NT in Aramiaic?

[Higher Truth]

Simchat:

oh, so all gentiles spoke Greek?

HT:

Language of commerce for ALL of the areas under the control of the empire. Check historically and find out if the areas that the letters were written to were under that control.

Simchat:

that's only one of the many flaws in this argument.

HT:

No more of a "flaw" than believing that all of the gentile populace understood Aramaic. That would be like thinking that all americans would speak spanish, because of the spanish population in the US. Americans do not need to know spanish, because the language of commerce is English, BUT spanish people need to know some english.

 

[The Thadman]

The above passage clearly says that he was writing to the gentile population. The language of commerce was Greek. To write these letters in Aramaic would not be logical. I have heard the arguments for the Gospels in Aramaic, which I watch quite closely for evidence, but we also have to weigh the historical and archaeological proof.

But your argument does not weigh in such things as scribal mistakes, poetry, and polysemy within different manuscript traditions of Paul's letters.

Why would Paul salute the Romans with an Aramaic limerick?

Why would Paul have written an Aramaic poem to Timothy in Greek?

Why would Paul have been logically inconsistent in Greek?

Why would there be multiple words in Greek manuscript traditions that stem from a single Aramaic root?

The archaeological and historical proof you claim invalidates such questions MUST BE CRITICALLY RE-EXAMINED instead of assumed to negate problems within the text. If it were the case that Greek was the best thing next to sliced bread in transmitting a message across the world, these problems within the Greek would not have occurred. It would be impossible.

Instead we see a much more logically feasible position that presents itself that is something that many churches to this very day continue to do (like the Church of the East, and many of the St Thomas Christians):

Paul wrote his letter in his mothertongue (Aramaic), the language that he was most familiar with and expressive in, and sent it to the Jews in each congregation. That letter was then translated from Aramaic to Greek (and multiple translations would create these problems) so that the Gentiles who only spoke Greek could understand. Over time, different manuscript branches stemmed from these alternate translations, or were "corrected" to get closer to the Aramaic. Some things, like the "righteous vs. wicked" mistake were never "fixed" as the two words, although one being VASTLY inconsistent with the entire idea of the passage, are nearly identical.

Paul's letters are still new ground in terms of Aramaic study, and in the coming weeks more evidence may be uncovered (as the the continuation of the Rutgers Project for this semester rests upon the words of Paul)

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

 

[The Thadman]

Simchat,

I'm sorry that I have seemingly ignored your comments. Please let me take a moment to address them

[/font]
1) The Siddur used was in Hebrew.
2) All cannonical scriptures were read in Hebrew at they synagogue. There were a few Targum passages that were in Aramaic, but these were used for personal study by the Rabbis, not as scripture readings during services.
3) All of the prayers (ie: Sh'ma) were spoken in Hebrew.
4) The Torah was recited on shabbat (the parsha) in Hebrew.
5) All of the blessings were in Hebrew.

1) Wasn't the Hebrew of the Siddur reconstructed a few hundred years ago from Aramaic documents used after the exile?
2) I've already talked about the Targumim. The sole purpose of the Targumim was that knowledge of Hebrew was dwindling.
3) There were far more prayers in the 1st Century in Aramaic than there were in Hebrew. For example, the many forms of Qadish.
4) Again, the Targums were used after the Hebrew was spoken so that people could understand.
5) I was under the impression that the blessings since the Babylonian captivity were mostly Aramaic. Do you have sources?

 

[koilias]

Thadman, your work with Paul is tantalizing, but the gospels are best understood in Hebrew. Is there and Aramaic layer? There may be in some of them, but behind it is Hebrew....real life spoken Hebrew.

I disagree that the *sole* purpose of the Targumim was translation. There are two problems against this view, and I asked this once, but I got no response from you: Why would they need a Meturgam in the house of study???? Because they were teaching in HEBREW! You underestimate the role of the Meturgam...he wasn't repeating everything just to make his Rabbi understood, he was repeating so that the talmudim could better memorize and interpret and weigh in on the teaching. There is a very important function for repeating things in Rabbinic culture. Quite, quite often what the Meturgam said complemented and didn't necessarily repeat what the Rabbi said. The Meturgam was the first "interpreter" of what the Rabbi said, and sometimes the interpretation does not agree with the Rabbi's.

