Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Name hope vs. islands law
#61
Hello Paul,
I think I should have explained it more properly. It was my mistake. I was writing about Hebrew which evolved during Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD) through preserved Old Hebrew documents and Aramaic.

What I meant by Aramaic being the language of first century AD is that there are people out there trying to make it look like Hebrew was the major spoken language of first century AD. They claim that Aramaic was just a secondary language used in first century AD which is a vast lie.

We know that everybody spoke Aramaic in first century AD. Not a single person in first century AD used Hebrew as a spoken language. We also know that Greek wasn't spoken among Jews in first century AD either.

By using Hasmonean coins inscribed in Hebrew, they tried to claim that Hebrew must have been the spoken language of Hasmoneans. But my reply was that it could have been minted by Bar Kokhba and his men during Bar Kokhba revolt since he admired Hasmoneans and he even minted coins to honor national liberation. Just because George Washington appears in our $1 bill doesn't mean that he is still alive.

I agree with you that Aramaic was the language of Abraham and his family. Even Josephus points out that the name "Melchizedek" is Aramaic in Jewish Wars Book six.

But I have a question. Didn't Jacob speak both Old Hebrew and Aramaic since he calls Aramaic words "Jegar Sahadutha" as Galeed?

Paul, I thought Old Hebrew was the common language of Jews from the time period of Moses until the destruction of first temple of Jerusalem in 587 BC although educated Jewish scholars knew Aramaic.

konway87
Reply
#62
Quote:But I have a question. Didn't Jacob speak both Old Hebrew and Aramaic since he calls Aramaic words "Jegar Sahadutha" as Galeed?
While Paul is likely busy let me tell my logic.
"Jegar Sahadutha" represents paternal Aramaic and
" Galeed" represents new form of Aramaic influenced and shaped by Canaanite environment.
Logically for me it is so and Paul is right that when Abraham crossed the river, he did not immediately forget his Aramaic language.
The word Hebrews is from word "avar" - to cross, they crossed the river and were called the Crossers or Hebrews. Then the Aramaic was developed into Mishnaic Hebrew and so on.
Reply
#63
Thanks, IPostapyuk. It looks like Aramaic is responsible for giving birth to Old Hebrew. I agree that Abraham didn't forget his language.

Here is the link where they sell coins that claim to be from first century AD.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.gilai.com/cat_21/Jewish-Revolt-Coins">http://www.gilai.com/cat_21/Jewish-Revolt-Coins</a><!-- m -->

The problem is these coins are inscribed in Hebrew. Not Aramaic. So I believe these coins were made during Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD) since it was Bar Kokhba who wanted to restore Hebrew as the spoken language of Jews instead of Aramaic.
Reply
#64
konway87 Wrote:... since it was Bar Kokhba who wanted to restore Hebrew as the spoken language of Jews instead of Aramaic.

Akhi Konway,

Perhaps it would help if you didn't think of it as "Hebrew ... instead of ... Aramaic", but rather, that various Hebrew incarnations (and, Arabic) are forms of Aramaic (some closer, some farther from their root.)

As you would expect European Spanish to evolve in Mexico (borrowing terms, phrases and linguistic features from the native tribes), so you would expect Aramaic in Canaan to evolve into "Hebrew."

Incidentally, "Gal-ed" from "Galal" (rolled) and "Uwd" (repeat, bear witness) are also roots shared with Aramaic (and, Arabic, and even old Assyrian (Akkadian.))

Both "Galed" and "Jegar Sahadutha" are two ways of saying the same thing, in the same language, they are synonymous. Think in English of "home" and "abode". The preference of which one to use varies based on the person and the region.

By the time of Jacob, this was two generations into Canaan. Still, he went back to his native homeland (Aram) for his wives (Rachel and Leah), who were Arameans like their father Laban.

These people did not speak "Hebrew" in the sense of the language as it was known by the time of Moses and the penning of the OT. It is not as if Rachel, Leah and their father Laban didn't speak Aramaic, as they were Arameans (like Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Jacob.)

+Shamasha
Reply
#65
Thanks a lot, Paul. So Aramaic in Canaan is another dialect of Aramaic that evolved into Old Hebrew.

But I have one more question. Unlike the time period of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, shouldn't the terms "Aramaic" and "Hebrew" be differentiated as 2 different languages starting from the time period of Moses to 587 BC and also from Bar Kokhba revolt to present day?
Reply
#66
Shlama Akhi,

You can think of Aramaic and Hebrew as the same language with different habits and preferences. Over time those habits became solidified. That is the reason why 90% of the roots are the same.

+Shamasha
Reply
#67
Paul, That kind of confuses me.

Isn't the relationship between Aramaic and Hebrew like the relationship between Romance languages like Italian and Spanish (used in Spain)?

Before you posted about this subject, I was under the impression that many Aramaic idioms and Many Aramaic words were actually borrowed into Hebrew when Hebrew was revived as a spoken language under Bar Kokhba revolt due to the fact that Aramaic was the spoken language of Israeli Jews up to that time period.

As you know, Idioms are usually created "conversationally." Since Hebrew wasn't used as a spoken language for centuries, I was under the impression that the Idioms used in Aramaic were borrowed into Hebrew when Hebrew was revived as a spoken language to replace Aramaic.

