Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jesus spoke in Galilean Aramaic or any other dialects?
#1
Shlama all,

Recently I read the article in http://aramaicnt.org/what-is-galilean-aramaic/

Is it true that the Eastern Aramaic-speaking scribes just for preservation?

Thank you.
Reply
#2
Most Aramaic dialects are mutually intelligible, including Galilean Aramaic and Assyrian Aramaic (Syriac). The Galilean words use in the Greek Gospels are pretty much the same as their Assyrian counterparts. As Brother Steve shows, there are differences between the two dialects but not enough to make it where Galileans, Judeans, and Assyrians couldn't understand each other. Judean (referred to as "Hebrew" in the New Covenant writings) was different from Galilean also, but the primary difference was probably the accents. The Galileans were the 1st century Jewish rednecks <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->. The Samaritan dialect (likely influenced by the Assyrian dialect due to their Jewish-Assyrian heritage) could have easily influenced some aspects of Galilean speech.
Reply
#3
The Judeans called our Lord a "Samaritan" once, as recorded in the Gospel of John. John 8:48 "The Jews answered and they were saying to him, ?Are we not saying correctly that you are a Samaritan and have a demon in you??

In thinking (in error) that He was a "Samaritan", it was a great stumbling block to them.
Reply
#4
If then, based on http://www.peshitta.org/initial/aramaic.html written by akhi Paul and http://aramaicdesigns.rogueleaf.com/about-aramaic/

So the Middle Aramaic, 200 B.C. - 200 A.D here is Old Galilean?
and Late Aramaic, 200-700 here is 'Syriac' time (using Estrangela script) and
Modern Aramaic, 700 to our time here is 'Swadaya/Serto' script (modern/neo-Assyrian time?).

I need your enlightment.

Tawdee
Reply
#5
Bram Wrote:If then, based on http://www.peshitta.org/initial/aramaic.html written by akhi Paul and http://aramaicdesigns.rogueleaf.com/about-aramaic/

So the Middle Aramaic, 200 B.C. - 200 A.D here is Old Galilean?
and Late Aramaic, 200-700 here is 'Syriac' time (using Estrangela script) and
Modern Aramaic, 700 to our time here is 'Swadaya/Serto' script (modern/neo-Assyrian time?).

I need your enlightment.

Tawdee

Hi Bram

Please keep in mind also, that those time period classifications are very general. For instance, there are dozens of varieties and dialects of modern Aramaic today. The same was true of all of those periods of time. Aramaic is a monolith of a language. People who spoke it in any time period dealt with a myriad of variation in their experience. You become very good at being multi-dialectic.

Just like modern Assyrians don't just speak one dialect individually, our Lord and His disciples didn't just speak just one dialect, either.

+Shamasha
Reply
#6
Shlama amman Shamasha Paul,

Quote:Just like modern Assyrians don't just speak one dialect individually, our Lord and His disciples didn't just speak just one dialect, either.

+Shamasha

I agree with you that our Lord and His disciples didn't speak just one dialect (or maybe spoke other languages either at that time-I'm sorry if I was wrong <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> )

Shokha lawa o lawra wal rokha dqodsha.
Reply
#7
Shlama all,

@Brother Steve Caruso:

when I read your article such as:
http://aramaicdesigns.rogueleaf.com/about-aramaic/

Quote:The Syriac Peshitta is not
the "original Aramaic New Testament."

There several several Syriac versions prior to it, and Syriac itself is a dialect that did not crystalize until around 200 AD and did not become a major literary dialect until 400 AD

My question is:
1. What's the major literary dialect until around 200 AD? Galilean Aramaic? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

and you wrote at http://aramaicnt.org/what-is-galilean-aramaic/ I quote such as:

Quote:Early Galilean Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus, is a language that has all but fallen into obscurity.

Quote:Sadly, in the 600s AD with the rise of the first Patriarchal Caliphate, Galilean was quickly supplanted as the everyday language in Galilee by Arabic, and the linguistically ?orphaned? Western, Galilean texts soon fell into the hands of Eastern Aramaic-speaking scribes for preservation.

Quote:As these scribes transmitted and re-copied these texts over the next thousand years, they were amazed at how many ?errors? they found in them. They took it upon themselves to freely correct the spelling and grammar mistakes wherever they came across them. At the time, they did not realize that most of these ?errors? were not mistakes at all, but were proper Galilean Aramaic.

From the information above it seems to me that you want to say that the 'proper dialect' at the life time of Jesus and His disciples was the only one 'dialect' that is 'Galilean dialect' rather than 'multi-dialects' (forgive me if I'm wrong here). <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Tawdee
Reply
#8
Shlama Akhi Bram

I think you raise valid questions. They are very important to consider. Not because Jesus didn't speak an obscure dialect as his "home" dialect (much the same way modern Aramaic speakers do.) but because of the assumption that this home dialect was the only one, or that this home dialect was what the NT must have been committed to in writing.

