Aramaic, The True NT language?

Sabian said:

It is my personal belief that there was a language that unified both aramaic and hebrew- in a sense, these languages are probably twins just with diffrences.

I believe Aramaic came from Hebrew. As I stated before there are names in Hebrwe that are before the flood when all was one language, But I will not argue the hebrew is corrupted by man. There are even two forms of Hebrew Paleo being the oldest. I know you know this but I but it in for those how do not . Paleo and Babylonion Hebrew.

Click to expand...

Hebrew is a much more developed language than Aramaic is. It is impossible to tell which came from another, but a lot of evidence (like root progression and the trees of complexity) seems to point to the opposite of your position.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

I tend to agree with Steve. I am of the opinion that Aramaic was an early evolved form , Chaldee being the root. Steve, while you are here, please explain to Sabian how Aramaic words and Hebrew words can often times be intentified as such when translated into Greek.[by endings and other]

Aramaic is a language that has evolved. Aramaic consists of several dialects:

1 Ancient Aramaic: 900-700 BC

2 Imperial Aramaic: 700-332 BC

3.Middle Aramaic: 332 BC to the 2nd century AD. This is what is believed to have been spoken at the time of Messiah and is also used in some dead sea scrolls and some Targums.

4. Late Aramaic from the 2nd to 9th centuries AD. This is the language of Talmud and some rabbinic literature.

5. Modern Aramaic: Spoken today in some villages in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq.

[I am sure that the above timeline and divisions can be disputed among various scholars]


There are two talmuds. One is written in Western Aramaic which is similar to Biblical Aramaic [Palestinian]. The babylonian talmud is written in Eastern Aramaic.

I had heard that in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls the name of God was written in Paleo-Hebrew while the main body of the text was written in block Aramaic script. It has also been said that some of the earliest Greek OT texts had the Name in Paleo-Hebrew as well.



How do the scholars distinguish Aramaic from Hebrew when written in Greek? Here is an example of two Aramaic words written in the Greek NT.

Golgotha John 19:17
Gabbatha John 19:13

Aramaic uses a final ALEF to represent the article [the Hebrew uses an initial HEH.] The A [greek alpha] at the end of both Golgotha and Gabbatha demonstrate the Aramaic article, which shows that the words are from Aramaic origin and not Hebrew.

I am not trying to represent myself as any kind of expert on this topic, and I have only given this example as a starting point for others to research and verify this for yourselves.

P.S. I am also trying to draw Steve [Thadman] into this discussion

I had heard that in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls the name of God was written in Paleo-Hebrew while the main body of the text was written in block Aramaic script.

Click to expand...

Actually, I believe it was something like 7 different names of G-d were written in this manner. I have also read that in certain NT manuscripts similar things were done.

Here I thought this interesting.

So what does the four paleo-Hebrew characters spell? How do we know it is Yahweh. There are many possible combinations.

Let's look at only a few of the possibilities:

Yahweh Yahveh Yahwah Yahovah Yehovah Yehowah Yahavah Yahoweh Yahaveh Yahaweh Yahuweh Yahuwah Yahvah Yahvah Yahuwah

Higher Truth said:

How do the scholars distinguish Aramaic from Hebrew when written in Greek? Here is an example of two Aramaic words written in the Greek NT.

Golgotha John 19:17
Gabbatha John 19:13

Aramaic uses a final ALEF to represent the article [the Hebrew uses an initial HEH.] The A [greek alpha] at the end of both Golgotha and Gabbatha demonstrate the Aramaic article, which shows that the words are from Aramaic origin and not Hebrew.

I am not trying to represent myself as any kind of expert on this topic, and I have only given this example as a starting point for others to research and verify this for yourselves.

Click to expand...

The above may not be sufficient to prove that these Aramaic names were used in Jerusalem, as John's gospel was translated from Aramaic, not Hebrew...although, there are signs that earliest version at it's oral stage was probably Hebrew--but the Greek shows a unvaried and consistent Aramaic precursor (vorlage) existed for the entire Greek gospel, which means (1) it was long transmitted in an Aramaic form or (2) it was written by an Aramaic speaker. The reason I lean on the second option is that John did not know Greek that well, as the book of Revelation shows (which is written in a very crude Greek--stylistically VERY DIFFERENT than his gospel), and so he may have gotten a better Greek writer to translate his gospel from his Aramaic dictation. John would have known Aramaic a lot better than Greek. The flat and consistent nature of the Aramaicized Greek shows that the writer translated the entire Gospel from Aramaic. If it wasn't orally transmitted as such, different hands or styles could easily have crept into the Aramaic text by the copyists, but all attempts to find in John's Gospel different literary sources and hands (as can be discerned in the other gospels) have completely failed by statistical analyses!

simchat_torah said:

Actually, I believe it was something like 7 different names of G-d were written in this manner. I have also read that in certain NT manuscripts similar things were done.