The Targums served a more important purpose, they go over the text midrashically so that it would elaborate on the Hebrew. You could only "expand" the holy text in Aramaic so that you honor the holy original. This is ESPECIALLY the case with the Palestinian Targumim, because most people in Palestine spoke Hebrew, so all of the Palestinian Targumim take the expansion more freely and creatively. In Babylon, they depended more on the Rabbi than the Targum to get the expansion.

The true function of the Targum is to introduce the midrash. People listened and understood both the Hebrew and Aramaic perfectly up until about the 4th century, when the Talmud actually says to slow down the Hebrew, because some of the kids were not comprehending it well enough. This means that before the 4th century, the kids were following the Hebrew quite well.

 

[Higher Truth]

Thadman:

Why would Paul salute the Romans with an Aramaic limerick?

HT:

I can not say definitively without seeing the the passage that you are referring to, but let me propose this. Growing up in america, we know many sayings that originated from other counties and other languages, and even if we do not speak the original language that it came from, we know the saying in English. How many americans recognize the Yiddish "oy vey" or Italian sayings from watching the godfather movies? Paul also spoke Latin according to the scholars. Why wasn't the whole book written in Latin?

Thadman:

Why would Paul have written an Aramaic poem to Timothy in Greek?


HT:

Timothy's mother was a Jewess and his father a Greek. I am fairly sure that he spoke both languages.

 

[The Thadman]

Thadman:

Why would Paul salute the Romans with an Aramaic limerick?

HT:

I can not say definitively without seeing the the passage that you are referring to, but let me propose this. Growing up in america, we know many sayings that originated from other counties and other languages, and even if we do not speak the original language that it came from, we know the saying in English. How many americans recognize the Yiddish "oy vey" or Italian sayings from watching the godfather movies? Paul also spoke Latin according to the scholars. Why wasn't the whole book written in Latin?

Romans 1:8:

Looqdhom moodha no
l-alohi b-Yeshu` Msheekho
al kulkoon
dhaimnoothkoon
eshtam`ath bakul almo

It does not rhyme or have meter in Greek or Latin. It's not a matter of a loan word or two, it's a matter of poetry translated from Aramaic to Greek and left forgotten within the text.

Thadman:

Why would Paul have written an Aramaic poem to Timothy in Greek?


HT:

Timothy's mother was a Jewess and his father a Greek. I am fairly sure that he spoke both languages.

But write a poem that only works in the Aramaic language, in GREEK?

http://www.AramaicNT.org/index.php?PAGE=1st-Timothy/GreatPoem

Again, it's poetry that's just SITTING there in Aramaic within the Greek text, translated and forgotten.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

 

[theseed]

Hellow Everbody

've heard some MJ's in this forum believe that the NT was written in Aramaic. Could anyone explain how they came to this conclusion, and whether you think all the NT was written in Aramiac, or just certain parts, and other parts like Paul's Eptistles were written in Greek?



I'm leaving for the weekend, but I lookforward to reading your posts next week



Shalom

Well, I'm conconvince that thier is a good case that some of the NT was written in Aramaic. i would just like for people to find those orginal manuscripts because they validate Christianiay.

 

[Higher Truth]

Thadman said:

The archaeological and historical proof you claim invalidates such questions MUST BE CRITICALLY RE-EXAMINED instead of assumed to negate problems within the text. If it were the case that Greek was the best thing next to sliced bread in transmitting a message across the world, these problems within the Greek would not have occurred. It would be impossible.

HT:

Steve-o,

There has been many things stated from the Aramaic primacy crowd that have not panned out completely upon examination. I remember reading about the dogs with earrings theory and wondering if some people have too much time on their hands. The GML fiasco was also quite interesting. Is it rope or is it camel? Would you strain a gnat and swallow a rope? I appreciate all of the digging that goes on, but sometimes it appears that the AP crowd is trying to re write the Scriptures. When the Aramaic scholars do weigh in, they say that the Aramaic was a copied from the Greek. Don't you work with this guy?


http://sor.cua.edu/Bible/OldSyriac.html

The Old Syriac is known in Syriac as Evangelion Dampharshe meaning 'Gospel of the Separated [Evangelists]', in order to distinguish it from the Diatessaron, 'Gospel of the Mixed'. This translation was made at some point between the late second century and the early fourth century by a number of translators. Rather a literal translation,*** this was a rather free translation from the Greek.***



http://sor.cua.edu/Bible/Peshitto.html

In the early fifth century, the long process of revising the Old Syriac came to a halt, culminating in the Peshitto version. Hence, the Peshitto is not a new translation,*** but rather a revision of the Old Syriac Gospels.*** However, the Peshitto also contains the rest of the books of the New Testament except for the Minor Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude) and Revelation. To this day, readings from these books are not read in Syriac Churches. In the Peshitto manuscripts, the Catholic Epistles are placed between the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles.

