Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Aramaic NT EXCLUSIVITY
#1
Shlama all--

I have had something on my mind that I wanted to share. We spend a lot of time focused on Aramaic NT PRIMACY which of course is crucial, but I have also been thinking about another aspect, Aramaic NT EXCLUSIVITY.

This is what I mean. In addition to the considerations of which text came first, we should also think about those precious Aramaic words that have NO COGNATES ANYWHERE ELSE, including Hebrew. Those words and ideas then take us to a level of understanding that is simply not possible anywhere else.

So while it is true that understanding Hebrew and seeing how Tanakh terms have carried over intact into Peshitta is a terrific thing to do, that level of concordance can also be a tad misleading. There have been many times that I have literally had to try to "forget" Hebrew so the Aramaic could speak more clearly to me, whereas if we always think there are equivalents what happens is we get complacent. I cannot tell you how many times over the years I have had to correct some incredible Hebrew scholars because they thought TOO HEBRAICALLY and didn't see differences in dialect or language.

For example, while MILTHA has some parallels with DAVAR and MEMRA it is not completely those words and can go beyond them. Or with QNOMA, there is absolutely no Hebrew cognate of that AT ALL. It is a concept that is exclusive to the Aramaic NT that, while not contradicting Tanakh, provides a level of detail clearly beyond Tanakh.

I am thinking about this stuff because we are in the Days of Awe and because I am writing some materials for conventional Jews that may appear on <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aent.org">www.aent.org</a><!-- w -->. Truth be told I am still thinking about exactly how to say what is on my mind there, but the gist of the process is that some might say: "Yes, Andrew you are right that we all need to learn the language of Scripture and that we shouldn't rely just on English translations, but I don't need to learn Aramaic. I already know Hebrew and can read Aramaic NT materials in the same alap-beet." They might go on to rightly point out how similar Hebrew and Aramaic are as languages, and so on.

But, to NOT go that extra mile. To NOT learn the Aramaic of the Peshitta, even for Hebrew masters, is I believe to divorce oneself from the best opportunity to understand how Y'shua actually thought and in some cases, we know Y'shua was misunderstood by even Hebrew speakers, like those who were at the execution stake and thought he was calling on Elijah.

Sometimes it also works the other way. There is no equivalent in Aramaic of Hebrew NESHAMA either--Peshitta Tanakh translates it as ruach or nefesh, but the overwhelming trend that I see is in the other direction.

Not sure where this discussion might go, but I wanted to mention it anyway.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#2
I wholeheartedly agree, this is definitely an area of study we should delve into. Maybe compile some articles on Qnuma, Melta and other words unique to Aramaic?

And I agree with reading too "Hebraically", Aramaic is similar to Hebrew but it's not Hebrew, people should make an effort to go beyond the similarities and delve into the unique nuances of certain words in the Peshitta.

Wish I could add something more helpful but I'm no expert and at the moment can't think of anything you haven't already covered.
Reply
#3
Akhay,

There's another level of exploration as well. For instance, the "Qudashe" example where only in a certain dialect of Aramaic does the root mean "earring". So there are possibilities there for not properly understanding the context of a teaching unless the particular milieu of that dialect is studied.

+Shamasha
Reply
#4
Shabbat Shalama Akhi,

I have been exploring the concept of Aramaic Exclusivity if you do not mind that I take your ideas to different dimension. I have been reviewing several grammar text books (for english readers) of Chaldee/Aramaic that were published during the late 18th through the early 20th centuries. Nearly all of the text books require the student to have a prerequisite of Hebrew. I wondered, what if the Peshitta OT & NT were more widely used for study and litergy? The only way this could become a reality is to have a paradigm shift amongst independant bible researchers. The appreciation for the reliability and importance of Aramaic toward our understanding of the ancient Israelite & Judean sacred writings is crucial for the dissolution of ignorance of the authentic writings of the Nazareans . There are not many resources available to teach Aramaic as a primary biblical language to my awareness. I would love to inspire all of us here to consider this proposal to use the interrelationship of these "sibling" languages to elevate Aramaic to its rightful place of importance in bible study and devotion.
Reply
#5
Oz-Hareef Wrote:Shabbat Shalama Akhi,

I have been exploring the concept of Aramaic Exclusivity if you do not mind that I take your ideas to different dimension. I have been reviewing several grammar text books (for english readers) of Chaldee/Aramaic that were published during the late 18th through the early 20th centuries. Nearly all of the text books require the student to have a prerequisite of Hebrew. I wondered, what if the Peshitta OT & NT were more widely used for study and litergy? The only way this could become a reality is to have a paradigm shift amongst independant bible researchers. The appreciation for the reliability and importance of Aramaic toward our understanding of the ancient Israelite & Judean sacred writings is crucial for the dissolution of ignorance of the authentic writings of the Nazareans . There are not many resources available to teach Aramaic as a primary biblical language to my awareness. I would love to inspire all of us here to consider this proposal to use the interrelationship of these "sibling" languages to elevate Aramaic to its rightful place of importance in bible study and devotion.

Shlama Oz-Hareef:
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting Aramaic exclusivity in the study of the Peshitta AN"K (Old Testament) and the Peshitta New Testament to the exclusion of learning Hebrew. Am I correct? If so this would be an incomplete study of the scriptures. The Jewish Bible (TN"K/Old Testament) was originally written in Hebrew. The Hebrew TN"K was translated into the Aramaic Peshitta AN"K. It's critically important to study the TN"K as it was given the same as it's important to study the New Testament as it was given. They're sister Semitic languages which were used by the Jewish writers of the Bible. The first century Nazarenes were only part of the revelation given, an important part I must add. However, you must know that learning to read the Jewish Bible containing the (T)orah/LAW-(N)eviim/Prophets-(K)etuvim/Writings in their original language is just good and complete. That's why it's important to learn Hebrew.


Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#6
Shlama to you Oz-Hareef and welcome to the forum Many thanks also for your question.

Someone asked here a while ago if any of us subscribed to the idea that the Peshitta Tanakh was an original version, and the prevailing opinion here was no. We know the Peshitta Tanakh was a translation from Hebrew sources. However, it is a very undervalued translation from those same Hebrew sources. It seems the LXX gets all the good press! <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

But on the other hand we know the Masoretic Text did not reach final standardized form until the 11th century, although I believe it to be an essential standardization that has many ancient marks on it, like Isaiah for example matching up so well with the Dead Seas Scrolls from a thousand years earlier.

I agree with Stephen Silver when he talks about Tanakh being originally in hebrew and in the need to study Hebrew, but I would also argue that the Aramaic Tanakh, along with Targums and some other key pieces of Jewish liturgy also in that language, beg for attention that has long been denied them.

My view in this regard may not be popular simply because I advocate a lot of additional work in learning both languages, but I also think that since many of here love the Peshitta Aramaic NT and study that, there is no harm in reading the Peshitta Tanakh in the same language and then switching over to the Hebrew Tanakh which many of us learned first anyway. The overarching point then to me is that all of Scripture was revealed within a Semitic framework and that the aspects of that framework need to be appreciated both collectively and separately, for the insights that come sometimes only in one language over the other.

The most common complaint I get about this is ironically the easiest to remedy--a lot fo folks who are comfortable in square script "Hebrew"" aka ktav ashurri, don't want to learn estrangela or some of the other forms of Aramaic. To me, I always found estrangela easier than Hebrew, but I guess that's just me. In any case there are resources that have the Aramaic in pointed Hebrew script too for those who may need it at present.

Hope this helps!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)