Re: What version did Jesus use?
Posted: October 5th, 2016, 2:07 am
Ken,
I appreciate the interaction.
Please read the article on EBRAISTI in order to become conversant with the facts and actual data so that we can be "perfectly clear."
The article PDF is on http://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com. It's long but you may enjoy looking at the evidence and history.
E.g., there are some shocking misquotes in the scholarly literature that just keep re-circulating and need to be exposed and put on notice.
On some details in John:
Rabbouni was a Hebrew word, as John said, (first attested outside the NT in the Hebrew Mishnah).
Gabbatha was a name, in Hebrew, as John said, and it did not come from Aramaic (nothing fits clearly), and it appears to be a Latin loan as a name in Hebrew. Note that John did not give the meaning of the name and it certainly doesn't parallel the Greek name.
Beth-esda was a name in Hebrew, as John said. It appears to include a loan word from Greek and the loan word is attested in the Qumran Copper Scroll besides rabbinic lit. Again, John does not give the meaning of the name, though in this case it does fit the context of "5 stoas".
Golgotha is a name that is actually a shared noun in both Hebrew and Aramaic whose meaning was transparent to all. The form of the name is Greek-friendly and like Aramaic, though John says that it was also a name in Hebrew. Please see the article for a discussion on the significance of citation forms and names in a third language.
It is interesting that the two Hebrew names without a meaning in John may have been non-Semitic loan words.
And there is no Syristi in the NT because no NT author named any Aramaic word. However, in the OT, where you find Aramaic words named--it is SYRIAKH, SYRISTI, always. The same is true for Josephus. And Philo never called Aramaic "Hebrew" though he certainly did call Hebrew "Chaldean," and you are correct that Philo relied on the LXX. He may not be a reliable witness on Semitic languages. Nevertheless, he did not call the Aramaic language "Hebrew" nor "Chaldean." Maybe you can look at the howler relating to the pseudepigraphic Aristeas Letter #11 where the Greek clearly says that the language of the Bible and Jerusalem is different from Aramaic (συριακη), but Matthew Black and (Strack)-Billerbeck think that the author was referring to a special dialect of Aramaic as the different language. The torah was Aramaic??????? What kind of freshman exegesis was that? Oh, it was sophomoric. Now I see. How long should that kind of exegesis influence students, new and old alike?
Anyway, enjoy the article.
I appreciate the interaction.
Please read the article on EBRAISTI in order to become conversant with the facts and actual data so that we can be "perfectly clear."
The article PDF is on http://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com. It's long but you may enjoy looking at the evidence and history.
E.g., there are some shocking misquotes in the scholarly literature that just keep re-circulating and need to be exposed and put on notice.
On some details in John:
Rabbouni was a Hebrew word, as John said, (first attested outside the NT in the Hebrew Mishnah).
Gabbatha was a name, in Hebrew, as John said, and it did not come from Aramaic (nothing fits clearly), and it appears to be a Latin loan as a name in Hebrew. Note that John did not give the meaning of the name and it certainly doesn't parallel the Greek name.
Beth-esda was a name in Hebrew, as John said. It appears to include a loan word from Greek and the loan word is attested in the Qumran Copper Scroll besides rabbinic lit. Again, John does not give the meaning of the name, though in this case it does fit the context of "5 stoas".
Golgotha is a name that is actually a shared noun in both Hebrew and Aramaic whose meaning was transparent to all. The form of the name is Greek-friendly and like Aramaic, though John says that it was also a name in Hebrew. Please see the article for a discussion on the significance of citation forms and names in a third language.
It is interesting that the two Hebrew names without a meaning in John may have been non-Semitic loan words.
And there is no Syristi in the NT because no NT author named any Aramaic word. However, in the OT, where you find Aramaic words named--it is SYRIAKH, SYRISTI, always. The same is true for Josephus. And Philo never called Aramaic "Hebrew" though he certainly did call Hebrew "Chaldean," and you are correct that Philo relied on the LXX. He may not be a reliable witness on Semitic languages. Nevertheless, he did not call the Aramaic language "Hebrew" nor "Chaldean." Maybe you can look at the howler relating to the pseudepigraphic Aristeas Letter #11 where the Greek clearly says that the language of the Bible and Jerusalem is different from Aramaic (συριακη), but Matthew Black and (Strack)-Billerbeck think that the author was referring to a special dialect of Aramaic as the different language. The torah was Aramaic??????? What kind of freshman exegesis was that? Oh, it was sophomoric. Now I see. How long should that kind of exegesis influence students, new and old alike?
Anyway, enjoy the article.