Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Greek-isms???????
#1
Shalomie Homies <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

as many know, i have been working on a personal translation/interpretation of the Aramaic New Covenant. i am neither a Greek primacist nor Aramaic primacist when it comes to the scripture. honestly, because i am getting the same results from both camps. the same arguments one way are posed in the other. one main argument for the Aramaic camp is that the Greek manuscripts contain alot of things that Aramaic can readily compensate for. now, i am, by no means, arguing for the Greek camp, but in my work of study i keep coming across a lot of, what i call, "Greek-isms". Greek words "Aramaicised" (i hope someone understands my befuddled engrish <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->)

anyhoo, this is leading to a question, and it is not meant to be a challenge, but a question that you may already have figured out would be:

why? <!-- sConfusedtupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="Confusedtupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- sConfusedtupid: -->

why are there all those "Greek-isms" in a language that has words of its own to express the same thing? <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->

In Yeshua,
Z'ev Yochanan
Reply
#2
Yochanan5730 Wrote:Shalomie Homies <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

as many know, i have been working on a personal translation/interpretation of the Aramaic New Covenant. i am neither a Greek primacist nor Aramaic primacist when it comes to the scripture. honestly, because i am getting the same results from both camps. the same arguments one way are posed in the other. one main argument for the Aramaic camp is that the Greek manuscripts contain alot of things that Aramaic can readily compensate for. now, i am, by no means, arguing for the Greek camp, but in my work of study i keep coming across a lot of, what i call, "Greek-isms". Greek words "Aramaicised" (i hope someone understands my befuddled engrish <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->)

anyhoo, this is leading to a question, and it is not meant to be a challenge, but a question that you may already have figured out would be:

why? <!-- sConfusedtupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="Confusedtupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- sConfusedtupid: -->

why are there all those "Greek-isms" in a language that has words of its own to express the same thing? <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->

In Yeshua,
Z'ev Yochanan

Shlama Akhi Z'ev:
Give me an example of a "greekism". Do you mean "loan words"? For example the Greek word "nomos" became the Aramaic word "namusa". Both are used as Torah or Law in the New Testament. The Aramaic word for Torah is "aurayta" and is only used three times in the Peshitta, while all other times "namusa" is used. I'm not sure why "aurayta" isn't used more often. Only Yeshua used it, and only in Matthew 11:13, 12:5 and 22:40. Perhaps "nomos/namusa" was more commonly expressed as the idea of "common law or tradition" while "aurayta" had a more protected use among the Jews.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply
#3
Attention Yochannon,

I wrote to Re'eul trying to join the 'Ahavat Elohim' e-list.

I've heard nothing from him as of yet.

Could you ask him if he received my rather long e-mail about modern 'Messianic' translations that I wrote to him on on Erev Shabbat?

And I'd still like to join if he has had time pray about what I told him.

He'll know what you mean.

Thanks.

Shlama, Albion
Reply
#4
Albion Wrote:Attention Yochannon,

I wrote to Re'eul trying to join the 'Ahavat Elohim' e-list.

I've heard nothing from him as of yet.

Could you ask him if he received my rather long e-mail about modern 'Messianic' translations that I wrote to him on on Erev Shabbat?

And I'd still like to join if he has had time pray about what I told him.

He'll know what you mean.

Thanks.

Shlama, Albion
Shalom Albion,

i will be sure to e-mail him right away and c&p your post here. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

In Yeshua,
Z'ev Yochanan
Reply
#5
Stephen Silver Wrote:
Yochanan5730 Wrote:Shalomie Homies <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

as many know, i have been working on a personal translation/interpretation of the Aramaic New Covenant. i am neither a Greek primacist nor Aramaic primacist when it comes to the scripture. honestly, because i am getting the same results from both camps. the same arguments one way are posed in the other. one main argument for the Aramaic camp is that the Greek manuscripts contain alot of things that Aramaic can readily compensate for. now, i am, by no means, arguing for the Greek camp, but in my work of study i keep coming across a lot of, what i call, "Greek-isms". Greek words "Aramaicised" (i hope someone understands my befuddled engrish <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->)

anyhoo, this is leading to a question, and it is not meant to be a challenge, but a question that you may already have figured out would be:

why? <!-- sConfusedtupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="Confusedtupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- sConfusedtupid: -->

why are there all those "Greek-isms" in a language that has words of its own to express the same thing? <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->

In Yeshua,
Z'ev Yochanan

Shlama Akhi Z'ev:
Give me an example of a "greekism". Do you mean "loan words"? For example the Greek word "nomos" became the Aramaic word "namusa". Both are used as Torah or Law in the New Testament. The Aramaic word for Torah is "aurayta" and is only used three times in the Peshitta, while all other times "namusa" is used. I'm not sure why "aurayta" isn't used more often. Only Yeshua used it, and only in Matthew 11:13, 12:5 and 22:40. Perhaps "nomos/namusa" was more commonly expressed as the idea of "common law or tradition" while "aurayta" had a more protected use among the Jews.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->

Shalom Stephen,

yes, Namusa is one of them, there were a couple others that i can't find in my notes, but Namusa was what triggered the question yesterday. it still puzzles me <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->

In Yeshua,
Z'ev Yochanan
Reply
#6
Yochanan5730 Wrote:yes, Namusa is one of them, there were a couple others that i can't find in my notes, but Namusa was what triggered the question yesterday. it still puzzles me <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->

In Yeshua,
Z'ev Yochanan

Yochanan, have you checked out the FAQ section here? Here is a link to one thread.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=665">viewtopic.php?f=18&t=665</a><!-- l -->
Reply
#7
Shalom~Shlama Yochanan,

Way before Christian times, when the Peshitta targum was made from the pre-Massorah Tanakh, the word "Namusa" appears. For instance, see Deut. 31:9, where "Namusa" is used.

In other words, the Jews were using the word "Namusa" a long time before Meshikha and the NT was penned. It became a common loan-word in Aramaic, even in Mandean Aramaic ( see http://www.mandaeanworld.com/mandaean_glossary.html ). The Mandeans are, of course, neither Jewish nor Messianic.

+Shamasha Paul

(Incidentally, the reading above is from ???Sepra de Tanin Namusa??? (=the scroll of the Second Law), Devarim....or ???Deuteronomy???)
Reply
#8
Shlama Akhay kulkown,

I would like to give some examples supporting Peshitta primacy which I discovered while translating The Peshitta NT. These I have printed in my Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English; many are also in my Interlinear:

The following are from Acts 18:

5. And when Shila and Timotheos had come from Macedonia, Paulus was constrained in the word* because the Jews were opposing him and blaspheming as he was testifying to them that Yeshua is The Messiah.
??? Majority Greek & TR Greek has ???in his spirit???. Critical Greek agrees with The Peshitta reading.Following are the two readings in Pesher Habakkuk Dead Sea Scroll script:
)tlmb-???in the word???
)xwrb-???in the spirit???
I see 80% correlation between the letters of each (4/5). The two readings in Greek are: logw & pneumati.They have 0% correlation. How about in Greek uncial (capital letters) script? LOGW & PNEUMATI - 0% still! The Greek primacy theory just keeps taking a beating, for almost every example of Greek variant readings I can find!

6. And he shook his clothes and he said to them, "From now on I am clean; I myself go to the Gentiles."
The Greek mss. have, ???He said unto them, ???Your blood is upon your head???I am clean; henceforth to the nations I will go on.?????? Just a thought: One does not cleanse oneself of blood by shaking his clothes. The action does not fit the metaphor. Now look at the following two Aramaic phrases in Ashuri script an attempt to explain the Greek reading:
dSyrl lvw dmd ??????Your blood also is upon your head???
htybl lvw wmt ??? ???there & unto his house??? (phrase in verse 7)
(Please excuse the above blue Dalets for final Kaph and the blue distorted final Nun; Sil Ezra font does not provide final Kaph or final Nun)
In Dead Sea Scroll Script:
\$yrl l(w \md ??????Your blood also is upon your head???
htybl l(w }mt ??? ???there & unto his house??? (phrase in verse 7)
Estrangela script:
[font=estrangelo (v1.1)]K$yrl l(w Kmd[/font]??????Your blood also is upon your head???
[font=estrangelo (v1.1)]htybl l(w Nmt[/font] ??? ???there & entered his house??? (phrase in verse 7)
The two phrases in Dead Sea Scroll script (also called Herodian) show high correlation between letters of about 82%.
Ashuri and Estrangela scripts show about 73% letter correlations.

