02-02-2013, 03:30 AM
Akhay (especially rmanlow)
If you'd like a slightly more scholarly approach to refuting the likes of Minge, it's really rather simple and doesn't require much background in the linguistics aspect.
His most persuasive argument is essentially stripped down to this: the (lamentably limited) apparent Aramaic-only words in Jesus' speech as portrayed in the GNT, can be explained as the presence of Aramaic loan-words in a Mishnaic-like Hebrew.
At face value, it seems like a reasonable, and un-refutable, hypothesis. However, we know what Mishnaic Hebrew looks like. And while it does, indeed, have many loan words from Aramaic and is largely Aramaicized in many grammatical aspects, there are strong indications that it was not what Jesus spoke.
One feature we see in Christ's speech as preserved in the Greek NT, is the use of the emphatic form of the noun. For instance, "keepha" for rock, or "talitha" for little girl, or "abba" for father, as opposed to "ab" or "ha-ab" as would be expected in Mishnaic Hebrew which emulates the noun state of classical Hebrew. For an example in Mishnaic Hebrew, see Pirkei Avoth 1:3: ("He would say, don't be like slaves (ha-mshamsheen) serving the master (ha-rab)..."). In fact, we never see evidence for the Hebrew form of the absolute or emphatic at all in the GNT.
There are many examples of the purely Aramaic emphatic form of the noun in the GNT. "Talitha", "Gabbatha", "Beth-Esda", "Golgotha", "khqel-Dema", etc. None of these forms are Hebrew.
Paul doesn't say "adonainu atha" at the end of his epistle, but "maran atha". The plural possessive form reflects Aramaic, not Mishnaic Hebrew.
+MShamshana Paul ( or, ha-MShamshan) in Mishnaic Hebrew <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s --> )
If you'd like a slightly more scholarly approach to refuting the likes of Minge, it's really rather simple and doesn't require much background in the linguistics aspect.
His most persuasive argument is essentially stripped down to this: the (lamentably limited) apparent Aramaic-only words in Jesus' speech as portrayed in the GNT, can be explained as the presence of Aramaic loan-words in a Mishnaic-like Hebrew.
At face value, it seems like a reasonable, and un-refutable, hypothesis. However, we know what Mishnaic Hebrew looks like. And while it does, indeed, have many loan words from Aramaic and is largely Aramaicized in many grammatical aspects, there are strong indications that it was not what Jesus spoke.
One feature we see in Christ's speech as preserved in the Greek NT, is the use of the emphatic form of the noun. For instance, "keepha" for rock, or "talitha" for little girl, or "abba" for father, as opposed to "ab" or "ha-ab" as would be expected in Mishnaic Hebrew which emulates the noun state of classical Hebrew. For an example in Mishnaic Hebrew, see Pirkei Avoth 1:3: ("He would say, don't be like slaves (ha-mshamsheen) serving the master (ha-rab)..."). In fact, we never see evidence for the Hebrew form of the absolute or emphatic at all in the GNT.
There are many examples of the purely Aramaic emphatic form of the noun in the GNT. "Talitha", "Gabbatha", "Beth-Esda", "Golgotha", "khqel-Dema", etc. None of these forms are Hebrew.
Paul doesn't say "adonainu atha" at the end of his epistle, but "maran atha". The plural possessive form reflects Aramaic, not Mishnaic Hebrew.
+MShamshana Paul ( or, ha-MShamshan) in Mishnaic Hebrew <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s --> )