Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Age of the Peshitta
Quote: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 -->

I understand completely. I've had a hand in raising several nephews and know that it is definitely a busy time. Congratulations by the way!
konway87 Wrote: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.

So I was correct about this.

konway87 Wrote: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).

So Alexandrian and other Greek-speaking Jews were not Jews? Greek inscriptions on Jewish ossuaries far outnumber Aramaic and Hebrew inscriptions and were put there either by engravers of the ossuaries themselves or scribbled on as graffiti by the families of the deceased for their own reference. The same goes for synagogue inscriptions in the 1st century (the majority are in Greek with fewer in Aramaic and even fewer in Hebrew). I vaguely remember you claim that the Romans had something to do with it, but I hope I am mistaken as that idea is unsubstantiated.

With this, I'm only saying that the linguistic landscape of Jews (given the whole of archeological evidence; the ossuaries are there) is much more complex and nuanced than Josephus' apparent understanding, where you seem to be insisting that it's all one color despite the writing (literally) on the walls.

konway87 Wrote: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."

I didn't even touch Christian theology vis a vis Josephus at all. I'm not sure how this is relevant to what I have said. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I understand completely. I've had a hand in raising several nephews and know that it is definitely a busy time. Congratulations by the way!

Many thanks on all fronts. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
You are very good in making yourself look like a clown!

Like Josephus testifies, Greek was an unaccustomed language to Jews in first century AD.

Second, Romans were required to inscribe the languages that represented Roman Empire (Greek and Latin) when they executed someone. When Jesus Christ was crucified, Pontius Pilate wrote in three languages - Aramaic, Greek, and Latin (John 19:19-22).

Who said Jewish Priest Josephus' testimony on the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is only related to Christian theology? It is related to Judaism as well due to the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem.

What is so laughable is you question the writings of Josephus and call him "a Galilean Jew" and you claim that "you are correct about the importance of the position of Josephus."

Since you have very poor knowledge in the history of first century AD, you are in no position to question Aramaic Peshitta. You should go and learn history of first century Israel before you come here and question Aramaic Peshitta.
Konway, I know you disagree with him quite strongly, but you're attitude is quite unnecessary.
Ok all my beloved brethren. A little advice from years of my forcing myself to do this:

Edit your post several times before finally submitting it. Preview it three or four times.

Start by writing the nasty stuff on your mind. Calling people names. Ridicule all you want. But don't hit the submit button.

By your third or fourth preview, and final editing you will manage to get your point across in a much more acceptable and effective manner.

Try it. Otherwise I'll soon have to lock this thread and do some editing myself. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

+Shamasha Paul
Scorpio, the reason I am harsh with Caruso is he questions Aramaic Peshitta and the writings of Josephus. But he can't even write a simple information about Josephus correctly. That's why I said he needs to go and learn first century Israel properly before he come and question the sacred text "Aramaic Peshitta."

Paul, the reason why I called Caruso "a clown" is that he questions Aramaic Peshitta and Josephus. But he cannot write the information about Josephus correctly at all. Even after Scorpio and me point out the mistakes, he still tries to justify his own points (with mistakes in it). I think my harshness towards Caruso also have to do with my deep respect for Aramaic Peshitta and the writings of Josephus.
The name-calling does not further our cause here. Most people disagree with our beliefs concerning the Aramaic Peshitta, so you need to accept that. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, just stating fact.
Scorpio, I have a question. Don't you think a person can be judged based on moral laws? For Example, a person who steals is called a thief. We call "a person who steals" as a thief, because he violated the law "Do not steal."

The reason behind calling Caruso "a clown" has to do with the fact that clowns in circus (in my memory) make hilarious mistakes. But after they make mistake, they behave like they didn't do it by trying to justify in a hilarious manner.

This is what I saw in Caruso. He questioned a history. But he made terrible errors with same history. But he still tried to claim that he was right even with the mistakes in it.
I certainly do believe that people can be judged based on moral laws but only in a righteous manner. Caruso is speaking lies, he's merely sharing his beliefs on the history of the Aramaic language. This is my last bit of input in this little feud. May MarYa Yeshua Meshikha bless both of you.
Shlama Akhi Steve,

Just want to reiterate. It is not now, nor has it ever been my position that all Aramaic dialects throughout 3,000 years were uniform in all aspects.

And to make things clear: I do not blame you for personally inventing the term, "Syriac."

I know you don't use it to merely irritate me or other Assyrians who find the term offensive. You know I'm sure the history of this term among our people, and how divisive this term (along with "Chaldean") has been.

To make my point more concisely:

Assyians took Aramaic and thrust it on the scene as a world language. It became, due to them, the language of three successive empires - one of which wasn't even Semitic.

We call their specific language Imperial Aramaic. Their descendants later spoke a language that unfortunately, among western scholars, obtained the offensive and foreign nickname - "Syriac." Today, we Assyrians are labeled as speaking "Neo-Aramaic."