The Aramaic of the first phrase above is in the singular. A Greek translator would most likely correct this to read the plural ???your???- umwn instead of the singular ???your??? - sou , since Paul was addressing a large group in verse 6. In this scenario, it looks like the Greek translator???s eye went inadvertantly from verse 6 to verse 7 before he had finished translating, translated the 3 word phrase above and misread it as shown in DSS script, and then went back again to finish verse 6. The translator strangely would have then correctly translated the same Aramaic phrase as ??? ???There & unto the house???, when translating v. 7.

This next is from Acts 19:20:

Acts 19:20
And thus with great power the faith of God was increasing in strength and growing.
(Greek mss. have, tou kuriou o logov huxanen -???The word of the Lord increased???.) Here are both readings in Pesher DSS Aramaic:
)hl)d htwnmyh- ???the Faith of God???
)hl)d htlm-wh-???The word of God???
(???It is??? has been pushed into ???The word??? without spacing.) Greek sometimes interprets "Alaha" as "Kurios"-"Lord".(I have modified the above example slightly from my example in the book.) There is direct correlation in 7 out of 11 letters in DSS Aramaic between the two readings. The Greek for ???Faith of God??? is tou qeou j pistiv; Compare that to tou kuriou o logov-???The word of the Lord???. Only 3 letters out of twelve look similar in the Greek readings. This does not bode well for the Greek primacy position.

The following is from Acts 23:9

Acts 23:9
And there was a great noise. Some of the Scribes stood on the side of The Pharisees and were contending with them and they were saying, ???We find no evil in this man, but if a spirit or an Angel has spoken with him, what is there in that?"

* The Majority Greek text and TR (KJV Greek) has mj qeomacwmen -???Let us not fight God???. The Following are the actual Peshitta reading with the 2nd & 3rd words combined (hbty)) and the majority Greek reading in Aramaic below it, both in Dead Sea Scroll Aramaic script:
Peshitta reading in DSS Aramaic: )dhb hb.ty) )nm??????What is there in that ????
Maj. Greek reading in DSS Aram.: )rmb {wqn}nx )ld- ???Let us not resist The Lord???

(I have also modified the above example slightly from my example in the book.)
The Greek for "What is there in that would likely be: ti estin en ekeinw, which looks nothing like the Greek reading,mj qeomacwmen -???Let us not fight God???. An hypothetical Aramaic translator would never mistake the one Greek phrase for the other.
The two readings are very similar looking in the DSS Aramaic script, leading me to believe that a Greek translator mistook the one for the other and gave us the Majority Greek reading as found in The King James Version of this verse. The Critical Greek has neither the Majority Greek reading or Peshitta reading. It merely trails off at the end with: ???But if an spirit or a angel has spoken with him.??? That is a very poor and defective reading; it is not even a sentence.

I will give more of these later. They take some time to convert fonts for the forum. There are plenty to show in the epistles.


Blessings

Dave Bauscher - aramaicnt.com
Reply
#9
shanks ever-buddy <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

you have all been helpful and informative. yes, even you Dave <!-- sConfusedigh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sigh.gif" alt="Confusedigh:" title="Sigh" /><!-- sConfusedigh: --> <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Brother Paul,
thank you for the reference to the Tar'gumim. ummm, the deuteronomy reference, is that of either Onkelos or Yonathan or both? or is it from a different source. i have these in book form written with regular hebrew letters, but in Aramaic of course, and will straight way look for it <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> also, perhaps you could give me a bit of a history lesson about the Tar'gumim. i would like to see how the differences (if any) look between Jewish learning of the history of these things and Church of the east (?) <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> at the moment i have no questions that come to mind, but i would be very interested in what you would present. i am always open for instruction, especially with something that has really taken hold of my heart like the Aramaic New Covenant Writings and Yeshua, in general. i have only been Messianic for a little over a year, and have come out of Conservative Judaism.

as to whether or not believers in Mashi'ach call/consider themselves to be "Meshichi" (Messianic) is really of no issue to me. if they call on the blessed Name of Yeshua, they are my brothers and sisters, even if i/they disagree concerning the Torah. there is an old saying, Kill them all, let God sort them out. in the same manner concerning convictions on things that i readily admit could be either confusing or difficult to understand, i leave to God to sort out with each individual believer.

much love and blessings to every one <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Z'ev Yochanan
Reply
#10
Shlama Zev Yochannon,

I'm thinking that if you can read Hebrew that you might really like this edition of the P'shitta New Covenant:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicbooks.com/product_info.php?cPath=37&products_id=131">http://www.aramaicbooks.com/product_inf ... cts_id=131</a><!-- m -->

Check it out, and see what you think.

