that the language being spoken in the Holy Land was not Hebrew or Greek.
It also means that Aramaic was not Hebrew, nor was Hebrew, Aramaic.
It also means that Aramaic was the one language common to Israel; Israel was not bilingual, speaking Aramaic and Hebrew, or Hebrew & Greek, or trilingual, speaking Aramaic,Hebrew & Greek!.

Just a thought.

Dave Bauscher
Reply
#68
gbausc Wrote:Shlama all,

Well, it seems to me that if a 1st or 2nd century Jew complained , "Why Aramaic? In the Holy Land, let them speak Hebrew or Greek." , it is plain that the language being spoken in the Holy Land was not Hebrew or Greek.
It also means that Aramaic was not Hebrew, nor was Hebrew, Aramaic.
It also means that Aramaic was the one language common to Israel; Israel was not bilingual, speaking Aramaic and Hebrew, or Hebrew & Greek, or trilingual, speaking Aramaic,Hebrew & Greek!.

Just a thought.

Dave Bauscher

Excellent observation.
Reply
#69
yaaqub Wrote:And if our people ever began speaking Kurdish in place of Aramaic, or taking up the way of the Kurds, that would be the day hell freezes over. <!-- s:nervous: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/nervous.gif" alt=":nervous:" title="Nervous" /><!-- s:nervous: -->

Yaaqub, are you an Assyrian?
Reply
#70
Paul Younan Wrote:The reason the ultra-nationalist authors of the Mishna would rather the masses speak Greek over Aramaic, is the same reason why ultra-nationalist Assyrians today would rather their people in Iraq speak Kurdish rather than Arabic.

It has nothing to do with who is the oppressor at any given moment.

You see, Arabic is so close to Aramaic, that if the people are encouraged to speak Arabic...it will be very easy to discard Aramaic altogether and it would be lost.

Not so with Kurdish, an Indo-European tongue. If our people in Iraq are encouraged to speak Kurdish rather than Arabic, then the likelihood of Aramaic being forgotten is a lot less.

Same thing during the time of the Mishna. The ultra-nationalists feared that because Aramaic and Hebrew were so close, that Hebrew would be forgotten. They would rather the people speak Greek, so that Hebrew would not get lost into Aramaic.

Nevertheless, the very fact of it being mentioned as a concern should tell you what the vernacular of the day was.
You have completely disregarded the other reference that I mentioned. Please go back and see what I wrote. they said it was better to cut up your children and feed them to pigs than to teach them Greek.
Reply
#71
gbausc Wrote:Shlama all,

Well, it seems to me that if a 1st or 2nd century Jew complained , "Why Aramaic? In the Holy Land, let them speak Hebrew or Greek." , it is plain that the language being spoken in the Holy Land was not Hebrew or Greek.
It also means that Aramaic was not Hebrew, nor was Hebrew, Aramaic.
It also means that Aramaic was the one language common to Israel; Israel was not bilingual, speaking Aramaic and Hebrew, or Hebrew & Greek, or trilingual, speaking Aramaic,Hebrew & Greek!.

Just a thought.

Dave Bauscher
I beg to differ. This was during the Hebrew revival. Hebrew was being brought back to life, and this was an argument for speaking Hebrew. Much like the later Hebrew revival, it took a while. It was a contention to those who were speaking Aramaic that they ought to join those speaking Hebrew.
Reply
#72
Dawid Wrote:You have completely disregarded the other reference that I mentioned. Please go back and see what I wrote. they said it was better to cut up your children and feed them to pigs than to teach them Greek.

I haven't disregarded it Akhi, I've actually quoted that passage on this forum for several years now.

To them it was better to feed their children pork than to teach them Greek.

Nevertheless, they still would rather have had Greek being spoken than Aramaic. The preference was Hebrew, and if not then Greek....the nationalists didn't want Aramaic, it was too close to Hebrew and threatened to swallow it up (which it did).

It was an insult to Aramaic, an intended insult, when Greek was mentioned as a secondary preference next to Hebrew.

Be that as it may, the important thing is what Dave mentioned - in order for this to have even come up as an issue, you know the vernacular of the land was Aramaic.

There's no other option here for any reasonable person.
Reply
#73
Dawid Wrote:I beg to differ. This was during the Hebrew revival. Hebrew was being brought back to life, and this was an argument for speaking Hebrew. Much like the later Hebrew revival, it took a while. It was a contention to those who were speaking Aramaic that they ought to join those speaking Hebrew.

The few people speaking Mishnaic Hebrew (note, not Biblical Hebrew) were a minority, Akhi.

No matter how you spin this, none of Messiah's words as preserved in even the Greek manuscripts is Mishnaic (or Biblical) Hebrew. They are Aramaic.
Reply
#74
Paul Younan Wrote:Yaaqub, are you an Assyrian?

My father was Assyrian. My mother was Jewish and her side of the family are Jews from Syria and Spain. My mother and about three of her family members converted after studying Peshitta. So, I guess you could say that I'm "Jewish-Assyrian", if that makes sense (not sure if there's a proper phrase for that). After my grandmother on my mother's side died my grandfather remarried to an Ashkenazi who spoke Yiddish when she was angry - which was most of the time. <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: --> I share your last name in conjunction with my mother's maiden name. With such a diverse lingual background it has become a disadvantage because I often mix Aramaic, Hebrew and Spanish and since childhood it's been a curse. My family lost their ability to speak neo-Assyrian because of such strong influences from other languages and cultures, so I can see exactly what you are saying above.
Reply
#75
yaaqub Wrote:So, I guess you could say that I'm "Jewish-Assyrian", if that makes sense (not sure if there's a proper phrase for that).

Hey, we were all Jews during the time of Queen Helena in Adiabene, who's buried in Jerusalem now, incidentally.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)