The fact of the matter is, we are historically one people who have spoken a single language since it was adopted as the official tongue along with our native Akkadian, that eventually died out.

I am talking about a nearly 3,000 year history of Assyrians and this particular language.

I know you didn't invent a term for one slice of that history that totally differs from all the other terms used prior to, and after that.

But you don't help matters when you perpetuate the impression that somehow this dialect was so far removed from the others that it deserves its own designation - a designation rooted in a Greek term of all things.

It's offensive.

You (I use term collectively) afford the other dialects the courtesy of prepending their geographic location to "-Aramaic". So you have "Galilean-Aramaic", "Judean-Aramaic", "Palmyrene-Aramaic", "Hatran-Aramaic", "Nabatean-Aramaic", "Babylonian-Aramaic"....etc.

To be consistent and fair, you would refer to the Aramaic of Edessa as "Edessene-Aramaic."

But you (again, I use you collectively) choose instead to refer to it by a term that would give the otherwise ignorant or unlearned, the false impression that this wasn't the same language that Christ and His disciples spoke.

It is, even if not intentional (and I don't think it is in your case), deceitful.

Call it "Edessene Aramaic", "Adiabene Aramaic", "Assyrian Aramaic" or whatever along those lines.

But don't, for the love of clarity, have the Assyrians go from speaking "Imperial Aramaic" to "Syriac" to "Neo-Aramaic."

Some consistency in terminology isn't too much to ask for. Words carry a lot of weight. You know that more than most people.

I'm not throwing away the work of thousands of people over centuries. I am not diminishing their important contribution to Aramaic study. I am merely pointing out that they are not us, do not speak for us, and have no right to rename our language, the language our forefathers made famous, to another name.

That's all.

In love. Kiss that baby from me.

+Shamasha Paul
I have no problem with Caruso writing his opinions. He is always welcome. But trying to establish an opinion as a factual information without evidences contains deception.

This is something I don't agree with. For Example, when I say Aramaic was the spoken language of first century Israel, I use evidences from NT and historians who were part of this history. But it is not right for me to claim that Aramaic was the spoken language of first century Israel without evidences.
I make one small mis-statement intended to express something differently between changing diapers that was quickly (and graciously) caught and easily amended and everything else I stated correctly is apparently irrelevant. I've had worse. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

In truth, you may laugh as much as you want, konway. I am not offended. Just don't be so loud as to wake the baby. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

But now that he and his mom and sisters are in bed, I'm going to fix another cuppa and see what might be of edifying value to salvage from this thread. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
You are still trying to make justification for your errors which I find it deceitful.
konway87 Wrote:You are still trying to make justification for your errors which I find it deceitful.

First, Josephus says:

Quote:And I am so bold as to say, now I have so completely perfected the work I proposed to myself to do, that no other person, whether he were a Jew or foreigner, had he ever so great an inclination to it, could so accurately deliver these accounts to the Greeks as is done in these books. For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to Jews; I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains.

So what can we see here?

First, Josephus is boasting. He's patting himself on the back. His work, he claims, is indispensable (which is useful in his position, given his sponsor). He says that those of his nation say that he's smarter than they are. What a rude thing to say.

Second, he reveals a prejudice. Greek, he says, was seen as "common" or perhaps a better term is "vulgar." This struck me as similar to how some people here in the USA find Spanish vulgar, as we in America do not encourage the learning of Spanish. (Re-read Josephus' words with "Spanish" in the place of "Greek" and you'll see what I mean.)

Third, he then goes to say that few Jews want to learn Greek because there is no reward in it and that only a few ("two or three") have succeeded in doing so. That little?

The archaeological record paints a very different picture:

Out of all 1st century Jewish ossuaries with inscriptions (there are many without inscriptions of any kind), about 40% to half are in Greek, many of which have religious themes. A number of them were scratched in not by scribes with hammer and chisel but by family members for their own use. If Jews did not learn Greek, why would they be there?

Out of all known 1st century Jewish synagogues (roughly 130 if memory serves) over half of them have Greek inscriptions. These inscriptions are not simple things like signposts or name tags, but religious inscriptions. Bible verses. Explanations of Biblical mosaics in the actual mosaics. If Jews did not learn Greek, why would they be there?

The Septuagint was translated in the 2nd century BC by Jews for Jews, specifically for those Jews in the Disapora who couldn't read Aramaic or Hebrew anymore. If Jews did not learn Greek, why would the LXX be there?

See, Greek was not nearly as rare among Jews as Josephus makes it out to be. The situation was far more nuanced than an all-or-nothing declaration.

One cannot ignore -- from the proper place and time period -- half of all Jewish ossuaries, half of all Synagogue inscriptions, and one of the most well-known translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek by Jews for Jews in order to cling to the boasts of a single, privileged author to his readers who was not representative of the average Jew.

Josephus was exaggerating.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)