The word Peshitto in Syriac means 'simple' or 'clear'. It was given this epithet in order to distinguish it from later versions, especially the Harklean which was a literal translation of the Greek resulting in obscure Syriac.

The Peshitto was able to triumph over all its rivals and became the authorized text of all the Syriac Churches to this day: Syrian Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Maronite, Chaldaean, etc. Consequently, hundreds of Peshitto manuscripts survive with little variation between them. This, however, did not prevent Syriac churchmen from producing two further revisions: The Philoxenian and Harklean.


HT:

When the scholars agree that they have found an original Aramaic or Hebrew mss of the New Testament, it is at that time, that I will tend to look at this more seriously. The evidence at this time is sketchy, and though these theories are bandied about on Messianic and hebrew roots forums like they are fact, there is only a lot of speculation, and no hard evidence. I am always searching, but in the current climate when someone tells me that there is a NT available that is translated from the original Hebrew and Aramaic mss, I just have to smile. I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.

 

[The Thadman]

Steve-o,

There has been many things stated from the Aramaic primacy crowd that have not panned out completely upon examination. I remember reading about the dogs with earrings theory and wondering if some people have too much time on their hands. The GML fiasco was also quite interesting. Is it rope or is it camel? Would you strain a gnat and swallow a rope? I appreciate all of the digging that goes on, but sometimes it appears that the AP crowd is trying to re write the Scriptures. When the Aramaic scholars do weigh in, they say that the Aramaic was a copied from the Greek. Don't you work with this guy?

http://sor.cua.edu/Bible/OldSyriac.html

The Old Syriac is known in Syriac as Evangelion Dampharshe meaning 'Gospel of the Separated [Evangelists]', in order to distinguish it from the Diatessaron, 'Gospel of the Mixed'. This translation was made at some point between the late second century and the early fourth century by a number of translators. Rather a literal translation,*** this was a rather free translation from the Greek.***

http://sor.cua.edu/Bible/Peshitto.html

In the early fifth century, the long process of revising the Old Syriac came to a halt, culminating in the Peshitto version. Hence, the Peshitto is not a new translation,*** but rather a revision of the Old Syriac Gospels.*** However, the Peshitto also contains the rest of the books of the New Testament except for the Minor Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude) and Revelation. To this day, readings from these books are not read in Syriac Churches. In the Peshitto manuscripts, the Catholic Epistles are placed between the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles.

The word Peshitto in Syriac means 'simple' or 'clear'. It was given this epithet in order to distinguish it from later versions, especially the Harklean which was a literal translation of the Greek resulting in obscure Syriac.

The Peshitto was able to triumph over all its rivals and became the authorized text of all the Syriac Churches to this day: Syrian Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Maronite, Chaldaean, etc. Consequently, hundreds of Peshitto manuscripts survive with little variation between them. This, however, did not prevent Syriac churchmen from producing two further revisions: The Philoxenian and Harklean.

Yes Dr. Kiraz is a colleague of mine. We're currently working on the eBethArké: Syriac Digital Library project together for Beth Mardutho (http://www.BethMardutho.org/eBethArke , the link to its debut is at http://www.ptsem.edu/SYRIAC03/links.htm under "SyrCOM – Syriac Computing Session II"), however we differ in terms of our beliefs concerning New Testament origins.

His view comes verbatim from the late F. C. Burkitt, who was a Greek primacist whose theories rested upon conjecture without anything to back them. He wrote a book known as Evangelion Da-Mepharrishe ("The Seperated Gospels", the Aramaic name for the Old Syriac) in which he expounded on his theory, but was later refuted by Arthur Vööbus in his book "Early Versions of the New Testament Manuscript Studies" and I quote:

