Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Age of the Peshitta
#76
Caruso,
Due to your inner deceitful nature, I always demand examples even if I know about it. You strain out gnats but swallow a camel.
Reply
#77
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:
Quote:You need to provide examples, Caruso. Not just words.

Slight differences in dialect shouldn't make someone get all up in arms. I'm sure an Assyrian could understand a Galilean means when he says "d'b'smaya" instead of "d'b'shmaya". It's a very minute, albeit noticeable, difference in dialect.

lol. My brother in law says "besha" for home in his Tyari dialect, instead of "betha" like we do in the Tkhuma dialect. It is well known that the letters Taw and Sheen are sometimes interchangeable in modern Neo Aramaic.

This in no way prevents communication between speakers and writers of different dialects who spend a mere five minutes with each other.

This is exactly what I'm referring to when saying they make mountains out of mole hills.

And Akhi Steve, no I do not agree with you that it warrants a different classification.

Today's dialects in the Ashiret tribes are called Neo Aramaic, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that they descend from what you call "Syriac."

So let's see. My ancestors in the Assyrian empire spoke Imperial Aramaic. Then they spoke, according to your classification, "Syriac", and today we speak Neo Aramaic. (I've condensed the timeline a bit)

Got it. Not random at all, and totally makes sense to call the middle part by a totally different term. Surely that's warranted. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

+Shamasha
Reply
#78
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Slight differences in dialect shouldn't make someone get all up in arms. I'm sure an Assyrian could understand a Galilean means when he says "d'b'smaya" instead of "d'b'shmaya". It's a very minute, albeit noticeable, difference in dialect.

The Shin/Sin difference is actually a holdover from an earlier form of Aramaic, where there were significantly more phonemes. It's etymological in nature, only occurring in certain words that in Old Aramaic that had Sin as one of their radicals, so it's not a simple substitution. A good example would be the word "Israel." In dialects that lost Sin it's spelled with a semkath/samek, where in dialects that preserve Sin it's spelled with Shin. In Tiberian vocalization, there would be a dot placed on the left arm of the Shin to indicate this; in Palestinian vocalization a small samek was written there, or a dot was placed in the right crook instead. There is no way to mark this in Classical Syriac notation, as that dialect didn't distinguish between Shin and Sin and had no need, and as a result simply substituted Semkath for Shin in all cases.

If we're looking for more marked differences between Galilean and Classical Syriac (as an example) that are used very often in speech, pronouns and /)it]/ compounds are probably much better examples. They'd certainly be intelligible with some confusion, but be very distinctly different (which was even recorded as the case in the New Testament). The Judean Aramaic speaking Rabbim in Jerusalem saw Galilean Aramaic just as hardline English professors see "Ebonics" (and some even had similar contempt) because of this.

konway87 Wrote:Caruso,
Due to your inner deceitful nature, I always demand examples even if I know about it. You strain out gnats but swallow a camel.

I cannot help but feel that the only examples you're looking for are ways to be nasty to me. "Inner deceitful nature?" Those are not edifying words. What is feeding this vitriol? <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->
Reply
#79
Paul Younan Wrote:So let's see. My ancestors in the Assyrian empire spoke Imperial Aramaic. Then they spoke, according to your classification, "Syriac", and today we speak Neo Aramaic. (I've condensed the timeline a bit)

I didn't develop it, so it's not "my classification," akhi.

Some is even more round-about. Dobe is a Western, Northeastern, Central, Eastern Aramaic language, part of the Leshanid Noshan cluster which roughly translates to "Our Language" which originally was an isolate from an offshoot of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic mixed with later Literary Aramaic whose prior autonym was Aramith. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#80
Caruso,
You are getting harsh replies, because you are sowing what you reap. You have nothing to back you up except for the words coming out of your head. You go against the scriptures and you contradict the testimony of a great historian like Josephus. You remind me of an unbelieving Pharisee from first century AD who met his doom in 70 AD.
Reply
#81
konway87 Wrote:Caruso,
You are getting harsh replies, because you are sowing what you reap. You have nothing to back you up except for the words coming out of your head. You go against the scriptures and you contradict the testimony of a great historian like Josephus. You remind me of an unbelieving Pharisee from first century AD who met his doom in 70 AD.

If you have more harsh words to say, I will listen. However when they are over, may the Lord bless you and keep you and bring you peace.
Reply
#82
Caruso,
As long as you keep your deceitful nature, I will be harsh to you. People like you deceived innocents for 1900 years with so called corrupt Greek theology. I think that is long enough.
Reply
#83
konway87 Wrote:Caruso,
As long as you keep your deceitful nature, I will be harsh to you. People like you deceived innocents for 1900 years with so called corrupt Greek theology. I think that is long enough.