Just like 60% of the vocabulary of Latin language were borrowed into Modern English which made Modern English very different from Old English and this caused Modern English to be closer to Latin language.

Just like that, I thought many of Aramaic words and Aramaic Idioms were borrowed into Hebrew in second century making Hebrew closer to Aramaic like Italian and Spanish.
Reply
#68
Shlama Akhi

The relationship between Aramaic and Hebrew is nothing like the relationship between Italian and Spanish.

The former relationship is not simply linguistic, but also by blood and culture.

The latter is a slight linguistic relationship based in a history of a large empire. In other words, the Spaniards did not emigrate as a single family from Italy, and did not originally speak Italian.

In Canaan, as the generations of Hebrews grew farther apart from their Aramaic base, so did their speech. Being slaves in Egypt didn't help matters much, either.

If you want a closer case study than Italian and Spanish, study the history of the various Polynesian languages.

Like Aramaic and Hebrew, these languages and their distinctions came from a common stock culturally, genetically. Migrants went to other islands and settled, and although the languages are close in many ways, they also over time diverged from each other in many ways.

+Shamasha
Reply
#69
Paul, I was generalizing in terms of the relationship. What I meant was Aramaic and Hebrew belong to the Semitic Family while Italian and Spanish belong to the family of Romance languages. Because of that, we also see strong similarities. For Example, the word "Pizza" is same in Italian and Spanish - La Pizza. But when it comes to the plural form, they differ. Italian would say "Le Pizze" while Spanish would say "las pizzas." The definite article for the plural form of Italian and Spanish are different from each other. Just like this, Aramaic word "Kahna" will become "Ha Kohen" in Hebrew due to differentiation in definite article. Same word. But the change comes as the result of differentiation in definite article.

Paul, If I particularize this subject, then I believe that Aramaic and Hebrew is just like the relationship between my native tongue "Malayalam" and "Tamil" (the language of neighboring state of Kerala).
Reply
#70
Shlama Akhi

I understand your point. Like I stated earlier, what's different in this case is that one language evolved from another in a different area, but from people who were descendants of the other language group. In that way, the relationship is much different than that between the Romance languages.

Of particular importance is the early generations. They must have spoken Aramaic, since they were Arameans. Then, their speech evolved to be something similar, but unique. Then, due to their exile back to their original Mesopotamia, their speech returned to the original. By the time of Christ, they spoke the same language as that of the original Hebrews.

None of these things are true with any Romance languages, or even with Tamil vs Malayalam.

Make sense?

+Shamasha
Reply
#71
One more variant I admit is that little Hebrews quickly picked up
dialect of some Canaanite tribe where they lived. But this tribe language probably was evolved from Sumerian which descended from Akkadian, not sure about the history.
All is clear since they are similar they descended from one paternal language that was broken into dialects like Aramaic, Arabic, Amharic, Tigrinya etc.
Reply
#72
Paul, I have another question. But isn't Hebrew that was revived from the time period of Bar Kokhba revolt very different from Old Hebrew used by Moses, David, and others?
Reply
#73
konway87 Wrote:Paul, I have another question. But isn't Hebrew that was revived from the time period of Bar Kokhba revolt very different from Old Hebrew used by Moses, David, and others?

Of course. How can a language that was dead, be resurrected to look exactly like it was before ?

Look at modern Hebrew to see how different a language can become after centuries of disuse.

Even if it hasn't died out, living languages evolve from generation to generation. The "Hebrew" of bar-Kokhba wouldn't look like that of Moses even if it had never died out.

A language that is not evolving is a dead language. Like Latin. It is fixed in time.

+Shamasha
Reply
#74
This must be included to the topic
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=3412">viewtopic.php?f=31&t=3412</a><!-- l -->
Reply
#75
Hello Ivan,
Here is another error in Hebrew Masoretic Text.

Isaiah 8:19-20 (Lamsa Translation of Peshitta Tanakh) - "And when they shall say to you, Inquire of men who have familiar spirits and of wise men who chirp and mutter, these men are not God?s people, who inquire of the dead concerning the living. As for the law and the testimony, if they do not speak according to this word, it is because they do not receive a bribe for it."

Isaiah 8:19-20 (Septuagint) - "And if they should say to you, Seek those who have in them a divining spirit, and them that speak out of the earth, them that speak vain words, who speak out of their belly: shall not a nation diligently seek to their God? why do they seek to the dead concerning the living? For he has given the law for a help, that they should not speak according to this word, concerning which there are no gifts to give for it."

Peshitta Tanakh has Shokhad which means bribe or gift or reward. That's why Septuagint has gifts.

But Hebrew Masoretic text has shakhar in Isaiah 8:20 which means light.

Isaiah 8:19-20 (JPS Tanakh 1917 of Hebrew Masoretic Text) - "And when they shall say unto you: ?Seek unto the ghosts and the familiar spirits, that chirp and that mutter; should not a people seek unto their God? on behalf of the living unto the dead. for instruction and for testimony???Surely they will speak according to this word, where in there is no light."
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)