Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bethesda
#1
October 22, 2003

In the Peshitta interlinear NT in John 5:2 it says [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0dsx-tyb ty0rb9[/font] which is translated "in Hebrew Beth-Khisda". My Greek interlinear says "Hebrew" here means "Aramaic", but that is apparently wrong. The various variations for Beth-Khisda include Beth-zatha, Bethsaida, and Bethesda (a city in Maryland).

Can someone explain what is going on linguistically?

Thanks....

Otto
Reply
#2
When clearing some old e-mail clutter I have found this piece. Although it does not explain everything linguistically it might shed some light on the phrase "which is called in Hebrew" for some folks. It's been already posted to this forum in 2006 with the author's permission.
----------

>> From: Jerzy .... <Jerzy.... [AT]...>
>> To: andrew[AT]...
>> Subject: Ruach Qadim [..] and one question
>> Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 10:52:02 +0200
>>
>> Shalom Mr. Roth,
[...]
>>
>>
>> I also have one question. If Peshitta is the original (and not a translation), then why in John 5:2 it is stated "which is called in Hebrew Beth-Khisda" (I am quoting interlinear translation from <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">http://www.peshitta.org</a><!-- m -->) ? Why the author had to insert word "in Hebrew" ? Is it because Aramaic speakers would not understand this word? I would appreciate if you could give me some pointer where I can find explanation of this.

Andrew Roth wrote:
> Shalom to you Jerzy,
>
> Please understand I cannot get into an extended debate as there are too many demands on my time. I will not be available for such for the forseeable future in fact.
[...]
>
> However, I will answer your question briefly by saying that you have set up a false example that does not lead to the proof you think it does. Loan words between Hebrew and Aramaic, and Aramaic to Greek are inevitable in first century literature from Palestine, as it reflects the reality not just of Roman domination (and they spoke Greek in the provinces, Latin at home) but of Seleucid domination in the century prior to Messiah. In fact, if the Peshitta had no such glosses or loan words but was what some erroneously call "pure Aramaic", it would be proven to be a fraud.
>
> Place names would also vary between Hebrew and Aramaic, and so for clarity's sake, it is easy to see how original Aramaic scripture would reference the liturgical Hebrew name of a sacred Hebrew place. The Aramaic audience might have been anticipating that targumed but UNOFFICIAL Aramaic name, so when John chooses the Hebrew, and KNOWING that most common folk don't know the Hebrew as well as their everyday Aramaic tongue (Hebrew was spoken by rote, liturgically, but was not what they did business in, spoke at home, etc), it is easy to see why he would say "in Hebrew". That way, his audience is not confused. To see why this is true from archaeology and other primary evidence, please consult LEARNING THE BASICS on my website for more information.
>
> Now, many Greek primacists use similar arguments to yours with respect to scribal glosses (phrases that classify words with "which is interpreted as...") but the fact is they are shooting the arrow and drawing the target later. The Peshitta, just so you know, does NOT contain 95% of these glosses BECAUSE it is an Aramaic word that they do understand. However, sometimes, an Aramaic word spoken by Y'shua has many possible meanings and so the Gospel writer, unwilling to alter sacred utterances, adds a note to tell the reader what meaning is intended.
>
> For an example of this type, see Mark 3:17. The Aramaic term BNAY RAGHSHEE (Greek is corrupted as "boanerges") could mean, as it does here "sons of thunder". But RAGSHEE can mean a half a dozen things OTHER than thunder as well (feeling, perception, to massage and other oddities). Can you imagine James and John being called "sons of massages"???? To avoid this kind of comical error, Mark adds in his native language, D'AYTOHI REAMA (that is, thunder) to his narrative. REAMA, as you might guess ONLY means thunder, and is therefore the only meaning it shares with RAGHSHEE, clarifying the original phrase.
>
> So you see, this kind of clarification, like in your example, does NOT prove the Aramaic to be a translation. Actually, it proves the opposite, as sometimes one Aramaic word is being used to explain another, and the need for that expalnation ONLY makes sense if the mss is an Aramaic original. Otherwise, a Greek original would simply render the "confusing " oral Aramaic word into the precise meaning in Greek. Other times, other dialects (and even Hebrew itself) is rendered into the Aramaic original text and therefore has nothing to do with the Greek either. Still other proofs demonstrate the need for a WRITTEN Aramaic source preceding the Greek--these you will also find in LEARNING THE BASICS, the primary example being Romans 5:6-8.
>
> In conclusion, there is a ton of evidence to go through in assessing Greek vs Aramaic NT primacy, and those who seek a very easy litmus test will, I believe, come away disappointed. People who disagree with me generally start with these easy examples like this, or perhaps alleged LXX quoting in the NT (which does not happen in the Aramaic and is likely not happening in the Greek either) before realizing that it takes a lot more advanced stuff to really engage me. I don't mean to sound arrogant so please excuse me if it comes across that way since it is not my intent. I am just trying to demonstrate how things are not as simple as many think they are.
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Shlama w'burkate (Aramaic for "peace and blessings")
> Andrew Gabriel Roth
> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicnttruth.org">http://www.aramaicnttruth.org</a><!-- m -->
> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tushiyah.org">http://www.tushiyah.org</a><!-- m -->
> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ruachqadim.com">http://www.ruachqadim.com</a><!-- m -->
> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.thepathtolife.com">http://www.thepathtolife.com</a><!-- m -->
>
> Completely Updated with Many Exciting New Features! The Paperback Edition of Ruach Qadim, from Tushiyah Press, is now available. Explore the exciting evidence of Aramaic orignality for 22 New Testament books and see how their clear readings can change your life!
>
> Volume 2- The Path to Life, is coming soon. The sequel to Ruach Qadim, PATH TO LIFE, picks up where the original left off. Fresh Aramaic insights on the remaining 5 NT books and a massive new study on the Virgin Birth are just a few of the new features that await you! Stay tuned!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)