Click to expand...

True, in some manuscripts the uppercase forms of Iota, Pi, Iota, Pi were used for YHWH, which was nonsensical in Greek--these letters visually "look" like the Hebrew letters.

Yahweh Yahveh Yahwah Yahovah Yehovah Yehowah Yahavah Yahoweh Yahaveh Yahaweh Yahuweh Yahuwah Yahvah Yahvah Yahuwah

Note all these contain the H.

Higher Truth said:

Aramaic is a language that has evolved. Aramaic consists of several dialects:

1 Ancient Aramaic: 900-700 BC

2 Imperial Aramaic: 700-332 BC

3.Middle Aramaic: 332 BC to the 2nd century AD. This is what is believed to have been spoken at the time of Messiah and is also used in some dead sea scrolls and some Targums.

4. Late Aramaic from the 2nd to 9th centuries AD. This is the language of Talmud and some rabbinic literature.

5. Modern Aramaic: Spoken today in some villages in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq.

[I am sure that the above timeline and divisions can be disputed among various scholars]

Click to expand...

Indeed they ARE disputed among scholars, as these 5 are basic "building blocks" of Aramaic that each dialect is made up of. For example, from what we have in the GNT, Jesus was speaking a mixture of 3 and 4.

Higher Truth said:

There are two talmuds. One is written in Western Aramaic which is similar to Biblical Aramaic [Palestinian]. The babylonian talmud is written in Eastern Aramaic.

I had heard that in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls the name of God was written in Paleo-Hebrew while the main body of the text was written in block Aramaic script. It has also been said that some of the earliest Greek OT texts had the Name in Paleo-Hebrew as well.

Click to expand...

~Nods~ In attempts to prevent pronounciation of God's name, Paleo was employed.

Higher Truth said:

How do the scholars distinguish Aramaic from Hebrew when written in Greek? Here is an example of two Aramaic words written in the Greek NT.

Golgotha John 19:17
Gabbatha John 19:13

Aramaic uses a final ALEF to represent the article [the Hebrew uses an initial HEH.] The A [greek alpha] at the end of both Golgotha and Gabbatha demonstrate the Aramaic article, which shows that the words are from Aramaic origin and not Hebrew.

Click to expand...

In Jesus' time it was most likely that the final Alef did not stand for the definite article. In VERY early Syriac that was the case (we're talking about the beginning of Middle Aramaic), but as the language progressed the final Alef beame a part of regular grammar.

Higher Truth said:

I am not trying to represent myself as any kind of expert on this topic, and I have only given this example as a starting point for others to research and verify this for yourselves.

P.S. I am also trying to draw Steve [Thadman] into this discussion

Click to expand...

I REALLY want to get into this discussion, but for some reason my internet connection at my dorm is refusing my connection to Christian Forums (I'm in a computer lab now). Once that's fixed, though, you'll be seeing a LOT more of me :-D

Shlomo,
(Peace!)
-Steve-o

koilias said:

The above may not be sufficient to prove that these Aramaic names were used in Jerusalem, as John's gospel was translated from Aramaic, not Hebrew...although, there are signs that earliest version at it's oral stage was probably Hebrew--but the Greek shows a unvaried and consistent Aramaic precursor (vorlage) existed for the entire Greek gospel, which means (1) it was long transmitted in an Aramaic form or (2) it was written by an Aramaic speaker. The reason I lean on the second option is that John did not know Greek that well, as the book of Revelation shows (which is written in a very crude Greek--stylistically VERY DIFFERENT than his gospel), and so he may have gotten a better Greek writer to translate his gospel from his Aramaic dictation. John would have known Aramaic a lot better than Greek. The flat and consistent nature of the Aramaicized Greek shows that the writer translated the entire Gospel from Aramaic. If it wasn't orally transmitted as such, different hands or styles could easily have crept into the Aramaic text by the copyists, but all attempts to find in John's Gospel different literary sources and hands (as can be discerned in the other gospels) have completely failed by statistical analyses!

Click to expand...

