10-06-2008, 12:11 AM
Shlama all--
I have had something on my mind that I wanted to share. We spend a lot of time focused on Aramaic NT PRIMACY which of course is crucial, but I have also been thinking about another aspect, Aramaic NT EXCLUSIVITY.
This is what I mean. In addition to the considerations of which text came first, we should also think about those precious Aramaic words that have NO COGNATES ANYWHERE ELSE, including Hebrew. Those words and ideas then take us to a level of understanding that is simply not possible anywhere else.
So while it is true that understanding Hebrew and seeing how Tanakh terms have carried over intact into Peshitta is a terrific thing to do, that level of concordance can also be a tad misleading. There have been many times that I have literally had to try to "forget" Hebrew so the Aramaic could speak more clearly to me, whereas if we always think there are equivalents what happens is we get complacent. I cannot tell you how many times over the years I have had to correct some incredible Hebrew scholars because they thought TOO HEBRAICALLY and didn't see differences in dialect or language.
For example, while MILTHA has some parallels with DAVAR and MEMRA it is not completely those words and can go beyond them. Or with QNOMA, there is absolutely no Hebrew cognate of that AT ALL. It is a concept that is exclusive to the Aramaic NT that, while not contradicting Tanakh, provides a level of detail clearly beyond Tanakh.
I am thinking about this stuff because we are in the Days of Awe and because I am writing some materials for conventional Jews that may appear on <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aent.org">www.aent.org</a><!-- w -->. Truth be told I am still thinking about exactly how to say what is on my mind there, but the gist of the process is that some might say: "Yes, Andrew you are right that we all need to learn the language of Scripture and that we shouldn't rely just on English translations, but I don't need to learn Aramaic. I already know Hebrew and can read Aramaic NT materials in the same alap-beet." They might go on to rightly point out how similar Hebrew and Aramaic are as languages, and so on.
But, to NOT go that extra mile. To NOT learn the Aramaic of the Peshitta, even for Hebrew masters, is I believe to divorce oneself from the best opportunity to understand how Y'shua actually thought and in some cases, we know Y'shua was misunderstood by even Hebrew speakers, like those who were at the execution stake and thought he was calling on Elijah.
Sometimes it also works the other way. There is no equivalent in Aramaic of Hebrew NESHAMA either--Peshitta Tanakh translates it as ruach or nefesh, but the overwhelming trend that I see is in the other direction.
Not sure where this discussion might go, but I wanted to mention it anyway.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
I have had something on my mind that I wanted to share. We spend a lot of time focused on Aramaic NT PRIMACY which of course is crucial, but I have also been thinking about another aspect, Aramaic NT EXCLUSIVITY.
This is what I mean. In addition to the considerations of which text came first, we should also think about those precious Aramaic words that have NO COGNATES ANYWHERE ELSE, including Hebrew. Those words and ideas then take us to a level of understanding that is simply not possible anywhere else.
So while it is true that understanding Hebrew and seeing how Tanakh terms have carried over intact into Peshitta is a terrific thing to do, that level of concordance can also be a tad misleading. There have been many times that I have literally had to try to "forget" Hebrew so the Aramaic could speak more clearly to me, whereas if we always think there are equivalents what happens is we get complacent. I cannot tell you how many times over the years I have had to correct some incredible Hebrew scholars because they thought TOO HEBRAICALLY and didn't see differences in dialect or language.
For example, while MILTHA has some parallels with DAVAR and MEMRA it is not completely those words and can go beyond them. Or with QNOMA, there is absolutely no Hebrew cognate of that AT ALL. It is a concept that is exclusive to the Aramaic NT that, while not contradicting Tanakh, provides a level of detail clearly beyond Tanakh.
I am thinking about this stuff because we are in the Days of Awe and because I am writing some materials for conventional Jews that may appear on <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aent.org">www.aent.org</a><!-- w -->. Truth be told I am still thinking about exactly how to say what is on my mind there, but the gist of the process is that some might say: "Yes, Andrew you are right that we all need to learn the language of Scripture and that we shouldn't rely just on English translations, but I don't need to learn Aramaic. I already know Hebrew and can read Aramaic NT materials in the same alap-beet." They might go on to rightly point out how similar Hebrew and Aramaic are as languages, and so on.
But, to NOT go that extra mile. To NOT learn the Aramaic of the Peshitta, even for Hebrew masters, is I believe to divorce oneself from the best opportunity to understand how Y'shua actually thought and in some cases, we know Y'shua was misunderstood by even Hebrew speakers, like those who were at the execution stake and thought he was calling on Elijah.
Sometimes it also works the other way. There is no equivalent in Aramaic of Hebrew NESHAMA either--Peshitta Tanakh translates it as ruach or nefesh, but the overwhelming trend that I see is in the other direction.
Not sure where this discussion might go, but I wanted to mention it anyway.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth