Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Does Syriac have this "corruption" like the Galilean?
#1
I read in the "Gate to the Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac" (1828)... that Galilean substitutes Ain for Alef. Does Syriac share this characteristic with the Galilean?


With the name " Yeshu' " -- should the name rather be Yeshua? Could "Ain" be a dialectal corruption?

I read some Texas RAT posts on "Yehoshua" and the thread called "the Messiah's name" and this raised questions.

~DC
Reply
#2
In Galilean Aramaic, gutturals were softened, but generally not eliminated (hence the Alef <-> Ayin <-> Heth "swapping"). Classical Syriac tended to keep its gutterals.

"Yeshua" with Ayin is the Classical spelling, found in dialects before both Galilean and Syriac came on the linguistic stage, so the Ayin here is original.
Reply
#3
So, my last question, does Syriac eliminate the Heh? I heard talk of Hebrew "Yehoshua" being the original. Yeshu' or Yehoshu' ??

And is softening of the Heh part of Galilean? (Given that his Galilean name probably was what he was known by).

Ascertaining the original name would be great...

Thanks for the help

~DC
Reply
#4
I'm obviously not in expert in Hebrew and Aramaic, but based on what I've read, Yehoshua was less common by the time our Lord arrived on the scene in the flesh. Joshua is referred to as "Yeshua" in the Nehemiah 8:17. Here is how we arrived at the English "Jesus":

Hoshea (Hebrew)- Hoe-shay-ah
Yehoshua (Hebrew)- Yay-hoe-shoo-wah
Yeshua (Hebrew/Aramaic)- Yay-shoo-wah
Iesous (Greek)- Ee-yay-soos
Iesvs (Latin)- Yay-zoos
Jesus (English)- Jee-zus

Jews have traditionally pronounced the name of Jesus as either "Yeshu" or "Yeshua". "Yeshu" is a Hebrew acronym "Y'mach Sh'mo Zichro(no)" (which means "May His name be blotted out forever"), a Rabbinical slander name. "Yeshua" is probably the closest we can get to the pronunciation of the name by which our Savior was called in the 1st century. The problem is that the final letter "Ayin" is virtually unpronounceable to the most people. Yehoshua is possible though, considering that the Galileans used this form quite a bit (according to Wikipedia <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: --> ). I'd say that the Peshitta is some of the best proof we have that the name of the Messiah in His own language was pronounced "Yeshua".
Reply
#5
DrawCloser Wrote:I heard talk of Hebrew "Yehoshua" being the original. ... ... ... Ascertaining the original name would be great...
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Yehoshua is possible though, considering that the Galileans used this form quite a bit (according to Wikipedia <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: --> ).
ZekharYahu [Zechariah] 6:9-13:
9 And the word of YHWH came unto me, saying,
10 Take of them of the captivity, even of Kheldah'ee, of TobeeYah, and of YedahYah, which are come from Babylon, and come thou the same day, and go into the house of YosheeYah the son of ZephanYahu;
11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Yehoshua the son of Yehotsawdawk, the high priest;
12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh YHWH of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of YHWH:
13 Even he shall build the temple of YHWH; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

If this is truly a prophesy, fortold by YHWH himself, the questions becomes "do we believe YHWH knew what His Son's Name would be, or was He just guessing?". And just who gets to name their child, the ones whom have authority over them, or anybody and their dog in the far distant future?


ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Here is how we arrived at the English "Jesus":

Hoshea (Hebrew)- Hoe-shay-ah
Yehoshua (Hebrew)- Yay-hoe-shoo-wah
Yeshua (Hebrew/Aramaic)- Yay-shoo-wah
Iesous (Greek)- Ee-yay-soos
Iesvs (Latin)- Yay-zoos
Jesus (English)- Jee-zus
It does not matter how a names (d)evolve over the years from one culture unto another, but rather what was one called at the time by their parents. This being said if someone in this day and time is named Jesus (JEE-zuhs) then that is how you pronounce their name, to the best of your ability no matter how much time goes by or just what becomes of this name between the time there parent named them and you begin to speak it. As it is not proper to use another form of a name just because it has (d)evolved. So if the foretold prophecy mentioned above is not only correct but authoritive then Yehoshua be the correct English transliteration of the Name of YHWH's only begotten Son.


ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I'd say that the Peshitta is some of the best proof we have that the name of the Messiah in His own language was pronounced "Yeshua".
History tell us that many of the copies of the ReNewed Covenant (or possiblly even some of the Originals) were destroyed. And in addition to statements made by the early Christian church fathers, the ancient Jewish Rabbis also hint, of a Hebrew original of the Gospels. Both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds and the Tosefta, relate a debate among Rabbinic Yehudeem over the method of destruction of manuscripts of ReNewed Covenant books(t. Shab. 3:5; b. Shab. 116 a; j. Shab. 15c). Specifically mentioned is a book called by them as "Gospels"(b.Shab. 116a). The question which arose was how to handle the destruction of these manuscripts, since they contained the actual Name of Eloah. It is of course, well known that the Greek New Testament manuscripts do not contain the Name but use the Greek titles "Theos" and "Kurios" as substitutes. This is because the Name is not traditionally translated into other languages, but instead is (unfortunately) translated "Lord", just as we have it in most English Bibles, and just as we find it in our late manuscripts of the Septuagint. The manuscripts these Rabbi's were discussing, must have represented the original Hebrew text, or at least early copies thereof, from which the Greek and Aramaic Texts were translated from.

Putting the preceding of the priest aside, at best the Texts of the Eastern PeshittA that we have today are from the 5th or 4th century and are beyond any doubt simply mere copies (not the original) of copies of the autographs of the apostles. Can anyone say that these copies were 100% faithful in the spellings of names? As it is clear from one copy unto the next that names were spelled differently. Again does an author of a translation, or new version for that matter, have the authority to change the way a name sounds at their whim? And on that note I ask - "Just who has the right (or audacity) to override YHWH's authority to change the Name of our Adon and Savior?" You, me? Personally, I think not. What say you?

Now within the Eastern PeshittA (absolutely the Oldest and Best that we have today) the evidence is quite clear that when The Anointed One told Shaul what His Name was He spoke it in the HEBREW language. Is this just a coincidence that The Anointed One used the same language as that of His Heavenly Father did when foretelling what His Son's Name would be? Or is it possible that The Anointed One said this Name in Aramaic but just translated it so well that Shaul just though that He was speaking Hebrew? Well being The Anointed One said a whole sentence we should be able to be assured He spoke in the Hebrew tongue and therefore spoke His Name in Hebrew.

All I am saying is let them that were named Yehoshua be called by Yehoshua, and those named Yeshua should be called Yeshua, all the while any one name Jesus should be called Jesus. Plain and simple the (d)evolution of a name should never effect names coming or going, backwards or forward ... ... ...

<!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#6
Speaking of a Hebrew original,

1.)Aren't there posts which debunked Hebrew primacy for the gospels?

2.) Couldn't the Name in those early writings just been MarYa, instead of YHWH?


3.) May someone please provide a rebuttal to this:

Quote:Both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds and the Tosefta, relate a debate among Rabbinic Yehudeem over the method of destruction of manuscripts of ReNewed Covenant books(t. Shab. 3:5; b. Shab. 116 a; j. Shab. 15c). Specifically mentioned is a book called by them as "Gospels"(b.Shab. 116a). The question which arose was how to handle the destruction of these manuscripts, since they contained the actual Name of Eloah."
Reply
#7
DrawCloser Wrote:Speaking of a Hebrew original,

1.)Aren't there posts which debunked Hebrew primacy for the gospels?

2.) Couldn't the Name in those early writings just been MarYa, instead of YHWH?


3.) May someone please provide a rebuttal to this:

Quote:Both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds and the Tosefta, relate a debate among Rabbinic Yehudeem over the method of destruction of manuscripts of ReNewed Covenant books(t. Shab. 3:5; b. Shab. 116 a; j. Shab. 15c). Specifically mentioned is a book called by them as "Gospels"(b.Shab. 116a). The question which arose was how to handle the destruction of these manuscripts, since they contained the actual Name of Eloah."
Would the original ReNewed Covenant have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Jesus_Hebrew/JesusHebrew.pdf">http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articl ... Hebrew.pdf</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#8
hi Texas RAT, did you read these:


<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1298">viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1298</a><!-- l -->

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1277">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1277</a><!-- l -->


Some posts by Andrew and Paul make a Hebrew NC (New Covenant) argument really doubtful...

Could the NC texts originally had hwhy in them instead of ayrm?
Reply
#9
DrawCloser Wrote:hi Texas RAT, did you read these:


<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1298">viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1298</a><!-- l -->

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1277">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1277</a><!-- l -->
I read both threads and find myself to be in the same boat as Dawid for the most part.