On closer investigation these views are untenable. First, Rabbula's
canditature as the author of the Peshitta is absolutely impossible.
All the more so, since after having changed parties, Rabbula
started a campaign against his former friends. F. Nau has previously
noticed this difficulty. And this is certainly a good point. A
careful consideration of the matter will suggest that if we do not
find grave difficulty here, it is because custom has put observation
to sleep. Closer study of the whole background helps us much
farther. What Rabbula did, he did in such an insulting way that
the adherents of Antioehian theological tradition were thoroughly
provoked. Moreover, judging from Rabbula's fervid character and
the fact that his biographer tells of his connections with communities
in Syria, Armenia and Persia, it can be easily imagined ithat his
undertaking was not limited to Edessa and its surroundings. When
trouble was released, the sound was heard throughout the whole
Orient B. His public attempt to exterminate the literature of the
Antioehians must have caused great agitation. He even burnt the
writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, whose reputation, according
to the sources, was exceedingly great throughout the whole Orient.

Thus the news of his persecution of the Nestorians and of other
gravamina spread widely in the Orient, and aroused a storm of
protest against his provocative actions. Under these circumstances,
it is absolutely impossible to imagine that any sacred text, revised
by this man, would have been given a friendly reception by the
adherents of the Antiochian party. When even leaves and sections,
written by heretics but occasionally bound together with orthodox
writings into a single codex, were torn out, how can one imagine
that a revision of the sacred text made by a notorious 'heretic'
was accepted ?

The origins of the Old Syriac and Peshitto are completely shrouded in mystery. But despite this, we can still reconstruct some of its history. My colleague Paul Younan has written a fabulous article on this subject that gives strong evidence that the Peshitta MUST have existed prior to 175 AD.

http://www.AramaicNT.org/index.php?PAGE=Articles/DiatesseronPeshitta

Additionally, the Jewish character of the Peshitto text is VERY unlike the Greek-influenced Syriac of Antioch and Edessa, which may point back to even earlier.

HT:

When the scholars agree that they have found an original Aramaic or Hebrew mss of the New Testament, it is at that time, that I will tend to look at this more seriously. The evidence at this time is sketchy, and though these theories are bandied about on Messianic and hebrew roots forums like they are fact, there is only a lot of speculation, and no hard evidence. I am always searching, but in the current climate when someone tells me that there is a NT available that is translated from the original Hebrew and Aramaic mss, I just have to smile. I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.

Original? We'll probably never find the original, and I could never lie about that.

What may be closest, however, is the Peshitto.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

 

[simchat_torah]

Shalom Steve-o,

The origins of the Old Syriac and Peshitto are completely shrouded in mystery.

Absolutely achi.
The claim has been tossed around over and over that the Peshitta and Old Syriac are translations, but I have never seen any evidence. No one really knows where these texts came from, and in India the claim is that the Old Syriac is a direct copy from the originally penned documents from the Apostles.

I think textual criticism is most likely the best way of evaluating the origins. Stories and conjecture are fun, but don't lend any real insight.

My colleague Paul Younan has written a fabulous article on this subject that gives strong evidence that the Peshitta MUST have existed prior to 175 AD.

http://www.AramaicNT.org/index.php?...esseronPeshitta

I would love to read the article, it sounds fascinating. But the link takes me to a paypal donation. Not that I am against donating but the readers here might want to view the article.

Now... the idea that Hebrew was lost or virtually unknown you stated:

1) Wasn't the Hebrew of the Siddur reconstructed a few hundred years ago from Aramaic documents used after the exile?
2) I've already talked about the Targumim. The sole purpose of the Targumim was that knowledge of Hebrew was dwindling.
3) There were far more prayers in the 1st Century in Aramaic than there were in Hebrew. For example, the many forms of Qadish.
4) Again, the Targums were used after the Hebrew was spoken so that people could understand.
5) I was under the impression that the blessings since the Babylonian captivity were mostly Aramaic. Do you have sources?

1) The Siddur used at the time (circa 1st century ce) is Hebrew. I'm afraid there isn't any information about its origins or how it was compiled. My Rabbi said that at his Yeshivah there is evidence this Siddur has been used dating at least as far back as 200 bce, but the exact origins are unknown. A lot of history after the exile is quite vague. To say with authority this siddur came from Aramaic is astonishing to me. As well, it doesn't make any sense that during the exile the Jews continued to use Hebrew, then created an Aramaic Siddur after returning to the land only to translate it back into Hebrew. Your proposition doesn't make any sense... as well, I haven't seen any historical evidence supporting it.