As you might know, at "home" I speak the Mazraa sub-dialect of the Tkhuma tribe from the Hakkari mountains in Turkey. As hillbilly a dialect of modern Neo-Aramaic as you can find. But that's not what I speak outside the "home", unless it's with fellow Mazraa-naye. I either speak the koine dialect of Assyrian Iraqi Koine, or Urmi, or Tyari, or whomever I'm with's dialect.

Jesus and the Apostles did the same thing. The scripture verify this. It's impossible to have preached to the Syrians, Lebanese, Mesopotamians, Judeans, Galileans, etc. in one single dialect. Pentecost would have been impossible.

+Shamasha
Reply
#9
The people of various countries clearly understood Jesus fine, showing that there was not great difference among the various Aramaic dialects (especially not to the degree that one should be called "Syriac" instead of "Assyrian Aramaic", much like Jesus's dialect is "Galilean Aramaic" and not "Galiliac"). Jesus clearly was able to converse in Assyrian Aramaic, Samaritan Aramaic, and Judean Aramaic with no problem. I'm sure that the biggest difference between Galilean and other Aramaic dialects was the accent. Sure, there would be some vocabulary and grammar differences, but it couldn't be that much. Mandaic is an example of one of the few dialects that would probably be harder for Aramaic speakers to figure out, but I'm sure a native Aramaic speaker would figure it out eventually.
Reply
#10
Matthew 26: 69 - 73 (RSV):

[69] Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a maid came up to him, and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean."
[70] But he denied it before them all, saying, "I do not know what you mean."
[71] And when he went out to the porch, another maid saw him, and she said to the bystanders, "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth."
[72] And again he denied it with an oath, "I do not know the man."
[73] After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you."

Peter has no idea how he is being identified! He communicates properly. He understands them and he does not say, "As I say in Galilee, I do not know the man". They understand him.

"Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you."

CW
Reply
#11
Quote:Early Galilean Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus, is a language that has all but fallen into obscurity.

He seems to have believed all the imaginary assumptions of the Greek bible critics these days, that the words of Jesus have sadly been forgotten and lost, that the Aramaic words of Jesus we have today, are not the same ones that the Apostles and 1st century Christians heard/read/spoke.

Not so. As Jesus Himself said: "Heaven and earth will pass away; and my words will not pass away." I'm sticking with Jesus on that statement.



.
Reply
#12
Thirdwoe Wrote:
Quote:Early Galilean Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus, is a language that has all but fallen into obscurity.

He seems to have believed all the imaginary assumptions of the Greek bible critics these days, that the words of Jesus have sadly been forgotten and lost, that the Aramaic words of Jesus we have today, are not the same ones that the Apostles and 1st century Christians heard/read/spoke.

Not so. As Jesus Himself said: "Heaven and earth will pass away; and my words will not pass away." I'm sticking with Jesus on that statement.



.

I love Akhan Steve. But I think, if pressed hard enough, he would readily admit that it's all presumption, based on reconstructionalist methodology. Those who hold to this position, do so on pure conjecture, and not a single shred of primary evidence. Not a single letter of a single Aramaic word, preserved in any text that is attributed to Jesus or any direct apostle, shows any trace of this mysteriously lost dialect.

"Talitha Qumi", "Maran Atha", "Raqa", "Abba", "Ely, lama shwaqthani", etc., are all valid Aramaic words/phrases in any dialect. They are universal. As easily recognized and understood in "eastern" as in "western" locales. Not an iota of difference. Zip.

The apostles would've had *zero* luck evangelizing any Aramaic area (outside their own insignificant little villages), if they purposely chose to speak like hillbillies out in public. You saw Peter was ashamed and denied his own accent, trying to cover it up. It's not something to be proud of. Not to mention writing like hillbillies ... which would've been even worse for their cause.

Nevertheless, these same scholars have no problem attributing eloquent Greek writing, to these same hillbilly fishermen. Peter could write masterful Greek, apparently. But he couldn't write in proper Aramaic, unless it was hillbilly Aramaic. Sigh. <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

+Shamasha
Reply
#13
Shlama All,

For Shamasha Paul and friends here, thank you for the enlightment for the topics here as I just 'inherit' Jesus just by the Church teaching (as I'm a Protestant) that's why it's would be valuable for me to get in touch here to ask about Jesus' history, language/dialect/accents, and else.

For Akhan Steve Caruso, actually I would learn much from you about Galilean Aramaic as we met online in another forum online (FB).

Marya khasa khtahe osakhlwata dodaik.

Tawdee

Bram (Rudolf)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)