DrawCloser Wrote:Some posts by Andrew and Paul make a Hebrew NC (New Covenant) argument really doubtful...

Could the NC texts originally had hwhy in them instead of ayrm?
AndrewGabrielRoth Wrote:My personal belief is that the Nazarene Jerusalem Canon was IDENTICAL to the Peshitta as preserved by the COE in Abdiabne and Babylon, EXCEPT for the latter's use of MARYAH instead of YHWH. <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1298&start=45#p7905">viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1298&start=45#p7905</a><!-- l -->
And Andrew had further expounded as to just why he believes so. And I to find this to be one thing about the Eastern PeshittA Text that (I think) is not of the original ReNewed Covenant (yet as said before I do not have any of the original texts to support/prove my suspicion). Other than that all proof leads me to believe that the Eastern Aramaic Text is the closest thing we have today to the original ReNewed Covenat writings - period.

Anyway, yes I have heard all of this before in other threads yet it still remains THE FACT THAT NO BODY FROM GREEK, ARAMAIC, OR AS MENTION HEBREW PRIMMEST HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS, PERIOD! So the fact that there is no Hebrew texts present today is no different than there being No Greek or Aramaic ones before the 4th or 5th centuries.

As far as it being tradition that the Aramaic texts where burned once their usefulness was up is of a Hebrew tradition in which could as well account for the lack of Hebrew Texts. Also the fact that the Notzri where either exterminated or absorbed into the CoE in the 4th or 5th century would account as to the reason they would have used Aramaic texts, if at all, thereafter. So between the Jewish Priests burning the Notzri ReNewed Covenant, the tradition of burning older texts, and the Notzri becoming extinct or absorbed into the CoE can/could easily explain as to why there are no Hebrew Texts left to this day, and thereby any claim to a Hebrew original can not be totally dismissed as far fetched.

Some have claimed that the Hebrew of the first century was the same as that of the Aramaic, yet the Dead Sea Scrolls attest differently. Some even ask why the Targums(Commentaries) in Aramaic if Hebrew was so prevalent, yet then again within the Dead Sea Scroll there were many Hebrew commentaries of the Scriptures to boot.

I can see holes in all the arguments yet I still remain open minded that I am right, I mean that perhaps I am on the right path of thinking upon this subject(/or not). So no I am still not convinced that Hebrew originals are out. As Dawid said some may have been penned in Aramaic and some even in Greek (such as the western five Books), yet this does not negate that there could had been Hebrew as well. After all historians/ancient witnesses have clearly stated that MattithYahu and Shaul had both wrote in Hebrew, and that the Notzri had preserved MattithYahu's Gospel.

By the way, I am not by any means a protestant christian, and therefore by no means would I ever want to try and convert Yehudeem unto such. Nor am I Messianic either (which is simply a shoot/branch off of protestant christianity, which is their reasoning for Greek supremacy). If I had to pic a title for my belief it would be Notzri. In that I have no agenda other than trying to find the truth of the matter (and it is said that they had a Hebrew Gospel of MattithYahu - and no there is no surviving versions, for reasons mentioned above, thereof). So I have none of the religious reasonings to pic one primmest camp over the other as do the others. I am not saying that the CoE did not receive Aramaic copies, just that perhaps as attested to there were some/many Hebrew Originals that were then translated to either Aramaic, Greek, or perhaps Latin.
Reply
#10
If there would have been Hebrew originals, may I ask why would Zorba get his hands on an Aramaic text, if he knew about a Hebrew original?? What is the Maranatha, Talitha cumi, Raca, Khaqel Dama, Golgotha, Mammon, etc doing in the Greek texts?? What are the split words and mistranslations pointing to Aramaic doing there?

Secondly, if split words and mistranslations really don't help, could any of the Zorban split words and mistranslations point to a Hebrew original?

(Really, I am a newbie here, perhaps I don't know what I am talking about...
May someone more experienced than me provide some input here?)
Reply
#11
DrawCloser Wrote:If there would have been Hebrew originals, may I ask why would Zorba get his hands on an Aramaic text, if he knew about a Hebrew original??
Just guessing, perhaps the Aramaic texts were easier for Zorba to read than Hebrew was for them(?). And perhaps being Hebrew was more for a liturgical purpose and Aramaic was more so for common use, it may have been way easier to get one's hands on an Aramaic Text over the more highly prized Hebrew ones(?).
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)