I listen. Is there more you must say to me?
Reply
#84
Sorry, konway, but I think Brother Steve is merely speaking his opinion. He has a right to defend it and he has done so in good spirit. Even if we disagree, we have a lot to learn from each other. Paul will even tell you that there is value to the studies that Steve does. I see no deceit in anything he says, even if I disagree with some of what he says
Reply
#85
Scorpio, I agree that Caruso has the right to speak his opinion. But the problem I have with him is his attempt in establishing his opinion as a factual information by disregarding the scriptures and the testimony of Josephus. He even questions the writings of Josephus by saying he is no saint when Caruso's statements do contain huge load of errors.

Caruso, I am not done with you at all. Me and my ancestors have suffered for the sake of truth. So I am extremely intolerant to a person like you who comes and establishes your opinion as a factual information by disregarding truthful information.
Reply
#86
konway87 Wrote:Scorpio, I agree that Caruso has the right to speak his opinion. But the problem I have with him is his attempt in establishing his opinion as a factual information by disregarding the scriptures and the testimony of Josephus. He even questions the writings of Josephus by saying he is no saint when Caruso's statements do contain huge load of errors.

Josephus was a Galilean Jewish man who came from a predominantly Aramaic speaking background of the Priesthood and royalty, much unlike a large portion of the Jewish population at the time, other Aramaic-speaking traditions and the Greek-speaking Diaspora, the latter of whom had to rely upon such works as the LXX in order to read their own scriptures. He fought against Rome, only to switch sides and happened to gain the Emperor as his sponsor. Because of this he had to learn Greek as a matter of his position and due to that position he was privileged enough that when he saw that several of his friends were being crucified for crimes against Rome, he was able to ask for mercy and have them to be taken down and that wish was granted to him.

His position, perspective, and privilege were not typical for the times by any measure, especially for a Jew.

konway87 Wrote:Caruso, I am not done with you at all. Me and my ancestors have suffered for the sake of truth. So I am extremely intolerant to a person like you who comes and establishes his opinion as a factual information by disregarding truthful information.

Tolerance is part of my ancestry. As such, if you are not finished, please continue. I sincerely wish to hear all you have to say.
Reply
#87
Quote:Josephus was a Galilean Jewish man who came from a predominantly Aramaic speaking background of the Priesthood and royalty, much unlike a large portion of the Jewish population at the time, other Aramaic-speaking traditions and the Greek-speaking Diaspora, the latter of whom had to rely upon such works as the LXX in order to read their own scriptures. He fought against Rome, only to switch sides and happened to gain the Emperor as his sponsor. Because of this he had to learn Greek as a matter of his position and due to that position he was privileged enough that when he saw that several of his friends were being crucified for crimes against Rome, he was able to ask for mercy and have them to be taken down and that wish was granted to him.

His position, perspective, and privilege were not typical for the times by any measure, especially for a Jew.

Josephus was actually born in Jerusalem, which makes him Judean.
Reply
#88
Excellent point, Scorpio. Caruso also made several other errors.

Caruso, you are not good at all in writing correct information.

You wrote lots of errors even in your last post.

First, we know Josephus was a Judean (born in Jerusalem). Not Galilean.

Second, he points out the importance of his blood in his autobiography "The Life of Josephus." By his mother, he is related to Hasmonean family. Jewish Priest Josephus also has descended all along from priests.

Third, Aramaic was the dominant language even outside of first century Israel. Like Josephus points out, Greek was an unaccustomed language to Jews in first century AD (Antiquities of Jews Book 1, Preface). Jews knowing Greek were extremely rare (Antiquities of Jews XX XI).

Fourth, the position of Josephus is extremely important aside from being a Jewish Priest. Josephus's Jewish Wars strengthens the prophecy of Jesus Christ about the destruction of Jerusalem which occured in 70 AD. Josephus "historically" testifies the existence of Jesus Christ in his book "Antiquities of Jews 20.9.1."

Check the timeline for more infos.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/display/Spring07JS0053S01/A+Timeline+of+Flavius+Josephus">https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/displ ... s+Josephus</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#89
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Josephus was actually born in Jerusalem, which makes him Judean.

Sorry, you are correct. He *commanded* the Jewish armies *in* Galilee is the idea that got stuck. You'll permit me that mistake with a newborn in the house. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#90
Mistake? Your post is filled with Mistakes (plural).
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)