03-04-2013, 07:49 PM
memradya Wrote:Shlama' Younan and Steve
After your "disputatio" about the dialect of Jesus, I want to know your opinion : Did Jesus use one ?international? dialect with maybe some dialectal adaptations (Jesus would have use a single dialect in Galilee, Samaria, Judea and was understood) or did Jesus use several dialects according to the place where he was preaching (he used Galilean in Galilee, Samaritan Aramaic in Samaria to be understood)?
John the Baptist (a Judean and not a Galilean according to Luke 1:39) would have used the same dialect as Jesus?
And if you have some texts testimoniing the galilean dialect, I'd be habby to know them.... <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
There was no "international dialect" since the splintering of Imperial Aramaic into local dialects. Judean, Galilean and Samaritan, were all quite readily intelligible; however, intelligibility was closest between Galilean and Samaritan, the two being Western dialects as opposed to to Judean which was Eastern. Judean Aramaic speakers are on record finding the language and pronunciation of Galilean and Samaritan odd. Some Rabbis found it even worthy of ridicule, in later times banning Galileans to speak in their own synagogues during services for fear that they'd mispronounce something and offend God, himself (no joke).
In fact, this Eastern-Western divide is why so few Galilean manuscripts (especially from the mid to later Byzantine era) are in such poor condition. The Western Aramaic text was preserved by Eastern Aramaic speaking scribes who, over time, sought to "correct" all of the "errors" in the manuscripts to "proper Aramaic"... not knowing that those "errors" *were* proper Western Aramaic to begin with. (E. Y. Kutscher gives good account of this in "Studies in Galilean Aramaic" where he lists a number of manuscripts that demonstrate the dialect's grammar and quirks; these are Rabbinic works, there are no New Testament manuscripts in Galilean.)
In any case, it's quite likely (most likely even) that Jesus used his own dialect to preach, regardless of where he was and there is some evidence for that in the New Testament (as his followers were known for being Galileans by their speech). He would also know a few Latin and Greek loan words, but the Galilean dialect had assimilated a number of those for a while. As an illustration, a friend of mine who speaks American English went to the University of Glasgow for 4 years. He took his classes speaking in American English, gave his dissertation in American English, graduated without problem. He never once had to don Scottish English, himself, to get by. As a result, there was occasional confusion when he would use American idioms or miss Scottish idioms, and he was immediately identifiable as an American. Using Scottish English idioms were novel, and he avoided them as it usually got him an odd look (who was this American trying to speak like a Scot? :-) ). He also came home speaking American English.
Now, if he had to take his classes in Highland Scots, that dialect is far enough away to cause difficulty to the untrained ear. He would have to take classes just to understand his coursework if that were the case, or work through an interpreter.
Modern Aramaic dialects are vastly different from each other, like how Romance Languages (as I mentioned earlier) evolved away from Vulgar Latin. Much more different than between Galilean, Samaritan, and Judean Aramaic of Jesus' day. However, some words just weren't found in any of those dialects as they were coined outside of their borders, and therefore would be -- logically -- rather odd to hear on Jesus' lips. Likewise, known idioms and vocabulary in his mother dialect in that environment -- logically -- would have been common. :-)
More later. :-)