And....I also got an e-mail from Re'eul about joining your list.

Ask him about it, if you would, and he can explain it to you.

Thanks.

In Yeshua, Albion
Reply
#11
Shalom~Shlama Yochanan,

Really the way I understand it, the Church of the East came out of the synagogues in Babylon and Adiabene, so we brought along with us the common "Targum" of that time and geographic location, and that was what is known today as the Peshitta Tanakh~OT. The reading of "Namusa" I gave you from Deut. is from the Peshitta Targum.

In Beth-Nahrin, the common language was Aramaic (eastern) and since the people needed the Tanakh in a language they could understand, the Peshitta OT was made from the same Hebrew original that also lay behind the Masoretic and Septuagint.

The Mandeans (a gnostic sect in southern Iraq) also speak Aramaic, and they use this word from the Greek. I think it happened to creep into the language during the reign of Alexander in Mesopotamia. So by the time Meshikha came it was centuries in common use as a loan-word originally of Greek origin. Its presence, again, does nothing to harm our Aramaic primacy position, since it was used in an Aramaic translation of a Hebrew original (Deuteronomy). That proves that "Namusa" was simply an Aramaicised Greek word in common use before NT times.

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#12
Albion Wrote:Shlama Zev Yochannon,

I'm thinking that if you can read Hebrew that you might really like this edition of the P'shitta New Covenant:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicbooks.com/product_info.php?cPath=37&products_id=131">http://www.aramaicbooks.com/product_inf ... cts_id=131</a><!-- m -->

Check it out, and see what you think.

And....I also got an e-mail from Re'eul about joining your list.

Ask him about it, if you would, and he can explain it to you.

Thanks.

In Yeshua, Albion

Shalom Albion <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

i will have to wait on Re'u'el as he went to virginia for a meeting with our congregation's leadership. i did speak briefly about you and your desire to join, but he is a little hesitant because of a certain concern you have brought to his attention. with the organization's meeting he's been pretty wrapped up in things to really take the time to consider your issue, but upon return he intends to look into it further in prayer and counsel.

as to that link, i think it would be great for me to get my hands on that <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> the page that was shown was only the Hebrew side, i am interested in what the Aramaic text would look like. i can certainly recognize the khaburis text which is what i use, and i am starting to get the jist of the text in the Brittish and Foreign Bible Society's copy i have. i had to get used to some "different looping" of letters lol <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> anyhoo, thanks a bunch, i saved that page.

In Yeshua,
Z'ev Yochanan
Reply
#13
Paul Younan Wrote:Shalom~Shlama Yochanan,

Really the way I understand it, the Church of the East came out of the synagogues in Babylon and Adiabene, so we brought along with us the common "Targum" of that time and geographic location, and that was what is known today as the Peshitta Tanakh~OT. The reading of "Namusa" I gave you from Deut. is from the Peshitta Targum.

In Beth-Nahrin, the common language was Aramaic (eastern) and since the people needed the Tanakh in a language they could understand, the Peshitta OT was made from the same Hebrew original that also lay behind the Masoretic and Septuagint.

The Mandeans (a gnostic sect in southern Iraq) also speak Aramaic, and they use this word from the Greek. I think it happened to creep into the language during the reign of Alexander in Mesopotamia. So by the time Meshikha came it was centuries in common use as a loan-word originally of Greek origin. Its presence, again, does nothing to harm our Aramaic primacy position, since it was used in an Aramaic translation of a Hebrew original (Deuteronomy). That proves that "Namusa" was simply an Aramaicised Greek word in common use before NT times.