2) Maybe you don't understand what a Targum is. A targum is never a literal translation. A Targum typically is a paraphrase or commentary on a particular passage. These targums were often used in study by the Rabbis, but were never used to replace the Hebrew scrolls as biblical texts. A Targum was never used in the Siddur (liturgy), nor were they quoted as authoritative. They were merely used as a paraphrase or commentary. Again, rarely were they a literal translation. They were used to gain further insight into biblical study.

3) Yes, there were a good number of Aramaic prayers. However, my claim is that there were still many prayers in Hebrew. More were in Aramaic, but this does not negate the Hebrew prayers, etc.

4) see #2

5) I'll provide more info on this particular claim later (probably not today, too busy at work and my hard drive at home crashed over the weekend).



Steve-o, please don't take my disagreement on this particular topic as though I disrespect your input. I have always valued much of what you provide as absolutely groundbreaking. I am more than ecstatic you are here providing us with very valuable information.

shalom,
yafet

 

[The Thadman]

Shalom Steve-o,

Absolutely achi.
The claim has been tossed around over and over that the Peshitta and Old Syriac are translations, but I have never seen any evidence. No one really knows where these texts came from, and in India the claim is that the Old Syriac is a direct copy from the originally penned documents from the Apostles.

I think textual criticism is most likely the best way of evaluating the origins. Stories and conjecture are fun, but don't lend any real insight.

We're in agreement

The unfortunate part is that many points of Textual Criticism -solely- rest upon conjecture

I would love to read the article, it sounds fascinating. But the link takes me to a paypal donation. Not that I am against donating but the readers here might want to view the article.

It's not supposed to be a PayPal donation site, I just forgot TWO very important things!

1) I didn't upload the article.
2) I didn't upload the error handling page!

So, all you got was the footer of all of the webpages. This should be corrected by the time you read this.

Now... the idea that Hebrew was lost or virtually unknown you stated:

1) The Siddur used at the time (circa 1st century ce) is Hebrew. I'm afraid there isn't any information about its origins or how it was compiled. My Rabbi said that at his Yeshivah there is evidence this Siddur has been used dating at least as far back as 200 bce, but the exact origins are unknown. A lot of history after the exile is quite vague. To say with authority this siddur came from Aramaic is astonishing to me. As well, it doesn't make any sense that during the exile the Jews continued to use Hebrew, then created an Aramaic Siddur after returning to the land only to translate it back into Hebrew. Your proposition doesn't make any sense... as well, I haven't seen any historical evidence supporting it.

Could you point me in the direction of some written sources concerning its origins, or a website with a timeline? I'd like to do some research of my own.

2) Maybe you don't understand what a Targum is. A targum is never a literal translation. A Targum typically is a paraphrase or commentary on a particular passage. These targums were often used in study by the Rabbis, but were never used to replace the Hebrew scrolls as biblical texts. A Targum was never used in the Siddur (liturgy), nor were they quoted as authoritative. They were merely used as a paraphrase or commentary. Again, rarely were they a literal translation. They were used to gain further insight into biblical study.

I've worked with the Targum of Johnathan before, and I'm very well versed with their use and function. The Targums were read to the masses after the Torah scroll was read so that the audience could understand with interpretation. They were not strictly for Rabbinical study, and they were more than a paraphrase or commentary. They expounded on and read theology into the text (i.e. the concept of "memra"), as well as "clarified" passages. Several OT quotes in the NT come from the Targumim.

3) Yes, there were a good number of Aramaic prayers. However, my claim is that there were still many prayers in Hebrew. More were in Aramaic, but this does not negate the Hebrew prayers, etc.

It's not a matter of negation, it's a matter of use

4) see #2

Ditto

5) I'll provide more info on this particular claim later (probably not today, too busy at work and my hard drive at home crashed over the weekend).

Take your time

Steve-o, please don't take my disagreement on this particular topic as though I disrespect your input. I have always valued much of what you provide as absolutely groundbreaking. I am more than ecstatic you are here providing us with very valuable information.

shalom,
yafet

Of course not I always regard our discussions of this sort as friendly debates. I have deep respect for your kindness, and I'm grateful for your enthusiasm.