This all does make sense, but the most likely situation is that there were two different Johns, as Yokkanan was a very popular name back in the day

Revelation is DEFINATELY a translation from an Aramaic original, as there are too many mistakes in it for it to be considered Koine Greek, as well as many of those mistakes falling in line with Aramaic translation phenomena (mistranslations, split-words, grammar, etc.).

The Gospel of John, too, seems to stem from an Aramaic original, as most of the confusing language when looked at in Aramaic, actually makes sense Additionally, there is much poetry ("Living water", "If you don't see signs and miracles, you won't believe!"), and other phenomena that have been lost by translation. The intricacy of these phenomena shows that it dates back to an original Aramaic source at the VERY least.

Shlomo,
(Peace!)

-Steve-o

Sabian, I ask again, what "H" are you speaking of?

It's funny because Shlomo in Hebrew is King Solomon's name... lol.

I don't know why, but every time I see that closure to a post I have to laugh.

I'm sorry I haven't had time to post lately.

Quote: (~Nods~ In attempts to prevent pronounciation of God's name, Paleo was employed.)

I have never heard that one can you back that Statement up somehow? That sounds Like what someone thinks. And when did not saying the name start?

The information I have says that the name YHWH was Regualarly pronounced untill atleast the destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C.E.
(Encylopedia Judaica)

Just tring to get some facts down so I know what I'm looking at.

TM said:
I REALLY want to get into this discussion, but for some reason my internet connection at my dorm is refusing my connection to Christian Forums (I'm in a computer lab now). Once that's fixed, though, you'll be seeing a LOT more of me :-D

HT:

Nice to see ya Steve-o. I know we don't always agree on every point, but I always appreciate what you bring to these discussions.

Sabian said:

I'm sorry I haven't had time to post lately.

Quote: (~Nods~ In attempts to prevent pronounciation of God's name, Paleo was employed.)

I have never heard that one can you back that Statement up somehow? That sounds Like what someone thinks. And when did not saying the name start?

The information I have says that the name YHWH was Regualarly pronounced untill atleast the destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C.E.
(Encylopedia Judaica)

Just tring to get some facts down so I know what I'm looking at.

Click to expand...

It was employed some time after the fall of the 1st temple I honestly do not know how the paranoia started, but you'll see that in the oldest Greek and Hebrew MSS we have, Paleo Script is utilized for the Tetragrammation, but as knowledge of Paleo Script diminished, the vowels of "Adonai" were supplanted over the 4 Letters in Ashuri "Hebrew" Script to hamper actual pronunciation.

I'll search through my notes and try to find a good source for you.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

Higher Truth said:

TM said:
I REALLY want to get into this discussion, but for some reason my internet connection at my dorm is refusing my connection to Christian Forums (I'm in a computer lab now). Once that's fixed, though, you'll be seeing a LOT more of me :-D

HT:

Nice to see ya Steve-o. I know we don't always agree on every point, but I always appreciate what you bring to these discussions.

Click to expand...

I always enjoy discussing these things with you 'HT

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

Found these sites while Searching on the topic.

As I mentioned above, Arabic is descended from a language known in the literature as Proto-Semitic. This relationship places Arabic firmly in the Afro-Asiatic group of world languages. Merrit Ruhlenís taxonomy in his Guide to the Worldís Languages helps to further elucidate Arabicís ancestry within this large group of languages. Specifically, Arabic is part of the Semitic subgroup of Afro-Asiatic languages (293). Going further into the relationship between Arabic and the other Semitic languages, Modern Arabic is considered to be part of the Arabo-Canaanite sub-branch the central group of the Western Semitic languages (323). Thus, to review, while Arabic is not the oldest of the Semitic languages, its roots are clearly founded in a Semitic predecessor.

Arabic as a Proto-Semitic language

As mentioned above, Arabic is a member of the Semitic subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic group of languages. The common ancestor for all Semitic languages (i.e. Hebrew or Amharic) in the Afro-Asiatic group of languages is called Proto-Semitic. Based upon reconstruction efforts, linguists have determined many of the phonological, morphological, and syntactic features of Proto-Semitic. As might be expected, not all Semitic languages have equally preserved the features of their common ancestor language. In this respect, Arabic is unique; it has preserved a large majority of the original Proto-Semitic features. In fact, many linguists consider Arabic the most ëSemiticí of any modern Semitic languages in terms of how completely they preserve features of Proto-Semitic (Mukhopadhyaya 3-4).
http://www.arabiclinx.lotelinx.vic.edu.au/A%20History%20of%20the%20Arabic%20Language.htm


http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/5_intro.html