+Shamasha Paul
Shalom Paul <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

well, now i will have to find the OT peshitta text in Aramaic, that may be difficult. the University (Gonzaga) has the New Testament Peshitta and Peshitto. thank you for telling me some history. the funny thing is, is that i already knew some of that but stashed it away in my brain somewhere lol (i do that alot).

i did find the other two "Greek-isms" in my notes, but i didn't write the scriptural references for them. one was Arche, which i didn't write any info on, only "Arche" with "geekism" (yes GEEKism) written next to it. i don't even remember what it meant <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: --> and the other i got from the Brittish and Foreign Bible Society's (BFBS) PeshittO (1826) 2 John 7 (i was able to remember that one): [font=estrangelo (v1.1)]Sw=srky=n0[/font] (anti Christ).

i have learned a little about the difference between PeshittA and PeshittO <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> and for the record, i am not against any possibility for Aramaic Primacy, not one bit <!-- s:| --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/neutral.gif" alt=":|" title="Neutral" /><!-- s:| --> i did learn something about the PeshittO actually being translated back from the Greek (?) am i correct concerning this information? or am i remembering mixed memories (which happens to me sometimes, being hyperkenetic <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> ).

there is also another thing that struck me funny. i received a manuscript that i am using for my translation/interpretation from Gonzaga university. in the fifth chapter of 1 John, there are two different versions for certain verses! one version of these verses has 25 verses instead of the standard 21. it is written with the same script as the Khaburis (estrangelo?) and your interlinear. but i have also looked at other Khaburis manuscripts that didn't have these two different versions of verses. can you shed any light on this situation? or is this manuscript i have of 1 John an odd-ball manuscript? i do not know the date of the manuscript i have received, but i do know it's older than me (38 w/emotional maturity of a 15 y/o <!-- sBlush --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/blush.gif" alt="Blush" title="Blush" /><!-- sBlush --> ) lol.

also, in editing...
i have looked at 1 John 5 in the BFBS, and it has the standard 21 verses also...

anyhoo, much love and blessings, and thanks...
Z'ev Yochanan
Reply
#14
Yochanan wrote:
Quote:well, now i will have to find the OT peshitta text in Aramaic, that may be difficult. the University (Gonzaga) has the New Testament Peshitta and Peshitto. thank you for telling me some history. the funny thing is, is that i already knew some of that but stashed it away in my brain somewhere lol (i do that alot).

Shlama Akhi Yochanan:
The Peshitta AN"K has been on the internet for some time. The Ambrosiano Codex is freely available for download. When prompted
USER=any
PASSWORD=any
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://alpha.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/BibleMSS/7a1">http://alpha.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2 ... bleMSS/7a1</a><!-- m -->

You can also find this LINK at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->

The Ambrosiano Codex contains the entire Peshitta AN"K, the Apocrypha and The Wars of the Jews in classic Aramaic Estrangelo text type. It's relatively easy reading considering the expertise of the scribe(s).

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#15
Akhan Yochanan,

Languages are funny sometimes. I remember having a discussion one day with my Lebanese-born mother in Neo-Aramaic over the phone. She told me she had gone to see the "dokhtor" that morning for her back pain. Being a smart-a**, I asked her why she insisted on using a loan-word from English when there's a perfectly good word for physician in Aramaic, "Asya". I could see "computer" or "internet", since these words are relatively new to the world and simply don't have an Aramaic word to describe them. But "physician?" Medicine has been practiced in Mesopotamia for how long, Mom?

Her reply was "The Iraqis say Asya, we Lebanese say Dokhtor....live with it."

I guess English and French were second languages in Lebanon while she was growing up. Explains her use of "Garson" for the waiter....even at middle-eastern restaurants. Yes, there's an Aramaic word for "waiter" as well. But "Garson" sounded better to her in the middle of an otherwise proper Aramaic sentence. Go figure.

I said all that to say this: there are lots of loan-words in Semitic languages from a variety of other languages, Greek is no exception. And vice-versa, Greek is like a sponge when it comes to outside influences, especially Semitic. English is another sponge. All languages enrich themselves in this manner, unless they are isolated in the Amazon rain forest or something like that.

How loan-words come into existence in the first place can be a wonderful study of history and basic human psyche that is beyond the scope of my learning, but not my experience.

Aramaic, especially Neo-Aramaic, contains little presents from every other culture we've ever come into contact with. Aramaic is alive, and constantly evolving. The only language that doesn't change over time is a dead language.

To my mother, "Garson" and "Dokhtor" were as Aramaic as "Abba" and "Maranatha" and you'd better not tell her otherwise lest she label you an Iraqi.

+Shamasha Paul

PS - 2 John, with its "Antee-Christos" isn't part of the Peshitta. It was translated from the Greek....which may have had an Aramaic original, who knows.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)