Poosh ba-Shlomo
-Steve-o

 

[Hix]

The Targum of Yonason Ben Uzziel (Jonathan) is often mis-understood entirely as it is a Midrashic commentary and is supposed to be read in a certain way:
Dr. Michael Brown expands on this by saying "citations are not meant to be precise interpretations of the biblical text but are often based on free association and wordplays." and also Moses Mielziner further explains "Where the Midrash does not concern legal enactments and provisions, but merely inquires into the meaning and significance of the laws or where it only uses the words of Scripture as a vehicle to convey a moral teaching or a religious instruction and consolation, it is called a ‘Midrash Agadah’ Interpretation of the Agadah, homiletical interpretation."

In essence a Midrash is NOT a translation or literal commentary, but a pedagogical style of teaching theological concepts that is not strictly dependant on the text it is using.

Just thought Id mention that
Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~

 

[Higher Truth]

Hey Thadman,

What dialect of Aramaic are they speaking in "The Passion"? Just curious.

 

[The Thadman]

Hey Thadman,

What dialect of Aramaic are they speaking in "The Passion"? Just curious.

Supposedly a reconstruction of Middle Aramaic. I have been trying to get in contact with Mel Gibson for the past three months to obtain a language sample to no avail, so I have no idea of what to truly expect.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

 

[Higher Truth]

Thadman:

Supposedly a reconstruction of Middle Aramaic. I have been trying to get in contact with Mel Gibson for the past three months to obtain a language sample to no avail, so I have no idea of what to truly expect.

HT:

I looked around on the net, but could not find a solid answer either. The cast includes a lot of Italian actors, so I wonder if the Latin will be a mix. Guess they couldn't find any koine Greek speaking actors.

 

[koilias]

Guess they couldn't find any koine Greek speaking actors.

Koine Greek has disappeared...but my Biblical languages teacher in Israel, Randy Buth, is trying to resurrect it.

He taught me to speak with the correct pronounciation, but it is very hard for anyone to actually speak it conversationally since it is not a living language. Only two people on earth can actually hold a basic-level conversation in the dialect. And that's Randy Buth and his fellow friend and scholar David Bivin. They are trying hard though!

 

[Higher Truth]

I had this on file. I don't remember the source:

Ancient Greek

1200-400 B.C.

DIALECTS (five main dialects found on inscriptions; based on geography; with regional subdivisions)

Attic-Ionic (represented in literature)

Ionic

East Ionic
Central Ionic
West Ionic

Attic
Achaean

Arcadian
Cyprian
Pamphylian
Aeolic (represented in literature)

Lesbian
Thessalian
Boeotian
Doric (represented in literature)

Laconian-Heraclean
Messenian
Argolic
Megarian,
Corinthian
Rhodian
Theran-Melian
Coan-Calymnian
Cretan
Northwest Greek

Phocian
Locrian
Elean
Koine
4th C B.C. to 4th C A.D., the language of the New Testament and Septuagint, spread by the empire of Alexander the Great. Based on Attic.

Byzantine
5th - 15th C A.D.


Modern Greek
15th C to the present

 

[koilias]

Thanks HT!

Yep...the dialect of Koine is two stages removed from today's spoken Greek. Modern Greek has evolved grammatically in many ways. Greeks today can read ancient Greek but to them it sounds like the Canterbury Tales sound to us.

However, Koine sounds phonetically a lot like Modern Greek, but Koine still distinguished between the iota, ehta and upsilon. Today in Greece these vowels are no longer distinguishable. If you are a Modern Greek speaker, however, the way you pronounce the Bible today would have been understood perfectly in the Koine period. Whereas all these scholars who pronounce the artificial Erasmian way would have been considered Barbarians by ancient Greeks...they would have looked at you as if you had some kind of speech deformity.

 

[simchat_torah]

Yep...the dialect of Koine is two stages removed from today's spoken Greek.

I was under the impression that Koine was not a 'dialect' per se, but more of a grammatical style, as opposed to Classical Greek.

At least, this is what I learned while in Philosophy.

A good friend of mine also has a dual Doctorate in Koine Greek and Classical Greek. He too explained this too me quite differently than is being expressed now.

???

 

[simchat_torah]

However, Koine sounds phonetically a lot like Modern Greek, but Koine still distinguished between the iota, ehta and upsilon.

Again, isn't it a grammatical difference and not a regional dialect?

What I see above is something like the difference between the way a person from Illinois would pronounce boat and someone from Toronto pronouncing boat. However, as far as I have always understood Koine, it isn't a matter of pronounciation, but rather grammatical, or 'street' language. Koine Greek was a more simplistic form, less concerned with specific rules and structures than Classical Greek.

Is this not correct?